Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Yarmouk

While understanding that the situation in Yarmouk might be bad, i still don't think it is an "especially" concerning humanitarian situation nor is it a notable one compared to many other towns in Syria. So how did it find its way into the lead section? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The photo at the head of this article , for example,[1] is already iconic , no? Also, saw this , from Amnesty International, [2] includes, - "A UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for all parties to the conflict to immediately lift sieges of populated areas, unhindered access for humanitarian agencies and an end to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, was agreed last month. But this has yet to lead to a tangible improvement in the situation of besieged civilians.

“The siege of Yarmouk is the deadliest of a series of armed blockades of other civilian areas, imposed by Syrian armed forces or armed opposition groups on a quarter of a million people across the country. These sieges are causing immeasurable human suffering and all of them must end immediately.” - so that indicates a certain especially concerning humanitarian situation, even if you don't see it as an especially concerning humanitarian situation. AS for your assertion that 'nor is it a notable one compared to many other towns in Syria' - have you got RS saying that - or is that just your opinion?

Good article here [3] Assad family’s Baathist regime in Syria has been uniquely hostile to the mainstream Palestinian national movement. It has shown time and again that its official commitment to the Palestinian cause is a smokescreen for its own interests. And its primary concern has been to ensure as much Palestinian subservience as possible to the Damascus dictatorship’s ideology and interests. Syria has always been ready to use force to keep Palestinians in check. It made war against the Palestinians in Lebanon during the 1970s and 1980s, Sayerslle (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yarmouk is mentioned by various sources as being noteworthy for the peril occurring there currently. It seems to me that this is just your opinion and you feel that Yarmouk is not notable, although various reliable sources say it is. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Yarmouk is obviously notable, but how is it more notable than all of the other sieges, massacres, etc. in this war? It is odd that the intro should focus on the plight of Palestinians, and not Kurds for example, who are under siege and attack by the Islamists. As for Sopher's propaganda, Palestinians have so many factions that it doesn't make sense to say they are treated in one way, unless it is by Israel and their allies (who hate them all). Arab states treat Palestinian groups according to faction. Syria is against Salafist Palestinians, but allied with Leftist Palestinians. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In what sense is Islamic jihad in Palestine leftist? secular? Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlike Hamas after the split with Iran, and pretty much any other Salafist group, they still fight Israel. They still fire rockets as Israel, while Hamas and their ilk grow fat on Qatari welfare. And while Jihadis in Syria are treated in Israeli hospitals. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Hussein Ibish in the article above [4]mentioned that kind of thing : ' the Assad family’s Baathist regime in Syria - If it stands up to Israel at all, it does so through proxies and almost always at the expense of others.' Sayerslle (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrians fought Israelis directly in Lebanon during the 80s, but even if we take your claim at face value, whatever Syria has done since 1973 is much more than every single other Arab state has done (which is basically nothing, apart from Iraq, which launched a few missiles during the Gulf war). Think about that. And every Sunni (as well as Shia) group which has attacked Israel recently has been directly supported by Syria and Iran, not a single Sunni state. So much for claims of "sectarianism". Al-Qaeda has never touched Israel, not even indirectly. And now they're pouring into Syria. Funny. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle: - I apologize for the late reply but i never said it wasn't notable, it certainly is. But the same way you think it deserves mentioning in the lead, others will favor different stories, like Homs for example, to be covered there. I personally think a story like Homs (with its "especially concerning" famine-like conditions and the recent evacuation of civilians for the first time in a 2-year siege) is more notable since it is being compared with other historic sieges like Leningrad and Constantinople [5]. Also → The photo at the head of this article , for example,[1] is already iconic , no? = This photo, for example,[6] is already iconic, no?

And no, you won't find any RS "comparing" the notability of events, so this suggests even more that we can't say Yarmouk > Homs > Aleppo > ... because editors here will have different opinions (+ there is no article discussing Yarmouk's humanitarian situation in particular unlike Homs, it is just sectioned in some articles). You already have FunkMonk here who thinks the Kurds' situation is more notable than this one. I also noticed that there is no mention of the Kurds and i agree that Syrian Kurdistan campaign (2012–present) should have its place in the lead since it is somehow a unique part of the conflict, but of course not as deadly as Homs and Yarmouk. To conclude: Having one story in the introduction and ignoring others doesn't balance things at all and it should be decided here because i don't expect much sources calling an event "more notable" than another. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Lyse Doucet [7] 3:30 I've never seen anything like so terrible as yarmouk' - not everything can be in lead - Homs should be there I think, and certainly Yarmouk imo- Sayerslle (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny how all these western journalists who were largely silent (or squeaked like mice) when Israel pounded the Palestinians daily, and did everything they could to "present both sides of the story" (out of fear of getting fired), or even blamed the Palestinians for their own beating, are now ready with all sorts of hyperbolic language when it comes to Palestinians who are not targeted by Zionism. Pretty pathetic. But yes, it is important in spite of this double standard. But notice also that Yarmouk is largely not mentioned by the media anymore, the media seems to have latched onto it only temporarily. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

'hyperbolic' to you, the language, - but you aren't in Yarmouk are you - its 'al akhbar', isn't it, who 'blamed the Palestinians for their own beating,' (al akhbar blames Palestinians ) - in Yarmouk - another chapter in horrible history of House of Assad. talking about Zionism , as if two wrongs make a right, but they don't. Zionism/House of Assad - two wrong turnsSayerslle (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to forget the two or three articles, also published in al Akhbar, which criticised the one you linked. You'd never see such self-criticism in your favourite, Saudi-owned outlets. And no, "two wrongs don't make a right", but that was hardly my point, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Western media, which bends over backwards to be present Israel nicely whatever it does to Palestinians, but suddenly finds heaps of sympathy for Palestinians and Muslims when Israel is out of the picture. And your insurgents are as much to blame, if not more, for the fate of Yarmouk, since they themselves are shelling, preventing aid, and fighting with residents there. But everything goes for the "Socialist" Ummah I guess... They are eternally blameless. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

they are 'preventing aid'?? - I read that assad regime was playing with it, forcing aid through certain paths, and disbarring other points of access - you just repeat Russian and assad regime points of view - I think the article I lnked to is by the editor? so, you know - (reading about Bourj al barajneh in 1986, - just read " the Syrians were greeted with mixed feelings - Some people still felt that the Syrians bore the responsibility for the Camp wars.' - Assad regime and its machiavel playing with lives for decades for its own House of Assad power) un documents expose assads starvation campaign in Syria -there is a counterpunch here about Yarmouk - the death of yarmouk Palestinian camp Sayerslle (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, can you never stick to the damn topic at hand? I said all sides are to blame for Yarmouk, is it that hard to comprehend? http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/syria-rebels-and-regime-share-blame-yarmouk-catastrophe Yarmouk was peaceful, until Jihadis started pouring in and using it as a base, while abusing the inhabitants. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'Chris Gunness ‏@ChrisGunness · 16h

UN food has run out in Yarmouk, Damascus. These people need feeding. ' - I am sticking to the topic - yarmouk should stay in the lead imo. I don't read asa winstanley - is he a PFLP-GC supporter? Sayerslle (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol, even the UN has blamed both sides, your lame diversions are irrelevant. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-renews-call-for-syria-regime-rebels-to-allow-aid-into-yarmouk-camp-for-starving-refugees/ FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Since then, new attempts have been made to restore the ceasefire. In late March, another agreement was reached and fighters evacuated the camp. However, the UN reported that the Syrian government still wouldn’t release the food aid. Between March 10 and April 10, only 3,390 food packages arrived to Yarmouk, each intended to last no more than ten days, for a population of about 18,000 people.

