Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Maarrat al-Nu'man

According to rebel sources, since yesterday insurgents launched an offensive to retake the city http://www.facebook.com/Syria4alasad/posts/452215931494418. Last week, a video showing soldiers celebrate their victory on the outskirts of the city before travel http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=363_1356271251, must we conclude that the city was taken by the army, which would enclose the article Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man and create an article called second battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man What do you think? Maurcich (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

First - neither sources are reliable, and one isn't even in English. Second the (unreliabe) liveleak source says "The terrorist fled Maarat and hid in the fields and side villages after their defeat in the City in October" When in fact the rebels won in October.

Second we don't assume things especially when we don't have proper sources Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This source clearly says that the only fighting today there is at the wadi al deif base, which soldiers have been holed up there for months http://news.yahoo.com/report-top-syrian-general-joins-opposition-101021047.html Sopher99 (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I call bullshit. Two poor-quality sources seem to say one thing, but let's look at what reliable ones say. Rebels have indeed launched an offensive near the city—but on the nearby base at Wadi Deif, where govt troops have been besieged for months. This source talks about how M. al-Numan is an area where govt troops "have been unable to achieve success via conventional tactics". According to HRW, the military bombarded the city with incendiary weapons several times in November—not something you do if you've captured a city! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This CNN article proves that Marat al Numan is governement controlled. This is not suprising that it has gone unnoticed since media rarely reports the rebels retreats when they are quick to announce their advances. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

"Fierce battle for key city and base intensifies

Months of intense fighting over the city of Maaret al-Numan and the Wadi al-Deif military base came to a head Wednesday, with rebels pushing for control of key government areas, dissidents said.

"If the rebels manage to take over the Wadi al-Deif base and Maaret al-Numan, it could be a severe blow to the regime in the north because it will give the rebels the upper hand in controlling the entire Aleppo-Damascus highway," said Rami Abdulrahman, director of the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

He said such victories would be a major strategic gain because rebels would be able to cut off all the reinforcements to regime forces in Syria's largest city and commercial hub, Aleppo.

"Wadi al-Deif is considered to be the main fuel storage for the regime forces and the largest military base in Idlib province. If the rebels managed to cut off the road by taking over the base and the security checkpoints that surround it, the opposition fighters would cripple the regime forces' ability to mobilize their forces not only in Idlib, but in Aleppo as well," Abdulrahman said. "Hundreds of regime forces will be left in disarray to fight on their own without any reinforcement, fuel or food supplies."

Read more: NATO: Syrian forces firing more Scud missiles

By late Wednesday morning, rebels had announced "the start of the liberation" of Maaret al-Numan, the opposition Local Coordination Committees of Syria said.

But the Syrian Observatory said clashes continued in the city, punctuated by heavy shelling by regime forces. Dissidents also said rebels destroyed five armored vehicles and a tank." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genoj' (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This comment is striked because it was written by a sock of ChronicalUsual. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the OSDH 18 rebels were killed yesterday in an assault against the city this morning, the video we see the body was published Maurcich (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The city is under rebel control. Here's the evidence: [1] Now can we please end this nonsense?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup, since october 2012 there hasn't been any syrian army presence in the center of city and actually they're trying to enter the city from the south but are getting repelled as for the wadi dief base it has been under siege for months but yet there is a heavy resistance from the army. Everything is said. And I hasn't been redundant at all :D --Amedjay (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Map

I think that the article can be improved by providing a chronological map of events for the various sections. For example something like this map(pdf page8) can really help to describe progression of the major operation conducted by the Syrian government and used as point of reference for those of us who are not from the region. Thoughts? --Mor2 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You got a good point. The map of the current situation is down near the end of the "uprising and civil war" section. But new readers not familiar with Syrian geography might get confused when reading about the operations earlier in the section. I suppose I could make a simple map of Syrian operations and sieges conducted in 2011, and each of their dates. Then maybe later make one for 2012. The map of the current situation is going to become obsolete eventually. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

way too long

The article is getting to long and it gets harder and harder to follow it. Any help with moving content to subsections, summarizing it here and copyediting, will be appropriated. Thank in advance to anyone who is up for it.--Mor2 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. It's over 200k again. I guess we'll need to summarize content and remove materials that are undue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Still has too many redundant images. Do we need a block of six images of protests? Four images of FSA? Some guy spray painting, really? FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the over detailed Turkish jet incident in the "Renewed fighting" section could use some trimming.--Mor2 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it didn't make that much of an impact on the war. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not reflecting the reality of the situation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Most of the information on Wikipedia is presenting the situation as a fight between the Syrian Army and the Free Syrian Army, but this is not what happen on the ground. The information is completely outdated.

The islamists factions are now by far the strongest on the ground. Al Nusra is reported to have 10 000 soldiers, more and more rebels are joining them, Taweed brigade broke off the FSA, Arhar al Sham just founded with other islamists factions a new islamic front. Al Farouk brigade is not depending of FSA. The Libyan founded brigade is not part of FSA either.

The FSA is disintegrating. Most rebels in idlib are with the Syria liberation army, the civilians who turned into militia men. The defectors of the Free Syria Army are a sideshow, Riad al Assad has been sidelined and this organization is actually weak on the ground.

But yet, still 90% of the Wikipedia pages, including this one are wrote like if the FSA was the main belligerant and like if it was the strongest. This is not the case at all. It is beginning to look like the Mali situation where the secular Tuaregs were thought to be the alpha and omega of the rebellion when the islamists were by far the strongest.

This article should be rewrote to not give undue weight to the FSA and to really show tha reality of what happen on the ground. --GraceMoney (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think its just a matter of things changing so quickly that it's hard to keep up. But you're right. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources or what? Can't change the article without sources.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not right. The Islamist brigades fight under the military council .Tahweed did NOT break off from the FSA. They are part of the Aleppo military council. There are over 50000 defectors compared to 25000 Islamists IN the FSA, and 10,000 al Nusra. The Syrian liberation army never even reaches any news. Liwa al Umma joined the FSA in September. Any brigade which declares itself FSA is part of the FSA, unless the military council reject their use of the name. Sopher99 (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

| We are all Jabhat al-Nusra FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

| We are all Hezbollah Sopher99 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, what is it with all these lame attempts at comebacks throughout the page? FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Islamist or not. The vast majority of rebels are under the command of the FSA.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

More accurately the military council for each province such rebel group is in. The Military councils recognize Salim Idriss/Mustapha sheikh as their de facto leader. Sopher99 (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are nohting in FSA now. Al Tawheed is not part of the FSA, the fact that they are in Aleppo council does not make them member of the FSA and they are certainly not taking orders from them. Rebels fighters are leaving FSA to join al Nusra at a quick pace. Now all the advances we hear by rebels are made by the islamists, most of time Al Nusra itself.

Riad al Assad and his secular defectors have been completely wiped out of the Syrian equation. This aricle does not show it enough. --GraceMoney (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FSA is just an umbrella term for opposition fighters. It doesn't have any real meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If they call themselves the FSA and assign themselves to a military council, they are the FSA. Period. No documents no laws. They are an Insurgency. Sopher99 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1 - The fact that Al Tawheed is part of the Aleppo council completely makes them part of the Free Syrian Army

2- Riad Assad has been irrevelant every since Mustapha al Sheikh came in March

3 - You are completely ignoring Mustapha al Sheikh and Salim Idress who both have much more prominent roles

4 - Islamism appeals more to the Aleppo middle class, and so Al nusra is strongest in Aleppo, which is why you have been hearing about them so much now

5 - Secular defectors make up half the FSA, Islamist make up 30%.Sopher99 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Aha, secular defectors! How does one determine the secularity of a defector? The size of his beard? Where are all these numbers you keep throwing around from? SOHR, which counts all non-soldiers as civilians? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone who is Sunni/Shia and not an Islamist fits under the category of your vague Lebanese civil war inspired definition of "secular". In response to your second comment, you are consistently confusing SOHR with the LCC.

I really don't see what the fuss is about the islamists. The "Secular" Syrian government killed 30,000 civilians (+10k rebels and 1.5k soldiers who attempted to defect) and arrested 200,000 different protesters and activists over the course of the conflict (the VAST majority of which were secular). I should note that even 3 of the "secular" NDCC members were arrested and 2 of Sharaa's cousins were also arrested. The Syrian government broke every human right the American bill of rights lists, and destroyed their third largest city through artillery shelling. Not to mention a 30% decline in GDP (the recent American recession was a 2% decline in GDP)

Not even the ICU or al Shabaab did this in Somalia. Sopher99 (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You've defined what secular means, bravo, but not how you reached this fantastic 30%. And how exactly did the Syrian government kill 30.000 civilians, when the death toll is 43.000, including defected soldiers, army soldiers, police, "shabiha", local fighters, foreign fighters, pro-government civilians, etc.? Doesn't make sense. And what's your source for the SOHR not counting rebels as civilians? I've read it in mainstream newspapers. And an outright LOL at the "American human rights". They don't even respect those in the wars they fight themselves, so why would anyone else? The Western white knights here should spare us their bleeding hearts, and go advocate for the truly peaceful revolts in Bahrain and Egypt, rather than cheerleading all day for Salafists that will thank them by beheading as soon as they get the chance. FunkMonk (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Read Sohr's daily reports. You will see they make space for civilians, soldiers, and rebels. The LCC on the otherhand just uses the term matyrs. Its simply math by the way. The unification of all islamist brigades into self proclaimed numbered 25,000 Islamic front, plus al nusra (10,000) is 35,000. By September there was a reasonably estimated 100k fighters. 35/Atleast 110k by now = Aprox 30%.

American bill of rights. Domestic. We have not had a single domestic abuse of rights (privacy on the other hand, such as Bush's patriot act is a different matter) since the 1992 Rodney King beating. And thats because of a single racist cop.

No one is cheerleading Salifists. in fact Clinton had the nerve to put Nusra on the terrorist list. They are not even cheering a military solution. They have repeatedly called for dialogue, but understand the opposition will not go into "dialogue" without the promise from the regime of the removal of Assad.

If you bothered to read this article you will see that with the Soldiers and Shabiha death toll included, the number rises to 56,000 dead. Sopher99 (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Good night for now. Sopher99 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So for some reason, it is to be assumed that the FSA, whatever it is, is secular? So what is this assumption based on? As for US rights, you haven't had a civil war for quite a while, so who cares? If and when it comes, we can talk. And again, if this is somehow about "human rights", where is Bahrain and Egypt on the contribution list of our resident FSA entourage? FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I told you just before, its based on your vague Lebanese civil war inspired definition that not being an islamist = secular. The Syrian government killed 20,000 people before this became a civil war, and 12,000 people before the FSA was fighting. Not to mention the Syrian goverment had one of the worse human rights rating of all countries. Lebanon did have a civil war, and a quick scan tells me that human rights abuses in the entirey of 15 years did not come close to that of the Syrian government's in the past year. Not to mention that within a month's time the Syrian government killed 40,000 people in Hama without their being any civil war whatsover. Sopher99 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to answer your "WHYZ NOT BAHRAIN AN EGYPT!?" Question with a very artifical "equation"

Bahrain - pop 1.5 million - 93 died span of 22 months. 93/1.5 million = .000063 .000062/22 months = .000002818% of Bahrain's population on average has been killed each month by the Bahrain government

Egypt - pop 80 million - 1100 died span of 23 months. 1100/80 million = .00001375 .00001375/23 months = .000000597% of Egypt's population on average has been killed each month by the Egyptian government in general.

Syria - pop 23 million - 30000 civilians died span of 21 months. 30000/23 million = .001304 .001304/21 months = .000046209% of Syria's population on average has been killed each month by the Syrian government.

The Syrian government is 16.5 times as worse as the Bahraini government, and approximately 77 times worse than the Egyptian government. Keep in mind the Syrian government fears foreign intervention while Bahrain and Egypt does not. That fear of military interventiion kept the death toll down. Hate to see the death-toll without that worry of intervention.

