Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Talk page too long

Can we take out the talk section where Harel and I debated over the cia coup? its been concluded and its just makes the talk page unnecessary long. I7laseral (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages get put in archives so it doesn't matter how long the page is. Sopher99 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

syrian revolution

i suggest to move this page name to syrian revolution and dnt need 2011-2012 .because what happiend in syria is a ryal revolution and no a civil war or upirising.

Can't officially name it Syrian revolution into regime falls. Sopher99 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am removing this and changing it back to the civil war discussion. Please don't change the move discussion in the middle. If you have an opinion on the name of the new article, you can add it to the discussion above. When the discussion above is finished, you can start a new discussion with a new name, but please don't change the name of the target article in the middle of a discussion. Jeancey (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, don't let those interruptions happen.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good source on casualties

Questioning the Syrian “Casualty List” Tiamut^talk 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not a good source.

1- al-akhbar is not considered reliable or a source by the most common media. Once more its lebanon based, (lebanon at the moment defends the Assad regime more fiercely than Iran)

2- It is true that some civilians who die are pro-regime. Doesn't mean they aren't civilians.

3- The article goes into elaborate detail critiquing the SOHR without even mentioning the larger and more prominent death toll giver the LCC, which does in fact have 100's, if not thousands of members on the ground. The LCC are the leaders of the demonstrations, as evident by youtube videos which say "LCC - protest in Douma" or "LCC protest in Idlib" which have paper being held up by the camera man confirming such. I have even seen video of the FSA interacting with the LCC members.

4- The true death toll is not smaller, but rather larger than reported. You can not know everyone who dies after all. Tens of thousands of videos confirm thousands have died. There must be over 5000 funeral videos alone. Even more important, the UN and Human Rights watch death tolls usually line of the SOHR and LCC, and are usually only difffent by a few hundred and because of the time lapse of the release of the reports (LCC releases figures daily, while the UN tends to be about one every two weeks) Sopher99 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the source is useful in pointing out that the VDC (closely affiliated with the LCC) military deaths list (which the UN said counts only defectors) in fact also counts loyalists, example the loyalist general killed is on their list (I checked and compared). Also, one more thing in the article caught my eye, the thing about the opposition listing the Palestinians killed by the Israeli military in their protests in the Golan Heights as being the casualties of the uprising, this begs the question of possible excess deaths from elsewhere. At the very least the inclusion of the Palestinians on the oppositions lists warrants a mention in the article. As for the possible real death toll as you put it, we will see in the future, time will tell, as more sources become available. But again I think we should be careful around high death tolls considering what happened in Iraq and Libya. In Iraq at one point in 2006 it was claimed that almost a million Iraqis were killed, but later it was found the number was closer to 130,000 after the US pullout in 2011. And in Libya, the rebel government claimed in August 2011 that 50,000 people were killed, but backtracked and said, the very next month, 25,000 were actually killed. We should never forget the fog of war. EkoGraf (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is is that in Iraq 2006 there was barely any internet usage whatsover, and in America alone the war was opposed by 60% of the population, excluding the 95% opposition to the war in every other country. That means a whole lot of bias against the USA military, especially considered American were already mad at the military for making things up.

In Libya there was no internet and no LCC type organization. The NTC counted all Gaddafi held prisoners as assumed executed, but they were only 1/3 right, as only 1/3 of the prisoners died in prison. In Syria, unlike libya 75% of all prisoners taken captive are released within a month. In both cases the margin of error is much smaller for Syria, but I agree about the fog of war.

The generals and colonels killed could also be sympathizers, but not defectors. The slightest show of sympathy for the opposition in the army gets you killed. The fact that many generals and colonels have been killed by the insurgents may actually indicate the insurgents are closer to the Syrian army than we realize. In fact now the Syrian army appears to be intentionally messing up, so much so they resort to artillery shelling instead of straight out storming like they have for the past 10 months. In November Rastan was captured by the FSA, only to be retaken a day later after a straight out military assault. For the past month rastan has been fsa controlled and repulsing each attack. Zabadani could not be taken without an agreement by the FSA to withdraw in exchange for no artillery shelling. My point is that the Syrian army is sabotaging itself, and many unknown sympathizers are amongst the death toll. Shabeeha are executed and then have their bodies thrown into the street. It wouldn't be hard for actvists to mistake a dead shabeeha for an executed civilian. Sopher99 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New group fight against the Syrian Security Forces

It was revealed today that the group responsible for the suicide bombings in Syria is the Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant . In consequence, I added it to the belligerents. --SuperMaher (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors are advised to be aware SuperMaher is a suspected sock of the blocked pro-Assad partisan User:ChronicalUsual a.k.a. User:FavorLaw a.k.a. User:Aginsijib: [1] -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Syrian War Map Required

I'd like to suggest that some kind of war map(including different area controlled by different forces,cities on war and so on.)Why can't we make a war map as good as that of 2011 Libyan Civil War?cbcdqe (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Example:

The course of the war.

  Held by anti-Gaddafis by 1 March. (Checkered: Lost before UN intervention)

  Contested areas between March and August.

  Rebel western coastal offensive in August.

  Rebel gains by 1 October.

  Last loyalist pockets.

Major campaigns. battles.

We don't, for the simple reason that this is not a war, at least not one comparable to the Libyan civil war. In Syria, rebels do not really control much, if any, territory. In Libya, the rebels secured a 'liberated city' (Benghazi) early on from which they could expand their 'liberated' territory. The Syrian rebels do not even have that; their only stronghold (Baba Amr) is being taken over by the government as we speak. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This map has been made in the past as an attempt to present the situation of the uprising (not civil war), but it is not updated and it has a wrong borderline of the Quneitra governorate. If fixed and updated it could be a good infobox map at the head of the page.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No no no. Every city including Aleppo, Latakia, and central damascus and Qamishli has FSA presence. The only cities in the entirety of Syria which does not contain rebels are Tartous and Sweida.

There is no point in putting a map if the battle for Syria is neighborhood by neighborhood unlike city by city in Libya. It is very misleading, as you really don't know who controls what in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When we decide to call this a civil war then maybe we can put a map. Sopher99 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• We should have a map, the sooner the better, that indicates at minimum: a) major battles; and b) the neighboring countries.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Support for Syrian Government >>> Iranian support for Syrian government

I'd argue this section should be re-titled to reflect the content below it. It is all about Iranian involvement, so it only makes sense that the sub-section state "Iranian support for Syrian government." My edit was reverted with a rationale of "other support should be stated" but no meaningful support from actors other than Iran are included in the section. So the revert, IMO, was not justified. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it should be about general support, from Russia, China, Iraq, South America, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case then content about Russia, China, Iraq, South America (what countries?) should be included. The section is exclusively about Iran and Iran remains Syria's primary benefactor during this conflict. Will you support a revert until information about Russia/China/Iraq is introduced? Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see it is up to me to add info about other countries, so until I do that, I shouldn't complain. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One brief sentence about Russia/China isn't enough to re-title the section. Russia and China's diplomatic support is already stated in the lead and international section. The "Support for Syrian government" is 99% about Iran. Iran remains the largest and only military supporter of Syria and Iranian military/sub-national groups have fought alongside the regime. Edit should be reverted and any meaningful content outside of what is already stated about China/Russia should have their own section. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem is simply that more info is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Funk, that isn't a particular persuasive argument. Like I said, the section is 99% about Iran. What you included about China/Russia was already stated in the article. If there is indeed "more info" then Russia and China should be in a unique section. Iran remains the focused point in that area, inserting one brief sentence about another country that is already available elsewhere in the article is just silly. Please feel free to create another section if you feel enough content exists - I'd say there isn't enough other than Russia's delivery of fighter jets to Syria but I doubt that relates directly to the conflict here. Policy supports my edits so I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The section tile is as weasily a weasel as you could find. It is not "Support for the Syrian Government" it is, based on its content and wording, "Attacks on anyone who is alleged to be supporting the Syrian Goverment". Meowy 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that both the Support for the Syrian government and the Support for the Opposition section to be easily identified as negative. Both talk about how an unconventional nation or organization supports either side. I am not saying it should be removed, just pointing out why one might interpret them to be negative. Sopher99 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Iran remains the only sovereign state - other than Syria itself - to have a meaningful role in supporting Syria's response in the uprising. The section is 99% about Iran. So there clearly is enough reliable sources to support retiltling the section "Iranian support for Syria" or "Iranian presence in Syria" or "Iranian military support for Syria" or something with Iran in the header. Anyone opposed? Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Both Russia and China have blocked some kind of major intervention by western powers, which would be (and still might become) a military intervention, in Syria. It's well known that Russia is supplying weapons to Assad's regime. Iran's relationship with Syria has been written about quite a bit, especially in the American, British and French press, partly because of the escalating tensions between Iran and those countries. Calling the section "Iranian support for the Syrian Regime" would make a section that is problematic because it is incomplete even worse, and possibly make these problems hard to change by establishing an editorial precedent here. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mashal Tamo

