Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
No article on this war should contain citations of "]", who has finally been exposed as a paid stooge, and of withholding facts. Another in a long line of western mercenary "journalists" (], ], etc.) who have been exposed recently. ] (]) 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No article on this war should contain citations of "]", who has finally been exposed as a paid stooge, and of withholding facts. Another in a long line of western mercenary "journalists" (], ], etc.) who have been exposed recently. ] (]) 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
:Your sources are another blog (with a very POV) and a website made by a party to the conflict. Not exactly sufficient to purge everything. ~~ ] (]) 17:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
:Your sources are another blog (with a very POV) and a website made by a party to the conflict. Not exactly sufficient to purge everything. ~~ ] (]) 17:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
::Just wait a couple of days, and it'll spread around. After all, Higgins himself has tried to explain his comments without even trying to claim they're fabricated. ] (]) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
::Just wait a couple of days, and it'll spread around. After all, Higgins himself has tried to explain his comments without even trying to claim they're fabricated. Vandyke has gone completely nuts on the other hand, and is suspiciously defensive on his Twitter profile. Good times. ] (]) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Syrian civil war received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Error: Target page was not specified with to.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Great news, but does this mean that the article is now un-protected and that people are now allowed to edit it? By the way, why was this article protected in the first place?
I'm also glad that the not-informing, mysterious tag is removed. I think it is okay to leave the article 'protected', to keep destructive editors at distance. I don't know though what the official reason for the protection is. "Sockpuppetry" (Sopher) stands not in my dictionary: can anyone tell us in normal English why this article officially is protected? --Corriebertus (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
This again? The issue has been resolved. I have already addressed why the article is protected, but I will say again: the article is written about a sensitive issue that is subject to a high probability of vandalism. It is not difficult to become autoconfirmed, kindly stop bringing this up in unrelated paragraphs. UncappingCone64 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Why this haughty tone, Uncapping? If you criticize someone, at least show the decency to make clear whom you are criticizing. If it was me: I was reacting on a remark here of Sopher, and that seems to me a legitimate thing to do. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting how "UncappingCone64" failed to reply, almost as if some people do not welcome having to explain their actions. That said, was not this section to be protected, until the issues that led to it being protected are settled? Clearly, vandalism is of real concern, but this is the case with many such issues. Unless someone knew better, it might seem that access to the Syrian section was limited - to prevent questioning of the 'freedom-loving' FSA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.96.95 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No sir: criticism on FSA is surely welcome in this article - if it comes from an 'important' source! Which means: criticism of just one or two Misplaced Pages-editors is indeed not welcome in the encyclopedia-article. That's why we are an encyclopedia, and not just some free-discussing website-forum. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
neutral article should contain a link to the source of information by Assad http://sana.sy/ this website is available in multiple languages
It seems as more news roll in about Israel's attacks against weapons and technology for Hezbollah in Syrian territory would classify them as co-belligerent to the Syrian rebels. They completely fit the definition of co-belligerent; they are attacking a common enemy without any kind of political or military treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.181.159 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Why are you repeating the propaganda about the weapons being "for Hezbollah" ? It's absurd, they are weapons delivered by Russia to the Syrian regime. I don't see why we should repeat whatever reasoning Israel gives for attacks in violation of international law. Did the weapons arrive in Lebanon? Of course not. They are weapons Syria bought from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I also agree; Israel's reasons for aggression against Syria are irrelevant in that they do not prevent Israel from being a co-belligerent. Whether Israel wants the rebels to win doesn't affect its status as a co-belligerent. However, Israel's position is shown in the "others" link in the rebel column of the infobox. (It is not currently listed as part of the main conflict). DylanLacey (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I bet the news media about Israel vs Hezbollah is lies but be that as it may, we have to trust the sources and they state that Israel is combating against them for said reasons. So regardless of the truth, it does NOT change the fact that Israel is co-belligerent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.181.159 (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
No arguments were refuted, the discussions just stalled. Furthermore, seems AIPAC is one of the few American organisations still pushing for the US to intervene in the war. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's their own problem. They helped the fledgling Hamas as well to weaken PLO, and look what that got them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Who cares about Israeli motivations, don't change the issue here. Israel is clearly a co-belligerent and even random people reading the article are puzzled as to why the news keep talking about it, and no mention of it is made in Misplaced Pages's infobox. It is a disgraceful example of bias on this project, pushed by pro-rebel partisans who deem it "unsightly" to list Israel in the the same column as the islamist rebels. No doubt there's the calculation that such a listing isn't helpful to the islamist rebels. -- Director (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
My POV supported, by many people, that Israel is a failed state, a parasite of the USA does not count here. Of course Israel is clearly a co-belligerent and it should be in the info box. Just do it. Blade-of-the-Southtalk23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Israel is probably the most "successful" state on the planet, but that doesn't make their foreign policy any less militant, or the state itself any less involved in this conflict. And talk like that isn't very helpful, it just makes it sound like you're acting out of some preconceived hatred or bias.
