Wikipedia

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 22

< Talk:Syrian civil war
Latest comment: 11 years ago by 89.240.208.125 in topic RfC: Third row for Kurdish forces
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Resignation of al-Khatib

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moaz al-Khatib, leader of the Syrian National Coalition, has resigned. His name should be removed from the article's template, right? Coltsfan (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

SNC rejected his resignation, and today the arab league announced they are giving him a seat. Article is protected until 7 hours from now anyway, then we will modify the leadership part of the infobox to account for his resignation and riad assad's leg wound. Sopher99 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

The inclusion of Lebanon and Israel in the infobox is a HUGE violation of undue weight. How can you even compare the level of involvement of the rebels and that of the Lebanon or Israel? I propose we create a section in the article specifically for border incidents (such as those that happened near Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and the Golan Heights), and leave a note in the infobox that links to that section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

sure ill agree to that if iran and hezbollah are removed from the info box. Baboon43 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm okay with removing Iran, because they don't have combatant role (mainly just building a militia). However, Hezbollah members are actually involved in the fighting, especially near the Lebanese border.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
But Iran and Hezbollah are fighting the war with troops on the ground. So no. But yes I would agree with Futuretrillionaire's solution too. Sopher99 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
ill agree to removing iran. creating a section for israel and hezbollah and leave a note in the infobox that links to the corresponding sections. Baboon43 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
According to this March 2013 BBC article, "Little evidence has emerged of any military involvement on Hezbollah's part". According to this ISW report, with the exception of an area in the Damascus suburb, Hezbollah's role is primarily logistical and training militias. I'm okay with removing all the "support" parties (including Iran and Hezbollah) from the infobox for the sake of neutrality.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree to remove iran, keeping hezbollah in the infobox (They have troops on the ground) and removing israel lebanon and Turkey and instead putting them to a different section for border clashes and international incidents. Sopher99 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, disagree, disagree - on all points :). Noone is "comparing" anything here, can we stop with the wordplay please? The WWI infobox includes Portugal, for heaven's sake - you should go over there and chastise them for "comparing" the involvement of France and Britain with that of Portugal. That said, the non-consensus addition of Lebanon by Sopher99 really was a step too far imo (2 killed civilians??).

As I said before, I disagree utterly with the introduction of a silly border incidents "section" of some sort. Of the above countries you listed, only Turkey and Israel actually warrant inclusion, and that's just too few for a section. Furthermore, and more importantly, such a section would list countries that have nothing to do with each-other together as allies (that would look silly even if we only included Turkey and Israel).

Iran is included in a standard fashion by full consensus and according to sources, while Hezbollah is actually fighting on the ground. I can't agree to excluding either. People, please just follow the damn template guidelines, damn it... -- Director (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The template guidelines don't support adding parties that are undue weight, which is definitely the case for Lebanon and Israel. I'm willing to compromise (as I've shown above with the Baboon's Iran and Hezbollah request).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sure, "undue weight" again. By who's estimate, yours? *facepalm* Just follow the guidelines. Lebanon is too much because it hasn't been militarily involved, but Israel most certainly has been, and its inclusion isn't "undue weight" by any standards (don't make me copy-paste the sources again.. "Israel steps into, enters, is drawn in" etc..). The thought is frankly laughable at this point. -- Director (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I've added Iraq on the governments side for consistency of the current standards used here. We can not remove Iraq and Lebanon without removing Israel. Othewise is plain POV.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR Turkey and Israel are natural allies so i dont think it would be silly. Baboon43 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Futuretrillionaire. I am not familiar with the extent of the involvement of the Iraqi military, but it seems like a topic for thorough discussion. What I do know is you added it without consensus, which makes me think the Iraqi military didn't fire a shot (am I wrong?).
As for the Lebanon, we most certainly can remove it - and forthwith. How? By applying the same high standards of sourcing you yourself repeatedly demanded over the past months for Israel. Can you provide a source on the order of the LA Times stating "Lebanon enters the civil war in Syria" or something like that? A secondary interpretation of events that isn't original research? If not, kindly recognize the two are not equivalent - and stop making demands here, please ("if you get this, I want that" and so on).
@Baboon43. Geopolitical assumptions and speculation aside, we can really list them as allies if they're not allies. Or at least diplomatically aligned or associated on some level. -- Director (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm okay with the current format, in which Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq are all included for border clash and incidents. I still think including all these parties is silly, but I'm okay with it for the sake of compromise.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have engaged in a rather silly addition of parties. I feel like reverting your additions until they're at least discussed. At least Jordan, which has only been shelled, but who's military did not engage in any kind of conflict (shelling somebody does not make him a combatant, him shelling you back - does). I also am a little uneasy about your addition of Iraq. Did that incident involve troops of the Iraqi army? -- Director (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The convoy bombing within Iraq did involve Iraqi soldiers. During the border clashes at Yaaribiyah, there were conflicting reports as to whether or not Iraqi troops got involved. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
D'you think we should include Iraq based on that? -- Director (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Requesting comment on the issue of adding Israel to the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Should the template include Israel? See above discussion for some clues as to the arguments of both sides. -- Director (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I myself believe so. Throughout this project the infobox in question includes (quote) "countries whose forces took part in the conflict" as combatants=, in accordance with its own guideline. This is a relatively simple conflict, one with about three or four participants on each of the two sides.

Many sources report Israeli forces taking part in the conflict with the Syrian military: repeated artillery exchanges, tank foray, and air strikes on Syrian army targets. Now once again, another shelling of Syrian positions. That alone, in my opinion, warrants Israeli inclusion in the infobox. However, in addition to this, several highly-reputable sources (among them even the Israeli Hareetz) explicitly state, in reviewing these events, that Israel has taken part in this conflict - an intends to continue doing so.

etc. The sources debate the motivation of Israeli involvement, but do not dispute that it is, in fact - military involvement. The proposal, I must stress, is to clearly delineate Isreal as unaffiliated with other combatants, and to indicate, with in-line note, that its military involvement is limited to border clashes and air strikes (as can be seen here). In my own personal estimation, the problem is that Israel is hated in Syria, and Wikipedia listing it in the infobox as a faction that has, in fact, engaged the Syrian military is highly controversial for those here to support the rebels. -- Director (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


The Haraatz and Financial time articles cannot be viewed by the average viewers, so we don't even know whats in them. But that aside the WSJ does not say anywhere that Israel is part of the conflict, the telegraph only says "Israel considering"., and heres the direct quote from the LA times " With the attack in Syria, Israel took its first overt military step into the "Arab Spring" unrest that has destabilized its neighbors and left Israelis feeling more vulnerable than they have in decades." The Reuters article doesn't say Israel is part of the conflict either. It even goes on to say "

It was not immediately clear whether Israel held Syrian troops or rebels responsible for what a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said had been a deliberate attack on Israeli patrols in the occupied territory. The only article thus is the NBC. One source does not override every other source in the world. Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Long story short there are no sources which define the civil war as having Israel as a military component. Sure there are four or five articles (out of thousands) with titles implying it, but none of those articles give any credence, or even state that israel is a combatant in this conflict, some of those articles provide information which refutes the "israel is combatant argument". There is nothing which mandates an air strike or a border clash to be full fledged war - particularly if its only an occasional occurrence Sopher99 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
To put it "bluntly", DIREKTOR believes that if there is something which hurts one side's image, particularly the opposition, then it must be brought at full weight with the basis of the conflict, no matter how minor it may be (such as a border clash). Sopher99 (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Such it is that "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict Sopher99 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sopher is our resident expert at eliminating sources :) -- Director (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't take an expert to see what you are trying to pull. Sopher99 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Almost got away with it too, lucky you were there :). I'll not again fall into the trap of wasting my efforts replying to cockamamie retorts as those above - this RfC is to attract neutral input. Kindly do not delete my addition of a "Discussion" subsection again or I'll have to request admin action. -- Director (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Please take a good look at the "example" section. Do not put your point of view in the heading, or if you do, kindly remove the discussion section, as you have already began the discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sopher, this RfC is for neutral input. Kindly refrain from going off again.. I'll make it clear that the comment is my own personal opinion. -- Director (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The RFC opens up with the question at hand not a testimony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Sopher99 (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake - fine. I'll move my comment one inch down. -- Director (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It should be pretty simple: What matters is what the sources actually say, not what Sopher thinks they should say, or how he interprets them. They unambiguously state Israel has entered the war. No amount of tap-dancing can change that. And the "no access" excuse is a non-issue; a reliable source is a reliable source, if you want a copy paste or mirror of the articles, you can get them. There are no policies that state such sources can't be used. In fact, journal sources behind paywalls are overwhelmingly used on more scientific articles. The same can be said about books that everyone obviously don't have access too. Unless you can demonstrate Wiki policy advises against the use of such sources, your argument can be ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Several reliable sources say that Israel has entered the fray (and this is certainly notable) so I support adding it to the template. That said, if there was a section for peripheral participants, Israel would be better placed there. Jschnur (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I would agree, but these sort of templates just don't have sections. Factions are usually grouped according to their alignment. Naturally, though, Israel ought to be clearly separated from factions it has no association with, and the fact that its involvement is of low intensity should be clearly pointed out.. -- Director (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlike the PYD, Israel has never attacked the insurgents, so there is no reason to disassociate Israel more from the insurgents than the PYD is. FunkMonk (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ugh... just use one horizontal dividing line, as always. -- Director (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

* Recommend making a separate section for outside influence or another article with a link - This came up before with Russia, US, outside influence etc - (Which quite frankly an entire article could be written about it lol) - so I would recommend sectioning off all talk of outside influence either in its own section, or a new article altogether. I agree this is important information - it is just more of a question on where to package it, as a war is simply diplomacy by other means (Does not have to include fighting)Patriot1010 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Lebanon?