Why was Mashal tamo deleted from the lead figures? I find this really offensive as a Kurd... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurdWarrior (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

400 children in the lead

"Over 400 children have been killed" - This is unacceptable because there is no attribution to the allegations. The United Nations bureaucrat Navi Pillay did not herself carry out an investigation in Syria confirming this, but merely cited the [fantastic] allegations of the rebels: "Activists and human rights groups are concerned the brutal crackdown in Syria isn't just against anti-regime protesters, but against medical workers who try to treat the wounded. They also say that at least 400 children have died in the violence." I haven't read the whole article yet, but already I sense strong biases against Syria. So it's very misleading to present the origin of these allegations as the United Nations when it's the rebels and their spokesmen.

The reliability of the United Nations and their bureaucrats is not absolute, as there is strong criticism that at times they function as supporters of the policies of certain regimes. This is the Syrians' criticism of the UN burreaucrat Navi Pillay:

The Foreign and Expatriates Ministry stressed in a letter to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Syria's absolute rejection of the allegations made by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay regarding Syria which add up to the history of the Commissioner in dealing with Syria from the beginning of events.The Ministry pointed out that the Commissioner has been turned into a tool in the hands of some countries targeting Syria and ignoring the terrorist crimes committed by the armed groups, while Syria provided all available information to clarify the situation, yet Pillay turned a blind eye to facts. The letter said that Pillay chose this path despite having clear evidence of the non-credible nature of the information she receives from sources known to be working against Syria, trying to cover up the fake numbers and information she published.

SadSwanSong (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin on the Syrian foreign ministry claiming that Pillay is part of the "foreign conspiracy". I'll just leave things short and simple. The Syrian government is a ludicrous bunch of Saddam Hussein figures, nothing more. They have no essence of objectivity or sincerity. Sopher99 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No one here cares about your personal opinions about politics. Syrian media represents a noteworthy point of view on the conflict and its material can stay provided that they are properly attributed. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the phrase "foreign conspiracy" in the article I cited above?? Please do not misrepresent others' work! The idea that the United Nations' bureaucrats have behaved unfairly is hardly a controversial, fringe viewpoint. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Such allegations should be reflected in the body (not just the lede), and at minimum in the body should be properly attributed.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

United Nations figures are considered to be reliable source, Syrian government statements are not. And you are not showing any king of WP:NPOV That settles it. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK, will you actually read the discussion instead of making such misinformed remarks? The United Nations did not state that 400 children were killed, but cited reports originating from "activists" in Syria about 400 children being killed. This information DOES NOT originate from the United Nations, but it comes from the Syrian anti-government "activists". So instead of saying "According to the UN, 400 children were killed", the proper NPOV way to present this would be "Syrian activists opposed to the government claim that 400 children have been killed." I am getting tired of repeating myself. SadSwanSong (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK, all sides need to be fairly presented, including what the Syrian media reports. Your approach amounts to censorship. SadSwanSong (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SECONDARY before going any further. United Nations are reliable source, wikipedia uses secondary sources mostly given how primary sources can be used for POV and thus United Nations quoting human rights organizations make it reliable secondary source. Morever you used unreliable source (SANA) as a point for your argument in which you argued against reliable source. Ignoring all these matters can you quote part of Navi Pillar or United Nations report which says that number of children casulties was just copy-pasted withou any research by United Nations? I would be really surprised if you could do that. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I cited SANA to explain the Syrian state media and government's position, which makes such additions in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Nothing in Wikipedia's rules supports your suggestion that we cannot use SANA as a source.

This story confirms the fact that the United Nations did not determine based on its own investigations that 400 children have been killed. They merely reported what Syrian "activists" have alleged, similar to Ban Ki-Moon's stupid remarks about the Libyan government using planes against civilians.

UNICEF says it has credible information that up to 400 children... Marixie Mercado is UNICEF’s Spokesperson: “There are reports of children being arbitrarily arrested, tortured and sexually abused while in detention. UNICEF does not have access to the affected areas of Homs and cannot confirm the impact of the attacks there, but there are credible reports, including from international media." SadSwanSong (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you disregarded United Nations estimated casulties by using unreliable source. UNICEF is credible organization and reliable source. Your next remarks are plain POV pushing and that goes against wikipedia policy. If you want to include government respons to United Nations claims be my guest but your POV pushing by adding same credibility to UN and SANA goes against WP:RS. You are also bordering with this discussion on WP:OR may I add because you presented no reliable sources for your claim (which misteriously copies those made by Syrian government) that UN just copy-pasted numbers from SOHR and other activists (disregarding fact that international media used by UN are mostly considered to be RS as well) without any research. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the first paragraph of the lead. In particular, saying that the event has been interpreted "by its supporters" as being part of the wider "Arab Spring". The Syrian government has a different interpretation of it and this is required to be inserted into the lead. Now that I have given the opening for it, I hope someone with a better knowledge of the sources will add that interpretation. In addition, I have added the "issues specific to Syria" caveat (refering obviouusly to past events, ethnic groups, religious splits, etc). Meowy 20:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

NO. It is 99% consensus amongst reliable sources, news media, think tanks, international countries, and global organizations that this is part of the Arab Springs. Gaddafi did not think Libya was part of an Arab Spring, Nor did Mubarak, Khalifa, saleh, Bouteflika. The governments of the Arab Spring Nations don't get a say in whether their nations are part of the arab spring. Sopher99 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also Yes, of course it relates to issues inside Syria. Why would the Syrian uprising relate to issues inside Jordan or Turkey? It does not need to be stated that the Syrian uprising correspondents to issues inside Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You have just admitted that there are sources which do not give the "Arab Spring" interpretation - so that interpretation must be included in the lead. Are you actually saying that the situation does not encompase issues related say to Turkey, or to more recent events in Iraq? Obviously they do, all this also make the situation in Syria Syria-specific. And your blind reverting just shows a bad attitude and ownership issues. Meowy 22:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No. In the same way some sources call this a civil war, while most do not, so do we call this the Syrian uprising, because most rs do not call this a civil war. The Libyan civil war related to some extent the events in Mali and Niger witht he Tauregs, and Egypt with the Gaza strip. The Syrian uprising in bulk does not relate to issues outside Syria. We have an international subsection, for those that do. The Egyptian, bahraini, Libyan, Yemeni, Algerian, Iraqi, Morrocon, Saudi, Omani, Lebanese, jordani, Sudanese, and Kuwaiti protests/uprsings ledes don't describe "to what supporters interpret", even though the governments don't agree they are part of the Arab Spring, so why do you single out Syria? The Fact is that the Syrian government and the Syrian protesters don't get to say what the situation is at this moment, the consensus of reliable sources do. Please don't accuse me of having a bad attitude, We have been dicussing the lede for weeks and the lede you see now is the one agreed upon by a wide range of users. I would like to hear a wide range of opinions first before you change the lede accepted by a wide range of users.Sopher99 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't like agreeing with neo-Leninist and dictator sympathizer User:SadSwanSong, but I don't see any need for the number of children dead or imprisoned to be discussed specifically in the intro grafs here. Seems that's a level of detail best addressed in the body of the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The death toll of children is cited more often by the UN and the media than sectarianism. A day does not go by that children die in Syria, and I think it is important to note the unusually high rate of children deaths, (what seems to be that Children are deliberately targeted by the Security forces). Sopher99 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

There is the citation of a shadowy group called "Avaaz" for the allegation in the lead of over 600 people tortured to death. Observing some of Avaaz' stuff, a lot of their material is of a propagandistic, agitational character. While pretending to stand for human rights, they in fact encouraged massive violation of human rights in Libya with a "no-fly zone" and support for armed rebellion. They repeat the same gibberish of supporters of certain governments, such as the controversial and now discredited allegations about Libyan jets used against civilians:

As Libyan government jets drop bombs on the civilian population

Right now Qaddafi's forces are crushing the rebellion town by town and brutal retribution awaits Libyans who challenged the regime. If we don't persuade the UN to act now, we could witness a bloodbath.