The Egyptian and Bahraini pages do not fall prey to hordes of "protesters are tewworists!!!" and "MOSSAD FAKED THE MOONLANDING". Americans British Russian and Iranians alike respect the Bahraini and Egyptian revolutionaries, and even the islamist portions. Syrian wikipedia articles on the other hand you get calvaries of people screaming nonsense. Sopher99 (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, what does anything you said have to do with the percentage of Islamist FSA members? Egypt and Bahrain didn't face armed protesters (yes, there were violent protesters in Syria from the beginning) and attract hordes of global Salafists like Syria, so of course there are less dead. But you didn't seem to care much when 1000 unarmed Egyptians were killed in a month. And more importantly, they didn't begin to kill Egyptian police/soldiers in spite of this. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Protestors armed themselves to protect themselves from security forces. Since the crackdown in Libya and Syria were more fierce. Armed rebellion was far more likely to occur in those countries than Egypt and Bahrain, whose crackdowns were relatively mild. It doesn't have anything to do with Islamism. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Comment In on going events, Wikipedia reflects only WP:RS. So GraceMoney if you have RS to back up your claim then start adding them to the article.--Mor2 (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry gracemoney sopher99 runs this article we do what he says 71.178.201.4 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do not run the article. I am a wikipedia editor. Sopher99 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Then leave, because you're acting unethically. 71.178.201.4 (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No I am not, I am counteracting the POV pushing edits you done. Sopher99 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The mod asked for a source for "the fsa disintegrating" claims, so http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/27/syrian-rebels-scramble-spoils-war

to quote, "Looting, feuds and divided loyalties threaten to destroy unity of fighters as war enters new phase" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.194.248 (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Syrian police chief defects to the rebels

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=wo_c2 HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need to mention every defection. I know this guy had a high rank, but we've seen dozens of incidents similar to this.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk)

To be clear: this is a military police chief, not a regular police chief.

"Shallal, whose functions are limited to disciplining soldiers, is not a well-known figure." I think that's all that needs to be said. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already removed this entry[2] prior to reading this post. My rational was that this is a very minor event in the context of the Civil war main article. However, it should be noted on one of the sub articles(already noted on the timeline article) or can be incorporated as part of sentence on the topic of defections etc --Mor2 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Russian forces manning Assad's air defenses

According to this report in The Guardian, members of Russia's military hav' been deployed in Syria to man new air defenses. Russia sent these new air defenses to the Syrian regime after the war began.

This means that Russia is more deeply involv'd in the war than Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Thus, I say we add Russia to the regime's side of the infobox. It should read
Supported by:
Iran
Russia
Hezbollah
PFLP-GC
Iraqi Shia militias

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 03:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They're advisers, not exactly combatants. Also, we've had this discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war. We agreed to add a note to the infobox that will redirect the reader to the foreign involvement section of the article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

'we've had this discussion' - so does that mean whatever changes in the real world, whatever RS report, Russia/Putin neutrality is to be an article of faith on this article? and the article says 'military advisers' - which you shorten to 'advisers' - Sayerslle (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

More than one source would be needed to make such a radical addition to the combatants section. EkoGraf (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

THe story has been widely picked up by other newspapers who dont seem worried it might be incorrect. they seem to consider it utterly plausible - which of course it is. is it a WP:RULE that 'more than one source would be needed to make such a radical addition' or just your opinion? Lenin said 'its necessary to be as radical as reality itself'. if the russian military is there and involved with the regime side that reality should be reflected. has putin/russia denied the story?Sayerslle (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sayerslle Russia is totally neutral. Sure they print Syrian money on behalf of Syria, supply Syria with weapons, and give the Assad regime political support at the UN. But this is all part of being neutral. Putting troops on the ground in order to aid the Assad regime better murder Syrian civilians is, of course, Russia showing that it supports neither one side nor the other. To suggest otherwise is WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.63 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair there is a whole article about Russia's role in the Syrian civil war. With that being said, I don't think that the source provided by Asarlaí adds anything substantial, so I am ok with whatever was decided beforehand. --Mor2 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

4th phase?

The actual third phase goes from June 2012 to December 2012 , I suggest to add a 4th phase that starts with the "2nd Rif Dimashq Offensive" or "Second Damascus Offensive". --Amedjay (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it. The numbering of phases seems like OR to me, so I changed them to more descriptive titles.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not adding from 2nd rif Dimashq offensive "Dual offensives?" --Amedjay (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actual strenght of the Army and the FSA.

Is the actual number of soldiers in infobox updated? What about FSA? Does anyone have recent sources stating the number of soldiers and fighters left? --Amedjay (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Including civilians, defectors and muhijideen, 120000 by December http://www.startribune.com/world/184083101.html?refer=y Sopher99 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the army? --Amedjay (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The 120,000 figure came from a Syrian rebel chief so the number is more likely around 80,000-100,00 or so. As for the Army, no sources at the moment, but if they had 200,000 at the start of this, with 30,000-50,000 defecting, 11,000-13,000 being killed and an equal number or at the most 20,000 wounded, than I think it would be fair to guess somewhere around 100,000-120,000 soldiers still remain in the military. In essence, there is still more soldiers than rebels or they are at least equal in number, but I doubt it. EkoGraf (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A bit more for the FSA and a bit more for the Syrian army. The commander is likely counting mujihideen as the higher military council now recognizes islamists as rebels even if they don't participate in the military councils. The Syrian army uses alot conscription, forced and unforced, and demand the people of Latakia and Tartous to double their conscripting efforts (which is why there was inter-fighting in Qardaha a few months ago). Sopher99 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why the link to Syrian Arab News Agency is constantly deleted from External Links section?

Guys, want to remind you that "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.

You may read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) that: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia."

In the external links there are no links at all to the official Cyrian sites. They should be there to provide links to different opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.135.185.79 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

SANA is not a reliable source thats why. Its not neutral either. There are no opinions on wikipedia articles. Sopher99 (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha, and the other external links which cites only rebbels and their points of view are neutral? Are you kidding?! To be really neutral you should give both points of view, and not only rebbels. 95.135.185.79 (talk)

Look closer. They cite Every news each media source in question has ever covered in Syria , Which includes rebels, government, LCC, SOHR, and foreign ministries. Sopher99 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to include SANA, we should include the link to SOHR as well, for neutrality. Otherwise, don't include it. The rest of the sources are reliable and independent. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting how can you estimate their "independence"? Is Al Jazeera independent source? Are those sources cite official point of view as well about Syrian events? Official point of view treats this event as planned foreign invasion of Syria. Have you ever heard about this from those sources? I doubt regarding their true "neutrality". 95.135.185.79 (talk)

Al jazeera English is not state controlled, and they are reknown for reliability and self-check. Also there are no "points of view", they report on any activists or spokepersons who has something interesting to say, and many times sneek their own correspondents into Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why people freak over Al jazeera. only about 3-5% of our sources on this page are al jazeera. Sopher99 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

On the first 72 sources (ie the first column) only sources #8, #45, #58 are al jazeera. Sopher99 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact source #8 was part of an unnecessary byte-consuming double-reference. So I removed it. I then replaced the other two. Sopher99 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There. I replaced enough al jazeera sources so that al jazeera accounts for only 1% of the sources for the Syrian civil war page. Anyway back to the point. SANA is not a reliable or neutral source and it won't be going in the external links. Sopher99 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop exaggerating! 1% is clearly wrong. It is 1.98%. :P Jeancey (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that if some media is not officially controlled by some government that means that it's independent? Don't you think that it's owner might be interested in some special highlighting of events? E.g. Al-Jazeera is situated in Qatar and it's well known fact that Qatar supports rebels/invaders in Syria. In external links presented at Wiki the most of the publications about rebels are positive and about officials are negative. Doesn't it look suspicious? Why these media don't write about bomb explosions near the schools made by rebels or about abduction of foreign journalists and workers with subsequent exaction of money? Al-Jazeera is reknown for reliability? By whom? By "world community"?! Ha-ha... 95.135.185.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

They have reported Every. Single. Bombing. Claimed. Or. Unclaimed. Al jazeera is a reliable source as it is not government controlled and it is known for self-check and transparency. Al jazeera ENGLISH is perfection. Sopher99 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perfection :-D Al jazeera news are very well filtered and highlight conflict only from one point of view. It doesn't mean much that it's not controlled by the government if it's controlled by those who supports rebels. And it's totally not true that it reports everything. Ukrainian journalist Anchar Kochneva was captured by rebels who asked $50 billions for her freedom from Ukrainian goverment. I haven't seen any news about this at Al Jazeera. Would you be so kind to help me to find this news at Al Jazeera? Are there are any news about last terror attacks in Syrian towns where cars with bombs exploded near schools? It's a lies that Al Jazeera is independent. 95.135.185.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

=) http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/video-shows-woman-journalist-held-syria-rebels Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/2012121310920586422.html Sopher99 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! :) First off, I'm wondering why information about Ankhar Kochneva was placed in "Blogs" section and not in "News"? That's why I wasn't able to find it. And why there is no news about the fact that her kidnappers extorts money for her life from Ukrainian government? Isn't it just usual terrorism? Again here was reported that two russians and italian was abducted by rebels: http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/two-russians-and-one-italian-abducted-syria And again no continuation that finally all they want is just money. 95.135.185.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This talk section is not about al jazeera. Literally the only people who reported on your ukrainian journalists are Russian and East European news sites. Not Sana. Not CNN. Not Jarkata Post. Not Hindustan times Not Teipei times not Syrdny morning herald. The fact that it made it to the al jazeera liveblog but not the liveblogs of other news sites is a plus for al jazeera. The was no main article for American journalist Austin Tice or for American Journalist Richard Engel (who is far more famous than ankhar Kochneva) so what makes you think al jazeera will give a main page article to a Ukrainian journalist if American newsites don't give mainpage articles to captured american journalists? Sopher99 (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's one more provement that west-oriented media are usually not independent. They are trying to show rebels as purely good guys and avoid publishing news where they do something bad. Opposite to this, cyrian officials are always bad. But situation in Syria can't be shown only by two colors - black and white. There are lots of gray. And that's a pity that this Wiki article also shows this conflict in the same manner - only black and white. 95.135.185.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you hear what I said. Only Eastern European media covered her capture. Not Syrian state tv. Not Indian or Chinese news, not Indonesian news not Austrialian or Japanese news, all of which are "eastern media" Sopher99 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not right. This event was given by Syrian news: http://www.sana-syria.com/eng/337/2012/12/12/456988.htm http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-abduction-journalist-anhar-kochneva/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.135.185.79 (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Indian news also gave this information about asking large amount of money for her life: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/russianato-standoff-over-syria-looms/article4224043.ece 95.135.185.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is about SANA not al jazeera. Stop bringing al jazeera up when only 1% of the sources here are al jazeera. Sopher99 (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it just a few years ago that Bush was throwing tomahawk missiles into the al Jazeera station in Iraq? Sopher99 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about Al jazeera. This is about SANA. Which is not suitable for a source external link or not. Sopher99 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have readded the Al Jazeera English external link as Al Jazeera is a reliable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you don't want to give links to official Syrain news. Then what's wrong with this news site: http://www.syrianews.cc Why it was also deleted? It also doesnt' agree with western point of view and your own opinions? :)) Guys, if this is Civil War where one big part of people fighting with another big part of people, then there is no "good guys" and "bad guys". Don't try to separate them in this way. It's a pity but your article as well as many of the given sources are clearly not neutral. What I'm going to try to do is just make some balance and neutrality, that's all. 95.135.185.79 (talk)

Neither site is neutral. Both are "Foreign conspiracy and terrorists" sites. Fringe. This is not a matter of "showing both opinions" because there are no opinions on this page, only reports. That includes reports from government officials. Sopher99 (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You find the news about terrorist to be impossible? You also treat news from USA and other West countries about terrorists as also funny and impossible? :) E.g. in Afganistan etc. If you think that in Syria there are no terrorists - that's just your own opinion, it shouldn't take influence on the Wiki page. 95.135.185.79 (talk)