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

As before, the criteria for including a state into the {{Infobox military conflict}} template is usually whether the military of the country took part in the conflict. Imo the Syrian army killing two Lebanese civilians does not constitute said involvement (the Lebanese president of course condemned the killing, but that also is not warfare). Apparently, though, the Lebanese military was briefly engaged in fighting off an attack by the Free Syrian Army, which was also praised by the President (Lebanese president praises Army response to FSA attack). He "hailed the actions taken by the Lebanese Army to protect Lebanese territory and prevent it from being used by any side".

If that's really all there is to the involvement of the Lebanese military and state, I think its ok to just remove it for now. Technically we might list it in the left-hand column, but I don't think it would be appropriate. -- Director (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the Lebanese army did not take part in the conflict, Syria's army attacked another country. If Syria had shelled Israel rather than Israel shelling Syria you guys will still be vouching for Israel to be in the infobox. We shouldn't forget the Maqad's families kidnappings either. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9283352/Lebanon-drawn-into-Syria-conflict-after-kidnappings.html Idealistically I would like lebanon to be third column covering both sides, like the casualties section. Can that be done? Sopher99 (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lebanon needs to be removed & why is israel at the bottom? The infobox makes it look like lebanon is more involved then israel..whats next lebanon and hezbollah going at it? Baboon43 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Lebanon clashes happened earlier. But I can make it alphabetical if you like. We specifically note border clashes and incidents, to keep people away from thinking theres real war between Lebanon and such. Sopher99 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
@Sopher99. Ahh.. "attacked another country"? more wordplay. So if the Syrian army, say, raided the Mongolian embassy and executed 40 Mongolian hostages, we'd need to include Mongolia? No. We'd include Mongolia as a combatant (that's the key word) when/if the Mongolian army arrived and engaged in some kind of combat with the Syrian army.
We could again bicker for hours and describe the same event in fifteen different ways, but the template provides the only objective criteria for inclusion in the "combatants" parameter: "countries whose forces took part in the conflict" (specific to the issue of the participation of countries). The "forces" of the country need to "take part in the conflict".
In what we've seen thus far, the Lebanese army only fought a brief skirmish - with the FSA. Apparently, the FSA also "attacked another country", as you put it. If we're to include Lebanon anywhere, it should probably be on the left. But, if we take your position that the Syrian army killing two Lebanese civilians also constitutes involvement by Lebanon as a combatant (which imo it doesn't), then Lebanon should be in a separate column. That however, I could not agree to.
I think, however, that none of this is really relevant and Lebanon should just be struck. What's absolutely certain though (if this is all that happened), is that Lebanon is clearly misplaced in the right column.
@Baboon43. I actually like Israel where it is. The above are all Muslim states and it helps to keep them kinda together in the infobox. Though I agree that if Lebanon is kept, it should be moved down instead. -- Director (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
yes lebanon fits more on the left then the right if it were to be included in the infobox Baboon43 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't because lebanese forces did not fight the Syrian army or rebels in Syria. The shelling on lebanon came from syria. Sopher99 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, Sopher - you have to read people's posts, see above: Lebanese president praises Army response to FSA attack. -- Director (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Lebanon has not attacked inside Syria. Sopher's analogy with Israel is irrelevant, because no, if Israel had been attacked by Syria, that alone would not warrant inclusion by itself, but the fact that Israel has attacked inside Syria does. We could have a third row for unaligned parties that have been affected by the conflict, such as the PYD and Lebanon (and Jordan, if the country had not let the US train jihadis on its ground). The UN could be added too, once some of those poor guys inevitably end up in the crossfire. FunkMonk (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Its not relevant whether the conflicts took place strictly within Syrian borders, as long as they described as part of the context of this war. Either way the point is moot, my impression is we're mostly agreed the Lebanon is not for inclusion as a combatant here. -- Director (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate change to the infobox

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I see only 3 users involved in the designing of the "compromise" proposal at Jake Wartenberg's talk page. What's the rush? Please wait for the other editors (including me, Baboon, Jeancey, Sayerslle, and Darkness Shines) to respond to the proposal before implementing it. Until everyone has responded and there is a consensus to the proposal, the pre-edit war version needs to be restored, and I recommend the article to be locked until then.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You're kinda turning turning out like a "part of the problem" there, Futuretrillionaire. You were invited to participate in consensus building (by myself among others), and you didn't say a thing. Now you're restating the issue all over again? By my count that's 4twenty42o, Baboon43, MrDjango, FunkMonk, Sopher99, DarknessShines, myself, and all the damn sources, vs. you, Sayerslle and maybe Jeancey (though he's apparently expressed some reservations towards supporting your position). The changes are highly appropriate, please move on for now. -- Director (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not respond because I had an important chemistry lab experiment to prepare for at my university. I have things to do in real life that prevents me from responding in less than 24 hours. What's the rush? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and I'm an intern at the damn hospital. If I'm prepared to sacrifice human lives for Wiki, why aren't you? -- Director (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Taking advantage of others' time constraints is one of the worst kinds of bad-faith editing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Lol, and I thought I was procrastinating by contributing here... FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, my plan worked perfectly did it not? But I suppose the jig is up now.. I admit: Jake and I were in cahoots to exploit your absence to serve our personal agenda. -- Director (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Jesus H. Christ, what kind of shenanigans have been going on here? When did the ARBPIA boilerplate get installed? What what what is happening? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys are misunderstanding the military infobox

Latest comment: 11 years ago67 comments11 people in discussion

Taken directly from Template:Infobox_military_conflict:

Combatants - This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.

When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. Sopher99 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is israel in the combat box,that is insane, israel doesn't support any side . Alhanuty (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. Someone added without waiting for all the involved editors to respond to the proposal.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
@Sopher99. Ugh, my ears! Pipe down please. I honestly never understood what the devil you see as relevant in that latter part, you just keep quoting it over and over again? That's for conflicts like the Iraq War, with two dozen factions all fighting each other. This template, with all possible additions, comes nowhere close in the number of combatants even to basic infoboxes such as WWI and WWII. There are no more than four or five real combatant authorities on either side. Noone "is misunderstanding" the infobox guide, thank you very much (probably wrote more conflict infoboxes on this project that all you fellas together). Drop this, please.
@Alanhaunty, see the sources. Bare in mind diplomatic support doesn't matter, that's the military conflict infobox. Participants are added according to their military involvement.
@Futuretrillionaire. Can you stop with the games? Again, participants did voice their opinions, and most numerous times. Or should we disregard user input if they don't repeat themselves at your demand? Great idea, that. Once more, by my count that's 4twenty42o, Baboon43, MrDjango, FunkMonk, Sopher99, DarknessShines, myself, and all the damn sources, vs. you, Sayerslle and maybe Jeancey. Is Sopher99 is reneging on his agreement by this post, I honestly don't know anymore... Either way, you're in the minority. And if you say "Wikipedia is not a democracy", I swear I'll copy-paste the sources here sixteen times. -- Director (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about the specific proposal discussed at Jake's talk page, at which only you, Sopher and FunkMonk were involved.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The only difference is the addition of the Lebanon, and that's being discussed. So like I said, move on please. -- Director (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. I am satisfied with the current format (with the addition of Jordan and Iraq).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
lets just include arab league, UN etc then? & even some balkan states like kosovo while were at it..i dont see how israel deliberately attacking syrian weapon shipments as "border clash" Baboon43 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Futuretrillionaire is clearly displaying a double standard with regard to sourcing a faction's involvement. Israel had sources that explicitly stated the country had "entered" this conflict. That said, having read the Iraq source, it seems kind of ok to add it. Jordan on the other hand, has only been shelled - its military (as far as I know) has not been involved. Jordan should go. Lebanon is a similar matter. Getting shelled does not make you a combatant, but your military engaging in combat - does. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, according to the source you added [1], the Jordanian army was involved - fighting against rebel insurgents. Would you care to move it to the left? -- Director (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The soldiers did not die against rebels, he died against people trying to join the rebels. Besides, I added a source for Syria shelling Jordan. And the infobox page clearly states it the infobox doesn't just have to be for countries whose forces took part. If you going to put such undue weight on Israel, then it will be done for Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq ect as well. Sopher99 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


