Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 7

Casualties
Because this uprising is a war, shouldn't there be separate defined figures for the deaths of the Syrian army and for the opposition in the casualties section as opposed just all the deaths put together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.174 (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support this because this is not just a protest anymore, but a conflict. casualties1 section for FSA dead estimates, casualties2 estimate for military dead estimates and casualties3 section for civilian or overall dead estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, it would be nice to add the (approximate) strength numbers. --93.136.34.133 (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I oppose, because the casualty figures are largely guesswork and propaganda. Splitting them out to government casualties and opposition casualties would only mean more conjecture. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be clearly stated that it is just an estimate, and who claims those numbers. --93.136.159.204 (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course we would note those are estimates. But I need to ask you TaalVerbeteraar how would this be any different from the numbers we are already employing which are also only guesswork as you put it? EkoGraf (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So? Are we gonna change it? EkoGraf (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't add strength of each side. No one can estimate the size of either belligerent. The Syrian army is not 230k like it was 5 months ago, its either far less due to defections or far more due to draft. Sopher99 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless you want to be the morgue manager and input a daily update for the casualties in this conflict, it would be better to wait until hostilities have been concluded before any sort of casualty figure can be listed out for the war. Please keep in mind that casualty figures can only be deemed reliable if they come from a reliable source, and such sources will take some time to collate and cross check the figures and circumstances of death before releasing such figures. Until then all news is just speculation. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Casualty numbers
I think the all the pages on on this subject should coordinate with Syrian Suhada's numbers. The main page, Siege of Homs, and Hama Governorate already have this. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's against Wikipedia policy on a neutral point of view. We would literary be taking a side in the conflict by saying that the opposition numbers are the only right numbers. No, per Wikipedia policy we are obliged to present both sides points of view and also third party POV's. So we continue presenting both the opposition numbers, government numbers and UN numbers. Yes, we should use the Suhada city-by-city and province-by-province numbers, due to the lack of those from other sources, but nothing more than that and we should also note in brackets that those numbers too are also opposition claims. Using the total number claimed by Suhada is also ok, but only as one of several possible numbers that are claimed by all sides. EkoGraf (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say this to be against NPOV. I think it's fine noting that it is opposition claims. If their is a constant detailed government source, that would be great. I think just we need to be consistent. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, sorry for the misunderstanding. :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: 'Moved to Syrian uprising (2011–present) Mike Cline (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

2011–2012 Syrian uprising → Syrian uprising (2011–present) – As a few people were saying on a non-request discussion, the current title is misleading. It gives the user the idea that the event is already over. Also, the standard policy on Wikipedia is to have the date afterwards in parentheses. Please vote below.  Jacob 102699  (Talk) 00:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No reason to change, and that convention is far from standard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the "2011-2012" convention is far from standard as well.72.53.153.82 (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - by all means change the title if it spills over into 2013; current title is adequately descriptive and not at all misleading. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No need to fix something that isnt broken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I do believe "2011–present" would be slightly more suitable, as we cannot predict if 2012 will be the conflict's final year, and such a name would be consistent with e.g. War in Afghanistan (2001–present). However, I do not feel very strongly about this. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - per TaalVerbeteraar. EkoGraf (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - 2011-present would be more suitable because the uprising is still going on. the title "2011-2012" looks like the uprising was already over. Jawadreventon (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, absent a standard for or against it, the proposed new title is also adequately descriptive and not at all misleading, so no worse than the current title, and is less open to misinterpretation, so does improve ("fix") the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per reason stated above. Sopher99 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kofi Annan ceasefire
Should we note on the infobox that there is at least a ceasefire that is partially going on? Jacob102699 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Over 30 civilians died today, and that does not include the government soldiers ambushed and killed in Daraa today. Don't put the readers under an illusion that there is a real cease-fire, when the same level of deaths that occurred August-December are occurring every day under the "cease-fire". Sopher99 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is nothing compared to 100+ that died everyday before the so called "ceasefire". Jacob102699 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the alleged breaches of the ceasefire, a new stage of the conflict has in fact been entered in which both parties at least claim to be observing a ceasefire and permit UN observers to enter the country to investigate whether a ceasefire is indeed in effect. Such an important change cannot be omitted from the infobox. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

√ Done. Should we make a 3-column infobox to note the U.N. envoy and Kofi Annan? Would this not work because they are not military? It is a civilian conflict infobox anyway, not war. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it would not work. They are a not as third party within Syria. The government is not against them, nor are the opposition. They are not against or for anyone in Syria too. Monitors and peacekeepers don't get a third column unless they work on Behalf of the party who requested them. (In this case neither the gov or the opp requested them). Sopher99 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The UN would have a third column only if they intervined militarily in the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird
When i'm editing the last few times it keeps messing up the lead. Anyone know why it would do this? Is it my computer? Jacob102699 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Use your page as a sandbox first then, then I'll take what you put in your sandbox and add it to the page upon your request. Sopher99 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a server error and i've experienced it several times. Maybe wikimedia technical people should be contacted. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Goltak bias regarding death toll
For weeks now I have seen him only updating the death toll of syrian soldiers dying while ignoring the death of rebels. It shows his bias but he is not required to add all information he has, that's his own choice.

What's more important is that he is jumping on unknown claims made on some unknown arab speaking sites and not related by any other serious media. He added the claims of 80 security forces killed in a minor 2 hour raids near Damascus as if it was a fact.

But now, when a rebel leader says that he lost 2000 soldiers, and the claim is published in reliable publications, he is saying that it should not be added.

Now he is even claiming that the person who disclosed the rebel death toll was not a leader. However, clearly written in the source:

""Maybe this will be the end," said Ammar al Bukiyah, one of the leaders of the Farouq Brigade, the largest group of rebels operating under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army

In August, Bukiyah helped start the Farouq Brigade’s branch in Baba Amr, which the fighters took over, then earned fame for withstanding a month of heavy shelling before running short of ammunition and withdrawing at the end of February.

"Baba Amr was a victory," Bukiyah said. "They could only enter after a month of shelling."

Bukiyah said 2,000 Farouq fighters have been killed since August."

The source clearly states that he is a leader, and even a founder of the largest rebel group. His bias is showing too much and hurting the neutrality of the pages. Today, on another page, he erased a sourced contribution which clearly indicated that the city of al-Qusayr was split in two half, one being controled by the army and the other being controled by the rebels. Brigade93 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would refrain from using the word bias for the sake of assuming good faith but I agree on the point of the 2,000 claimed dead and the report of the city being split. The media sources are reliable so I have reinserted it. The source clearly states that Bukiyah is one of the leaders of the Farouq brigade. When a rebel leader claims such a high number of deaths among his troops it must be true. In regards to the high number of dead reported by FSA commanders among government troops (80 dead example) I would also agree, if SOHR or the LCC or any of the other activist groups hasn't reported that than I don't think its reliable, still we put it in the article but note it hasn't been confirmed by those groups. But I would refrain from summing up those numbers in an infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