Btw, how do you know that they are rebels, not terrorist? Who told you that? Was that independent source? Or maybe it's biased but somebodies interests in Syria? 95.135.185.79 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.135.37.118 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protected until the use of these links is resolved. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A full-protect because of a block-evading IP linkspammer? Ridiculous. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound fair just to block. The sources from other countries also should be added. Why there are no sources from Russia, Iran, China? They don't report facts and all are biased? :)) 95.135.185.79 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.135.37.118 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's non-state-owned like NG or Kommersant, Russian media is ok. State sources are disreputable. Chinese sources suffer the same problem with state control, though we do sometimes use Xinhua. As for Iran, we'll leave them where they belong, sitting in the corner and frothing at the mouth whilst playing with their adorable little turquoise submarine. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

SANA and other fringe news is not reliable or neutral. Has never been, won't ever will. The end. Sopher99 (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is really very fair to give links only to those media which are situated in countries which support only one side of the conflict. Bravissimo, Wiki "democracy"! Indeed, that's a shame :( 95.135.185.79 (talk)

Take a cold hard look at reality. 130 nations voted to condemn Syria at the UN general assembly. 20 voted no, 20 abstained, 20 couldn't pay their bills to vote. 10 of the 20 nations that voted no were Syria's long time allies (Russia Iran North Korea ect). What more is that Iran and North Korea and a slew of countries who voted "no" do not have indepedentent media that report on Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the principle of neutrality "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." You just through away Russian, Chinese, Iranian and others views just based on your own opinion. Does it mean something that some countries are Syria allies? And who told you that in Iran e.g. there are not independent media? Doesn't that just somebodies opinion? The article should be based on facts and cover all valuable views. Don't forget about this. 95.135.185.79 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.135.37.118 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Sopher99 (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be okay with adding the SANA website if we (1) also add the SOHR site, and (2) a note indicating that this is the official Syrian state media, making it clear to new readers that the site might be biased. The same should be done for the SOHR link if we choose to add it.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be fair I guess. 95.135.185.79 (talk)

I disagree. First off the SOHR isn't biased - its just not a media, but an organization which reports on the Syrian conflict. In a similar way to how Human rights watch is not a media but its not biased. Second we shouldn't used unreliable sources under any circumstances for a main page article such as this one. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Well, it's a bummer we can't edit this article for a few more days, but look on the bright side: at least SANA is not in the external links anymore.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL, SOHR isn't biased?! The founder was kicked out of Syria long before the current conflict, so I guess he has more than a few scores to settle. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

SOHR is definetly biased, they are an opposition activist group which has members embedded with the rebels to count the number of the dead. We only use it because independent reporters on the ground are almost non-existent and we need to have a flow of information from somewhere and they have shown to be a bit more reliable and realistic than the others like the LCC or Sham news network. But as we use SOHR we also need to use SANA sources as well for sake of neutrality. And if we put SOHR as an external source than we need to put SANA as well. It is not up to us to decide which sources the readers are going to read when they link via the external sources section. So I agree with both Future and Funky. Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it sticks to neutrality and it wouldn't be neutral if we presented one of the warring sides POV and not the other. EkoGraf (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We should not be giving a link to any point of view whatsoever. The external links are meant to link to the Syrian/middleeast category of each particular reliable source. Each such source (telegraph, al jazeera ect) has covered both rebel and government officials reports. The external links to the Syrian/middleeast category does not link to any specific report. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Footage

It would be possible to embed VOA (and other public domain) videos directly in the article, if anyone is interested. They just need to be downloaded and converted to OGV. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not really a big fan of VOA videos. They're usually not that interesting, and I'm not sure if other readers are either. Also, they sometimes contain unfree footage.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Uninteresting may be the same as non-sensationalist, which is not necessarily a bad thing in this case. And they usually caption copyrighted footage as such. In any case, they don't use much of it, and it can be cut out. FunkMonk (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Activist says" should be considered weasel words

It's equivalent to "some people say ...".72.53.146.220 (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Activists in this case are civilian reporters. Its also COMMON NAME. The RS we have been using constantly refers to activists. Its long standing, we have been using it since March 2011. Its neutral. It just mean people who dedicate their time to reporting and organizing. Sopher99 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Or simply to spreading propaganda and misinformation, in many cases. Such "activist accounts" should never be taken at face value. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First off whenever activists report, we always say according to activists. Second they don't report "propaganda and misinformation". What propaganda? Every single Human rights committee confirmed the killings (on both sides, but VAST majority by the government forces). Sopher99 (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing to "misinformation" is when the LCC just put the death tolls in "matyrs" instead of breaking down who and what faction got killed where. Sopher99 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember "activists" claimed the government had used chemical weapons on them month and month ago. Just to mention a single piece of misinformation in a huge line. And where again does anyone say SOHR doesn't to? Yet another article with the "civilian fighter" caveat, cited form them: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/nearly-90-of-syria-dead-killed-in-2012/story-fn3dxix6-1226545953856 FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, anyone who says anything is a civilian reporter, hell I'm a civilian reporter. what do you mean by "COMMON NAME"? "activists" is Its neutral or rumour? "It just mean people who dedicate their time to reporting and organizing." who are these people specifically? "Every single Human rights committee confirmed the killings", well, then cite those specific organization, instead of "some activist" or "some analyst" or "some expert". 72.53.146.220 (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea, can you quote one sentence in the entire article where it says "activists said"? Your like the anit-al jazeera editors. Complaining about al jazeera despite the fact we just by chance don't use al jazeera in the main page Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mustafa Al-Sheikh captured in Darayya

We should add the POW template next ro his name. For now there is this source in Russian. http://anna-news.info/node/9424 --Andres arg (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well as of now, we can't really do anything. The article is locked. Only admins can edit it. Also, I can't read Russian, and am not sure how reliable that source is. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ew. Looks like some crappy Mathaba knockoff. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ANNA is NOT a reliable source. Even the noticeboard says so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_123#Arbitrary_Break_II Sopher99 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation: In the province of Damascus, Syrian army soldiers in Darayya arrested Mustafa al-Sheik, commander of the so-called Military Council of the Free Syrian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any idea why the article is locked? the summary says "Edit warring / Content dispute" but I don't see anything about it here or in the history--Mor2 (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

An IP user keeps adding SANA to the external links section. We kept reverting him. An admin interpreted this as edit-warring. It's stupid, I know.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There must be more than meets the eye, because disruption by IP need only a semi protected status(at least in my very limited understanding of how this work)--Mor2 (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Is it possible to update the casualties3 parameter in the infobox to 46,068 according to this ref? -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Support for Osama Bin Laden and September 11th

Here is a video of opposition members praising Osama Bin Laden and the events of September 11th, 2001. Should we add this in the article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VqaxqMPIXE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.31 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Youtube isn't a reliable source, but if such report it, we could. But we have a couple of folks here who would like to portray these insurgents as Rock and Roll-Marxist-secularist-democratic-rebel-heroes, so it ain't gonna happen in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I am not pro-assad, or pro-rebel. I think both the United States and the Syrian population are in quite a predicament. The people turn to these Salafists because there is nobody else to support their frustrations. I will look for this reported in a reliable source, but most Western news-media is hellbent on gaining sympathy for the opposition, and we all know that Americans don't like people who cheer Osama bin Laden and 9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.31 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Western media is not hell-bent on gaining sympathy for the opposition. 110-130 civilians die a day in Syria from bombardment and snipers. The death toll according to the UN is truly 60,000. It is unimaginably easy to show the suffering caused by the government because it is so ubiquitous. For example During the Egyptian revolution 99% of the "western media's" coverage was about the protests. Hmmmm I wonder why they put so much attention onto the protests rather than the copts or the Egyptian stockmarket? Maybe because that would have been ignoring the elephant in the room. Same for Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you thought that civilians may also die killed by the foreign terrorists? Have you heard that they also use snipers, bombs? Can you imagine that for somebody it's very profitable to show this as "regime crime"? Syrian Army is fighting against foreign invaders, and this is the elephant in the room. Still, it's being ignored by the "correct" media. 95.135.188.196 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

channel four news tonight showed an assad jet bombing a suburb of damascus - rebel shot footage I think, but the news presenter said they have difficulty getting independent news and reports and film because the Assad regime doesnt like that. its authoritarian kind of thing and secretive type govt. Not very open. repressive. do we have to leave this demented 'western media wants to portray rebels as blah blah western media is hell bent blah blah ' isnt this all violating WP:Soapbox.? Sayerslle (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Who deleted my link to the video here? :)) Afraid of truth? Look here and you will understand all the "value" and "reliability" of rebels videos: http://theaviationist.com/2012/08/30/l39-fake/ 95.135.188.196 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Calm down you troll. I have explicitly stated I care not for Assad or the opposition. I thought this video was relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.86.5 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

and you explicitly stated 'most western news -media is hell bent on gaining sympathy for the opposition' - which is a lazy , propagandist soapbox-y thing to throw in, . western news that i've read and watched has been pretty principled imo, trying to convey a complex, messy reality- you troll Sayerslle (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your responses are laced with your passionate opposition to Assad. This makes me question the neutrality of your contributions to this article and articles relevant to this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.223.61 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We have three or four recurring characters who take care of the public relations of the FSA here, and pretty much own the article. Why everyone who isn't enamoured with hairy Salafists are all IPs is beyond me. IPs are too easy to discredit. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a single statement on this page that puts salifists into a good light. What we do have is regular daily news of events, and since the rate of destruction and death caused by the government compared to the rebels is within the vicinity of 10-1, its only natural that reports of such would be within the vicinity of 10-1. I should add that I haven't updated the main page article in quite a while, FutureTrillionaire and EkoGraf tends to do it. Sopher99 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you guys have an obvious tendency to try to make the FSA seem like a unified troup of secular boy scouts, who are embarrassed by their few Islamist brethren, whereas the opposite is increasingly true. I have actual personal stakes in this conflict, yet I don't edit the article with even half as much zeal as these four Westerlings. Puzzles me. Must be some kind of malformed cyber-Spanish civil war syndrome. FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The word secular is not even mentioned once in this article. In fact the FSA is hardly mentioned at all in this article, believe it or not. Their not mentioned in the lede, and by the time we get to Battles of Damascus and Aleppo, the terminology switches to rebels, because by this point the FSA are half of the rebel force, and not the majority. Sopher99 (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As you may know, this article has many spin offs, where the same crowd frequents. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, where are your sources that claim that all the FSA fighters are Jihadists? This ISW report (page 17) clearly states that the FSA "promotes a secular agenda". Also, most news reports I see still use the term FSA, and clearly distinguishes them from groups like Jabhat al-Nusra.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Organized

Our lede could probably be clarified ... it now says (emphasis added): "Opposition forces ... became increasingly ... organized .... However, the rebels remained fractured, without organized leadership."--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have a better way of phrasing it, go for it. The rebels aren't so disorganized anymore. They were in the past though. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't quickly think of the best way to parse it, so left it for the keen minds here to consider. On it's face, it seems internally inconsistent, which is unfortunate for a lede of such a heavily accessed article. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Decisive leadership? Sopher99 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

works for me.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to work out alright without centralized leadership, perhaps the civil war in Syria is operating under the same kind of emergent consensus model. Linuxgal (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That would require defections, specifically from incompetence. Sopher99 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You're comparing WP to the rebels? The rebels would probably be far more successful if they were more organized. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to war map broken

Just FYI: the war map link beneath the photo at the top of tha page is broken and needs to be fixed by someone with the access to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.208 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ras al-Ayn

On December 17, a ceasefire was signed between the belligerents in this battle and since then there has been no fighting, should we consider this battle to be over? And if clashes erupt again about a second battle of Ras al-Ayn ? Maurcich (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Going to work on those casualties for the battle you asked me. Didn't have the time before. EkoGraf (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Maurcich (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why censorship mode was switched on for this article?

WHY WAS THIS TOPIC DELETED WITHOUT EXPLANATIONS?