I have no problem with including Israel myself, as I had several times before, but lets wait a couple days to see if there are any objections. There usually are. My money is on the proposition that the only reason the motion isn't WP:STONEWALLED is because the right kind of folks just didn't notice this thread. -- Director (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I also don't have a problem as such with adding Israel, but I'm curious on which sources this is going to be based on. Moreover, I think it might be a good idea to make explicit here on what criteria the decision to add Israel is made. If it is based on the fact that the Israeli state was active against the Syrian state? If so then do we not also have to mention for example Turkey? Is it the fact that the Israeli state was active against on Syrian soil? If so then do we not also have to mention for example Saudi Arabia? Is it the fact that the Israeli state has engaged in agressive rhetoric against the Syrian state? If so then do we not also have to mention for example the US? And so forth. I think that doing this beforehand will ensure the durability of these inclusions. --Tomvasseur (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Sources abound, and that's not really an issue. The criteria for inclusion are infobox-specific and are pretty much the same all over the project: military action. But lets keep focused on the issue of Israel and discuss each state separately. Though I agree of course that universal criteria are absolutely necessary. -- Director (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. "Everything now or nothing at all" is of course not a good way to go about this. I would then suggest in the meantime these two BBC articles shown below as basis for involving Israel as a belligerent. That only leaves the question of in what column to place Israel. Is a 4th one to be added or is it to be added in the column "Syrian opposition" with a heading making clear that it is not with the opposition? --Tomvasseur (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
How about a separate infobox altogether for international incidents? Israel is not the only one in the border conflicts - Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq all suffered or inflicted casualties. Sopher99 (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I oppose adding Israel or the other countries into the infobox - as this is not their civil war, and in regards to Israel it is simply a continuing conflict from before the war, like the kubair bombing.
A new infobox would make it clear to the reader the limited involvement of the countries, and is the only real solution I am willing to support. Sopher99 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Sopher99, since I've discussed this with you in the past, I know that your only purpose in making this very strange proposal is to avoid listing Israel near the islamist rebels. No conflict article on this entire project has two infoboxes. One is bad enough, two is imo just out of the question. If countries are sourced as having participated in this conflict with their military forces, then each and every such participant warrants its entry, but, if necessary - with a note that briefly explains the limited nature of said involvement. Main participants can be struck in bold, marginal ones can be pointed out as such. The military conflict infobox is here precisely to convey those who have engaged in a conflict with their military. Countries that did not engage in the military conflict need not be included at all in the military conflict infobox (they can be, and I won't insist on this, but really "as a rule" they shouldn't be in there). Here we're talking a dozen countries at most on all sides. Incomparably more complex conflicts than this one were covered just fine with one infobox... I've been writing-up these sort of templates for years and I can't even imagine a viable solution along such lines, even were it not inconsistent with the usage of the infobox throughout the project.
But again, we're here discussing Israel specifically.
Its important to remind everyone that the vertical separations between columns of the military conflict infobox indicate - military conflict. Those listed in a column are there by virtue of nothing other than their having fought the people on the other side of the vertical separation. They need not at all be allies with the others in the column. In such a case a single horizontal separating line within the column is used to disassociate them. This is the standard way (, etc. etc...) and ought to be enough for any user afraid to associate the rebels and Israel. -- Director (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that having 2 infoboxes is silly. Also, we don't need to include minor border clashes in the infobox. That's just undue. As for Israel being a co-belligerent, we've been through this. We're repeating the same arguments over and over again, and you guys don't seem to be getting it. Does the 2009 Israeli airstrike on Sudan make it a co-belligerent in the War in Darfur? Does the 1981 Israeli airstrike on Iraq make it a co-belligerent in the Iran-Iraq War? Of course not. Israel is not involved in either of two conflicts. They're just coincidental events. This situation is no different. Israel has attacked Syria in 2007, before the civil war began, and will likely attack Syria again after the civil war ends. Israel's conflict with Syria has nothing to do with the civil war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That was my initial train of thought as well & I am tending back in that direction again. However, I'm not so sure if these incidents do indeed make them fall outside of the conflict, but I propose to follow the example of other articles on contemporary conflicts for now and maybe on the longer term we can decide inclusion or exclusion of states in the infobox based on whether or not they have a combat mission on Syrian soil. --Tomvasseur (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@FT What, in your opinion, is it that makes a "co-belligerent"? Because, even if we had non-arbitrary criteria for what makes a "co-belligerent", it would still be irrelevant whether or not the term is applicable to a faction. How do you define a "co-belligerent"? and who says that only those factions qualifying for the category of "co-belligerent" warrant inclusion? You see, I hope, the flaws in this line of argument. Not only could we argue until the cows come home what is or is not a "co-belligerent", but there's no reason to think the applicability of the term even matters.
