Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 12

Split need
Seriously. The article is already overloaded. It simply unpractical to expand it with new informations. Let's have more space: let's split it. Yug (talk)  17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Syrian uprising
 * Syrian civil war
 * We should work to summarize the information in this article while going into details on specified subpages. That will make for easier navigation of the main topic for those interested in learning about what's going on in Syria.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 19:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to split. The uprising and the civil war are one and the same event, the conflict only evolved over time. Only a summarization needed. EkoGraf (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article would be unhelpful as it is the same conflict. When it is over, there might be merit in various articles going into more detail about some phases of the conflict.  But it is hard to do this now, because we do not have the benefit of hindsight.  Remember also, that some things will become clearer once it is over.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I never said to make two articles as was proposed above; that I disagree with. I should have made that clear. What I support is providing basic summaries under each subsection with links to the relevant articles that go more in-depth on the topic.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious Reorganization Needed for this Article
Okay people, we seriously need to discuss reorganizing this article. For a war article, this one is a mess. For an example, why is “Parties in the Conflict” after “Timeline” of the war? The placement of “reactions” near the end is also not chronological.

Here is a list of a few featured articles about civil wars and uprisings: Boshin War, Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347, Finnish Civil War, Mozambican War of Independence, Nagorno-Karabakh War, Pontiac's War, and Third Servile War. What do these featured articles have in common? They’re all organized like this: Background, Course of the War, and Aftermath. The article for the Syrian civil war should follow this model.

Here is what I propose, change the order of sections to something like this:
 * Background- (history, socio-economics, human rights, Arab Spring)
 * Protests- (begins of the protest movement, concessions, censorship, crackdowns and sieges)
 * Course of the War- (formation of SNC and LCC, formation of the FSA, Other opposition groups, Mujahedeen and Sectarianism, Kurds, International reaction, UN and Arab League decisions and actions, Foreign military support, late 2011 and early 2012 clashes, ceasefire attempt, renewed fighting, events in Lebanon, fighting spreads and intensifies, …)
 * "Other Stuff”- (Casualties, Refugees, Media coverage, human rights violations impact)

Putting things in chronological order makes things a lot more organized. Please, let’s discuss this. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, sensible idea. It will be a big project though!Rangoon11 (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy move to Syrian civil war (2011–present)
This article should be speedily moved to Syrian civil war (2011–present) per WP:CAPS, cf. Libyan civil war. The reason that only the first word should be capitalized has been explained quite clearly by Mike Selinker at Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)/Archive_7. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or better yet, moved just to Syrian civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that last suggestion. There have been numerous discussions on the inclusion of the year in the title, and every time the consensus was to keep it. Let's not try to sneak in a removal of the date via a technical (capitalization) move. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It made sense when it was called "uprising", since there had been many uprisings in Syria before. It doesn't make sense now, I haven't seen any rationale for it here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I haven't seen any reliable sources naming the conflict with a proper noun, so neither should we. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, decapitalize it. We had this same discussion with Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Decapitalize and remove the (2011–present) part. --93.142.239.193 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Azaz
This source says after a several month long battle, the FSA has taken control of the city of Azaz, north of Aleppo. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

azeris?
whats up with the inclusion of ethnic azeri fighters on the rebel side of the listed belligerents? its not explained in the article
 * Doesn't make sense, no Azeris in Syria, remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of AQIM and Shura Taliban
The reference-backed addition of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Shura Taliban as combatants was recently removed. The stated reason for this removal is that the fighters who self-identified as members of those groups aren't fighting 'under the banner of those groups'. I think this is nonsense. If they are fighting against the government and specifically identify themselves as part of a particular group, then obviously they are fighting under the banner of that group. It's not as if members of Al-Qaeda or Shura Taliban coincidentally happened to be on holiday in Syria and decided to pick up arms. Besides, if fighters being members of a particular group isn't enough and they actually have to be sent to fight in Syria by their leadership, then we might as well remove Hezbollah, Iran etc., as there has been no confirmation from either the Hezbollah leadership or the Iranian government that they actually sent people to fight in Syria. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They do not have a significant presence, their leaders have not made any statements, they are there on their own choice. They are mujahideen that happen to be part of those groups. Sopher99 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore there are over 100 different rebel groups in Syria, but we put them all under the banner of the Free Syrian Army. In the same way there are many jihadists in Syria, who we shall simply put as being part of the muhajideen. Sopher99 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sopher. We can always erase Al-Qaeda in Iraq and put just collectively Al-Qaeda since they are all branches of the same organisation. As for the Taliban fighters, too small a presence and questionable if they fighting under that banner. EkoGraf (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) The Iranian Basij do not have a significant presence either. Those couple of dozens/hundreds of alleged Basij do not compare to the thousands of rebels and government troops. If significant presence is your criterion, the Basij have to go as well.
 * 2) They 'happen to be part of those groups'? Are you seriously suggesting that their being members of islamist organizations and them fighting in Syria against a secular government is some kind of coincidence? And again, the fact that their leaders have not made statements bears no significance. Hezbollah, Iran, etc. have not officially acknowledged militarily supporting the Syrian government either.
 * 3) Actually, we do not 'put them all under the banner of the Free Syrian Army'. Free Syrian Army is commonly understood to be the umbrella name of groups of deserted Syrian Army personnel. Jihadist fighters are not usually taken to be part of the FSA. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1, I can easily agree with that.


 * 2, Assad government is sectarian. Taliban, on other hand, are Pashto, not Arabs. Frankly, I can easily believe that AQ foreign elements are fighting in the war, but Taliban sounds like a major BS. I´d wait till other sources pops out.


 * 3, Some are, some are not. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Table markup
EkoGraf and I have a difference of opinion about the use of markup in the deaths tables. EkoGraf believes that putting the names of organizations, and numbers, in bold text, and putting the word "Total" in BRIGHT RED CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS FOR EMPHASIS improves the table. I do not: it makes the table harder to read, and, in my opinions, looks a bit silly, which is quite inappropriate for the subject matter.

"68 deaths" is easier to read than "68 deaths" -- so why use the latter? "Total" means just the same as TOTAL -- again, why use the latter, when the first suffices?

Typographical flourishes are unneccessary; words and figures mean what they say, and our readers are capable of reading and understanding them without superfluous emphasis. So can we keep it that way, please? -- Chronulator (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Syrian conflict has mostly been about the fatality figures being constantly talked about in the media as the reason for the government to be taken down. And because of that the different figures from many different groups should be pointed out. EkoGraf (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that they're important. That's why we've put them in a great big box in the middle of the article, and arrayed them in columns and rows within it to make their relationship clear. Beyond that, we should assume that readers are capable of reading ordinary plain English text, without further visual cues. -- Chronulator (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They should be written normally. They are readable without having to hurt the readers eyes. Crystalfile (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh what? o.O Hurt the readers eyes? In what way? EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Downing of the Turkish jet
I think this should have its own paragraph as it was a significant event that was not part of the run of the mill fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 13:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed highly notable and worthy of at least a paragraph, stating Turkey's response, such as increased Turkish military at the border etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Page move
You will note that the page was just moved by Bwilkins with no rationale being given at this talk page. This is not an oversight or an action heedless of the talk page; rather, as he noted at WP:AN, he faced technical issues that simply wouldn't let him edit the talk page. You can expect an update from him before long. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been two days and I, for one, am still waiting for an explanation. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Title
Yet again, and it seems like no one is paying attention, this is the only civil war there has ever been in Syria, so the "2011–present" part is completely redundant. It needs to be moved again. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. There has been multiple uprisings within Syria, but only one civil war. --   Luke      (Talk)   15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What other events ar' commonly named the "Syrian Civil War"? ~Asarlaí 16:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no need for a disambiguation in the title.--Cattus talk 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed also. It was the same with the Libyan civil war article. A few people didnt want to change from 2011 Libyan civil war to Libyan civil war despite their being no previous Libyan civil war in its history as a unified state, same as Syria. The 2011 - present part is only a left over from the previous title of the article, and is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