biased view
this page is biased with the Syrian regime. Three pictures of pro government demo against two pictures of humble anti government demonstrations while the whole thing started with the antigovernment protests. We had quarter-million demonstration in Hama with very nice pictures why don't you use that ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.102.26 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2012‎ (UTC)
 * I agree partially. The article is about the uprising, the uprising is against the regime, so it makes no sense that half of the pictures in the article being for pro-government demos. The main event happening here is the anti-goverment protests/uprising, while pro-gov protests doesn't have even enough notability, if someone think that it have, does he think that it worthes to create 2011-2012 Syrian pro-government protests article? --aad_Dira (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Biased in favour of the government? You've got to be kidding me. If anything, the Wikipedia articles on the Syrian uprising are generally biased towards the rebels. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is full of bias some try to be neutral but as you can see yourselves its quite the opposite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 28boxhead (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and I do no find it biased at all. In fact I can note the manner in which the fighting at the Cham City Centre near the 6th May street at Tanzeem Kafar Sousah was so clearly described, that there should be no allegations of biased reporting whatsoever. As for TaalVerbeteraar, it takes a brave man to take up arms for the freedom of his country, his community and his family, but anyone can sit in an armchair and dictate the world. So let us not waste breath on such statements and write this article as brothers seeking only truth. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And it takes a regime of unusual evil to try to engineer the destruction of another country so soon after engineering the destruction of Iraq. And it takes persons of unusual stupidity to believe the same lies and the same spin from the same people all over again, and to sit in their armchairs and watch as people in another part of the world kill each other and then decide to make it their hobby to record daily each incident on Wikipedia. Meowy 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article is biased. I agree with TaalVerbeteraar that if it is biased one way or another it is toward rebels or at least the protesters. Not Assad. 90% of the world doesn't like Assad anyway. The media doesn't either. We try to be NPOV and all, but sometimes there are just no sources that even give a neutral point, and we have to have sources for an article like this. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is biased because of pictures? Try reading the text, it's pretty much the opposition narrative. As for support for Assad, try looking outside the West/Gulf states, and you'll see most of the world is actually for the Assads, or at least neutral. Some of us don't fall for the same lies again and again. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In February the UN general assembly passed a resolution condemning the assad government 120 Nations voted Yes, around 20 did not vote, around 20 abstained, and around 20 voted against it.
 * Pretending that a nations decisions represents the feeling of the whole country:

62% (120/193) Do not aprove of Assad Around 13% we do not know their stance Around 13% Are neutral and Around 13% like Assad particularly. There is a 4.5 to 1 ratio of nations who condemn assad to those who particularly like Assad. Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean most nations support Assad? Western powers, Russia, China, and Gulf states are only powers in the world. The only countries allied with Assad are Iran/Hezbollah allies (Lebanon, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.) and Russia. Russia is starting to linger on the edge. China just decided to go against Assad. The neutral countries voting are just third-world countries scared they'll be hated by Iran, or US if they vote for or against. Or they support protesters but not rebels. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Condemning violence is not the same as condemning the regime. Remember, there is an armed insurgency (since the beginning of the protests). South America, East Asia and Africa (including BRICS) is pretty much neutral/for Assad. Russia and China are not "against" the regime when they want observers, they're gaining time. If you guys want to white knight for a truly non-violent cause, go and play on the Bahrain uprising page. I don't get the double standards. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The notion that anyone but rabid sectarian partisans and Western/Gulf governments makes a distinction between the Bahraini and Syrian causes is a real strawman. Yeah, so the American president is a hypocrite on the two uprisings, and so is the Iranian president, but by far the majority of the activists I see online support the uprisings in both countries. Certainly my personal feelings toward President Assad and King Hamad differ little. I don't really care that one is anti-American and the other is pro-American. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The protesters on the ground in Syria are financially and ideologically supported by the Gulf states. I highly doubt they're for the demonstrations in the Gulf. In fact they've stated their praise for Gulf monarchies plenty of times. The protesters you are encountering on the web are probably the Leftist minority among the opposition, who have practically no power compared to the Salafists, and will be irrelevant in a post-Assad Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it's really so far-fetched to believe an autocratic regime controlled by a religious minority could really be opposed by its citizens without them being paid by the Saudis to protest. Come on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No one siad they were "paid to protest". Likewise, the minorities are not paid to stay in charge by Iran or Russia. Don't know where that silly notion comes from. The reality is, Sunnis support Sunnis, Shias support Shias, anti-western powers support anti-western powers, so on. Democracy isn't part of the equation, except for to the leftists, who have been completely sidelined in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, after being used as token useful idiots by Gulf-backed Islamists. I sympathise with these non-aligned secular Leftists, but I'm also a realist. And anything is better than Islamist rule, anything. The world will realise this in a few years, and then it's too late. Instead of funding Gulf backed, religious groups, the West should fund the many leftist/secular groups that have split from the Syrian National Council. But that won't happen, due to Gulf/Turkish pressure. But this is really beginning to look like forum talk... FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya China hasn't said they are against Assad, only that they support the peace/cease-fire process so violence can end. Pretty much by staying neutral BRICS is actually giving Assad time to clean house so to speak. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of rebel fighters killed
Why does the number box put the death toll of rebels fighters at only 600-1100 killed? A founder and leader of the largest rebel forces, the Farouq Battalion say that 2000 rebels have been killed since August in Homs alone. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/19/145941/syrias-farouq-rebels-battle-to.html The number seem very underestimated on this page. Brigade93 (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We use the LCC records (1117 fighters dead) as they are the most accurate. This is the first time we are hearing about a 2000 fighter dead in Homs alone, and that is probably just a rough subjective estimate. I wouldn't trust the numbers. Also the government claims they have only killed a thousand insurgents. Sopher99 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is coming from a leader of the Homs rebels, a source who knows much better how many fighters he lost than pretty much anyone else. The LCC opposition group are hiding the rebels and soldiers deaths, almost never mentionning it. Homs has been a big battleground for months with almost 1-000 security forces killed. The number seems more logical that the present numbers given the scale of the offensive directed against the rebels and given the deat toll of soldiers. Nobody can really believe seriously that 600-1-000 insurgents only died which would be 3-5 times less than the soldiers fighting with bigger troops, weapons and holding the territories. Now we have a clear element showing that these numbers were underestimated. Brigade93 (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With total of 5,500 deaths in whole of Homs, I doubt a number like 2,000 for the armed fighters alone, especially with the shelling focused on the civilian areas rather than a military bases, so most of the deaths would be civilians, and much fewer armed fighters. The armed resistance is not even that large, there maybe was less than 2,000 fighters in Homs before Baba Amr offensive in early February, and now maybe just a few hundreds of them remains --aad_Dira (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC).
 * I think it's reliable based on several factors. The 2,000 figure was not just for Homs city. The brigade has a presence in the whole of Homs province, so the number is for the whole province, the brigade leader never said it was just for the city. Further, the syrianshuhada claimed figure of 1,125 insurgents dead actually contains only former military, no former civilians turned rebels. The FSA has been getting a lot of civilian volunteers in the last few months, just today a report came out that three Tunisians who joined the FSA died in combat. So it is more than plausable that the 2,000 figure includes both former military and former civilian rebels. There is no reason that a rebel brigade commander would lye about something like that that could be damaging for the rebel moral. In any case, we are obligated to add all claims wherever they come from so to keep a NPOV. And I wouldn't really agree that the LCC records are the most accurate or even reliable considering they claim 13,600 dead (not counting government fatalities) while the UN and SOHR claim 9,000-11,000 (counting government fatalities). But we still report on all claims and that includes the LCC one and the brigade commanders one. EkoGraf (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In this article from Al Jazeera used in the Siege of Hom page as a source for the number of rebel fighters, it said that 2 000 fighters were in Bab Amr quarter and that many of them were killed or wounded in the governement assault. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/03/2012334752803236.html With this other source, the rebel commander claim is very believable, if you take account the 7-8 months and the province. The majority of rebel deaths are possibly included in opposition death tolls as civilians. Brigade93 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya, there has already been more than one report that state a number of rebel fighters are being presented as civilian casualties. Those are most likely civilians turned rebels. The opposition isn't even calling the 1,125 killed rebel fighters, instead they are only called defectors indicating they were former military, and the FSA at this point isn't made up exclusivly of defectors anymore, case in point the 5 Libyan and 3 Tunisian volounteer fighters that have been confirmed killed by FSA commanders themselves. Civilians are now joining the FSA as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

btw, Farouq brigade doesn't exist now in Homs province, it actually exists only in one neighborhood of the whole city, which is Khalideyyah, other neighborhoods and towns in the province are dominated by independent brigades and armed groups. Now just a two main armed groups remains in the city of Homs after most of the city regions fell one by one, which is Farouq in Khalideyyah and Qarabeys (Northern Homs) and Al-Ansar brigade in the old city (Center) --aad_Dira (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

I wouldn't expect them to exist in the whole province anymore since they suffered 2,000 dead (per a brigade commander) and a brigade has at the most 3,000-5,000 troops, who knows how many wounded. Although the brigade still has a presence in one more city outside of Homs city, Al-Qusayr. Survivors who retreated from Baba Amr are still fighting of government troops there. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Making political propaganda
"In early 2012, the "Friends of Syria" initiative was established, which resulted in multi-national conference in Tunisia, in order to find a solution to the Syrian crisis. Successive meeting was held in Turkey during April."