Recently, the situation grew even worse. Since April 9, Syrian authorities have cut off what little food aid was being allowed inside the refugee camp. According to a UN official speaking to the Guardian, food in the camp is now about to run out completely. Consequently, the belief in the benefits of these ceasefire agreements is evaporating. Yarmouk’s inhabitants are increasingly moving to surrounding areas, whenever possible—a slow process of displacement that will in the end lead to an empty camp and the destruction of a community.' Sayerslle (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If Yarmouk is there, then why shouldn't we add Homs with this recent and very notable rebel withdrawal? But if Homs is there, why not Aleppo (the "mother of battles")? Then why not mention ..... if Aleppo is there? Many stories are worthy enough to be mentioned here and the suffix "est" (e.g. deadliest, bloodiest, worst, hardest..etc) doesn't change things because I can bring different sources describing other events in the war like this. Why do you think Yarmouk should be there? And I have to say again that there's no article about it, except for the Yarmouk camp fighting (December 2012) which happened nearly a year and a half ago. To be perfectly clear, I am not opposed to bringing up a story in the lead unless it is necessarily unique and informs readers about the conflict in general. It's just that it has to be chosen carefully because I remember Corriebertus complaining that this section is already long enough and doesn't show all the necessary information. I don't see anything there about the Kurds, the Lebanese conflict, the spillover in/from Iraq, the inter-rebel conflict..etc. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Failed Pretext For War: Seymour Hersh, Eliot Higgins, MIT Rocket Scientists On Sarin Gas Attack

Last week, the London Review of Books published Seymour Hersh’s second installment on the long-debated August 2013 sarin gas attack in Ghouta, Syria, a nearly 6,000-word piece titled “The Red Line and the Rat Line.” Hersh uses primarily anonymous sources, most prominently a “former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence.” The expose points to the possibility that the Turkish government had a hand in the attack — or maybe even directly orchestrated it by supplying al-Nusra Front rebels with sarin to frame the Assad regime as the culprit in order to push the United States into a war with Syria for crossing Obama’s “red line.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja1331 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sy Hersh use anonymous sources as the basis for exceptional and implausible claims? Say it ain't so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hersh's article was only published by the some what obscure London Review of Books after the NYT and Washington Post refused to publish it, no doubt because it fails basic journalistic standards. Hersh's article has also been rejected by every authoritative and reputable Middle East expert as a conspirarcy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.76 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the WaPo fame as Washington's propaganda mouthpiece, it is not surprising that they have declined to publish SH article. --Emesik (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that and the fact that Hersh relies upon "anonymous sources" that might not even exist, and that his elaborate theory is totally implausible, if not for all intents and purposes impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.76 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

_Newsflash, even the UN relies on "anonymous sources" when it comes to these attacks. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Difference is that the UN uses multiple sources and is a reputable organization. Hersh uses one "retired US official" who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about (if he exists at all), and Hersh has a track record of journalistic failure for the last decade after proclaiming Iran will be invaded several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.147 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

4 way war?

I've read an article a while back (I've lost it now) describing the conflict as being a rare four way war: Government vs. Opposition vs. ISIL vs. Kurds. Right now, the Opposition and the ISIL are placed under the same section. I think this should change. Thoughts? [Soffredo] 04:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not possible to have four columns in an infobox. It is common for civil wars to have many factions, and the usual technique used by editors is to have two (possibly three) columns; one for government aligned forces and one for rebel forces (with dividing lines). DylanLacey (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As already mentioned, four columns is not technically possible, and ISIL and the rest of the Islamist rebels still fight for the same cause, and consider themselves brothers with differences, regardless of their fighting. Remember that even Nusra fought with the FSA at one time, it is just an inevitable turf war. Which the government is exploiting, of course. Al Qaeda is affiliated with both.[8] FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk on this one. Although they are fighting each other, ISIL and the opposition still have the same agenda. Since 4 columns is apparently not feasible at the time, lets not change anything yet, I say. Coltsfan (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

ISIS belongs in the Syrian regime coloumn

Death toll between rebels and ISIS is much higher than the death toll between kurdish groups and rebels.

1600 rebels were recorded killed by ISIS http://www.syriahr.net/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16504&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UyOz-_ldWfU

1090 ISIS members were recorded killed by rebels http://www.syriahr.net/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16504&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UyOz-_ldWfU

While only 375 YPD members were recorded killed by rebels. Inturn only a little over 350 rebels were recorded killed by Kurds http://en.firatnews.com/news/news/ypg-release-balance-sheet-of-war-for-2013.htm

Rebels and Kurdish forces have established a truce http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/04/the_murky_flow_of_us_weapons_i.php

Rebels and Kurdish forces join forces to fight ISIS http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/syria-kurds-pyd-ypg-isis-rebels-kobani-afrin.html

YPD leader believes regime to be supporting ISIS http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/syria-kurds-pyd-ypg-isis-rebels-kobani-afrin.html#

YPG believes regime to be allied with ISIS http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2014/3/syriakurd1120.htm

Lastly sources confirm back door alliance between ISIS and regime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html

http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55326385

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/originals/2014/03/redur-xelil-pyd-kurds-pkk-isis-syria-regime-kobani.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/18/is-al-qaeda-aiding-bashar-al-assad.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/assad-helped-build-al-qaeda-in-syria-2014-1

http://world.time.com/2014/01/27/syria-assad-geneva-al-qaeda/

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/assad-regime-jihadis-collaborators-allies/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assad-teams-up-with-alqaida/story-fnb64oi6-1226895337477#mm-premium

Summary. Reliable sources tell us that not only is the battle between ISIS and rebels much more intense than rebels versus kurds (add to the fact that kurds and rebels are not fighting eachother anymore), but that also the regime and the Islamic state are colluding both against rebels and Kurds. Sopher99 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a rare situation in which we indeed need 4 columns in the main infobox. The ISIL is pretty much fighting everybody, including other al-qaeda linked groups, like Jabhat al-Nusra. But ISIL on the Syrian regime coloumn? Don't think so. I'm not convinced. Coltsfan (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Its what the sources say that counts. Sopher99 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, these reliable sources are only stating hypotheses, I guess. Nothing concrete. Nothing irrefutable. Coltsfan (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, oil deals and testimonies are concrete. Sopher99 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

