Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Edit request on 30 March 2013

This article states the the Democratic Union Party (Kurds) are on the same side as the Syrian Opposition which is not true. They are a third party in the conflict and should be stated as a separate belligerent. They are not allied with the Syrian Government or the Syrian Opposition. 220.239.231.24 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is already being discussed, and yes, some fractions of the YPD are allied with the FSA. [1] and by your logic we would have to make a fourth column, because a splinter group of the YPD called the Azadi militia, is now basically at war with the YPD [2]. Anyway as I said its being discussed above. Sopher99 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, Sopher again revealing how little he knows about Kurds in Syria. The YPG is the armed wing of the PYD. Azadi is an entirely separate political party. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the same old sources that amount to NOTHING. The Kurds are either alone, with the rebels, or with the government. You cannot say that they belong to one side or another, as doing so is just ignorant.

This article http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/24/third-point-in-the-revolution-syrian-kurds-carve-out-an-enclave-between-the-assad-regime-and-the-free-syrian-army/ here outlines why the kurds must have their own column and it also shows who supports them.

If 1000 kurdish fighters are fighting alongside the rebels this does not automatically make the kurds part of the rebels. Jumada (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with that - the channel 4 week of films 'syrias descent' included a report on the situation in the north and had a film about FSA/Kurd interactions - including a prisoner handover - the Kurds treated their prisoners well, they seem pretty admirable really - anyhow, it shows they are separate - the FSA for example chanting 'prophet Mohammed is our leader forever' , a play on the regime mantra 'Bashar is our leader' - or king or whatever they chant, and the Kurds say 'Ocalan is our leader' as they go between the different sectors of control - the film ' syrias kurds fighting a war within a war' - [3] Sayerslle (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Free Syrian Army is also seperate from the Al Nusra front. Doesn't mean we put a third column for al nusra. Just yesterday the Kurds teamed up with the FSA inb Aleppo to capture Sheikh Mahsoud from intruding Syrian army officers. [4]. As I said the YPD is now fighting a splinter group form within itself. [5], and Ras al Ain is now jointed controlled with joint-checkpoints between the FSA and the YPD. [6]. So none of this tells me There is need ofr a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WRT Sheikh Maqsud, the PYD is accusing the FSA of arbitratily arresting Kurdish civilians [7], so relations between the groups are hardly fraternal. You can bring up the joint checkpoints in Ras al-Ayn all you want, but the fact remains that they were only established after months of fighting and one failed peace agreement. And if we're to take such checkpoints as evidence of alignment or what have you, what then does the fact that the YPG and the army have been operating similar checkpoints in Qamishli mean [8]?

And no, Azadi is not a splinter group of the PYD, it's an entirely separate party which has long been in opposition to the PYD. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sopher is right there. As I pointed out about twenty times by now, columns are used to indicate military conflict. Completely unaligned factions such as the FSA and Al Nusra, or even Israel, as I said, can be listed in the same column - provided they are separated by a dividing line. Though I'm not so sure Al Nusra and the rest of the "FSA" are so "unaligned" - if they have a joint supreme command (as was shown).

There never was any question that the DUP and the opposition factions are not allies. However, unless I am very much mistaken, the Kurds and the opposition factions have, in fact, engaged in combat. That would warrant a separate column. There are sources that indicate the kurds are the third side in this conflict [9]. -- Director (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"if they have a joint supreme command (as was shown)"—You need to carefully re-read O'Bagy's piece, bud. She makes it quite clear that the SMC is trying to marginalise JN's influence by courting less-psychotic radicals:

Page 7: "To this end, the SMC has recognized the importance of the inclusion of some of the more radical forces, while still drawing a red line at the inclusion of forces that seek the destruction of a Syrian state, such as jihadist groups like Jabhat Nusra."

In fact, she makes it quite clear that only the SLF has integrated fully into the SMC:

Page 38: "For example, the Syrian Liberation Front’s (SLF) leadership has been incorporated into the SMC and many SLF commanders serve as SMC members. This has empowered the SMC, and allowed the command to draw legitimacy from their inclusion."

Page 38: "The Syrian Islamist Front (SIF) has been incorporated to a lesser degree. Few of its leaders are actively involved with the SMC, and SIF ranks have not been integrated into the new command."

You seem to have misinterpreted the figure of opposition groups sensu lato on page 39 as being a list of all the groups in the SMC. But it's important to actually read a text and not just look at the nice, colourful pictures. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Sopher. No need for a third column for the Kurds. They are most prominently against the government so they are listed in the opposition column, but with a separation line since they are not fully aligned with other opposition forces. As for their occasional conflict with other opposition groups like the FSA and Nusra, it was agreed in discussion with other editors before that we provide a link in the infobox which leads to a whole section on their conflict with other rebel groups, instead of creating a third column. Read the previous discussions on this issue. EkoGraf (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Any MC Infobox
Part of Any Article on This Project
Location Anyplace
Belligerents
combatants that fought combatants in Column 2 (not necessarily allies)	combatants that fought combatants in Column 1 (not necessarily allies)

As far as third columns are concerned - the issue is not alignment, so we should probably stop talking about that altogether. They would belong in the same column regardless of whether they were allies or entirely unaffiliated. What matters is armed conflict between the rebel factions and the Kurdish faction. Has there been significant conflict there? Remember also, please, that this isn't a news site and that past conflicts also factor in, not just the current state of affairs. -- Director (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it me, or is that Bashar al-Assad? -- Director (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, Vladmir Putin kind of looks like unmasked darth vader, and the emperor might as well be Khamenei. Sopher99 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Joke all you want, its a dictatorial colleague of mine (the resemblance is uncanny :)). And the reference is so wonderfully ambiguous too.. on the one hand one equates the rebels with the good guys, on the other the bad guys kinda capture the good guys in that scene (and call 'em "scum").

Anyway, just wanted to focus the discussion here on conflict, rather than alignment. -- Director (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass reverts

And so the efforts at compromise and infobox improvement devolve once more to mass removal of sourced content, gaming the system in terms of an arbitrary "consensus", and Futuretrillionaire's exploitation of revert restrictions. Futuretrillionaire, you've violated 1RR [10][11], and I'll return the favor of your previous report if you don't revert yourself. I realize that's an unlikely scenario, but I hate bothering admins unless I'm sure its necessary. Lucky you're on a "break", I can only imagine what we'd see if you were to unleash your full power upon this article :). -- Director (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Having only half of the participants supporting the inclusion of Israel is hardly a consensus. The second link was not a revert. If that counts as a revert, then you've broken 1RR too: [12] [13]--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all interested in your fanciful "tally" nor your own definitions of "consensus". When the edits were introduced, the ratio was 7:2 (you and Sayerslle), they were introduced by as good a consensus as could possibly be expected on such an article. Now its 7:5 (kindly recognize Jeancey has not reaffirmed his stance since voicing reservations against your position, and that Sopher has agreed to the version you reverted). But I'm not here to count votes, the sources unambiguously support the version you just vandalized..

I deem your actions highly WP:DISRUPTIVE and in violation of revert restrictions (in spite of your obvious attempt to WP:GAME said 1RR). I request that you please make it clear whether you intend to revert yourself. I'll leave it to the admins to decide who gets blocked. -- Director (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You make your point eloquently.

If someone wold care to revert that vandalism so we can resume discussion? I'll see about requesting assistance with the disruption. -- Director (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

lol are some editors just ignoring RS and just trying to remove things they dont like by saying "no consensus"?? Baboon43 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and in any case, what matters is not the opinion of editors, or even votes, but what the sources actually say. If we all agreed that Israel had not taken part in the war, it would be irrelevant, because the sources unambiguously say it has. FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

First of, Director, that fanciful vote as you put it is actually 6 to 6, not 7 to 5 in your favor as you put it. So consensus has in fact not been made. This discussion needs to continue until a proper solution is found. Also, I really didn't see on what basis you put Jordan in the column with the rebels since they engaged in border clashes with both the Army AND the rebels. In fact, the one Jordanian soldier that has died was killed by rebels trying to go over the border. Also, Jordan, unlike Turkey, has been trying to stop the flow of fighters and weapons over the border. If anything that sounds to me more like a pro-Assad than pro-rebel stance. But whatever the case, the facts are: Number 1 - nether Iraq or Jordan or Israel has expressed support for ether side (unlike Turkey which has expressed support and IS providing actual support); Number 2 - Jordan has engaged in conflict with both sides; Number 3 - there is no consensus on the issue so major changes are not allowed until a solution is found. Maybe, and I say this maybe, if the pro-addition editors are still insisting on this, the proper solution would be, in my opinion, the following. First, to add Iraq in the pro-government collapsible supported by column, just like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are on the rebel side, since, even though there has been no real factual evidence, Iraq is looking more and more likely to be providing the air-space for Iranian flights and pro-rebel Iraqi groups did killed Iraqi soldiers. Second, to add Israel on the rebel side, but separated with a double separation line, because they have not expressed support for the rebels, and are more than likely to engage in conflict with the extremist elements of Nusra if they gain more power. Third, Jordan, leave it out entirely, they haven'e expressed support for ether side, they engaged both sides, they declared neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"trying to stop the flow of fighters and weapons over the border"—yeah, that's why 2500 fresh rebel fighters armed to the teeth with Yugoslav surplus bought from Croatia with Saudi money under US guidance have poured into southern Daraa in the past few weeks. "Pro-Assad", indeed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

“This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.” May be unbalanced seems to be something of a slight under-statement. Also, given the article is now locked, how can information be added? 92.16.158.116 (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I still think my "New proposal: link to a border incidents section" above is a fair compromise.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah.. no its not. -- Director (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@EkoGraf, I usually ignore such unwieldy blocks of text, but I will here make an effort to somehow respond fully.

No, I'm afraid you're dead wrong there, EkoGraf. The actual "vote tally" is 4twenty42o, Baboon43, MrDjango, FunkMonk, Sopher99, DarknessShines and myself (7), against yourself, FutureTrillionaire, Sayerslle, Asarlaí, and Alhanuty (5). Sopher99, as far as I recall, has agreed to the introduction of Israel, and the subsequent edits were also introduced in cooperation with him - while Jeancey voiced reservations against supporting FutureTrillionaire's position. And then there's the IP user, which brings the actual tally to 8 vs. 5.
So that is, in fact, 8 vs. 5 here on talk. However, the edits were introduced while the only opposition was from FutureTrillionaire and Sayerslle, so it was added by as decent a consensus as could be expected (7 vs. 2), if we're going to start Wikilawyering here. WL aside, this project is written in accordance with sources - so you can add them as being against your position as well. The "proper" solution is one based on them, not on bullying, edit-warring, and silly fanciful ideas by random self-important internet users.

• Moving on from the "dead wrong" matter. "Number 1" - I could not care less what those countries "expressed" or did not "express". This infobox depicts military conflict (its the Military conflict infobox, you know; you can read up on that). "Number 2" - provide sources for Jordan having engaged both sides. For the record, engaging insurgents in its own country prior to their being able to join the rebels is not an attack on the rebels. "Number 3" - That's just not true, as elaborated upon above. There is such a thing as WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM and misquoting policy to stonewall sourced modifications (supported by a majority of participants). That's essentially all FutureTrillionaire does here is cleverly riding the line and manipulating policy.

• "First". The collapsible column is just ridiculous. If World War II can do without it, so can the Syrian civil war. Countries are NOT added under the "combatant" heading if they're not combatants. And if they are, they're added in a standard, non-absurd fashion. Re Iraq, if you actually read this discussion you will find sources aplenty for the direct involvement of the Iraqi military (provided by FutureTrillionaire).

• "Second". Israel has not been added to the "rebel side", so lets just get rid of that straw man right there. Its been added to the column for combatants (primarily) engaging the government. It is separated from the rebels by a single horizontal dividing line - which throughout this project indicates non-association in this infobox. Double separation lines are another ridiculous invention created here for the sake of appeasing user POV. Would you "feel better" if you had a triple line? Quadruple line? One line will be perfectly sufficient.