I quote the article "Syrian Uprising (2011-present)"

It is located under the "Peace proposals".

Given that the countries that had the meeting. Urges the opposition to not even talk to Assad regime. And had to smuggle in weapons and its intelligence services is in the country of Syria. And out of the meeting came the news to them armed opposition groups would have more weapons. Is it hardly "Peace proposals" Rather, the opposite Inciting violence. My suggestion The article should be changed. A separate section should be dedicated to "friends of syria" countries. There also is written, what they do. And what they said publicly. Which countries these are. And perhaps what some of them more prominent countries known representatives said. As the American Hillary Clinton. To cite just one example. That there are no dialogue before Assad resigned she says.... For this page should be factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinhart567 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1- You are clearly a sock of ChronicalUsual.

2 - The countries never concluded to give opposition weapons, only Saudi Arabia called for that

So basically only 1 or 2 out of 70 countries called for arming. No one ever said squat about smuggling in intelligence services.

Show me a source where clinton says no dialogue before Assad's resignation, its a believable story but I don't believe it from you though.

The peace proposal established in the meeting was this: "please mr. Assad, stop killing your people or we will threaten you with sanctions".

Sopher99 (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong bias in this article
Whether or not one supports the Assad Regime is a personal opinion, but to claim he is resented by the Sunni Muslim Syrians is a flat out lie. He is resented by a lot of them, but what about the massive support he enjoys in Syria's two largest cities of Damascus and Aleppo? Plus to label all Syrian Sunni Muslims as Islamists, as this article does, is inaccurate. The right way to talk about Assad's support would be to say Assad enjoys minority support but also the support of many Sunnis, particularly the more open-minded, cosmopolitan ones. Otherwise the article has a clear bias.


 * response
 * "The more open minded, cosmopolitan ones" I see you are very free from bias (sarcasm). Who says he has massive support in Damascus and Aleppo either? Just because a city does not protest in as great as numbers does not indicate support for Assad, just more denser security forces presence. Take Tripoli Libya for example.


 * Show me one place in this entire article in which says the Sunni Muslims are against him. It only says the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, while the top leaders of the government are dominated by alawites. Sopher99 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a pleasure. In the history part of the article: "The al-Assad family comes from the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam that comprises an estimated 6–12 percent of the Syrian population.[76] It has maintained tight control on Syria's security services, generating resentment among the Sunni Muslim Islamists[77] that make up about three quarters of Syria's population." The Sunni Muslim Islamists do not make up 75% of Syria. The Sunni Muslims might, but the Islamists? Are you kidding me? Not every Sunni is an Islamist, and not everyone in that 75% of Sunnis resents Assad. I keep editing out the second part of that sentence only for you to revert it back. AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs226 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Did not notice the islamist part, took it out. Sopher99 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks a lot better and more accurate now. AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs226 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix it, but my internet goofed... I'm glad someone else caught that Jeancey (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper Citations
I have been fixing this for months and I thought I would explain why, and how to cite news sources correctly. First of all, if it is from a news source, such as BBC News, CNN, Associated Press, etc, please use the Cite news template, not the cite web template. Second, when using this format you do not use the publisher parameter. If it is from a news source that is NOT an agency, you should use the work= parameter. For example, if it is from the BBC, you should use |work=BBC News. Note that it should not be bbc.co.uk, but the actual name. If it is from an agency (reuters, AFP, AP are the main ones), use the |agency= parameter. If it is from a mainstream newspaper, but is originally from the agency, you should use both. The publisher parameter shouldn't be used in the cite news template. If you are citing an AP article, do NOT use google or yahoo, as these die very quickly. Simply search the internet for the title of the article and use MSNBC or something like that. I'm sorry if this seems like a rant, but fixing these references takes a lot of work, and I am trying to nip it in the butt. Oh! and for some reason whenever SANA is used, the title is getting put as Syrian Arab News Agency. If you are citing SANA, please copy and paste the title of the actual article. Thanks!!! Jeancey (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your doing great, but its kind of hard for us if we don't memorize the format... Zenithfel (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This Article Grossly Misrepresents this Issue and is Incredibly Biased Towards the Protesters
I am no Assad supporter. But I do recognize a poor encyclopedic entry when I see one. Virtually every source for this article is from a protester site or link. Even the ones that claim to be from government sources are not. They either link back to sites that are clearly biased towards the protesters or simply don't work. Almost this entire article is written, unabashedly, from the viewpoint of the protesters. The casualty figures are grossly skewed to the point of ridiculousness. I am not trying to deny the unrest in Syria. Certainly there is unrest and certainly there have been clashes and violence. But while it is currently very difficult to to get a clear picture of what is going on, certain things are clear from open sources: the protesters are very loose and unorganized, they do not control any Syrian districts and do not threaten Damascus or the administration, and only are active in select portions of certain neighborhoods. The coverage of Syria has been grossly misrepresented. This article appears to be more an outlet for the protesters than an unbiased, balanced ecyclopedic entry for the Syrian uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can count 9 references, not including a link at the bottom to their collection of events, that are from the government controlled news agency SANA. They work for me, and if you look at the timeline article, whenever SANA reports on deaths, they are detailed there, same as any other reports.  While the page might seem biased towards the protesters, that is only because the majority of sources are biased towards them.  We have plenty of pro-assad sources from SANA, PressTV, RussiaToday, among others.  Please review these links, as they will show that, while not completely free of bias, we are in fact trying. Jeancey (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Are you an administrator?  Because you should have your administrator privileges revoked.  On what planet does 9 out of 329 references even remotely approach a balanced and unbiased point of view?  And I looked up the references that say they are government sources and they were not.  They linked back to various online newspapers.  I understand that the Syrian governmet has not provided much information, but that does not give folks license to write the article based, virtually entirely, on one side of the issue's point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, SANA is not a reliable source, unless they are used as a medium for government announcements like "SANA reported that that the Syrian government agrees to ceasefire".

We are way past the point on debating whether protesters are drugged induced alqaeda terrorists or not.

Also the FSA does control districts, why else would the Syrian government artillery shell them. The Syrian government has reported thousands of their soldiers dead, and dozens to hundreds assassinated. The FSA took all of Idlib, Daara, Deir Ezzor, Hama, and 2/3 of JHoms at one point, but lost half of those territories to artillery shelling and running out of ammunition. In late January the FSA took over the Damascus suburbs, and in late march attacked the Mezzeh area killing dozens of soldiers. Also there is the mystery of who bombed the police stations of midan damascus.

Whether you like it or not, the UN, Arab League, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Avaaz, UN human rights council (all of which condemned the USA for civilian casualties in Iraq and such) confirmed that the Syrian goverment killed thousands of protesters and bystanders, and is now fighting the consequent insurgency. There is no "one side" to this, unless you try to evoke the government's propaganda of drugged induced salifists. Sopher99 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is, in fact, only half of the story. Western media use HRW, Amnesty, Avaaz, UN etc. reports to write articles suggesting that said organizations observed mass human rights violations by the Syrian government. However, if one reads the actual reports by those organizations, one sees that they in fact observed human rights violations by both sides in the conflict. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sopher99, got it. You feel strongly about this issue.  Great.  That's also probably a good reason why you shouldn't be editing it.  And while you may feel strongly about it, that doesn't mean you get a pass on presenting as fact that which has only dubious proof.  Everything you mentioned above is, at the very least, dubious.  Reading something online or in a report, even if it's from what seems like a leliable source, is not the same as getting facts.  Western media, including those you mention above, are extrordinarily biased on the Syria issue.  Do you know why?  Because they are not there.  They write and read like they are there, but they're not.  They're not there because the Syrian government kicked them out.  Their sources are the protesters themselves or ousted government officials.  You can say that's then the government's fault, but that doesn't give free reign to write a one-sided article.  There are some news websites that may be put out from withing Syria, but they are virtually all staunchly skewed towards the protesters.