These are all accusations, not irrefutable facts. Coltsfan (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Western intelligence suggests..." as a proof of anything? Give me a break. --Emesik (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless My argument is also two sided - I have also put forth criteria as to why ISIS and rebels should not be on the same column. Sopher99 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Then also don't put it in the regime side but think of a other solution...--LibDutch (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that we have more reliable sources that put ISIS on the side of the regime than on the side of the rebels. Sopher99 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that we've had this discussion several times and you appear to insist on having ISIS on the regime's side for poorly explained reasons, because some of the "Assad teams up with al-Qaeda" sources also deal with al-Nusra, not just ISIS and these two are both engaged in war now. Also, these accusations are based on "Western intelligence" as a source, which is not reliable because it doesn't confirm the information yet. I also remember your false dilemma a while ago when you were saying that we either separate ISIS from the opposition or add them to the government's side before these sources even appeared.[9] Trust me, this extensive POV pushing is getting you nowhere. The real fact, again, is that both ISIS and the opposition want Assad toppled which is still their mutual objective, as well as they both mostly aim for a Sunni Islamic state, unlike Assad who is fighting all groups and the Kurds who are generally in defensive mode, so casualties don't matter in this case. It is normal for civil wars to have different factions involved assassinating each others' leaders (e.g. Lebanese Civil War) but that doesn't change a thing in infoboxes unless it is very necessary, and it certainly isn't. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Kurds want an autonomous Kurdish state. The ISIS want an islamic state that consists of Western Iraq and Eastern Syria. Both groups want a separate state that will be dominated by Sunnis. Therefore ISIS more closely has the same goal as the Kurds. So the argument that rebels and ISIS are the most alike is absurd.Sopher99 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Kurds limit their autonomous ambitions to specific borders for preventative measures, unlike ISIS, al-Nusra and certain factions in the FSA who are all opposed to the Kurdish self-administration, and you should read more about Pan-Islamism before making such statement. So your analogy falls flat. Hezbollah (although over-weighted by Assad in this conflict) also wants a Shiite Islamic state. ISIS appears to benefit Assad, but do you seriously mean they are more alike to Assad than they are to the rebels? Again, the sources aren't rigid and all lie within obviously expected accusations based on "Western intelligence", and this doesn't confirm anything. Period. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Lol at Sopher's useless fringe claims. No, ISIS is pure al Qaeda, try to actually follow what ISIS supporters actually say, they claim the Syrian rebels are not Islamic enough and are pro-US Sunni Awakening traitors. ISIS doesn't care about Syria, they just want an autonomous Islamist region, hence their conflict with other insurgents. The regime is of course exploiting the situation, like any sane player would. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)\
  • This does not change hte fact that sources show that the battle between ISIS and rebels is much more intense than that between Kurds and rebels, and that the fighting between Kurds and rebels has stopped on the macro scale. Either put ISIS on the regime side, or Kurds on the rebel side. ISIS does not belong in the rebel column. Sopher99 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal is completely nonsensical. The infobox groupings is based on ideology, allegiance and objectives, not death toll (even then, the regime has killed more rebels of any side than any of the rebels have). The Syrian insurgents invited ISIS and other foreigners in, which you conveniently forget. Pretty much every rebel group has fought another one at one point, and even Nusra was accused of being an invention of the regime. And of course some trashy western media parrot this, since everything uttered by a Syrian "rebel" is the truth for some reason (remember how the regime constantly "bombed itself" in the early days?). But it is still ridiculous fringe theory. We could have six columns for that reason. But the unfortunate fact is, the Syrian rebels and ISIS have more in common with each other than they have with anyone else, only difference is ISIS is more radically Islamist, and the rest of the rebels are under Western patronage. And that is enough for them to fight each other. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that the thousands of European and Iraqi Sunni Islamists would somehow fight and die for a weird Assad conspiracy scheme. They're fiercely fighting the Iraqi government as well, which is pretty much an Assad ally by now. Stop and actually think about it for a second before inserting such crap. Of course Assad would prefer that all his enemies were of the ISIS stock, because he fears western intervention on the FSA side more than he fears any of the rag-tag rebel groups. As long as ISIS and Nusra are the strongest rebel factions, the West doesn't dare support with anything definitive. This is parsimony, and the mainstream view. Please, no more bullshit theories. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Let Zawahiri himself explain the situation: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/al-zawahiri-calls-isis-leader-return-iraq FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

FunkMonk, you really need to read WP:CIVIL and actually collect your thoughts before you type.As for the article, this is definitely an exceptional situation which calls for 4 columns. But the Kurdish factions are in fact on the Opposition side and have been for 90% of the conflict. The best solution is add the Kurds to the Opposition, as the current arrangement of ISIS is just plain weird, listing them under a faction that they are in open conflict with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.147 (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, a fourth column is not technically possible, so give it up. The current configuration is what makes most sense with our limitations. ISIS has not switched allegiance, therefore it has nowhere to move to. It, unlike the Kurds, has fought alongside the rest of the rebels on countless occasions, and has the same objectives. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

ISIS and the regime maybe also have the same objectives - destroying democratic hopes - 'ISIS and the regime are one' - where did this slogan emerge if not rooted in a reality that is being experienced at some level in Syria? - here is a Michael Weiss article from last year - assads no enemy of al qaeda - and here is april 2014 channel 4 report on machiavel/unholy alliance to destroy moderate opposition in Syria between the counter-revolution of Assad and the reaction of ISIS -'A recently released memo suggests that while the two sides differ in motives, they are bound by a common goal: "to destroy moderate opposition forces and establish control of as much of Syria as possible."[10]Sayerslle (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nusra and co. (Islamic Front etc.) want an Islamic state as well, not democracy. So where does that leave them? A fifth column? On the regime side too? Lol. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

this is about ISIS - is there evidence Assad and ISIS are in a machiavel alliance? Sayerslle (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Zionist propagandists like Michale Weiss[11], apparently there is. But to everyone else, ISIS is just an al Qaeda faction run amok. Their membership would attest to that, Sunni extremists from Iraq and Europe. I have still not seen anyone argue for why such types would fight and die for the infidel Assad regime, while simultaneously fighting the infidel Iraqi government. It is utter nonsense. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

and why would assad simultaneously release them from sednaya while saying he is doing all he can to destroy them? what about sophers point about rebels fighting ISIS? battle against isis may help unify fractured Syrian rebels - the josh landis article [12] -certainly supports your position though. I find Michael Weiss the most persuasive commentator on Russia and syria whatever label you put on him anyhow. you listen to jihadist nasrallah and kgb lavrov - I listen to Weiss and brown mosesSayerslle (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As I explained, Assad fears western intervention more than he fears any of the rebel groups. If a pro-Western rebel group becomes strong, there is a bigger chance of them getting advanced weapons and direct support from the West. So of course it is in Assad's interest that such groups remain the weakest. Another point, ISIS holds positions that are not as strategically important to the regime as those held by Nusra and other groups. Assad doesn't need to have his men fight and die for useless deserts in the East at this point. That'll remain a Jihadi-playground mini-Caliphate in the foreseeable future. As for my news sources, you might be surprised that I get most of my ME news from Naharnet, which leans slightly towards the Lebanese anti-Syrian March 14. I then crosscheck it with other news sites of various affiliations and credibility. You could learn something from that method. But no, I don't give much credence to random blogs and Twitter accounts. That is the bane of modern journalism, this war has shown. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@ funkmonk TIME don't agree with your inane and ignorant arrogant attitude - twitter feeds to follow 2014 - Sayerslle (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

that comes close to saying that, yes Assad will strengthen ISIS [13] Sayerslle (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually FunkMonk, your own argument is very likely to be used against you. However, there are no concrete sources backing any of this and the fact still remains that the rebels and ISIS have a lot more in common than they do with Assad and the Kurds. Also, the fact that Zawahiri is currently trying to mediate between them suggests that we should wait even longer. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I've said before, it's only good if ISIS is portrayed as Assad's pawns, that means the insurgent infighting will continue. But I doubt any of them even believe it, it's just cheap propaganda aimed at western audiences. I doubt the regime has much if anything to do with the infighting, but if they do, it's just a case of divide and conquer, not of allying oneself with either faction. Furthermore, the regime has made actual ceasefires with the non-ISIS rebels, never with ISIS, which should be a pretty clear indication of the facts on the ground. ISIS is against everyone. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Moderates" try to exaggerate the in-fighting with the ISIL to gain more support from the west. The same "moderates" previously claimed the Nusra to have been in bed with the regime.[14] They now regularly join forces.[15] Anyway Zawahiri just called for a ceasefire with ISIL,[16] so it will probably be business as usual for the Jihadists.--Kathovo talk 19:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracies and "Resistance against zionism" aside, ISIS and rebels don't belong on the same column.