al-Qaeda presence
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/middleeast/al-qaeda-insinuating-its-way-into-syrias-conflict.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=world FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you even bother to read the infobox? Sopher99 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you automatically make assumptions based on nothing? FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not making assumptions -asking a question. If you would see the military box, you would see we have already discussed this. Unless of course your only giving us news, which is not an appropriate talk section. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm providing sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case tx funky! :D Hehe little joke. :) EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good source. I recommend that we add it as an extra source to the infobox. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. EkoGraf (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More: http://world.time.com/2012/07/26/time-exclusive-meet-the-islamist-militants-fighting-alongside-syrias-rebels/#ixzz21jq5iPsN FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the love of god, flag of AQ again? And the TIME article is talking about al-Nusra, which is in the infobox for months, not AQ. As a matter of fact it completely denies AQ presence in that region. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Reaction" section needs to be moved up
I don’t see any good reason why the “Reaction” section is located at the end of the article. All featured war articles on WP are organized chronologically, yet the information written in the “Reaction” section are about stuff that happened in early 2011.

I propose that we move this section into “Timeline”, specifically, between the subsections “Protests” and “Protests and military sieges”. This makes sense because the Syrian government reacted to the protests with concessions and censorship before launching massive military sieges.

So it should look something like this:

Timeline
 * Summary
 * Protests
 * Domestic Response (from "Reaction")
 * International Reaction (from "Reaction")
 * Protests and military sieges
 * Protests and armed clashes
 * Ceasefire attempt
 * Renewed fighting
 * Fighting spreads and intensifies

Putting things in chronological order makes things a lot more organized. Please, let’s discuss this. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the internal events in Syria leading up to the present-day situation ought to be put in chronological order, but the "International Reaction" section is a separate facet of the uprising/war entirely. I believe it ought to be placed beneath all others that have been listed.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 19:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, what's wrong with you people?
I'm going to editorialise about the whole "civil war" terminology conflict, and this is the place to do it. Basically, there are three factions which don't want to call this a "civil war":


 * 1) The international community, for whom admitting that it's a civil war would be the admission of its failure to broker a solution
 * 2) The Syrian government, which wants to portray the opposition as a bunch of foreign terrorists with no political legitimacy. Admitting that it's a civil war would be tantamount to admitting that there's a meaningful part of civil society which supports the opposition.
 * 3) The Opposition, which wants to portray the conflict as a matter of the entire Syrian populace rising up against the (illegitimate) Assad regime. Admitting that it's a civil war would be tantamount to admitting that there's a meaningful part of civil society which supports the government.

Against this perfect storm of blinkered bedfellows is the entire rest of the world, for whom it's COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS THAT IT'S A FUCKING CIVIL WAR. Take a look at this video from the BBC. Notice that the rebel soldiers are:


 * 1) Flying a different flag than the government
 * 2) Training in organised training camps
 * 3) Following a command structure
 * 4) Establishing production lines for munitions
 * 5) Clearly controlling territory, albeit in a fluid fashion, given the disparity in armoured infantry

This is not what an "uprising" looks like. These are SOLDIERS FIGHTING A FUCKING WAR, and anybody who can't see that is a fucking buffoon who's being blinded by their own ideological limitations. Sad to see that theirs are the voices who prevail on Wikipedia. 188.222.88.79 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, at last someone is talking sense. A civil war is a civil war, regardless of how the various factions try to disguise it as something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. This is a civil war, not an uprising anymore. If this is not a civil war then please someone tell us how a civil war is different to what is happening now in Syria.Alexispao (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. At this rate the only source that will refuse to admit it is a civil war is the Syrian Assad regime and Wikipedia. Erzan (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This clearly isn't a mere uprising anymore.Sirtywell (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. Military units on maneuver, efforts to seize and hold territory, and oh by the way, the ICRC has certified the conflict as a Civil War. The debate should be over IMO. Its a Civil War. ArcherMan86 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree if this is not a civil war then i would like someone to show me what is, and how it differs from this. And also be sure to include a more authoritative source on the matter than the ICRC (is there even one?i dont think so)

the refusal to name the article correctly is now blatantly stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.210.194 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree! It's a full blown civil war. Only some people don't want to call it, what it is. (Metron (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC))

I would like to propose that this article be unlocked temporarily so that kspence92 has a chance to rewrite it. He has made some very persuasive arguments that the authors of the article clearly do not have an adequate understanding of the political, social, and cultural history of Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.32.51 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Had to edit for the genius whose ideas cant be put forward without his extravagant use of profanities. It's a good encyclopedia you are creating. Great job! Please refrain from using needless words in the future as per Wikipedia Guidelines. 72.53.153.82 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Protest images
It should be pretty clear that there a large parts of the Syrian population that are both for and against Bashar al Assad. Since this article is now about a "civil war" instead of a one sided uprising, showing images of both sides should be required, which it was even before the move. But for whatever reason, some biased editors remove pro-Assad protest images on the ridiculous ground that "any totalitarian gov can easily organize a massive "support" demonstration". That's funny, considering that Lattakia is universally acknowledged as being one of the most pro-regime cities! Please get some basic knowledge about the issue before editing, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Funky's opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I agree with your proposal as fact that regime can organize demos has nothing to do with it having popular support among part of Syrian population. Opposition organizes demos as well. Second, Latakia is not recognized as one of the most pro-regime cities. Unlike in Tartous, Palmyra and other cities, clashes happened there and Syrian navy was even sent to suppress riots. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk. I actually think this entire article is actually biased towards the opposition, too. SuperHero2111 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Detailed, Recent Map Found
Here is a map from Stratfor on the situation in Syria as of July 25 2012. It contains a lot of good information. I don't think it can be included in the article, but it's still a good resource. Hope this helps. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an excellent map. Maybe someone can do their own version based on this one as a source and we can use it in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Shamefully it lacks Eastern Syria, specifically Deir ez-Zor map of control. Although finding out about that is one major pain in the arse. Also it lacks several rebel controlled territories like that medieval Crusaders fortress on northern Lebanese borders, northen Aleppo together with border crossings and town of Azaaz etc. But that can be edited in due time. Shame we don´t have Rafy here, he´d done it in no time. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked Rafy's Libya maps. :( EkoGraf (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too! Is there any way we can invite him to join the discussion over here? Bkissin (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a map for Syria in 2011, just like Rafy's: File:Syrian Civil War.svg –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

there is a better one here  (third time (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)).

Copyedit help
I know this isn't normal, but I'm wondering if any of you could take a look at the 8th of March Revolution?? The article is about how the Syrian regional branch of the Ba'ath Party seized power in Syria in 1963.. However, its a DYK and GA nominee and might need a copyedit.. Would any of you be interested? --TIAYN (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

First image
The first image is of a gathering of people with the sentence "The Situation of The Civil War in Syria By July 29,2012". The sentence makes it look like an image of Syria with the current situation of land control should be there instead. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * People are debating whether or not to put a map there. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a map, but unlike Libya there are no real clear frontlines and control of areas shifts constantly making drawing up an accurate map difficult.