Without objective, universal criteria for inclusion in the infobox, not only is it highly unlikely that a WP:NPOV infobox will be be put together (as neutrality is objectivity), but all discussion on the subject is more-or-less pointless. It boils down to personal perceptions and subjective ideas, and one can't argue things of that sort. Such as in your post above, where you decide that a faction need be a "co-belligerent" to be included, and then proceed to define said category according to your own perceptions. This is wrong.
That's why my position is, and always has been, to follow objective, non-arbitrary criteria as presented in the guidelines of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Criteria which, in spite of a few oversights here and there, are basically in use all over the project, and constitute the only criteria that matter when discussing that template. There you'll find no requirements that a faction be a "co-belleigerent" or whatever - merely that it be a "country whose forces took part in the conflict". And I see no reason to exclude any of the maybe dozen or so factions altogether "whose forces took part in the conflict". If there were forty or fifty of them, maybe we'd have an excuse, then maybe we'd have to group them, or exclude the less involved factions - but there are no such considerations here. The exemplary infobox in the World War II article lists 34(!) various factions, and could easily accommodate quite a bit more without looking crowded.
I can perceive no reason at all to exclude anyone who chucked a hand grenade at a Syrian soldier or rebel, if necessary - with the customary note explaining the limited scope of their involvement. Its informative, it chimes with infobox guidelines, and there are few who qualify. -- Director (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I support inclusion (as always), and it is even more clear now that Israel is one of the few "western" countries that benefits from an eternal war in Syria, and keeps pushing the US to intervene. Everyone else has gotten tired of the "Syrian opposition" and their endless hubris, and just wants this over with. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Direktor, didn't reply as you specifically directed yourself towards 'FutureTrillionaire'. My issue with the template is that it still does not say what constitutes "participating in a conflict", but I can see how your criterium can be derived from that template so until somebody comes up with something more convincing based on the template I see no problem with adding Israel. To FunkMonk I would say that the question of if Israel would or would not benifit from war in Syria, the question of the extent to which it does want the US to intervene, the question of what 'everyone else' wants are irrelevant whith regard to whether or not Israel should be included in the infobox, because that has to do with whether or not what the Israel military has actually done on Syrian soil can be called participating in the conflict. --Tomvasseur (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@FunkMonk, while I personally believe you're generally correct, I would not presume that such personal opinions should impact Misplaced Pages content in any way. I am not basing the proposal for universal infobox criteria on such considerations, but merely on what infobox guidelines suggest. That is to say: the Israeli military undertook some actions against a faction in this war? well then, unless its too crowded - lets have them in there (with a note if necessary). That's how far we should imo take any discussion, as beyond that we enter into the realm of subjective perceptions, i.e. of bias by definition.
@Tomvasseur. I certainly didn't mean anything by it, my apologies if any offense was taken. I'm glad we're generally agreed on the issue of Israel, and while I do take issue with the "soil" definition of a war, I do believe such debates are pretty much moot in this case, as (if I'm not mistaken) every participant that can possibly be considered is considered because of participation on Syrian soil. Israel, for example, is already since 1967 in a continuous state of war with Syria, and has since that time been standing on what is de jure occupied Syrian soil. Not to get sidetracked, it seems that by both definitions Israel at least is a participant. -- Director (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
First off you don't have consensus, many people such as Eko, Future, myself, and other people in the past have been part of a slight majority and at many Times a Significant Minority. You couldn't even get consensus from a RfC or a Dispute resolution.
From the Template:Infobox_military_conflict guidelinbe combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article.
Israel is not an active belligerent and therefore is not noteworthy enough for the Infobox. There is nothing to say Israel is even part of the fighting.
