Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 2

Shabbiha
The name "Shabbiha" origin isn't known exactly. Actually some of Latakian citizens think that it's derived from "Shabah" which is a name of a Mercedes Benz car! Since many government's high-ranking employees like ministers and many Assad family, pro-government, and guns-dealers have those cars. Those cars had dark windows and usually were a source of fear to the normal Syrian people because most of their drivers are armed and supported heavily by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latakiandr (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have WP:RS to back this up, by all means please be bold and fix it. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fake Youtube videos
Something needs to be said about all the false videos floating around which is claimed to be from Syria, but it's hard to find English sources about it. Danish TV has apologised for using images from Iraq, Reuters has apparently provided news channels with old footage from Lebanon as well. On top of this, there are also those funny videos of dead protesters suddenly rising up when they think the cameras are off, and the one with the empty coffin. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename request -> 2011 Syrian revolution
With the current status, I would suggest the article be renamed to 2011 Syrian revolution, since more and more stations are naming it thus. The president has left the country, and the conflicts are close to becoming a civil war. Rkarlsba (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A revolution is the situation where a regime is replaced by a new government, often with considerable differences to the previous, as was the case with Tunisia, Egypt and possibly Yemen in the coming days. As Assad remains in power, there is no need for a name change to 'revolution' as of yet. If he is removed, it should be changed. However, with large numbers of security forces being killed (reported on the 6 June), there is potential for a 'Syrian Civil War'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.krammer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC) What is this babble? This page appears to be full of regime shills and lackeys. Fake youtube videos, the revolution has as its goal an 'Islamic State?' NONSENSE.

Rkarlsba, your links are for Libya and your information is for Yemen, why are you are on the Syrian Uprising page? --Smart (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to spin off some material into another article
It's time to spin off some material into another article. We are now at 124,277 bytes. When it hits 100,000, it is generally considered a good point to spin off material. I would suggest that whatever is spun off, the goal be to reduce this page below 100,000, inasmuch we certainly will be adding more material to it over the coming days and weeks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be appropriate to create a page for International reactions to the 2011 Syrian uprising. The efforts of the Syrian, Turkish, and Israeli governments to forestall media coverage in Syria and on the borders have made it very difficult to do a day-by-day timeline the likes of which we have for Libya and Yemen, but it might be worth trying. I'm not volunteering to make that page, but I'd be willing to help keep it up to date once it's established. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, turns out we already had a page and I wasn't paying attention to it. Anyway, I've summarized the timeline on this page and moved major events that weren't well covered on the dedicated timeline page over there. I'll start watching that page, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudos! Nice work!--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some unwarranted splits have also been made. Do we really need an article like this, which is nothing but a list of Youtube links? FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unverified claims presented as fact
We need to be very careful with the language here, it is pretty clear that the truth lies somewhere in between the claims of opposition sources and the claims of the government, since many stories have turned out to be false over the last weeks. Yet there is a tendency here (as in all western media) to present all opposition claims as fact, and be doubtful of any claims made by the government. This is a problem, especially when the claims are only supported by blogs and dubious news-sites. The biggest problem is that none of the info coming from Syria can be verified at all, since there is no foreign media there. Every claim has to be followed by an explanation of who has made it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. At the very least, language like "allegedly", "supposedly", "purportedly", and "reportedly" should be used to qualify statements when no credible source (respected news media, I think, qualifies as credible) can independently verify. And that requires a bit of discernment on the part of the editor. Generally if the news article notes that information was supplied by "activists", "witnesses", or "sources", it should be noted in the text of this article as such. I know it's frustrating because we all want to know what's going on and it's tough because of the ban on outside media, but that doesn't mean we can decide what is true from the comfort and safety of our armchairs. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The new claims of rape and massacre should be looked at, they seem highly dubious and hyperbolic, but time will tell. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree they should be included and clearly denoted as claims, with the persons and groups advancing the claims clearly identified. This is a problem I've run into on almost every page I've edited; people (I assume many of them not native English speakers or able to contribute at a near-native level) often use passive voice such as "claims have been made", "reports have been shown", and "it has been said". (In case I need to elucidate further, this is not an acceptable syntax, as it excludes the claimant and reads rather poorly to boot.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its pretty simple if WP:RS report it than we can insert it as a fact.Of course blogs is not WP:RS.If you have problem with some specific claims or specific sources that should be brought to talk or WP:RSN--Shrike (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the blog - news blogs, obviously, may be an exception if they're of a professional quality and are considered credible - but with personal blogs, generally yes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that the blog A Gay Girl in Damascus, which reported on political events in Syria, turned to be a Scottish man in the UK, yes, we must be very careful.
 * Also, despite this discussion, I see an awful lot of material in the article reported as fact and without the Syrian government's position included as counterweight. For example, in the lead, there is no mention of their position that it is armed gangs who killed Syrian forces in Jisr al-Shughur. Only the opposition perspective is included, as fact ... this problem is repeated over and over again throughout the article.I'd ask those adding information to always include the views of both sides, attributed to their speakers. T i a m u t talk 13:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Syrian government position is outlined pretty clearly in the timeline article, but yes, I agree we need to be careful about balance in the main article - and yes, we can note the number of respectable journalists who cite evidence that the Syrian government's pants are on fire. And no, just because the government is lying doesn't mean opposition activists are all necessarily telling the truth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only the Gay Girl blog, but many videos have been shown to be from other countries, or downright staged, of both killings and army defections, but the media gobbles it up anyway. And there are constantly made analogies between Libya and Syria, though the case in Syria is more similar to the one in Bahrain, which is never mentioned, due to obvious reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We should maybe have a section on disinformation that includes things like the Gay Girl blog or the impersonation of the Syrian ambassador to France that led to France 24 announcing her resignation . There was also the soldier reported killed by certain Arab media stations for disobeying orders who turned out to be alive and and well and still serving . (Aside: I can't stand Al Jazeera anymore and I was once an addict. It lost all credibility over its non-reporting of Bahrain and other Gulf protests and its obsession with Syria). Anyway, I'm not sure how we would title such a section without going into OR, but for the first two, the word "Hoaxes" is used by RS and could be good for now.  T i a m u t talk 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not in our competence to question WP:RS and they editorial oversight if you think what the WP:RS is wrong you should have sources that back it up and then you may present it in the article.--Shrike (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you guys are really that mad at al jazeera, we will stop using it. Al jazeera has reported on Bahrain many times, especially in the case the doctors falsely accused of crimes. Only 36 people died in Bahrain, compared to a combined total of over 1800 in Syria. Also for a span of 3 months most of the protesters gave up protesting in Bahrain, although now we are starting to see a renewal. Because of this, there was nothing to report on Bahrain, other than Khalifa's retarded accusations of foreign conspiracies and his attempts to dismantle the shiite parties. The syrian people however keep protesting, and the Syrian government still has to resort to heavy crackdown because of the large threat of government collapse, which the protesters are obviously calling for. Anyway,  we will be sure not to use al jazeera anymore for this page then.Zenithfel (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My disgust at Al Jazeera's biased reporting was an aside and is irrelevant as to whether or not it is an RS for this article. It certainly is, as much as FOX News is, or any other mainstream media outlet. How you or I feel about its reporting doesn't make it any less of an RS. I'm sorry for mentioning it, as I did not mean to derail the discussion.
 * Anyway, after reviewing the article again, I see that both the Gay Girl blog hoax and the ambassador hoax are already mentioned. Perhaps a separate section on hoaxes is unnecessary, unless we see more of them in the days to come.  T i a m u t talk 08:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Government (and protestor) assertions, in the absence of non-Syrian media and eyewitness support
I think we might benefit from some thoughtful discussion here as to how to address the fact that the government has said certain things (colloquially they might be called "claims") that the press has emphasized repeatedly are unsubstantiated by eyewitness reports or reliable non-local media. Tiamut is now deleting some of the language that calls the government reports into question. The unusual circumstance here -- with non-Syrian media generally not allowed in the country -- is something the press has focused on greatly, and it has altered their normal description of reported events. This of course impacts comments by the government's opposition, as well. Suggestions as to how best strike a balance would be helpful -- simply saying that "the government said x" may not be sufficient, in these unusual circumstances, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should have a section at the beginning of the "Protests and Uprising" section that discusses the information situation, the state restrictions on foreign media access and the lack of third-party verification for both the claims of the state and the claims of activists, who often report anonymously by telephone or on the internet.
 * I don't think using "claims" or "alleges" is necessary. These are weasel words. Its enough to use "said" and attribute speech to its speakers.  T i a m u t talk 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How are those weasel words? They're verbs for unverified speech. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they are words that express doubt and are to be avoided per WEASEL. Most of the sources cited simply use "said" and attribute speech to either activists or the government or witnesses or whatever. As I suggested, this article would benefit from a section that outlines the difficulties of confirming statements from all parties involved due to the lack of third-party independent observers.  T i a m u t talk 08:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the policy again: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." That's clearly the case with the majority of usages here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Who's on trial? We are dealing here with reports of the activities of citizens, soldiers, policemen, the government,etc., as reported by these different actors. True, these are unsubstantiated reports since there is little opportnity for independent third-party verifications, but should we prima facie instill doubt into the mind of the reader by using "claimed" or "alleges" before every piece of information? It is enough to attribute every statement to its speaker and use neutral language like "said" or "reported". The issue of the lack of substantiation and the reasons for it should be outlined in a subsection near the top of the page so that readers understand the overall context in which these statements are being made. Its cumbersome and unnecessarily prejudicial to preface everything with "claim" or "allege" (it comes off as if everybody in Syria is a congenital liar) and if we decide to use it for some statements and not others, we risk introducing POV. Much better to keep it simple and neutral and provide the context for the statements in a reliably sourced subsection on how information is disseminated by the different actors involved and under what circumstances.  T i a m u t talk 19:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No one has been indicted, obviously, but both sides are accusing the other of criminal conduct. You're splitting hairs. And yes, we absolutely should instill doubt in the reader in reporting these claims when they are unverified and especially when other sources directly contradict them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When sources contradict one another, we should report that "X said so-and-so" and "Y said "so-and-so". There is no simply no need to say "X claimed so-and-so" and "Y alleged so-and-so". the reader is not stupid ... they can see that there are conflicting reports about what is happening and they can judge for themselves what it is they want to believe or disbelieve.
 * If we look at how RS report on this matter, they use the format I am suggesting. For example, let's look at how the Wall Street Journal reports on what happened in Jisr al-Shughur:

"Syria said 120 police and security-force members were killed Monday by armed groups in a northwestern town, vowing to take swift action against an ambush that would stand as the deadliest strike against government troops in the country's antiregime uprising. The government announcement was quickly challenged, however, by activists, town residents and others, whose contrasting accounts suggested that the events in Jisr al-Shoghour may be part of a broader struggle playing out within Syria's armed forces. Residents said the town was quiet Monday, after a violent weekend some said included infighting between security forces and defections by young army officers. Residents and activists said they feared the government was laying the groundwork for a large-scale reprisal."
 * Do you see the words "Claimed" or "Alleged" anywhere here? No, because its an unnecessarily wordy and prejudicial way of conveying information in a case where little information can be verified. Let the different speakers position be presented neutrally, the way that RS's would.  T i a m u t talk 06:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370250
 * In 2004 Al-Qamishli riots on 2011-05-25 07:41:56, 404 Not Found
 * In 2004 Al-Qamishli riots on 2011-06-11 07:44:32, 404 Not Found
 * In 2011 Syrian uprising on 2011-06-19 02:59:31, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Armed protesters
I have a fealing the one who wrote this section is under the pay of the syrian government.--J intela (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think accusations like that are fair or constructive. It's very, very difficult to verify reports from within Syria because only a few journalists have managed to get into the country and it isn't easy to verify dates, locations, or contexts claimed in YouTube videos. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling whoever made this section is being paid by Saudi Arabia. Quit the bollocks, these militants should be mentioned in the infobox too, but it keeps getting removed on the basis of not being "proven". Problem is, nothing can be proven in Syria now, the army defections are not "proven" either, so remove that as well. FunkMonk