Libyan fighters in Syria
I added the Liwaa al-Umma Brigade under military support for the opposition in the infobox. There are clearly Libyan volunteers fighting in Syria, so it's appropriate to include them somewhere in the infobox. Apparently some people have a problem with this. The brigade is commanded by a Libyan commander, who lead the Tripoli Revolutionary Brigade in the Libyan civil war. Although a lot of the soldiers in Liwaa al-Umma are Syrian, the Libyan fighters in the brigade can't be ignored. If you guys don't want to include Liwaa al-Umma in the infobox, I still think the Libyan fighters should be included in there somehow. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Liwa al-Umma is made up of more than 6,000 men, 90 per cent of whom are Syrian. The rest are mostly Libyans and other Arabs, including several who live in Ireland . It is not that a lot of them are Syrians, 90 percent are Syrians. Plus, Irish Times article states this We’re here to facilitate and train civilian rebels in Syria and to add it, Libyan flag is flag of state. Mahdi al-Harati does not hold any official position within the government, it is just another foreigner in this civil war. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about we add "Libyan volunteers" under military support for the opposition, without the flag? Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We already have that covered by Mujahideen. Although I believe that "foreign fighters" would be much more suitable. Libyans are just one nationality fighting them. Two Dutch reporters were taken hostage by what they described as Pakistanis (those guys are everywhere!), Bangladeshi and Chechnyans. There are Lebanese from Bekka valley, sources say there are hundreds of them there. There are Iraqis, there are Kurds from Peshmerga, there are Iranians, there are Hezzies. You can´t have one group without all others. Let´s rename those Mujahideen to foreign fighters and be done with it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue with that is that the Libyan fighters are helping the FSA, not the Mujahideen. Putting the Mujahideen and Libyan fighters together is very misleading. I suppose we can change "Libyan volunteers" to "Foreign volunteers" or "Foreign fighters" to include the other nationalities. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Re-read what I wrote. I think we should change mujahideen to simple foreign fighters. No put intended. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with EllsworthSK. Tradedia talk 01:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, not all volunteers from Libya are Mujahideen. There is not indication that the commander Al-Harati is a Islamist. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He is not. So, as I wrote before, we should maybe change Mujahideen to Foreign fighters. Libyan are only one nationality of foreign fighters and frankly, not that noticable one. They´ve had 3 KIAs so far (all Misratans). That is nothing. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's unlikely that we'll have enough support to change Mujahideen to Foreign fighters. Mjahideen is a third party in this conflict, not aligning itself with either the government or the FSA. Putting Libyan fighters like Al-Harati and Mujahideen under the same category (Foreign fighters) might be misleading. We don't want people to think that they're working together. As far as I know, Libyans (but not all of them) are the only nationality in Syria not fighting for Jihad. This is why the Libyan fighters are special, which is why I think should be differentiated from other foreign fighters, the vast majority of whom are fighting for sectarian reasons. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong. There are many such. There are expats with foreign citizenship. There are Lebanese who have score to settle with Assad or have family connections (especially from Bekka valley). There are Iraqis from tribes which stretch from al-Anbar province to Deir ez-Zor. Foreign fighter doesn´t automatically means muji. So no, Libyan fighters are not special in any case, there are also not biggest foreign group out there, nor do they heavily participate in combat. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Secular non-Libyan foreign fighters. Interesting. Got any sources to support that? And besides, the Libyan volunteers contain experienced commanders like Al-Harati. That alone deserves special attention. I haven't heard of any secular top commanders from Lebanon or Iraq working in Syria. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First, there is not only zelaotry and secularism. Harati himself is hardly a secular, just as rest of Libyans, but moderate muslim. Second, sources says nothing about Libyans being secular, or rather do not mention their religious ideology at all. In fact this article mentions that many Libyan volunteers joins Ahrar al-Sham brigades which are not the friendliest bunch . Third, Harati may be prominent, but I don´t see why he should be more prominent than Iraqi jihadists who have years of experience fighting against coalition forces in al-Anbar province. With all due respect to Harati, Tripoli brigade became prominent in battle of Zawiya and Tripoli. Before that, they were neglected as neglected gets. Till battle of Badr and Tiji, only few knew about them and they did not participate in most of the battles. EllsworthSK (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, some sources supporting non-Islamist, non-Libyan foreign fighters would be helpful. Having the infobox include both Libyan volunteers and Mujihadeen doesn't make the Libyans more special. We can include the Iraqi Jihadist commanders in the infobox, I don't see a problem with that. So far, there isn't any listed there right now. It's not a good idea to change Muji to foreign fighters because it's important to differentiate the Jihadists from the non-radical. Mujihadeen is a special party in the conflict because they're fighting for sectarian reasons, and are not officially working with the FSA. By putting Libyan volunteers under the military support for the opposition, it becomes clear which side Al-Harati and other non-radical Libyans are supporting. They are supporting the FSA, not the Jihadists. Since the FSA and Mujihadeen are different parties in the conflict, it's important to indicate who supports what side. Therefore Mujihadeen should not be changed to foreign fighters. Futuretrillionaire (talk) Futuretrillionaire 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the same manner it would be helpful to source your claim that Libyans are seculars. Also here you have sources which talks about 30 Lebanese being part of FSA and battling in Qusayr under FSA banner . Also Liwa brigade is NOT part of FSA, it is independent. Muji do not fight with FSA either since they have bigger problems than that, neither do Kurds. FSA itself is anything but unified group, having more than 100 brigades who operate freely on each other. So again, what makes Libyans more special than Lebanese? One man who himself describes as trainer? Do you have source which would says how many Libyans are there? Because neither gives any number, it says that 10 percent of Liwa brigade are foreigners, but not Libyans. I do not see any significance here, we already know that foreign fighters operate in Syria and we have even listed their number in the strength part of infobox, sources already mentions that their numbers are marginal, we do not have any number or any source which would say that number of Libyans is significant, we also do not have any source which would talk about their religious views, as they are hardly unified group. So why? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War
I suggest to rename the title of the article to "Syrian Civil War". There were no other civil wars in Syria. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the requested move discussion a little ways up. --   Luke      (Talk)   21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cities and towns during the Syrian uprising
I just created Cities and towns during the Syrian uprising to help us in the future in having a supporting reference about the geography of the conflict and maybe even allow us to create a map for the conflict. I thought it would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it seems helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. In the future, this list will make the creation of a map really easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on a template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…) Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion and receiving delete votes from editors who are not involved in editing Syria articles. Take a look at the article (List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition) and see if you find it could be useful and if you would like to vote in the deletion discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_areas_currently_held_by_Syrian_opposition Tradedia talk 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) updated  Tradedia talk 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not make it into a map instead? --78.1.183.86 (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The source Tradedia provided had a good map in it on page 8 of the document, and it appears to be a very reliable source. However, I'm not sure if Wikipedia can use it due to copyright issues. I made an amateur map based on the info provided on the map in the document, but I'm not sure if it's good enough to be included in the article.