As for Tom I ask you to reconsider the position of Israel. It would make much more sense put Israel on the established "other" list - as with all groups that have had a limited or small involvement ,including that of aid supporting nations like North Korea. Sopher99 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"I am going to say this": The number of supporters and opposers of Israel in the infobox depends on how many pro-insurgents you have on the talk page at any given time. Therefore it is not a matter of sources, or even reason, just on sympathies. We need to base it solely on sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How about Israel strait out denying being a part of the Syrian civil war? phttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/27/for-israel-intervention-in-syria-s-civil-war-is-both-a-moral-imperative-and-a-security-risk.html] That settles that. Sopher99 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
So yeah - on top of the fact there is no consensus, Israel is not a belligerent, the guidelines saying not all partakers of a conflict have to be in the infobox, and the fact Israel would be much better suited to be just on this page, we have the Israeli government strait out denying being part of the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Lol, who cares what Israel "denies"? They deny having nuclear weapons as well. Israel is a belligerent to everyone but those who find it embarrassing for the insurgents to be fighting on the same side. That's about it. You never see Islamists from all over the world flocking to defend the Palestinians for some reason. At best, a few international Leftists have taken up that cause. FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@FunkMonk. Israel's denial is indeed entirely irrelevant for our current considerations, but not because "Israel lies" or something like that (most countries do), but because to take their position as fact would be WP:OR based on a primary source. A source that merely reports what the Israel states is of course, not a source that itself denies Isareli military involvement (which is pretty much incontrovertible).
@Sopher, your only real 'argument' is to repeat "there is no consensus!!" and then engage in WP:EDIT WAR. I've yet to see you write a coherent, relevant argument on this subject. No amount of consensus would be "consensus" for you. And let us recall that you already agreed to include Israel at one point.
I won't start an RfC if you're the only one in opposition. And if you start canvassing I won't rest until I finally see you sanctioned for it, and you can take that as a threat. -- Director (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
A lack of arguments as Direktor said. For example you said that "Israel is not an active belligerent", but you do not argue why that is the case and what the consequences are of that. What is the difference between an active belligerent and an inactive belligerent and why does the first warrant inclusion as opposed to the second? Is it because Israel military actions have 'only' been 'incidental' and not part of a combat mission? If so, would repitition of instances (the last instance being a the 1st of november) of military action by Israel against the Assad regime at a certain point warrant inclusion of Israel? If so, then why is the number of instances right now not sufficient to include Israel? Moreover, if it is not an active belligerent at this moment does that mean that it should not be included despite actions of the past? Does that mean that other belligerents have to be removed once they become inactive. And so forth. --Tomvasseur (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would not mind to classify Israel as co-belligerent against the Syrian regime – but for such classification we need an aggressive act of Israel against the Assad-regime. Agression against Hezbollah belongs not in this article but in article Hezbollah; there really is no need to bring The Whole World into this one Wiki-article. (An encyclopedia is an organized organism, remember.) And by the way: if you want to put Israel up as involved in this war, you should do that in article Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war. In that article under
Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war#Support for the opposition#Other parties, Israel is mentioned, but not as ´supporting the opposition´ (which makes that remark ill-placed in that subsection!) --Corriebertus (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not disputed that Israel undertook aggressive acts against the Assad regime (I dare say no one would suggest including Israel otherwise). What you seem to be referring to are some of these actions against the Syrian Army that are claimed to have been conducted to hinder arms shipments to the Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a participant in this conflict and an ally of Assad: bombing one ally to weaken another ally, both of which are fighting this war, in either case suggests you're a combatant. Then there are the other actions that are not even claimed to have Hezbollah as the target..
I must also again caution against an or-or approach. Military action can be, and very often is, part of more than one conflict or war. -- Director (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
See the two BBC links above for instances of aggressve acts against the Assad regime by the Israeli military during the period of the civil war. --Tomvasseur (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Tomvasseur, I thought I explained quite well that Israel, not being a co-belligerent, would go on the list of armed groups.
We don't have sources calling Israel either a combatant, a side, an active fighter, or a belligerent, in the war. That Tomvasseur, is the guideline reason why Israel is not a belligerent. Even if we had one source, one source is not enough.
Furthermore there are no sources which say the target of the airstrikes was for the Assad regime, but we have many sources saying it is strictly for weapons shipments to Hezbollah.
Finally I see alot of people shrugging off Israel's denial - yet I don't see anyone talking about the Syrian regime's denial. Sopher99 (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Here comes the inevitable flood of silly and absurd spam posts by Sopher. Fake, falsely labeled links, non-arguments - the works. What's worse, the man doesn't seem to understand what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is here for. Take a hike please, Sopher. -- Director (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
They are not falsely labeled. Those labels are summaries - you know, what titles are usually there for. Please read past the first sentence. Also please don't blindly label something OR when you don't even bother to read. As for "taking a hike"? I am certainly not leaving this page to your rambling pov pushing nonsense backed by your stuck-up attitude. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@"There are plenty of combatants in this conflict who killed way more people than Israel did in this war listed here." - Yes. So...?