National Council
Should we start writing up a separate article on the Council leading the Syrian Revolution which was announced today? However, as details are apparently scant at the moment, would it be wise to just put that article on hold for now?64.134.68.219 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Goals: "Islamic rule over Syria"
Are we sure this is true? The source given for this statement is just one and looks awfully like a propaganda site for the Syrian government: the dit in question "Islamic rule over Syria" and the source given. Also the edit summary "the claim is confirmed as the were going to announce the Islamic state on 25.04.2011 in Daraa" - without a WP:RS I do not believe for a moment that this was really going to happen! And funnily it sounds like Gaddafi and his "Islamic Emirate" in Darnah. Anyway - without more reliable sources I believe that this claim of "Islamic rule over Syria" must not be added to the article. noclador (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs more sources for sure, but it is no secret that there is a very strong Salafist element in the uprising, if not the main element. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Salafist element is one thing - a declared goal by the protesters to have Islamic rule over Syria is something else; especially as there is no such thing as an Islamic rule! noclador (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sharia is Islamic rule. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every single Muslim on Earth, all 1 billion of them, practices Shariah daily. It exists all over the West, do not confuse the Draconian laws of some Muslim-majority countries, with Shariah. --Smart30 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the first time I hear this. I would like to see some WP:RS. Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor in question has re-add this stuff, with two new sources, which take the Salafist line from Syrian State officials: "State television in Damascus, quoting a government source" "a spokesman for the Syrian Interior Ministry, speaking on local television"; therefore in my view this even more underlines that the Islamic rule claim is nothing but government propaganda. noclador (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal view is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the view isn't espoused by protest organizers directly, I don't think it should be included in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the only place you shall find that claim is in government propaganda. Whether or not, there is a "strong salafist movement" in the uprising, is something no one can say for sure and be honest. So you'd be hard pressed to find an RS that states that. If there is, then the protest organizers are doing a hell of a job not talking about it. All statements coming from the Local Coordination Committees (the ones who are coordinating the protests on the ground) vehemently denies such. Yazan (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Syrian refugees
The issue of numerous refugees is not yet related in the article. The numbers are in their thousands and possibly rising towards 5 digit numbers - fleeing to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. There are also many displaced as well. Hundreds of women and children have recently fled to Lebanon according and. Hundreds had fled Syria by May 03rd, heading for Turkey. This is a possible humanitarian crisis in the making - Turkey is already worried on this issue - .Greyshark09 (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More refugees flee to Turkey in early June - some 2,500, according to Turkish officials, by June 09th. See here - .Greyshark09 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2,700 refugees fled to Turkey per CNN - .Greyshark09 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're able, I think you should go ahead and add these to the article. It's clear you've been working to educate yourself and keep yourself up to date on this important issue and I believe you would consequently be the best person to add this information to the page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. We might need to split it into a separate page if the problem keeps evolving.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletions of reliably sourced content
I added some information on how this uprising differs from the Egyptian revolultion, in that it has also involved vandalism and attackson security forces by armed elements. I also added some information on how the numbers of those protesting compares with Egypt. I did this using an article published in The Irish Times.

These additions were reverted here and in a prior edit by another editor. I believe this information should be included. Can we discuss ways it can be included and where?  T i a m u t talk 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We also need to include information on the makeup of the protestors. This article indicates that "Analysts point out the regime continues to enjoy the support of three major demographic segments — the Christians, who form around 10 per cent of the population; the Druze community; and the Allawites, the President's kinsmen who pack the Army's officer corps." It also mentioned by many RS that no major protests against the government have been held in the two largest cities: Damascus and Aleppo. None of these facts is currently reflected in this article. Shall we make a new section on "Involvement in protests"?  T i a m u t talk 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for supporting unverified propaganda.190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Its all unverified propaganda, and you are welcome.  T i a m u t talk 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That last isn't accurate at all. There have been protests in many, many districts of Damascus, as well as in Aleppo (particularly at Aleppo University). -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The source was referring to the Friday before last and wrote : "However, no major protests were held in the two largest cities — Damascus and Aleppo, Syria's commercial capital. " I've seen the same description made generally elsewhere.
 * "But despite it all, the central squares of Aleppo and Damascus have been the site of large rallies in support of the beleaguered president. If those pro-government demonstrations subside, and begin to be replaced by opposition marches, analysts said it would likely signal a tipping point for the regime’s grip on power."
 * "Central neighbourhoods in Aleppo have been largely quiet, with a heavy security presence and the political and business alliance intact between Aleppan Sunni business families and the ruling hierarchy, from Syria's minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam."
 * Note the last source also mentions the protests at Aleppo University where there were about a dozen arrests. I guess they are not considered major protests? I've been to demonstrations in North America where hundreds were arrested - one with a dozen arrests barely made the news.  T i a m u t talk 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ANd Kudzu, would you mind commenting of the content of the edits I made and where or whether it might be worth including here? DO you think its right to compare this uprising to the one in Egypt and claim the protestors are wholly non-violent when multiple RS say otherwise?  T i a m u t talk 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No make a subsection for comparisons, like the subsection made for Shabbiha. Comparisons don't belong in the lead. Zenithfel (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zenithfel. And that subsection already exists. As I've said before, it's difficult to verify exactly what is going on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Human Rights Watch", led by an American Jew. Conflict of interest?
Human Rights Watch is portrayed in this article as the supreme moral arbiter of all humanity. Yet this is just a lobby group, an influential one yes, but a lobby group with political motivations all the same. It is also led by Kenneth Roth, who is an American Jew. Since the Syrian government is known to have sometimes contentious relations with both the governments of the United States and Israel (supported by most Jews) it would seem that there is a conflict of interest here, putting this group forward as judge and jury of the world, especially as who leads Human Rights Watch is obscured and if people try to add it to the article, its reverted. Sword of St. Michael (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Human Rights Watch is a large, highly-respected organization. The ethnicity or religious preference of its founder is irrelevant. By noting his religious preference in the article, you are adding a tacit claim that the organization's opinion is biased or cannot be trusted. That is original research and it does not present a neutral point of view. GabrielF (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Highly-respect according by whom? I presume the Syrian government do not respect it. Seems like implicit cultural imperialism. Roth is an American Jew, he leads this organisation; it says so much on the article about him on Wikipedia. To simply qualify or put a human face on where the statement about the Syrian government are coming from in this article about a controversial affair, cannot be POV. Stating the bare facts without a "this is good", or "this is bad", is fair. It should either be qualified with Roth's human face or removed entirely as contentious. Sword of St. Michael (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it all balances out, because Roth is a man and men comprise virtually the entire Syrian Army. If he were an American Jewish woman, that might be a problem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Kenneth Roth, if he is indeed Jewish (that has not been proven) is still an anti-Zionist/anti-Israel. He's been criticized by many Israeli news sources for this very reason. He isn't biased. And as for Israel being supported by "most Jews", I happen to take great offense to that absurd notion. --Smart (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is moot. The user has been permanently blocked for creating an account to avoid a previous block. There's no use wasting time on this, or any of his other absurd edits. GabrielF (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. When will bigots learn that their BS isn't welcome on Wikipedia? -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

why does the article say civilians?
why does the article say that civilians are being killed? maybe some but it is mostly armed groups and there is proofs and facts of this and not made up stories by the US and others. is wikipedia owned by Zionists or not? it looks like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.107.229 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your perspective. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting genocide. --Smart (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting unverified propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should support what the WP:RS says.--Shrike (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is a classical case of "right for the wrong reasons". The article says civilians, but perhaps there are elements which could be more accurately be described as clan or sectarian and who should not be grouped together with the civilian protesters. We should be careful not to make that mistake, even if it hasn't happened yet. Also Kudzu1, Smart30 & FunkMonk should do everyone a favor and not act like this is a forum. In other words if your not explaining why it should be civilians, why he is wrong or what the wikipedia rules say it is you'd best keep your remarks to yourself even if you are right.--Tomvasseur (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I would bet a great deal of money that Kudzu1 is a paid shill of the regime. At the very least he's a morally disgusting human being. He's spewing the propaganda of a mass murdering regime and one which, just today, killed another child. Smart30 has it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.95.193 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supporting the forumcides. 190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

distortion the image of the movement buting Armed elements
the links [134][135][136][137][138] do not prove any armed elements in Syria but just adopt the State TV Story... this may give the government forces justification to kill more if the State tv was correct why the prevent international media to move freely in the country pleas review the paragraph "Armed elements"