Description: "Situation in Syria as of June 2012." Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What about Deiz-Ez Zor, that's in control of the FSA. Syria's Kurdistan is out of assads control also. - Goltak (talk) 5:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The source didn't provide information on Kurds or the situation in Syria's eastern parts, so I didn't include that in the map. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This source shows that large swathes of Deiz ez zor province in rebel hands whilst this  shows that the army withdrew from the main city and then it was almost completley controlled by the oppostion, . Good work on the map, I hope you can include this information to make it even more accurate. - Goltak (talk) 8:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay I added this to the map's description: "(Note: this map does not contain the situation in Syria's eastern parts, due to lack of solid information. However, it has been reported that parts of Deiz al-zor governorate are in rebel control as of June 24, 2012)". The Reuters article you cited does mention that because of media control by the Syrian government, information on the situation in Syria's east is hard to get. This explains why this report didn't provide details for the eastern provinces. I don't want to change the map now, because there are still other parts of Syria's east in which the situation is very unclear. If I include Deir al-Zor, then I'd have to include those other parts as well.  Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On the map key it says "Rebels". But they call themselves the Free Syrian Army. "Rebel" has a romantic tone with a lot of baggage associated. They probably don't see themselves as rebels, but legitimate citizens trying to take back their country from an illegitimate war criminal and his mafia cronies. Others see it as a sectarian religious conflict. Others tribal conflict. Anyway, I think rebel is a POV term, maybe change it "Free Syrian Army and allied groups". Green Cardamom (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: There is now the article Cities and towns during the Syrian uprising which should contain all the maps ever made about the Syrian civil war along with a sortable table that has up-to-date control status (and refs) for about 100 cities, towns, etc. Tradedia talk 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sheherazad Jaafari
Hi, I tried to start an article about Sheherazad Jaafari, but it was deleted pretty fast, so I got this so far http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tonemgub2010/Sheherazad_Jaafari. Is anyone able to help me write this article? There are lots of good references on the net and Al-Arabiya re-launched their "Syria Leaks" section the day before yesterday as they hacked her e-mail. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does she need an article? FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Add United States to military support to opposition forces?
It was announced yesterday that Barack Obama secretly authorized military support for the Syrian rebels. It has been reported by CNN, Reuters, NY Daily News, and more. Does anybody object to add the United States to military supporters of the opposition forces, along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar? --   Luke      (Talk)   12:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You would have to create a sub-header like supplies and logistical support in order to include the US, because what the CIA is doing in Syria stops short of actual military support. But then you might as well add 'NATO' instead of 'USA', as most NATO countries are providing the rebels with supplies in one form or another. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True, the articles said the U.S. government set aside $25 million for "non-lethal" support to the opposition forces. --   Luke      (Talk)   13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-lethal military equipment is still military equipment. When was military equipment defined solely as lethal? No separate header is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They didn't say military equipment. Non-lethal supports refers to humanitarian aid (medical supplies) and communications (radios). Sopher99 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If "communications" is to include any of this, then it's military. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't include any of that. Besides, why would they give missile guidance and gps weapon systems without the missiles and without the weapons? Sopher99 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are providing the weapons themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Minimally, yes. But thats why we have them in the infobox, not the USA, which is not providing military equipment or military perks. Sopher99 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So American satellite images, GPS information, and similar that will guide these weapons are not military aid? FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * None of that the USA is giving. "providing only nonlethal assistance, such as communications equipment." Obama's support is less than meets the eye. Sopher99 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * USA should be added in a new instigator section of the infobox because we know who is leading the so called "friends of syria" conferences (Hillary Clinton) and also israel should be added as well . Baboon43 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is totally wack. As we just stated neither country is providing military support. The friends of Syria don't support the opposition with anything but rhetoric. Sopher99 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Parties in the conflict"
This section almost only includes opposition groups. Either it should be renamed accordingly, or the government and pro-government groups (apart from "Shabiha") should be listed as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Sopher99 (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Is having "Alleged" in infobox really necessay?
Is having "Alleged" for half of the parties really necessary? It's cluttering the infobox. If there's reliable sources saying that the party is involved in the conflict, is that not good enough? Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a tit for tat addition by Sopher99 after I added "alleged" to Hezbollah and Iran for the reasons stated above. Reliable sources are not enough if the party itself denies involvement. This is not true for Turkey, however, so alleged should be removed in that instance. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If they have the "alleged label next to them I think they should be removed from the info box. Cover alleged belligrents somewhere else. Info box too big as it is. XantheTerra (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Combatants in sidebox
Looking at the page's edit history and this talk page, I thought we might want to get straight what the requirements for a party being included in the combatants list in the sidebox. Two issues:

1) Are parties which supply only arms and/or funds listed? Unless I'm mistaken, supplying the rebels seems to be the justification for both Qatar and Saudi Arabia being in the box, yet why doesn't it apply to Russia, which supplies the government with arms? If funds are counted, shouldn't this also apply to the US, which supplies the rebels with "nonlethal aid", i.e. funds?
 * Russia sells weapons to assad. I don't think funding is counted anymore. Just weapons, as funding is too vague. Sopher99 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

2) Do "alleged" actors count? If we consistently allow this, the list could get much longer, and we'd probably have to establish standards for being "alleged within reason".--Yalens (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to taalverbateer Hezbollah and Iran has to be "alleged" because they don't admit their presence/role in Syria. So I applied this logic to the other. Sopher99 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

military analysis
There might be some useful tidbits in this fascinating new piece about helicopters and other heavy arms. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama signs order supporting Syria's rebels, reports say.
Where should this information go in the article? I don't want to disrupt the article's format. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Check under support for the opposition - I think they already put it there though. Sopher99 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't rename
Please, don't rename the article, Syria is in a Civil War --Danrolo 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The move discussion a few sections up is about removing the date (2011-present) and/or to capitalize the title. It's not about moving the article to something other than "civil war". --   Luke      (Talk)   01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Iran on the ground
Yet again I have to bring attention to the fact that we have Iranian and Hezbollah casualties in the infobox based on very shaky sources. Just because someone claimed to somehow be able to identify dead fighters as Iranian or Lebanese, which is highly unlikely, just making such a claim and having some sources mention it does not make it strong enough for the infobox, and it hasn't even been repeated in the media since. It can be mentioned in the article body that it has been claimed, but having it in the infobox gives it undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, Iranian military commanders in the infobox are not even based on any sources and their inclusion seems rather arbitrary. --37.244.176.237 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, placing them there as "commanders" is pure original research, and they deny any involvement on the ground, unlike the foreign Jihadis fighting for the FSA, who are practically boasting of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I7laseral reverted my edit with the summary "Unlike the FSA, Hez and Quds are highly organized, and nothing happens without those leader's consent." If that isn't OR, what is? And this is assuming those fighters were even there in the first place! FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I7laseral, I suggest you read the sources you state support your claims. They don't. Quit the POV pushing original research, please. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, I see you've found a source quoting An-Nahar as saying Hezbollah fighters are present. I won't revert it, but I'll point out here that An-Nahar is a notoriously anti-Syrian (pro-Kataeb) paper. We don't quote al-Manar here either, do we? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Al-Manar is party TV, even on list of banned organizations which supports terrorism by US State Department. However, we do quote al-Akhbar which is notoriously pro-M8 and thus pro-Syrian. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo Liberation Army in Syria
According an interview of a Syrian senior official (Assad) transmitted by Abkhazian News Agency Anna, former members of Kosovo Liberation Army are fighting in Syria with Syrian opposition. He said that the Syrian Army of Assad killed 400 rebels in Syria, including Kosovan, Libyan, Saudis, Somalian etc. Syrian official said that all Kosovan have been member of Kosovo Liberation Army. Media in Albania & Kosovo published this news. 