• "Third". Again, for our purposes, I couldn't care less what these countries "expressed" - unless its military action (or lack thereof). They can declare what they like, but if their military is involved in some fighting (as has been sourced!) we're certainly not going to exclude them on the basis of their diplomatic stance. Once more, this is the Military conflict infobox. Factions are added to the Military conflict infobox if their military has engaged in the fighting. That's what its guidelines are, and that's how its used everywhere. Period. Plain and simple. -- Director (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just now only came onboard with this discussion, have never actually met you Director and tried from the start to propose a compromise solution. So, I see no reason for your behavior towards me which, based on this reply, is uncompromising and inflammatory. You did not express even a thought of compromise. It seemed to me you don't care about the opinion of others unless they agree with you and you are rejecting sources that are contradictory to your own opinion. Also, you are almost in violation of Wikipedia's rule on civility by making borderline snide comments, not to mention you are not assuming any good faith from other editors, which is a prerequisite on Wikipedia. As far as I see it, its your way or no way. Which is not how Wikipedia works. Also, in regard to your comments on the collapsible list (which you are also making fun of), that collapsible list was agreed upon in a discussion by a large number of editors a year ago. As far as Jordan goes, source already provided in infobox confirming they also engaged the insurgents. But you say that if Jordan engaged the Syrian rebels on their side of the border and not on the Syrian side than their engagement does not count? That's simply, and now I am going to use your word because it really is, ridiculous and again an attempt to disregard what you feel is contradiction with your own opinion. Look up Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Fact is, Jordanian forces engaged Syrian opposition forces. If you are not going to engage in good faith compromise talk with other editors the only solution I see is that an arbiter be included in this discussion. Otherwise please include yourself here in some constructive discussion and tone down the inflammatory language. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of Director's personal lack of constructive talk, I am still proposing as a compromise that - Iraq be included in the 'supported by list on the government side. Israel be put with separation lines on the rebel side. And since Jordan engaged both sides in clashes (regardless on which side of the border), has declared neutrality and closed the border to avoid a conflict, be excluded from any side altogether. Putting Jordan on the rebel side explicitly indicates their commitment to aiding the rebels. Which they have not done in any way, while Israel's air strike can be seen as some form of support to the rebels. If this is not acceptable than I support Future's proposal of providing a direct link to a border incidents section, thus excluding from the infobox all those that are not providing direct aid to ether side (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon) but have been involved in extremely limited clashes which don't count more than half a dozen at the most. EkoGraf (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think thats fair enough. Baboon43 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Behavior. EkoGraf, for days now I've been giving my all to put together a version through compromise and achieve agreement - only to have Futuretrillionaire indiscriminately roll it all back with a bogus WP:GAME excuse. I hope you can understand some of my bitterness and profound annoyance (even so, I made an effort to respond fully to your post). The reverted version is the compromise version. If people compromise with Sopher, then compromise with Futuretrillionaire, then compromise with you - we'd end up with a more biased infobox than we started with.

I also find myself in a position where I must explain the workings of the infobox and repeat the same basic arguments over and over again to different users. In future, if you feel I have breached behavioral guidelines, I trust you know the proper venue for a report? (there's also my talkpage). Otherwise, please do not discuss the subject here as that can also be interpreted as a personal attack, indeed perhaps more so (it can also be seen trying to score points/gain the moral high ground in a discussion).

• "Supported by". I oppose re-introduction of any "supported by" factions. The criteria for inclusion into the "combatants" parameter of the infobox is clear enough "factions whose forces took part in the conflict". Furthermore, the "supported by" stuff is unnecessary, as the vast majority of those countries have engaged in this conflict in a minor way, and thus warrant standard inclusion anyway.

• Israel. A single line is no different than several lines, and demands for more are usually based on a misunderstanding as to what inclusion in that parameter actually means throughout this project. For umpteenth time: in this infobox all that means is that they engaged the other side (the Syrian army) - that is all. In every military conflict infobox a single line is used to indicate disassociation. Multiple lines are redundant and POV.
• Iraq. Iraq is sourced as a combatant, as a country who's military engaged actual rebel troops on more than one occasion.
• Jordan. Jordan did NOT engage Syrian rebels, but engaged Islamist militants attempting to join the rebels. That's what the source says - they were not under rebel command. As far as this conflict is concerned, its military only engaged Syrian army forces. Its diplomatic position is, once again - irrelevant for our considerations (you can stop mentioning it?). Adding Jordan does not "explicitly indicate their commitment to aiding the rebels", that's only your perception. All it means - is that they engaged the other side. Ok?

Re Jordan and Iraq, I can maybe agree to removing them from the infobox altogether (based on a lack of sources explicitly stating their involvement), but I cannot agree to re-instate any "supported by" factions. Once again, the parameter is for combatants. The infobox needs to cleared of all the clutter. Needless to say, I categorically reject Futuretrillionaire's "compromise", and actually find it pretty inflammatory when presented in such a capacity.

-- Director (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I will only make a comment about Jordan. The way you put it by saying that those militants were not under rebel command at the time so, in your personal opinion and perception (which does not count on Wikipedia), they were not part of the rebel movement than the clash is not regarded as a clash between Jordan and the opposition forces. Than let me ask you this, to which rebel command are you referring to? Since there doesn't in fact exist a unified rebel command. The FSA is playing its own game (with some factions of the FSA even not listening to its central command), Nusra is playing its game and the Kurds are playing their game, and there are at least another 3-4 other rebel groups which are independent of the others. So...rebel command? I think there are maybe 6-7 of them in Syria, all independent of eachother, and only cooperating on occasion. And Sopher...Supreme Military Command? There have already been numerous news articles talking about this. That the command was declared but most rebel groups/factions on the ground are not listening to it. Also, Director, do you even have a source which states that the militants with which the Jordanians clashed were still not part of the rebel movement? How are you so certain that they hadn't already been admitted to a rebel group beforehand and were being sent to join the others already fighting in Syria? In fact you are voicing your own opinion on the issue, which is not backed up by sources. As for the supported list. That one stays. It was discussed at length numerous times by editors in the past and it was agreed upon. Removing it would be against consensus. In any case, I voiced, not one, but two compromise solutions for the current situation. Which, have been already stated to be fair by one of your votes. So, ether add Iraq to the supported by list on the government side and Israel on the rebel side with a separation line (one...ok), or remove them both and add a link to a border incidents section like Future said (which in my opinion would be the best course of action. As for Jordan, its place is certainly not on ether side of the divide that much is certain. EkoGraf (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

At one point I saw that israel was listed on the rebel side, and Iraq was on the government side. It also showed that the FSA and the salafi jihadists were separated, as well as the PYG (kurds) being listed separately. This is most accurate, as the Kurdish militias have clashed with both FSA and SAA troops. its unfair to say that the Kurdish militia are supporting one side.

Also as the rebels capture territory, they have begun fighting between themselves, as the FSA fought with the Al Nusra front over disagreements regarding rule, support to the FSA comes from Turkey and NATO, while Al Nusra and other extreme Islamists are supported by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. http://news.antiwar.com/2013/03/26/syrian-rebel-infighting-islamists-clash-with-secularists/

For now, it is best to return the infobox to that set up regardless of director's personal opinion as having it that way is most valid to illustrate the complexity of the current situation. (Jumada (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC))

Ah, I see my annoyance (and consequential overbearing attitude) have once again made my position hard for people to support :). I'm really not that kind of guy in person. After compromising with Sopher and the others, I suppose there's no choice but to start another "round" of compromising with EkoGraf. I just hope Futuretrillionaire won't simply roll it all back again when we're done. When I am able, I will restore the previous version, with two modifications: #1 the removal of Iraq and Jordan (as at the very least one must recognize they require further discussion), and #2 the more accurate representation of the Syrian rebels in accordance with this excellent scholarly source.

Namely, it appears as though there is no such combatant authority as the "Free Syrian Army", and that the Syrian National Coalition has no control or authority over the events in this conflict. The main opposition factions are those deferring to the "Supreme Military Command" for coordination. These consists of the #1 Syrian Liberation Front (SLF), #2 the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF), #3 the Al-Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra), and #4 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. -- Director (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would look a bit more carefully at what you are suggesting. The Supreme Military command is part of the Free Syrian Army [14] [15] with Salim Idress the Supreme Military command chief of staff as the chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army. [16] So basically I would put Supreme Military Command of the Free Syrian Army as the overall heading. Also please don't remove Jordan without removing Israel simultaneously, we had a good-faith agreement to keep both. Sopher99 (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jumada's proposal

I think adding supported by factions plays a bigger role than we might think, lets imagine for a second that Turkey supported the Syrian government and not the rebels in this situation, I think the rebellion would have been suppressed rather quickly, and with no support from Turkey (weapons, aid, intelligence, training, funding, bases) the rebels would soon find themselves overwhelmed. Here is an infobox that includes 3 columns, with more details to the factions and their supporters. It also includes the houthi fighters. Israel was the only faction that had no place in the 3 columns.

While Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supporting the opposition as we seen recently by offering it the Arab league seat, it is widely semi-confirmed that those two states (or at least elements from within those states) are responsible for recruiting, funding, transporting and arming salafi rebels and extremists. I am unsure whether to put them alongside turkey or keep them under the Mujahideen; this needs further research as it is unclear; but many predict that the FSA and the islamists will eventually face off.

The FSA exists and takes its orders from the Syrian National Coalition, BUT its all on paper. In reality it does not account to anything except a show, so I agree with you on that.(Jumada (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

I like your infobox alot, just except the third column of kurds. The conflict is not defined as a threeway battle, and recently the YPD and the FSA has been maintaining joint-checkpoints. [17]. Since the kurds are opting for rebellion against the goverment like the rebels, and have varying extents of direct military cooperation, it has to be kept it as 2 columns. Are you sure houthis are supposed to be there? Just cause they are shiite doesn't mean their fighting in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

According to other foreign support, the houthis have participated in some battles Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war Jumada (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war
Part of the Arab Spring
Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing (2 years, 1 week and 5 days) Location Mainly Syria, with minor spillovers in neighboring countries Result Ongoing
Belligerents
Syrian government Syrian Armed Forces Jaysh al-Sha'bi Shabiha Iran Revolutionary Guards Basij Foreign militants: Hezbollah PFLP–GC Iraqi Shi'ite militias Houthis (For other forms of foreign support, see here)	Syrian National Coalition Free Syrian Army Supported by: Turkey (border clashes) (For other forms of foreign support, see here) Syrian Liberation Front Mujahideen al-Nusra Front Ahrar al-Sham Ghuraba al-Sham Supported by: Saudi Arabia Qatar	Democratic Union Party Popular Protection Units Supported by: PKK Iraqi Kurdistan Peshmerga (For more on Kurdish involvement, see here)
Israel (border clashes, air strikes)

EkoGraf's proposal

Also like Sopher I also like Jumada's infobox. And I also agree with Sopher that the Kurds shouldn't have a third column. Jumada's proposal of an infobox gave me an idea. And I think this is my 3rd simultaneous compromise proposal. Kurds stay on rebel side, with a separation line as before, like the jihadists, but we add a sub-combatant list. Like Jumada put Israel in his infobox. And on that list will go combatants which have not expressed open support for ether side but have engaged in border incidents with both sides. And the list would include Iraq, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon (alphabetical order). I will make an example of that here so say what everybody thinks of it.

Syrian civil war
Part of the Arab Spring
Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing (2 years, 1 week and 5 days) Location Mainly Syria, with minor spillovers in neighboring countries Result Ongoing
Belligerents
Syrian government Syrian Armed Forces Jaysh al-Sha'bi Shabiha Iran Revolutionary Guards Basij Foreign militants: Hezbollah PFLP–GC Iraqi Shi'ite militias Houthis (For other forms of foreign support, see here)	Syrian National Coalition Free Syrian Army Supported by: Turkey (including border clashes) Qatar (since May 2012) Saudi Arabia (since May 2012) (For other forms of foreign support, see here) Mujahideen al-Nusra Front Ahrar al-Sham Ghuraba al-Sham Democratic Union Party Popular Protection Units (For more on Kurdish involvement, see here)
Border clashes Iraq Israel Jordan Lebanon

EkoGraf (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I second this. However I would change it from border clashes to border clashes and incidents, or border clashes and international incidents. Sopher99 (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, border clashes and international incidents it is then (air strike and Iraq convoy ambush happened away from the borders). EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Sopher "kurds are opting for rebellion against the goverment like the rebels": Really? Well how do you explain how nice and peaceful things are in Qamishli, where both YPG and government forces exercise joint control [18]? No "rebellion" there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This tells a different story. [19]. Anyway what I meant was autonomy. Sopher99 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, still don't see any "rebellion" there. Just an organised withdrawal from the city, a changing of the guard like almost every interaction between YPG and the army (except Aleppo and the Rumeilan oilfields). I also see that the PYD does not want to see any FSA in Qamishli, either.

What's more, the PYD has been increasingly cracking down on Kurdish groups that are perceived as too sympathetic to the rebels [20] [21] [22].

There is a vast gulf of difference between "rebellion" and "autonomy". "Rebellion" is when "the people demand the overthrow of the regime" and act on it. "Autonomy" is simply carving out your own area and making sure nobody messes around with it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose EkoGraf's proposal. The problems there are #1 it doesn't say with whom the "border clashes" are with, #2 it suggests the "border clashes" factions are allies, and #3 (perhaps most importantly), it again subverts the standard layout of the infobox for the sake of POV. A reader is left guessing what exactly does that thing down there mean. -- Director (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think EkoGraf's proposed infobox is the best option so far. :)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I do too - i dont accept direktors second objection at all - i dont think it does what he says and his third objection is a strength if the alternative is him and baboon explaining what everything means Sayerslle (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lothar, the way that some Kurdish group received some cities after governmental withdrawal is suspicious Alhanuty (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@Futuretrillionaire/Sayerslle. Wow, you fellas agree? What a surprise. I see EkoGraf was correct in claiming participants are slowly bending to his will.. :) Shocking stuff. Anyway, I'm sure we all knew from the outset that not listing Israel and other such combatants in a proper, standard manner for the sake of political POV is just not something I myself am about to buy. As well as others, I think, who'd just like to see this goddamn infobox brought up to standard with the rest of the project. Can we please move on from cockamamie subversions of the template layout? I'd like to avoid leaving the template in a worse state than from what we set out. At least now people can tell who fights who... -- Director (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

@direktyou go on about sources - well Is there a RS that says 'Israels air strike can be seen as some form of support to the rebels' ? Not 'have inserted themseves into the midst of a civil war' - which is not the same thing - are there RS that reports directly the strike as showing Israel qua a rebel-partisan belligerent in the Civil War - and if you say 'drawn further in...' -that analysis that uses that language makes explicit it is a drawing in , not motivated by support for the rebels -but for its own agenda.(the wall strret journal article for example)- the obsession with a simplistic infobox that can help explain the meaning fr readers is disingenuous imo - and the claims that it is all in the name of neutral pov is a case of The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Sayerslle (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Any MC Infobox
Part of Any Article on This Project
Location Anyplace
Belligerents
combatants that fought all/one/several combatants in Column 2	combatants that fought all/one/several combatants in Column 1

Why must I repeat myself so often on this talkpage? For the twentieth time: columns do NOT necessarily indicate alliances or "support" in this infobox. If you place a faction into one column, ALL you are saying is that they fought someone in the other column. Here, look to the right, I'll illustrate it.