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.178.236.56 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing happening in Syria now has been "proven", nothing can be confirmed. Army defections? Sure, we can mention it because it has been reported, but there is absolutely no proof, or of rape for that matter. Even American officials have acknowledged the existence of the armed elements. Only deniers are the same people who are actually sponsoring them, such as Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. FunkMonk
 * Well, Syrian defectors have crossed into Turkey and (I believe) Lebanon and have spoken with press. I don't know if their credentials were definitively confirmed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Start date
It's not 15 March. Protests started in January. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

All international news media cite 15 March as the start date. EkoGraf (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Add this
--86.16.14.224 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On July 29, more than 20 civilians were shot dead by Syrian forces during anti-government demonstrations in the cities of Latakia, Hama, Homs, Deraa, Kiswa, Deir Al-Zor, and the capital, Damascus. [].
 * Lebanon: Protest Against Syrian Regime Attacked by Loyalists -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Navy bombarding towns
Syria unrest: 'Deadly military attack' on Latakia port Someone might want to add this. I would myself, but I'm not really sure where to put it in the article. In any case, the Syrian Navy is apparently shelling towns near the coast to suppress protesters/opposition. BBC reports at least 19 dead. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been added to the timeline article. A page for the August siege of Latakia might not go amiss, either. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BBC reports a gov't official in Hama resigned after witnessing executions
Syrian unrest: Top Hama legal official 'saw executions' - The BBC is reporting a Syrian gov't official in Hama resigned over the crackdown in Syria. I don't know how important this is, or where it should be added to the article, but here's the link.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this mentions specific numbers of deaths among the protesters too, so that should be added--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Damascus and Aleppo remain quiet
I've said this before above, but our article still fails to reflect his basic fact. The uprising in Syria has not reached the two largest cities, Damascus and Aleppo. See Life in Syria’s Capital Remains Barely Touched by Rebellion in the New York Times from September 6th. We need to change the information in our article to be in line with this analysis which is accepted even by opposition activists.  T i a m u t talk 08:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE
I am disagree about causes of uprising,causes of uprising areequal rights for Syria's ethnic and religious groups, and broad political freedoms, such as freedom of press, speech and assembly.Dictatorship is not correct.Anderson john (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is correct, because they are opposed to the current presidential system (elections with only Assad allowed to run) otherwise known as dictatorship. Sopher99 (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hunger strike
I can`t find any source about hunger strike in Syria in last mounth,last news about hunger strike in Syria was about 6 mounths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson john (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211153

http://www.english.rfi.fr/middle-east/20110216-syrian-rights-activist-freed

http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/07/13-jailed-syrian-activists-are-staging-a-hunger-strike/

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/19/142192.html

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE24/009/2011/en

Here you go. Sopher99 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can`t find any source about hunger strike in Syria in last mounth,last news about hunger strike in Syria was about 6 mounthsAnderson john (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

there is not Hunger strike
I can`t find any source about hunger strike in Syria in last mounth,last news about hunger strike in Syria was about 6 mounths Anderson john (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And 6 months ago was Still part of the uprising. So the Hunger strikes are part of the protests. Just because a particular type of civil disobedience happens for a few weeks doesn't mean it isn't part of the Syria protests Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

can`t find
I check these sources,these sources are old and before Uprising Anderson john (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

2 of them are March 15+. 15:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

these sources are two cases at last 6 months,and 2 cases couldn`t characteristic for uprisingAnderson john (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The protests are part of the uprisings. Not all uprising are armed conflicts. For example, what happened in Bahrain was an uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assad has not resigned
In the infobox information is given suggesting the resignation of Bashar al-Assad as President. al-Assad has not done so, one of the citation links is broke and the second merely reports on the calls of protesters for Assad to resign; Assad is indeed quoted throughout the article as the 'current president' of Syria. This needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.164.8 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you misread the infobox... -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Useful quote
Not sure where this is best incorporated (if not used elsewhere), but this quote may be worth using somewhere:

"In July there were 1,200,000 protesting, now [Sep 28] there are not even 200,0000 because people are arrested or in hiding" - Syrian Human Rights Observatory.

AndrewRT(Talk) 17:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of rape
"Allegations of rape Defected soldiers reported rapes in restive towns and districts."this is invalid with invalid referenceAnderson john (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, does a single sentence with a questionable claim warrant its own headline? FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Libyan or Syrian??
The deaths section claim Lybians killed not Syrians, please check this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.195.69 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Syrian raids into Lebanon
There have been two of them in as many days and one farmer has been killed. Does this count as Lebanon or Syria?Ericl (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is according to what? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the World Media.Ericl (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
Outrageous NPOV violation when users put as belligerents parts who are not taking part in the conflicts and have denied being involved. The only source of that are some crazy rumors circulating in the opposition. The NPOV is also justified by a nearly infinite quantity of other violation of neutrality in this article--ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with this one, its almost as crazy as the conspiracy theories about Israel and the USA. Sopher99 (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed the sources given for Hezbollah and Iran as belligerents.

Source are

1) An anti Hezbollah Lebanese deputy 2) An anti Hezbollah Lebanese radio 3) An unknown Kuwaiti newspaper who said that the Hezbollah sent 5 000 fighters in Syria (which is around 50% of its men) 4) Someone leading the Youth Coalition of Syrian some obscure opposition group 5) Some defectors shouting in arab on a Youtube video

Seriously? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or the garbage of internet?

For Iran this is even worst, as only one source if provided, based on the account of one defector.

I will remove the reference of this in campaign as both Hezbollah and Iran have formally denied being involved into the fights

If some user continue to try to put this absurd claims in the campaignbox we will have to add Israel and the United States as belligerents like noticed Sopher as the Syrian regime claim this.