@DIREKTOR "is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however," Sopher99 (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Jordan and Lebanon should be on the left. Baboon43 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No because the Syrian army shelled those two countries against the government's wishes. Sopher99 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
@Sopher99. Yes: "however, if there are huge numbers of combatants list only groups of combatants". That is not the case here, as I have demonstrated.
@Baboon43. I don't think they should be in there at all. But being shelled does not mean your army was involved, you cannot list a country just because its civilians were shelled. Had the Soviets not fought back when Germany attacked the USSR, we wouldn't be listing the latter as a combatant. Since the only conflicts involving the Jordanian and Lebanese military were against the rebels - if we're to include those countries, it should be on the left. I don't like that, though. Where are the Israel-like sources ("Jordan/Lebanon enter the war in Syria", etc..)? -- Director (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said the template says the countries don't have to have their forces involved. Syria army however did have its forces involved with Jordan.
Jordanian army exchanged fire with the Syrian army for over an hour, no casualties [2]. And again 6 months later [3]. Jordanian army confirmed to have its forces involved, not to mention syrian army shelling and killing of Jordanians. Jordan stays. Sopher99 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Um.. no. the template simply does not say that. :)
Look, in my opinion, neither Lebanon nor Jordan should be in there. Their involvement is just not sufficiently sourced. Iraq too I think. None of these countries have the kind of sources Israel and Turkey have, and I feel like they were only added to kind of "balance out" the addition of Israel (which, again, is fully sourced - while they are not).
Now, I don't want to copy-paste your own comments regarding consensus (from my talkpage and elsewhere), but Iraq and Jordan were added without any kind of agreement - or even proper discussion. -- Director (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We have plenty of sources for lebanon shelling, and I just gave sources for Jordanian combat with syrian army, not to mention the Syrian army's shelling. So yes, its your opinion. Yes its true, the Jordanian and Iraq thing have not been agreed to put there. But I already have my one revert. Futuretrillionaire you can self revert please to be "fair" to Direktor. scratch that I can do it. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Before we move on, though, we need to do something about Lebanon. Lebanon just can't stay in there as it is. As I said, the shelling your civilians alone - does not make your country involved. Had the Soviets not actually fought back when Germany attacked the USSR, we wouldn't be listing the latter as a combatant. Your military needs to be involved - and the only involvement by the Lebanese military that I know of was against the FSA. The choices are: #1 move Lebanon to the left, or #2 remove Lebanon, on the grounds of lacking sources of the same magnitude as Israel and Turkey (e.g. "Lebanon enters war in Syria" and the like). I favor the second option. -- Director (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
By this logic we should remove israel, as syrian forces were not involved in fighting Israel. The closest thing that came to it was a machine gun turret which netayahu said was not clear from which side it came from, and Syrian government made no comment. Sopher99 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I will remove Lebanon so long as we keep Jordan. Not only has the Syrian army fired shells into Lebanon, wounding/killing people, but I gave source detailing two separate times the Syrian army and Jordanian army went into firefights. Sopher99 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Lets not get into that again. The criteria is military involvement, remember? The Israeli military was most certainly involved, against one of the major factions of the war. And please, keep the sources in mind.
Yes, and if I'm not mistaken, Jordan is against Assad on a diplomatic and logistical level as well. The Jordanian army only engaged militants that weren't rebels, but wanted to join the rebels in future. And with the firefights.. Yes, it fits, the addition sounds logical. Unless there's more? D'you know whether the Jordanian army ever fought the FSA or any of the rebel factions? -- Director (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Only that incident with the islamist from within Jordan trying to enter Syria. Otherwise its a syrian army vs jordan army thing. Just this week syria accused jordan of aid to rebels. [4]Sopher99 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay I take it we accept the lebanon thing to be flimsy to while Jordan more firm, prompting an agreement to drop lebanon but keep Jordan? Sopher99 (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait as sec, reading-up on Jordan. Its position is very much anti-Assad along the lines of Turkey, and its granting serious assistance to the rebels besides all that and the military clashes. What do you think about adding it up there? -- Director (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm indifferent. Sopher99 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Future, whats your take on dropping lebanon but keeping Jordan? I'm good with it. Sopher99 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, around here "Future" is usually Future Perfect at Sunrise. Anyway I added Jordan up there. Sources on the firefights would fit there nicely. -- Director (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sopher? Would you please add the sources you mentioned earlier on the firefights between the Jordanian and Syrian army? -- Director (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the article allows only one revert now,was there a edit warring that led to that Alhanuty (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There was, see the page history. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The infobox should be only for those states/organizations who have forces fighting on the ground inside Syria. Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel have responded to breaches of their borders, which they would do (and have done) even in 'peacetime'. It doesn't mean they're part of the civil war. Israel—as well as responding to cross-border fire—has carried out one airstrike on trucks ferrying Hezbollah weapons near the Lebanese border. This is also something it would do (and has done) even in 'peacetime'. In 2007, for example, it bombed a military site in Syria. The latest airstrike was part of the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Thus, I suggest we take Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Israel out of the infobox and replace them with a link to "border clashes and incidents". ~Asarlaí 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're repeating the same mistake that others have made before you: Israel has attacked Syrian army targets at least four or five times throughout this conflict, not one. That amount of direct involvement is on par with Turkey's. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Part of me feels like this is a good idea or at least food for thought. Jordan, for instance, lost a soldier in a gunbattle with rebels trying to sneak into Syria. At the same time, Jordan has also engaged in firefights with the Syrian army, and seems to be willingly allowing thousands of fighters equipped with some nice Yugoslav surplus weaponry into Daraa Province, which is leading to some significant rebel gains. The most recent incident with Israel is unclear as well. Given the recent advances by rebels in the Golan area, I'm not sure if government troops are close enough to the border to be taking potshots at Israeli patrols. That's my own speculation, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
peace time or war time it doesnt matter..since this is a civil war the whole of syria is now monitored hence this article,..ill agree to your terms if hezbollah iran are also out of the info box. Baboon43 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
And I'll leave Czechoslovakia alone if you give me the Sudetenland, muahahaha! This isn't some diplomatic negotiating table where you can trade bargaining chips in order to slant content in every which direction that pleases the various factions of edit-mafiosi here. This is about adhering to site policies and guidelines, not wikipolitical manoeuvring. If you have concrete reasons for the removal of Hizbullah or Iran, that's an entirely different subject. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
@Asarlaí. Disagree with your arbitrary personal "definition". Conflicts are not defined by territorial boundaries - they take place where the fighting takes place. It is completely irrelevant whether the confrontations were or were not acts of "defending borders", that's practically every war since the dawn of time right there.
As far as Israel is concerned, their military did, in fact, engage in combat on Syrian soil. Even if we set aside the air strikes which you're attempting to marginalize, the entirety of the Golan peninsula is de iure Syrian territory; and the two countries have been in a state of war for decades. Military operations can be viewed as part of more than one context, none of which are mutually-exclusive. Israeli actions are certainly part of the wider Israeli-Syrian/Isreali-Hezbollah conflict, but they are also part of the Syrian civil war - precisely because they are taking place at the same time (so say the sources, not me).
You'll find that all across this project combatants are included in infoboxes even if the scale of their military involvement is marginal, negligible, or even virtually non-existent. This is because the goal is to make the infobox informative, not subjectively "streamlined" in accordance with someone's POV.
The bottom line, Asarlaí, is that there are objective, standard criteria for including combatants into military conflict infoboxes. Ones being used all over this project. And that sources unambiguously indicate Israel meets these criteria. Turkey and Jordan do as well (well, Turkey does certainly). Deviation from this, in an infobox, on such a sensitive issue - is practically POV by definition.
@Lothar. Yeah, we pretty much armed Syria and Iraq :). -- Director (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The sources term it as "spillover" and similar. As for Russia, what's your point? Israel uses American supplied weapons against its enemies, yet I don't see the US as a belligerent in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should have a third row for officially non-aligned parties that have still been involved in the conflict. This could include the PYD, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and the UN. Could solve some of our problems with implying alliances where there are none. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A dividing line is used universally to indicate there's no alliance. -- Director (talk) 05:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but those two rows are overcrowded as it is. And it would make actual alliances much clearer. We could have one with the government and their direct supporters, one with the Syrian opposition and all of their direct supporters, and then one with everyone else, who don't fit into either. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Are we talking about rows or columns here? -- Director (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, third row, then we could also get the PYD issue solved once and for all. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Um, you mean a horizontal row, right? -- Director (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Horizontal row I would go for, not a vertical column. Sopher99 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Vertical. A completely separate third row for non-aligned parties that have been militarily affected. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
With or without the Kurds? -- Director (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
With the PYD and other unaligned Kurdish groups. Each of these entries would have dividing lines between them too. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Syrian civil war
Part of the Arab Spring
Location
Syria
Belligerents
in conflict with the government and the kurds in conflict with the government and the rebels in conflict with the rebels and the kurds

  

in conflict with the government
(and not the rebels or the kurds)
Here's the problem. By adding Turkey, Jordan or Israel into a third column, you'd be saying that they are fighting against both the rebels and the army - that isn't the case. I still do support a third column for the Kurds, but Turkey, Israel, Jordan and/or the Lebanon cannot be listed therein. If a third column for the PYD is added (and its still vehemently opposed), then the only solution I can think of is this: -- Director (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I am only willing to accept a horizontal column for Kurds. Adding a Third column tells readers that Kurds and other countries have the same weight as the rebel vs gov conflict, which is completely untrue. Making Kurds a third column has only become more difficult to argue since our last debate.
Kurds fighting eachother: [9]
FSA establishes joint-checkpoints with the YPD [10] Sopher99 (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
As for putting those border clash countries in a horizontal third column? Sure. Vertical no for the same reason. Sopher99 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"same weight"—bullshit. I gave you a 4,000 character essay on why that's a garbage argument, and I heard not one peep from you in response [11]. Columns are not about weight. Weight comes into play when ordering within a column. Factual accuracy is the criterion for assigning columns. Please stop regurgitating the same nonsense over an over again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is the current vote:

  • Oppose including Israel and other parties' - FutrueTrillionaire, Jeancey, Sayerslle, Asarlaí, Alhanuty,EkoGraf
  • Support including Israel and other parties' - Baboon43, DIREKTOR, FunkMonk, Darkness Shines, 4twenty42o, MrDjango(?)

However, keep in mind WP:NOTAVOTE--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I really don't care about this anymore. I'm gonna take a break from this article for a few weeks. Have fun.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying "here are the votes, but remember: they're meaningless"? I agree with that, which is why its good the edit is based on sources and not votes. You misplaced Sopher, unless I'm much mistaken (moved).
Actually I am ambivalent so long as the same process is put for other countries (Lebanon Turkey Jordan) its just that we had to come to an agreement to remove Lebanon, which I am okay in abiding by. Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait, didn't you just start another section below!? -- Director (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It was just food for thought. I don't plan to stay and discuss. NI'm done with all this bullshit. I've got other fucking things to do. See ya.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher, I'm not going to press the issue of the Kurd column, but I would like to see a note added below the Kurds' entry to the effect that they have been fighting the rebels as well. "(also fought rebels)" or something of the sort. Thoughts? Remember that Wiki isn't a news site and that the infobox represents the overall conflict, not just the current state of affairs. -- Director (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a note for conflict with rebels but it looks like it was removed. I'll re-add it. Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose including Israel as a participant to the conflict. Unlike Turkey which is hosting rebel forces in border camps and providing them with logistics, Israel has only been involved in 2-3 incidents, only as a response, and has not come out in support of ether side. Not enough to warrant their inclusion in the infobox. If their border clashes escalate than we may consider including them in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Israel has clearly expressed it is against one side, but not the other, both in word and deed. That speaks for itself. Also, it is working with Turkey on the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The level of involvement simply does not matter, there is no "limit" on how much shelling, tank forays, and air strikes you can do before being considered a combatant. Listing factions in this infobox in no way implies they are somehow equally involved - particularly when a note is in place stating otherwise. Portugal is right up there alongside the United Kingdom in the World War I infobox. Everyone please keep in mind this project is written in accordance with sources - Israel's actions have been sourced as constituting involvement in this conflict. -- Director (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
P.s. one lists all, but usually indicates the primary combatants in bold. -- Director (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV - Iraq

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

So we include Israel and Jordan, but not Iraq? What's with the double standard?