Guys, you want to defend the presence of your own opinions in this article in this way? Yes, I know your answer "There are no opinions on wiki". This SHOULD be so, but in this article this is definitely not so. The article gives all the facts in the light of "fighting against the bloody regime". Those who try to make the article more neutral are banned or are limited in editing. We should first achieve "permision" from the persons who try to leave the article "not neutral". This is funny. Your next step - also limit writing in this place, in "Talk"? You forget the meaning of the word "Censorship"? You may read more about it at wiki Censorship :)

Who give you the right to decide which media are reliable and which are not? Are you secret service to know that some media are "indirectly" (by Sopher99) controlled by the goverment. Finally, if not goverment, then other guys, owners, have full control over their media. Do you seriously think that they don't use the media in their own interests? About which "independent" media you may talk?! This is totally relative conception. And we should balance it to be neutral.

You refuse using some media because they call Syrian rebels as "terrorists" but those media which call rebels in Yemen and Afghanistan as terrorists are wellcome. Again - WHY? "Opinion of international community"? Sometimes it might be too far from reality.

What I want to offer in this post is to add links to media from some other countries, not only those which supports rebels. Let's discuss.

I agree with the general sentiments expressed here. Politically motivated editors have taken control of the article and made it biased and one sided. The same editors no doubt think they are actually making a contribution to Wikipedia. They are letting the project down. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you replying to a striked comment? It's striked for a reason.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the reason (is it a good faith one or more censorship)? Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that the IP is a blocked User, and on top of that unable to understand reasonable responses to their circular refrain for "debate". Anyway Frenchmalawi, this article and its related ones have enough problems, go back to stirring up needless trouble at the Northern Ireland article, that's more than enough for one User to deal with surely?

I have no idea if this editor was blocked in good faith or not. The point the editor makes here is clearly a valid one. Censorship is in full swing on this article. I don't like your tone in your response to me. I think it is well out of order. Saying "go back to stirring up trouble etc". Pause for thought please. Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

casualties

Regarding this edit[3].

1. I think that the point of the article to be informative rather than throwing the highest estimate you can find. To that extent I think that previous variant is more accurate as it gives an exact number names listed dead and dates for reference, while the later variant just throw an estimate for the time of the report.(both are very similar)

2. I think its important to date the sources, so we should reinstate the access date near the opposition figures.

3. Lastly the edit summary says something about combining "Shuhada numb is combined with SOHR numb", whatever it is please reflect this in the text. Right now we have UN account to 59,648 dead(according to 7 sources including government). While the SOHR/shuhadamain state 46,068/48,002 respectively, I don't know how you upped the 48,002 to 59,215(please add sources if necessary) but its obvious that the opposition sources don't count all causalities or only causalities from one side of the conflict, the text should reflect this, so we are not left wondering why such huge discrepancies. --Mor2 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

SOHR has a much more limited scope of information gathering, their counts of civilians soldiers and rebels deaths are always less than what it really is. Shuhada is the LCC's counting of the death toll. Shuhada means matyrs, and matyrs only counts civilians and rebels dead (ie the opposition's matyrs) they do not count soldiers deaths (11-12k), so when you add 12k to the LCC/shuhada's death count, you get the UN's 60k death toll. Fits perfectly. Sopher99 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You addressed point 3) explaining how you added up the numbers. However, It doesn't explain why the 11-12K count was added to only one of the sources and not both (i.e. 46,068-48,002 -> 46,070-59,215) or why it was add it at all, mixing the sources(WP:OR) instead of stating that opposition groups only count the death toll of civilians and rebels(46,068-48,002) and additional count by? put 11-12k soldiers dead(+date). Because you mixing the sources create a lot of issues for example the next sentence "of which about half were civilians, but also including 24,220–26,010 armed combatants" is very likely a violation of WP:SYN, because it speaks of different set of numbers/dates especially the outdated 'over40000' ref.--Mor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw I believe you are incorrect in your explanation as well, SOHR says:

46,068 people have been killed since the beginning of the uprising last march. 32,216 civilians and rebel fighters, 1,535 defectors, 11,487 soldiers and 830 unidentified people.

Which means they already counted the 11K soldiers, so overall they are 14K people(24%) short of UN list of names. If you took the 11K soldier count from the SOHR count(a part from in accurate source) and added it to shuhadamain count(to demonstrate its same as UN count, this is a counting mistake an obvious violation of WP:SYN and should be updated.--Mor2 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia Today versus CNN

One editor has censored material that is sourced by reference to Russia Today. Like the BBC, Russia Today is State owned (like many, many major media outlets). It is Russian and so brings a distinct Russian perspective. It also has had correspondents on the ground in Syria during the conflict and its correspondent has even interviewed the Syrian President (the most recent foreign English speaking correspondent to do so). This same editor thinks Russia Today should be excluded as a source but CNN should not be. I have no problem with CNN being a source - but see no reason why Russia Today can't be.

I think this is politically motivated, biased and not objective. How can we produce a balanced piece when this sort of editing is permitted. Is there any Wiki policy around this sort of editing dispute on sources etc. Do any of the editors here support equal treatment of Russia Today and CNN (as sources)? Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No comparison between RT - which is not simply owned but CONTROLLED and is obvious propaganda, to the BBC - which is extremely critical of its government often and is unanimously considered fair and balanced.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. This belong at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Please don't accuse me of being politically motivated. This rRssia Today debate has happened many times before. Each with the same conclusion. I have been editing this article since March/April 2011 so I remember. Sopher99 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, you've provided scant reasoning for your unliateral editorial decision. I've raised this on the Russia Today, CNN and Media discussion pages too and hope to get some input from editors who are objective (i.e. step in from outside the Syrian Civil War article). Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, if you have been editing this article since early 2011 and have never taken any step to address the obvious bias in the "Propaganda" section, then I think that says a lot about your objectivity on this topic. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The propaganda section was only created a month ago by futuretrillionaire. Once again you are accusing me of wrong doing where none exists. Sopher99 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, are you saying it takes you more than a month to identify bias in a short paragraph? Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire rewrote nearly the entire article. Hes a great editor and so I didn't bother re-reading most of it. Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore the Syrian government has what is called a "ministry of information" ie a propaganda ministry. Its only natural that we will have more to report on the Syrian government because they, at the time, had control of just about all media, directly or indirectly. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You have deleted my appeal for input from other editors on the RT, CNN and Media pages. Why do you have a problem with this? Where do you want this issue to be listed for input by others - they seemed appropriate pages to me but I am open to suggestions. I have a problem with your style of editing as you seem to be censoring (sources first, now discussion here), but hope you will clarify and put this concern of mine to bed. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is about the Syrian civil war page correct? Then put it on the Syrian civil war talkpage, here. Not anywhere else. Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no wide-range talk discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, here is a good program from al Jazeera that discusses propaganda from both Assad and the rebels. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

CNN isn't actually impartial in this conflict. Maybe this is not very pronounced in their English coverage, however, their Arabic language dedicated page celebrates the civil war as "Revolution of Dignity" (ثورة الكرامة). I don't think RT went that far in their support of Assad.--Rafy talk 02:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is about CNN english and RT english. Al jazeera arabic isn't that great in neutrality as it occasionally refers to the dead in Syria as matyrs, however al jazeera english has perfect neutrality. Sopher99 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Arabic websites are still maintained by CNN and Al-Jazeera which tells something about their overall policy. For me the main issue is not in terminology but the fact that both CNN an Al-Jazeera are close and even financed by countries opposed to the Assad government makes them less reliable than say Reuters, AFP, etc.--Rafy talk 14:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

CNN is not state financed. Al jazeera is operated by a broadcasting company owned by Qatari officials, however the people themselves who run the english sites are not the same as the people who run the Arabic one. Its a cultural difference I presume. I should note that the address says Syria.2011 , 2011 being the year when Syria was still in its Arab Spring phase. The arab spring in general was known as the dignity revolution to arab speakers. Sopher99 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

An appeal for thought...Not meaning to put anyone down, just expressing my opinion here about the danger of unthinking editing on an influential website like Wikipedia. We have an active editor expressing the view "Furthermore the Syrian government has what is called a "ministry of information" ie a propaganda ministry. Its only natural that we will have more to report on the Syrian government because they, at the time, had control of just about all media, directly or indirectly." The same editor, it appears, doesn't pause to actually think and ask questions like (i) how much does Washington / the US Military Complex spend on public relations or media (i.e."propaganda") a year; who spends more, Syria or the USA?; (ii) does it matter what a Ministry (Syrian, U.S. or otherwise is called); (iii) who is on the balance of probabilities better at "propaganda" - Syria (economy size 69) or the USA (economy size 1); (iv) who would many people regard as having invaded (in recent years) a sovereign country (Iraq) on the basis of propaganda etc. Phewwww, I don't think this article will ever amount to much more than a distorted, one sided, badly written potted account of the conflict...but I chip in my bit. It's an important article, even if it is all that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

As per outcome of discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Russia Today is not a banned source. - Any RT articles which persons regard as unreliable can be discussed here and if agreement can't be reache, referred to "Reliable sources Noticeboard". In other words, the usual procedures apply. I have restored the Propaganda section as it was before it was edited on the basis of RT being a "banned source". Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No sources are "banned" we already knew that. But the sources do not provide proper reliability for the information you are attempting ot put, and are even considered Fringe. No one has ever said they were banned, we just don't use unreliable articles, particularly for a polemical page such as this one. Sopher99 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter anyway, because neither of the Russia Today sources remotely back up the claim you made that Opposition produces propaganda. The source you put is Larov claiming western propaganda. What larov says is not even remotely considered fact. Sopher99 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So, has Assad ceased to use his flag, or what?

Look at the infobox. What the Hell.--Menah the Great (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Syria#Flag_on_front_page FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like an administrator has somewhat jumped the gun on Wikicommons. I've notified them of the problem caused here. Mezigue (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if Commons can do anything about it. The source of the change is at Template:Country data Syria. I've notified ANI. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

[4] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, it's not Commons - dunno why I thought that. In any case I left the message on Wikipedia so no matter. Mezigue (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Suliman: 'Al Jazeera plays the piper, but Qatar calls the tune'

Why this topic was deleted? It has straight relation to the article and doesn't break any rules!

"The long-time Berlin correspondent for Al Jazeera, Aktham Suliman, recently resigned from his post. The journalist tells DW that the Qatari government is exercising undue influence on Al Jazeera's reporting."

Read here the whole interview: http://www.dw.de/suliman-al-jazeera-plays-the-piper-but-qatar-calls-the-tune/a-16477490

Another citation: "In Syria, too, society is divided. You have the pro-Assad people, and those who are against him. However, when you make one side out to be mass murderers and turn the others into saints you're fueling the conflict, not presenting the situation in an appropriate and balanced way. There are murders, injustices and good things on both sides. But you don't see that on Al Jazeera. My problem is and was: When I see Al Jazeera's Syrian coverage, I don't really understand what's going on there. And that's the first thing I expect from journalism."