Following standard practice is not "simplistic" by any means. If anything it will provide for a more in-depth depiction of the conflict. Please take note that the infobox I've been restoring is more complex than the current one or any of the suggestions here - and its perfectly accurate. Below I'm trying to have the rebels depicted in more depth, again per template guidelines and standard practices. But appropriate complexity is not the only concern by any means. My main concern is showing the Wikipedia reader a familiar infobox that follows sources and template guidelines, which also happens to have a most important consequence: making the infobox neutral. Or in other words: neutrality comes from objectivity. Objectivity comes from outside rules and standards. The second you exclude a faction from this infobox that would be included everywhere else - you're giving the reader, who's been reading all those other standardized Wikipedia infoboxes - a false impression, making the infobox inevitably slanted to one side or another, in one way or another. The idea is to have consistency and neutrality.

You perceive the addition of Israel there as indicating Israel's support for the rebels. And that's something you wish to prevent. You don't really care whether that's actually indicated by Israel's placement, nor do you care much how these infoboxes are written elsewhere. You just know you see it as Israel favoring the rebels, and that's not good. Am I wrong? Well, I've had years of experience writing MC infoboxes, there's more than a few of them out there that are my work in great part. I came here to fix this one too (quickly, as I so fancifully imagined). I do not wish to suggest Israel supports the rebels - there are no source for anything like that. If I thought I was doing that, well, I wouldn't do it anymore. Its just that I'm not. -- Director (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Organization of opposition

Also I still find the "supported by" stuff entirely unnecessary, another subversion of the template's standard layout. Under no circumstances can I myself agree to any "supported by" factions - we already have a link in the infobox to the article that covers non-military foreign support. This template is the Military conflict infobox, and its for military involvement. Once the template's own inclusion criteria become subverted ("factions whose forces took part in the conflict"), the inclusion issue becomes blurry and the whole parameter goes to hell, if you'll excuse me.

• Restored compromise version while we work. In recognition of EkoGraf's opposition I've removed Iraq and Jordan. I still think they should go in, but since there are no sources explicitly stating their involvement (as is the case with Israel and Turkey), I agree there's room for debate. Also unlike Israel, they were not added by consensus (as Israel most certainly was).
• Further, I've rewritten the rebels' entry in accordance with the reliable scholarly paper on the Syrian rebels (which essentially trumps any contradicting news site). Note (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."

The Syrian opposition is the Syrian Liberation Front + Syrian Islamic Front + Al Nusra Front. They coordinate through the "Supreme Military Command" but are separate factions (p.6), much like the British and the Americans coordinated through SHAEF. The term "Free Syrian Army" refers to no specific organization. It is not a combatant authority, its just a vague umbrella term, and thus should not be listed if we can help it.

A further note on the Al-Nusra Front. As it shares a military command structure with the SLF and SIF, it should not be separated with a dividing line. Imo with that move the infobox also starts making a lot more sense, as dividing lines take on real meaning. There has been some conflict between the SLF and Al-Nusra, but while they're still together in the Supreme Military Command, imo we cannot do OR and conclude they are no longer allies by separating them with a horizontal line.

-- Director (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, given its ubiquity in the sources, we should not exclude the term FSA. Boiling the disparate and organic mass that is the opposition into three groups is unprofessionally reductionistic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources also use the term "La Résistance" ubiquitously, but as that's not a combatant authority, it simply doesn't qualify for inclusion in the infobox (rather the many factions that formed the resistance do). I'm not doing any "boiling", and neither is the professional source: those are the three main factions which constitute the vast majority of the rebels forces. Rather what's "unprofessional" is "boiling down" the complex Syrian opposition into one vague unspefic term. -- Director (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

O'Bagy does not state that the opposition is the SLF+SIF+JN and oops that's it nothing more to see. That is your own OR. FSA should be the overarching term used in the infobox to include both those "franchise brigades" and the "localised battalions". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said three times already, the mainstay of the Syrian opposition is organized through the Supreme Military Command. As you can see in the source (and as I said thre times already), that consists of #1 SLF, #2 SIF, #3 Al Nusra, and #4 various independent groups and brigades. The SLF, SIF, and Al-Nusra constitute the vast majority of all fighting forces themselves (36 out of a total of 47 brigades, roughly 77%). According to the sources (p.39), we should list them as follows (without the [numbers] of course):

Syrian Liberation Front [22/47 brigades, 47%]

Syrian Islamic Front [11/47 brigades, 23%]

Al-Nusra Front [5/47 brigades, 11%]

(independent brigades) [9 separate brigades, 19%]

This is not particularly complex, it is accurate, and de-mystifies the Syrian opposition for the reader. Also, it appears that someone here has created a very obvious sock to game 1RR. I'll request an investigation into who's behind "User:Guest2625". -- Director (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And again, those are what she labels as the "franchise brigades". They do not include local-level battalions.

Any attempt to present the Syrian war as "not particularly complex" should be treated as a bald-faced lie. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I said the representation isn't complex, not the war. Obviously what we're doing here is trying to represent a very complex conflict in a relatively non-complex manner. And my proposal is a "bald-faced lie"? Strange. Lothar, please try not to outright insult me if you can. Lumping everyone together as the supposed "Free Syrian Army" is even less complex.. Lothar are you therefore lying to me? :)

Your objection can be easily resolved through the formulation of the last (fourth) entry: "franchise brigades and local groups", for example. It is not a basis to demand a non-entity be listed as a warring faction. -- Director (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Page 38:

"Since the creation of the SMC in December 2012, the majority of Syria's insurgent groups have declared their support for the new command. These groups include the Military Council network, many independent brigades, most of the mainstream Islamist factions, and even some of the more pragmatic Salafi groups. For example, the Syrian Liberation Front's (SLF) leadership has been incorporated into the SMC and many SLF commanders serve as SMC members. This has empowered the SMC, and allowed the command to draw legitimacy from their inclusion."

"The Syrian Islamist Front (SIF) has been incorporated to a lesser degree. Few of its leaders are actively involved with the SMC, and SIF ranks have not been integrated into the new command."

Your percentage calculations are ultimately of little use as they are A) only indicative of the separate "francise brigades", thereby ignoring the entire Military Council network 2) not in any fashion directly related with troop count. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose something like the following order:

• Supreme Military Command
  • Provincial Military Councils
  • Syrian Liberation Front
• Independent brigades and local units
• Syrian Islamic Front
• Al-Nusra Front

SIF and JN are cooperative with the SMC, while the SLF is essentially fully integrated into it. Idris & co. still act nominally as the supreme command of the FSA, and all our info on them is at the FSA article. It's a term of convenience to an extent, but even O'Bagy does not fully abandon it in her article. The SNC should be worked into this as well, though that's another topic entirely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

i don't know why some some editors want to add the israeli raid,even through israel conducted similar raids before the civil war,and israeli role is really marginal and the infobox isn't for marginal stuff,the marginal stuff should be included inside the article Alhanuty (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources, please. That's how this project is written. -- Director (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@Lothar. The "Supreme Military Command" is also not a faction. It is a joint command for several factions, listing it would be like listing the UK, US and others under the SHAEF in the Western Front of World War II infobox. As you can see on p.6, its only function is to coordinate the efforts of actual factions. I wouldn't mention it at all (who knows how long it will last anyway). How about this:

Syrian Liberation Front
Syrian Islamic Front
Al-Nusra Front
local units and independent brigades
Provincial Military Councils

One question, though: wouldn't the Provincial Military Councils fall under the heading of "local units"? as in "local units and independent brigades"? Imo we can do without that entry. -- Director (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, Director, I proposed 3 compromise solutions, which are slowly being accepted by other editors. We see how it goes further, if others will also accept it. It's up to you which course of action you want to take now. A course of compromise or continuing disruptive edit warring. As far as the supported by list goes, again, that was decided to be established in talk by a dozen editors, with even an administrator/arbiter being included at one point, last year so that list stays, whatever your personal opinion. On the point of the arrangement/listing order of the rebel groups goes in the infobox, supreme military command, provincial military council, or whatever, I'm fine with anything. EkoGraf (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what you guys do either the box of the column overall has to be listed as Free Syrian Army or The Supreme Military Command can be listed as The Supreme Military Command of the Free Syrian Army . FSA is overwhelming significant in both the conflicts and sources whether or not it is a trademark, even the SMC strongly identifies itself as FSA heads. Sopher99 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

These infobox templates im seeing in the talk page is beyond ridiculous and unacceptable..the infobox template above makes it seem like those participating in border clashes are either allies or attacking eachother. & why is it that any editor can appear out of nowhere and say no consensus by reverting? can any drive by editor just revert without discussion?? Baboon43 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

@How noble of you to give me the choice EkoGraf. Surprised to hear everyone is "slowly bending to your will", as you seem to put it. But I'm sure I as well will inevitably realize how futile my efforts are, and submit to your "compromise" in time.. Laughing out loud here, did you try to intimidate me just there? :) I must've gotten that wrong.

Back in the real world though, I'd ask you if you can come up with an idea that doesn't subvert the standard layout of the Military conflict infobox? I can meet you half way on the "supported by" collapsible boxes, but they really have to be collapsible or imo its too much (I can live with them if they're collapsed). However, I hope you understand I cannot compromise with the whole reason this debate started, that is to say the introduction of Turkey and Israel in a standard way in their proper position - as explained in the template guidelines, and supported by numerous sources.

@Sopher. #1 there is no reason to introduce the joint command as a warring faction. As you can read in the source (p.6), the Supreme Military Command is merely a coordinating body for the actual opposition factions. #2 Under no circumstances can we invent a name and impose it on an institution that's called something else. I hope you see that? #3 No we cannot list the "Free Syrian Army", since no organization or combatant authority exists by that name. Its a term like "La Résistance" in WWII France, the source itself makes that analogy.

-- Director (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. The Syrian government is clearly just a "coordinating body" for the actual pro-government groups. Give the Syrian Armed Forces, the Popular Committees, and the Shabbiha their own standalone bullets instead of this list nonsense. While we're at it, let's put the Shabbiha up top, followed by the Popular Committees and then the military. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, we should examine the context of O'Bagy's "la Résistance" analogy on page 10. Full quote:

"Many groups refer to themselves as members of the Free Syrian Army, or 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."

One interpretation could suggest that the FSA is nonexistent. Or, perhaps, that it is used metaphorically whenever you see those videos of three to five guys sitting in front of some tristar flag reading some canned "defection" statement, or those videos where a handful of scruffy peasants with a few beat up AKs vow to bring down the regime. Which one is it? Well, let's read further:

"Localized battalions tend to associate themselves predominantly with the FSA and are organized loosely through the provincial Military Councils. These units fight within a limited geographical scope typically in defense of their home village or town, are rarely ideologically driven, and are funded by the international patrons of the Joint Command or other FSA sponsors."

Hm, that's strange. If the FSA is just a metaphorical entity, then how can one "associate" oneself "predominantly" with it? If the FSA is a metaphor for all rebel groups, wouldn't just picking up a gun against the government automatically make oneself "FSA", full stop? What else is there to "associate" oneself with? Strange, strange. Let's continue:

"The franchise brigades, such as the Farouq Battalions or Suqour al-Sham Brigade, are often much larger, conduct operations in multiple provinces across Syria, and operate independently of FSA structures."

Whoa whoa whoa, back up a sec! "FSA structures"? I thought "no organization or combatant authority exists by that name". How can something nonexistent have "structures"? And if just being a rebel makes one part of the supposedly "metaphorical" FSA, how can one "operate independently" of it? Continuing:

"Since the creation of the Free Syria Army (FSA) under the leadership of Riad al-Asaad..."

What's this? "Creation"? "Leadership"? Of a metaphor? How can this be? Well, it's time to put on your thinking caps, kids. Let's take a close reading of the rest of the article:

"[The SMC] has also taken a number of steps to marginalize extremist groups by ensuring that all FSA battalions uphold the Geneva Convention, imposing strict age requirements for new recruits, and cutting off units that break the rules from receiving lethal and nonlethal support." (28)

Structural policing of "all FSA battalions" to force "extremists" to the moral sidelines. But aren't the extremists supposed to be FSA, too?