Make your choice.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than the campaign box issue, can you offer some examples of the "nearly infinite quantity of... violation[s] of neutrality"? GabrielF (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor is unswervingly pro-Assad, just FYI. I think he's going to have a problem with the article no matter what is in it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take away the NPOV for now, as we have come to a consensus that the iran-lebanon thing should not be in the infobox.Sopher99 (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's more productive to just discuss the concerns. The same thing happens over and over again in civil conflict-related articles, and there will always be unhappy editors involved. There's enough watchers in this article to avoid tagging, especially unspecified general violation claims.   ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  20:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The 40% stat
User FunkMonk believes that it is nessesary to state that "an estimated 40% of all Syrians oppose the government" in the lead paragraph. The statement is backed up by this "reference"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-tactics-of-intervention-why-syria-will-never-be-libya/article2212174/

However Heather Roff and Bessma Momani (the creators of the article) do not state where they got that information, they could have easily pulled those numbers out of nowhere. Nor do they state a time it was estimated as, or "who believes it".

The article itself is even under the "opinion" section.

Furthermore the statement does not belong in the lead, just like we don't put anti government estimates in any lead in any of the arab spring articles. Sopher99 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Opinion articles are useful on Wikipedia for notable commentators to express their opinions; them making fact statements without citing a source, though, isn't credible as WP:RS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to find more sources stating the same, and if attributed, there should be absolutely no problem in adding them to the article. Will probably come up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, more sources will be appreciated. Although, it has to state who's opinion it is (including their credibility), and definitely stay off the lead.     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  07:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Mahdi Army
Okay Iran I understand, but you're bringing Lebanese and Iraqi militias into this as well? I'm trying to understand where does your source come from. Wouldn't surprise me if they are true as it's not illogical for the regime to bring allied mercenaries and militants, but it still requires verification. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Where does Hezbollah come in? Even one source for the "Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution" is not enough. These should be removed from the supporting forces along with the Mahdi Army. The support of Shabeeha is the only well documented source. Useless propaganda is not needed on Wikipedia too, we hear enough of it on the news.206.188.79.137 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one could provide sources on this for the past month. It is clearly not ture, at least as of what is known right now. 206.188.77.206 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Syrian army has raided the Lebanese side of the border TWICE in the last few days, and Hezbollah has given a shrug, while their opponents in the Parliament have been going berzerk.Ericl (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to what? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Lebanese MediaEricl (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
There are some activists who are controlling this article without giving chance to others to add useful informations from neutral sources. --Kevorkmail (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "insurgents" are called the Free Syrian Army a rival army/defected army - thats called mutiny.
 * Second, 3000 "insurgents" did not die. The goverement only claims 700, and so we already put that in the infobox.

I7laseral (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Deleting any mention of the existence of the Free Syrian Army and claiming, based off of the mysterious death of a minor Syrian scientist, that the regime is up against some scourge of assassins, isn't "useful informations from neutral sources". I do think it's clear that protesters and activists, faced with overwhelming violence from the regime and its defenders, are increasingly taking up arms, but we need to address that in a less toxic forum than an edit war between a brazenly pro-Assad partisan and the rest of the editing community. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Assassinations and armed insurgents should be included in the infobox.--Kevorkmail (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And why? Because you say so, because it makes the Syrian opposition look less credible? It hasn't even been confirmed that opposition-aligned people have carried out any killings of high-level Syrian officials. Can't say the same vice versa. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And why not? We can claim the same for the aother part as well. But I have provided neutral sources about the assasinations and armed group, and please do not say that those armed fighters were members of the Syrian army, all sources indicated that many armed civilian groups were and are still acting in Homs, Hama and the governorate of Idlib... The same statment goes to Banias and Daraa too.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, that is a the Free Syrian Army (mutinying rebels), and because Syria does not allow free journalists to come, those assassinations cannot be verified. Its is true there are armed groups, but they are mutineers and rebels, not insurgents. If this was not the case, why is this the first time this happened to this scale in decades? Especially when concurrent with the first protests in decades? And particularly concurrent with Syria's execution of defectors? Sopher99 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Free Syrian army ADMITS to being a rebel group operating major cities.Sopher99 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And for the infobox, regarding the main locations of the riots, you cannot include Aleppo and Damascus for one simple reason: taking the fact that the population of those 2 cities is more than 3 millions each, the marches of few groups of 200 or 300 oppositionists brought from the nearby governorates do not bear any significance.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That so called Free Army does not count more than 50 pitiful members, while there are many armed islamic groups who had attacked many neighborhoods of other minorities in Homs and Lattakia.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Journalists are welcomed by the Syrian government. The BBC news correspondent had already produced reports from Damascus. The same was done by "Russia Tosay" and many other Arabic news networks.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've gone from playing devil's advocate to blatantly lying about reporters' access to Syria. Yes, the government has allowed short-term visits to government-selected locations by government-approved news agencies on occasion. There has been no "authorized" reporting from any protest hubs throughout the uprising - and you know it. So stop it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the current period and not the recent months and... be polite while writing your replys.--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Free Syrian army counts hundreds of members. Also the protester number is in Aleppo had a max of 10,000 at one point. Damascus protests number in the tens of thousands. People were killed by the security forces in Both Aleppo and Damascus. I7laseral (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You said hundreds and I will assume the same... does not make a sense. This fact does not refute the presence of armed groups of extremists who had killed and assasinated many memebers of Syrian military forces and mainly Alewites. For the figures you mentioned about Aleppo, maybe you are talking about a city which bears the same name but located in a different universe.--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1 - The majority of the military generals are alawites, so if the Free Syrian army is going to Target military generals (which they admitted to), chances are its gonna be an Alawite by sheer chance

2 - There are only a few "extremists" on the Syrian border and Deir Ezziour. Just like the Algerian alqaeda and Libyan Alqaeda did not make a belligerent in the Libyan civil war or Algeria protests, These "extremists" have no real influence on the uprising. They are a problem that has been ongoing for 20 years. The Uprising refers to CITIZENS and MUTINEERS.

3 - Aleppo has 2.3 million people. 10 thousand protesting because of the death of an opposition leader/ political commenter is not unreasonable. Other times thousands protested there as well. Aleppo is a city, not a citadel. I7laseral (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your first statement confirms the fact of "Assassinations". For the second one, the extremists are spreaded all over Syria, Homs, Hama, Idlib countryside, Baniyas, Daraa, etc.... and they are taking part in the violence against the security forces and the army, for which it is unacceptable to delink them from the ungoing events. For the third one, Aleppo WAS 2.3 million in 2005 (excludig the metropolitan area), and did not witness any large-scale protest or demonstration. The same goes for Damascus as well--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's only true if you ignore reliable sources, which we don't really do on Wikipedia unless they're verifiably false. And even if the Free Syrian Army has said it wants to kill military commanders loyal to Assad, there's no indication they've had any success in doing so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1 - We can't put assassination because they are unconfirmed. The Syrian government does not show the bodies to journalists, let alone let them speak to witnesses.