Taking this into account, I offer do NOT treat Al Jazeera as reliable source anymore (regarding Syrian crisis) and delete it from external links. 95.135.26.136 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC) :Striked IP sock of Deonis_2012. [5] Sopher99 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, and why it's strikethrough? :) Will any explanations be written? Or just censorship? 95.135.26.136 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC) :Striked IP sock of Deonis_2012. [6] Sopher99 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What is going on here? Why is one side being censored? The neutrality of this article is outrageous. Sopher, don't push your political agenda on this article. Who is paying you? Hmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There might be only one explanation which Sopher99 gave earlier: "Al Jazeera English is perfect!" No-no, don't think that somebodies' opinion influence on this article! This is not so! Remember - there are no opinions on Wiki! :)46.201.207.98 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, guys, who may edit this article - please, delete Al Jazeera from external links as it seems not to be reliable source in this question (according to their own journalists). 46.201.207.98 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably the reason of striking this topic is that Deutsche Welle is not reliable source? Does it also support Al Assad? 46.201.207.98 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The status quo here is that anything supporting Assad is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Your only half right. Anything source which "supports" Assad is not a reliable source, any more than a site which "supports" rebels. We don't use sources to put in a point, we use sources to back up reports and news about events .Sopher99 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Man, this topic was striked definitely not because of non-reliable link. So what was the reason? That'd be nice to know. 46.201.207.98 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It was striked due to consistent sock puppetry by an ip of Deonis_2012, of which your Ip is a candidtate too. Sopher99 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken this talk to the [[7]] and it is clear that Al Jazeera is rubber stamp for the Qatari royal family. Dafranca (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That noticeboard did not come to any conclusion. Al jazeera is not controlled by the Qatari Royal family, just invested by it. Its not State Television Sopher99 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think censorship is being practiced here. I think it's an abuse of Wikipedia. The struck words of the editor seem like fair comment and a good contribution (where all perspectives should be heard). Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "fair" comment by a blocked user is. The user is blocked. His or her right to contribute to Wikipedia has been duly revoked. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The points still stand, the user is irrelevant. He didn't make up those articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Information On Syrian Army activity

The article is full of rebel this, rebel that; there is little information on the activities of the syrian army.Monticores (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian army doesn't contact media to tell them their operations. The FSA have the Syrian Observatory for Human rights and the Local Coordination Committees, not to mention their own spokepersons and many regular FSA soldiers who contact media to blab about their advancements. Basicly, the Free Syrian Army and opposition activists are constantly revealing info about their military situations non-stop, while for the Syrian army is on strict orders not to contact media. There is no goverment I know of that allows regular soldiers and civilians to freely go ahead and talk to media about their military positions or military plans. Sopher99 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The closest you get is state tv reports about Syrian army operations, but those are not reliable sources unless a RS reports on it. Furthermore the Syrian army has not had a single major victory in 6 months, while the rebels have slow but existent victories. Sopher99 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

6 months? Hmmmm, they won the Battle of Damascus in July, recaptured several districts in Homs city, stalled the rebels in Aleppo city and the Damascus countryside to the point of a stalemate, and halted for the most part the rebels attempted advance into Hama province. Wouldn't say they were without some success. EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My bad. If January is month 1 (ie month 13) then 13 - 7 (The month of July) = 6 months. But since the rebel attack on Damascus occured in mid jully, and its January 12th now, I was off by atleast 2 weeks. Stalemates are not victories. World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam war, and most recently the Libyan civil war were spent at least half of their time period in stalemates. In the end one side still lost in each case. Sopher99 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Syrian army doesn't contact media to tell them their operations." Or perhaps the western media doens't care? If you want to know what the army is doing, check SANA. Whoops, we only slavishly follow al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya (or western "news" derived from them), I forgot. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah man, Jazeera totally never mentions anything from SANA. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Definitely not. No. Not once. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Count how many times we use Al jazeera and Al Arabiya as sources in this article. Then compare it to the number of sources we use in general. Sopher99 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Ambassador stated he can now "hear artillery fire from the presidential offices"

http://www.ksbw.com/news/U-S-ambassador-Regime-insiders-flee-Syria/-/1852/18268030/-/i7h26p/-/index.html - while not necessarily signalling the "end" of Assad, this (if independently confirmed) isn't good news for the current government.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Assad is well known to reside far away from his presidential office, for security reasons. This news doesn't mean too much. --Emesik (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You entirely missed the point, but that's water under the bridge now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Supported by:"

I have a problem with the "Supported by:" headings and the participants listed under there. Template:Infobox military conflict states that the "combatant=" parameters are for those "whose forces took part in the conflict". The infobox is already over-complex and confusing, and the vagueness of the "Supported by:" category does not help.

• If the forces of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and "Al-Quaeda in Iraq" never took part in this conflict, they should not be listed in the infobox.
• Turkey should imo be listed in the infobox plainly, without any misleading headings, but with the clarification "(border clashes)", so as to describe the limited extent of their involvement.

Not only would this logical, standard criteria allow for a more simplified infobox, it would also get rid of the ambiguity said headings create. Is Qatar fighting or aren't they? Can you tell from the infobox? -- Director (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The "supported by" was a compromise solution for some long intensive debate half a year ago. If you want to know the full context of why its there, you can find it in the archives above this talk page. Sopher99 (talk)

Compromise solutions are usually very bad solutions. Like this one, that leaves the reader wonder whether half the entries actually fight in the war or not. We know what entries are supposed to go into that parameter, and should simply follow the standard for inclusion used throughout Wikipedia. There is also such a thing as consistency. -- Director (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mujahideen

Are the Mujahideen groups in Syria entirely independent, or are they fighting together with the Free Syrian Army? I wonder if its necessary to separate them with a line in the infobox, but I'm not familiar with this particular aspect of the conflict. They are not separated in the 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict article. -- Director (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

They often fight side-by-side on the battlefield, but they have entirely separate command structures, fight different battles (e.g., the rebels fighting Kurds in Ras al-Ayn are actually not FSA as is sometimes said, but rather Nusra and Ghuraba al-Sham), compete actively but not (yet?) violently for resources and popular support, and are treated differently by the international community. Sometimes FSA leaders actually bar Islamists from serving under their command, as FSA General al-Fajj did at the Base 46 siege. Its a complex relationship, and the line is there to show that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, typical case then as I understand it? They're both independent combatant authorities, but if they do often fight together they're not unaffiliated and really shouldn't be separated with a line. Trying to simplify the infobox.. too many lines in there.

P.S. please see above regarding Israel placement. -- Director (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel joins

So Israel has now killed several Syrian soldiers and workers. That makes Israel a belligerent, no? Surely, if Iran and Hezbollah are listed though the exact nature of their actions is unclear, Israel should be too, as we know exactly who they've killed and how many. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just one strike. Not enough action to be considered a belligerent.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, they've made several attacks just today, one on a Syrian army convoy, and another on a research facility. Plus the Golan attack a while back.[13] Expect it to continue. They've already killed half as many pro-regime Syrians as the Kurds have, yet the Kurds are listed among the "rebels". As for Sopher's argument that they're not "part of the civil war", see the infobox of Lebanese Civil War. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Iran sent troops to Syria. Israel just launched a few strikes due to minor border clashes Hezbollah, events mostly unrelated to the core aspects of the civil war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And what did they do? And what is this "fact" based on? FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight in its highest degree. One strike doesn't do anything. Turkey fired mortars into Syria and killed 12 troops but it didn't escalate beyond that. So we don't put Turkey as a belligerent. Iran has thousands of troops on the ground for over a year, about 500 of which died, and 48 of which were captured at one point. Big difference. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet again they've made at least three strikes so far. And again, the Iran stuff is mere rumours. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Iran stuff is not "mere rumors". Its confirmed by everyone but the "axis of resistance" members themselves. And so what about "Three" . Turkey did over 5. Doesn't mean Turkey is a belligerent. Syrian troops shot a killed a Jordanian soldier on the border three months ago, doesn't mean we put Jordan in. Sopher99 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

based on "eyewitnesses" in Beirut and other heavily biased characters. And why am I not surprised the both of you show up at the same time? When are Lhaseral and Sayerselle joining the party? And yes, Turkey is a belligerent too. They're doing more than any other outside faction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

omg wow ppl participating in topic areas theyre interested in?????? watchlisting pages????? omg who even does that????? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing is "joining a discussion". Another is tag team reverting.[14] The "third row" incident effectively demonstrated this. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I was actually just about to add the LCC reported death toll to the timeline, and before doing so I always check botht the timeline's and the Syrian civil war's page history, to make sure its not being sabotaged. Hezbollah, iranians, al nusra, libyans and sadrs armies are the top 5 outside forces in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this evening's news, Israel was taking pre-emptive action to keep armaments from getting into the hands of their enemies in Lebanon and Palestine. There was no indicationg that they're interested in joining the war against Assad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Israel really has no affinity with either side in the conflict—Assad is an old (though largely rhetorical) foe, while the presence of groups like Nusra makes the opposition repulsive. The rebels—even the secular ones—are hardly pro-Zionist either. During the border incidents in the Golan, both sides tried to frame Israel's responses as being in support of the other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Israel would never attack the insurgents. They're betting on the insurgents to weaken the Syrian army, so of course they have a stake in this. They're cosy with Mursi, so repulsive ideology is not a problem, as long as the extremists are obedient. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mubarak was a lame, toothless lapdog, and they're desperate to ensure that Egypt doesn't become a hostile neighbour again. Bashar talk(ed/s) a tough talk, but he was actually in some hush-hush talks with Israel about returning the illegally occupied parts of Quneitra to Syria prior to this war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The opposition has now blasted Assad & friends for not defending/immediately retaliating. Of course, retaliation is already on the minds of those in Damascus. Though they may have torn the country to shreds, both sides do seem to agree on matters concerning Israel. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rebels did help Israel by attacking and destroying some of Syria's air defense system.Monticores (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not for the purpose of helping Israel. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"A staunch ally of Damascus, Hezbollah fought a month-long war with Israel in the summer of 2006 - " - maybe this info belongs as a postscript bit to the 2006 Lebanon war article? Sayerslle (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So.. do we add Israel to the rebel column? Separated, of course, and with a clarification ("limited involvement" or "air strikes"). As accurate as that may be in terms of depicting the conflict, I can imagine folks inclined towards the SNC would not like it one bit. -- Director (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If at all, it would need to be made clear that the attacks were not done in support of the rebels, who have already criticised the government for not quickly retaliating. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of speculative. Common sense would dictate that the SNC would certainly condemn Israel's intervention, out of necessity, regardless of whether Isreal acted in their support or not (Arabs and Israelis being on such great terms and all). Even if the rebels were not, in addition, a mostly Islamist faction. What else can they possibly say?

In fact, that statement just looks like plain (war) propaganda. Neither the rebels nor the government are in any kind of position to actually retaliate against Israel. Even were it not in a civil war, Syria's ability to "retaliate" against Israel would be highly questionable. As things are, the very idea is laughable, and would constitute military and political suicide.

The statement is just a clever propaganda twist ("never mind Israel helping us, see how Assad is powerless against the Jews!"). All it shows is that the rebels are publicly "opposed" to Israel's actions, i.e. it shows they're not allies - and that's what the dividing line is there for. The statement has no bearing on the question of whether or not they really are enjoying some support from the Israelis (who happen to be bombing their enemies..).

In my own personal opinion, even without the strikes, its pretty obvious whom Israel/NATO/US would like to see the victor. -- Director (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not as simple as that. Netanyahu doesn't care about whether assad stays or goes, and is instead scared of jihadists. Ehud Barak (defense minister) though has stated he would like to see foreign intervention in Syria. Obama and Clinton repeatedly say intervention is last resort and instead repeatedly "try to convince" Russia out of their positions. However neither Obama or Clinton are Anti-Assad die hards, and chuck hagel who may become defense secratary, is certainly the most reserved on the Syrian issue. Cameron and Erdogan explicitly hate Assad, and Hollande would be sending troops strait into Syria to support the rebels had he been in Obama's position. Sopher99 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Assad liked to play the tough guy when it came to Israel, but it's abundantly clear that he was very much the "bitch" in that relationship—and a stable and predictable bitch at that. He had even been negotiating with Netanyahu in 2010 to work on the Golan situation prior to the Arab Spring. Syrian Druze in occupied Quneitra had been allowed to conduct business across the border thanks to mutual agreements between the two "foes".

Yes, it's propaganda—but so what? Assad's no stranger to that game himself, particularly when it comes to Israel.

The strikes weren't really in support of any rebel actions. Far as I know, the western suburbs of Damascus have been comparatively quiet, and a military research centre is likely not a high-value target for the rebels. The surrounding countryside is plastered with bases with more defensive capability—and fatter weapons caches. Neither a Lebanon-bound shipment of weapons, unless of course Hezbollah was planning to come back into Syria with them.