"Shortly after the formation of the Syrian Liberation Front, Ahmed Issa released a statement announcing that the group aimed to maintain brotherly relations with the FSA but refused to offer full support to FSA leadership that remained in Turkey. That the Syrian Liberation Front saw the external leadership cadres as the most significant problem for the FSA demonstrates why overcoming the external-internal leadership divide is so critical for the SMC." (30)

Wait, so the SLF does not want to subordinate itself directly with the FSA? But isn't it also part of la Résistance [métaphorique]?

"The SMC’s ties to Islamist and Salafist forces inside of Syria do warrant some concern, however. The FSA leadership, as a potential national-level authority, has long been recognized for its nationalistic character and adherence to a secular, pluralistic vision for a future Syria." (30-31)

So the SMC is seemingly thus associated with both Islamists and the FSA? And this "FSA leadership" again? With a distictive ideology?

"Aqidi is associated with the secular and moderate Free Syrian Army forces." (36)

The FSA has a commander on the ground in a conflict hotspot? And this ideological bent again?

"Although the SLF is not incorporated directly into the Free Syrian Army, due to the SLF’s disdain for the fact that the FSA’s leadership is located outside of the country, its leader Sheikh Ahmed Issa has expressed the SLF’s desire to maintain “brotherly relations” with the FSA." (40)

Not only does it outwardly disavow "full support" for it, SLF isn't a part a part of the FSA outright? But doesn't the metaphor then collapse?

Considering the entire article, it seems as though the "FSA does not exist" interpretation is by no means borne out. Clearly, the group does exist—it has organisational structures, notable commanders, and even a common ideological outlook. It's equally clear that the SLF, SIF, and other brigades are distinct from it. Even I must reconsider my analysis after this close reading, as it is also clear that the SMC is not the FSA, and that the FSA is another subordinate group. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so much WP:OR in one post. *facepalm* The source does use the term "Free Syrian Army" in various contexts, but also makes it very clear at the outset what that term means: "'The Free Syrian Army is not a specific organization, but a catch-all brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general." It explicitly calls the "Free Syrian Army" a brand name, not an organization. So its not "non-existent", that's a straw man, it exists - as a brand name, not as an independent combatant authority. For goodness' sake.. -- Director (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, OR in the form of direct quotes from a source that you seem to not have read too intently past page 10. When taken out of context, it can seem like that. But when the source goes on to state that it has "leadership" (identifying specific individuals), "structures", and "adherence" to an ideological "vision", (O'Bagy's words, not mine) your contention that "no organization or combatant authority exists by that name" starts to look a bit silly. And please don't put quotation marks around something that isn't a direct quote. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OR derived from said direct quotes. I read the source, and nothing was taken out of context. One could say all of the ablve for the La Resistance. The "Syrian opposition in general" can certainly be said to have "leadership", "structures", and "adherence" to an ideological "vision". Its just that its WP:SYNTH to conclude its all one organization, and not a "catch-all brand name referring to the opposition in general". Especially when the same source explicitly says its not a few pages back. I swear this whole discussion is getting weird. -- Director (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So what is the relationship between the SMC and the FSA? And how will this affect how that part of the infobox be structured?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most intriguing. Now my English may be lacking somewhat here, but if the source says at the start that the FSA is a "general term for the opposition".. oughtn't we make a leap of faith and assume that its using it as a general term for the opposition? I know its a difficult assumption to make, I mean, it only says so explicitly and outright. Who knows what they mean by "The Free Syrian Army is not a specific organization, but a catch-all brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general". It could be interpreted as indicating the existence of a whole other fantasy military force out there. How many brigades, or heck, army groups would you say it commands? -- Director (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, why don't you ask them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the concept of a "catch-all brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general" is far more difficult to understand than I originally thought. Should I start "La Resistance.com" to illustrate? -- Director (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is just OR muddying the water: amazingly enough, the published scholarly source does not contradict itself in any way. Moving on. Based on what the paper states, we could comprehensively represent all factions in the Syrian opposition in this manner:

Syrian Liberation Front
Syrian Islamic Front
Al-Nusra Front
Local units and independent brigades

without resorting to "catch-all brand names" not representing any combatant authority ("Local units" of course referring including the Provincial Military Councils). Whatever the opinion on the "FSA" issue might be, there is no question that the source includes Al Nusra into the term "Free Syrian Army" - and we're listing both. Note: not only does the Al Nusra indubitably fall under the heading of "Syrian armed opposition in general" (as in "the Free Syrian Army is a brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general") - but its also the third largest participant in the joint Supreme Military Command with the SLF and the SIF. Note also please, that factions fighting on the same side, with the same joint command(!), cannot be justifiably separated with a divider line, regardless of what incidents may have occurred. -- Director (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever else we may do, we can under no circumstances write a "Free Syrian Army" entry, and then separately list Al Nusra, or particularly(!) the Syrian Islamic Front. By definition, all Syrian armed opposition forces can be referred to as part of the "Free Syrian Army". The idea that the term "FSA" refers to this single imaginary military organization is a misconception (probably engendered by the media unavoidably simplifying things for the public). "FSA" is just an umbrella term for all Syrian opposition factions in general. These are primarily the SLF, the SIF, Al Nusra, and a number of independent brigades and local militias. Further, the SLF and the SIF are organized together with Al Nusra under a single joint command. Such are the ways of close allies. With such a state of affairs in place, imo a separating line cannot be justified. -- Director (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No Direktor. Did you even the long argument that Lothar wrote above? You are completely misinterpreting the source. One source for that matter. Out of Thousands. Sopher99 (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No Sopher. I am not misinterpreting anything and that's plainly obvious, rather Lothar is drawing OR non-sequiturs from the text. The "Syrian opposition in general" can certainly be said to have "leadership", "structures", and "adherence" to an ideological "vision". Simply because the source - the same source that just said "the FSA is a brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general" - refers to the FSA as having those things, in no way indicates that the FSA is some kind of singular military organization, fighting alongside the Syrian Liberation Front or the Syrian Islamic Front etc.

Of the 47 brigades currently under the command of the Supreme Military Command the opposition factions set up, 22 are SLF, 11 are SIF, and 5 are Al Nusra. Those 47 brigades are the core of the rebel armed forces. There is no additional separate "Free Syrian Army" out there with 35 brigades of its own or something like that. SLF, SIF, Al Nusra and the militias - that's what you call the "FSA". D'you catch my drift? -- Director (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@"1 source comparing the organization to la resistence does not override the thousands that don't." [23] I want to respond to that in full, as its wrong on several levels. Firstly, a scholarly paper is a far better source than any news link can possibly be, and trumps them all. But that's not important - as there is no conflict in the sources as you imply. I'll again use the source's own analogy to explain: countless sources out there covering WWII refer to the French resistance as, well, "the French Resistance" or "La Résistance". Some sources cover the war in France in more detail, and list the individual factions making up the Résistance. These sources do not conflict, and neither is necessarily wrong. It is perfectly accurate to refer to the collective Syrian armed opposition as the "Free Syrian Army", but it is also accurate to list the individual factions thereof. In an mc infobox, though, we list what are called "combatant authorities" - essentially the individual factions.

What is most definitely not factual, is to list the Résistance in an infobox, source that with a reference using that term, and then to list the CDLL e.g., and source that with a reference that goes into more depth by describing the individual factions of the "Résistance". Its just plain wrong. -- Director (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The Free Syrian Army is ab actual group we have thousands of sources of back that up. You can't pass Lothar's statements as OR if they are current sources that talk directly with the FSA's structures. AL nusra is not part of the SMC [24] by the way. Salim Isriss is the chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army. It is a fully structured organization. I should also mention al Tahwid is not part of the FSA Sopher99 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Another uncompromising "No" in defense of self-contradicting nonsense. I forgot you don't like to read posts. Let me repeat: the sources do not conflict. Simply because some sources use a general term and others go into more depth does not mean they conflict and can be used to somehow refute each-other. Understand? And neither did Lothar really show anything. Listing the FSA alongside the SLF and the SIF is absolute hogwash. Its like listing Allies and then the US, Soviet Union, and Britain right alongside them. Its like listing the "French Resistance" and then the CDLL and the Front national as fighting alongside the French Resistance.

If you're here to lobby for the inclusion of the "Free Syrian Army" brand at all costs, I suggest you invent some more coherent argument. -- Director (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pro Al Qaeda terrorists article, labeling them as freedom fighters

If you're looking for non biased information, look the other way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.117.168 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree on the latter.. -- Director (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming of the Assad government in the infobox

Now that numerous states have recognised the Syrian National Coalition as the legitimate government of Syria and also because the opposition controls large swathes of territory there needs to be a way to distinguish the two claimants to the Syrian government. The utilisation of term "Syrian government" by one of the sides in the infobox is ambiguous and non neutral. The term could be replaced with "Baathist Syria", "Syrian Baathists", "Assad government", "Syrian Baathist government", or "Syrian Assad government". Whatever the new term it cannot be the "Syrian government" for either side since that term is obviously non neutral and ambiguous. Guest2625 (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Despite the possible aims and wishes of the US State Department, the Syrian National Coalition/armed gangs are not the legitimate government of Syria. 92.16.153.226 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we revert it back to Syrian Arab Republic.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Syrian government" is perfectly neutral and accurate. What would be biased is to grant the Syrian National Coalition undue status. Not only are they not really a "government", but they also have no authority over the factions controlling the aforementioned rebel territory in Syria. Its all still very much a mess in that department.

When the UN recognizes the legitimacy of a new government we will have cause to consider it legal, as the UN is custodian of international law. As things stand now, with the war very much in full swing, this is a pretty standard "government vs rebels" civil war, with the Assad government the only legal government of Syria. Never mind recognition - legitimacy isn't derived from it; and even if it were, 21/193 (10%) is a pretty weak "score" (the other 172 UN members, one must remember, recognize Assad). -- Director (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• The countries that have "recognised" the SNC are deeply involved in the conflcit, so we should not parrot their POV. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all, but many certainly are. Its a fair point. -- Director (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hamas training insurgents in Syria

A new addition to the infobox? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3731407.ece FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no direct military involvement by the Hamas. -- Director (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see we've removed the "supported by" parameter, haven't been following the article apart form the talk page much. Anyhow, it's probably a matter of time before they do join militarily. Muslim Brotherhood will be Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile in Palestine...[25] FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This would be good to add in the Foreign involvement section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This article should be titled The Syrian Revolution 2011

This article should betitled The Syrian Revolution 2011, this is what Syrians call it. Soruce:http://www.facebook.com/Syrian.Revolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonsTW (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what the Syrian rebels call it. We should go by the sources, not by what the Syrians say. -- Director (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lol. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• While my inner grammar cop cringes every time I see this lowercased title in my watchlist, the proposed title is even worse. So... no. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I will never stop reverting it, if you change it to the Syrian Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.82.223 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

We use the universal name for the conflict. Revolution is the name given to it by the rebels, only one side. Civil war is used by most reliable sources, so we go with that. EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME sources around the world are calling this a Civil War and not a Revolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct name is : Syrian Civil War Jumada (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming of the opposition fighters

When wikipidia names the opposition fighters it should use the naming convention used by the media and other reliable sources. Based on a google news search "Syrian Liberation Front" comes back with 4 results, "Syrian Islamic Front" comes back with 7 results, and "Free Syrian Army" with 11,700 results.

It should be assumed that journalists and photographers on the ground in Syria know how the opposition fighters are calling themselves and apparently based on the number of stories in the media and photographs of the opposition fighters this appears to be the Free Syrian Army or FSA. Also, it should be noted that the O'Bagley report is called the "The Free Syrian Army" and that the intro picture is of a border crossing into "Free Syria". Guest2625 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Also interestingly this "nonexistent" organization the Free Syrian Army had its Chief Of Staff, Selim Idriss, speaking to the EU parliament. I think the EU parliament interacting with the FSA is a pretty good indicator that the organization exists.[26] Guest2625 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Always with the repetition... Ok. First of all, the "Free Syrian Army" isn't "non existent", that's an inflammatory straw man argument - nobody is making that claim. The issue here is that the term "Free Syrian Army" is a (quote) "catch-all brand name referring to the Syrian armed opposition in general". Not a single armed faction, but an umbrella term for several armed factions.

Thus the references are not in conflict, and it is perfectly fine to generally refer to the fighters of the Syrian armed opposition as members of the "Free Syrian Army". Some sources simply refer to the resistance more generally, whereas other go into more depth. Many use both terms, just as a WWII source might use the term "Allies" quite a bit when discussing in general, but still refer to "the British" or "the Americans" as well. In other words, the sources don't contradict, and neither does the published scholarly paper contradict itself just a few pages apart (imagine that!).

The analogy presented by the source itself is the term "French Resistance", and how it refers to an entire group of various factions. The vast majority of sources call these folks "The French Resistance", whereas they actually consisted of a half-dozen mutually-not-particularly-friendly factions. In a military conflict infobox, we don;t use umbrella terms if we can help it - we list what are referred to as "independent combatant authorities". Factions, in a word.

But to list the "Free Syrian Army" alongside the Syrian Islamic Front and the Al-Nusra - is probably the most ridiculous thing in the entire article (and that's saying something). Its like claiming "Nazi Germany was defeated by Great Britain, the United States, and the Allies of WWII". Or like saying "I gave you a basket of fruit and some fruit". Its a childish, grade-school-type error, I'd go so far as to say.