In their rants about Syria, there are a lot of negative remarks made about Russia:

Take Action: Russia has supported the Assad family for decades and now Moscow is underwriting the violence in Syria by giving the army weapons and the regime diplomatic cover. But international pressure is slowly forcing Russia to change course. We can help.

And it turns out that Avaaz is actually a front group for George Soros: Avaaz was co-founded in 2007 by “Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org,” a George Soros-funded organization involved in ideological and political campaigns in the US.

So to conclude, this is a not a reliable source with its claims either being thoroughly attributed or removed altogether. SadSwanSong (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The source you removed was a nytimes article, which is reliable. Jeancey (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Will you actually read the article instead of making disruptive suggestions about what it reports? No one said that the NY Times is unreliable. Rather, I said that one of the sources they cited, which is the Avaaz group that I scrutinized above, is not reliable. If we're going to report what Avaaz says, it should be from their own publications rather than cursory statements from the new York Times. The New York Times did not purport to make a factual assertion about 617 people being tortured to death. Rather, the entire article consists of one of their journalists, who was reporting out of Lebanon rather than Syria, summarizing a bunch of different reports and claims about what's going in Syria. The article cites allegations from a shadowy group called Avaaz: The group, Avaaz, also said that its researchers had gathered the names of at least 617 people who had died under torture in government installations since the beginning of the uprising against Syria’s president I then investigated Avaaz' background and some of their material, and concluded that they do no meet RS guidelines. SadSwanSong (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaaz is a trusted and efficient activist group. Unlike like the UN however, they don't sweet talk dictators. Sopher99 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaaz is not trustworthy and is not reliable. For example

“The domain Avaaz.org attacked [29 governments email accounts]...with more than 250,000 SMTP email protocols [i.e., individual email messages that would flood and overwhelm the system]” on August 6, 2011, according to the Israeli government Computer Emergency Response Team

"Avaaz has a 4.7 million dollar budget and has (indirectly) received funding from George Soros." SadSwanSong (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, please knock it off with the agitprop reflected in statements like "they don't sweet talk dictators" and "The Syrian government denies every last drop of what is being said in this page.". I am not here to argue about politics, but to improve content on articles.SadSwanSong (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And everythnig you are doing is one sided. I don't care where Avaaz gets its funding. Every organization from the Democrats/Republicans to CNN to General Motors to David Cameron gets funding from "questionable" organizations. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I should also warn you that you are about to break the 3 revert rule. Sopher99 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I will replace the Avaaz links for the children deaths with the UNicef ones. Sounds fair? Sopher99 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You deleted the fact that Syria puts the death toll at 1300 security members and 2500 civilians. Syria disputed the allegations about 400 children killed, but you also deleted this. None of this is acceptable.SadSwanSong (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding false statements in the article. UNICEF did not say that 400 children were killed, but instead cited allegations originating from the rebels about 400 children killed. The Syrian Government disputed the UN's methodology and showed correctly that they take their claims from false reports coming from the rebels. --SadSwanSong (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the main issues here is your assertion that the rebels are issuing false reports, and your reasoning is that the government of syria is saying they are wrong. That is a terrible and extremely POV reasoning. Of course the syrian government is going to deny things that bad against them. Sure, the rebels are no doubt exaggerating their claims, but to say that they are 100% inaccurate because the other side in the conflict says so is 100% NOT ok. We don't make judgements about whether the information is reliable, only whether the source is reliable. If the front page of the BBC posted a story about how aliens from space were assisting the rebels, we would 100% put it in the article because the BBC is a reliable source. Does that make sense? Jeancey (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah uh - it came for sources on the ground, and not by the "rebels". Sopher99 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations did not carry out investigations and do its own work in Syria about such claims, but merely repeats a lot of the unverifiable, sensationalist stuff coming from the rebels, sort of like Ban Ki-moon's reaction to the lies about Libyan civilians being killed by Libyan planes. I explained this above and showed clearly that the claim of 400 children comes from the rebels, who are euphemistically identified as "activists". Also note that even the western media repeatedly says stuff like, "we are unable to verify the reports". I'm not saying that this should be erased from the article, but that such claims must have their source attributed in accordance with Wikipedia policies. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no sources that the activists are armed rebels. Things are unverifiable because the Syrian government keep journalists away, and makes things very difficult (via minders and security) for any journalists that are there. "western media" admits when things are unverifiable. lease stop with your POV pushing.

The anonymous "activists" function as the propaganda instrument of the rebellion: they only report stuff that makes the government look bad. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes because when you are being slaughtered, you only have making the government look bad in mind when you report it.Sopher99 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just as a note, the rebels are just about as reliable at this point as the syrian government, so as a compromise, we can remove all of the claims that Avaaz makes, but we also should then remove every single one of the syrian governments allegations for the same reason. You can't pick the rebels as unreliable because you don't agree with them and then use syrian government claims instead. It's either all or nothing. Also, I would suggest reading WP:RS and WP:VNT. Jeancey (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're setting up a straw man because I never insisted that claims from the Syrian opposition activists be removed. Rather, I called for their claims to be clearly attributed and the sources identified. The statements "400 children have been killed", "over 600 tortured to death" are not acceptable under Wikipedia rules. The proper way to write this would be, "Syrian activists say that 400 children have been killed." My personal view is that the Syrian activists are being dishonest and pushing unverifiable, sensationalist propaganda to make the government look bad, but I don't try to remove everything they claim because that would provoke an edit war. And if Syrian "activists" are allowed to stay, then there needs to be a more thorough presentation of the pro-government point of view to make the article more neutral. SadSwanSong (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not propaganda. In 1982 40,000 civilians were strait out killed in Hama. The syrian government does these kinds of things. The Pro-goverment argument is the least neutral and the least verifiable out of all perspectives. Sopher99 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The most reliable reporting of the Hama rebellion of 1982 places the death toll at about 1000, caused largely by the rebels. And a lot of people disagree with you, as they consider Syria's Government to do good things.

Please read Wikipedia rules: all noteworthy viewpoints about a topic need to be presented fairly. Your sentence about the pro-Syrian POV not being allowed sounds like a call for censorship. SadSwanSong (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh - no. The most modest death tolls in the Hama massacre place it at 10,000 dead. The Syrian government used a scorched earth policy. Please read more carefully too. I said "The Pro-goverment argument is the least neutral and the least verifiable out of all perspectives" Sopher99 (talk)

"The Pro-goverment argument is the least neutral and the least verifiable out of all perspectives" --according to whom? This sounds like your own personal opinion.