@"Israel, not being a co-belligerent, would go on the list of armed groups." - As far as inclusion in the infobox is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the term "co-belligerent" can be used for Israel, and even if it did - you are not the one to decide who is such and who is not. You have been told this a hundred times. Lets see how long it will take before we hear "Israel is not a co-belligerent!" from Sopher99.
@"We don't have sources calling Israel either a combatant, a side, an active fighter, or a belligerent, in the war. That Tomvasseur, is the guideline reason why Israel is not a belligerent." - if you recall from my debunking these same phony arguments before, not a single one of the other entries in the infobox has such statements in its references. I've also searched extensively off-Wiki, and sources that make such an outright statement apparently do not exist at all - for any faction whatsoever. Fortunately, we don't have to listen to Sopher and empty this infobox (along with 99% of others of its type on this project) - as none of these labels have anything to do with inclusion in the Military conflict infobox. Military action does.
@"I don't see anyone talking about the Syrian regime's denial" - Do not insult everyone's intelligence and attempt to defraud other users with dishonest sourcing: "Damascus officials rebuff American officials’ claims that Israeli warplanes hit advanced Russian-made missiles. Syrian officials on Saturday denied reports that Israel had been behind an attack on an arms depot in Latakia a week ago." - This link concerns one specific claim by US sources that is denied by the Syrian government. And the alleged event is not cited as an argument for the inclusion of Israel. To label this link "the Syrian government denies that Israel is a belligerent or involved in fighting" is shameful and fraudulent.
As I said, nonsensical statements in bad English, phony repetitive arguments, and fake sources intended to deceive those who do not bother to check. I do not discuss with POV-pushers of such caliber, Sopher99, as it is invariably a pointless endeavor. All such biased spamming does is clutter the talkpage with nonsense, and this is my last reply to you on this subject. As I said, I don't think we need another RfC if Sopher's "arguments" are all there is. -- Director (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that statement from the source. And include Israel on account of what military action it has decided to go through. Not seeing the relevance of whether that constitutes an "active" role or not, still less whether Israel has "decided" to pursue it. We have the US in there, for goodness sake, under the appropriate label. As I said before, the major factions of this conflict are not numerous at all, and we can easily list any country that's ever chucked a hand grenade down there - with the appropriate label. What I'd like to hear is a reason not to. -- Director (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
AP report -"Israeli warplanes have attacked a shipment of Russian missiles inside a Syrian government stronghold, officials say, a development that threatened to add another volatile layer to regional tensions from the Syrian civil war - Since the civil war in Syria began in March 2011, Israel has carefully avoided taking sides, but has struck shipments of missiles inside Syria at least twice this year. - the language in RS is hardly that with which this section began - "It seems as more news roll in about Israel's attacks against weapons and technology for Hezbollah in Syrian territory would classify them as co-belligerent to the Syrian rebels." the very illiteracy of the sentence rings alarm bells - - it seems to me the Misplaced Pages article should resist the desultory crappy 'globalresearch' type angle of comprehension and stick with RS.Sayerslle (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all enWikipedia readers are native English speakers, Sayerssle, that doesn't mean they're "illiterate". In response I say again: OR interpretations and claims (even were they uncontested) on whether Israel is an "active participant" or "co-belligerent" or has "taken a side" or any such labels and phrases are not relevant to the issue of inclusion in the MC infobox. -- Director (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
how is citing Associated Press OR? the infobox is for the 'civil war' - if RS describe Israel as not involved in taking sides in the civil war, but involved in actions that add 'a layers to regional tensions from the Syrian civil war' - then that seems a nuance that should be attended to. you and the 'globalresearch' mindset, are obsessed with Israel in a way that RS simply aren't imo , in this war. if wp follows avid 'globalresearch' obsessive types it would be wrongheaded - just my opinion.Sayerslle (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not see how its a nuance with relevance to this issue? Nobody is proposing the inclusion of a contrary claim or anything of the sort. Switching the discussion to a pointless squabble on the applicability of various labels is not helpful imo, and I don't think anyone can diapute that Israel hasn't "taken a side" nor does that matter, etc. The military conflict infobox is about military action. Even factions that haven't undertaken any military operations are often included under an appropriate label, let alone such as have done so repeatedly. -- Director (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