The main opposition forces are commanded by their joint Supreme Military Command, a coordinating body for the factions involved. Units included in the SMC hierarchy are composed of 47 brigades, of those, 22 are SLF, 11 are SIF, and 5 are Al Nusra (+9 independent brigades). There is no additional "Free Syrian Army" faction out there to be listed alongside these - "Free Syrian Army" is a name they all can (and mostly do) claim. Particularly the SLF and the SIF (Syrian Islamic Front), which is the second largest faction.

I hope I've been clearer this time around. -- Director (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to carefully re-read O'Bagy's piece, bud. She makes it quite clear that the SMC is trying to marginalise JN's influence by courting less-psychotic radicals:

Page 7: "To this end, the SMC has recognized the importance of the inclusion of some of the more radical forces, while still drawing a red line at the inclusion of forces that seek the destruction of a Syrian state, such as jihadist groups like Jabhat Nusra."

In fact, she makes it quite clear that only the SLF has integrated fully into the SMC:

Page 30: "This has allowed for a low-level of incorporation of the SIF into the SMC, and it paves the way for cooperation between the two structures with the SMC goal of eventually incorporating SIF leadership wholly within its framework."

Page 38: "For example, the Syrian Liberation Front’s (SLF) leadership has been incorporated into the SMC and many SLF commanders serve as SMC members. This has empowered the SMC, and allowed the command to draw legitimacy from their inclusion."

Page 38: "The Syrian Islamist Front (SIF) has been incorporated to a lesser degree. Few of its leaders are actively involved with the SMC, and SIF ranks have not been integrated into the new command."

You seem to have misinterpreted the figure of opposition groups sensu lato on page 39 as being a list of all the groups in the SMC. But it's important to actually read a text and not just look at the nice, colourful pictures (speaking of "childish, grade-school-type" errors....).

""Free Syrian Army" is a name they all can (and mostly do) claim."—um, no. Again, please read the damn article.

Page 30: "Shortly after the formation of the Syrian Liberation Front, Ahmed Issa released a statement announcing that the group aimed to maintain brotherly relations with the FSA but refused to offer full support to FSA leadership that remained in Turkey."

I'm not quite sure how you can twist that into "SLF claims to be FSA". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That said, the "Free Syrian Army" do not seem overly concerned that Al-Nusra are fighting alongside them - little wonder there might be confusion about them, what they are to be called, or what they stand for? 89.243.163.222 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh.. how does any of that impact what I'm saying?? I'm sorry Lothar, but to say that any of that contradicts the same source in that the "FSA" is an umbrella term, is just OR. Such publications do not contradict themselves, though they often do not explicitly clarify their terminology. Have a read through of this article that covers the issue specifically and in more detail (by published author Aron Lund and endorsed by prof. Joshua Landis, Director of Middle Eastern Studies University of Oklahoma).

"The heyday of the FSA was in early/mid 2012, when new factions were being declared at a rate of several per week. But by mid-2012, the brand seemed to have run its course, as people soured on Col. Asaad and his exiles. The FSA term slowly began to slip out of use. By the end of the year, most of the big armed groups in Syria had stopped using it altogether, and one by one, they dropped or redesigned the old FSA symbols from their websites, logotypes, shoulder patches and letterheads. Their symbolic connection to the FSA leaders in Turkey was broken – and since no connection at all had existed outside the world of symbols, that was the end of that story."

"Today, the FSA brand name remains in use within the Syrian opposition, but mostly as a term for the armed uprising in general. It’s quite similar to how a French person would have employed the term 'La Résistance' during WW2 – not in reference to a specific organization fighting against Hitler, but as an umbrella term for them all. With time, many people inside and outside Syria have started to use the FSA term to distinguish mainstream non-ideological or soft-Islamist groups from salafi factions. The salafis themselves used to be divided on the issue, but they aren’t anymore. The more ideological ones (like Jabhat el-nosra and Ahrar el-Sham) never used it, but at the start of the uprising, others did (like Liwa el-Islam and Suqour el-Sham).

One can’t disregard the fact that many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as 'a brigade of the FSA'. But that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy: it’s still just a label, typically intended to market these groups as part of the opposition mainstream.

With time, then, the generally understood definition of the FSA term has gradually narrowed from its original scope, which encompassed almost the entire insurgency. Today, it is understood to apply mostly to army defectors (ex-Baathists), non-ideological fighters, and more moderate Islamists. But the dividing line is not really a question of ideology or organization, it is political. The FSA label is increasingly being used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support and are open to collaboration with the USA and other Western nations.

That still doesn't describe an actual organization, but at least it’s closer to a working definition of what the 'FSA' would mean in a Syrian opposition context – a definition that can’t really decide what it includes, but which clearly excludes most of the anti-Western salafis, all of the hardcore salafi-jihadis, and, for example, the Kurdish YPG militia."

So yes, Al Nusra doesn't come under the heading of "FSA", and may or may not be incorporated into the SMC structure (not going to go into that as its not the point). The key here is the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army". Clearly the meaning is twofold:

• On the one hand, in the context of "FSA leadership" (or as in "Ahmed Issa released a statement announcing that the group aimed to maintain brotherly relations with the FSA") it refers to Colonel Riad al-Asaad's "exiles" in Turkey.
• Generally though, as its used in the media, "FSA" is an umbrella term referring to non-Islamic-extremist sections of the Syrian armed opposition (those open to cooperation with the US).

What its definitely not, in either case, is an armed faction and organization of its own. Lets not cherry-pick various excerpts from the source, or from my statements above, to make it appear as though the point has been "debunked". The main point here is that the FSA is not an organization, that its a brand name - that the actual factions fighting in this conflict are the SLF, SIF, and the Al Nusra (alongside the locals/independents). -- Director (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My post this time around was not intended to argue for (or against) the "FSA", but rather to combat false and half-true claims that you continue to make, embodied in this recent paragraph:

"The main opposition forces are commanded by their joint Supreme Military Command, a coordinating body for the factions involved. Units included in the SMC hierarchy are composed of 47 brigades, of those, 22 are SLF, 11 are SIF, and 5 are Al Nusra (+9 independent brigades). There is no additional "Free Syrian Army" faction out there to be listed alongside these - "Free Syrian Army" is a name they all can (and mostly do) claim. Particularly the SLF and the SIF (Syrian Islamic Front), which is the second largest faction."

Falsehood #1: The list of brigades specifically states that it is of "opposition groups", not specifically of SMC-aligned groups like you seem to be claiming.

Falsehood #2: The listed brigades ("#1 SLF, #2 SIF, #3 Al Nusra, and #4 various independent groups and brigades") are not the sole constituents of the SMC, as you repeatedly have stated. O'Bagy notes numerous times the existence of Provincial Military Councils, which provide the "maturing provincial-level insurgent structure through which the SMC is now looking to implement a national level chain of command" (19). And this before she even devotes a paragraph to the SLF or SIF.

Falsehood #3: Jabhat al-Nusra is decidedly not part of the SMC structure, despite your repeated allegations that the report supposedly says it is.

Half-truth #1: The SIF is a peripheral component at best of the SMC, so describing it as if it is an integral part is misleading at best

Half-truth #2: "FSA" is not as universal a brandname as you have made it out to be, with even the most-integrated Islamist component of the SMC distancing itself from it.

You seem to be backpedalling from a few of these now already, but I'll just lay them down here for future reference.

As far as Lund's piece goes, it is helpful to consider this followup piece as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the issue was article content. Shall we be about now listing each-other's "Falsehoods" by number? Lets try to make it as high as possible with the count.. One of the more absurd posts I read lately. I have been in error on the following points:

• The SMC structure does not include the Al Nusra, and the SIF is a peripheral component (so I was wrong on the AN, and semi-wrong on the SIF). This was due to my having misunderstood the subject of the table - which instead vividly illustrates the composition of the opposition in general. Does anyone see FSA brigades there? Incidentally, it was Futuretrillionaire that misled me on that [27].
• The term "FSA" used to refer to the entire opposition, but as its a vague indeterminable thing, in recent months the term has narrowed down to essentially exclude extremists. So yes, it doesn't refer to extremists as well, as I said, but its an understandable error (even if I do say so myself). And certainly its not a very important one as regards infobox content - as such vague terms do not belong in there anyway.

So that's it. So your first four numbered "Falsehoods" and "Half-Truths" are essentially the first point, and the last "Half-Truth" is the second point. It all boils down to arguably retaining a separation line between Al Nusra and the rest (even though one wonders whether SIF and Al Nusra should be so separated, and I still think its redundant - its a whole other topic). I wonder in how many points d'you think should I drag out your continuously claiming that the FSA is in fact, a military organization warranting an infobox entry? As opposed to a vague, ever-changing brand name?

If we're done with the pissing contest, I suggest we return to the subject of infobox representation. Clearly, as I have already acknowledged, the PMCs should be mentioned in some way as well (as opposed to the Falsehood above which states I don't). My view is that they can be incorporated under the heading of "local groups".

My main point throughout here, "Falsehoods" notwithstanding, was that the FSA isn't an organization/combatant authority - it isn't a faction in and of itself and cannot be listed. That, I think, is clear by now. As I said in my preceding post - the source makes no opposing claim, and "interpretations" to that effect are original research. Blatantly wrong original research. "Falsehoods", if you prefer. -- Director (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that there is agreement that the Free Syrian Army is led by the Supreme Military Council that's at least what numerous reliable sources state; see the article above about the Chief of Staff of the FSA meeting with the EU [28]. The FSA also clearly exists in Syria, since there are numerous journalists who have met with the FSA and have been taken into the country by them. Then there is the recent case of the American citizen Eric Harroun who was arrested for fighting with al-Nosra Front and "according to the court records, Mr Harroun said he initially was fighting with the Free Syrian Army but jumped on an al-Nusra truck after a joint attack on a Syrian army camp".[29]. The organization has leadership and soldiers that numerous journalists and photographers who have gone to Syria have met. Just because analysts are trying to understand its internal command and structure does not mean that an editor on Wikipedia can make the organization vaporise into thin air. Should the images of FSA fighters in Syria on Wikipedia be removed because they don't exist? Guest2625 (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"The Free Syrian Army (FSA), nominally headquartered in Turkey, thus functions more as an umbrella organization than a traditional military chain of command." - does the statement 'the FSA isn't an organization' fit with that . Sayerslle (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is what labels should be used for the combatants in the infobox. What exactly are the Shabiha that group/organisation appears pretty amorphous? And what exactly is the group/organisation Jaysh al-Sha'bi? Do these organisations have understood command and leadership that has been figured out by Syrian analysts? Did the Free French Forces exist? Did they fight in the Invasion of Normandy that appears to be at least what the infobox says? Then of course there is the question what exactly is the Syrian Liberation Front and if they are more of an organisation than the Free Syrian Army. Wikipedia follows the news and what reliable sources say, as far as my search of the news there is little to no mention of the Syrian Liberation Front or Syrian Islamic Front. The journalists and photographers in Syria don't appear to be coming across opposition forces which identify with these labels. Guest2625 (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A note to user:direktor by reverting my edit without building consensus on the talk page you are in the process of WP:Edit warring. When the 24 hour period is up for me your change will be reverted at that point please use the talk page to work collaboratively and build consensus. I look forward to working with you and everyone else to make a fabulous article. Guest2625 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're announcing you intend to edit-war while condemning it? Fascinating stuff. I also would like to continue working with you while edit-warring and gaming 1RR however and whenever I'm able. Wow.

What I removed is blatant nonsense - its obvious that such a state of affairs is childishly absurd and cannot stand, its not something to edit-war over. It is like having the Allies of WWII listed alongside Britain and the US in the WWII infobox. I believe that when you have a read-thru of the presented sources as to the meaning of the term you're restoring, you may come to the same conclusion. -- Director (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@Guest. No, you must distinguish between the "exiles" of Colonel Riad al-Asaad in Turkey - and the SMC. Colonel al-Asaad is the head of a group of defecting officers that like to call themselves the "command" of the "Free Syrian Army". They never exerted real control over the opposition military factions, and as of the last months, even the idea of them being nominally in "command" has been rejected by the factions. These have instead formed a "Supreme Military Command" to coordinate their efforts. This structure is indeed a real institution, but as of yet it is by no means a sign that these factions have united, as the only purpose (as yet) is merely coordination between the factions. I'll say it again, "Free Syrian Army" can refer to two things:

• On the one hand, in the context of "FSA leadership" (or as in "Ahmed Issa released a statement announcing that the group aimed to maintain brotherly relations with the FSA") it refers to Colonel Riad al-Asaad's "exiles" in Turkey.
• Generally though, as its used in the media, "Free Syrian Army" is an umbrella term referring to non-Islamic-extremist sections of the Syrian armed opposition (those open to cooperation with the US). This would be the general meaning of the term in widespread use.

In neither sense does the term refer to a military faction fighting in this conflict. So no - kindly read the sources and excerpts. As an actual singular military faction, the Free Syrian Army doesn't exist. The media is merely simplifying the extremely complex situation on the ground for the public, quote: "The 'FSA' label is used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support and are open to collaboration with the USA and other Western nations." Please oh please, folks - read the sources.