Kurds should be put on the rebel column.

Death toll between rebels and ISIS is much higher than the death toll between kurdish groups and rebels.

1600 rebels were recorded killed by ISIS http://www.syriahr.net/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16504&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UyOz-_ldWfU

1090 ISIS members were recorded killed by rebels http://www.syriahr.net/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16504&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UyOz-_ldWfU

While only 375 YPD members were recorded killed by rebels. Inturn only a little over 350 rebels were recorded killed by Kurds http://en.firatnews.com/news/news/ypg-release-balance-sheet-of-war-for-2013.htm

Rebels and Kurdish forces have established a truce http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/04/the_murky_flow_of_us_weapons_i.php

Rebels and Kurdish forces join forces to fight ISIS http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/syria-kurds-pyd-ypg-isis-rebels-kobani-afrin.html

YPD leader believes regime to be supporting ISIS http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/syria-kurds-pyd-ypg-isis-rebels-kobani-afrin.html#

YPG believes regime to be allied with ISIS http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2014/3/syriakurd1120.html Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Casualties have nothing to do with a faction's belligerency and your suggestion to conclude that ISIS should be on the regime's side based on this appears to be a flagrant WP:SYNTH. By the way, the death toll in the rebel-Kurdish conflict isn't minor either and a truce doesn't mean the clashes are over. During the Second Congo War you had a brief war between Rwanda and Uganda, but they are both in the same column of the main article's infobox. So repeating your alleged sources doesn't change a thing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sopher's "logic" is original synthesis. If we follow it, the Kurds should be on the regime side, since there has been less deaths between them than between anyone else.But his homemade calculations conveniently leave this out. Furthermore, YPD itself has been claimed by practically all rebel groups (and some Kurdish ones) to be in bed with the regime, which makes Sopher's conclusion even more laughable. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources describe the Syria conflict as a three way war between Regime, Rebels, And ISIS

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrias-threeway-war-free-syrian-army-rebels-fight-the-regime-and-now-the-islamists-9052660.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/12/this-map-of-syria-shows-why-the-war-will-be-so-difficult-to-end/

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/01/three-sided-war-aleppo-syria-army-regain-ground.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10102840/Syrian-civil-war-has-become-three-way-conflict-says-al-Qaedas-leader.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/01/21/264567465/whats-at-stake-in-the-syrian-peace-conference

https://theweek.com/article/index/255286/4-factors-necessary-for-successful-syrian-peace-talks

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/39640/mps_urge_syria_help.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/01/03/the_merging_battlefields_of_iraq_and_syria_cold_snap_blankets_much_of_u.html

Do any sources mention the Syrian civil war has being a three way war between Kurds, the regime, and rebels? Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Numerous. Lets look at the facts in a timeline.
2011 - two sides (government and rebels).
2012 - three sides (government, rebels and Kurds), at this point, the Kurds clashed with both the government and Nusra fighters (some FSA units as well).
2013 - three sides still (government, rebels and Kurds), with the exception that ISIS jumped into the war on the side of the rebels who themselves accepted them as allies. Kurds stopped fighting the government during much of the year following shared control agreements in the northeast, but the Kurds continued fighting Nusra and now ISIS.
2014 - three sides still (government, rebels and Kurds), with one having inter-factional fighting (rebels; ISIS vs everyone else), at the same time Kurds continued to fight Nusra, ISIS and on occasion even some IF units. Fighting between Kurds and government sporadic and isolated.
As for the frankly personal POV notion that ISIS should be put on the government side, the fact that ISIS fought the government during the Battle of Qalamoun and is still fighting them in the eastern Homs desert and around base 17, north of Raqqah, debunks that theory. Almost all of your sources for an alleged ISIS-Assad alliance are speculations, without conclusive evidence, and most of them are by the other opposition factions (propaganda anyone?). As for the claim that ISIS are not rebels, just check out the news from the last few days that calls the ISIS vs every other opposition force situation an inter-rebel conflict. So the current layout of three sides (government, rebels and Kurds), with the rebel side having a separation line between ISIS and everyone else is just fine as it is. Reminding once again, ISIS and all other rebel factions were allies for a year. If we followed your logic Sopher, like Funky said, we should than put the Kurds on the government side since those two fought between each other even less than ISIS and Assad. And during the time that the Kurds fought against FSA and IF units, those two accused the Kurds as well of being Assad allies (somebody seeing a pattern here?). Lastly, your claim less rebels and Kurds died (several hundred) than ISIS and all other opposition forces is incorrect - the source [17] says in 2013, 379 YPG died vs almost 3,000 ISIS AND Nusra fighters, no mention of only 350 rebels as you claimed. EkoGraf (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

New timeline article

Anyone interested in creating then updating Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January 2014–present)? It is needed for ITN, so if someone is up for the task it would be much appreciated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Would be a bitch to keep updated! FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather remove the older timeline articles. They are based on unreliable sources and have very little informational value. --Emesik (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A priority should be working to shrink the article by removing a lot of unnecessary informations and battles with generic strategic value (aka insignificant in the big picture). I believe we can reduce the section "Uprising and civil war" more. A lot more. Coltsfan (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued fighting (March 2014 – present)

On 7 May 2014, BBC Middle East reported: “Syria conflict: Rebels evacuated from Old City of Homs”. This report ran an internet video of the FSA gangs getting green buses out of their one-time strong-hold. Yet another, in a long line of defeats, that point to the rebels losing the war. Can the Continued fighting Section be updated to include this information? 78.147.88.90 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

When Homs is completely conquered, we should put it in the article. But the evacuation is still underway and the fight can break out again. So, it's better to wait. Coltsfan (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Kurds as a separate part in the war?

it is not so surprising to read about Kurdish propeganda all over wikipedia. Please take a look at the infobox. there are only two parties in the war and the Kurds and Kurdistan is not a visible part in this war. --Tilobittes (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well: Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013-present) FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is unbelievably biased talk about violating Neutral Point of View guide...