--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Futuretrillionaire makes good use of his 9-minute break to uncover yet another conspiracy! :) It was agreed that your unilateral addition of Iraq be reverted as it had not even been discussed. I myself just don't know, an agreement of some sort needs to be reached. I've renamed the previous PA title of the section into something more constructive. -- Director (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Take your time. Hopefully some kind of consistent can be established. I knew Sopher was likely to remove it because he doesn't like to see supporters of the government. Fun fact: I was actually one of the first ones to support adding Israel to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
How the mighty have fallen..? Anyway, Sopher also removed Jordan from the right-hand column simultaneously, so I'm not convinced it was POV (then Lebanon was more appropriately switched with Jordan). Goodness, if the Iraqi military did fight the rebels obviously Iraq should be included (reading up on it). -- Director (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Army - Size

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

number of syrian soldiers is not correct by my research without looking at any western or other propaganda the number should be between 150 000 - 200 000 these include also air force units and include the 15 divisions that are on the ground i mean people you wrote on article of Damascus battle that there 70 000 soldiers and the total number is 110 000 so what only 40 000 defend Alepo,Homs,Hama,Daraa,Iblid..... I think that the number should be changed as fast as it can.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.182.15 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2013‎ (UTC)

FSA and Al Nusra: "Rebels Have Begun to Fight Among Themselves"

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

In Syria, the Rebels Have Begun to Fight Among Themselves. For those of you thinking about redesigning the infobox, you might want to consider this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

On that subject.. the Syrian Liberation Front, does it have representatives with the Syrian National Coalition, or is it an independent faction allied to the Syrian National Coalition and its Free Syrian Army? Same question for the Syrian Islamic Front? They may have a unitary supreme command (do they?), but so did the Allies during WWII; if they're independent factions they're independent factions. I feel like listing them as independent combatants authorities until its explicitly shown otherwise. -- Director (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The Syrian liberation front is pretty much just the non-islamist civilian wing of the FSA. They are not an official organization, less central command than even the FSA, and are really just a trade mark that ten or twenty thousand fighters use. I wouldn't be suprised if some people calling themselves the FSA also call themselves the SLA. In arabic I noticed Liberation and Freedom are often used interchangeably. The SLA has very scant attention by media because their members have pretty much joined the FSA or Nusra by now. Sopher99 (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
They are all part of the Supreme Military Council (SMC). This recent ISW report does a good job describing it. The SMC is the real head of the rebels. The Syrian National Coalition (SNC) does not have any real influence in the war at all. I'm not why we even include the SNC in the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the SMC accept Moaz Khatib as transitional president. Sopher99 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I call your attention to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force- the existence of that organization did not warrant the combined inclusion of the British Empire and US. Allied factions often do have a unified command, even if they remain separate (it also doesn't matter if some members claim allegiance to both, we're talking about the organizations themselves). What I am interested in is the exact relationship between the Free Syrian Army as an organization and the other two? Are they sub-groups of the FSA or its independent allies? (am reading the source right now) -- Director (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating (p.10):

"Syria's armed opposition is often described as a fractious array of rebel groups. many groups refer to themselves as members of the free Syrian army, or the FSA. This term, however, is not used in reference to a specific organization, but rather as a sort of catch-all brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general. in this way, the FSA label should be understood as a synonym for “the resistance,” similar to la resistance in france during WWII."

According to this, the FSA should not be listed at all. -- Director (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That was the early stage of the conflict. It's much more organized now. Also, the FSA and the two other groups are NOT part of the the Syrian National Coalition. They are part of the SMC. The WWII analogy (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) doesn't work too well here. We're talking about two completely different types of conflicts with different organizational structure of the involved parties.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not finding support for your above position in the listed source? Its from this month and uses the present tense in the relevant paragraph. It appears that the FSA is not a combatant authority in its own right. Can you please point to the page wherefrom you derive the above conclusion? I feel I should point out again that a unified supreme command who's "primary function to date has been to serve as a platform for coordination" (p.6) in no way justifies the joint listing of the independent factions. And that even if the Supreme Command were a united entity in its own right, we still couldn't dub it the "Free Syrian Army".
The question remains as to the connection between the Syrian Liberation Front and the Syrian Islamic Front on the one hand, and the Syrian National Coalition on the other. Do those two factions defer to the SNC as their political leadership? -- Director (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The SNC does not have ANY influence in the war. It does not have authority over ANY rebel group. You're right, the FSA is just an umbrella term. Most of the brigades that once called themselves the "FSA" are now under the command of the SMC, and so are the SLF and the SIF.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I see. In accordance with all this, I want to list the SLF and the SIF as the opposition. I wonder though, would I be leaving some SMC faction out? -- Director (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The SLF and the SIF are umbrella groups, just like the FSA. In my opinion, the simplest way to approach this is to just list the SMC as the opposition.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the SLF at least is certainly a combatant authority in its own right, not to be compared to an umbrella term (as opposed to an umbrella group) like "FSA". What you're saying would be the simplest move, but would it be the most accurate? What exactly are the component organizations deferring of the SMC? Trying to find a list in the source, could use a page no.
I feel that, as there is some fighting among rebel groups, it is now even more appropriate to make an effort to list the real, component factions (its should probably have been done initially). -- Director (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The SMC is made up of dozens of individual rebel brigades. You can find them on page 39. The only exception I think is Jabhad al Nusra--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. As I now understand it, the main opposition factions are those deferring to the "Supreme Military Command" for coordination. These consists of the #1 Syrian Liberation Front, #2 the Syrian Islamic Front, #3 the Al-Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra), and a number of independent brigades. With the addendum that the Syrian Liberation Front (specifically Farouq Brigades) and the Al-Nusra Front have been fighting among themselves to some degree.

I'd like to modify the infobox in accordance with the source. The opposition listing is apparently a frightful mess. -- Director (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

How exactly do you plan to change it? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It is now plain there is no point in discussion with you. Unless you revert your malicious and abhorrent nullification of the dispute resolution efforts of a dozen users over the past days. If not, we can of course discuss your actions in the proper venue. I am profoundly disgusted by your using the revert (by a user clearly uninformed as to the extent of the discussion) to game 1RR - that much should be made perfectly clear. -- Director (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Army Size And Casualties

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Reuters claimed 110,000 number is groundless and has no sources within the IISS database. http://www.iiss.org/, So I dont know where and how Reuters got that number from.

The Syrian Army has 185,000 soldiers http://www.debka.com/article/22746/Massed-Israeli-border-forces-Air-Patrols-Buzzing-Syria-and-Hizballah http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html as of feb 2013 fighting in the civil war.

Plus 20,000 reserves on hold near the Alawite mountain region which puts the total to 205,000 soldiers

This is excluding any militias, or outside forces, it also does not include the 50,000 localized Iranian backed army, neither is their any evidence that such army even exist.

Army size by regions for February 2013:

Rif Dimash 35,000 soldiers // Homs 30,000 soldiers // Aleppo 25,000 soldiers // Idlib 18,000 soldiers // Daraa 9,000 soldiers // Hama 20,000 soldiers // Damascus 25,000 soldiers // Deir ez-Zor 0-N/A soldiers // Latakia 4,000 soldiers // Ar-Raqqah 2,000 soldiers // Al-Hasakah 0-N/A // Quneitra 6,000 soldiers // Tartus 2,500 soldiers // As-Suwayda 1,000 soldiers // Total 177,500

estimated total 177,500 positions out of the claimed 185,000 mobilised troops http://www.debka.com/article/22746/Massed-Israeli-border-forces-Air-Patrols-Buzzing-Syria-and-Hizballah http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html

PLEASE CHANGE NUMBER OF SAA TROOPS TO 185,000 as of February 2013 and refer to the sources provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.230.122 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Al dekba is not a reliable source and even if it was you linked premium content, meaning the article is non-free and has to be purchased. The new york times link you gave does not link to any specific page, just a timeline of new york times content regarding syria. Sopher99 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
likewise the source which claims that the government force is 110,000 personnel is biased, and there is no reference to 110,000 from the IISS website in which they claim they go the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumada (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

on the participation of Israel in war:

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

.took the air the video, but can fetch the cache site by typing in the URL and then click after копия (it's a Russian site) 187.17.243.242 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Third row for Kurdish forces

Latest comment: 11 years ago159 comments18 people in discussion

Kurdish factions in the Syrian civil war have generally not aligned themselves with either the Syrian government or the rebels, so it has been proposed several times before that they should have a third row for themselves in the infobox, since they fight both of those factions.[12][13][14] There is precedent in the article 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, as well as in the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and Algerian civil war, which have the exact same or similar division of factions. However, though the prior discussion has favoured a third row, three or four users keep reverting the change without any valid explanation, though "undue weight" is being repeated over and over by one editor. So we would like some fresh eyes to look through the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple question: Should the Kurdish forces be listed in a third column, or keep it as it is?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors' comments