well whatever - the more I see infoboxes the more I think maybe they are mis-info boxes anyhow, - if anyone wants to understand conflicts its a lot of thinking and reading basically, not glancing at a box of flags - especially when pov interests are at work - I looked at the Lebanese Civil War infobox because I'd just read a sentence about the situation there in the 70s and it said ' Syria was drawn in on the side of the Christians' - hafez assad and the Christian Phalangists together - - well, I don't know anything about the Lebanese Civil war but if that sentence has truth in it you wouldn't get any sense of that reality in the mid 1970s from the infobox there. indeed I believe lovers of the House of assad are everywhere making lies of articles in a way. that's my paranoia. dis-info boxes. mis-info boxes. Sayerslle (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It is kind of a good thing to have basic knowledge about a subject before gulping up ridiculous conspiracy theories about it. As for the relevant issue here, the problem is a lack of outside voices, we basically just have the same bunch, Sayersll, Future and Sopher blocking anything that may damage the reputation of the glorious Mujahideen. Is anyone on the other side even pro-Assad, more than just anti-Salafist/Zionist? I doubt it. Assad as a person is irrelevant, he is just a rallying point. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
BBC newsnight just said - people fleeing Raqaa see Assad and ISIS as equal enemies,- serving each others interests in reality. complexities - one said 'they are Assad in black' -both are equal enemies of their freedom, - complexities versus your flattening povSayerslle (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You call that complexity? Sheesh. It's just how multifaceted wars work. I find Americans cheerleading for random factions in random civil wars far more perplexing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Lets not get sidetracked. @Sayerslle, I agree completely re infoboxes, and years ago I tried to get rid of them where I found myself involved. Later I realized they're not going anywhere, and that all one can do is try to improve them and render them less misleading. That's ironically how I became an infobox editor. Fact is - they're here to stay, and if we must keep them, one of the most important things that can be done is to standardize their usage and render them at least consistent to some degree. If a Wiki reader finds an infobox used in one way throughout most of the project, and in another way in an article like this one - then it is indeed better to just scrap the whole thing. The way this box is used (both in terms of standard practice and usage guidelines) Israel simply can't conduct military operations and stay excluded. By virtue of military action alone. -- Director (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
yes but whether you are an 'infobox editor' or not the WP:RS can't be sent off down a sidetrack -the RS ref for example from AP -"a development that threatened to add another volatile layer to regional tensions from the Syrian civil war" - not within, not in the civil war - so the actions are not reported in RS as intrinsic to the civil war - if you belabour the point that infobox rules nevertheless insist that Israel be placed allied to the terrorists and all other elements hostile to the peaceloving progressive secular tolerant non-sectarian democratic house of Assad , I just think I cant agree with you. Now I have to go and try and understand why Assad supported Amal militia were busy killing Palestinians in Bourj-al Barajneh in southern Beirut in 1985-86. btw , the flag of Druze should probably be in the infobox as they are involved intrinsically it seems inside the civil war -Sayerslle (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not here to discuss who's the "good guys" and who the "bad guys", and frankly I don't care. Assad is a brutal Alawite dictator and his opponents are Sunni fundamentalist fanatics. Take your pick. I'm just your average atheist abomination who finds it all annoying... though you seem to have quite an emotional stake here ("I'f you think Assad is fine then I just can't agree with you"). The only thing I care about is the quality of the project to which I've devoted so much time.
I repeat once more that the reliability of the sources and the quoted statements - are not in question, but rather their relevance for the inclusion of a faction in the military conflict infobox. I.e. nobody is suggesting these sources be sent off "down a sidetrack".
But that sentence you quote, I have to say, is particularly without any relevance here whatsoever. Not only would "regional tensions in the Syrian civil war" not make any sense (as "Syria" isn't a "region"), but the idea that the quote somehow indicates Israeli non-involvement is OR - and implausible OR at that. User conclusions drawn on top of a sentence that doesn't even discuss the specific subject, but talks about possible effects of Israeli military action on the wider region. That source might just as well be used to argue for the inclusion of Israel with about the same weight (that is little or none).