2 - There were protester deaths in Aleppo and Damascus. The Damascus suburbs of Douma, Zabadani, and Moaddamiyeh ect and even Midan Damascus (central damascus) has had tens of thousands protesters, and hundreds of protester deaths.

3- 10,000 people in Aleppo at one time, as well as several thousands in other time is significant.

4- Aleppo still has around 2.3 million people, and probably more now that it is 2011, which raises my case. I7laseral (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And note that not only members of the military were assassinated but also civilian personalities (scientists, medical experts, doctors, etc...) were targetted, such as Dr. Hassan Eid and Dr. scientist Aws Abdel Karim who were assassinated beacause of being pro-regime activists.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Got a source for those that isn't SANA or another regime mouthpiece? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Activists also report the death of Hassan Eid. in Fact ONLY SANA news claims they were assassinated by "terrorists". Everyone else blames the GOVERNMENT for their assassination.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/mobile/?type=story&id=2016338717&

http://www.therecord.com/print/article/601671

I7laseral (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Syria is a targetted country by Israel, the West and USA, and for sure the western media will not adopt the SANA statement.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Armed gangs have existed among the oppositionists since the beginning of the events, and now they are claiming to form the so-called Free Army!--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Israel, the west, the USA? WTF? Truth be told, Isreal and the west/USA DOES NOT WANT ASSAD TO GO. It took them 6 months to call for assad to resign. Defectors from the Syrian army make up the free Syrian army.
 * For 6 moths their resources were, and for a signifficant part still are, tied fighting Libyan government. Syria was a sideshow then. Only now has come the right time to move on.46.13.56.75 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Egypt also claimed that Israel was the source of the protests. Khalifa of Bahrain claimed that protests in his country was an iranian conspiracy. Algeria also claimed foreign conspiracy. Gaddafi as well. This is just getting stupid. Protests are not conspiracies. THey are PROTERSTs. THEY HAPPENED IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. Its just that Assad regime does not want to give up power because they know they would be punished for crimes. I7laseral (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may ask, are you posting from Syria, or are you posting from another country? And I would hardly describe the likes of NOW Lebanon, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, and Alsumaria as "Westernized", FWIW... -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * His main page says he lives in Armenia.I7laseral (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

-"Syria is targeted by Israel, the west, and USA". Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy to me. The reason they don't take Sana's reports so easily is that the Syrian government and Sana refuses to provide verification or proof. Have you ever heard of Libyan State TV? I7laseral (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am Syrian-Armenian from Aleppo.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * living in Armenia I7laseral (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In Aleppo.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out my contributions in the article of Aleppo.--Kevorkmail (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are born and raised in Aleppo. But your main Page says "This user lives in Armenia" I also noticed many contributions to Armenia towns as well I7laseral (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Regardless, Assad has many "pro-assad" users online who support him, so it doesn't surprise me eitherway. I7laseral (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right regarding the contributions but I live in Aleppo... let's quit discussing personal issues.--Kevorkmail (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is getting too long. I deleted the pointless discussion of whether this was a conspiracy or not. I7laseral (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'l be gone for the next few hours. I7laseral (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it possible for a group of army dfectors which does not count more than few hundreds to fight a regular army without the support of a large number of armed gangs and criminals? The presence of armed extremists is confirmed even by Syrian oppositionists.--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "large numbers" of armed gangs. And considering only a few dozens soldiers have died, yes. Once again The Syrian Government does not let journalists or the UN investigate those matters. For Now we will not include it. Sopher99 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By the start of the events, all journalists were allowed to report from Syria. After the appearance of too many fabricated reports about the events, the presence of some media representatives was abandoned. On the other hand, many foreign reporters continued working in the country like Russians, Irainas, Chinese, Lebanese, etc. Why do not you accept reports releasd by "Russia Today" for example.--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I will ask for an arbitration from an administrator as the article is being monopolized by anti-Assad activists.--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is blatant Lying. No journalists were allowed in Syria (without government minders) from March 15th onward.