More and more these days, Israel is acting in its own self-interest with little care of what the rest of the world—including its allies—thinks, and this looks to be just another instance of that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher99, its just that simple. The US and Israel are one and the same thing as far as Middle East policy is concerned. If the US supports the SNC, you can bet Israel does too - either way they would need be quiet about it for very obvious reasons. Another clue would be Putin and Iran's support for Assad. I must also note that Israel at this point has little or nothing to be "scared" of. Quite the contrary, Islamic countries should be "scared" of Israel (and I don't doubt the governments are). The latter apparently has the ability and allowance to attack them at will, and with a military incomparably superior to all its neighbors put together.. To put it in above terms, everyone in the region down there is Israel's "bitch", not because they want to be - but because they really have no choice at all.

All Syrian factions would no doubt enjoy "sticking it" to Israel, but what it boils down to is military and financial support. The "Jihadists", so to speak, do not even enjoy what little support Russia and Iran are able to provide. Empty ideologizing aside, they are likely to be even more accommodating "bitches".

@Lothar. I'm not passing judgement, I'm just saying that the link doesn't really show anything. It only reinforces the already-known fact that the SNC and Israel are not publicly aligned. It does not mean that the SNC is or isn't actually enjoying Israeli support (WP:OR) - and mind you, I'm not proposing the infobox discuss the subject at all: a combatant divided by a line is not depicted as aligned with the above. All that shows is that Israel has engaged the other side (+ "limited involvement"/"air strikes").

I would not presume to speculate on such fine strategic details. Who really knows at this time what exactly was attacked and why.

Since the US foreign policy in the Middle East is to act in accordance with Israel's interests (as has actually been stated), I can hardly imagine how Israel could possibly deviate to "look after its own interests". Occam's razor suggests that the US has simply continued to act in accordance with Israeli interests, while Israel maintains a public façade of neutrality out of plain necessity (due to the obvious undesirable effect their open support would have). Even so, it appears they cannot keep themselves entirely from striking indirectly at Iran now and again. -- Director (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well this is all speculation and can never be entirely confirmed or reach consensus, clearly the Israeli attacks are related to the Civil War. The Turkish situation is explored in the article and below the main section of the infobox, as are the firefights with Jordanian forces, whose casualties are listed seperately. Therefore we should all be able to come to agreement that the Israeli interventions in Syria should be explained in detail either on the main page or an adjoining article and a thumbnail should be added on the infobox informing readers that: "Syrian and Israeli forces have come into conflict numerous times and several engagements and arial attacks have been carried out since the war began"; or something along those lines,along with a link. All this "Are Israel backing the rebels?, aren't Israel backing rebels?" is intriguing, but would be best left to newspaper opinion pages and not the Wiki. -MrDjango (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I put it all in the international reactions page, under Israel. Sopher99 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not enough; It is not an international reaction, it is a military attack. The correct location is in the infobox just like every other military engagement in this war. -MrDjango (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is suppose to present the main events of the war. Including the Israeli incident in the infobox is highly undue. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We should make a note, underneath the Kurdish note, that says "for international incidents (Jordan, Turkey, lebanon, israel) see" ect. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

@"The infobox is suppose to present the main events of the war." Where does it say that? How is, say, support from Qatar a "main event of this war"?

Fellas, Israel has engaged in this conflict more than most countries mentioned in the infobox - with actual military force. I did not and do not propose we speculate whether Israel supports the rebels or not, but we must depict the state of affairs neutrally. The only way to that is to include Israel in the right-hand column. The entry should of course be separated from the rebels, indicating no affiliation whatsoever, and with a note along lines of "air strikes" or "limited involvement". All such a representation would indicate is that Israel has engaged Assad forces with air strikes (or in a "limited" way, depending on the exact note).

From where I stand, reading the sources, there's no question Israel should be entered in the infobox in a standard manner. The only issue that I can perceive is the exact nature of the accompanying clarification alongside said entry. -- Director (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% not. This is a civil war. 2 soldiers killed means absolutely nothing. Turkey killed 12 soldiers, and Syria SHOT DOWN a Turkish plane Yet Turkey is NOT a belligerant. This is a civil war. Israel is not a belligerent in any shape way or form, as neither side have declared war on eachother. Sopher99 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

1 military strike doesn't make Israel a belligerent. Neither does two or three or four or five. Only Active fighting between both sides. Sopher99 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And even if there was active fighting on both sides we still would not put Israel in the infobox, because it would be an international war and not part of the Syrian civil war. In the same way Russia's assault on Germany during world war 1 was not part of the Russian civil war despite both happened concurrently. Sopher99 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing we include Israel as a full belligerent, I'm proposing we include it exactly as Turkey (but separated and with a note, like I said). And its not "1 raid", I propose you read-up on that.

As for the rest, as I said in my initial post [15], I fully expected an emotional response like that from folks inclined towards the SNC, as having Israel up there looks very bad. I'm sure you have a whole host of excuses why Israel should "NEVER EVER EVER" be included, but empty talk and strong phrases will not make Israel's military involvement in this conflict any less real and significant. And personally, I believe partisan POV already steers the course of this article to an unacceptable level. Let us all recall that it is only aggressive edit-warring that keeps the Kurdish faction depicted the way it is, supposedly not in conflict with the SNC as well as Assad (which is, of course, contrary to the facts). I myself backed away then; I'm not going to do it now without bringing such POV-pushing up for review by the community.

Generally speaking, its not up to you to decide what the bounds of this conflict are, nor whether there should be an additional article if other nations actively join a civil war [16]. Its the sources that define the scope of this article, and the common term they use is the term we refer to it by (whether that be "civil war" or anything else). -- Director (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East politics and international relations at the LSE, has said: "Assad will certainly try to milk the attack – it allows him to present himself as a defender of the nation ."

What happened anyhow? Syrian state claims that the strike hit the Jamraya military research facility near Damascus, killing two people. "This version has been questioned, particularly as state television has not shown footage of damage to the site." Western sources claim the convoy was attacked en route to Lebanon, implying the weapons were intended for Hezbollah"Sayerslle (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well yah, both sides' propaganda will certainly try to milk the attack. As we've seen above, the rebels are depicting it as an example of Assad's weakness against Israel, whereas the government is no doubt trying to make himself look like the "defender" against Israel. So far that I've seen, all sources pretty much agree Israel has been hitting Assad. As for whether or not the attacked government convoy was "headed for Lebanon", what does that matter? Is Syria not allowed to have convoys headed for Lebanon on its sovereign territory? -- Director (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the Israeli strikes are not directly connected to the civil war - these are ostensibly to prevent missiles from reaching their adversaries Hizbollah to protect Israel. While no friend of the Assad regime, these strikes seem to be aimed at stopping terrorism, from what news reports I've read. I consider this unrelated. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that. Israel bombing one side in a civil war isn't related to the civil war? Its completely irrelevant what exactly the Israelis (say they) were bombing and why. An attack, even if completely justified - is no less an attack. The above's just a non-sequitur. And I kinda think I ought to be appalled at the implication that one country arbitrarily bombing another, while at peace(!), somehow doesn't matter because it "seems to be aimed at stopping terrorism". -- Director (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They didn't bomb "one side" - they hit a truck convoy. Surgical strike, so far not followed up with others. On another note - I'm glad your long ban is over, but you are getting into serious FORUM territory here on this talk page with throwing in personal views instead of staying on-topic - "appalled" "sovereign rights" and so on - the question under consideration is if Israel is a combatant or not. Let's correct that, please? I think you bring good things to the table, generally, especially on Balkan issues - but this stuff can easily be piled on by those who would like to see you out again. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel hasn't said, has it? Sayerslle (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

this is from Associated Press 31 January :"

The attack adds a potentially flammable new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.

It was the latest salvo in Israel's long-running effort to disrupt the Shiite militia's quest to build an arsenal capable of defending against Israel's air force and spreading destruction inside the Jewish state." that seems to be the general tone of RS reports. partisan pro Syrian regime sources want to portray it as 'proof' Israel is behind the elements against ASsad -or summat - that is a partisan pov and to let it hijack the article would be a mistake imo.Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't just say that everything that happens within the borders of Syria is a significant event in Syria, and that its up to other users to prove that it isn't.

The rules are the opposite. You have to "prove" that an event is significant enough to put here. Usually through the source. We already determined that the Turkish shelling and downing of a plane does not qualify them as belligerents. When syrian soldiers shot and killed a Jordanian soldier, that did not qualify them as belligerent in the war. Over a dozen people in Lebanon thus far have been killed by the Syrian army's shelling. Doesn't mean Lebanon is a belligerent. Active fighting between both sides is what qualifies belligerents. The civil war page is about the civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• @"You can't just say that everything that happens within the borders of Syria is a significant event in Syria, and that its up to other users to prove that it isn't." - and that has been done, in excess. I suppose you're the one who's subjective criteria of "significance" we must satisfy? No dice. As you yourself said, Turkey's involvement is similar to that of Israel, and therefore warrants inclusion along similar lines. Not as a full belligerent, of course, kindly stop using that straw man - but as a peripheral participant. Similar perhaps to Turkey.
• If Jordan and the Lebanon started bombing Syria, we'd have to include them too, yes.
• And yes, non-native participants are also relevant for inclusion in a civil war [17][18]. In addition, to repeat what I said above: its not up to you to decide what the bounds of this conflict are. The name of this conflict, and what arbitrary "decisions" you declare from said name, are not what defines the scope. The scope is defined by the sources.

@Sayerslle. That Israel and the US have a common policy in the Middle East is a matter of public record, and so is intense hostility between Israel and Assad's ally, Iran - but my comments on that subject were just personal opinions, which I would not in my wildest dreams suggest be included in the article. The point here is that Israel is bombing the Assad faction in the ongoing civil war (and not just some convoys either), and that this fact should be properly represented in a neutral infobox.

The question of Israel's intentions and purpose, declared or actual, is irrelevant and is not the subject of discussion here. It is completely absurd to say "they're engaging Assad for completely different reasons than the SNC, and therefore they're not really engaging Assad". The Kurds are basically fighting for Kurdistan, autonomy, and secession, and could not care less whether Assad stays or goes in what remains of Syria.. does that mean they're not part of this war either? -- Director (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying RS seem to be saying something like its a 'new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.' that is different to what you seem to want to do which is kind of wanting to see Israel listed as part of the anti-Assad faction in the Civil War - imo that is not what the RS are saying. so, looking at the title of this thread , funkmonk says 'israel joins' - RS say 'Israel (worries) add new element to tensions heightened by Syrias civil war' Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, calling the right-hand column the "anti-Assad faction" isn't really accurate. In the military conflict infobox, placement in opposing columns only indicates that these participants have engaged each-other. I think the fact that the Kurds are listed in the right-hand column should illustrate vividly that this is not a "faction" that we have there. In fact, individual factions in a column are usually delineated by means of a horizontal line. What we'd have, is Israel depicted as an independent element in the conflict, a faction of its own. All the proposed entry would indicate is "Israel; engaging Assad; with air strikes". -- Director (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets make a separate info box, and put it in the international reactions section. It would be titled border incidents, and it would include brief info about the Turkish, Jordanian, Israeli, and Lebanon border strikes. Sopher99 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Never saw anything like that.. sounds manufactured. (+ So far as I know, Lebanon and Jordan have not been identified by anyone as participants in this conflict. The existing Assad/SNC conflict has "spilled-over" a couple times, briefly, onto the territory of those two conutries - but that does not mean those countries are actual participants as such. To suggest something like that would imo be very misleading.) -- Director (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

this is jonathan steele , who i believe is himself pretty pro-Assad - about the incident he states - "It was related to Israel's long war with Hezbollah in Lebanon rather than any desire to intervene in the fighting in Syria." imo this is really the conventional wisdom as it stands in english language RS. if you think israel is a participant in the civil war that is up to you , but RS sources in english dont portray it how you want imo Sayerslle (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the whole international reactions need an overhall in any case: Last time I checked China wasn't included, Russia's fierce criticism of the opposition wasn't included, the Non Alligned Summit statements were not included, Syrias allies in Latin America were not included. The whole section is biased and non NPOV as it is. Funny how the current layout of the infobox has been acceptable for months upon months, but as soon as Israel is involved, certain editors here seem to get very, very upset. If it's good enough for the Turkey, Jordan conflicts, it's good enough for the Israeli attacks, there is NO difference. -MrDjango (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than the fact this is a civil war? Anyway, those sections are Summaries. This is a 207,000 byte page. The appropriate limit is 200,000. If anything we must cut down on expanding the article. Sopher99 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Then divide the page into more articles, I'm more interested in getting as much factual info on the wiki as possible, than in your silly bytes ;). The infobox should contain a summary of the military interventions by Israel, just as it does the engagements by Jordan and Turkey, any military interloper must be listed on the infobox. MrDjango (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher99. WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Do you intend to keep repeating that fallacious "its a civil war" argument? For the fourth time: there are many conflicts referred to as civil wars that also include very substantial and active foreign involvement ([19][20][21][22][23] etc). In fact, probably most civil wars in modern times actually include foreign involvement. This one is no exception - with Turkey vigorously supporting the rebels. And yes, believe it or not, we do still cover them all in one article and generally avoid creating nonsense WP:POVFORKS. We also include the foreign participants in the infobox as well, no matter how peripheral (e.g. Serbia in the Russian Civil War).