So I again stress that military action in and of itself, sans the labels "taking sides" and all the rest, more than satisfies criteria for inclusion. For goodness sake - even the US is in there and they haven't fired a shot. See what I mean? -- Director (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No the flag of the Druze, or any other sect, should not be in the infobox, because they are not represented in this war as a sect, but by specific armed groups (that happen to be mainly pro-Assad, by the way). As for Syria supporting Amal against Palestinians, hell, they supported Amal against Hezbollah too, how's that for complexity? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Eh, yes, and so was your example. As for decision, easy, those that resist Zionist hegemony in the region are more sympathetic than those that serve it. Oh, and if ISIS continues like this, they'll have my vote! FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Name calling is too easy (Elizabeth O'Bagy (born same year as me!) is your equivalent, though she actually lies). Anyway, you're the one asking questions, so expect answers, or simply don't ask. Pretty simple. To get back on track, Israel is a consistent player in this conflict, never attacking the rebels, only the government, and this says a lot. They've even helped wounded rebels, for Yahweh's sake. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
'name calling is too easy' - then you say 'for Yahweh's sake' - I'm not surprised you like ISIS now - like newsnight last night ,this man said at 31:03, 'they are the new dictators, just like bashar-al-assad, but dressed in black, only the colour has chnaged'. . Sayerslle (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The topic here is Israel, which is a country and undoubtedly an independent combatant authority. Other factions are for other threads when or if the time comes to discuss them. -- Director (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
where will the flag go exactly? I think you and I don't read the AP article I linked to in the same way - to me its like you are saying any action at the time of the civil war must of military infobox laws of necessity be regarded as intrinsic to the civil war ,- no matter how RS characterise actions- i read RS as consistently saying Israel actions consign it not to a Syrian civil war infobox but to a ' National/religious identity based attacks in Middle East 2011-2013' infobox - something like that. Sayerslle (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Its just like when Israel attacked Sudan's facilities. Its not part of Darfur, not part of the southsudan conflict. Just an attack separate from the war. Not even a good minority of sources describe israel as a third party to the conflict, plain and simple. The most you can do is put Israel here List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_civil_war - where many other groups of limited involvement belong. Israel is not even limited involvement, its a whole separate issue. Sopher99 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
@Sayerslle. Military action in the relevant theatre of war, its not a complicated business. It must be kept in mind that this is a military conflict infobox, not a "war" infobox. Its there to depict - military conflict. As regards to your other point, thinking in 'either-or' terms is a trap to avoid. Military action is very often part of more than one conflict, and of conflicts on a larger "level". If Israel warrants inclusion somewhere else for actions presently discussed, then that's a topic for that article. Inclusion here in no way impacts inclusion elsewhere. As for where the {{flag}} template is to go exactly, that's a topic of its own. I'd show you but I don't want to touch the article while we're talking.
@Sopher... As I said just above, Darfur is a subject for Darfur and for the "southsudan" conflict article. The very idea of including the State of Israel into the "armed groups" list is absurd beyond words. As for your arbitrary demands and random claims about sources, they're not something I want to waste time on. I challenge you to present a single solitary source that states the Free Syrian Army or the Assad regime are "combatants" or "parties to the conflict", not to speak of any "significant minorities" of sources (which again is a term you define, blah blah... etc.). After that we can discuss peripheral factions, like Iran or the PYD (none of which will have any sources of that sort, ofc).
The specific labels you thought of and demand explicit sources for - simply have nothing to do with inclusion in the Military Conflict Infobox.-- Director (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
"Gee"? You are again posting obviously fake links, presumably in hopes no one would check. The source is talking about individual persons, not any faction. -- Director (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Syrian civil war
Location
Syria, with minor spillovers in neighboring countries
So where do we stand, all? I may have given Sopher a bit too much time to come up with any links (silly me), but hopefully we can proceed now. To answer Sayerslle's previous question with a talkpage example, the flag would be placed basically like in the infobox to the right, as a separate combatant (1a). The specifics are of course, open for discussion. I've been thinking of introducing an additional separating line. -- Director (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a vote You guys have not addressed concerns or argued in a way that puts any suitable ground for Israel being in the infobox other than confirming that Israel is a county who has a grudge against the regime. Furthermore not even a good minority of source put any weight to it whatsoever. Sopher99 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Neither is it ok for obviously-biased POV-pushers, out to support this side or that, to WP:STONEWALL beneficial, sourced changes out of a political agenda. That's a form of disruptive behavior. And the stonewall couldn't be more obvious: you have no current argument. Your posts above don't even make sense from a logical perspective, let alone constitute "concerns" that need to be "addressed". Baseless "proclamations" with nothing behind them, and typical POV-pusher demands for impossible sources that obviously aren't called for in the first place. Nothing you wrote on this thread is relevant in any way. Quite amazing, really... And besides - you already agreed, after a long discussion, to introduce Israel. Opportunist POV-pushing..