And please stop spreading false information about events in Hama. Read this Time Magazine article, citing reports of 1000 people killed SadSwanSong (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Compared to the dozens of reports that 10,000-40,000 were killed. The pro-goverment side is the least verifiable because journalists on the ground like Nic robertson and Marie Covin personaly confirmed the opposite of what the Syrian government says. It is the least neutral too, because it blames everything on a foreign conspiracy and have the most radical claims. Sopher99 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I read your time magazine article, VERY FUNNY "March 8 1982". Just 4 weeks after it occurred, and with no activists, no reporters, no internet no journalists on the ground, they say maybe 1,000 killed. Thats initial reports of deaths. Guesses. The most unreliable numbers there are. Sopher99 (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Ill be offline for the next hour. Sopher99 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is ridicolious. In support of 1,000 killed in 82 you quote 20 years old article from time when there was no citizien-journalism, no witnesses on ground, no independent medias on ground and Syria was winner of number one police state of MENA region award. However you disregard modern studies about the massacre which put number of casulties on 10,000 at least like for example Amnesty International or Rifaat al-Assad statements how he is sad that they killed only 38,000 people and if things went out as he planned 50,000 would be dead. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The reports of 1,000 killed came from western diplomats stationed in Syria, actually. Those are the most reliable, objective reports about what happened.SadSwanSong (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That´s bull, Robert Fisk later corrected his statement to 20,000 casulties, vast majority civilians. [2] EllsworthSK (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As a first-time visitor to this article and this page, I'm astonished that a number of the editors who have posted here and edited the article, in particular Sopher99, are still allowed to freely edit on Wikipiedia! I have seen jaw-dropping posts containing some of the most unabashed examples of not assuming good faith, not listening, edit warring for the sake of it, with not even a figleaf of impartiality, that would have got those editors' a lifetime ban if done to this extent in other subject areas. Meowy 20:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Hama

The Siege of Hama article is a mess. It makes us understand as if there is a continous siege of Hama from July 2011, and the siege is covering the entire province of Hama - which is clearly nonsense. Please address the issue at the talk page of that article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Russia supplying arms to Syria

" Russia[212] has shipped arms during the uprising to Assads regime for use against rebels."

The Arms sales to Syria as seen in the article, is limited to aviation. I can hardly understand how the Syrian government will use fighter jets against rebels and militants on the ground --173.56.43.241 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Stub started on Humanitarian corridor concept

I've started a brief stub on the general Humanitarian corridor concept, if anyone here would like to contribute to that.--Pharos (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)--Pharos (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox civil conflict

..should be changed to infobox military conflict. What do you think?--Reader1987 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Even if there's no consensus this is a civil war, there are clearly significant firefights on a regular basis between President Assad's supporters (army, shabiha, and civilian backers) and the opposition (defectors, jihadists, and armed civilians, not to conflate the anti-government cause with jihadism or imply that the jihadists and FSA move as one hand). -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A separate page should be created entailing the military aspect. That way we can move the protests and armed clashes into that page as well. Sopher99 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But why? Not even the Libyan civil war page is split that way. This article is oversplit as is. But I agree with including that infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the non-violent uprising only lasted a week in Libya. How about we make two infoboxes then, or split the current infobox into two sections Sopher99 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk, your idea sounds logical, but unfortunately is not practical - this page is already covering the whole uprising. Maybe in the future we can split subarticles "Syrian uprising (first phase)" and "Syrian uprising (second phase)", but for now it is too early. I'm of course in favor making a clear separation within the article and the infobox between the protests phase (February-September/October 2011) and clashes phase (October 2011-present).Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the infobox to a military one. We would lose much information by doing so. For instance, Template:Infobox military conflict lacks the parameters "causes", "goals" and "concessions". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Assad Emails

Interesting info published by The Guardian:

• Gilded lifestyle continued for Assad coterie as conflict raged in Syria

• Emails

Should be added to article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe most of it should be added to the Bashar assad article.

However , the part where Bashar Assad mocks his own "reforms" should go into the concession part, and the part where Assad makes fun of the Arab league for their observers inability to spot tanks should go into the Observer mission section.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/assad-video-arab-league-tanks?CMP=twt_gu Sopher99 (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If the emails are to be mentioned in the article, it should also be noted that the emails were provided by "a source in the Syrian opposition" and that even The Guardian itself says that it isn't absolutely sure of their authenticity.

Also, Sopher99, you seem to have totally misunderstood the tank video. It doesn't "make fun of the Arab league for their observers inability to spot tanks", it mocks the rebels' claim that the Syrian army is somehow capable of disguising tanks. As The Guardian itself puts it: "A spoof video shared by Syria's President Bashar al-Assad with one of his aides in a private email mocks a theory that the regime had hidden tanks from international observers in Homs." The video mocks the rebels, not the Arab League. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/assad-video-arab-league-tanks?CMP=twt_gu I suppose thats their interpretation. They got the emails from the opposition? I thought they were leaked (a traitor within the circle so to speak) Sopher99 (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you even watched the video? It shows how the barrel of a tank "by some Godly miracle" turns into a tea drinking straw, and the rest of the tank into a toy car. It's quite obviously mocking the claim that the Syrian army disguises tanks to prevent them from being seen by observers. That's not an 'interpretation', it's abundantly clear. As for your belief that the emails were leaked from within the circle: I don't know how you got that idea. The Guardian itself makes it quite clear that it got the emails from "a source in the Syrian opposition". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nir Rosen

Apparently one of Bashar's emails highlights the Al jazeera journalist Nir Rosen as an informant to the Assad regime.

Its in arabic and I don't think it has been translated yet, nor do I know the veracity of the email.

http://www.alarabiya.net/files/image/sec4_14540_8716.jpg

• • • Here is the translation, but unfortunately the name was blanked out, the blanked out name is Nir Rosen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/bashar-al-assad-syria6?CMP=twt_gu

Its not too unlikely, a Reuters journalist served Abdullah Saleh as an informant until he was exposed.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/reuters-reporter-also-works-for-yemens-president/

I am just wondering if we keep Nir Rosen's reports when or if we get concrete sources about this email. Sopher99 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course we keep them. If partiality of sources were a reason to exclude their reports from the article, we would have to delete everything claimed by the rebels and by the pro-rebel 'human rights organizations' such as the SOHR as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep it. EkoGraf (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch on the opposition

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/open-letter-leaders-syrian-opposition FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, Sopher99? You put the lead full of alleged atrocities by the Syrian government, including specifics such as the number of children killed, tortured etc., but you won't tolerate any reference to atrocities committed by rebels in the lead? Have you ever heard of WP:NPOV? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Since I already started talking on your talk page, ill put the discussion there for now. Sopher99 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Vote to Include Alqaeda in the infobox, or not?