And generally speaking: it is not up to you or I to decide what the bounds of this conflict are. The name of this conflict, and what arbitrary "decisions" you declare from said name, are not what defines the scope.

@MrDjango, well of course we're not about to start creating POVFORKS for the sake of Sopher99's taking care of SNC's image :).

@Sayerslle. Another icanthearyou? As I said twice, the pretext for Israeli bombings is entirely irrelevant for this subject. What matters is that they're bombing Assad's faction in this civil war. Whether they're bombing to "fight terrorism", "make the world safe for democracy", "defend themselves", etc. has no bearing on the fact that they are, in fact, bombing Assad. Whether they're bombing Assad to weaken Hezbollah, whether or not their bombing Assad is 100% justified, none of that constitutes a reason to exclude Israel as a peripheral participant in this conflict. -- Director (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually its not up to you to decide it either. The Scope is not infinity, stop acting like it is. None of those links you gave showed foreign intervention in the form of singular one time airstrike. They all showed countries with foreign troops on the ground. Like Iran. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We alreayd have those. Specifically for what django is talking about, the international reactions page. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR -what happened is disputed anyhow - just give some links then to english language RS that say 'Israel is bombing Assad's faction in this civil war' and I'll hear that wont I Sayerslle (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically links that don't happen to be fringe sites, russian state tv, or opinion pieces. Sopher99 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What am I supposedly "deciding"? There are cited sources, you know. "Infinity scope?" What? :)

Feel free to include Israel's raids in the international reactions sub-article, but they certainly need to be included here in the main article as well. Even though I doubt military action is what is meant by "international reactions" (never mind though). Not only is it not a "singular one time airstrike" we're talking about here (will you stop repeating those sort of misleading statements?), but the very idea that I'm now supposed to look for some incident of one air strike is just laughable.

This is getting absurd, Sopher. I'm getting tired of picking apart these convoluted "retorts". Its taking far more effort than its worth. I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make much sense at this point, and its reasonably clear you're not about to agree on anything you interpret as depicting the SNC in a negative light. No matter what may be. (Also kindly do not edit my posts by inserting your replies piecemeal.)

And now no doubt come arbitrary, ridiculously high standards for sourcing and demands for exact specific phrases - that basically allow you to dismiss anything. I've played this game before, many times. There is no need for any further sourcing:

• Israel has bombed Syrian military targets, i.e. Syrian government targets (Associated Press, e.g.). That is not a disputed point. They did not bomb the rebels, that much is clear, and we need no more as far as the infobox is concerned.
• Israel's actions impact the Syrian civil war and are related to this conflict (e.g. "A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict — a civil war that has already deepened the region's divides as its powers have taken sides with arms and funding. It also marked a challenge to Iran, which has backed and financed Hezbollah.", Wall Street Journal). That also is not a disputable point.

As a faction that has engaged the Syrian army with military action, Israel needs to be added to the right-hand column in this conflict. As a peripheral participant(!), clearly separated from other factions listed therein. Its that simple. It should be an obvious, routine addition - if it were not for the POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Israel is not a belligerent. So we can't put it in a belligerent side in particular. What we can do is either

---

a) create a new infobox at the international reaction section, that would depict the brief Turkish and Israeli conflict.

---

b) Add Israel as a note form.

In reference to b), scroll down to below the casualties section. You will see a bar that says "2 Turkish Phantom F4 Pilots killed". You will then see a bar below that one that says "1 jordanian soldier killed".

This is the format that is best. We place a third bar down there that reads "2 Syrian soldiers killed by an Isreali strike targeting a weapons convoy being sent to Hezbollah".

We also place a fourth bar that reads "4 Lebanese civilians killed by Syrian army shelling onto Lebanon."[24][25] Sopher99 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As you like to say: absolutely not. Both "a)" and "b)" - are just nonsense. Its a cockamamie subversion of the template layout and the standard entry of participant factions, obviously designed specifically to visually distance the Syrian National Coalition entry from any mention of Israel. You're actually trying to mix casualty entries with factions themselves. Its just POV-pushing bordering on plain old propaganda.

I must also say I'm awed by your ability to completely ignore previous posts and just "keep on truckin'"... -- Director (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1- Israeli is not a civil war combatant. Active fighting between both sides is what makes up combatants
2- Adding isreal is undue weight. Israel did 1 operation in the entirety of the 21 month conflict. 2 dead soldiers compared to 60,000+ dead civilians and combatants is clear undue weight. If your rebuttal to this is simply "you don't get to decide what is undue weight or part of the conflict" you are pretty much telling me "you don't get to decide what is clearly obvious in both logic and the reliable media".
3- The FSA and Mujihideen identify themselves as direct enemies with Israel. So you can't even remotely put Israel in the same column. rebels and mujihideen are not direct enemies with the Kurds, as they oftne make peace, and the majority of them don't want to be enemies with eachother. Israel its the opposite.
4-The strike is simply not notable enough to be put in the infobox, going back to the undue weight part. The overwhelming majority of RS sources do not identify Israel as a combatant of the civil war.
5- Israel is currently not engaged in war with Syria. If its not engaged in war, its not part of the war.
6- You are the POV pushing one, trying to get a single incident to equal weight with the conflict as a whole. You accuse me of "trying to defend the SNC", but it goes both ways. You can't defend adding blatant "notability violations" by saying "I'm not trying to make it look like their on the same side"
Goodnight. Sopher99 (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1- I could not care less about your definitions of "belligerent" or "active combatant". Israel has participated in this conflict - that's what matters with regard to including it.

2- Adding Israel as one of the main factions would be undue weight, but that is not what is proposed. Clearly, as Qatar is in there, a faction that has engaged here with its military forces more than justifies inclusion. And yes, both Qatar and Israel do. Also, for the fifth time, its not one attack.

3- A horizontal line in combatant columns is usued to indicate non-affiliation. I.e. it is completely irrelevant what the FSA and Mujihideen identify themselves as. But thank you for proving me right with regard to your motivations here.

4- The issue is not about the inclusion of an "air strike", its about including a participant in the conflict. And since obviously anything that shows Israel in close proximity to the SNC wouldn't be "notable" by your personal standards, you'll forgive me if I don't pay them much heed. I'll just keep to the sources.

5- Nonsense. Neither is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, or most of the countries listed in there, actually. Though, as a matter of fact, Israel and Syria are technically at war, and have been since 1967.

6- No comment :). Have you not heard, for example, of Israel and the Syrian military exchanging artillery fire last November?

-- Director (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Few points: A) elements of the rebels (mujahideen) openly fight the Kurds, but they're still thrown in the same column B) Israel shelled the Syrian Golan after munitions were shot into the Israeli occupation zone from Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A) Indeed, and as I recall, that blatant infobox error is also thanks primarily to Sopher. You see, I bet it "looks better" to imply that the Kurds are also somehow aligned with the rebels. Just as it wouldn't look good to have Israel there. I can see a clear pattern, myself. B) Yes, that's what happened if I recall (I amended the statement). But the point isn't who shot first, for our considerations here it suffices to note that the two sides have engaged in combat at that time as well. -- Director (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Given how Israel is ramping up security in the occupied Golan for the express purpose of defending itself from Islamist rebels, it wouldn't look right to have them in the same column. Makes sense, given how Nusra is basically Hamas 2.0, and will probably turn its sights westwards in the (unlikely) event of Assad's overthrow. Again, I still disagree with your contention that Israel supports any side in the conflict, however tacitly. They'd rather Syria bleed itself out to rid themselves of a hostile neighbour. The airstrike seems more of a "controlled burn" tactic by which Israel at once damages Assad (with whom they were on the road to peace with only just before the uprising broke out) and denies rebel groups (who count among them a large number of characters even more dangerous to Israel than toothless, old Bashar) the chance to get at whatever was struck—which, according to that article, included SAMs, which the rebels would love to get their hands on, but for which the government has no real use at this point in the war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Again we're asked to enter into the ethereal plain of wishes and intentions. The link esentially provides quotations of a primary source - which should simply be quoted, not used to extrapolate conclusions (WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"). Primary: "Israel says they're building up for defense against Nusra"; conclusion: "Israel really is defending against Nusra". In other words, what Israel or Assad or whomever claim, must not be taken as fact (when found in primary form). I mean who knows?

The point is that thus far they've only been in conflict with government forces (i.e. the Syrian military). And, so far that I know (am I wrong?), Syrian Golan is actually deep within Assadland. Either way, if we're including Israel, there's no question as to where the neutral category is. You can't put them in a third column - they've not fought the rebels in any significant way. -- Director (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the Syrian Golan is a nice little strip of rebel territory—and we're talking spooky Islamist ones at that [26]. The army has largely backed off from the area because it's scared shitless of accidentally provoking an Israeli response. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

its not 'the ethereal plain of wishes and intentions', its the relentless drift of informed commentary in RS about what happened. a lot of that RS 'interpretation of primary source material' describes Israel as ultra-nervous of a rebel victory - your wish to jettison all the nuances of interpretation that inform RS commentary of events for an undue pov reason is an echo here of what Fawaz Gerges said "Assad will certainly try to milk the attack" - thats all this is. like gaddafi said it was all al qaida in 2011- a destruction of all nuance is wanted for pov reasons. so Associated Press's ,'the latest salvo in Israel's long-running effort to disrupt the Shiite militia's quest to build an arsenal capable of defending against Israel's air force' will become 'engaging Assad' (FunkMOnk/DIREKTOR) -but wp should follow english language RS representing events. Israel has said it attacked a convoy now - who to believe? Its a complicated, world - i personally hugely distrust those who want to shatter all the nuance - and are sure that 'neutrality' demands we put Israel as pro-rebel. Sayerslle (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh... again. Such "nuances" do not matter when discussing just bare inclusion in the infobox. There is no difference one way or the other. For this discussion, it does not matter why Israel has engaged the Syrian military. It does not matter whether or not they were justified to do it. It does not matter at all whether Assad is "milking the attack" or whatever - unless you're here to "thwart" Assad, that is.