  • Introduce third column. The current infobox is grossly biased in favor of the rebel factions. The current layout downplays the fact that the Kurds are in conflict with the rebels, and deliberately avoids utilizing the template parameters introduced precisely for the purpose of depicting said confrontation - in favor of a silly note. It is absurd beyond belief to have a 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict article with three columns, but a Syrian civil war article - which includes said conflict, with two columns. Its a highly biased, propagandistic depiction of the conflict ("yes the Kurds fight both of them, but its the government they really hate don't ya know..").
This is just the most glaring issue, but the problems here are legion. We have, for example, an infobox that includes Qatar, a non-participant that supports the rebels, but excludes Israel - who've been bombing targets in Syria and were involved in border clashes with the Syrian Army. All apparently to avoid the appearance of Israeli association with the rebels. -- Director (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Israel isn't the focus of the RfC, and FWIW Israel doesn't doesn't want to be associated with the rebels either [15]. But let's stick to the PYD as long as we're here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
To uninvolved users: Please read the discussion below before commenting.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Handing out required reading, FT? -- Director (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Or don't, actually. We'd rather you participate than run away screaming and making the sign of the cross. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that well-penned remark. Nice to see deep comments that move the debate along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.87.170 (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep it as two columns The Valid explanation is that three columns are undue weight. Deaths from Kurdish conflict represent under 1% of the deaths (150 out of 60,000+) over all. The amount Kurdish fighters (4,500) represent around 1% of the amount of fighter overall (approx 400,000) in the conflict. The Kurds have only began fighting the pass 6 months. If you put a third column the reader will assume that the conflict is equally about the kurds as is the rebel or government. Kurds have an extreme minority involvement, one not worth a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That is not a valid argument. The "small number of deaths" does not mean that there is no fighting, and most recent news items suggest there is at least weekly fighting between Kurds and rebel force. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
But what fighting there is pales in comparison to the fighting between the other groups. Making a third column is undue weight. It is better to just elabaorate in the main article the sub-conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That is not an argument, that is your subjective opinion, based on no precedents at all. Lets remove America from the infobox of Battle of Mogadishu (1993), because only 18 Americans died! FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
But 1000+ somalis were killed by American. I am saying 150 were killed on "all three sides" Sopher99 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)"Weight" determines whether or not they are included in the first place. After that bar of inclusion is crossed, it becomes a matter of factual accuracy. PYD and rebels in Ras al-Ayn don't take into account wikipolicy as they kill each other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." Sopher99 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop the barrage of misquoted policy and guidelines. This has nothing to do with UW, and that quote just above refers to not listing too many participants in the infobox, it does not advise against depicting a three sided conflict as three sided. Ridiculous.. -- Director (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I was actually talking to FunkMunk with that one. But apparently I am not allowed to post-indent. Sopher99 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sopher has a way with flimsy numbers, as noted above. But that is irrelevant here, what matters is what published sources say and precedent, not what some guy sits at home and discovers on his calculator. All sources agree the Kurds are an important fighting force in this war. All sources also agree the Kurds are not aligned with either other faction. End of story, they belong in their own row. FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Kurds are important. But no where near as important by both action and sources as the rebels and government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." We don't have to' include Kurds in the infobox in the first place. Sopher99 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd note that we're specifically talking about the PYD/YPG here as opposed to Kurds in general. As for the "numbers" argument, one need only look at Slovenia's inclusion in the Yugoslav Wars infobox to see why that's not relevant either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed. What matters is that Kurds are in conflict with the rebels, and should therefore be placed in a separate column. Plain and simple. None of these excuses really matter at all with regard to the huge breach of NPOV. -- Director (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Slovenia doesn't have a third column there. Its Aligned with Croatia. Sopher99 (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No its not, actually. Its separated by a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Much like the mujihideen. Sopher99 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The point of the example is that Slovenia was a very marginal participant, and was still included. With its position depicted. The Mujahideen fight together with the Free Syrian Army, and therefore do not require separation. -- Director (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Slovenia is a country of its owns, unlike the Kurds. Furthermore the specific year is listed next to them. Thats international war. Sopher99 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually it was considered to have been a civil war at that (early) point. And the Syrian National Coalition are a country of their own? More nonsense.
The only relevant fact is that the Kurds are in conflict with the rebels. The rest of your fake arguments and excuses are utterly irrelevant ("this is international war, this is something else, undue weight...") -- Director (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
See also Algerian Civil War for precedent. One rebel faction gets its own row, and it is not even made clear if their number of death reach Sopher's declared absolute minimum. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)No, Slovenia was a constituent part of Yugoslavia which seceded to become independent. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That Algeria third row is more undue weight than a Kurdish third column. No known casualties or known army strength does not make it a legitimate combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So I guess you'll go and remove it then? FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Undue weight determines whether or not something is included in the first place. Stop conflating it with facts. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Some one reading the third row would automatically assume the civil war is just as much about Kurds as it is rebels or government. They will think the Kurds are fighting everywhere in Syria, and were fighting since the beginning. Sopher99 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous. You're grasping at straws now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Uh, then we can have one of your beloved notes to explain they don't "fight all over Syria", eh? And is what you "think other people might think" more important than factual accuracy? And why don't you just come clear and say that you simply don't want the infobox to clearly show that the Kurds are against the rebels under any circumstances? FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
If this was about defending the image of the rebels. The Kurds would not be my first choice of removal. The PFLP would be be. And I don't remember resisting that. As I said, putting Kurds in a third row makes it look like this is purely a three way conflict, like in the Lebanese civil war. its not. 99% of fighting and casualties is between rebels and government. 97% of towns and villages don't even have kurds. Sopher99 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I repeat, your self-made numbers and percentages, which are original research by the way, are irrelevant. What matters is what is actually being reported by the news. All sources agree the Kurds are an important fighting force in this war. All sources also agree the Kurds are not aligned with either other faction. As for the PFLP, I have no doubt you would remove them if you could find even the slightest excuse. Too bad you can't. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No source says they are a primary or distinct side in the war. And many sources declare amity between Kurds and FSA, such as the ny times article released today. Sopher99 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
And I quote Lothar in the former thread: "sources address the topic in detail, like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calling it "The Rise of Syria's Kurds" and the Institute for the Study of War publishing a 16-page document devoted to the PYD and the Kurdish side of the conflict, referring to the PYD as a "powerful third force"." FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
These are not anywhere near common media. These two sources from think tanks don't decide anything. Sopher99 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)\
ie it mean an extreme minority of sources, and certainly no media coverage sources, report them as the third major force. Sopher99 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Do a Google search for "reuters kurds syria". All reports describe them as a third war party with no alignments, despite futile attempts at outreach by the SNC. FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion is perhaps moot. The point was to attract outside voices, so perhaps we should give it a rest until someone new joins (could take more than 24 hours it seems). The regulars here won't get nowhere, as we have seen. FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Laying some critical points here:
First off, we're specifically debating the PYD and its armed wing, the YPG—that which is currently listed in the infobox. Groups like Yekîtî, Azadî, and the KNC are ultimately extraneous to this debate.
Second, "undue weight" concerns itself with which factions are to be mentioned in the infobox in the first place. Once a faction is significant enough to be in the infobox, the question then turns to how should we align them. Alignment in a conflict has nothing to do with wikirules. YPG forces do not take into account any of our policies while they fight with rebels in Ras al-Ayn or Aleppo, nor when they fight the army around Hasakah's oil fields. "Weight" is something we made up and does not define the situation on the ground. Now, the order in which groups within a side are presented falls under the domain of weight—but that is the tertiary concern. When it comes to deciding factional alignments, we must look at the facts presented to us in the sources (cf. ISW's detailed research which describes the PYD as a "powerful third force"). The current infobox is just plain factually incorrect—any allegations of "pro-rebel bias" aside. (I should note that I myself have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of "pro-rebel bias" in the past—but observe my position here!)
Third, death tolls and other numbers are not per se evidence of insignificance. If low casualties and marginal participation made a group insignificant and thus of "low weight", then we should not see e.g. Slovenia in the Yugoslav Wars infobox. Like the PYD in Syria, Slovenia was a case of a secessionist group quickly establishing itself as separate from the extant state apparatus (in this case Yugoslavia). Like the PYD in Western Kurdistan, it established territorial control over its desired area relatively quickly and with minimal bloodshed, due largely to the state apparatus (Syria/Yugoslavia) not wanting to expend military resources on a side (Slovenia/PYD) that could be spent on more volatile combatants ("non-Serbs"/"Arab opposition"). But despite the relative peacefulness of the transition in both areas, the fact that both sides threw off the established order to set up their own administration—that is, seceding—means that they partook significantly in the conflict. For the PYD, the key difference is that they have fought other insurgent groups to a similar extent that they have fought the state—it goes beyond Slovenia's effective non-alignment with Croats/Bosniaks/etc. Furthermore, Kurds make up 15% (cf. [16]) of Syria's population, and are present in significant numbers in the two largest cities. Their dominant political/military organ (the PYD/YPG, the focus of this discussion) controls and administers a large portion of the largest city (Aleppo) separately from any of the other two sides. This is to speak nothing of other parts of Aleppo province, and especially Hasakah, where the PYD/YPG runs the show in most areas. No, they aren't evenly distributed across the country, but what minority group is in any country? Slovenia(ns) occupied a comparatively small area on the extreme end of Yugoslavia and accounted for ~10% of the population (I'm using modern populations of the former Yugoslav states for this estimate, but my point stands).
To sum up—there is no coherent argument to keep the PYD/YPG shunted into the rebel column. Sopher's various arguments pertaining to "undue weight" are a bizarre Frankenstein job of half-rotten parts of extraneous arguments. The PYD/YPG unambiguously needs a separate third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with ongoing conflicts is that without academic and professional sources defining the scope of the term "Syrian civil war", what we are doing here, trying to figure out the scope of the term and which combatants it applies to is borderline WP:OR. The impression I get is that the term "Syrian civil war" is usually used to refer the struggle between Assad's government and the forces trying to overthrow it. The Kurdish conflict, the Lebanese conflict and others are more like spillovers/impact of the "Syrian civil war", not part of the main conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Lothar's claim that the ISW said the Kurds are a powerful third force is a lie. It said: "As of november 2012, the PYD appears determined to establish itself as a powerful third force in Syria, willing to confront Turkey, the Arab opposition, and the Assad regime." The ISW said the Kurds might be trying to establish itself as a third force, but hasn't yet, and it hasn't confronted Turkey, the Arab opposition, and the Assad regime yet either.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkey maybe not (Assad himself hasn't proven himself keen on that either), but certainly rebels who enter from Turkey and the government [17]. And "spillover conflict" within a country's own borders? Laughable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Again, I repeat, and no one has refuted this. There's already a note below the Kurds listing, so there's no need for 3rd column, especially considering the undue weight. Notes are used in the infoboxes of the Iraq War article, the WWII article, and many others. Since there's no professional source defining the scope of the term "Syrian civil war", there isn't much we can do except wait for the situation to change/clarify.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Its broke, and it needs fixin', as it doesn't show the Kurds in conflict with the rebels, which is a very-well documented fact. The infobox columns are there to separate factions in conflict with one-another. If it is sourced that factions are fighting each-other, they cannot be placed in the same column. According to the "there are no sources defining the scope" nonsense argument, it follows we would need to remove the infobox, or at best place everyone in one column, because hey - who knows if the rebels are fighting the government..
In avoiding the standard and appropriate depiction of said conflict, the current infobox is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. This is an obvious, very straightforward error, and has to be fixed right now. -- Director (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No it's not broken. It's based on the model used in the Iraq War, War on Terror, and Mexican Drug War articles, in which the government is placed in one column, while the insurgents/irregulars are placed in the other with a note denoting that there is also fighting between insurgent groups.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Its broken. None of those infoboxes place combatants who fight each-other into the same column. Combatants who fight each-other cannot be placed into the same column. Its that simple. Unless, I suppose, in extreme situations where there are four or more combatants fighting each-other - which is not the case here. Here we have a very obvious POV distortion. And please don't use section headings to further your position. It gets out of hand pretty fast.. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  Supreme facepalm of destiny Right... The Sunnis and Shias insurgents in Iraq never fought each other... --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  Facepalm Ugh.. did I not say that your examples do not apply? Am I being unclear? I'll repeat. In extreme cases, where the infobox cannot provide for an adequate depiction of a four-sided, five-sided, six-sided conflict, we have no choice but to simplify the infobox in that manner. But nowhere on this project will you find a three-sided conflict depicted as anything other than three sided. And even if you do - its an error and misuse of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Do you understand? -- Director (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You said "None of those infoboxes place combatants who fight each-other into the same column" which is completely false.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't really care. -- Director (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you don't care and the fact that you didn't even bother to check those articles carefully suggests you lack WP:competence and should not be suggesting major infobox changes. Your proposal to include Israel failed because of this also.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, the irony.[18] Anyhow, it's pretty clear by now that Sopher/Trillionaire/Sayerselle don't care about the facts on the ground, precedents, or sources, only about making their pet rebels seem noble and unified. And I proposed adding Israel, for the record. And the suggestion stands sound. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
@FunkMonk In November 2012 I said on Talk "Syria Ras al-Ayn, Syria - last week it was being bombed by Assad but today the PKK had been fighting with Syrian anti-Assad forces and that the wounded anti-Assad fighters were treated in Turkey but the PKK wounded could not do this and were treated on the Syrian side of the border. It does seem odd therefore to see any PKK flags on the Opposition side at this time as it's a more muddled picture. a third column might be a good idea really" - and 'their pet rebels', what about WP:AGF/CIVIL? bit Manichaean your world imo.Sayerslle (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Lol, because accusing other editors of lacking "competence" (while misspelling the damn word) is civil, right? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You really should watch your mouth. The number of times you dropped the F-bomb can easily get you blocked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
So can you show me the "no-fucking" policy? As long as I don't say fuck you, everything should be in order. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I count a mere two instances on this page aside from the comment directly above. Nevertheless, I think at this point we've beaten the discussion here to a formless, festering pulp. I'm considering hatting this discussion so that we don't spook even the most iron-willed RfC-goers away. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You might want to check his edit summaries in history tab.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
THERE ARE NO PKK IN SYRIA. ONLY PYD. INFORM YOURSELF PLEASE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
"The P.Y.D. is the most powerful Kurdish faction in Syria and has a well trained militia. This is perhaps a product of its ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., a guerrilla group that has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey." the point of the third column what with fighting in Ras-al-Ayn was my point anyhow. you SHOUTING, funkmonk atatcking ones integrity - right toxic. and the New york times article the other day went on :"The leadership of the P.Y.D. plays down its ties to the P.K.K. But Syrian Kurds often use the names interchangeably, and P.Y.D. offices feature portraits of the imprisoned P.K.K. leader Abdullah Ocalan and Syrian P.K.K. guerrillas killed in fighting with Turkey." inform yourself PLEASE. Sayerslle (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Keywords being "ties to". Shall we start referring to Jabhat al-Nusra as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, then? I shout because I'm tired of people who can't be bothered to do any more than surface research on the topic—who can't even accurately identify who we are talking about here—trying to pretend like they have the requisite knowledge to participate constructively. You're not the first one to do this—Sopher kept doing it earlier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
@Futuretrillionaire, maybe your irrelevant "examples" are illustrative of your own "competence" for discussing infobox templates. The offensive ad hominems, on the other hand make me think on the subject of your competence for discussions in general. It baffles me that you apparently believe attacking the person who pointed out the supposed "precedents" do not apply, will make said examples any more applicable. Imo, I myself must be doing something right here with ten times your edit count [19][20]. -- Director (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • PYD KNC and the KSC need to be a third party to the infobox. It is misleading and incorrect to have them under the banner of the Syrian Opposition when they continue to fight the FSA and their allies in north and north-east regions syria. This needs to be changed and updated. Can we move to consensus and action the change ASAP??? -Zombiecapper (talk 12:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Its not misleading because we have a blatant note describing clashes underneath the Kurds linking to Kurdistan conflict. A third column is underweight, not to mention there is not even a minority of sources that describe the scope of the conflict ot include Kurds. The double line is the answer. Sopher99 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The "blatant note" is the most ridiculous thing I saw in an infobox. If the Kurds and the Rebels fight each-other they have no place in the same column: lines indicate non-association, i.e. that they are not allies, but conflicting factions are placed in separate columns.
The Kurdistan conflict article in and of itself clearly demonstrates that said fighting is more than notable. Your own personal ideas of "underweight" are irrelevant and concern noone but yourself. The only thing "blatant" here is your POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Woah! Woah! Guys, come on, I think were all adults, yes! look its pretty straight forward...PYD is more aligned with Assad than the opposition (unconfirmed), actively fighting FSA (and allies) forces in Aleppo and north western Syria (confirmed). We really should move it to a third column, I think it is misleading and wrong, misleading to the point of a big banner saying SYRIAN NATIONAL COALITION, with their flag at the top of the combant2 box. Refer to the precedents of the Yugoslav Wars info box(s). Not light weight. Looks good. We all could make it look good here to. Why do we not trial and see...whats there to loose???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as two columns I´ve been thinking about this for a long time and can see it from both ways so I understand reasoning of both sides, yet I am slightly inclined to this. Why? From military standpoint it is true that Kurds are 3rd side, fighting both rebels and regime, depending on the situation - they are responsive force which so far had armed clashes only because they were attacked by either side. Their initial push into Kurdish cities went mostly without violence and small police force vacated their offices quickly, very possibly thanks to deal stroke between all sides that PYD will stay neutral and will hinder voices from KNC which called for full-scale involvement in war on side of FSA.
However from political point of view they proudly proclaim to be on side of thawra - revolution - KSC is opposed to Assad and calls for his downfall and no Kurdish political or military force calls for separation, as often accused by Arabs. From this side if we have pro-Assad and anti-Assad forces Kurds fall under the anti-Assad column, though I agree that line has to be there to separate them from FSA because of clashes as happened in Ras al-Ayn. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Moreover. KNC (though not PYD) is part of Syrian National Coalition [21]. Politically they are obviously on anti-Assad side. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. One thing: infobox columns present the de facto military situation. Not the de jure political situation. -- Director (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a military infobox designed to show a military situation. The alignment of the KNC or even the KSC isn't relevant, as they haven't shown themselves to play such a significant role in the military conflict. While there are e.g. Yekîtî militias, no other Kurdish force comes near the power or influence of the YPG (and they like to keep it that way)—which is the group in the infobox and the group that is is ultimately being discussed here. Should others come to play a larger role, we can work that out later—the format used in the Yugoslav Wars infobox may be adaptable for this situation. While they may not call for separation to the point of independence, they do demand autonomy—which their "anti-Assad" pals aren't keen on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
One way to solve this issue would be to to name the two combatants "Government" (bold and break line) and "Opposition"(bold and break line)- or any other titles which maybe relevant (Baathist-aligned and Anti-Baathist Forces). These two headings under this proposal would be absent of any flags/insignia. This would present a break down of two sides, opposition and government. Refer to precedent of Rwandan Civil War info-box. Thoughts????
I like the idea. Sopher99 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course you do. This idea also fails to address the problem, which is that the PYD Kurds are not part of "the opposition", they are their own force. The idea changes nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I think he is talking about opposition in general. Ie non-state parties that don't approve the current government's control. Sopher99 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Insurgents rather than opposition would be the better term to use. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yay! Insurgents could potentially work, it does meet the definition. As could Anti-Government or Anti-Assad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yet again the label is irrelevant. The rows denote allied factions. It doesn't matter if we call the row "people who have occasionally fought the government", because those within it would still not be allies. See also the Mali war article. Both groups of insurgents fight the government, but have a row each, with Futilionaire's hypocritical blessing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved users