This endless, unreasonable discussion has gone on to long. If you support to include alqaeda. Write support. If you oppose, write oppose. Sopher99 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Oppose" no data supports them as a beligerent. =Samcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Nothing has been confirmed, we don't include hezbollah and iran even though there is similar accusations. Alqaeda is a pre-existing insurgency, a totally separate uprising. During the yemeni uprising alqaeda seized many towns, but they are not part of the yemeni uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Completely Support Al Qaeda or jihadist groups. Al Qaeda leader Zawahiri openly support the rebellion, Iraki official tell that jihadists cross from irak to fight in Syria, US spy official reveal that Al Qaeda is in the mix. Jihadists are another group of the fight against Assad, different from FSA. Different from Iran/Hezbollah as fristly both denied any involvment and secondly it came only from opposition sources. If only the syrian governement was talking Al Qaeda, it would not be worth it, but here, we have plenty of sources. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just remember, a vote means nothing. Even if there is a slight majority one way or the other, that would still be a deadlock, even if its 51%-49% Jeancey (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We understand that it needed Consensus to pass. Sopher99 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I expect that if included, we would source it to an RS or two. We already have in the infobox a number of entries, similarly sourced (unfortunately, I see we also have a number of ibox entries that are not sourced in the ibox). Many are even identified as being a "claim". If we do add it, consistent with what we already have, I would suggest we supply the appropriate ref(s) and -- if appropriate -- term it a claim as well, just as we do throughout the ibox.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but can you guys stop commenting and start voting, the vote needs to win by a wide majority to win, and its not going to go anywhere if only two people are voting. Sopher99 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Completely Oppose If you want to include al queda, then you'll have to include the Iranian government as well, on the side of the Syrian government. Several reports, including from "Russia Today" talk about thousands of iranian troops entering Syria to aid the government in it's crackdown on everything anti-government. It's already confirmed that Iran and other countries supplied the Syrian government If you really have to include al queeda, that you'll have to include Iran and Hezbollah, as they continue to support the assad government and there are the same level, if not more, accusations on the subject. For example, the US recently sanctioned Iran's intelligence agency for "supporting Syria's crackdown on dissidents". That is why we shouldn't put these accusations in the infobox, and it would be very non-neutral if al-queda was put in and you're not going to put Iran in also.Gotlak (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There are numerous sources that cite Al Qaeda's supporting the opposition forces. Drimidiri (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Properly source it, as we have done in the ibox when we've gotten things right. And -- if need be, as with other "claims", reflect it as a claim (but if we do that, do it with all other "claims" in the ibox). We have RSs reporting it, and reporting that high-level government officials are saying it, so let's reflect it as we reflect all other such information. As to whether others similarly supported should be reflected, that is a discussion for a separate string, if someone wants to open it up for consideration, but I would tend to say yes to similarly supported entities.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In recent weeks numerous sources, including American officials from the intelligence community and the Iraqi Interior Ministry, have confirmed even a small presence of Al Qaeda in the country and a reasonable degree of their connection to the recent suicide bombings against Syrian government police and military targets. Plus, Al Qaeda has voiced their support for the uprising and multiple foreign news reporters who have been smuggled into the country by the FSA have confirmed, even though a limited, presence of foreign fighters among the FSA (most coming from Iraqi Al Qaeda). The reporters and the Iraqi government have also confirmed that the Iraqi Al Qaeda has been the one providing the weapons via Mosul in Iraq over the border into Syria for the FSA in smuggling operations. EkoGraf (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Eko, could you provide sources for those smuggled journalists which confirmed presence of foreign fighters in Syria? I thought that I read all reports made by them (Guardian, Sky News, CNN, BBC and several freelancers) and I never saw such a thing there. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply It was among Al Jazeera's news blogs on Syria that I read a report about a week ago by one of their journalist of seeing several foreign fighters among those at Homs. I can't find it at the moment. I did find a report from a Beirut source that was with the FSA near Homs recently and he stated he saw hundreds. Source here [3]. Also, here is the report [4] by the Iraqi Interior Ministry about the weapon smuggling operations by jihadists and them sending fighters to Syria from Iraq. One more thing, read my other comment bellow. Top US intelligence officials today confirmed that Al Qaeda was most likely behind the Aleppo bombing. However anybody who opposes this notion tries to spin it, foreign radical jihadists are now a part of this conflict. The war in Bosnia in the 90s started at first as a war only between the pro-independence people and the anti-independence people...but than evolved into a war where you had Serbs vs Croats, Serbs vs Muslims, Muslims vs Croats, pro-Serb Muslims vs anti-Serb Muslims, Serbs vs foreign jihadists, etc, etc, etc. In Lebanon during the civil war you had more than a dozen different parties to the conflict. In Iraq recently the same thing, at least half a dozen different parties. That is the reality of a real civil war. There are no just two sides. EkoGraf (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to reply As a matter of fact if you read what Iraqi interior minister said it is something else as some presented it here. Even if we forget on Iraqi-Iranian-Assad ties, he spoke of Syrian foreign fighters returning from Iraq to Syria. However ignoring that your examples of Lebanon civil war and Bosnian war are also reasons why it shouldnt be added. Especially in case of Bosnia, foreign fighters (jihadi or not), including those from network such as AQ fought on both sides of the conflict, yet AQ is not included as direct participant. In Lebanon in 17 years of war thousands of foreign fighters partook in conflict, once again from many groups. Yet, we do not include them. Infobox is reserved for primary combatant in the conflict, who have strongly established presence in such conflict and I saw no source claiming such thing about AQ which wether some like it or not is a shadow of its former self. That for example was said by Iraqi minister who said that power of AQI has diminished and was dealt even larger blow when them allied foreign fighters started returning to their countries of origin to participate in their local conflicts (Yemen, Libya, Syria). I dont really think that so far we are in the situation when can we include it, after all argument here is if AQ has none, insignificant or minor presence in this conflict. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think we need substantial evidence of al Qaeda fighters in Syria before adding this. Even if foreign fighters are coming from Iraq, Jordan, and/or Libya, it's unclear that they're affiliated with al Qaeda. And just because al Qaeda says they support the uprising doesn't mean they're actively committing resources. Even if al Qaeda is selling arms to the rebels, too, that doesn't make them combatants. It also needs to be quite clear that al Qaeda and the Syrian opposition are allied, something I have seen literally nothing reliable to support, or else the infobox will have to be changed to reflect three sides in the conflict. The idea of Christian and Druze members of the opposition being in league with al Qaeda, or the secular U.S.-allied governments of Turkey and France working to support an insurgency affiliated with al Qaeda, strains credibility somewhat. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Libyans have been involved, Hezballah has been involved, communists and MB have all been involved. We don't even know how many AQ fighters are in Syria, what if there is only a few dozen? We have no info about the reality of their involvement. I7laseral (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seem rather speculative currently, and on top of that I am opposed to info-box creep.XantheTerra (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I already stated my reasons above I shall sum it up here. First of all, so far I saw no RS which would claim that AQ or AQI is direct participant of this conflict. Seconly it´s a plain speculation and thirdly I would point out 2011–2012 Yemeni uprising article. Although in Yemen there are large AQAP operations, although AQAP controls several cities in Yemen and is waging war there for years we did not include it in infobox. And lastly it strikes me as hypocritical that on same basis consensus was reached that IRGC and Hezbollah wont be included into infobox, despite having more than enough reliable sources simply because all sources are based on more or less speculations and second-hand reports while here, where we dont even have thouse RS, we would do opposite. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The opposition to the Assad regime in Syria is reportedly heterogeneous and I've read a number of sources, including the BBC, stating that Islamic fundamentalism is a component. The difficulty of this decision is that inclusion or exclusion are editorial choices that will influence whether readers choose to "support" or "oppose" one faction or another (even though this shouldn't be our concern). I think we can all agree that our policy should be to accurately represent the reality of the situation, whatever it may be, and not our personal feelings about the ongoing conflict. -Darouet (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this is an important point, and I think it's quite clear we have a number of editors active on this page and related content who have a very overt political agenda. We're seeing some editors who opposed including Iran and Hezbollah as combatants on the government's side now calling for al Qaeda to be added post-haste as a co-belligerent of the opposition, and vice versa...obviously agenda-pushing shouldn't be an issue here, but unfortunately, for some editors, it is. I think all this might just benefit from a wait-and-see approach until we get real concrete evidence that Tripoli or Tehran or the jihadists of Hezbollah or al Qaeda have committed fighters to this conflict. Right now, we have sources claiming the involvement of all four, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus among them on any of them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Top US intelligence officials today confirmed that Al Qaeda was likely behind the recent Aleppo sucide bombing. Source here [5]. And in response to what Kudzu1 said, I'm all for adding Iran and Hezbollah to the infobox if needed in the support group.EkoGraf (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"United States intelligence officials told The Washington Post that while the bombings in Syria have the hallmarks of al-Qaeda operations, they have found no conclusive link to al-Qaeda or its Iraqi affiliate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/top-general-assassinated-in-damascus/2012/02/11/gIQAfYPn6Q_story.html". Its still only speculative. They have no intelligence on the Aleppo bombing, they just think that Syria is a likely target, and therefore is likely being targeted by alqaeda. Also enough of these Comments guys. If you want to argue, there are two discussions above. I7laseral (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about voting. Adding comment is a perfectly reasonable form of discourse in this section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to I7laseral. That report you pointed out to, which was speculative, is from six days ago. The one I pointed to is from yesterday and cites officials who gave the statement yesterday, not a week ago, and it wasn't speculative this time around. Further one of the top officials that was cited who confirmed Al Qaeda is infiltrating the opposition is none other than Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. EkoGraf (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion, if we do vote alqaeda in, lets add it to the infobox of the Syrian civil war/operations, if such a page was to be established, ie wait until we make a legitimate civil war page, then we add alqaeda/hezbolah/iran. Of course i oppose putting any of them in at all. I7laseral (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support with qualification I think both "sides" here are right and both sides here are wrong, on Al Qaeda. I actually agree with Sopher99 on one aspect: it is unfair and inaccurate to call Al Qaeda part of "the" opposition. They are very much at odds with peaceful, sometimes secular, and other elements of the opposition. In this dimension I disagree with ChronicalUsual. However, that does not mean that Al Qaeda is not _a_ party to the civil war; they are just not part of the wide-ranging peaceful opposition nor of the main SNC etc. But they clearly have a significant, and seemingly growing role (more bombings, statement by al-Zawahiri, etc.