Kosovo recognised the Syrian National Council SNC as only representative of the Syrian people. The collaboration between Kosovo and Syrian opposition is not only political but also military. Russia accused Pristina time ago that Kosovo is trained Syrian rebels. In April 2012 a Syrian opposition delegation (Syrian National Council) led by Ammar Abdulhamid visited Pristina and promised to recognise Kosovo immediately after the triumph of democracy in Syria. The visit of Syrian opposition delegation was the first step of collaboration between SNC and Pristina.Irvi Hyka (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Kosovo's involvement proves nato is behind this because kosovo is a well known nato puppet..they may have told kosovo to join the conflict in exchange for international recognition of the republic of kosovo at the U.N. Baboon43 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh no - Kosovo has been through intense artillery shelling and massacre, and is showing sympathy by training rebels. It would by hypocritical to not offer its support to the FSA when they themselves suffered under Milosevic's forces. Sopher99 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Unnamed Syrian government source (which is by that very definition unreliable), quoted by other unreliable source - ANNA - (we had this discussion few months ago on RSN where it was deemed as a blog) is not by any chance usable. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In accordance
In accordance with all other military infoboxes on all other war articles, I 'm removing the military support sections from both sides. You can list weapon sources and aid in the specific section for those topics. Check every war article from World war I to Vietnam war to Libyan civil war and every civil war that occurred in between. No military support in those infoboxes. No need for it here. Zenithfel (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To understand the military equation fully, you have to list all the supporting sides. In a civil war, the foreign support brought to one side is often one of the major point. Without ammunitions flowing from Qatar, Turkey (wich harbors and actively help the rebels in all possible manners), Saudi Arabia and United States, the rebellion would probably have been completely defeated now. And Iran is providing ressources, cash and weapons to Syria as well. The addition in the infobox of them, clearly mentionned as economic and military support gives immediate and valuable information to the reader. --Maldonado91 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But as Zen said, we mention it in the subsequent sections. Having them in the infobox makes it seem like they only get supplies from thos countries. Furthermore they hardly get any weapons from outside countries. Most weapons come from defectors/bought on the black market. Also I have checked the other military conflict articles, they don't have military support in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian civil war is very different from other wars in the past. In today's globalized world, wars often involve military support from other countries. Many war articles in Wikipedia are about pre-modern wars, in which foreign involvement in wars was rare, so don't use other war articles as a model for this one. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But none of modern war articles have military support in the infobox. Well except for vietnam war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me but you are wrong Sopher. You have examples of other war articles like the Angolan and Afghan civil wars (soviet period) where there are countries who provided arms and money to a specific side being listed in the infobox. I'm sure if I look a bit more I will also find others. So on this point I agree with Maldonado91 and Futuretrillionaire. EkoGraf (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

New move request from Syrian Civil War (2011–present) to Syrian civil war

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Syrian Civil War. Clear consensus to remove the parens, but this RM has been muddied by trying to do two things at once and I don't see a consensus to decapitalise. No prejudice against a new RM that solely discusses the capitalisation issue. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War (2011–present) → Syrian civil war The article needs to be moved again as the title should be decapitalized and the "2011–present" part removed because this is the only civil war there has ever been in Syria. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from previous discussions:

 * LuK3: "There has been multiple uprisings within Syria, but only one civil war."
 * TaalVerbeteraar: "The reason that only the first word should be capitalized has been explained quite clearly by Mike Selinker at Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)/Archive_7"

Opinions:

 * Support Anything else wouldn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and others. EkoGraf (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and the standard approach for this type of article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removing the disambiguation from the end of the title. Oppose removing the capitals from the title, however. It's a completely daft notion to sit there and say that it shouldn't be, per proper grammatical standards. We as editors do not dictate whether or not to use grammar, or pick to establish when an event is permanent (like the explanation in the link above seems to suggest). Indeed there has only been one civil war in Syria, which undoubtedly will be referred to as the "Syrian Civil War" since there is only one. The only rationale for using lowercase on civil war would be to say that the conflict has no name and this is "a civil war in Syria" rather than the "Syrian Civil War". If that's the case, what is the proper name? If it's going to be called something else, a new title needs to be picked. However, if the title is to reflect a civil war, then it needs to remained capitalized. — Moe   ε  20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, if you really are going to push to keep it lowercase and say it's unnamed, than you need to change the lead sentence. It currently reads: "The 'Syrian civil war, also referred to as the Syrian uprising, is an ongoing internal armed conflict in Syria." If it's not a proper noun, then stop treating it like one. The sentence reads that the name of the conflict is the Syrian civil war. Either the sentence capitalization needs to be fixed, or the capitalization being proposed is wrong. — Moe   ε  20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support re capitalization. I haven't seen any reliable sources naming the conflict with a proper noun, so neither should we. Neutral re date removal. On the pro side there has never been a civil war there. On the con side the "civil war" moniker is brand new and someone not brushed up on current events or Syrian history might think it is referring an event of the past. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support re removing disambiguation, per nom. Regarding the capitalization, I'm neutral: either is fine. -- Chronulator (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Support - Yes it would be better to change this to Syrian civil war. This is clearly an uncontroversial move.  Perhaps someone should list this as a technical uncontested move so the article is fixed soon, rather than wait a week for this RM to close.  The consensus is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Partial support. Given the nonexistence of a previous civil war in Syria, we don't need the date.  However, don't decapitalise unless you first obtain consensus for decapitalising American Civil War, English Civil War, and Irish Civil War.  Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removing (2011–present), because disambiguation is not necessary. Capitalization is a separate issue, and should really be discussed in a separate move request.