LOL friend, Nic robertson of CNN went to saqba and other neighborhoods of the Damascus in January and reported live from there that the FSA took control. Paul convoy of BBC and independent Journalist Marie Covin snuck into homs and confirmed hundreds were dying in Baba Amr. Nir Rosen also wnt to Damascus and confirmed that civilians and defected soldiers are fighting an insurgency against the government in response to the deaths.

Then there is Kofi Annan with his OBSERVERS ON THE GROUND who report the killings. So please don't tell me that we have some sort of deficit in objectivity. Zenithfel (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also WESTERN MEDIA? What about the Times of INDIA and the JARKATA post and Al AHRAM online and countless other which all come in line with what our so called "western media" is saying?
 * The UN observers only just got there. Sorry, but you do have a very serious deficit in objectivity.
 * And the UN observers already saw violation of the ceasefire plan. Sopher99 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

On a different note, mr anon ip, why does your ip address say you are operating from the Pentagon? Sopher99 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, why do you think? Because I work at the Pentagon.  Don't act like a super sleuth who just broke the "Government Meddling with Wikipedia Articles" story wide open.  It takes two clicks to figure that out from past articles I've edited.  I like how you used the word "operating" too.  Like you wanted to say I'm an "operative."  That sounds kinda cool actually.  I may start using that.  Lots of people work here.  I'm a contractor, like the vast majority of them.  I push paper from here to there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

All the Syrian pages are incredibly biased
It damages seriously the credibility of Wikipedia when all the syrian related page are taken as hostages by a bunch of very motivated and dedicated internet activists who push every day, every hour their agenda, using their number to overwhelm neutrality. These authors handpick what information they want added and will remove any information, given with a source. By exemple they will try to hide the islamist agenda of many of the opposition, and will try to hide their attack on christian communities and other minorities. Fatah al Islam fighting a battle against Syrian army? It has to be hidden, removed of the page. The weight of other islamists groups? Hidden. Divisions among opposition? Hidden. Atrocities committed by opposition? Hidden. Opposition supporters and other biased users should not be allowed to edit these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.136.34 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All those things are included (other than fatah al islam, which is not in Syria as you claim)

Division amongst opposition... well look at the belligerents section in the infobox... What do you mean weight of other islamist groups, it is actually quite biased of you to think that Islamists are a bad thing. The lede it self already describes human rights violations committed by rebels.... and in either way the violations committed by the Syrian army in relation to the rebels is 100 to 1, so its just that we have 100 to 1 things to say about the syrian army compared to the rebels.

You should also take in to account that we greatly shortened the article, putting large sections of both government human rights abuses and problems within the opposition into their respected sub-article. We can't go near or over 200,000 bytes

It is very POV to say that there is an "islamist agenda" in Syria. Totally a biased statement. We make note that Alqaeda supports the Syrian uprising, that Hamas has fighters fighting for the FSA in Syria, that al qaeda in Iraq operates in Deir Ezzor, that pershmega does to, that the Syrian muslim brother hood plays a large negotiating role, we make note of all these things. But there is no overall "islamist agenda". Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Before starting a section about "bias", mayhap you should check the other 5 archives of the Syrian uprising talkpage to see what has already been discussed and concluded. 14:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fath al-Islam is in Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

main picture
This page is about the Syrian uprising. this event started Feb 17, 2011 and not until few months later that the army was involved and the violence started. all the event started with demonstrations. I have added a photo of anti-government demonstration to the main mulit pictures. the fighter of FSA is still there and the army tank is still there. I hope nobody prefer to see violence and destruction instead of people rising flowers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik.demango (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Change the picture, but don't delete the paragraphs like you tried to do. Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what paragraphs your talking about. but I didn't intentionally tried to delete any paragraph lately( int the pas few months), if any such thing happened it is unintentional. I have just amened the photo description. so what about the picture now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik.demango (talk • contribs) 20:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time huge sections of the Syrian page were changed when a user tried to modify the page. Don't worry ill change the picture. Sopher99 (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik.demango (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Main problem is that it is a fair use image, therefore not free. We should use a free image. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I specified all copyright information of the image.--Erik.demango (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we stop kidding ourselves?
There is no ceasefire. Yesterday over 100 people died, not including any gov soldiers we don't know about. There has not been one day since the ceasefire's implementation that the death toll has been below 30. Both sides say that the other is not following the ceasefire. If they say that there is no ceasefire in place, why include it in the box? Sopher99 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sopher99, don't say, "yesterday over 100 people died." Instead say, "yesterday it was reported in XYZ Newspaper that 100 people died."  And then delve into their source.  Don't just click on a link and scan it.  Find out the name of the reporter.  Who do they work for?  Where are they?  Do they simply site another source?  Track it down.  If you follow it, the sources are likely to either deadend or link back to an online site biased towards the protesters or a protester themselves.  In fact, it's virtually guaranteed to do that.  That's hardly an unbiased source.  I think Wikipedia is extremely valuable, but if folks get lazy it's a joke.  Like this article is a joke.
 * Actually the LCC are in fact a reliable. Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