@Sayerslle. Here is an explanation:

"..By mid-2012, the FSA brand seemed to have run its course, as people soured on Col. Asaad and his exiles. By the end of the year, most of the big armed groups in Syria had stopped using it altogether, and one by one, they dropped or redesigned the old FSA symbols from their websites, logotypes, shoulder patches and letterheads. Their symbolic connection to the FSA leaders in Turkey was broken – and since no connection at all had existed outside the world of symbols, that was the end of that story."

Your quote refers to the supposed "FSA leadership" in Turkey, but as the sources explicitly state more than once, there is no question that these folks no longer have even nominal authority or control over the actual opposition factions in Syria. While factions such as the SLF are not particularly hostile to the "FSA leadership", as of the past months, they no longer defer to them even in principle ("Shortly after the formation of the Syrian Liberation Front, Ahmed Issa released a statement announcing that the group aimed to maintain brotherly relations with the FSA but refused to offer full support to FSA leadership that remained in Turkey.") -- Director (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Direktor thanks for choosing to use the talk page to come to consensus on this topic. There are many editors that are interested in collaborating on this article. It's great to see that you wish to work with everyone and not impose your changes on all the other editors. The way I read reliable sources there does appear to be the FSA organisation and it does have a leadership and fighters. The SMC is the leadership structure of the FSA according to numerous reliable sources. The US based on Secretary John Kerry appears to have chosen to work with the FSA's command structure and fighters which is made up of Chief of Staff Salim Idris, Deputy Chief of Staff Mustafa Abdel Karim who leads operations in northern Idlib, Colonel Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi who leads the armed opposition in Aleppo, Lieutenant Ibrahim Ali who leads units in Maarat al-Numan, Idlib province, and an assortment of other field commanders. How is the US able to work with an organisation that doesn't exist or that isn't really an organisation? Guest2625 (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha, you talk funny :)

Anyway, unless you find sources that explicitly contradict those listed above (and there are likely none), then I'm afraid there's little to seriously discuss - least of all any WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. As the sources explain, the FSA is a term that refers to the armed opposition in general, particularly those elements well-disposed towards cooperation with the US - that is how its used in the media. That doesn't mean its wrong or contradictory to say "Secretary John Kerry appears to have chosen to work with the FSA" etc. Sure. Why not. It just means we cannot list it in the infobox as the term does not designate any one faction - but several.

If you do read the source dedicated entirely to explaining what the term "Free Syrian Army" means nowadays, you may understand what exactly I mean. In an effort to save my self more repetition, I'll copy-paste the excerpts again:

"The heyday of the FSA was in early/mid 2012, when new factions were being declared at a rate of several per week. But by mid-2012, the brand seemed to have run its course, as people soured on Col. Asaad and his exiles. The FSA term slowly began to slip out of use. By the end of the year, most of the big armed groups in Syria had stopped using it altogether, and one by one, they dropped or redesigned the old FSA symbols from their websites, logotypes, shoulder patches and letterheads. Their symbolic connection to the FSA leaders in Turkey was broken – and since no connection at all had existed outside the world of symbols, that was the end of that story."

"Today, the FSA brand name remains in use within the Syrian opposition, but mostly as a term for the armed uprising in general. It’s quite similar to how a French person would have employed the term 'La Résistance' during WW2 – not in reference to a specific organization fighting against Hitler, but as an umbrella term for them all. With time, many people inside and outside Syria have started to use the FSA term to distinguish mainstream non-ideological or soft-Islamist groups from salafi factions. The salafis themselves used to be divided on the issue, but they aren’t anymore. The more ideological ones (like Jabhat el-nosra and Ahrar el-Sham) never used it, but at the start of the uprising, others did (like Liwa el-Islam and Suqour el-Sham).

One can’t disregard the fact that many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as 'a brigade of the FSA'. But that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy: it’s still just a label, typically intended to market these groups as part of the opposition mainstream.

With time, then, the generally understood definition of the FSA term has gradually narrowed from its original scope, which encompassed almost the entire insurgency. Today, it is understood to apply mostly to army defectors (ex-Baathists), non-ideological fighters, and more moderate Islamists. But the dividing line is not really a question of ideology or organization, it is political. The FSA label is increasingly being used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support and are open to collaboration with the USA and other Western nations.

That still doesn't describe an actual organization, but at least it’s closer to a working definition of what the 'FSA' would mean in a Syrian opposition context – a definition that can’t really decide what it includes, but which clearly excludes most of the anti-Western salafis, all of the hardcore salafi-jihadis, and, for example, the Kurdish YPG militia."

There you have it. If you disagree with the above, please provide sources that explicitly contradict it. I cannot stress that enough: don't give me media refs that simply use the term "FSA" and refer to its "leadership" or whatever - as the source takes the time to point out, they use the term to refer to the non-extremist opposition in general (or Col. al-Asaad's crew). Those are sources you interpret as supportive to your position, when we have a source that says your interpretation is wrong. Of course, it is highly unlikely this in depth analysis is so wrong as to neglect the existence of fantasy Free Syrian Army brigades out there fighting alongside the SLF and the SIF (which is what our deeply-flaawed infobox states).

I would not be surprised, however, if an amendment even this obvious is stonewalled in endless discussion on this broken talkpage. -- Director (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if the FSA isn't a "proper organization", even if it's only a catch-all name for non-Islamist rebels, that's no excuse to remove it from the infobox. If you're convinced that it's only a catch-all name for some rebel groups, then why not copy what's done on the Government side of the infobox – put "Free Syrian Army" in bold at the top and put those rebel groups underneath it as sub-groups? ~Asarlaí 17:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually - yes it is. Do you see the Allies of WWII listed in the WWII infobox as a combatant? As I said several times, only actual factions ("independent combatant authorities" in military lingo) are candidates for inclusion as combatants. Umbrella terms are almost always avoided if possible.

There are many problems and objections that can be raised against such a layout. First of all, as Lothar correctly asserted, "FSA" isn't an umbrella term for the entire resistance. "Allies of World War II" would at least be a relatively well-defined category, whereas "FSA" is a vague media term that may or may not include a number of factions (like the SIF e.g.). Who do we list? There are no objective means of determining who exactly is meant by that term. Which brings me back to my above point - that vague media terms are simply not included in military conflict infoboxes. Now, if "FSA" referred to some official alliance of some sort, it might be listed in some way at the top of the column (as "Allies:" e.g. [30]) - but the problem is its nothing; nothing concrete anyway. Its not an over-arching command structure, its not an alliance. It is precisely like the term "La Resistance", an analogy used by two scholarly sources thus far.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of what such a listing with sub-groups actually means in a military conflict infobox. You have it right on the left side, as you say. It would indicate there is some organization called the "Free Syrian Army" that controls these factions as sub-factions. This is true with the Syrian government, which obviously controls the army. It is simply not the case with the rebels: these factions defer to noone, least of all an imaginary organization we would thus be inventing. And as a cherry on top, keep in mind that these factions are not always on particularly friendly terms: there have been incidents of infighting among the rebels.

P.s. One might get the impression that the term needs to be included because its in widespread use in media sources. To that I say: the same is very much the case with terms like "Allies", or "La Resistance" - that doesn't mean we include vague terms like that as supposed combatants in an mc infobox. In short, common usage has no impact here, this isn't an article naming issue or something. -- Director (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it has been admitted here that they are a loose grouping, far from being a (Free Syrian) "Army", what about calling them "Opposition Fighters and Armed Gangs"? 78.147.88.236 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I think listing them as what they're actually called will be quite sufficient. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's call the opposition forces what they are called and what they call themselves. And, let's use reliable sources which won't be hard for the FSA since there are over 19,300 stories about them on google news [31].

So, let's begin with today's quote from the Washington Post a reliable source [32].

"Jordanian security officials said a previous timetable to complete training of about 3,000 Free Syrian Army officers by the end of June has been moved up to the end of this month in light of the border victories."

Those FSA soldiers sound kind of like the Free French Forces getting ready for the Invasion of Normandy or their Free French compatriots fighting during the North Africa Campaign. Tomorrow I'll have another great quote from a reliable source making it quite clear that the FSA is very much real. Guest2625 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah.. I see we're going to be going in circles like this. Lets try again to break the circle: sure, WP is a reliable source, and its not wrong in its usage of the term "FSA" - its just that it uses the term as a brand name to refer to non-extremist opposition factions in general. The source quoted previously explains in great detail what the term "FSA" means in media sources: "the FSA label is increasingly being used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support and are open to collaboration with the USA and other Western nations".

So as I very much stressed before: please oh please, give me no more media sources that simply use the term "Free Syrian Army" and refer to its "leadership" or "officers" or whatever. Those are refs you interpret as supportive to your position, when we have a source that explicitly states your interpretation is wrong (even if we could allow interpretation in the first place). They do not, in fact, support you in your claim - they simply use the term like the source says they do.

So I will repeat myself again, ever so politely: please stop misquoting publications as supportive to your POV. I'll put it in a sentence for you: simply because a source uses the term "FSA" in no way indicates that the term refers to a fantasy singular military organization. That is an interpretative, OR conclusion - one we know from other sources is dead wrong.

Now why don't you inevitably post an article by The New York Times or something talking about how the "Free Syrian Army have engaged in talks with Kerry" or whatever else you find.. then I'll explain how you're drawing OR conclusions from the ref, that the ref doesn't state the FSA is a singular military organization, that the media use the term "as shorthand for those factions which receive Western support", etc. etc... -- Director (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• No there will not be a vicious circle because we are going to have a constructive conversation with all the editors who are participating on this article. The way to have a constructive conversation is to have a dialogue which means responding to the different points that different editors bring up. I'm looking forward to your responses to my different bullet responses. Guest2625 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see them all now. Ok, I'd like to request that you please not mess around with my posts by inserting your comments inside them. That just doesn't work in the long run and confuses the disussion. I've extracted them below in order of posting. -- Director (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Past editors of Wikipedia military articles appear to disagree with you. The Republicanos a loose term is listed as the overarching term for the opposition combatants in the Spanish Civil War infobox. 01:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Examples of Wikipedia military articles that use overarching terms for opposing combatants and belligerents is actual quite long. Take a look at the Spanish American wars of independence article. There the editors decided to use the overarching term Patriots and the term Royalists. Then there is the article on the Peninsular War which has as a belligerent "Spanish partisans". I can go through many other Wikipidia war articles and find such examples, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. When looking at war articles to compare with the Syrian civil war try to avoid comparing with nation state wars and rather focus on civil wars and wars of independence to get a feel of how other Wikipedia editors in the past have dealt with labeling belligerents and combatants. Guest2625 (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Does this mean that the Assad government controls the Shabiha? And what exactly is this vague organisation called the Shabiha? Are they imaginary? Guest2625 (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• You are mistaken Wikipedia has used the term "La Resistance" in a military infobox see the article the Battle for Paris. Guest2625 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, so in response to this statement of me misquoting a reliable source. I copied and pasted word for word what the Washington Post stated it stated again:

"Jordanian security officials said a previous timetable to complete training of about3,000 Free Syrian Army officers by the end of June has been moved up to the end of this month in light of the border victories."

Who are these 3,000 Free Syrian Army officers? How should we call them? Does officers not mean military formation? Does the reliable source say anything about them being members of the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (an aside: yes that is their official name) or that they are members of the Syrian Islamic Front. And what actually for that matter are the SILF and SIF? Do they have a command structure or are they just a label? I've been trying to find information on the SILF and SIF the terms appear kind of dated and there are very few reliable sources discussing them. Do a google news search and you'll see what I mean. Why aren't the journalists or photographers coming across these SILF or SIF fighters that you are wanting to put in the infobox. Shouldn't we call combatants the name that they use for themselves? But maybe it is better to go with Syrian media which likes to call them 'armed terrorists'? Or perhaps with user:direktor's favorite SILF and SIF?

• There is a group of fighters in Syria which call themselves the Free Sryian Army. And yes this I will be able to prove with an endless number of videos, photographs, statements by government officials, interviews with FSA combatants, and reports by journalists who have gone into Syria and interacted with these nonexistent combatants. Do you realize that the US and the EU have intelligence agencies which let the US Secretary of State and the EU parliament know what is going on in Syria. The EU Parliament is not going to speak with the Chief of Staff of the FSA if the organisation that he is part of does not exist.

• How as a general reader of the news am I going to be able to understand the news from Syria if on the main article about the Syrian civil war there is no mention of the main combatant that is always being discussed in the news? User:direktor it appears that you are trying to have Wikipedia lead the news rather than just report what the overwhelming number of reliable sources are saying.Guest2625 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will now respond to each in turn:

• The Spanish Civil War example is not analogous. The "Republican" entry in that infobox is there primarily as representative of the Second Spanish Republic and the Spanish Republican Army. Let me point out as a side note that the Republicans were not the "opposition" in the Spanish Civil War, but rather the government.

In fact, none of the examples you list are applicable to the situation here:

• The Spanish American wars of independence article in fact lists combatant authorities without exception ("Free Syrian Army" is obviously not analogous to "Royalists" and cannot be applied in that manner; the nearest equivalent here would be "Rebels:" or "Opposition:"). Also that's an article about a group of wars not a single war, so a more general view can arguably be justified.
• "Spanish partisans" were various disparate bands and columns, and there is simply no way to list them otherwise (are we going to go back to Roman times next?).
• The listing of "La Resistance" in the Battle of Paris is another example where the groups were so chaotic such a term could not have been avoided (though still I think if some research were done that infobox can be improved by the addition of the actual resistance factions that were involved - I may look into that and fix the problem).