How can any person read this article and not immediately be struck by how incredibly one-sided the entire portrayal is? We get it guys, wikipedia is in English and based in USA therefore Syrian Government has to be villified and demonized while the "rebels" are heroes for freedom. Sheesh... I came to wikipedia to get away from that kind of propaganda-like stuff, I can get it in any number of mainstream US media sources. I was hoping for a more scholarly and impartial presentation here. Very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.95.139 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Which parts are one-sided? Which part is not neutral? Do you have sources to support your claim that the infos posted in the article are not accurate? To me, you are just disappointed because the article does not meet with your point of view. Well, sorry. Go read RT or Press TV. No propaganda there whatsoever. And please, this talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Coltsfan (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Both me and the majority of people that I know and have read this article, agree with you that this article, is in favor of the anti-Asshad forces. I have explained the reasons why, in a previous edit that I did in the talk page, as many other people as well. Now the explanations are gone, I don't know why, if it because of time, or any other reasons. My advice on this, is for people to get in both sides pro-media, since they can not really expect to ever hear things how they really are by any one of them. Western media are anti Asshad, Russian media are pro-Asshad. Wikipedia has become a western media, so it can be balanced by a pro-Russian media. This is how we should read information, in the 21th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• To sum up: for this article to be called neutral it should call the rebels 'terrorist', list all their crimes, exclude those committed by Assad, all western media is bias, bla, bla, bla. Same old, same old. No concise argument. Coltsfan (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I too noticed this article was in favour of the FSA/Nusra front, in fact if you look at most Syrian civil war related articles, when it comes to causalities the opposition claim is always put first on both sides, and the governments claim comes second as if its less worthy. There are a few writers here who work hard and try to balance it out, but they have a hard time against the dozen of other FSA/Nusra supporters who try to hide and divert the information, But dont worry, I have provided many sources which expose the FSA/Nusra coalition and 90% or 80% of the time the article was modified only because truth prevailed. 86.26.230.122 (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Go, Paladins of Truth! Go! Meanwhile, the serious editors work on the articles. Thanks! Coltsfan (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does this bother you so much? I mean yeah you support Obama and the democratic party but their policy against Assad isnt truly based on freedom you do know that right? ;) 86.26.230.122 (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What bothers me is how mediocre your arguments are. It's the same old thing: a lot of talking about 'bias', but very little concise argumentation. And just so you, I don't give a flying f* about syria's freedom or lack of freedom. I don't care about Obama's policies towards Syria or the middle east. What I care about is Wikipedia. Ok? So long. Coltsfan (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

calm down, if you want to support the FSA/Nusra front and spread freedom you can go to Turkey and they'll show you the way from there, just keep away from distorting the truth here. Thank you 86.26.230.122 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Jesus mary and jimbo... oh my... =S Coltsfan (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence Colts fan. When the level of debate is literally "if you disagree with me you can go be a militant", then you have to just walk away shaking your head. Also the views of the Russian media are dictated by the Kremlin, so they aren't reliable. And Russia is one country, and "Western Media" represents about 30 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.177 (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Coltsfan, I've found it's generally not worth engaging with these people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I warned one of the IPs who also appears to be trolling, so we'd better stick to WP:DONTFEED. I also smell something fishy in here but it doesn't matter in this case I guess. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

While Western Media may represents about 30 countries - most of these 'free' states take their que from Uncle Sam. For what Kelly and Hague cannot stand is that Russia is one country that is willing to Question More. What they really want to avoid is the likes of RT questioning their support for terror gangs in Syria. Sorry! Did I upset all the pro-FSA cheer-leaders here? 88.107.54.81 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict timeline

Under the main conflict timeline I just removed a reference to the 2014 Aleppo bombing because I was under the impression that only major territorial changes were allowed to be placed in that timeline to help keep things concise. I ran through the whole timeline I noticed the "warning", which as best as I can remember went like " <--- Per discussion, only include major territorial changes ---> ", had been removed. Does this reflect a change in our policy for the article or was it simply deleted by accident and should be re-added? Coinmanj (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It was probably an accident. I don't recall there being a discussing to allow the inclusion of events that are not territorial changes. The article is already pretty long.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)

Main text clean up

There is no need for all this references on the main text of this article, because it should be a resume of the most import parts of the article which should have the references.

Also the text bellow does not belong the main text. It is a war, all wars has abuses, and it is kind of guessing or picking a side telling who abuses the most. "The UN and Amnesty International's inspections and probes in Syria determined both in 2012 and 2013 that the vast majority of abuses, as well as the largest in scale, are committed by the Syrian government" Dafranca (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This text bellow should also not be part of main article as well. "The situation is especially bad in the Palestinian Yarmuk Camp, where 20,000 residents are facing death by starvation"

The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

• The name of the war (including alternate names).
• When did it happen?
• Who fought in it?
• Why did it happen?
• What was the outcome?
• What was its significance, if any?

Dafranca (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs work. I think the Yarmuk Camp mention should probably be placed in the "Humanitarian" section. Usually, the lead doesn't include references except for very controversial statements and/or if the information isn't discussed later on in other parts of the article. There are 35 references in the lead, in most cases I think they should be removed (and moved to the supporting content detailing each item), or at least cut down to one reference each instead of multiple. I do think that "In 2013, Hezbollah entered the war in support of the Syrian army." and "A late 2012 UN report described the conflict as being "overtly sectarian in nature", between mostly Alawite government forces, militias and other Shia groups fighting largely against Sunni-dominated rebel groups, though both opposition and government forces denied that." need to have at least one reference remain due to previous debates over bias/accuracy. If the "UN and Amnesty International" line remains in the lead, I also think it should include a reference. Beyond that, the lead should generally be reference free.

I would wait until further discussion/agreement before making any of these suggested changes. Coinmanj (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Mostly Alawite government forces" is highly controversial, since much, if not most, of the Syrian army still consists of Sunnis. But yes, the lead is also too long, should be no more than four paragraphs per the MOS. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Where would the death of Lt. Gen. Hussein Ayoub Ishaq go?

• Chief of Syria’s Air Defense Dies in Battle Near Capital May 18, 2014 NYT

The general was in charge of Syria’s air defense. 141.218.35.19 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

We should maybe add it to the main infobox but not sure if he is notable enough. Other people should weigh in on this. EkoGraf (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Title changes ‘Siege of Daraa’ and ‘Siege of Homs’

On the talk pages of article ‘Siege of Daraa’ and of ‘Siege of Homs’ I have today started discussions, aiming to change the titles of those two articles, which I consider to be wrong, which I hereby bring to the attention of the visitors of also this page (SyrCivWar). To keep those two discussions concentrated on one page, please give your opinion on those issues on those mentioned talk pages in their sections Change of title: ‘Attack on Daraa’ and Change of title: ‘War in Homs’ or ‘Civil war in Homs’ or ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’, where you will also find all my arguments (and perhaps those of others). Corriebertus (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Title changes ‘Siege of Daraa’ and ‘Siege of Homs’

On the talk pages of article ‘Siege of Daraa’ and of ‘Siege of Homs’ I have today started discussions, aiming to change the titles of those two articles, which I consider to be wrong, which I hereby bring to the attention of the visitors of also this page (SyrCivWar). To keep those two discussions concentrated on one page, please give your opinion on those issues on those mentioned talk pages in their sections Change of title: ‘Attack on Daraa’ and Change of title: ‘War in Homs’ or ‘Civil war in Homs’ or ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’, where you will also find all my arguments (and perhaps those of others). Corriebertus (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Al-Abbas brigade

Can someone tell me how necessary it is to have the apparently inactive Liwa Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas in the infobox? How significant are the group's contributions in combat? And how is it more unique than Hezbollah and the PFLP in the conflict? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Section 'Video footage'