And no, we do not "have to accept U.S. government claims on everything else if we accept one U.S. analyst (or 3 of them) on Al Qaeda". What is significant is that parties that normally disagree strongly, and who often have very different sets of claims, facts, and analysis, actually agree on Al Qaeda's presence in Syria. That's why the U.S. analysts (more than just one) statements on AQI in Syria are significant. (Also no, we wouldn't be "forced to list Iran in fairness, if we list Al Qaeda" No, we list what has been documented. Al Qaeda, has been., so include it. If/when Iran sending thousands is documented, then include it, until/unless documented, don't. Similarly, if/when U.S. covert agents on teh ground are documented (note: recently reported that western armed forces were combatants in Libya unlike official claims) then add those; unless/until documented, don't. Al Qaeda has been repeatedly found by usually opposite analysts, to be on the ground and active in not one but many attacks.)

The truth and reality is that there are more than two key players. (If someone thinks, "we can't admit this, because this will help Assad" they should remember some history of how many extremist groups have grown, Islamic extremist ones included, because of the "in order to win against [current enemy] we have to turn a blind eye to these extremist fundamentalists" policy) The challenge is to use _wording_ and also maybe _structure_ (more than two sides) in a way that makes it clear that Al Qaeda is NOT part of the peaceful opposition nor part of (name this or that) armed rebel groups/coalitions. That is the goal. So are they are key participant? Yes. But I think it's ok if we make clear that (for now at least) they are not as major a participate as some other groupings (this was true in Iraq were some groups were in 2005 and are today, significant and worth listing, but not as powerful or dominant as other groups and coalitions, for example) Harel (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment More specific than the umbrella "Al Qaeda" (and per entry it should be "Al Qaeda" not one-word 'alqaeda') but rather AQI, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is a party to the conflict, according to reports. Unless/until other Al Qaeda grops are involved, we should list the more specific group AQI. Hopefully this is tacittly understood by voters above, but this is worth clarifying explicitly. Harel (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - as long as there is no solid evidence of actual military involvement in the conflict of other parties than the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition, those other parties should not be included in the infobox. And I deliberately say military involvement because countries and organizations that merely provide vocal support to either of the parties (such as Hezbollah) do not belong in the infobox in my opinion. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply Hardly just vocal support, numerous sources have been provided recently that Iran and Hezbollah are providing material support for the government while Al Qaeda is providing limited material support to some elements of the FSA over the Iraqi border. EkoGraf (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Those sources merely contain anecdotal evidence, along the lines of "members of the Syrian opposition report that they witnessed Iranian arms being supplied to the government". Meanwhile, the countries / organizations allegedly providing material support deny the accusations. There simply is no solid evidence of any foreign military support of any of the parties. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The al-queeda chief in Lebanon has just said that altough they support the uprising, they are not operating on the ground in Syria. [6]. It is also important to note that the Syria opposition has "catergorically rejected" any al-queeda interference in their uprising. Since there is absolutley no solid evidence for this claim, why should we include it? I've seen many more sources for Iran interfering in Syria, to be perfectly honest.Goltak (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So far we are not even on track to reach consensus on the vote, and even if the vote passed with concessus, we would include Iraqi alqaeda as suspected, and a third party to the conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lebanon Al Qaeda chief was talking about his group specificly, the Lebanon Al Qaeda, while most reports cite the Iraqi Al Qaeda as being behind the infiltration of the opposition, weapons smuggling and suicide attacks. EkoGraf (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral - seems to me Al-Queda is a very vague group defention of various radical Sunni organizations, however it is clear that those groups take part in the conflict and have their own agenda, not within the scope of the FSA rebel targets.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but they should be mentioned in the intro and under armed resistance. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Okay, Al-Qaeda supports the uprising, what it is then? Why should this fact leads to a conclusion that Al-Qaeda is part of the uprising? This is meaningless, and no RS support it. Yes, there is an armed resitance in Syria other than FSA, but it is not related to any political nor non-political group --aad_Dira (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose per TaalVerbeteraar and aad_Dira. – Danmichaelo (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that this information and its sources are significant enough to warrant the proposed action. --71.52.229.120 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Vote should closed now. Clearly No consensus. Besides, a jihadist group recently formed in Syria have claimed responsibility for the Damascus bombing. The point of vote is now invalid as well. Sopher99 (talk)

• Comment, regardless what any of the above people say. If RS says alqaeda is a belligerent in the uprising then it can be included. this is simple wikipedia policy.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Some rebels"

I do not think the lack of a central command amongst the rebels can be used as an argument for including the weasel word "some" in describing human rights violations committed by rebels. In itself, the sentence "Anti-government rebels have been accused of human rights abuses" does not imply anything about the number of rebels involved in this kind of abuse, so there is no need to write "some". Moreover, I think use of the word introduces a bias, because when it comes to atrocities committed by government forces, we *don't* use it. E.g. we don't write "some members of the army shelled the Baba Amr area of Homs". Any thoughts of other editors on this? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise it sounds like Wikipedia's policy is to gloss over what are considered rebel atrocities. This is not the case. While it may be true that the rebel forces do not all operate under a unified policy, this means little to those who have been victims of kidnapping, torture, extrajudicial murder or bombing, or to those who don't support armed conflict against the Assad regime. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

Someone moved this article to a POV title. That should not be done without discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have move protected the article, until a new consensus to move is established. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Syrian Revolution

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: request closed per WP:SNOW. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

I see a request for move to "Syrian civil war" being created almost every day and to be honest it is getting really annoying. These requests are usually defended by "Wikipedia common name" or "Wikipedia reliable sources", while there are almost no sources calling it a civil war. Regardless of what these editors gain by changing the name to "civil war", I request that this page be moved to "Syrian revolution". I hope we can agree on how "common" this term is when refering to the Syrian conflict and that countless RS's have been using "Syrian revolution" not "Syrian uprising" since the beginning of the protests in March 2011.72.53.153.82 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Syrian Revolution Data

Here is some data that make allegations of "be bald" and "lack of snowball" seem irrational. First of all, please take a look at the total search volume on the web for each term as presented here. Examining several reliable sources by observing the total number of results for each of these souurces also shows data in support of the request. Aljazzera and Aljazeera, BBC and BBC, CNN and CNN. I believe I have provided concrete data that show that most reliable sources are referring to the Syrian conflict as a "Syrian revolution" and not "Syrian Uprising". Please feel free to provide actual data that show otherwise. In light of this, I hope that more consideration/research is taken into account when a page is closed/removed on Wikipedia. Also please remember that, as per Wikipedia Policies, personal opinion is irrelevant regarding what this page should be named and so content comprised of simply Oppose or Support is unproductive.72.53.153.82 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Closure per WP:SNOW doesn't necessarily mean that there are no valid arguments for the proposal; it simply means that the proposal has very little chance of being adopted by the Wikipedia community. In the last discussion, a vast number of editors opposed changing the current title. There is absolutely no reason to believe that merely a few weeks later and with little having been changed on the ground in Syria, there would suddenly be a consensus to move the article to a new title. Therefore, WP:SNOW applies and so I closed the request. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That request is about rename to "Syrian civil war" that lacks a any significant RS for support. This one was about renaming to "Syrian revolution". I belive the two are not synonymous. But whatever. This has become that least of problems regarding Wikipedia validity and reliability, at least lately. 72.53.153.82 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood has issued new Covenant

Muslim Brotherhood movement in Syria

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

من أجل وطن حر، وحياة حرة كريمة لكل مواطن.. وفي هذه المرحلة الحاسمة من تاريخ سورية، حيث يولد الفجر من رحم المعاناة والألم، على يد أبناء سورية الأبطال، رجالاً ونساءً، شباباً وأطفالاً وشيوخاً، في ثورة وطنية عامة، يشارك فيها شعبنا بكلّ مكوّناته، من أجل السوريين جميعاً.. فإننا في جماعة الإخوان المسلمين في سورية، منطلقين من مبادئ ديننا الإسلامي الحنيف، القائمة على الحرية والعدل والتسامح والانفتاح.. نتقدّم بهذا العهد والميثاق، إلى أبناء شعبنا جميعاً، ملتزمين به نصاً وروحاً، عهداً يصون الحقوق، وميثاقاً يبدد المخاوف، ويبعث على الطمأنينة والثقة والرضا.