--SGCM (talk)  01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removing (2011–present), regarding Nstrauss comment that on the con side the "civil war" moniker is brand new; I am not sure we should be concerned about someone not brushed up on current events thinking it referred to something in the past, the accuracy of the name itself should be paramount as opposed to what an un-informed individual might think. As well, there have been past "civil wars", but they would not have involved "Syria" (defined as the state which came into being in the 20th century), hence the unnecessary nature of the date. On the side not I do not see ANY opposition to removing the date from title, with the exception of a neutral from Nstrauss. I do not know if the 7 day rule applies, as I believe unanimity has been reached, bit I will leave to someone with more expertise on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Looks messy as is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Partial Support per Nyttend's remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (2011-present) is unnecessary, as Syria has had no other civil war (as seen in pages such as American Civil War) Canuck 89 (what's up?) 08:33, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on both counts, see also WP:AN. The disambiguative suffix is superfluous and the term should be decapitalized per WP:CAPS because it is a description (like Libyan civil war), not a long-established established proper noun as in the case of American Civil War.  Sandstein   11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Partial support There's only been one Syrian Civil War, but we shouldn't de-capitalise the words. The title "Syrian Civil War" will suffice for now.  On an additional comment this article has been nominated for re-naming three times now.  It's getting to the point of being ridiculous. 2.217.121.150 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, there has only been one civil war in the nation. Goltak (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, sure why not? sounds much better. Crystalfile (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no need for a disambiguation in the title.--Cattus talk 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Support I dont see any reasons to oppose this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Partial support per Moe and Nyttend. Libyan civil war is clearly an anomaly, under a move moratorium until October, which should not be used for precedent. Look through List of civil wars and you'll see an overwhelming preference for capitalization. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -Syrian civil war is much more concise. Date not needed due to lack of previous civil wars. Capitalization not needed due to lack of sources referring to it as such. Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I welcome that AT LAST the article has been renamed to reflect the war going on, but you're right, the date has got to go. But please capitalize the "c" and "w" so that it's "Syrian Civil War" and not "Syrian civil war." If this move is approved, then Libyan civil war ought to be changed to reflect this capitalization standard. --Ferrariguy90 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update I have read your comments on capitalization and I have changed my opinion. I think we should focus on removing the date instead. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - the 2011 - present part was to distiguish the current situation from previous Syrian uprisings. However, there is no previous Syrian civil war, so the the title "Syrian civil war" or "Syrian Civil War" -(i dont see how the capitilisation or lack thereof really matters that much to be honest)- makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.235.219 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia should not be in the business of making nouns proper. The year can go. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to "Syrian Civil War" (with capitalization). That seems to be the convention around here, since this is the only internationally-recognized civil war that Syria's been in. Plus, it just looks better when capitalized.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 19:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you present any majority or even plurality of sources that support capitalisation? That is the standard here: what reliable sources say, not what "looks better". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I Disagree. Sources should only give information, not tips on capitalization, since news sources all use different styles (AP, Chicago, etc.). Encyclopaedic tradition should be applied since this IS ultimately an encyclopedia and not merely a news repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lothar, that applies to the subjects of our articles, not our writing conventions.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 00:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have encountered no such firm "convention" on Wikipedia. Arguments dealing with articles like American Civil War and English Civil War are irrelevant because conflicts as those have well-established names in the literature. It's entirely possible that this will end up being a "Civil War", but making it such now is just pure speculation. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I can think of no reason not to do this. As it stands it is inconsistent with the Libyan civil war article -- Smurfy 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support For the exact same reasons as above 93.22.223.88 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Both the renaming and capitalization. The Syrian opposition clearly aims to take control of the nation away from Assad and have taken steps toward creating a working transitional government as well as seeking support from other nations. Given the scope of the "uprising" it easily fits the definition of a civil war. Coinmanj (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The Arab League called the conflict as 'civil war'. There were no other civil wars in the history of Syria. Furthermore the rebels organized a political entity, which fights against the Assad regime. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removal of dates, but Oppose decapitalisation. It is the Syrian Civil War. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removing dates, but absolutely oppose decapitalisation. There really isn't any sense in decapitalising it since, as mentioned earlier, it is the only one, similar to the American Civil War, which is capitalized for the same reason - that it's the only civil war in the country and therefore has no other identifier.--` (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support because I can. --173.13.174.194 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems better Zaminamina (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Having "present" in the title is of no apparent value. It's going to be renamed at some point to civil war. Jimerb (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Opinions
Last updated by: Nstrauss (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal of dates:
 * Support: FunkMonk, EkoGraf, Rangoon11, Moe, EllsworthSK, Chronulator, BritishWatcher, Nyttend, SGCM, 99.232.158.217, Kudzu1, 74.179.38.25, Canuck, Sandstein, 2.217.121.150, Goltak, Crystalfile, Cattus, Knowledgekid87, BDD, Futuretrillionaire, Ferrariguy90, Tonemgub2010, 86.156.235.219, 93.142.239.193, LuK3, Asarlaí, Kspence92
 * Neutral: Nstrauss
 * Oppose: TaalVerbeteraar
 * Removal of capitalization:
 * Support: FunkMonk, EkoGraf, Rangoon11, EllsworthSK, Nstrauss, BritishWatcher, Kudzu1, Sandstein, Goltak, Crystalfile, Cattus (?), Knowledgekid87, Futuretrillionaire, TaalVerbeteraar, 93.142.239.193
 * Neutral: Chronulator, 86.156.235.219
 * Oppose: Moe, Nyttend, 74.179.38.25, 2.217.121.150, BDD, Ferrariguy90, Tonemgub2010 (?)