Place your comments here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned above, this section is not for us regulars to discuss further in vain, but to attract outside voices. We already know the views of each other very well, so let's cut it off until someone objective can give some constructive pointers. Uninvolved users comment under the request, not down here. And do not modify my fucking comments. Thank you. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Bah, noone's coming.. :) -- Director (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • List in the 3rd column - If the Kurdish Rebels are fighting both the rebels to topple assad and the government forces then they should have their own section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
That they are. -- Director (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
They are not fighting the rebels to topple Assad. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand the post. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry badly worded, I meant the Kurdish Rebels fighting against the Syrian National Coalition and the Syrian Government. Right now it looks to me in the infobox that the Kurdish Rebels are fighting with the Syrian National Coalition, thats just my opinion though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/syrias-kurds-try-to-balance-security-and-alliances.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Interview with the leader of the PYD, they are not fighting with the FSA (SNC). Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Correction: he does not regard those units killing Kurds in Ras al-Ayn as "FSA" because it's a meaningless designation. Nevertheless, from other sources we know that the FSA and Nusra are there. Ras al-Ayn holds a strategic position that would allow for greater rebel mobility and shorter, safer supply lines in the east of the country, which the PYD effectively is preventing. If you were to interview rebel fighters in the city, they'd say that the PYD were actually just "regime militia and shabiha" or something like that. Doesn't make it true. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually that interview has a lot of truth in it. Like it or not, media too often brand all rebel groups as FSA though it is far away from truth. Only two confirmed groups we have in Ras al-Ayn are 1, Ghuraba al-Sham 2, Jabhat al-Nusra. Some claim that Farouq sent reinforcements there but so far I´ve seen no confirmation about it from any source, nor Farouq media centre released one footage from the city. Also Farouq uses opposition flag, only flag Arabs in Ras al-Ayn used is black flag of Jihad. No tri-star flag. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think 3rd row should be used if it can be reasonably avoided. People tend to ignore this little factor but 3rd row means that 2 other rows are thinner, making whole thing worse reading experience. This becomes especially apparent with longer infoboxes like we have here (although it has improved recently somewhat, I remember seeing worse here in January). I would say that current solution is sufficient at the moment for showing Kurdish presence. It should be kept in mind that infobox is always going to be simplified, simply because its a fucking box, and not particularly big one either.--Staberinde (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Then why would you say the Kurds should be in the left, rather than the right-hand column? They fight both sides.. -- Director (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
      • But they have a common goal against the Syrian government. And they don't fight both sides, the defend against both sides. The PYD don't attack the rebels sides, occasionally the rebels attack the PYD. To make this clear we have two, not one, lines separating them, and a note underneath describing occasional clashes and linking to a main page. Sopher99 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh really? That's why we're hearing all about those YPG units spearheading assaults on Damascus and nothing about them managing joint control of Qamishli and Hasakah with government forces. Or was it the other way around? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Actually there is no joint control in Qamishlo. Regime has as good as lost that area, bases in Malikiyah area were vacated after YPG attacked army platoon to secure the oil installation and now you can hear pretty clearly and loudly about more than 30 civilians and more than dozen YPG dead in clashes with army and pro-government militias in Aleppo´s Ashrafieh district which is being shelled for second week by Syrian government. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
            • PS: There are no YPG patrols in Hasaka city. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
              • Malikiyah is a bit east of there and more isolated. Govt forces tend to vacate more remote areas to consolidate in major cities. I've seen nothing about govt forces leaving Qamishli.
              • Re Hasakah: This would seem to indicate otherwise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
        • For me the most important Kurdish role seems to be taking control of significant areas. As far as I am aware it was mostly government, not FSA, that controlled those areas previously, and therefore lost all that ground to Kurds.--Staberinde (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The Kurds took over their own regions, and now the rebels are attacking the Kurds there. The Kurds are not aligned with either. It is pretty simple. As for the subjective "reading experience" argument, that is irrelevant, factual accuracy is the goal. The point is to consider the problems we have outlined, not make up new ones. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The Kurds are aligned with the FSA, but not the people attacking PYD checkpoints. Both however are rebels trying to overthrow government rule. Both against the government, however PYD and rebels are not against each other, they jusst don't want eachother to intervene in their affairs for the most part. Since its the government's job to intervene in the Kurds affairs, the kurds go on the rebels column. Not to mention there is a double line and a note to clarify things. Sopher99 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? That must why the YPG loves it when FSA troops in Aleppo try to use Ashrafiyeh and/or Sheikh Maqsud to get at government troops on the other side. The government has taken great care not to "intervene" in Kurdish matters, so that point is utterly irrelevant. What the hell is "it's the government's job" supposed to mean anyway? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could everyone please stop saying "the Kurds" as if they're some monolithic force. While it's a known fact that the KNC is sympathetic to the SNC/FSA, the KNC is not the group we're discussing, and not the group listed in the infobox. The group we are discussing is the PYD and its military wing, the YPG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • On just the PYD , Josh Wood, in an International Herald Tribune article notes : "The P.Y.D.’s militant Kurdish nationalism, which puts ethnic identity before allegiance to Syria, and their goal of some form of autonomy has put them at odds with Syria’s rebels. After decades of discriminatory policies against the Kurds under the Baath Party, the P.Y.D. is opposed to anybody but Kurds ruling their areas." Sayerslle (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • And YPG is not only, though it is main, armed Kurdish faction. Yekiti has its own militia, there is TCK militia, all participated in combat in Ras al-Ayn, all not too friendly with PYD (PYD-KNC tensions are nearly identical to those of PUK and KDP) EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So what now? Again the obviously-necessary changes have been stalled and stonewalled, and the biased nonsense is still up. This is blatant POV and we simply can not have the encyclopedia sporting it. We should move on and take this further, as was my original conception. Either way Sopher will probably edit-war over this change, and admin enforcement will be needed (Kosovo-style; this article has many parallels). What is necessary is a Kosovo-like "ruling" on the matter, supported by admin action. -- Director (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess so. I'm unfamiliar with the process, are you up for the task? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Its not exactly rocket science [22]. The question is whether to go to DRN (which is still sort of low-key), or to go straight to mediation or even ARBCOM. -- Director (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is DIREKTORI so obsessed with including a third column? First you wanted Israel now it's the kurds. Next week it will be someone else. Why can't you accept that your opinion is in the extreme minority? This conflict is clearly about the collapse of the Syrian regime so the opposition factions should be grouped together. If these opposition factions are are fighting each other after the regime falls then that will be a seperate conflict in a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.43 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Syrian civil war
Part of the Arab Spring
Location
Syria
Belligerents