يمثل هذا العهد والميثاق رؤية وطنية، وقواسم مشتركة، تتبناها جماعة الإخوان المسلمين في سورية، وتتقدم بها أساساً لعقد اجتماعيّ جديد، يؤسّس لعلاقة وطنية معاصرة وآمنة، بين مكوّنات المجتمع السوريّ، بكلّ أطيافه الدينية والمذهبية والعرقية، وتياراته الفكرية والسياسية.

يلتزم الإخوان المسلمون بالعمل على أن تكون سورية المستقبل:

1 – دولة مدنية حديثة، تقوم على دستور مدنيّ، منبثق عن إرادة أبناء الشعب السوريّ، قائم على توافقية وطنية، تضعه جمعية تأسيسية منتخَبة انتخاباً حراً نزيها، يحمي الحقوقَ الأساسية للأفراد والجماعات، من أيّ تعسّفٍ أو تجاوز، ويضمن التمثيلَ العادل لكلّ مكوّنات المجتمع.

2 - دولة ديمقراطية تعددية تداولية، وفق أرقى ما وصل إليه الفكر الإنسانيّ الحديث، ذات نظام حكم جمهوريّ نيابيّ، يختار فيها الشعب من يمثله ومن يحكمه، عبر صناديق الاقتراع، في انتخاباتٍ حرة نزيهة شفافة.

3 – دولة مواطنة ومساواة، يتساوى فيها المواطنون جميعاً، على اختلاف أعراقهم وأديانهم ومذاهبهم واتجاهاتهم، تقوم على مبدأ المواطنة التي هي مناط الحقوق والواجبات، يحقّ لأيّ مواطنٍ فيها الوصول إلى أعلى المناصب، استناداً إلى قاعدتي الانتخاب أو الكفاءة. كما يتساوى فيها الرجالُ والنساء، في الكرامة الإنسانية، والأهلية، وتتمتع فيها المرأة بحقوقها الكاملة.

4 - دولة تلتزم بحقوق الإنسان - كما أقرتها الشرائع السماوية والمواثيق الدولية - من الكرامة والمساواة، وحرية التفكير والتعبير، وحرية الاعتقاد والعبادة، وحرية الإعلام، والمشاركة السياسية، وتكافؤ الفرص، والعدالة الاجتماعية، وتوفير الاحتياجات الأساسية للعيش الكريم. لا يضامُ فيها مواطن في عقيدته ولا في عبادته، ولا يضيّقُ عليه في خاصّ أو عامّ من أمره.. دولة ترفضُ التمييز، وتمنعُ التعذيبَ وتجرّمه.

5 - دولة تقوم على الحوار والمشاركة، لا الاستئثار والإقصاء والمغالبة، يتشاركُ جميع أبنائها على قدم المساواة، في بنائها وحمايتها، والتمتّع بثروتها وخيراتها، ويلتزمون باحترام حقوق سائر مكوناتها العرقية والدينية والمذهبية، وخصوصية هذه المكوّنات، بكل أبعادها الحضارية والثقافية والاجتماعية، وبحقّ التعبير عن هذه الخصوصية، معتبرين هذا التنوعَ عاملَ إثراء، وامتداداً لتاريخ طويل من العيش المشترك، في إطار من التسامح الإنسانيّ الكريم.

6 - دولة يكون فيها الشعبُ سيدَ نفسه، وصاحبَ قراره، يختارُ طريقه، ويقرّرُ مستقبله، دون وصاية من حاكم مستبدّ، أو حزب واحد، أو مجموعة متسلطة.

7 - دولة تحترمُ المؤسسات، وتقومُ على فصل السلطات التشريعية والقضائية والتنفيذية، يكونُ المسئولون فيها في خدمة الشعب. وتكونُ صلاحياتُهم وآلياتُ محاسبتهم محدّدةً في الدستور. وتكونُ القواتُ المسلحة وأجهزةُ الأمن فيها لحماية الوطن والشعب، وليس لحماية سلطة أو نظام، ولا تتدخّلُ في التنافس السياسيّ بين الأحزاب والقوى الوطنية.

8 - دولة تنبذُ الإرهابَ وتحاربُه، وتحترمُ العهودَ والمواثيقَ والمعاهداتِ والاتفاقياتِ الدولية، وتكونُ عاملَ أمن واستقرار، في محيطها الإقليميّ والدوليّ. وتقيمُ أفضلَ العلاقات الندّية مع أشقائها، وفي مقدمتهم الجارة لبنان، التي عانى شعبُها - كما عانى الشعب السوريّ - من ويلات نظام الفساد والاستبداد، وتعملُ على تحقيق مصالح شعبها الإستراتيجية، وعلى استرجاع أرضها المحتلة، بكافة الوسائل المشروعة، وتدعمُ الحقوقَ المشروعة للشعب الفلسطينيّ الشقيق.

9 - دولة العدالة وسيادة القانون، لا مكانَ فيها للأحقاد، ولا مجالَ فيها لثأر أو انتقام.. حتى أولئك الذين تلوثت أيديهم بدماء الشعب، من أيّ فئة كانوا، فإنّ من حقهم الحصولَ على محاكمات عادلة، أمامَ القضاء النزيه الحرّ المستقل.

10 - دولة تعاون وألفة ومحبة، بين أبناء الأسرة السورية الكبيرة، في ظلّ مصالحة وطنية شاملة. تسقطُ فيها كلّ الذرائع الزائفة، التي اعتمدها نظامُ الفساد والاستبداد، لتخويف أبناء الوطن الواحد بعضهم من بعض، لإطالة أمَدِ حكمه، وإدامة تحكّمه برقاب الجميع.

هذه هي رؤيتنا وتطلعاتنا لغدنا المنشود، وهذا عهدُنا وميثاقُنا أمامَ الله، وأمامَ شعبنا، وأمامَ الناس أجمعين. رؤية نؤكّدُها اليوم، بعد تاريخٍ حافلٍ في العمل الوطنيّ لعدة عقود، منذُ تأسيس الجماعة، على يد الدكتور مصطفى السباعي رحمه الله عام 1945. كنا قد عرضنا ملامحَها بوضوح وجلاء، في ميثاق الشرف الوطنيّ عام 2001، وفي مشروعنا السياسيّ عام 2004، وفي الأوراق الرسمية المعتمدة من قِبَل الجماعة، بشأن مختلف القضايا المجتمعية والوطنية.

وهذه قلوبُنا مفتوحة، وأيدينا ممدودةٌ إلى جميع إخوتنا وشركائنا في وطننا الحبيب، ليأخذ مكانه اللائقَ بين المجتمعات الإنسانية المتحضّرة. (وتعاونوا على البر والتقوى، ولا تعاونوا على الإثم والعدوان، واتقوا الله إنّ الله شديد العقاب).