While we’re all striving to make a relevant Wikipedia, especially in this case a relevant article about this Syrian (civil) war, and while a majority of us apparently consider this article (232,000 bytes) already rather long or very long or too long or unconveniently or undesirably long, I was struck last month by section 8 entitled: ‘Video footage’. It seemed, and still seems, rather trivial and (therefore) non-essential or even non-encyclopedic to me. Therefore I removed the section while trying to give my arguments, on 19April2014,9:47: (“sorry,this is all non-encyclopedic.Okay 'hundreds millions views',so what?Okay YouTube,'unprecedented': so what? Okay 'videos help documenting': do we need an encyclopedia to tell us that? It seems totally trivial,obvious”). One can ofcourse criticize the way I have formulated those arguments back in April, but I still can’t really see why this ‘information’ would be (very) relevant in this article. Immediately after my edit, it was reverted by mr/mrs Mezigue who doesn’t have more to say about it than: “It is of encyclopedic interest”. Are words too expensive down where he lives? Or does he not consider me deserving of a more serious, substantial, disputable answer, motivation? How relevant is it to write in this article that 100,000,000 people have viewed a video about this War? Could perhaps be relevant for an article on Videos, but why here? Are we also going to write in this article how many people have been watching television news bulletins about this war? How many people have been reading news papers about this war? How many people have talked about it to their wife, son, brother-in-law, plumber? Corriebertus (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you, it can be moved to the media coverage article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the sections, nor subsections, of Syrian Civil War is titled 'media coverage'. You (dear FunkMonk) also don't present 'the media coverage article' as a wikilink. If such article 'media coverage' nevertheless exists (which is not obvious, yet), then why is it not properly incorporated into (I mean linked from) main article 'Syrian Civil War'? If such (presumed) article is supposed to be of any relevance to this war, it ought to be attainable via wikilink(s) out of this main article. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's this, all the way back from 2011: Syrian media coverage of the Syrian Civil War FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I just moved it to Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War to broaden the scope, then we can dump most of such information there instead of deleting it. There are a lotm fo media controversies that could be mentione dthere as well, for example Gay Girl in Damascus, Elizabeth O'Bagy, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks and thinking, FunkMonk. I’ve read that article ‘Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War’: it does not (yet) look relevant enough to me to give it a (new) section in main article ‘Syrian Civil War’ (SCW). Perhaps, in time, when more important “media controversies” (as you say), or other important media issues, have been added to it, it can become advisable to give it a new section in SCW. I see no Wikipedia-logic in "dumping" this 'information' of section 8 'Video footage', that apparently, after 10 days discussion, nobody considers relevant in any way, into another Wiki-article. Therefore, in line with this discussion, I now remove section 8 ‘Video footage’ from the article ‘Syrian Civil War’. Corriebertus (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction, the Gay Girl in Damascus was not part of any "media controversies" - but a fully reported news story. A timely warning against media outlets taking YouTube videos and other 'information' at face value. A warning to double-check (FSA related) stories, and not report them as fact. Given this, I suggest a section titled:

A Gay Girl in Damascus and the stage-managing of the 'news'

92.20.242.92 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Elizabeth O'Bagy, her story is both telling and interesting. For MSM reports that this Syrian 'expert' was sacked for lying about having a Ph.D. This was only days after her sexed-up report in the Wall Street Journal was used - by John Kerry at Congressional hearings - to improve the case for bombing Syria.

Responding to concerns about her close links with the FSA, O'Bagy claimed she never tried to conceal her ties with opposition groups and that she was not paid to advocate her views on Syria. "I'm not trying to trick America here," O'Bagy tweeted on September 7 2013. Then again, she did little to highlight any of this.

Given how this fits in with media management - perhaps Wikipedia should cover this story in greater detail?

92.20.242.92 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Both of those cases have specific articles that could be expanded. But I don't understand why such media controversies aren't relevant in an article about, well, the media coverage, Corriebetus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

An update on the lead section

In the introduction one can read that "By July 2013, the Syrian government was in control of approximately 30-40% of the country's territory and 60% of the Syrian population". Would it be possible to update this information ? Thanks.--Kimdime (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

...response to Arab Spring... ?

Section 2.1 (Protests etc. Jan–Jul2011) claims, ambiguously, that something (either ‘conflict’ or ‘uprising’ or ‘protests’) was/were a response to Arab Spring and corruption and abuses. First of all: does that ‘response’ linguistically refer to conflict or uprising or protests? Secondly: is that contention based on sources or is it personal interpretation of one or several Wiki editors? Corriebertus (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Image

Map of war in June 2014.

189.101.45.94 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This map contradicts the situation on the ground. Jumada (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems it makes the common mistake of showing unpopulated desert areas as FSA controlled. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Areas where there should be only flows military. 189.101.44.90 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Assad in May2011 releasing prisoners

On 7January2014,16:42, BoogaLouie added information in section 2.1 ('Protests, civil uprising, and defections (March–28 July 2011)') about Assad in May2011 releasing hundreds of political prisoners (which later was changed by someone into: releases in March–May2011). Considering that section to be presenting protests and uprising Jan–July2011, I wonder, what has that info on supposed releasing of prisoners to do with that subject? Can BoogaLouie, or someone else, explain that to me? Corriebertus (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=589621906&oldid=589599284

The section is Uprising and civil war, and is about (among other things) the transformation of the Arab Spring protest into a civil war. The release of prisoners relates to the the development of the insurgents, specifically the current dominance of Islamists/Jihadist/Salafists in the insurgency. Here is a quote from the source I gave (Blanford, Nicholas (October 10, 2013). "Jihadis may want to kill Assad. But is he lucky to have them?". csmonitor.com. Retrieved 7 January 2014.)

Even the Assad regime is believed to have played a role in establishing a hard-line salafist presence within the armed opposition. In May 2011, when the rebellion was in its infancy, the Assad regime granted amnesty to political prisoners, releasing hundreds of them from jail, including members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. The newly released Islamists went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, including helping found Ahrar ash-Sham.

When Jabhat al-Nusra emerged on the scene in January 2012, it was widely dismissed by the Syrian opposition as a creation of Syrian intelligence. Since then, however, Jabhat al-Nusra has become one of the most effective rebel forces and has publicly declared its loyalty to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The Syrian regime is nominally secular. But it has a long history of tacit cooperation with militant Islamist groups that on paper it should regard as mortal enemies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So, that information (release of prisoners) in section 2.1(Protests etc.,Jan–Jul2011) relates to (the) (supposed) development of (the) (specifically Islamist/Salafist) insurgents (as relevant party/parties in this Syrian conflict). In that case, that information should probably be placed in section 4 'Belligerents' (subsection 4.2 'Opposition' ? ), I suppose — but surely it should not stand in section 2, which recounts chronologically the actual concrete developments and events in these protests and uprising and war. (Arab Spring transforming into (this) civil war is, by the way, for the moment, only interpretation of Wiki editor(s) — until we’ve seen sources saying that; more on that issue, in the Talk section directly underneath.) Also, I don’t understand what is meant with ‘development of insurgents’, and still don’t understand what releasing of prisoners in March–May2011 has to do with ‘development of insurgents’. Corriebertus (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

still don’t understand what releasing of prisoners in March–May2011 has to do with ‘development of insurgents’.