  Syrian National Coalition

Syrian Liberation Front

  Turkey
(border clashes)

(For other forms of foreign support, see here)

  Mujahideen

  Democratic Union Party

  Syrian government

  Iran

  Hezbollah
  PFLP–GC
  Iraqi Shi'ite militias

(For other forms of foreign support, see here)

  

  Israel
(border clashes, air strikes)

@IP. It was my childhood, you see. When I used to play with my Legos my parents only bought me enough to put together two decent columns. From then on I've always been haunted by my obsessive need to see three columns everywhere.
Israel does not belong in a third/fourth column, as it has only engaged one combatant. It is a combatant here, though, and has to be included one way or the other. The columns of this infobox template reflect military conflict, not political alignment.

To clarify, I here submit how the infobox ought to appear in order to:

  • #1 depict all combatants who have actually engaged in combat (Israel), without those who have not and are not fighting (Qatar, Saudi Arabia)
  • #2 to represent whom these combatants are actually fighting.
  • and #3 without all the nonsense clutter (such as every single agency and military organization of the Syrian government).

The rebels should also be to the left: rebels are the attacking party in a civil war, and attacking factions are usually placed to the left. -- Director (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

look at the Spanish Civil War article for example- oh, the spanish generals rebelled and they are to the right. Sayerslle (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Its not a rule by any means, no doubt one can find many exceptions, but in general the attacker is logically placed as combatant 1. Although I'm sure that particular issue is the very least of anyone's concerns here. -- Director (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine why this infobox isn't used here. I can't conceive of a rational argument for its exclusion. The abhorrent pile of POV clutter that's up there now is just absurd. -- Director (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We keep telling you. It would be undue weight and there is no source defining the scope of the civil war as a three-way battle. Furthermore the PYD leader himself has described the PYD as being friendly with the FSA but opposing any interference. Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I gave you a 4,000 character essay on why "undue weight" is a bullshit argument, which you hardly did not responded to. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
These two infoboxes both solve the problem. It states clearing that there are two groups in this civil war. The government and those opposing the government. We can have the goverment ofrces listed as just Syrian government or listed along as Pro-Assad forces. We can have the other column listed as Insurgents or Opposition fighters. I see no excuses. Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • By "we" you mean "you"? "Undue weight"? By who's estimate? Yours? Pardon me while I laugh out loud. That's a handy little "mechanism" you've got by which any change whatsoever, no matter how obviously justified, can be stonewalled forever. Noone here is peddling the "undue weight" stuff but you. Do you seriously expect people to go "oh you say its undue weight, ok then.."?
  • If you're going with the "no source defines the conflict" nonsense - then kindly delete the entire infobox forthwith. I'll be waiting. Otherwise can it, please.
  • And finally, the PYD can claim whatever they like. Anything at all. They can claim they are secret agents from Jupiter. The only thing that matters here is the (profusely-sourced) fact that they are fighting the rebels.
And no, we will not have two ridiculous infoboxes just for the sake of your pro-SNC POV. Not a single war article on this project, including those far more complex, has two infoboxes. -- Director (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Blatant Undue weight. Thats like me making the world war 2 infobox all about the cold war, and then asking me "by whose estimate is it undue weight lol". Many many many many sources define the conflict as between the government as its allies and the opposition and its allies. I did not suggerst we have two infoboxes. I merely showed two possible infoboxes that Zombiecapper suggested. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Two infoboxes?!? God, the amount of tap-dancing and squirming to get around the issue here is astounding! FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. I gave you two possible options of infoboxes. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The issue of this absurd RfC is placing the Kurdish faction into the third column. You need not bother anyone with nonsense infobox proposals that leave the matter as it is. The infobox up there is the three-column proposal. Kindly do not delete it nor attempt to obscure it with fifty-five other infoboxes that are irrelevant to this thread. -- Director (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
"By whose opinion". I was giving solutions as to why the "status quo" is better in this case. Particularly ones suggested in the involved users comments. Sopher99 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
"Solutions" is not the word. Its a "solution" for you I'm sure, but unless you are prepared to recognize the necessity of a three-sided infobox for the neutral illustration of a three-sided conflict, this matter will be up on ARBCOM before its done. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to add that it is astonishing that there is not three columns. Just typing fsa clashes with kurds gets a whole lot of hits. Let's get over the NPOV b.s. and add a third column. --70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Let us copy the German and French example with regards to where we designate the Kurds. I for one support a third Kurdish row. --70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you can see below, there is currently a WP:DRN thread about this [23]. Uninvolved input would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