Moratorium?
In order to preserve order and focus on reporting the actual event rather than pissing around endlessly over the name, I'm of the mind that a Libyan-style moratorium on page moves following the closure of this one would be a helpful and productive thing. Input from others would be appreciated. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but after this move, which is a no-brainer and has overwhelming support above.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to move to Syrian Civil War?
I think everybody agrees the 2011 - present part is unneccesary, and nobody seems to want to keep it. time to change it now? or should we wait a little longer? Kspence92 (Kspence92)02:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically that's not correct, since TaalVerbeteraar expressed opposition to the removal of the "(2011-present)". His comment: "There have been numerous discussions on the inclusion of the year in the title, and every time the consensus was to keep it. Let's not try to sneak in a removal of the date via a technical (capitalization) move." --Nstrauss (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * * Syrian civil war. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nstrauss is correct. For me, removing the capitalization is the important bit. I wouldn't support a rename to Syrian Civil War with the capitals. I'm neutral regarding the removal of the date, as FunkMonk has presented a pretty compelling argument why it's no longer necessary. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Syrian civil war does look better. Still the 2011-present is just clunky and pointless. Just move it to Syrian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.168.52 (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst there is no consensus on the capitalisation issue, there seems to be consensus on the removal of the date, im pretty sure that every single person here, bar perhaps one maybe, supports removing "2011 - present", so imo, it should be immediately moved to Syrian Civil War, and then discuss the capitalisation issue to try and come to a consensus on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.169.78 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early opposition violence not mentioned
There's a myth that the uprising started peacefully, which is basically wishful thinking, but here's a report form March 2011 which could be used as source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143026#.UBF4gaDnbRi FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Significant 200 police officers died in the Egyptian revolution, and dozens in the Tunisian and Yemen revolutions. Police officers deaths as a reaction of police shooting protesters is a normalcy.Sopher99 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ^Wow, that's some extreme POV right there. It was claimed the opposition was entirely peaceful for months and months, the article clearly shows that is false. Also shows why the government became less tolerant. Certainly needs to be added then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are Pov pushing. Nowhere in the lede does it say protesters were peaceful (even though they were). Sopher99 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On Friday police opened fire on armed protesters killing four and injuring as many as 100 others. According to one witness, who spoke to the press on condition of anonymity, "They used live ammunition immediately -- no tear gas or anything else." How does that prove your point? Article says that riots, which ensured afterwards, were response to killing of protesters. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the report would be worth a citation if true, but it's not reliable. This Google News query shows that many reliable sources covered the event but none of them corroborated the killing of police officers. On top of that the source, Arutz Sheva, has an acknowledged Zionist slant. How that might play into their reporting of the Daraa incident, I don't know, but it is evidence of unreliability. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, amazing scrutiny here, compared to when it concerns completely unverifiable opposition claims! Can I go ahead and remove "Iranian" and "Hezbollah" casualties from the infobox? But I gather what counts is that something has been reported by reliable sources, and I don't buy that israelnationalnews would be considered unreliable here in any other context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a Zionist news source. Literally. It's self declared mission is to promote Zionism/ Pro-Israelism. Only 2 months ago did Israeli publicly drop their support for keeping Assad as president. I7laseral (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares if it's Zionist? And how exactly did Israel "support" the Syrian government? By consistently condemning Assad? Some support! But no one is fooled, Israel remained neutral in the beginning of the conflict, waiting for the Arabs to weaken each other. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are problems with the sourcing of other statements in this article, then by all means, fix them. As for this particular issue, I'm deeply concerned that the event was heavily covered yet there doesn't seem to be a single other source that corroborates Arutz Sheva's account. You should be too. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A mention of the sometimes violent reactions of the protesters to the shootings is still required to keep a balanced pov. So reports of police or soldier deaths caused by the opposition in the early months of the protests should be noted in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if reliably sourced, no? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you take the same merit on AQ and remove it as well, I´ve got your back, Jack. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that the deaths of the seven human beings--police officer or protester--during this civil war is very significant. It is important to state that the very beginnings of the protests were not an entirely peaceful uprising as believed; otherwise it looks like we are ignoring important parts of the entire picture. Included is a Middle Eastern (Lebanese) and verifiable source that does not have a Zionist slant: http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/21/7-syrian-policemen-killed-in-sunday-clashes-report/ Pounamuknight (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be no excuse for leaving such info out, we have info with even more duvious sourcing in the artifcle. It is important to show that the opposition was violent from the beginning, since the common (false) Western narrative is that it only became violent after months and months. If we could find some more reliable sources about early violence, I'll not hesitate to add it to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one of our contributors has become the authority on the truth of what is being reported by reliable sources. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that article admits it was only reporting on what was on the "Damascus Press news website." Hardly reliable. Aside from that, the source, Ya Libnan, is a volunteer organization that until recently was nothing more than a blog. And given the fact that it was formed to founded to support street demonstrations it's hard to imagine it being anywhere near as reliable as the much larger number of reliable sources that reported on the same event and didn't report anything about police officers being killed. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, good points. I'm in the process of investigating this further (inbetween work work & home work). Pounamuknight (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents
USA also supports openly Opposition Forces; giving them money, weapons and providing logistical support from the CIA. There's also Blackwater in Syria on the Opposition Forces side fro mthe order of CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.144.185 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion four ones up. The USA is not providing weapons. Only non lethal assistance. There is no black water in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of the United States. They provide money, help, intelligence and help opening roads for providing weapons. This is a military help. --Maldonado91 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No - they are not giving military support directly. (providing money is not military support, and military intelligence we don't count because many countries share military intelligence with Syria.) Sopher99 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You gotta be kidding people. Giving millions of dollars to the terrorists is a support. Above giving the money, USA send CIA agents to Syria to back up the "FSA". USA do support the terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.144.185 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only terrorists are assad and his shabiha, everyone knows that. Sopher99 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from those kinds of comments, they can exclude you from any future debates due to a non-neutral pov, and I'm talking to the both of you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was against including the US before because they were still only assessing wether to aid the rebels. But now it has been revealed that Obama signed a directive pledging aid for the rebels. So, like the anonymous user and Maldonado91, I am also for including the US. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But its non lethal aid. Sopher99 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So? Turkey provides non-lethal aid in the form of logistics but we still count them. And the money provided is being used to buy weapons. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so than I guess adding Russia shan´t be a problem. Russia just recently signed a contract which will ship oil to the Syria, which is running low on that and is hampering their military logistics. Or Mi-24s helicopters, or ships full of ammo and such and such. If you want to go down this road, than it should go all the way. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Big difference between legal contracts (like Russia's) and illegal dealings (like the US, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia). EkoGraf (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Illegal dealings according to what part of international law? It is one and the same, just support which Russia gives to government is thousand times anything that United States provided. Hell, even Ban Ki-Mon called this proxy war. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The rebels are an illegal organisation (working outside the rule of law of the Republic of Syria) thus anybody dealing with them is engaging in illegal dealings. And also if you are involving international law in this discussion, why is it than that financial and arms support for rebels in Iraq was considered to be illegal but, according to you, support for the rebels in Syria is not illegal? I guess that has to do with that old saying One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Assad's government is still the Syrian government which is represented in the United Nations, until that changes they are the legal government of Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No one has to give a damn about laws and regulations of Syria, in case of international dealings like contracts et cetera we are talking about international law. That stipulates no such thing. And about the quote - yeah, true. I don´t see however what has it to do with topic at hand. Also, if we talk about Iraq, Al Queda was on list of terrorist organizations by United Nations so that´s why. FSA is nowhere to be seen on that list. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Al-Qaeda I was talking about Iraqi rebels in general, like the Mahdi Army which is not on a terrorist watch list and even has its own party in the Iraqi parliament now but was considered a terrorist group by the US military during the war. So what I can ascertain from what you are saying is that international dealings can be made with rebel movements if the groups are pro-Western but not with governments that are anti-Western (Syrian government)? And by saying that No one has to give a damn about laws and regulations of Syria you are in fact saying that anyone can meddle in the internal affairs of a country and destroy its rule of law (which is by the way a violation of the statutes of the UN on itself, and thus violation of international law). Also, per that opinion, nobody should give a damn for example about the laws and regulations of the UK and should maybe send arms and money to the IRA? In any case we should stop this discussion because it has no point and goes into an area of our personal feelings and points of view which are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Let's get back to improving the article. Seems there is a debate on the US and CIA at the moment downstairs. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that is why no sanctions were placed on Iran for supporting Mahdis army or Special Groups by weapons and finances. Another point - we do not have Iran in Iraq war infobox as military support of shias insurgent groups. And also we do not have Libya in infobox in The Troubles article. And no, that is why international law exists, it does not stipulate to whom it may or may not arms be sold, morever these supplements to FSA were made on Turkish territories, ie territory which falls under juridically of Turkey, not Syria. Those are realities of today's world, you and me both may not like it but it is so. So you have to choose how you look at it. First, legally, in which case it is not illegal otherwise Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both countries which admit of financing and sending arms to several FSA brigades are not sued before international court or second, morally from where supplying arms and finances to one side of the conflict is as bad as supplying it to the other one, fuelling the flames of war. So what you ascertain is completely other thing than I wrote. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I do not see anything wrong with discussing such issues, it needs to be in order to make our differences known. That debate was split in the two, I do not know why. If, however, we reached the point where our different opinions on the subject are too far away and we are in deadlock I can also ask for third party WP:M. Just say if you agree. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with what? For what do we need a third party? We were only talking about the legality of it all hehe. Chill bro! :D It was like a lively political discussion. :) Add who you want, remove who you want, I have come to think this discussion by the 5 or 6 of us how many there are on the support category in the infobox is becoming a broken record over the last few months. So in the future discussions I will have to think if I am going to be part of them because I have become exhausted and this heat is killing me its almost 40 Celsius over here. :P EkoGraf (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A country that sends weapons, money or advice to another country engaged in a war shouldn't be considered "belligerent". If so, the list of "Belligerents" will become endless and therefore useless for the reader. I suggest to list just the countries and forces who are fighting the war and set up another list for the supporters.--188.221.181.70 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The US actually has CIA agents on the ground in the Turkey/Syria border area to coordinate weapons supply to the rebels. That goes a bit further than just 'giving advice'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Include USA and/or CIA
Why is CIA and/or USA not included in the information box? It have been well established among sourcesthat they are actively supporting the rebels by military and intelligence means (weapons, intelligence sharing etc). Since Obama, the president of he United States have authorized this operation, this is turn means that the US government is taking an active part supporting the rebels by military and intelligence means.