lolz? You do realize that Kofi Annan and his OBSERVERS ON THE GROUND confirm many are still dying a day and that heavy weapons are still being using against neighborhoods. Why even SATELLITE IMAGERY shows that. Zenithfel (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Arab League Observers a few months ago. Sopher99 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Satellite imagery does not show that. It's easy to type things.  Who are the LCC?  What makes them more reliable?  Are they unbiased?  Who do they represent?  They are, of course, very biased.  They are in direct support of the protesters.  The LCCs help coordinate demonstrations.  The New York Times said they have emerged as an important source.  What does that say about the objectivity of the New York Times?  This isn't a chat board.  It's to discus improvements to the article.  However, most of the discussion on here is very passionate in favor of the protesters.  This is an atmosphere where, I would say, it is impossible to write from a balanced, unbiased point of view.  This is obvious in the result - the article.  Really, this article should get the current events label at the top and be kept much simpler and shorter until more facts emerge.  Actual facts.  Not one side's "facts."  Yes, that may very well take a couple years.
 * Actually Satellite imagery does show that Heavy weapons are still deployed and in use - Kofi Annan even said so. The Atmosphere is not in favor of protesters, its just now that protesting has been confirmed, and that the killings have been confirmed, Much of what the Syrian government has been claiming has become totally invalid. Just by including Human Rights Watch reports you are against the government in their eyes. I am not sure whats so in favor of protesters - I mean They protest, they get killed, both have been confirmed by numerous trustworthy and prominent NGOs. There nothing pro or con about it. *note* I will be gone for the next hour or so . Sopher99 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is satellit imagery that shows that, then post it into the article. Kofi Annan is not a reliable source.  Actually, what I should say is he is only a reliable source if it's YOU or some one you know and trust who's interviewing him.  Fourth, fifth, sixth hand accounts of whatever Kofi Annan said are NOT reliable.  Sheesh, people, this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine!  And it's not just a collection of excerpts from online "news" sites either.  Do you really take as gospel any retreaded story simply because some student Woodward wannabe managed to get a byline in some foreign sounding "news" site?  This entire article is a hodgepodge of that crap.  Scrutinize sources!  Don't believe something is a fact just because someone says it is!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand whats so in favor of the protesters - They protest and security forces respond with live fire, is that an unbelievable claim? 854 people died in 18 days worth in Egypt from just random fire. Syria has 1/4 Egypts population but the largely peaceful nature of the protesters went on for 20 times as long. Now that there are insurgents and ubiquitous defections, the government has resorted to artillery shelling, killing much more than just 20 a day like in the past. Artillery Shelling is not an unbelievable claim either - USA done it Fallujah, Libya done it in Misrata and Sirte, Russia in Gronzy ect. Quite frankly I don't understand how any of this makes it "anti-Assad".
 * Here is the fifth sentence under the "Protests and armed clashes" paragraph under "Timeline": "Activists reported over 100 killings on 19 December, including nearly 70 defectors. The defectors were killed as they were fleeing their military outpost near Syria's border with Turkey. At least 20 other people were killed in Daraa. If the reports are true, it would make the day one of the heaviest single-day death tolls of the entire revolt." Okay, right off it says "Activists reported..."  It's probably a wee bit biased already, right?  But lets look at what they said.  "100 killings..."  Not 100 reported dead.  Not even 100 killed.  But 100 killings.  It is no accident they used the word killings.  Language means something.  Words mean something.  There is no doubt that killings has a much more sinister connotation and that is exactly what the author intended.  Now the number.  100.  Even?  Not a little less or more?  And the defectors were killed too - as they were fleeing.  Shot in the back!  Are you getting the idea?  Not only is this horribly poor journalism, it is very likely theater or fantasy.  Where do I get off saying this?  Well, the very next sentence, that's where.  "If true..."  If true?  Well, if it's not they can pretty much write whatever they want, can't they?  So, even the author didn't know if it was true, but you guys still thought it should go in an encyclopedia entry.  See the problem there?  I picked this example at random.  The article is full of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not sinister, rather the wording is a mistake upon whichever user put that there. Here is what the source says "Activists said security forces killed up to 70 army defectors Monday as they were deserting their military posts near the Turkish border. At least 30 other people died in other violence across the country, the activists said. If accurate, it would be one of the heaviest daily tolls of the entire revolt.". I'll change the sentence to that then. Sopher99 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gee, that's great, Sopher99. You fixed one of about ten things wrong with that citation.  You're not getting it, though.  That citation is plainly biased, obviously exaggerated, self-admittedly dubious, and not from a scholarly publication.  It has no business in an encyclopedia entry.  It should be removed.  The majority of citations are similar.  Right now this article is simply a collection of citations and quotes from any old online news site.  Even if this article wasn't glaringly biased, which it is, it is not at all coherently written.  It is as if the whole thing has been simply cut and pasted together.  Anyway, until someone is willing to sit down and write this seriously the current events banner needs to be put accross the top, all the BS needs to be cut out of it, and the article needs to be left much simpler and shorter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sopher99, according to your talk page, you wrote the "Protests and armed clashes" section. At least initially.  It's the same few editors on this article and they vehemently defend how it is written; and this when the article blatently biased, exaggerated, and poorly written.  At first I figured it was just sloppy work, but now I'm beginning to think it may be an agenda.  Wikipedia is not the place for that.  This is precisely the thing Wikipedia gets criticized and looses credability for.  Right now this article spreads misinformation.  It actually makes the reader dumber.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, a few things... one, baseless accusations never made anyone sound credible. Two, at the moment you are attacking Sopher99 rather than talking about the issues. Three, the article isn't badly written at all. It could be better, but it also could be much much worse. I suggest two things for you:One, Find specific instances where sentences are poorly written or actively wrong and post them here, and present your argument as to why they are poorly written or wrong, with references to what you believe the correct sentence should be, and Two, stop even mentioning other people in your posts, as it makes it look like you are simply disagreeing with everything Sopher99 and other editors are doing, simply on principle. Jeancey (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is frustrating. I have.  Several times.  Read above.  And they're not baseless; I've pointed out why the changes need to be made each time.  Why isn't there a current events banner at the top of this article?  Why are so many of the references to dead links, uncredible sites, or unscholarly sources?  I know Wikipedia generaly views news publications as credible sources, but isn't it obvious this is being abused with the myriad of "news" sites that have popped up on this issue?  Do you really think free-syria.com is a legitemate, unbiased, trustworthy reference?  Right now most of the sections in this article read like lists of citations from these sites.  If those citations are pointed out to be to dead links or rediculous in general, as I pointed out above, shouldn't they be removed?  How are they different from vandalism?  This is an encyclopedia and right now this article reads like it was written for a tabloid magazine or by a conspiracy theorist.  Sopher99 thinks the LCC is an unbiased, reliable source.  The LCC directly supports the opposition.  That's a clear conflict of interest.  Sopher99 has also been admonished several times in the past for making unwarented deletions and unreferenced changes to other articles.  But I guess I'm wasting my breath.  Look who I'm talking to; you said 9 out of 329 references for the government was fair and you think SANA is a government source.  While SANA may be a nationalized news agency with obvious ties to the government, that's not the same as speaking officially for the government.  You both and a few others have defended how the article is written and resisted any effort to make it more balanced.  Any attempts to make it more balanced get trated like they're denyers or government plants.  That is clear from reading the talk page.  And now you're trying to get it protected.  Despite what you'll likely say, the poster below is correct.  The Syrian opposition has been rampant in skewing websites and reporting on this issue.  Why?  Because that's one of the few tools they have.  A lot of this is obvious in this article.  Indirectly, I hope.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow this article as closely as most, but just to respond to some of your points. If the links are dead, and you can find information on a topic from another source, feel free to replace the dead link.  I don't think that the LCC or free-syria are unbiased, but writing an article that tries to be neutral means you need information from both sides.  SANA actually is the official outlet of the syrian government.  All press releases from the government are released through SANA.  If you can find another news source that presents the syrian government side of the story and one that we don't have already, please suggest it.  We (at least me) are trying as hard as we can to present both sides of the story, but that is hard when the syrian government restricts reporting inside syria.  We have majority of the information from the opposition because there just aren't as many sources reporting the government side of the story besides SANA, RT, and a few other sources. As for the current events tag, that is reserved for specific events that have happened within the last 48 hours. For instance, if there was a huge bombing in Damascus that warranted its own article, for the first two days it would have a current events tag.  Overarching articles like this one don't get a current events tag.  The Libyan civil war article never had one, and the Arab Spring article doesn't either.  A better way to approach the links issue isn't just to point out the bad links, but to suggest specific other sources that show the other viewpoint.  If I missed anything you mention, please let me know. Jeancey (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For example, the Syrian government owns a mass shadow militia called the Shabiha, who have the license to kill any one they want, and raid places. It is a common phrase in pro assad rallies to chant "Shabiha forever, for you eyes Assad!". Because of a Mafia explicitly created to crush dissent is running rampart in Syria, of course rights abuses are going to be common in Syria (not to mention Syria has a history of massacre ((Siege of Aleppo, the Hama Massacre, ect)). The Syrian government already ranked very low on Human Rights and very high on Corruption far before this uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the section to be debating that anyway, this is about whether to still include the ceasefire. Sopher99 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The UN's view is that there is an 'incomplete' ceasefire in place. That means, incomplete as it may be, the UN are still calling it a ceasefire. Then so should Wikipedia. Besides, the article already mentions that it is a nominal ceasefire with daily violence still reported; we are not claiming that violence has stopped. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