* Uninvolved User Comment - Two columns. When the dust settles, then maybe more - it is always very difficult (and emotional/partisan) to Wiki a Civil War in progress. One could make literally thousands of columns for all the nations with their hand in the civil war. ~~

Nope.. one most certainly couldn't introduce any more than three columns. You misunderstand how they're introduced: only factions fighting each-other are separated by perpendicular lines. As for "thousands", well, that's some hyperbole :) -- Director (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I just say that this dispute has gone on way too long? The constant reverts and counter-reverts are making it hard to actually edit the page to add new info or fix errors. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

* Uninvolved User Comment - Two columns. It is quite obvious that in a conflict between two parties you list the two parties, hence two columns. There are huge issues of bias in relation to this article. The death toll in reported as being from the UN, in reality it is a CNN quote of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and there is no context. It is not only inaccurate but misleading. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thread on WP:DRN

This is to notify there is currently a thread on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard on this issue. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New development

Apparently some agreement has been concluded between rebels and YPG fighters in Ras al-Ayn, which seems to have ended the fighting with an added point of increasing collaboration against government forces [24]. It remains to be seen how this will be borne out (and if it will hold up), but I think this may change the tone for debates on this topic. The time-nuanced Yugoslav Wars infobox may be the best model for this case, as it is clear that this agreement has the aim of producing the first real alignment between the parties in question, and that no such alignment existed prior. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the rebels are run by Erdogan's Turkey, such a truce won't last long. But let's wait and see, the infobox isn't going anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that too little time has passed for this alliance to warrant a separate "temporal shelf" in the infobox. At present a simple three-sided box would still be accurate. If the truce holds after the customary two weeks, we can easily merge the two as a single column in a shelf below (à la my edits to the Yugoslav Wars or Yugoslav Front infoboxes.) Some kind of joint military action might help as well, in which case they would not need to be separated by a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we should just wait until the truce inevitably breaks down. Then it will be plain as day that these groups will never join forces, and the third row proposal will stand even stronger than now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no question with regard to the third row. We're certainly not going to "ret-con" history. The only question is whether or not the two sides might be added in the second shelf as allies/combatants not in combat with one-another (after fighting each-other). -- Director (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FSA "leader" Salim Idris has rejected the peace treaty [25], so this may well turn out to be DOA. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"When trying to understand why Idris rejected the accord only three days after it was signed, one has to bear in mind the influence of Turkey’s current policy on the FSA." No shit, Sherlock! And even if some "brigades" stop fighting the PYD, if others continue they still don't belonging the same column. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

However the peace treaty was signed by the FSA military council of Hasakah. Meaning all FSA Hasakah brigades are going to cooperate with PYD. This just enhances the argument that the FSA leans toward being a "trade-mark", and arguing whether or not the FSA and PYD fight with eachother is meaningless (ie you can't say they are not friends, neutrals, or enemies. Keep as two columns because its just comes down to the fact that the FSA, Mujihideen, and PYD all have the same goal of wrestling the government for control of areas. Sopher99 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It means so such thing. You go from saying that all FSA brigades will abide by it because some "commander" scribbled his name on the document to saying that FSA is a useless umbrella designation.
The PYD has done very little "wrestling". The general pattern has been: YPG units walk into a town, ask whatever security forces are present to leave, whereupon the security forces pack their bags and scoot in a hurry. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You misquote me. All FSA hasakah brigades will cooperate with the YPG.
The YPG has no Local Coordination Committees or SOHR. Individual fighters don't report how many soldiers they killed. When the FSA took control of Quneitra province, despite not reporting how many soldiers they killed, I am pretty sure they didn't ask the soldiers there to pack their bags. Reporting organizations and communication matters. Sopher99 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
100% false. There are certainly Kurdish media organisations that report on happenings in Hasakah and other Syrian Kurdish regions. There's Rudaw (generally critical of the PYD; realtime site is down for maintenance for now), Firat News (pro-PYD), and the rights organisation KurdWatch. Most claims of deaths coming out of Ras al-Ayn come from the PYD/YPG's claims—it's the Islamists who don't like reporting their losses. SOHR itself reports on Kurdish happenings—that's where the information regarding the bloodless expulsion of government troops from Darbasiyah, Tall Tamr, and Amuda came from [26]. Please at least pretend to do some research before spouting off. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
So why are there two separate rows for rebels in the Mali conflict article? Both factions surely want to "wrestle control for areas" from the government? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The criteria of one article is not a mandate for another. I don't know much about that article, and if you notice, I did not edit that article even once. From the scatter of news I have come across, the Taurags and the Islamists are both wrestling control for governance. (Not to mention the Taurags and Islamists have just about equal weight and participation in the conflict). Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, they don't want to "wrestle areas out of control" for the same reasons, or for the same purpose, so your argument is highly misleading. And Futuretrillionaire amusingly supported the third row in theMali article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I never said for the same reason or purpose. But hey Iran and Syria are both fighting rebels for different reasons. One to "defend the axis of resistance" the other to defend their mafia cartel. Why don't you challenge the third row on that article's talkpage? I have nothing to do with those three rows. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Why I don't challenge it? Perhaps because I agree with it? And lol at your POV characterisations. So the "rebels" are not zealous Salafists who want to establish a caliphate and exterminate all infidels? Both sides are "Nazis" in their own right, your extreme POV-pushing is baffling and ridiculous. I don't get this western cheer-leading for people who would behead them if they got the chance. There are unaligned, peaceful seculars who need the same zealous support, for your information. They get no love anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There are only 10,000 al nusra people if you believe al nusra's claims of strength. Only a fraction are radical in practice, most of them are there for the weapons and decisive leadership. Their spiritual leader Abu Golani probably isn't even in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
As for the baathists, they get no love because they even hate eachother. There have been only 2 baathist states in recent history, iraq and syria, and both were at eachothers throats. Your "peaceful" Baath leader Saddam straight up murdered 400,000 ethnic Iranians Shiites over the course of ten years. And your "peaceful" leader Assad just threw a dozen scuds at Aleppo today. Hafez ordered the assassination of the Baath co-founder Bitar. Right on the spot the own creator of the nazi cult is murdered by his fellow nazis. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that's some extreme tunnel vision right there. Did you notice I said unaligned seculars? Does that mean Baathists? As for Nusra, eh, even the "mainstream" FSA is overwhelmingly Islamist, regardless of what US and Gulf media wants you to believe. These are the same kind of people who are currently killing Liberals in Egypt and Tunisia. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
As for "people who will slice our head off" - I don't see that happened in Saudi Arabia, when the scimitar of "struggle against the infidels" is even on their flag. I don't see it happening under Morsi's Islamic government, or Tunisia. I don't see that happening to our diplomats in Iran, and Iran really hates us. Wake up, its not the 1800s anymore. Well it is in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sopher99 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You have this image in your head that Americans are afraid of islamists because they are not secular. They are not afraid of Islamists because of their religion. They are afraid of Islamists because they are arab. Yes, its racism, not politics, that drives "anti-islam" sentiment in America. Yes, all Lebanese, even Christians and Alawites, are allu akbar islamists in the average American's eyes. Sopher99 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you even follow the news? Leftists are being killed off in Tunisia and Egypt. Copts and blacks have been massacred in Egypt and Libya. And even then, the governments there show restraint, because they want to receive foreign aid. Once the West is unable to provide this due to whatever economic problems, the Muslim Brotherhood types will turn their backs on them in a second, and release their Salafite dogs. As for Saudi and Bahrain, people are being killed there weekly, but the protesters don't receive weapons or western support to defend themselves, so of course there aren't as many dead as in Syria, where many protesters were armed since at least March 2011. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Leftists are not being killed off Tunisia or Egypt, neither or Copts. Blacks near Sabha and Kufra were fighting with arabs last year. "Secular" Yemen has been bombing and killing Houthis for decades. "secular" Morraco has been oppressing the Western Sahara for decades. No protesters were armed in 2011. People are not allowed to have guns in Syria. If they did get guns, it was to rightfully defend themselves. Besides, I strictly remember Egyptians burning down and rpging the police stations, but the number of peacefuls still outnumbers the violent types 1000 to 1. Eritrea is a secular country in the region, and it has the most oppression (other than North Korea) and refugees per populace in the world. Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Tunisia.[27] Egypt.[28]Libya[29] Nuff said. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyway this is Soapboxing. If you would like I can remove our comments since "why are there two seperate" and put it on my/your talkpage Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this article (as so many since 2011) is kidnapped by pro-"rebels" who personally decide what information should be included and what not, what sources are reliable and what not, etc... And then you still wondering why WP is less and less reliable and most biased every day?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: A convoy of U.N. peacekeepers been have seized near the Golan Heights by Syrian rebels - who say that they will hold them until al-Assad's forces withdraw from a rebel-held village. The rebel action came on the day that Britain said it would increase aid to the "opposition forces". Reuters, Wed Mar 6, 2013 81.141.87.238 (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL BRIEFING

14 March 2013

Syria: Summary killings and other abuses by armed Opposition groups

“My daughter shouted to me, ‘mum, come quick and see dad.’ He was on TV... as he was shown being killed, I pushed my daughter away to block her from seeing... but she did see.” Widow of Major Fou’ad Abd al-Rahman, as identified by his family, whose beheading with another man was aired on television and the Internet. 89.240.208.125 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_22&oldid=1136230172"