"A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers."

"The CIA and other US agencies have been given carte blanche to supply intelligence information to the Syrian opposition, sources in the US have disclosed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182427/Obama-authorizes-secret-support-Syrian-rebels.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9445649/CIA-authorised-to-offer-intelligence-support-to-Syrian-rebels.html

Someone, please include the USA and/or CIA in the information box. I am actually surprised they are not included at all!

There are more sources on the net - I just don't want to publish them all here.87.96.185.238 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok now we have 5 ongoing discussions about this. The USA is providing non lethal assistance only. Many other countries, such as Belarus and Russia supply Assad with military intelligence. By that logic we would have to include them to - but we shouldn't count military intelligence as military support.  Sopher99 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I changed the infobox to say Armaments from. Sopher99 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First - The CIA is providing means of directing weapons' aid to the rebels (read decides who gets the armaments in order to use them against Syrian institutions. That equals as providing armaments).
 * Second - The Syrian army is a legal organisation governed by the Syrian government. How it aquires its weapon is not of interest in this discussion as it is a legal organisation; just like any other country in the world it will use force to crush any attempt to overthrow its regime, the Syrian nation is no exception to this very simple logic.


 * The Free Syrian Army on the other hand is an organisation which have no legal rights in the said country, is attempting to overthrow the current regime in Syria by the help of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some western countries. Would you define "directing weapons to rebels" as "non-lethal aid"?
 * With all due respect, the CIA should nevertheless be included in the infobox. 87.96.185.238 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 - We don't mention the cia, we mention the USA, this was a direct order form obama ( who is not a member of the CIA).


 * 2 - directing weapons is not providing weapons. You have to provide the weapons to provide weapons, not just say "ooh this guy looks more deserving than that guy". Sopher99 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was against including the US before because they were still only assessing wether to aid the rebels. But now it has been revealed that Obama signed a directive pledging aid for the rebels. So I am also for including the US. EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah - humanitarian aid (non lethal) not military support. Sopher99 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian: Obama signs order supporting Syria's rebels. And regarding your last comment, Sopher99, Syrians are living under Bashar Al-Assad and are happy; Muslims, Christians and Atheists living together. It is terrorists like you having mercenaries from Libya, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia (proof >), fighting against the Syrian Government. You are also backed up by the Al-Qaeda. YOU are a terrorist who want to support wahabbit / salafist Islamic extremist rule over Syria. Syria does not want to be an Islamic state. We don't want this, we don't want sharia, stop spreading lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.144.185 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh- no. Assad is best friends with Hezbollah (a terrorist organization) and Iran (a self declared extremist theocracy). From March 2011 - Dec 2011 this was not a mutually violent conflict, and there were only protests. Now the Free Syrian army, made up of defectors, such as riad assad and Mustafa Sheikh, have established themselves to fight back against this child killing regime which has killed thousands of protesters, and arrested and tortured tens of thousands. Sure there are some foreign fighters who have come to help the Syrian people (unlike the international community) and I welcome them. The more the better. Sopher99 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bashar Assad uncle, Rifaat Assad (brother of Hafez assad) and Syria's vice president from 1984-2005 Abdul Khaddam both confirm this is a popular revolution. The UN and the Arab League have both confirmed Assad launched a brutal crackdown on protests, which lead to a popular rebellion.
 * Even the Palestinian Authority voted for arab league sanctions on Syria. Even Hamas voiced its support for the Syrian revolution, and many Hamas have even joined the fight against assad. (Hamas by the way is 100% funded by the Syrian government - well at least until recently). Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch, both which have condemned Israel's Gaza strikes, have condemned the Syrian government's totalitarian brutality as well. Sopher99 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Your geolocate service shows that you are living in Brooklyn New york right now, so I wouldn't be using the term "we". Sopher99 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's stick with what reliable sources say. I'm sure we can find a good balance for both sides. But I'm sure the "terrorist" appellation given to Obama's administration is WP:UNDUE. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually some of the terrorist states and organizations are USA, Israel, Qatar, Saudi, Amnesty international, UN, Arab league, Hamas, Muslim brotherhood etc. This operation is not about toppling the regime but to keep syria in chaos for undisclosed reasons because petty rebels can not overthrow assad. Baboon43 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the chaos threatens Israel - so I don't see the point in that.
 * Rebels are outnumbered 200k to 50k. They also don't have heavy weapons or an airforce like the Syrian government does. They are disorganized, unlike the Syrian army, and they hardly have any weapons themselves. Of course it would be tremendously difficult for the rebels to overthrow the Syrian army. But they have been progressing none the less. Sopher99 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Israel is not threatened in anyway unless it goes on the offensive so i dont know what you mean, also keep in mind Israel has a nuclear arsenal..The syrian government has assisted hezbollah previously which is why Israel is in the perfect position because it always wanted a regime change in Syria. The rebels represent a radical sunni group much like Hamas which Israel loves so much. more terrorists means sympathy for Israel in the international community and they will get their terrorists even if they have to fund them. Baboon43 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Israel is threatened by Chaos in Syria. For so long Bashar has kept the piece with israel - never tried to take back Golan, never made any moves against Israel. But if Muslim brotherhood was to take any sort of power, it could be critically troubling for Israel. Chemical weapons could fall to hezbollah hands - and Insurgents could star penetrating Israel. Rebels are primarily defectors from Assad's army anyway. So no real terrorist presence. Bashar Assad is israel's most prescious enemy. The last enemy they want fallen. Peace with Israel is assured with assad. Sopher99 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel's existence in the middle east's sole purpose is to agitate the region because they simply can not survive under total peace..unless israel dominates the region their influence in the middle east will dwindle..so any form of democracy in the arab states is a threat to israel. Israel had attacked Syria a few years ago see Operation Orchard. The muslim brotherhood on the other hand has done nothing but cause conflicts with israel which begs the question who really controls the brotherhood. im wondering why mainstream media doesnt pick up this story Baboon43 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If Israel only survives under peace then why did Bashar keep the peace for so long. assad's forces shot down a turkish plane over the Mediterranean, yet allowed Israel to bomb their nuclear sites for hours uninterrupted. Also interesting how democracy hurts Israel, yet Syria is a totalitarian nightmare state. (perhaps assad and netanyahu are closer than you think). Regardless, if you have anything more to say to me, discuss it on my talkpage, this article's talkpage is not a forum.Sopher99 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why no mention at all of US support? Support does not have to take a purely military form. Military support is just one category of support. Another category, for example, is diplomatic, as seen clearly from the Russians and Chinese at the UNSC. Or take the non-military support for Assad by Venezuela with its fuel shipments. As it is, the blanking of support from the US, UK and others means the article completely masks an important facet of the civil war: there is a wider, international agenda. Syria is rightly called a "fault line" of the Middle East. A crucial Iranian ally, crucial to Hizballah, and crucial, therefore, to the US, Israel and their Allies. The idea that we in the West are neutral players helping the "good guys" in this is a joke. Why not even a murmur of disapproval about the crackdown by our good friends in Saudi Arabia? This showdown with Assad has wider implications than simply overthrowing a detested tyrant, so this article ought to reflect that. Hairgelmare (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC) sock comment


 * Just add United states in economic and military support in the infobox and put into brackets beside it non-lethal military aid. And provide source. That's it. Compromise. Confirmed by multiple sources by now they are helping the FSA with military communications equipment and some form of logistics. EkoGraf (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd really love a summary of the support, bit of explanation behind it too, as was here about a month ago. Also we (the UK) are supplying another £5m of equipment. And in an NYRB blog: "In sixteen months, the situation in Syria has mutated from an uprising in a few outlying cities into a full-scale civil war. Now it has mutated again into a proxy war between the Great Powers. The Russians have been arming the regime—it was a Russian air defense system that shot down the Turkish F-4 Phantom jet—and the West is now arming the rebels. The Saudis and the Gulf states are funneling weapons straight to the Sunnis, especially to anyone with Salafist and Islamic radical credentials. Arms are trickling across the borders with Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan; the CIA has been given the difficult task of ensuring that at least the Turkish weapons are channeled to the right people and away from al-Qaeda affiliates." Hairgelmare (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC) sock comment