RFP ?
Should this be protected? Seems that as politically charged as it is, only confirmed users should edit --RichardMills65 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Support There is very little that can be contributed now by anon ips and inexperienced users at this point. Not to mention there is a user out there who self-proclaimed his intention to create multiple accounts to sabotage these pages. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support for the talk page and the article. I was gone the last few days and missed a whole lot. IPs are bugging into this page. Jacob102699 (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support per others. EkoGraf (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support this as well as other pages relating to the topic. Goltak (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - I generally like an open Wikipedia, but with a semiofficial "electronic army" of hackers and internet activists on either side of this conflict, as well as the intensely charged, polarized nature of the conflict, as well as the huge amounts of vandalism this topic has attracted, I emphatically back indefinite protection of this page so that only confirmed users can edit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Indifferent - Haven't noticed too much vandalism, but perhaps it's because I haven't been so active on this page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Sopher99, To get rid of ChronicalUsual socks, they don't even have to be banned, they just have to be reported. Sadly, he'll make another one. We need to find his IP. From some research I've done, I think he's in Bahrain or New York but i'm not sure. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support has it; Gents, please report users who vandalize pages so we can keep up with it. --RichardMills65 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

By vandalizing they mean having another opinion. Sopher99 is very close to be a pro Syrian opposition activist judging by all his contributions who are not neutral at all. Even a couple of admins have called him out on that subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about opinions, this is about facts and neutrality. The only thing that makes me seem like an opposition activist is the fact I contribute to the Syrian page with actual content and greater frequency. You see EkoGraf with all due respect spends most of his time updating casualties. Jeancey spends most of his/her time maknig corrections on References. Gotlak, Guest, Benad, I7laseral and Funkmonk generally aren't as active, and Kuzdu1 spends much of the time on a large variety of pages. Syrian state news is not the first place I look for news in general either, so as long as all sources commit to the RS, I have no incentive to include mass blabber about drugged induced alqaeda salifis allied with Moassad. Sopher99 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I'm wasting my time and I shouldn't even bother, but you do realize, Sopher99, that your last sentence, "mass blabber about drugged induced alqaeda salifis allied with Moassad" reveals your bias. From what I can tell from the revisions, with respect to this article no one has suggested the opposition is "drugged induced alqaeda salifis."  In fact, the only place I see that used is by you - in response if someone questions the glaring bias of this article.  The "allied with Mossad" addition hints at an anti-Israel slant as well.  Your emotional investment in the subject is obvious.  You really probably shouldn't be editing this article.  It does a disservice to the article, the readers, and Wikipedia's reputation.  But who am I to say?  Rules are rules and apparently no administrator has the interest or inclination to bother.
 * I assure you that the government's position is that they are fighting Salifis hired by Mossad. They say they are fighting "extremists" in a "foreign conspiracy" with hallmarks of "Israel". They have claimed alqaeda is responsible for the bombings, and they have mentioned drugs twice. Its not me being biased, its what they actually said. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget me and TaalVerbertaar.:) I try every day to make these pages better and use NPOV. If anybody wants to point out something that is not neutral, they can specifically point it out, not just say "this page is one-sided and NPOV!' We won't know how to fix it. Also, some of these IPs are raising questions because we got one from the Pentagon and some from the Middle East like Bahrain (ChronicalUsual or not). And RichardMills65, we have reported Chronical over and over but he keeps making socks and has a proxy server so we can't ban him. Maybe Sopher99 is aligned with the opposition. That's his personal belief that we're all entitled to and I have too and most people have. Most people don't support killers, but we all have our personal beliefs. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

i placed a template for protection on the article and talk page.--RichardMills65 (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would appear the Protection template must be added by an administrator. Sopher99 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Everyone here needs to read the protection policy. We don't protect articles just because you guys !vote on it, and we don't declare an article to be done and then protect it for all time. We protect articles only if necessary, such as in cases of vandalism - and even then it's not usually indefinite. And there is no justification for it right now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Justification is ChronicalUsual constantly making sockpuppets to vandalize this page. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

VOR
Is Voice of Russia a reliable source? This has been a matter of argument lately and I think it should be on this talk page. I think the VOR is owned by the Russian government, therefore not a reliable source. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This was brought up during the Libyan civil war. Voice of Russia is a perfectly reliable source. Unless the specific article raises some issues, there is no reason why it cannot be used. Jeancey (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We use VOA, which is just as biased, just towards the US, so why not? FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From a historical perspective it is very common for newspapers to generally support the foreign policy, or strategic aims, of the country in which they are based. This is true for VOR and for many papers in the United States as well. We have to use them as sources but should keep the context of their perspective in mind. -Darouet (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then stating that a paper is Russian or some such is enough. We should hold the same standards for American as well as non-American sources. Some American media-outlets are no better than those in dictatorships when it comes to cheering for their government. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We use the BBC and CNN sources, which are from anti-Assad countries. Why not use a source which is from a pro-Assad country? Per the logic you put forward we should question the reliability of BBC, CNN and others. VOA as a source stays because Wikipedia needs to keep its neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All I was saying was VOR is the Russian government's radio broadcasting station We should quote "Voice of Russia reported.........". Same thing for VOA like FunkMonk said. It is a government news radio. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

CW in 2 Governorates
Just to let you know, not for discussion, just news, Red Cross International has just reported that there is a complete civil war going on in Homs and Idlib Governorates. Kofi Annan has announced if his plan fails then civil war will happen through the whole country full-scale. Per Al Jazeera English. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this conflict has pretty much many characteristics of the civil war. We only need to wait until reliable sources start calling it a civil war (though they might be reluctant to call it so due to some political reasons), then the title will be changed. --93.136.179.188 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Deaths" Section
This section needs help. Does there really need to be both governorate and city deaths sections? Why is the whole section scattered with mentions of government fatalities not being included, why are these numbers not included? Why are so many different figures being included? I would like to alter the section to make it more systematic. However, I know this will be a conversational course of action. Thoughts? XantheTerra (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are so many different figures being included because there are many variations of the death toll. We include any relevant claim. (like the Human rights watch, UN, LCC, Syrian government)


 * Some of these claims state that they are only referring to the death toll of the opposition, and that they do not know the death toll of the government's forces. We have to mention this.


 * We did the same thing for the Libyan civil war, a box which included several variations of the death toll. It is unlikely that any one team/group has the exact death toll, especially with such a discrepancy between the Syrian goverment's claim, the UN, and the LCC (a Syrian network of civilians on the ground in Syria.)


 * I see no reason to change it. Sopher99 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems so redundant though. I see no need to included a section on total deaths, then by region and then again by city given that each time the information is hard to verify and deaths in one category are already included in another. I think it would be best to have the various estimated figures for the whole country and then highlight a few key areas. Excessive quoting of different statistics is not helpful given the variation among them. This just means more numbers to verify and update. XantheTerra (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The death toll by city was only added a month and a half ago by someone who just felt it could be useful info. The box about the variations of the death toll we got to keep though.

I don't think the death toll by city is hurting the quality of the article, but if you want to delete you can if the other primary users agree. I am ok with deleting death toll by city, but not death toll by province. Sopher99 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the death toll by city for the following reasons. All data included in it already appears in the tables above it. The data presented would also need to be updated often, which was not happening. And having so many tables was contributing, by my reading, to a rather fractured article. XantheTerra (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We noted by a * in the combatant section that the Syrian Martyrs and The Violation Documentation Centre sources don't include government forces fatalities. And we also stated right before the overall table of deaths that the LCC and VDC estimates also don't include government forces fatalities. So I think it's pretty clear. At this point we include the tolls given by the opposition (VDC, LCC and Syrian Martys), the government, United Nations and a semi-opposition group (SOHR). We include all of them because they all give varrying death tolls that don't add up to each other. I also don't mind removing the city-by-city toll. EkoGraf (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference 289, the reference for the UN reporting 10,000 deaths, is misreferenced. It is a reference to the english language version of the Chinese news website "People's Daily Online." The PDO article does not cite its sources. In order to label the listed number of 10,000 deaths was reported by the UN, primary sources or documentation from the UN must be cited. Any UN official release or paper on findings from the region citing these numbers will do, but it must be from the UN. Otherwise that portion of the reported deaths taple must be either deleted or relabled so it says that those numbers were actually reported by the Chinese site PDO, not the UN. I will make the change if no UN reference is cited. 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it soon. Sopher99 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Arrests and Convictions
Curious about this text in the arrests and convictions section
 * Many news outlets reported that a prominent LGBT anti-government blogger called Amina Arraf was allegedly arrested by Syrian authorities, but questions arose of whether she was a real person in the first place.[297] She later tuned out to be an American man blogging under a false name, who had used a photo of a random British woman as that of "Amina".[298]