25 آذار (مارس) 2012

جماعة الإخوان المسلمين في سورية

From Syria comment:

"A dirty “Google translation” of the most important paragraphs of the new charter give this:

This iCovenant and Charter has a national vision, and common denominators, adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and provides the basis for a new social contract, establishes the relationship between national contemporary and safe, among the components of the Syrian society, with all its religious, sectarian, ethnic, and intellectual trends and political rights. Adhere to the Muslim Brotherhood to work to be Syria’s future:

1 – A modern civil state, based on a civil constitution, emanating from the will of the people of the Syrian people, based on national consensus, established by a constituent assembly which must be freely and fairly elected, and protect the fundamental rights of individuals and groups from any abuse or excesses, and to ensure equitable representation of all components of society.

2 – State of deliberative democracy, pluralism, according to the highest conclusion reached by the modern human thought, with a republican parliamentary system of government, which the people choose their representatives and governed, through the ballot box, in the elections free, fair and transparent.

3 – State of citizenship and equality, where all citizens are equal, with different ethnic backgrounds and religions, sects and attitudes, based on the principle which shall be the basis of citizenship rights and duties, any citizen access to the highest positions, based on the bases of the election or efficiency. As even where men and women, human dignity and to be eligible, and enjoy the full women’s rights. …

7. A state that respects the institutions, based on the separation of powers, legislative, judicial and executive branches, the officials in the service of the people. ….

9. State of justice and the rule of law, no place for hatred, where there is no room for revenge or retaliation .. Even those who contaminated their hands with the blood of the people, of any class they are, it is entitled to fair trials before impartial judiciary free and independent. " --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Title

"2011-2012"? This suggests the conflict has ended. It hasn't. Therefore the name should be changed. What is this? Shouldn't it be changed to Syrian Civil War or something (just a suggestion, but calling it 2011-2012 is definitely wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.4.0 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

...No? How does it suggest that at all? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he/she means that something such as Syrian uprising (2011–present) would be more suitable, cf. War in Afghanistan (2001–present). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Was thinking the same thing today. EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we need years at all? i.e.: "Syrian Uprising" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.16.30 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, having the years in the title is very pointless. I don't even know why/who put it there in the first place. I remember it being just "Syrian uprising".72.53.153.82 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There were so many Syrian uprisings over the history, that putting years is something crucial to define the event.Greyshark09 (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is weird to have the year in the title

So the consensus is that it should be changed... But it isn't being changed...? Also to Kudzu1, of course it suggests it has ended or at least that it will end soon. The conflict has every potential to go on past 2012.

"Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing" It doesn't say 2012. 2011-2012 sounds wrong and is misleading. It makes assumptions. Totally unencyclopaedic.

So how do I edit wikipedia then?

Lead image

Nice work, finally a proper visual representation of this conflict!Greyshark09 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It does look nice now, but maybe at least one image should be of the suicide bombings which have been notable in the conflict? Replace with it maybe Destroyed buildings in Homs or A man searching for valuable items beneath the rubble? EkoGraf (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the piecing together of various scenes, however, the collage is not fully representative. There is both armed conflict and protests still going on. So, it would be more balanced if one or two of those pictures were of ongoing peaceful protests and civil disobedience. --Guest2625 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah that too, noticed that too, that there is no image of protests. I would replace two of the images in the collage with an image of the protests and an image of the aftermath of a suicide bombing. And again I think one of those replaced should be A man searching for valuable items beneath the rubble and the other per the discreation of the owner of the collage. But the ones that I think should be kept are the family running from the shelling, the RPG guy, the tank and one of the Homs images. EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also remembered one more thing, for the image to be balanced and represent all sides points of view in the conflict I think an image of the daily military funerals should be also included. EkoGraf (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Syrian Civil war

Folks, lets call a spade a spade, who supports renaming this to "2011-2012 Syrian Civil War"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should just stick to what published sources calls it, which I have a faint recollection of being Wikipedia policy. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

First it was Libyan uprsing, then name on Wikipedia article got changed to Libyan civil war (based on consensus), when will this happen here? I think it should happen now as reliable sources say this "uprising" has become increasingly militarised and sectarion-ised if thats a word--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not on consensus, but because sources referred to it as such. That's all that matters here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose and let's stop this discussion right here. Time and again requests like these keep coming up, and every time the outcome is the same: reliable sources are calling this an uprising so that is the name Wikipedia uses for it. Spare yourself the energy of arguing about it because the outcome is predictable. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Against. The syrian rebels are losing very quickly and soon all territory will be in hands of goovernement. They will remain as an insurgency not as a true military force. They will be like FARC, in an armed conflict but not the scale of civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.86.67 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't count a lightly armed nearly leaderless group taking all rural villages, 2/3 of homs, half of Deir Ezzor, half of daraa, the damascus suburbs and all of idlib in a period of only 3 weeks as "losing very quickly", especially if you have to grad rock and mortar the neighborhoods to oblivion in order to retake it. One should keep in mind that the FSA had no real presence or territory before 2012, and even then we were arguing about calling this a civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

He meant how they are now, remember, FARC has been a lot stronger in the past. Same with IRA, PLO, ETA, etc. All became marginal with time. None had oil-money backing them, however. And their foes weren't enemies of the West, therefore they didn't have it as easy as the FSA has it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Farc was backed by the soviets, and like the FSA, had the support of the people. Farc had an easier time controlling the border, and was a drug trade organization, raising billions of funds over the years. Farc is the #1 producer of illegal cocaine for the USA. It doesn't matter if Syria is the enemy of the west, as we already seen the gulf, turkey and Europe are not lifting a finger to help them. The FSA doesn't have much ammunition or leadership, unlike Farc. Farc only has 9000 people, and the COlumbia government does not artillery shell farc or have to resort to breaking the geneva convention to suppress it. Additionally the war between farc and the Columbian government was not accompanied by protests. It should also be noted that the Syrian army is one of the strongest there is, ranked 5th in the world for storage of weapons. Columbia did not have a personality cult either, and FARC was based on communism , unlike FSA which has no ideology. . Sopher99 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, still against and stop discussion Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• stop discussion Next time wait more than a few days after the first, second and third votes before opening a new one --aad_Dira (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
• Comment I took a look at sources and right now I see "descending into a civil war", "prospect of the Syrian civil war ", amd "last chance for avoiding a civil war in Syria" these have been from sources during the last 7 days, so it seems that this will need more time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

These articles already call it a "civil war":

"In Syria, despite the civil war, protesters rallied in Damascus..." http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2012/1092/fo1.htm

"the ongoing civil war between Bashar Assad's government forces and the opposition forces..." http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-romneys-russia-remarks-and-the-dangers-of-dumbing-down-20120404,0,7015871.story

"The ongoing civil war in Syria that erupted between forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and his opponents..." http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=276263&columnistId=121

"Syria’s pro-democracy movement is no longer one. It has drowned in the tumultuous waters of a full-blown internecine war." http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=383465&MID=0&PID=0

"The civil war in Syria is now..." http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11805/syria-obamas-bosnia

Easily more examples could be found! (Metron (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC))

File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Binnish & Taftanaz

I created the Battle of Binnish and at the same time Greyshark09 created Battle of Taftanaz. My Binnish page includes Taftanaz and was made first with ore sources, also binnish is the main rebel stronghold. Taftanaz should be merged into Binnish battle's page. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind to merge - make a proper merge suggestion at the pages. The articles were created by us almost at the same time, so it is nobody's fault.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

where's the help?

I have been working on a page about the army's operation in Idlib Goveronate for several days now and there has been practically no help. Same thing goes for Greyshark09 and Battle of Taftanaz. Also, Battle of Azaz, Battle of Qusayr, 2nd Battle of Rastan, Siege of Hama, Deir ez-Zoir and Aleppo pages need help. Not all the ateention needs to go towards Homs. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does every single skirmish need its own article? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both points. If there is an article help needs to be provided to update it, but I also agree that there does not need to be an article for every single little engagement in the conflict. Otherwise I would help you Jacob, but 8-hour shifts at work don't provide a lot of time to edit on Wikipedia, I'm barely keeping the overall death tolls on the main page up-to-date. Sorry. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you are doing a pretty good job, getting 8000 edits in a year. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya, gonna be less and less since I started working a few weeks ago. EkoGraf (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)