Didn't you read this: The newly released Islamists went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, including helping found Ahrar ash-Sham. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You aren't seriously suggesting that I'd say "I don't understand..." about something I would not have read!? Of course I've read your statement(7Jan2014): "...released ...prisoners...including Islamists, some of whom went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, such as Ahrar ash-Sham". Anyway, the main point I wanted to make (because I'm trying to clean up and improve section 2.1) is: this portion of information belongs in section 4, because it relates to developments within a (belligerent) party, while section 2 is relating on the developments of the uprising and protests and war itself. But even if you kindly replace it into section 4, I'm not sure the info is relevant even there, because you don't make clear what Assad's release has to do with development of an opposition group. That opposition group can consist of one or two ex-detainees, one or two ex-football players, one or two ex-soldiers, one or two ex-lawyers, one or two ex-bakers, farmers, students, etc etc.; so what? Perhaps I'm wrong, as I've never studied section 4, perhaps your information is very relevant over there in section 4. But I wouldn't seem honest to myself if I would not have warned you about my doubts in that matter, as I did. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The prisoner thing is just a weird conspiracy championed by Sayer, "Assad released Islamist prisoners, therefore he is responsible for Islamist fighters". The US has done exactly the same, released many Guantanamo prisoners who ended up leading Islamist groups in Syria, so what does that mean following this logic? http://online.wsj.com/articles/after-guantanamo-freed-detainees-return-to-violence-in-syria-battlefields-1401839291 FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I found out, that we have already an article 'Ahrar ash-Sham' that already states (with reference) that ‘most group founders were released from Sednaya prison in May 2011’. That seems the correct Wiki article to mention such facts, so I’ll just move the extra two references on this matter from SCW section 2.1 to that main article ‘Ahrar ash-Sham’. As I’ve argued, SCW section 2 is not the right place to put it in. (Conspiracies, like FunkMonk recites here, are not mentioned in that Ahrar article.) Corriebertus (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Section 2.1 (Protests,uprising,Jan–Jul2011)

While upgrading the lead section of article ‘Syrian Civil War’ (see: previous Discussion section: 'Correcting lead section Syrian Civil War' (now in Archive 35), it appeared to me inevitable to make also some reparations in section 2.1. The crucial first sentence of the old version of §2.1 was right away from the start vague* (‘The’), incorrect** (‘The conflict began as civil uprising’), ambiguous*** (what was “response”: ‘conflict’? ‘uprising’? ‘protests’?) and twice unsourced (uprising ‘evolved from protests’? conflict/uprising/protests was/were “a response to Arab Spring etc.”***?). Don’t take these opinions as personal attacks.

Considering that the section showed more vagueness and incorrectness and unsourcedness, and most of all no clear chronological or any other sort of order, it seemed expedient to rebuild the whole section, starting out from the chronological lead section sentences [B], [C], [C1], [C2], [C3] and [C4] as presented in the previous Discussion section and inserting on logical places into that framework all bits of usefull (correct) information that were mentioned or hinted at somewhere in the old version.

(in italics are the 90 words information that are already said in the lead section; the rest is the extra information now given in §2.1):

[B] Small protests began in Syria on 28 January 2011.

[C] Mass protests erupted on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, and spread in the following days to more cities while growing in size. That week 15–21 March is, since 25 April 2011 with hindsight, considered by news media as the beginning of the Syrian uprising. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.]

[C1] On 18 March, the protests turned bloody when the Syrian government reacted with deadly violence. 20 March in Daraa, after security forces had opened fire into the protesting crowd, protesters burned the local Ba'ath Party headquarters and the town’s courthouse and a building of a telephone company. That day reportedly 15 demonstrators and 7 policemen were killed in Daraa. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.] By 25 March, reportedly 90 civilians and 7 policemen had been killed in Syria. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.]

[C2] The protesters’ demands until 7 April were predominantly democratic reforms, release of political prisoners, “freedom”, abolition of emergency law and an end to corruption. After 8 April, the emphasis in demonstration slogans gradually shifted towards the call for overthrowing the Assad government. Protests spread: on Friday 8 April, they occurred simultaneously in ten cities, Friday 22 April in twenty cities. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.]

[C3] 25 April, the Syrian Army started a series of large-scale deadly military attacks on towns, using tanks, infantry carriers, and artillery, leading to again hundreds of civilian deaths. [See Siege of Daraa, Siege of Homs, Timeline SCW,May2011.] End of May 2011, 1,000 civilians and 150 soldiers and policemen had been killed and thousands detained; among the arrested were many students, liberal activists and human rights advocates.

[C4] Significant armed rebellion against the state began on 4 June in Jisr al-Shugur, a city in Idlib Governorate near the Turkish border. Security forces on the post office had fired at a funeral demonstration, then protesting mourners set fire to the building, killing 8 security officers, then overran a police station, seizing weapons from it. Violence continued and escalated the following days. Reportedly, a portion of the security forces in Jisr defected after secret police and intelligence officers had executed soldiers who had refused to fire on civilians.

Later, more protesters in Syria took up arms, and more soldiers defected to protect protesters.

Both sides in the conflict used propaganda to promote their own righteousness and their opponent’s wickedness (see Reporting, censoring and propaganda in the Syrian Civil War). The Syrian government as well as armed opposition groups are being accused by the UN of torture (see Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war). End of July 2011, around 1,600 civilians and 500 security forces had been killed, 13,000 arrested. [see version ‘2011 Syrian uprising’ 31July2011 ] [END of proposed section 2.1]

• What I did not preserve from the old version, is: [old sentence 2] ‘…Daraa…’: unrest Daraa 15March2011 is unsourced. [sentence 3] ‘…concessions…’ is vague: what is meant and what is the relevance here? [sent. 7]: removed to Ahrar ash-Sham#Origin, ideology and structure (see earlier Discussion ‘Assad in May2011 releasing prisoners’). [sent. 10] ‘quell’: unsourced. [snt. 11] ‘restive’: non-objective, negative term. [snt. 13 and 14] ‘many’ is vague and should be avoided; if anyone knows any concrete numbers he’s welcome to add them here. [sent. 19] unsourced: ‘sieges’, ‘…evolved...’.
• Note *: ‘The’ (…conflict…) is a definite article; that means that is must refer to some ‘conflict’ already mentioned in the text; in this situation, it can only refer to the ‘Syrian Civil War’ mentioned in the lead section and called there a “conflict”. What this sentence therefore actually but vaguely is saying, is: “The … Syrian Civil War initially began as…”.
• Note **: “The … conflict … began” means in this context: “The … Syrian Civil War … began” (see note *). It may be someone’s personal opinion that a Syrian Civil War already started between January and July 2011, but that has never been a motivated opinion, based on sources, in Wikipedia; so it’s incorrect to write that in this period Jan–Jul2011 ‘the Syrian Civil War began’.
• Note ***: See earlier Discussion ’...response to Arab Spring... ?’. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

election 2014 section

this section keeps getting written up in a biased way - it doesn't say the observers that called the elections free were from regime selected countries for example- I believe if you read it you take away the impression that a democratic regime did its best to conduct a vote in the midst of imperialist and rebel disruptiveness- a kind of assad indoctrinated editing stain pervades the section imo. There are also some awfully long lists of countries - including one called 'Cananda' - it's poor style apart from anything else - the sloppiness and rubbish-ness of the text reflecting the minds behind the texts - their fanaticism and incompetence at editing working together as disastrously as laurel and hardy attempting to scale a wall.a visual metaphor of erlabaeko and libdutch working on the article in such a way as to make assad regime happy the section as it stands is poorly assembled and slanted imo - Sayerslle (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This are just personal attacks. But I have removed RT, itar-tass and SANA, and added a mainstream sources.--LibDutch (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources you replaced them with are fine by me, but both RT and ITAR-TASS are major news agencies with bureaus around the world. There is no (to my knowledge) community consensus banning them from being used as a WP:RS. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree but it is better to just use mainstream sources, then can't other people complain. Sayerslle has asked if it can be used as a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard I haven't remove only information, only replaced the sources. --LibDutch (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