Remember, I did not say umbrella terms aren't used. I said they are avoided whenever possible - simply because going into more detail is generally beneficial to the depiction of the conflict (and here we have maybe four factions so over-complexity is certainly no concern). Ours is not only an "umbrella term", though - its a vague umbrella term as well: nobody can say who exactly is included in such a generalization.

• Shabiha? Well, if the Syrian government doesn't control them they obviously shouldn't be listed the way they are.
• The officers thing. As the sources covering the subject explain, "Free Syrian Army" in that context is (quote) "a shorthand for those factions which receive Western support". So they're officers that belong to (or are about to join) one of the "factions which receive Western support". Presumably its the SLF, the biggest and most western-oriented faction. The ref, like many media links, keeps it simple and doesn't say. Media sources are not high-quality sources, Guest.
• @"There is a group of fighters in Syria which call themselves the Free Sryian Army...". In regard to this I'll just quote the source again:

"One can't disregard the fact that many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as 'a brigade of the FSA'. But that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy: it’s still just a label, typically intended to market these groups as part of the opposition mainstream."

• Now the final point is a good point, the only good one imo. I recognize it would be a good idea to help the reader out on this, clarify the misconception. Perhaps we can add a note next to the SLF and maybe the SIF stating they are "part of what is generally referred to in the media as the 'Free Syrian Army'". Or something along those lines. But still the sheer vagueness of the term presents a problem as to whom we can add the note to. Its a topic for discussion certainly.

Again, I still think this debate is essentially founded on a misunderstanding and I hope the above has been useful in clearing it up somewhat. -- Director (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling not to perceive this sudden lack of response as stonewalling. Or does it indicate passive agreement? -- Director (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, about the delay but my free time is limited. Well based on your above responses it appears that you agree that:

1. Amorphous terms such as resistance and partisans are in fact used in military infoboxes.

2. There is disagreement between us about the Shabiha since it appears to refer in the media often to local militia groups that act in loose association with the Assad government. My reading of reliable sources is that the Shabiha is an amorphous term for local Alawi militias or thugs that have been armed by the Assad government and then set free to handle the situation as they choose on the local level.

3. We disagree on the quote from the Washington Post. The reliable source states clearly FSA officers. Officers are trained, disciplined, and consider themselves part of a unit. This unit the realiable source clearly states is the Free Syrian Army. You simply cannnot disregard the Washington Post because you disagree with what it states. Much of the information for western analysts comes from journalists who are based in Syria. Many western analysts don't often even have the chance to get into the conflict zone, and if they do get in the conflict zone they are only able to interact with a limited region of conflict. To dismiss journalist eyewitness accounts and direct reporting of what is going on in a conflict will not work here on Wikipedia. The Washington Post is a highly reliable source.

4. In naming combatants why do you wish to ignore what label they give for themselves. Also, it should be made clear that not all the combatants in the Syrian civil war self identify as members of the FSA.

5. Also, what is your explanation for why the SILF and SIF are never mentioned in the media? And you didn't answer my question as to what exactly the SILF or SIF are. Do they have a central command? Do they have a chain of command? Are the two terms umbrella terms that are amorphous? Since you want the SILF and the SIF to be the main entries in the infobox for the Syrian opposition do you have a number of media reports for them giving interviews self identifying with the label, do you have images by photojournalists who are confirming that who they are photographing are members of either the SILF and SIF and identify with this term? The overwhelming number of reliable sources that I'm coming across are mentioning: rebels, opposition, insurgents, FSA fighters, Al-Nusra Front member, Free Syrian Army member. I am not coming across sources that are mentioning anything about SILF or the SIF. Are these rebel forces not talking with journalists? Why are there no reports about them?

Really, one of my main problems with placing SILF or SIF in the infobox is that there is no substantial mention of these vague labels in the media. It's as if editors here on Wikipedia want to create these labels that the fighters on the ground have not identified with. This sort of similar mess happened with the Syrian Liberation Army which was listed for the longest time on this page as being one of the main combatants, although no individual on the ground identified with the label and in fact there were barely any reliable sources mentioning the group or label. Guest2625 (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

1. While I do not regard three of the four examples you presented as supportive of such a conclusion, "umbrella terms" are indeed naturally used when there is no other choice. Such is by no means the case here.

2. I disagree that there is disagreement between us on the Shabiha :). If they are in some way subordinate to the Assad government, they can be listed as they are. By your description that seems to be the case.

3. Yes, here is the core of the misunderstanding: I wish you would at last read the following carefully. I do not "disagree" with nor dismiss The Washington Post source, nor the analysts nor their exploits etc.. I have no reason even if I wanted to do so: there is no contradiction between our sources. The usage of the term "FSA" by the Washington Post is not in any kind of contradiction, nor is it inconsistent, with its current meaning as described by the above quoted source: "the FSA label is used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Western support". The source goes on to explicitly state: "many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as 'a brigade of the FSA', but that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy".

The sources are in complete agreement. The only disagreement is between the sources on the one hand, and your interpretation of some of them. You see, you interpret the term "FSA" as used in The Washington Post to refer to a singular military faction, an organization. The source does not, however, say anything of the kind - it merely uses the term. Other sources, scholarly sources that discuss this specific subject, explain what that it means - not an organization.

I've explained the above about five times. Seriously now, I've seen people topic-banned for refusing to "get the point", it is very annoying and is regarded as a form of disruption on this project. Please read the above and respond appropriately.

4. I do not wish to do that, its certainly worthy of mention in the article. It is simply that a name cannot be listed as a combatant in an mc infobox (see again the relevant quote in my preceding post). Factions are listed in the infobox.

5. If you wish to find out what the SLF and SIF are, I recommend doing some research. These are indeed coherent factions which do each have their own "central command", as you put it. As for the rest, please note that common usage of an umbrella name in the sources does not make it more than a name. We list factions in the infobox, not umbrella terms (provided we have a choice of course). This I have also addressed previously.

@Final paragraph. Yes, I understood that as the core reason behind your disapproval - its a valid concern that should be addressed. There is indeed a misconception in the public with regard to the meaning of the term "Free Syrian Army" (the source says so itself). That doesn't mean we should continue to render our article erroneous and further the misconception. Rather that means we can make this article more informative, and interesting, by taking steps to point the reader to the actual meaning. -- Director (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that we disagree on the naming issue:

1. Yes, we have come to agreement that in military infoboxes umbrella terms are used.

2. No, I did not say that the Shabiha are controlled by the Assad government. I said that local Alawi groups, thugs, or neighborhood toughs across Syria were given weapons by the Assad government and then were allowed to do as they pleased with their new set of weapons. The decentralized Alawi groups do not interact with each other, they do not coordinate with each, they act on the local level to handle their neighborhoods or towns. The Shabiha is a catch phrase for local Alawi groups across Syria that answer to no one but themselves.

a. The corollary to this is that in this military infobox Wikipedia is clearly using an umbrella, catch phrase, or label for an amorphous set of people called the Shabiha as Wikipedia has done in past military conflict articles.

3. You read your source not the way that I read that source or numerous other reliable sources. The FSA is perhaps not a traditional army but it does have a coordinating structure, which has allowed different units of the FSA to coordinate military attacks against Assad's forces. One of the most basic coordinating structures that has been evolving are the provincial military councils, which have brought together different local FSA unit leaders to plan a course of action and to lay siege to Assad's military bases, take control of border crossings and to gain control of large swathes of Syria. These local units when they meet journalists identify with being FSA fighters and identify with the tristar flag and a Syrian nation state that is free of Assad and his inner circle. The FSA as I said before is not the only fighting faction. There's the al-Nusra Front which doesn't have the same worldview as the FSA. It doesn't believe in the tristar flag nor the Syrian nation state or democratic principles. Then of course there are different independent factions who simply identify with their local town or neighborhood, ethnic group, or religion. The FSA's provincial councils are interlinked by the Supreme Military Council which through its control over the flow of weapons and ammunition is able to determine where in Syria Assad's forces are hit with the flow of those weapons and ammunition.

a. The corollary to this statement is that the leaders of a group are those individuals who control the purse string. The SMC like most other organisations controls its different councils and units by determining where the money and weapons go.

b. Therefore, it appears that we simply disagree on point 3. For you the SMC either is nothing, is not part of the FSA, or is a hierarchy in name only. I don't read the reliable sources as saying this. The SMC is the backbone of the FSA.

c. If some journalists use the term FSA indiscriminately for rebel fighters who don't follow the principles of the FSA hierarchy, do not coordinate with other FSA units, do not believe in a Syrian nation state, do not fly the tristar flag or don't even call themselves FSA fighters that is the fault of the journalist not the fault of the FSA or its leadership.

d. I think a large part of the problem people have in understanding the FSA structure is that it is a bottom up organised structure. Wikipedia is also a good example of a bottom up organised structure. Editors here interact with each other in a decentralised cell like fashion. Editors have no clear leader. The editors interact with only a limited number of other editors who they come across in their topic areas of interest. However, the editors have shared values and principles with the mission to create a great encyclopedia. All these editors together are an organisation which uses the foundation's server space and open source software to create Wikipedia.

The reason why I mention this is to make it clear that organisations that work from the bottom up look different then organisation that work from the top down. The FSA and its leadership are similar to the foundation, IT specialists and those in the wikipedia community who wish to take leadership roles, and then work with a bottom up organisation of editors. Things simply look different then what people are used iin top down organisations; however, the controllers of the servers or the weapons do have a large sway on what happens in either space.

Of course this is only an analogy and analogies are always flawed and lacking. The FSA, unlike Wikipedia, is very much real world and very much people to people. The council meetings happen in sychronised time and people see each other eye to eye and leadership is clearly understood by the control of resources and men on the battlefield.

4. Here we disagree again the FSA is not the Shabiha. It is not just a name or catch phrase. It is a clear organisation with principles and a leadership backbone represented through the councils and SMC command.

5. I have done research on the SILF and SIF and they do not appear to have any coherent leadership. The labels based on my research appear to based on one time agreements of different fighting units to fight under the same umbrella term. I can find no mention of coordinating entities or structures. And also I think you should do research on the groups since the acronyms that you use for the two organisations are dated. The correct and current names of the organisations are the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and the Syrian Islamic Front. Just go to there Wikipedia pages.

PS No need to mention topic banning to me. You appear to be very well versed in Wikipedia bureaucratic lingo. I'm not the one refusing to get the point. I'm having a dialogue with you and trying to expand the dialogue to all the editors on this page. So, that we can build consensus. Someone so well versed in Wikipedia arcane should know better than to come to a Wikipedia page and start an edit war beginning on March 23. Editors collaborate on Wikipedia and are not directed around by other editors. Looking at this talk page it appears that you have been dominating the page and squashing out the voices of all the other editors. Guest2625 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

1. You can put words into my mouth 'til next year - I did not say that. I said "umbrella terms" are used only when there is no alternative. I'll thank you not to repeatedly oversimplify and misrepresent my position against my objections. It can be viewed as provocation.

2. I'll also thank you to read my posts and respond to them appropriately. I said "subordinate in some way", not "controlled". I will not further discuss this issue.

3. Very interesting and imaginative, but I'm afraid all it does is vividly illustrate the depth of your misconception. In a word: no. Nothing you cited supports the state of affairs you describe: none of your refs even discuss what the "FSA" is - all they do is use the term, and in complete accordance with what the sources say it means. These sources, ones that actually do discuss the issue at hand, explain in great detail what "Free Syrian Army" means - and state explicitly that it does not refer to an organization.

The Supreme Military Command is not a part of any faction organization by the name "Free Syrian Army". Further, if you maintain that the "Free Syrian Army has a coordinating structure", I would like to see sources for that. Not media articles you liberally interpret as supportive. In fact, while there are various coordinating structures among the Syrian opposition factions - there is no organization called the "Free Syrian Army" that has a coordinating structure. Actually there is no organization called the "Free Syrian Army". Period right there. Provide a source that really does claim otherwise or we have nothing further to discuss here.

4. Only in your mind. The Supreme Military Command (SMC) is not a part of any organization calling itself the "Free Syrian Army". Again, if you claim otherwise - source your claim (explicitly and without interpretation). See, this is a bit difficult to grasp, but "Free Syrian Army" is a non-specific, vague term referring roughly to the pro-Western factions of the opposition. The Supreme Military Command has been set up to coordinate a number of factions, some of which might conceivably be referred to by such a term - but again, to quote the source directly: "it's still just a label". No one organization by that name is in existence.

5. Please distinguish between an umbrella term for several factions - one not designating a singular faction, and an actual faction uniting various units and groups under a single command. The issue is not what the "Free Syrian Army" is (an umbrella term), but rather what it isn't - and it isn't an organization. The current commander of the SLF is Ahmed Abu Issa.