All of that is pointless, unrelated drivel as far as this issue is concerned. Naturally, feel free to elaborate on it in the article - but the issue of bare inclusion in the infobox does not go beyond the simple fact that Israel and the Syrian army were in military conflict. That is all people are trying to convey, and therefore that's all we need to discuss. (e.g. NBC headlines: "Israel drawn into Syria conflict, fires missile across border") -- Director (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

just 'bare inclusion' in the infobox is undue at this stage imo. i know your ugh desperate about this. drawn into Syria conflict, like a 'new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.' is fine , but the infobox is ill suited for this info imo. 'thats al we need to discuss' is a bit totalitarian sounding to me - russia is neutral, israel is pro-rebel, the rebels are salafist - its all so ugh clear. if it said in infobox , 'Israel - new element -'widely believed, hit missiles bound for hezbollah' that would be english language RS - 'bombed Assad' would be using OR language imo- never heard that phrase of the attack, -i dont know how its reported in MOscow/Serbia/TEhran , thats true enough. Sayerslle (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Infobox does not contain participants in the conflict. It contains combatants in the conflict, and non-commerce arm suppliers. Israel had no intention to go to war with Syria. Therefore it doesn't go into the infobox. If a Russian missile killed Al nusra while they tried to storm the chem weapons factory, for the sake of stopping al nusra from getting chem weapons only, we would not include Russia in the infobox, because that would be undue weight. Russia would have no intention of being a combatant in the war, and would still not be a belligerent. Put 2 and 2 together now and think what we would do for Israel. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, Sopher, I'm not going to mince words with you. I could not care less about your own personal definitions of "belligerent", "combatant", "active participant" or whatever else you think of next. Over the past months Israeli territory has been sporadically shelled by Assad's military. In November the two sides exchanged artillery fire in the Golan, and now either one or two(!) air strikes have been launched against Syrian Army targets [27]. Sources report Israel has been "drawn into the conflict":

• NBC News: "Israel drawn into Syria conflict, fires missile across border"
• Los Angeles Times: "With airstrike, Israel steps into Syria conflict"
• Wall Street Journal: "A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict..", etc..

@"Israel had no intention to go to war with Syria. Therefore it doesn't go into the infobox." Wow. Since you're obviously not reading my posts, let me point out again that Israel actually is at war with Syria. They can hardly declare war on each-other again. Also, sources report that Israel is likely considering further air strikes:

• The Telegraph: "Israel 'considering further air strikes on Syria'"
• Financial Times: "Israel might convince itself that further military strikes are necessary." etc..

With Qatar and Saudi Arabia in there, the fact that Israel has engaged in actual military action more than justifies inclusion in the infobox. Not as a main combatant, obviously, but in a manner similar to Turkey, and as a faction of its own.

@Sayerslle: ugh#2. After discussing irrelevant questions of Israeli motivation, now you're discussing the irrelevant issue of phrasing - in a discussion about whether the word "Israel" should be entered into the infobox? Bah, humbug.. -- Director (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

well why are you claiming 'not as a main combatant, obviously' - Assad :"the Israeli aggression in one of the scientific research centers in the Jamraya area on the outskirts of Damascus exposes Israel's real role in cooperating with the hostile external forces and their aides on Syrian soil in an attempt to undermine Syria's stability, weaken it and cause it to abandon its national stances." this is crucial in our further understanding, surely, and Israel should perhaps be considered as a major player. did you mean 'dribble' earlier, by the way, when you were slagging me off. i wondered if you meant drivel. REUTERS : "State news agency SANA quoted Jalili as reaffirming Tehran's "full support for the Syrian people ... facing the Zionist aggression, and its continued coordination to confront the conspiracies and foreign projects". you may be cavalierly deciding Israel is 'not a major combatant' DIREKTOR - why are you determined to underplay the Isrraeli role? i think i'm seeing a pattern here.

Sayerslle (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh #3. What in the world does any of this have to do with anything?? What is this post, just plain trolling? Of course Iran and Assad are going to "cry foul" and "milk" the attack as much as they can - that obviously doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'm not being "cavalier", I'm being unbiased and objective. While Israel certainly has participated in this conflict, no sources claim its one of the main participants. Though they do say Israel may be planning to further escalate its involvement. (My heartfelt apologies for the spelling error, iOS auto-correct what can you do..) -- Director (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

do you mind stop writing 'ugh' before each of yuor precious expostulations. Ta. Sayerslle (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was just inspired by your hilarious parody above. Cheerio.. -- Director (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"al-Assad accused Israel of seeking to “destabilize” Syria, state news agency SANA reported." That is a serious accusation is it not? it is not a small thing to be accused of seeking to destabilise a country. it may be clear to you that that is not saying Israel is a main participant but it is not absolutely clear to me. i hope clear heads and minds prevail anyhow , over the paranoid, insulting ones. thats me done on this. cheerio. Sayerslle (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Um.. sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. -- Director (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So what now? Do we go through DR? -- Director (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have so called "personnel definitions" of participation or combatants. Fact is Fact. Participants is vague and doesn't go into the info box. Combatants and armaments supports go in the infobox. Israel is not a combatant. They don't anywhere remotely actively fight with the Syrian army. Putting Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon is undue weight. The end. Lambasting me for "personal definitions" and "obvious pro-snc bias" is not going to get you anywhere closer to the facts of the situation and how the infobox is formatted. Sopher99 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no "participants", "combatants", "belligerents", etc. And there is nothing "vague" here. Its very simple and straightforward.

The "combatants=" parameters of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template are intended for (quote) "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Sources report that Israel has taken part in the conflict (e.g. "With airstrike, Israel steps into Syria conflict"). Those are the facts. The rest is just POV-pushing.

Its right there in the simplest possible terms. If you still disagree we can take this through DR. -- Director (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. The silent treatment :). If noone objects I'll just add the entry. Or are we now supposed to edit-war rather than DR? -- Director (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I placed Israel above the Kurdish faction is that the Kurdish faction is separated with a double line. And should actually constitute "combatant3", being in conflict with the Free Syrian Army as well. If we keep them listed in the "combatant2" column, and use the double line to indicate confrontation, then I disagree that Israel should be separated with a double line as well - as, unlike the Kurds, they have not to date engaged the Free Syrian Army.

In addition, I followed the logic that the Kurds are no doubt more important than the Mujahideen as well as Israel - but are still placed below to more appropriately illustrate confrontation with the FSA. -- Director (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is only 3 users in agreement with your position, including yourself, as compared with 4 users, including my self, against position. 5 depending on how you want to interpret Lothar's response.

Secondly, I directly quote the infobox guide you linked " When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." This completely supports the resolution for undue weight. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Director's links to major media coverage describing Israel as "stepping into" or being "drawn into" the conflict are very strong. On the other hand, Lothar von Richthofen is probably correct to point out that while the Israeli government is an opponent of the Assad regime, and has now conducted military strikes against it within the context of this conflict, it'd be difficult to classify it as an ally of al-Nusra (which is not given sufficient weight as a participant here anyway). -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The more time put between this incident and the final decision on Israel's placement, the better. The media have a tendency to sensationalise such developments, as it makes for good, fast-selling news—I recall similar media reactions when Turkey got fed up with stray shells and pummelled government artillery on the other side of the border, and that front's been pretty quiet for a while now. Given how Israel is getting yelled at by pretty much everyone for pulling this stunt, I think they'll think twice before trying it again (then again, you can never be too sure with a loose cannon like Israel). Two weeks is probably a good amount of time to let pass to determine just how much weight to award this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I must point out again that listed factions separated by a horizontal line are not depicted as allied. @Lothar, you may think Israel is likely to back off, but as I've shown earlier, analysts disagree. -- Director (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, Israel is ever the wild card. While I hope they keep out, I realise that this may not occur. Nevertheless, international support for the bombing(s) has not really been forthcoming, with both the UN and NATO member Turkey criticising Israel for it. At any rate, I don't think that it's incorrect to characterise the media as having sensationalist tendencies, and I don't think that putting some time between this event and a final decision is disagreeable. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and we should take care not to get carried away. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not at all certain Israel's inclusion is likely to become more acceptable to detractors like Sopher if we wait 2 weeks. I think we'll just end-up in the same place. Otherwise, I'm ok with the wait. -- Director (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see on both the real-world and Wikipedia fronts then, eh? As for "analysts", they've been predicting the imminent fall of Assad for a year now, with no such thing materialising. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats because "fall of assad" is too vague. Before assad falls, Damascus has to be taken, or he has to be killed in a bombing. There are 54 bases in Rif Damascus alone, of which only 10 have been raided/taken by the FSA, (8 within the past 3 months). Then there are 8 military bases in Damascus proper, as well as 17 Visible intelligence and police branches, within the city. These total of 75+ bases and branches hold 20,000 troops (including republican guard, but not including shabiha). FSA and islamists groups have between 10,000-15,000 operative in Rif damascus and Damascus proper, but they are low on ammunition. In other words, a successful assault on Damascus requires saving up ammunition, or doubling of manpower. There is only 3km worth of land that separates "assad controlled syria" versus "Rebel controlled Syria" Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for your analysis, Sopher... [28] -- Director (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look past the headline, the analysis in that article reveals a muddier picture. Sopher is correct to note the obscene militarisation of the Damascus area, and the ammunition problems faced by the rebels. But even with enough ammo, the battle for Damascus won't be won in a day, a week, or even a month. The ammo would be better in the north or east of the country (esp. Aleppo, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor), where the rebels have had the upper hand for a while and are pretty well entrenched. The main problem areas for the rebels are in religiously-mixed Hama province and Homs (where they've been holed up for near on two years). Damascus is pretty much stalemated—fighting is still ongoing in Darayya despite government claims of its capture last month, rebels have now managed to push into the city proper (high water mark around the main train station in Qadam), and the army is still holding the airport. And while all this is happening, rebels are creeping slowly forward in Latakia province and are a mere 12km from Bashar's hometown [29]. Taking either it or Latakia proper will be a hell of a fight, sure, but honestly nobody has the upper hand now. And while Arab rebels (who are having increasing difficulty getting along [30]) and Kurds are duking it out in Ras al-Ayn, Kurds are kicking the army forcefully out of oil-rich areas in Hassakeh province [31]. Nobody is going anywhere, and now there seem to be some slow movements toward a diplomatic solution [32]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's basically what I'm saying: the war is not that clear-cut, and its only over when its over. I myself don't really care either way as long as the war's done with. I've been through a civil war and know how it feels to have your country set back 30 years or more. -- Director (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of countries being set back 30 years, I've outlined some concerns about the article four sections below which would be a more productive use of energy than continuing this thread much longer. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. -- Director (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• See also Lebanese civil war. The Israelis mainly fought Palestinians there, yet are considered part of the war by all accounts. Israel is a belligerent here, attacking one side in this conflict. Any other claims are badly constructed propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously. Personally, I see no reason to wait. But if that's the consensus.. -- Director (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On what planet are you living that Israeli participation in the myriad of subconflicts that made up the Lebanese Civil War—up to and including full-scale ground invasions and nearly two decades of occupation of Lebanese soil—is remotely analogous to a couple of airstrikes on one day in this war? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first attack by Israel during this war, and it probably won't be the last. Why do you people keep forgetting the attack last year? FunkMonk (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow two whole attacks. Are you referring to when Israel got pissed that shells kept landing in the occupied Golan and laid the proverbial smackdown on the source of the shells? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There was that. And the Syrian Army has been known to sporadically shell Israeli Golan in the few months before that. -- Director (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Which of course means that whether there was a civil war or not in Syria, all these sporadic back-and-forth military conflicts between Syria and Israel would be taking place, as well as Israel acting in what they view as their own security against missiles being sent to Lebanon, et al. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, thanks for your "analysis" as well, but I think I'll stick to the sources myself. The last incident between Syria and Israel before the war took place in 2007. Five years of no activity preceded the civil war. For future reference, your own OR "conclusions" concern noone but yourself, and while we've all indulged in some speculative forum-like discussion here, the very idea that OR (such as your own) should in any way influence encyclopedia content is just silly. -- Director (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

During those years of "no activity", Assad and Israel were working on a peace settlement. A quiet front militarily, but quite a bit happening on the secret diplomatic front. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously there will be diplomatic "activity" between Israel and Syria. Are there any neighbouring countries existing on earth with the absence of some form of diplomatic activity? The point is there has been no credible reason offered as to why Israel can be excluded from the infobox, when Jordan is included. Can someone, anyone, please explain how two successive bombing attacks by Israel fail to be mentioned in the infobox? -MrDjango (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Because a few people here are afraid that the truth will "play into the hands of the Assad regime". FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd distinguish between routine diplomacy and talks involving Israel withdrawing from the Golan as part of a permanent peace deal. Not that it matters at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if anything, a technical state of war with peace talks, as opposed to just a state of war, seems to me an even more pacific situation. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)