'then can't other people complain' - 'just use mainstream sources' - like globalresearch ? did you use that? if you think your pathetic edits look anything other than pro-Assad regime propaganda you are wildly deluded but I can't be bothered to argue with you lot anymore. Sayerslle (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use globalresearch, you are telling lies... It was Erlbaeko who used it.--LibDutch (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The globalresearch ref was for the "More than 9,000 polling stations were set up in government-held areas" statement. I was just trying to find a western media confirming the number of polling stations, but the ref has been replaced, and that is no problem. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this section is being edited from a POV perspective. The goal should always be to use the best available consensus amongst reliable sources. Sayerselle: your editing is slanting the section as badly as LibDutch or Erlbaeko, such as the quotation you recently dumped in from the FSA which clearly violates Wikipedia: Quotations. While not policy, it is clearly unproductive to use quotations as a means to create non-neutral treatment of this highly contentious issue. Can we work together, editing in a spirit focused on reliable sources and non-neutral treatment? Because the editing of everyone here over the last few days makes me seriously question this. --184.167.140.190 (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

yes the overlong quote was not the right response - it said something that struck a chord - I got exasperated - I can't edit the section usefully at the moment as I'm so sick of the pro-Assad pov editing - if I can stay calm enough i'm determined to return to it with good RS sources that could lead to the section giving a more rounded narrative - how many refugees could not vote because of restrictive rules, about pressure in govt held areas to vote and get that ink on their hands, - how some conducted parody elections in rebel held areas, 'the blood election' narrative should be told more -its difficult though - its like when you try and put about Assad releasing the extreme jihadists from Sednaya in spring 2011 - the Assadists get mad and remove it because they want to deliver regime narratives Sayerslle (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the presidential election section (this version) now is in pretty good shape. Would those of you involved in working on it agree that we can remove the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlbaeko (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah flag on infobox + show and hide button

Hello! Instead of the current yellow/golden banner to represent Hezbollah in the infobox, why not use the actual flag? I remember I saw the flag in old Hezbollah-related articles. Also: what's the purpose of hiding the foreign support with a 'hide' button? I know this article has a lot of people pushing their POV and introducing changes to make a certain side of the conflict look better. As a casual reader of Wikipedia I got to say that such POV fights and edit warring stain the good image of Wikipedia. I think the infobox would be more informative without those subtle 'hidden' informations. I mean, someone please edit it so that the infobox shows who supports who without the need of clicking on the 'show' button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.177.52.34 (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The design is not free, so can only be used as fair use on few pages. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Impact: Child Soldiers

Time to add the truth:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/world/meast/hrw-child-soldiers/index.html?hpt=wo_c2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Aleppo Hospital and Aleppo prison deserved his own article

You can star with that http://trpintel.myfotojournal.com/2014/feb/09/battle-field-syria-aleppo-central-prison/ http://trpintel.myfotojournal.com/2014/feb/06/fall-al-kindi-hospital-rubble/ http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/04/aleppo-prison-siege-lifted-by-saa.html http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/02/second-post-syrian-army-crushes-terrorist-attack-on-central-prison-in-aleppo-and-derails-lying-british-narrative.html http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=152821&cid=23&fromval=1 http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=134396&cid=23&fromval=1

YES I KNOW IS PRO REGIME SOURCES but you can do clock here for found more sources https://www.google.com/search?q=aleppo+prison+siege&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls={moz:distributionID}:{moz:locale}:{moz:official} --LogFTW (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Block concerning this page

Sopher99 has just been blocked for sockpuppetry[18], which means that for example talk page votes here have been rigged (I7laseral voted frequently, and is a sock). So past votes can be considered unresolved now, and Sopher and co.'s votes ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the !votes are a big deal now because one sock's opinion wouldn't have really made much of a difference. However, I am also convinced that Alhanuty is mastering one or two accounts other than this guy, this guy and possibly some other IPs like the ones listed in Thepigthatisawesome's SPI. Anyone noticed something quacky recently? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusing others of being a sock is a big thing if you do suspect it then I would take it to the right place. Sock accounts tend to lurk around politically charged events such as these. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a big thing in my case, since Alhanuty accused me of meatpuppetry in the past. I just don't want to file an SPI with 2 or 3 IPs, I want all the eggs in one basket (+ the 24 IP already said he was Alhanuty [19] [20]). I'm just here to get the attention of resident editors who can help by looking through the archives to find something relevant. Nothing more. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sayer[21], his sockpuppet is as old as the conflict itself[22], so he just wanted to manipulate the truth from the start. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

what is truth? as Pilate said to jesus - there's this - 'Over the past year, foreign intelligence officials had learned that Isis secured massive cashflows from the oilfields of eastern Syria, which it had commandeered in late 2012, and some of which it had sold back to the Syrian regime.[23] It was also known to have reaped windfalls from smuggling all manner of raw materials pillaged from the crumbling state, as well as priceless antiquities from archaeological digs.' - its ISIS and ASSAD - that's the truth - not ISIS or Assad - that's the truth. Sayerslle (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Parroting SOHR without question is pretty much working against the truth, and that's what all Western media has done the last few years. Haven't heard a coherent explanation of the current situation in Iraq from the "Assad controls ISIS" camp, but I bet you have one. Let me guess, Assad wants to scare Iraqi Shia into fighting for him or something like that? Or better yet, "ISIS and ISIl are separate organisations", as someone actually claimed! FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Assad most certainly does not control the ISIS, but it is- somewhat odd that despite the Syrian Air force having the capability to attack ISIS positions it has, until quite recently, refrained from doing so. I also regard talk about the corporate controlled western media to be utterly useless complaining especially since the media sources people like yourself present as alternatives to the western media tend to be Russian. As if the Kremlin's propaganda is somehow more reliable than Washington's propaganda.

I noticed another administrator remarked 'Bbb23: Are you sure about the indef on the master? I myself would have done something more like 2 weeks or 1 month. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠' [24]- that is a big difference - 2 weeks or indef. that ban on sopher is a disgrace really , and you driveling on about 'all Western media' is abject - as for Assad/ISIS - 'Syrian lawyers have documented how in the early weeks of the revolt, the regime let out Islamist prisoners from Saidnaya prison'- Sayerslle (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen puppetmasters get anything less than indef bans. So that would be a rare exception. Or maybe there really is an Assad/Wikipedia conspiracy! I hear they may have unblocked some "Assadists" back in 2011... FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)