Imo your behavior does indeed slowly begin to constitute "refusal to get the point" and may well eventually end up reported to the good folks at WP:AE (disruption/gaming the system, in accordance with WP:ARBPIA). I strongly urge you to begin responding to user posts appropriately, that is to say, with recognition of what is actually written. As I have about 17 times your own extensive edit count, you are correct in assuming I am well versed in Wikipedia policy - and I would be happy to assist you by pointing out relevant sections for your consideration. Apart from the aforementioned WP:ICANTHEARYOU, I recommend you give WP:STICKTOSOURCE a look, quote: "if you use a reliable published source to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". As you can see, the problem is that you do not have sources that truly (directly and explicitly) support your position, and you insist upon said synthesis by ignoring that fault in your argument when it is pointed out to you again and again ("refusing to get the point").

In short: please do not post anymore of your own conclusions. If you disagree with the sources, I must yet again request that from now on you back up every claim with explicit support. -- Director (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we now down to one post a day? I find this debate rather unnecessary as it is, given what the sources have to say, and I do not like to see it slow down and extend even further. Especially as all I'm doing is repeating the same unrefuted argument without it being recognized, acknowledged, or responded-to properly. You've restored the old cockamamie version, and now this can be viewed as stonewalling and gaming the system. If at all possible, I'd like to request you please respond more promptly. -- Director (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that we disagree on this topic. I read reliable sources daily and I never read anything about the SILF or SIF. These are the two organisation that you wish to place in the infobox on the Syrian civil war page. Do you feel that journalists who go to Syria are stupid and incapable of mentioning these supposed two main opposition groups fighting in Syria? And you haven't explained to me yet what the coordinating structure of either the Shabiha, SIF or SILF are? My reading of reliable sources is that they are blanket or umbrella terms.

Anyway, on the naming issue for the opposition we disagree. I think it's better if you try to be a bit briefer and more concise so that other voices are not drowned out. I look forward to hearing what other contributors have to say. It's been great hearing what you've had to say on the topic. Guest2625 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This project isn't about "agreement", its about sources: I have provided sources that explicitly support me - whereas you have shown none at all that support you. All you do is repeat fanciful, nonsense original research, and you refuse to get the point, ignoring all requests to bring your position in line with policy (WP:OR). I must also say I believe your sudden lack of prompt response is a deliberate stonewalling tactic - you have your unsourced version in the article, and you're perfectly alright with just repeating "I disagree" every day or so. I am also a very busy man, but I can spare 10 minutes a day to respond to a discussion. If you believe you are "within your rights" to "declare your disagreement" indefinitely and thus freeze the article in place - you are very much mistaken as to how this project functions.

Refs are not "stupid" because they use media shorthand. They do use media shorthand, however, as the sources explain. I have not seen you bring up a single source that states otherwise.

Your WP:ICANTHEARYOU has now exceeded my capacity for repetition. I believe we have now reached the point where it is worthwhile to report disruptive conduct, and I consider my above repeated explanations constitute the required warning. I will now proceed to restore the sourced version one last time, and if (or rather when) you revert again, we shall continue on WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything your going at is based off one single source comparing them to la resistance. However that source is outnumbered by thousands of others which tell us that the Free Syrian Army is a real organization with Salim Idress as its chief of staff and that the SMC are part of and that al nusra is not. Plus you brushed offed Lothar's observations as OR. [33] Sopher99 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• #1 Actually, if you bother to read the discussion for once, you will notice there are two sources. Both making the same "La Resistance" analogy. Both explicitly stating the term "FSA" does not designate an organization.
• #2 All cited sources and media references are in complete agreement, and there is no conflict or contradiction whatsoever. Neither does the source Lothar is talking about contradict itself, nor do any of the millions upon billions of media sources conflict with what the scholarly sources state on the meaning of the term "FSA".

All I saw thus far is blatant WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH: Lothar and Guest interpreting that various refs indicate the term "Free Syrian Army" refers to an imaginary military organization - when NONE even discuss its meaning at all. Note: "if you use a reliable published source to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". In fact, all quotes brought forth thus far merely use the term - and that in complete accordance(!) with its actual meaning as described in the cited sources that do cover that subject.

This I have explained about 20 times now. Yet I find myself in a position where it must be repeated again and again and again. I am at the end of my capacity for repetition, though, and will likely be forced to request assistance: this kind of conduct is a form of disruption, one I have often seen sanctioned by topic ban. I am all for consensus, but this is ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't explain how they don't contradict to your two sources. I am saying that the sources that we put warrant the inclusion of the Free Syrian Army into the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I did explain, several times now. I will do so again, this time for you. The source states:

"One can't disregard the fact that many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as 'a brigade of the FSA'. But that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy: it’s still just a label, typically intended to market these groups as part of the opposition mainstream. (...) Today, 'Free Syrian Army' is understood to apply mostly to army defectors (ex-Baathists), non-ideological fighters, and more moderate Islamists. The 'FSA' label is used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Western support. That still doesn't describe an actual organization..."

To supposedly "counter" this, Guest e.g. quoted the Washington Post:

"Jordanian security officials said a previous timetable to complete training of about 3,000 Free Syrian Army officers by the end of June has been moved up to the end of this month in light of the border victories."

Do I really need to write a PowerPoint presentation to explain how the second quote in no way even addresses the claims in the first post? Let alone "directly and explicitly" contradicts it? If anything, it serves as an excellent example of typical usage of the shorthand, as described in the first quote. -- Director (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

its used in RS - how its used, and whether it should be used differently etc - to the point where you vanish it , - that way madness lies in my opinion. you said to guest this was a chance for wikipedia to dispel the miasma of misunderstanding amongst the general public , and you would do it, i find that alarming really. just stick with RS - if its just a label, so what - its a label that is used in RS to point to some kind of reality [34] - and your increasingly short tempered and ill-willed responses are hardly in the spirit of CIVIL. Sayerslle (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"its used in RS - how its used, and whether it should be used differently etc - to the point where you vanish it"? That's very bad English, Sayerslle, I don't understand you again. "Used in RS"? It certainly is a reliable source, if that's what you mean. It just doesn't say what guest was claiming it says. As for the rest, I apologize, but I really don't care what you do or do not find "alarming". Wikipedia is actually pretty famous for dispelling common misconceptions.

If its just a label - its not a faction. And its very misleading and biased(!) to list it as a faction. MC infoboxes list real independent combatants authorities, not loose, undefined labels with no fixed meaning. To point out just one of the problems: we have no way of knowing whether the SIF is or is not included by the label. Sometimes it might be, sometimes it might not. In short - its just nonsense.

The current infobox lists the Syrian National Coalition as the main opposing faction, and its fictitious "Free Syrian Army" military force. This is so entirely removed from reality we may as well have invented our own fantasy war. -- Director (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:direktor why are you trying to boss people around on this talk page? We've heard your opinion now I look forward to hearing from other contributors. And why don't you answer my question as to what the coordinating structure of either the Shabiha, SIF or SILF are? My reading of reliable sources is that they are blanket or umbrella terms. Also, does that one source that you cite state that the SMC exists or does not exist? I'll answer that question yes it does. Also numerous sources state clearly that Salim Idriss of the SMC is the Chief of Staff of the Free Syrian Army. How are you able to just ignore sources that state indisputably that Salim Idriss is the Chief of Staff of the Free Syrian Army?

So to satisfy your need for reliable sources from the thousands discussing the Free Syrian Army let's start with this one [35]:

[A] senior U.S. official tells Al-Arabiya, “it sends a signal to the (Assad) regime that we are going with the Free Syrian Army just like other countries are.” The FSA is considered the largest armed opposition group with Salim Idris as the head of its Supreme military command, and a loose coalition of military councils, brigades and units who will be responsible for distributing the aid.

The move from the Obama administration signals readiness to start working directly with the FSA, and is an evaluation of the group’s ability to manage and utilize aid.

I can quote many other reliable sources that clearly state that the FSA led by the SMC and its Chief of Staff Salim Idriss is an organisation. You are seriously disconnected from reality if you don't think the FSA exists as an organisation. Guest2625 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your position is that the term "Free Syrian Army" refers to a coherent faction? Sources explicitly deny that, and say it is not. If you believe it is, lets see the sources that state that it is, directly and explicitly. I have seen none thus far (and I'm certain you will find none). What I have seen is a lot of quotes from media sources, from which you derive your own conclusions. That is against Wikipedia policy: your conclusions do not concern me at all, and I said, you can probably altogether stop wasting effort in writing them up.

"Explicitly", in case there's there's any question, means "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity"; "directly" means "stemming immediately from a source".

The rest, I suspect, is deliberate WP:DISRUPTION and stalling. This is not an RfC. -- Director (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"This lack of unity and strategy not only meant a disadvantage in the field, it also helped Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's propaganda.

Even as the FSA had no communication strategy at all, the Bashar al-Assad machine knew very well what to do: discredit the FSA.

It has three lines of attack:

1. the FSA is chaos. So it is Bashar al-Assad or chaos in Syria and the region; 2. the FSA is a danger to minorities. Bashar al-Assad is the only guarantee for the security of minorities in Syria; 3. the FSA is extremist. Bashar al-Assad is the only one who can keep out terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda.

I am surprised at how well-organised the Bashar al-Assad propaganda machine is.

FSA unification is a bottom-up process

No-one will deny that while the FSA has made big steps forward, there is still a long way to go in order to become a well-functioning, united force like the French resistance of 1943.

Idriss has to unify battalions that are used to working independently. It takes a huge effort to convince them to go in the same direction. What are the main problems? 1. There is hardly any communication infrastructure.. 2. There are hardly any arms coming in. 3. Getting totally fragmented forces onto the same page takes a lot of time. Give them some time. 4. The growing importance of extremist battalions like Jabhat al-Nusra is a problem for the image and the organisation of the FSA. They are not part of the FSA and they never will be. The fact that the other groups do use the name of the FSA means they are trying to distance themselves from al-Nusra and its jihadist ideology.

The FSA deserves European support

It is fair to say that the FSA is not the well-oiled force some people dream of. But it is unfair and incorrect to say that the FSA does not exist and that it is no more than just a brand.

Just like in France during the Second World War we cannot expect a bottom-up resistance movement to become a unified front in a few months. " these excerpt-observations are from [36] - Sayerslle (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Um.. what? The quotes are from an opinion piece of a fringe newspaper; WP:NEWSORG: "Opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication or outside authors, are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Its essentially a load of poetic bull, if you'll pardon. It contradicts itself in several places, makes no attempt to describe the situation, and is basically a "Support the Rebels!" pamphlet not even trying to hide bias and open promotion. As you say, the author actually closes with "we cannot expect a bottom-up resistance movement to become a unified front in a few months". Aside from the ridiculous "few months" comment (its been two years), I agree with the guy. We can't expect them to be united from the ground up - and they're not, at least not yet.

Just to be perfectly clear: pigs will fly and bomb Hezbollah convoys before I'll agree to consider an op-ed propaganda piece from a fringe newspaper a "reliable source" (as per policy). k? "The FSA deserves European support, becoming cynical now or even giving up on the FSA would be one of the biggest mistakes we could make..." Ignoring fully in 3.. 2.. 1.. -- Director (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

These sources tells us that the Free Syrian Army is an individual group that warrants inclusion in the infobox: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

And these sources directly contradict any claims that the FSA is a catch-all term (If the fact that the FSA is an individual group that warrant inclusion in the infobox wasn't already clear): [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

And since you like lecturing us on the "ICANTHEARYOU" defense, i'll quote Lothar's analysis which you denounce as original research despite it directly referring to the source your using itself. (ie not original research)

" Falsehood #1: The list of brigades specifically states that it is of "opposition groups", not specifically of SMC-aligned groups like you seem to be claiming. Falsehood #2: The listed brigades ("#1 SLF, #2 SIF, #3 Al Nusra, and #4 various independent groups and brigades") are not the sole constituents of the SMC, as you repeatedly have stated. O'Bagy notes numerous times the existence of Provincial Military Councils, which provide the "maturing provincial-level insurgent structure through which the SMC is now looking to implement a national level chain of command" (19). And this before she even devotes a paragraph to the SLF or SIF. Falsehood #3: Jabhat al-Nusra is decidedly not part of the SMC structure, despite your repeated allegations that the report supposedly says it is. Half-truth #1: The SIF is a peripheral component at best of the SMC, so describing it as if it is an integral part is misleading at best Half-truth #2: "FSA" is not as universal a brandname as you have made it out to be, with even the most-integrated Islamist component of the SMC distancing itself from it. You seem to be backpedalling from a few of these now already, but I'll just lay them down here for future reference."

Sopher99 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Empty links showmanship - zero relevance.

• Not a single source from the first bunch "tells us that the Free Syrian Army is an individual group". That's your own biased OR conclusion. Many are not even reliable sources per policy definition.
• Predictably, once again, not a single solitary source from your second listing "directly contradicts claims that the FSA is a catch-all term".

So you're apparently the one peddling "Falsehoods"; the only question being whether you do so deliberately, or without bothering to understand WP:OR (which is the possibility I favor). I could have found you ten times more links that simply use the "Free Syrian Army" label.

The "Falsehood" business you quote has been essentially resolved; it did not and does not even concern the issue of whether the "FSA" is or is not a label - merely the scope of the label (in that it doesn't extend to Al Nusra, as I had mistakenly affirmed; it did include them previously, though). Why in the world anyone would even paste it here - is beyond my comprehension. My current theory is you again did not read the discussion, but are just happy to quote stuff kind of vaguely "against" something I wrote. -- Director (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)