 * Zainab al-Hosni, who was claimed to have been detained and beheaded by Syrian authorities, later turned out to be alive.[299]

People thought these events took place, but they actually did not. While I personally find the first story rather interesting I don't know if this is the place for it. The second line is presented without any context at all, and presents barely any of the back story detailed in the link. Do we keep stuff that did not actually happen? XantheTerra (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That hoax seemed significant at that time because it occurred when people still believed that protesters were drugged induced salifists from Afganistan. Sopher99 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I view these facts a picture of the article as a whole. This page is filled with unconnected facts that have no connecting material. How many people hold with the salifist angle now anyway? I for one, think that because this so called arrest of the blogger did not occur, does not belong in the section called "arrests". XantheTerra (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not even a something doesn't occur, the arrest of a blogger is more than a routine a Syria --aad_Dira (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

Censorship: Spill over to Lebanon, Dmitry Medvedev's remark
Substantial parts of my change on the spill over to Lebanon have been reverted.

Firstly, the spill over to Lebanon is important and it belongs into the time line.

Secondly, User:I7laseral claims (without substantiation) that Medvedev's remark during international legal forum in St. Petersburg about the danger of "a full-blown regional war" and the "use of nuclear weapons" was (only) about Iran. This is not true. Medvedev made a general statement and the international media has interpreted it also on Syria, e.g. here.

User:I7laseral can not revert these changes without moving the contents elsewhere.

This is censorship. --Dinarsad (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here you got a report about the U.S. Embassy in Beirut being wary of Syrian spillover. It says, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly met with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati to express her concern about regional events. Isn't this enough of a proof that these concerns are funded?

I will now recover my changes above.

@User:I7laseral: Please not revert my changes again without stating your position on both topics. --Dinarsad (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not censorship. The remark was taken out of context. The remark about full blown regional war, that was about syria, the remark about the use of nuclear weapons, that was a thinly veiled remark about Iran.  I know of no country who has suggested or even mentioned nuclear weapons in regards to syria, and as far as I know, Syria does not possess nuclear weapons. Removing that line does not mean he HAS to move it elsewhere. Trust me, that is not censorship, it just making the article more accurate. Jeancey (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is your private theory, Jeancey. Medvedev spoke generally about "such actions, which undermine state sovereignty". Note also, the sentence in the RIA Novosti report: "The right of nations to choose their own path of development is a universal value, he said referring to the situation in Syria and the Middle East as a whole ahead of a G8 summit." This refers directly to Syria. If you have problems to understand this, the statement by Guido Westerwelle gives you a hint. He spoke about the danger of "Moscow and Bejing" being dragged in. And also Westerwelle spoke directly about Syria. So there can be no doubt that these statements were related to the Syrian uprising and how the international community deals with is. --Dinarsad (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

'''I did not Censor you. The info you put in did not warrant its own section. I took out the Medvedev thing because he was not directly referring to Syria.''' I7laseral (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Check this diff, I put what you wrote into a different section. I did not delete your edits, but changed them in good faith. I7laseral (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)&diff=493587891&oldid=493587675 — Preceding unsigned comment added by I7laseral (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jeancy, the remark by Medvedev was taken out of context. It doesn't matter if he was talking about sovereignty, he was not talking directly about Syria (which does not even have nukes).

Also what you wrote belongs in the foreign involvement section. Furthermore the section name you gave was way too long. I7laseral (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it 100% does not need its own section. The comment about regional war might be put under the international reaction section as a single sentence, but definitely not its own. It just simply isn't important enough of a comment. Russia has been saying the same thing about full blown regional war for months now. Jeancey (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) Please see my reply to Jeancey above. (2) Note, the Russian government (incl. Prime Minister Medvedev) perceives this conflict not as an isolated uprising, but as a proxy war. The same is true for the German Foreign Minister. You may think Westerwelle's and Medvedev's statements are not important and can be left aside, but they did have an influence. Guess why Obama came up with the idea to use "Yemen as a model" for Syria? This was directly after the G8 summit and Obamas speaker even said that Syria was an important topic at the summit. [Here you got] a report on it: U.S. tells G8 Syria's Assad must go, cites Yemen as model. It sais Obama came up with the Yemen model after Medvedev's statements.

If these factors of influence ((1) and (2)) are not mentioned in this article, this is nothing but blunt cencorship.

Note, already (1) is enough to make the cause for Medvedev's statment being mentioned.

How can one campaign for freedom of speech in Syria and at the same time play the role of a censor? --Dinarsad (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this is a broad overview article that is massively too long as it is. We have been trying to cut it down while preserving information for a while now.  A small comment like that certainly doesn't need its own section and doesn't really belong here at all.  We aren't trying to censor anything. If you will look at my comment above I suggested that it go in the International reactions to the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article. It is simply too small of a comment to put in THIS article. I'm not saying it shouldn't be on wikipedia, just not here. Jeancey (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting criteria we find unworthy is not the same thing as censorship. Also Obama's staff had been talking about the Yemen model far before the G8 summit. Its not a result of Russia.

Dozens of ministers have been issuing thousands of statements in the past 14 months about Syria. All of them go into the international reactions page. I7laseral (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

International reactions to the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising I7laseral (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that is article is to long and has to many isolated facts filling the page with excessive citations. We need to work to condense and assemble the information into a coherent article, not added every new facet as it comes in. This contributes to the fragmentation of the article. XantheTerra (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * XantheTerra, I'm with you on condensing the section on the Lebanese events. It is still necessary to collect a relevant set of occurrences and statements, in order to adequately reflect the situation in a coherent article. If the spillover to Lebanon continues, there will probably be a separate article. --Dinarsad (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Spillover to Lebanon" or just "Events in Lebanon"?
I7lasaer believes the term "Events in Lebanon" was "more precise" and argues that a "spillover discribes people from Syria instigating the fight". I think he is wrong: spillover to Lebanon is more precise. Moreover, if I7lasaer's argument is criterion, then clearly we do have a spillover: Here is an article from April 2012 reporting about "Syrian troops crossing the border [to Lebanon] in pursuit of rebel soldiers". Note, the article says it was not the first time the Lebanese border was crossed by the Syrian army.

I think there should be an opportunity to speak about the pros and cons of each view. --Dinarsad (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my personal opinion that the word 'spillover' is more subjective and therefore less precise. Also, the word 'events' is more encyclopedic. It would be okay to use 'spillover' in the text, but I don't think it is appropriate for a heading title. Jeancey (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also like I said, spill over implies that specific actions taken from the rebels/Syrian army from Syria into Lebanon are the cause. Not the case Lebanonese citizens and militia vs Lebanonese citizens and militia. I7laseral (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping "Events in Lebanon" as title. But I can not agree with I7laseral on the interpretation of "spillover". That term fits also, if the fightings are a result of an tectonic shift in Lebanon politics, that was caused by the events in Syria. Here is an example: LBC: Mikati quit Dar al-Fatwa meeting over statement. — The Lebanes Prime Minister left this meeting, as it demanded a statement by the Syrian Foreign Minister regarding "some Lebanese regions along the border with Syria" be denounced. The background is apparently, that the clerics within this meeting feel some degree of solidarity with the groups that were called "members of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood" by the Syrian FM. There was apparently no action from the Syrian side, except this letter to Ban Ki-Moon. --Dinarsad (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The section needs to be cut shorter, it is not in Syria, and there is now an article about it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is now much shorter. Removing "Events in Lebanon" entirely were wrong since both are clearly related. --Dinarsad (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Start date
The lead says 26 January and the info box says 15 March. I believe it's 15 March and have heard this in the anniversary of the uprising on Al Jazeera.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think this event has a set day that we can say it started and would be more comfortable by naming a month. XantheTerra (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on this BBC timeline, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995, I would think it would be march. XantheTerra (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Fatah al-Islam fights in Syrien against Assad
Sopher99 reverted my last contribution and claims there were "an agreement in the talk page archives in which we agreed in consensus not to include fateh al islam". I couldn't find such an agreement. When I searched, I found two discussions with Fatah al-Islam being mentioned. But it was mentioned only as a sideline. Please help me to find the corresponding thread with that "agreement". In the meantime I'll restore my changes. Note, Fatah al-Islam was involved (at least) in the 2006 German train bombing plot. --Dinarsad (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the 2011- present. What happened in 2006 does not matter.