 * Regardless I have added instances of Sufis attacks on the main page. But to only be fair i added Shabeeha (REAL arm gangs killing the people of Syria) to it as well. I7laseral (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not discuss about Shabbiha as long as you do not know the truth about them. Shabbiha are the main group within the Alewites who are against the current leadership. But now it became a habit to lable any regime-loyalist with the name of Shabbih.--Kevorkmail (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you Kidding me? Shabeeha against the government? Thats a laugh. What do you have to back up then. Anyway, end of discussion, for today. I put in attacks by Sufis. I7laseral (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ya. What WP:RS do you have saying "Shabbiha are the main group within the Alewites who are against the current leadership"?? I've never heard that in a reliable or unreliable source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Shabbiha were a group of smugglers backed by Rifat al-Assad. They were always involved in skirmishes against the special security forces led by late Bassil Al-Assad and later on by his brother Maher al-Assad.--Kevorkmail (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If Sana is not reliable enough in itself, there are plenty of non-western sources, such as Russian and Chinese, that report the same things. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the American government admits there are armed elements operating in the country - and they are quoted in our article. Why is this information not being included in the infobox exactly?  T i a m u t talk 08:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably because it is not an "official" stance. It probably never will be, whatever the anti-government guys do. Just like the Libyan rebels aren't massacring blacks, and the Egyptian military isn't beating protesters. Or that anything is happening in Bahrain for that matter. As for the US and Israel apparently wanting Bashar to stay, sure, that's why they secretly funded opposition groups for years. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Armed groups and Assassinaions will definitely become included in the infobox as characteristsics of the oppositionists. Plenty of sources are indicating to this fact.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We are forgetting that the Syrian government carries out many more assassinations than the opposition - we would have to include the Syrian government crimes as well. Once again we are only referring to the protest movement. This Free Syrian army and insurgent stuff is in essence NOT part of the Uprising. We already put armed groups in the inbox, remember? Sopher99 (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Syria's Grand Mufti's son was assassinated by armed oppositionist criminals in Idlib earlier today.... he died few minutes ago. That's enough.--Kevorkmail (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Syrian government has openly announced that the army will destroy those armed gangs.... it is ironic to classify this under the term of assassination.--Kevorkmail (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. THe Syrian government kills human right activists. The Syrian government has also killed teachers and clerics, even in Aleppo. It is my natural assumption that the grand mufti's son was killed by The Syrian government, even if he was an Alawite. The Syrian government would kill Alawites to if they speak out or join the sides of protesters. Just like the radical Hutu;s killed moderate Hutus in the Rwandan Genocide. The FSA admitting to killing the medical surgeon claiming he was an informer, but the professors were killed by Syrian government (the professors deaths were not even announced on state media) Sopher99 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Mufti was Sunni, not Alawite. Anyway, it's amazing how "armed protesters" keeps disappearing from the infobox, when it is pretty much confirmed by everyone now, even the Americans. Give it up. It was even replaced by"Shabiha" until now. Really? The pro-government "shabiha" are apparently a characteristic of the uprising? FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep asking people to give up their job? Still don't get it?46.13.56.75 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Strength of the combatants
It would be nice to have strength section in the civil conflict infobox on top for readers to get immediate info on resources of both sides (that would be something like 10,000 or more for Free Syrian Army side and about an order of magnitude more for Syrian Army side). --78.0.242.159 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But it isn't really a civil war at the moment, as the Syrian army's primary targets thus far have been civilian populations.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ Which is pure, unverifiable propaganda. Yes, a section like the one outlined above could easily be added, there should be sources for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the conflict is rapidly escalating to a civil war. Open fighting is being waged by loyalist and defected troops. I'm sure the article will be renamed in brief.
 * @FunkMonk &mdash; What do you mean by "pure, unverifiable propaganda"? The fact that the Syrian army has primarily attacked unarmed protesters?  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For reasons of disclosure, the comment directly preceding my response to FunkMonk was not mine.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. since the start of the uprising there were many reports of armed protesters, which no one in the West took seriously, and counted everyone dead as a "civilian", even though many appear to have been from the Syrian military/security forces and armed oppositionis members instead. Of course civilians have been killed, but the number could easily be inflated, especially since the organizations reporting the numbers to HRW and such are part of the opposition themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to pursue conspiracy theories about media bias, etc. We only report what reputable sources say. We do not use our own subjective judgement on whether we think they're right. We cannot go against the reputable sources (which don't stop being reputable just because some of us don't personally agree with them) simply on unsourced accusations of bias. For our purposes, they're civilians until reputable sources state otherwise, and it's not a civil war until it's commonly referred to as such.204.65.34.226 (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But even that is subjective. A Western source parroting opposition claims is somehow more reliable than a Russian or Chinese source parroting Syrian government claims? That's a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to include something on the article relating to those claims, you're going to need some pretty reliable sources. I have only read maybe one or two articles in the past year that have mentioned anything about Syrian civilians being armed. I'm not saying everyone the Syrian Army has killed were unarmed, but the vast majority were just peacefully protesting. That's what virtually all media outlets have reported, and that's what we need to reference when we're talking about the death toll.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ As I said, if you only follow the Western (and allies, such as Gulf states) media, you only get the opposition side of the story. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who would you consider not a western (and allies) media source? The Syrian Government? Jeancey (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had read my previous posts instead of just being facetious, you'd see China and Russia mentioned. As well as the media of the other countries that have voted against sanctions. And before you get going, no, I'm not saying either is correct, but that the Western media gobbles up everything claimed by the opposition groups, whereas the same is true for the other side and the Syrian government. Therefore, no, western media, and even western human rights groups, are not more credible than anything else, since they get all their information (without any exceptions) from eyewitness accounts delivered by partisans who want the regime gone at any cost. Every single claim made by the opposition, no matter how outlandish, is unquestioned and parroted by Western media. Just like Gaddafi's "viagra-warriors", and massacres that turned out to have been committed by the Libyan rebels themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't being facetious. Even the Iranian news sources have pointed out the attacks of unarmed civilians. Any news agency who is using a single source, in this case the Syrian Government, shouldn't really be considered reliable. Also, the "western media" reports on pro-Assad rallies all the time. Selective viewing of news sources is dangerous no matter what side someone claims to be on. Jeancey (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeancey, also army defector strength vs Syrian army strength does not belong on the infobox. We don't put the army vs defector army strength on the Yemeni uprising box, do we? The number of defectors is too ambiguous for now anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, why is there an sourced size estimate on the Free Syrian Army article? Why wouldn't it be also put in the infobox of this article to have a nice comparison? So readers won't have to open Free Syrian Army and Syrian Army articles to get the numbers. That is the whole point of this thread. --93.136.189.249 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to this. We don't do this for the Yemeni uprising and yet defectors and government troops constantly attack each other. Putting those numbers on the infobox won't mean anything, because out of the 300,000 troops in the Syrian army, only a fraction of that number is participating, and only a fraction of the FSA actually does anything. I7laseral (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Clashes in Damascus
There has been numerous reports of clashes in Damascus. Army defectors recently attacked a major air fore intelligence base there. Shouldn't we be making an article on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goltak (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If the recent battles in Damascus are true, perhaps we should soon be changing the article to The Syrian Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.49.188 (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Major reptuable news sources, including Al Jazeera and Alarabiya are indeed reporting the attack on the air base as factual, and videos have shown numerous gunbattles betweeen pro and anti government forces battle in Damascus...Yes, perhaps we should be changing the article's name.Goltak (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We won't be changing the name until those major reputable sources start calling it a civil war. Remember, we aren't a news source, so we have to cite things like that. Jeancey (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In Yemen tribesmen have attacked government buildings in Sanaa. Doesn't mean its a civil war. One should also note that both the Opposition AND the Syrian government will refuse to call it a civil war even if one actually broke out. Sopher99 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In this conflict AlJazeera nor AlArabiya can be considered "reputable". Not after the wholesale pruduction of lies and fabrications about the Libyan war. Both need to be treated with the same suspicion as the Syrian government media.46.13.56.75 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? They only reported false information when it was "confirmed" by the NTC, and even then they didnt state it as fact.  What lies did they produce? Jeancey (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not employed for writing on WP. Thus I do not keep a record of all the crap spouted (especially by AJ) then. But, suffice to say, it is controlled by Quatar gov which held a major stake in that war and seems pretty active/supportive of this conflict too. Though I do respect the people working for AJ, for every state media there are allways matters where "reputability" capital is to be "spent" regardless the consequences. And the current media war against non-aligned countries by the GCC/West combo is just it.46.13.56.75 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't say something is unreliable and then not give any evidence. Thats like saying anything published by the russian or chinese state media is unreliable when talking about the Iraq war or afghanistan simply because they have a vested interest against the US.  it's completely false.  There's no reason to assume that Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya aren't reliable. Jeancey (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Informed sources do characterise Jazerra's reports as unreliable, placing them on par with Syrian government reports. See for eg., this excellent piece in the Eurasia Review: "Of course, there are two narratives here – the Al Jazeera version where the violence was all one way until army ‘defectors’ began shooting back and the Syrian government version in which armed gangs were causing chaos across the country well before the ‘defectors’ joined in. Like most narratives neither is likely to be completely true or untrue, but there is abundant if unreported evidence in support of the case being made by the Syrian government. Many of the accusations against the Syrian government are coming from exiled groups such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Al Jazeera reports them with little or no attempt at verification. Its bias in its ‘reporting’ of Libya and Syria was so great, in the eyes of its Beirut bureau chief, Ghassan bin Jiddu, that he resigned in disgust."
 * See also this xinhus report on claims that the baath hq in damascus was attacked on nov 20 . The reporter on site says the building is intact and it seems explosions heard by residents were due to sound bombs detonated by unknown actors. There is certainly a lot of confusion and fabrication permeating all reports coming from the country. We dhould include information about all the actors various biases, and al Jazeera and the London-based Syrian Human Rights Observatory are currently not treated in our article when they should be.  T i a m u t talk 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jazeera is a Qatari government mouthpiece and Arabiya is a Saudi government mouthpiece. It's as simple as that, that's how news work in the Middle East, and why they are inherently biased. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to open a discussion about the reliability of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya at the Reliable sources noticeboard, be my guest. Until then, the evidence clearly shows that it is reliable. Also, the source you cited, the Eurasia Review, is an opinion piece.  We generally don't use opinion pieces because they aren't using verified facts, they are opinions of the author.  Jeancey (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

On contrare FunkMonk, Al jazeera and Al arabiya are not mouthpieces, as their stories almost direct replicas of other independent news (BBC CNN RUETERS TELEGRPH GUARDIAN NY TIMES ECT). PressTV and RussiaToday are state controlled media, meaning they are literally government assets.

The Simple Truth is that because the Syrian government does not want non-state news channel to film anti government protests, the Syrian government accuses any news source that goes against its wishes as Conspirators. A protest is a protest, and an attack by army defectors is an attack by army defectors. There is no conspiracy here, not that i am saying you are making those accusations. Sopher99 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Violence isn't sufficiently covered
The article has numerous references to "violence" and various figures and organizations condemning the violence, but is incredibly vague on what violence is occurring. Other than the mention of tanks and snipers in the lead (which is also lacking, as it's not clear whether these were used as deterrents or actively fired upon civilians), the article does not discuss the violence that is being condemned whatsoever. If the violence is such a major part of the uprising, it should be discussed in detail somewhere in the article. Some guy (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources began describing the violence as "Civil War"
Like the SkyNews. In light of the full blown armed clashes, if the situation escalates - it is in fact a civil war. The only question is shall we rename this article into "Syrian civil war" (like done for "Libyan civil war"), or we open a new article "Syrian civil war", keeping the "2011 Syrian uprising" as a notable stage of violence, which lasted for 8 months before becoming a civil war (the uprising is the prequel of civil war for this matter, and is notable to be covered within its own article).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the actions of the free syrian army seem to be uncoordinated with those of the Opposition. We should probably wait for atleast a month or so to see what sources say and if they become coordinated.  Jeancey (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Piblished by Al-Arabiya "Russia likens attack on Syrian intelligence headquarters to ‘civil war’" .Greyshark09 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * News report from today's NYT: "Deserters from the Syrian Army reportedly carried out attacks against the offices of the Syrian ruling Baath party in northwestern Syria on Thursday, a day after they claimed an assault on an intelligence base that Russia, Syria’s closest ally, said was bringing the country closer to civil war". .--Zarateman (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind the word Likens. He is not saying it is a civil war. Second, it is only one russian diplomat. No-one else is even likening it to a civil war.

Also unless protesters take up arms against the government directly, a new page 2011 Syrian mutiny would be made after a while. A war between an army and mutineers of an army is a mutiny, not a civil war.

Third, both the opposition And the Syrian government oppose calling it a civil war. The protesters are not attacking, and the government refuse to acknowledge they are hunting down other Syrians.

Fourth, keep in mind the Battle of Sana'a (2011), despite dozens of casualties and the opposition tribesmen taking over government property, those confrontations in Yemen did not end up becoming a civil war.

Sopher99 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I oppose calling it a civil war. It makes me say about few reasons:


 * 1) 1 - The protesters claims to want a peaceful revolution. They never talk about taking up arms against the Bashar regime.
 * 2) 2 - The media which says about civil war actually says "Is Syria is going to a civil war?"
 * 3) 3 - Army clashes doesn't represent a civil war. We should have take up the same in Yemen too.
 * 4) 4 - As long as there are marches, you cannot call it a civil war. If it's a civil war, there were be no civilian demonstration. 60.49.57.195 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree for the most part. Except 4) - there were HUGE demonstrations in Libya as far back as in July.46.13.56.75 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a civil war. In contrast to Libya, in which there were actually two camps of civilians (pro-Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi) fighting each other - hence civil war - in Syria it's mostly the state army against rebel insurgent groups. So we should neither rename this article, nor create a separate "Syrian civil war" article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Military conflict
Although not yet a civil war, the event is definitely a military conflict, and as such a new infobox is needed.--93.137.110.103 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See above section. --93.139.152.196 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents Section
Organised the belligerents section, especially the one concerning the Pro-Assad Factions. I put the various elements into a more organised list, as well as added some which were missing - notably all the Iranian elemets helping the regime stay in power. Better still, a seperate section for "Notable Personalities" and one for the involved Belligerents should be made. It seems quite messy listing the top leaders on the same list as the various factions they use to fight for them. Besides, I think thats how most war pages are organised. Someone also seems to have a problem with the changes I am making. Please discuss here otherwise I will just revert the page. Peace. SaSH (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposition Flag Reversions
There's been a revert war going on re: whether the opposition to Assad uses the current (red-white-black) and former (green-white-black) flag, or just the former. Earlier broadcasts and photos generally showed the current flag in use within Syria, and the former outside. In the last couple of weeks, every protest showed in AP, Al Jazeera, and the American media have shown the pro-government side using the RWB flag, and the protesters using the GWB flag (see the Homs protests, and groups like the Free Syrian Army). Unless we current photos circulate showing a regular use of the RWB flag, I propose that it be agreed that the GWB flag is, as of now, the symbol of the anti-Assad resistance. Yahnatan (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's the flag used by both the SNC and the FSA. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

600 NTC soldiers in Syria.
RT made an announcement that Libya has sent 600 NTC soldiers into Syria. http://rt.com/news/libya-syria-fighters-smuggled-475/  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 12:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Map of Situation
This image would follow the Libyan Civil War file in svg format, but for the Syrian Uprising/Civil War. Do we add it? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No we don't add it.

1 - It would confuse people into thinking it represents which city "supports" assad or not.

2 - The FSA does not have control over any city yet.

3 - Deir Ezzor is not a loyalist city

Once cities themselves declare themselves under SNC control we will start adding map. Sopher99 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cities don't "declare" anything. FSA or other group of opposition might do that. Till then of course such map is not needed.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)