Furthermore they are dubious belligerents - Belligerents who may have a presence of fighting in Syria' but are not official belligerents. I can only agree to having Fateh al Islam in the infobox if Hezbollah is included also, and from then on its gets very messy (like Libya Turkey Hama Pershmega Al Mahdi army Iran ect). A few dozen fighters in Syria does not constitute being in the belligerent box unless they were hired. Only belligerents who were hired or belligerents whose official leader states they have operatives in Syria should be included. Sopher99 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The case of Fatah al-Islam is different, since a known member was killed in Syria. Nothing like that can be said for any of the other groups, apart from maybe the Libyans. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have no sources other than a pro assad minister claiming it. Considering that European/American ministers have claimed Hezbollah to be in Syria, there is equal weight. Sopher99 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The very same source (= TIME magazine) is cited here, which is a anti-Assad site. You'll agree me, after you've read the articles "Sons of Idlib" Part I + II in Comments section at nowlebanon.com. Note, this is the site where Michael Weiss released several articles. Weiss is the author of this article. He argues effectively for a military intervention through a "buffer zone" at the Turkish-Syrian border. --Dinarsad (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you basing the fact that Now Lebanon is anti-assad based on the comments on articles? Because that is ridiculous.  Maybe I misunderstood you. Jeancey (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To make it short and easy: would you call nowlebanon.com and times.com a pro assad site? --Dinarsad (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NowLebanon is owned by the Hariri family, there's nothing to discuss. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thing many accused its of (naturally because it´s strong pro-M14 stance), yet no one up to this day presented any proof. Not even mentioning that Hariri clan and FM already owns several medias they proudly present as their own (same goes for LF). That aside, no matter how I am looking at it, aside of one Fatah al-Islam casultie (and Fatah al-Islam was operating in Syria before) I can´t see much of a proof of group involvement. Same goes for Hezbollah, which participation is sourced mostly by rumours about rocket attack on Zabadani and accusation of other side (it is the same as when opposition accuses Assad of using Mahdis Army, while Assad accuses opposition of beein Al-Queda, reanimated MB military wing and such). Both should be removed. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * FunkMonk has a valid point. In case of Fatah al-Islam we have bipartisan reports about a person that is known by name. I see no reason to doubt the these reports. --Dinarsad (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A few dozen infiltrators do not count as belligerents. The PKK, Pershmega, Al Mahdi Army, Libya, Hezbollah, and Hamas all take part in the fighting, but do not belong in the infobox. Whatever, add Fateh Islam then, but don't complain when I add hezbollah. Sopher99 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can present trustworthy reports about PKK's etc. participation in the suppression of the militant revolt, you can add them. All I could find so far on PKK was a report about a PKK raid against the Turkish army. But the report smells: the "Dörtyol" district is at the very west of the Turkish border to Syria. I have never heard that PKK attacks Turkey in this area. — But anyways. If you have thrustworthy reports on Hezbollah, Iranian revolution guards etc: add them. --Dinarsad (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again on the PKK. Here you got a German language article. It says that since begin of the uprising "between 1200 and 1500" PKK fighters came over the border from Iraq and that they had formed self-protection militia in kurdish-settled areas of Syria. It says even they'd control Kurdish quarters of larger Syrian cities. — But it does not say that they participate in the suppression of the militant revolt. --Dinarsad (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah
I don't get your story about Hezbollah, Sopher99. The first link you've provided claims there had been a rocket attack from Lebanon to Syria by Hezbolla. We can not know if these attacks really took place. All we know is that a FSA-member was telling this story to Michael Weiss as to justify for "rebels’ targeting of power lines and water mains in the country" (side-note: usually terror organisations are doing such things). But anyways. Even if this FSA story is true, it was no accident inside Syria, but an international accident between Lebanon and Syria. The next link (yalibnan.com) reports about a "report by Israeli daily Haaretz" which reports about "Western intelligence reports". (you'll agree that "Western interelligence" is not actually specific). What the article (about the report about the report) says is "that Iranian officers and Hezbollah militants have supplied arms to Syrian troops and trained". This may be true, but if we add all international parties who supply arms and train troops (pro and anti-Assad), we'd get a very long list! What counts finally is that neither these Iranian officers nor Nezbollah have actually participated with the suppression of the militant (or non-militant) revolt. — For that reason, I'll remove Hezbollah from the list. It's simply off-topic --Dinarsad (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1- An attack from inside lebanon on the FSA is still a belligerant action. NATO attacked with planes onto Libya from Crete, still a belligerent.

2- The time's source were not specific, just "have learned form sources".

3- Not an accident, how often does Hezbollah fire rockets into Syria?

Assad's army destroyed half the city of homs including water supply and power lines. Hundreds of thousands of Homeless. (and by the way only terrorists do that *sarcasm*). Sopher99 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here it says, that Hezbollah fired rockets at "civilians near Damascus" . Yet the folks from ynetnews.com apparently don't believe this themselfs, since they write this was a claim(!) by "the Syrian Revolutionary Coordination Union, one of the more outspoken opposition groups in the country". I can not believe that Hezbollah could have known who would finally be hit by such rockets. Do you? — If not, then you'll agree that the whole story is hardly plausible.

(As for "half the city of Homs" being destroyed, I tend to believe that the Syrian army had in Homs a similar problem as the US troops had with Fallujah.) --Dinarsad (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since when did terrorists attack power lines and water manes? I thought they use suicide bombs. Thats beside the point,

“So Hezbollah started bombing us there with Katyushas. They fired around 21 rockets from near Al-Hermel in Lebanon, which is close to the Syrian border.”

Sopher99 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you're also confused. No wonder. I bet you were not able to retell the story in this NOW Lebanon article. Here is the paragraph:

He said that this tactic was not in fact designed to rob the regime of electricity and water but rather to affect Lebanon: retaliation, he said, against Hezbollah’s provocations. “Hezbollah received information that the Iranians who were captured in Homs had been taken to north Syria,” he told me. “So Hezbollah started bombing us there with Katyushas. They fired around 21 rockets from near Al-Hermel in Lebanon, which is close to the Syrian border.”

Let me summarize: (1) Iranians were captured in Homs and had been taken to north Syria (2) Hezollah received information about that and fired 21 rockets from Al-Hermel in Lebanon to Homs

So, the Syrian certainly relies on Hezbollah to attack Homs? Not plausible.

The next paragraph claims seven Iranian nationals were in FSA custody, "five of them, the rebels insist, are members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) brought in to assist Assad’s Air Force intelligence in sniping".

If that is true, we may assume that FSA has made this public — somehow.

Here is a blog article that links a video that fits to the "IRGC members captures by FSA" story. The blog is quite sceptic. Read through it. You'll find they understand Arabic language and monitor also PressTV. A second source where I found this video is alarabiya.net. Not convincing to me.

Obviously both stories are just rumors, that were spread by intend. --Dinarsad (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here a new article from today, where the "seven Iranian engineers were also abducted near central Homs city" are mentioned. If it were generally believed at NOW lebanon, that Michael Weiss' portrayal is true, this article hadn't been written as it was. --Dinarsad (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)