And I'll thank you, for the sake of my appetite, not to call upon Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines in the future. Hypocrisy of that caliber thoroughly ruins my digestion. In this thread alone, you had twice attempted to deceive your fellow editors with fake sources, and after being caught the first time. -- Director (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: I've introduced an additional dividing line between Israel and other entries. Just to be sure not to imply any sort of alliance. -- Director (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I feel that Israel is just about as much of a belligerent as Turkey is, remember Turkey has strokes against Syria as well but has stopped short of sending troops in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As I said, its not a good idea to start discussing other factions; Israel is more than a handful.. If we must touch on the subject of Turkey, though, I would agree, and say Turkey also warrants an entry (outside the "Supported by" box) with the small "(border clashes)" note attached. I believe I myself had previously made that same comparison, back when Turkey was included more appropriately.
One fact to note would be that Israel has indeed clashed with the regime on the ground in Syrian territory (there were skirmishes such as the one involving an Israeli tank forray), and has been sitting on what is legally Syrian territory for decades (the Golan). I.e. Israel is already in Syria, and one can't defend non-inclusion on the grounds of any arbitrary territorial boundaries. Israel and the Assad regime are also of course in a formal state of war, which is not the case with Turkey... And Turkey is already in the infobox, whereas Israel is not. Heck, even the US is in there. One struggles to find the logic by which a faction conducting military operations in the theatre is excluded, whereas complete non-combatants are in there somewhere "just for good measure". -- Director (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
So at what point do nations become belligerents? Is there a guideline here on Misplaced Pages that has this and are there sources out there saying that Israel is at war with Syria within this conflict? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's just the thing, there isn't - in fact the guideline provides leverage against Israel being added. From the Template:Infobox_military_conflict guideline combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. Israel is not a belligerent and therefore is not noteworthy enough for the Infobox. There is nothing to say Israel is even part of the fighting. There are plenty of combatants in this conflict who killed way more people than Israel did in this war listed here. List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_civil_war. Israel belongs on that page and that page only. And its already there. Sopher99 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh take a hike please, Sopher. Stop trying to confuse the issue with fake quotations, your only angle here is that you don't want to see Israel added next to your beloved opposition, advocating whose interests is the single purpose of your account. As I said frequently, if any admin took the time to examine your activities here - I dare say you would be topic-banned at the very least.
@Knowledgekid87, as I try tp explain here, the criteria for inclusion in the military conflict infobox is - military conflict. Maybe if there were 40, or 50, or 60 factions we could contemplate grouping them or leaving some out. As it is, there aren't more than a dozen countries involved here at most. The exemplary infobox in the WWII article has 34 entries, WWI 28 etc. It is absurd to suggest, as Sopher does, that one more entry in this mess of an infobox, even all its superfluous sub-entries, is anything like "going overboard". He's just POV-pushing, grabbing onto a sentence fragment or other and turning it into something to wildly misinterpret and give some semblance of credibility to his WP:STONEWALL. -- Director (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Add further note?
Now, the template says ISIS is supported by Turkey, Qatar, S. Arabia and the USA. We should note that ISIS is not supported by those countries, but only the moderate groups have the support of those countries. Kavas (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that only moderate groups have the support of those countries. For example, Turkey provides direct support to the al-Nusra Front, and Saudi Arabia provides direct support to the Islamic Front. DylanLacey (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Supported by
Soviet Union,China is added as supported by in VietNam War although 16 Soviet Military advisers and 1446 Chinese Military advisers died in vietnam war. But in Syrian Civil War, Iran is added as a Belligerent not Supporter. why?? I think we should add Iran,Russia as a supported of Syrian Govt. in Syrian Civil War article. 39.50.213.158 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Russia should definitely be added to a 'supported by' section under the 'Syrian Government Belligerents'. Possibly even Britain and France should be added to the 'supported by' sections.
What does it matter? This article has exchanged academic integrity for propaganda. Any opportunity to inflate opposition numbers and shrink government numbers is pursued by a select few here.
Please dont refer to Al Nusra merely as "the Front", we now also have teh "Islamic ront" of which Nusra are NOT a part.(Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)).
The Islamic Coalition consisted of nothing more than a single press release criticising the SNC. I suppose that the Islamic Front could be seen as a culmination of a process that started with the coalition's statement, given the overlap of membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.58.180 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
@PaulC.B.Y.ed: I understand that editor Paul Christian B. Yang-ed on 13Nov2013,20:18 considered this article (197,000 bytes) too long, and suggested to move “intricate detail”-information to elsewhere (e.g. subarticles), and therefore put up a tag above the article, telling us that. Could he please indicate which specific sections he is criticizing? If he does not specify his complaint, we can not help him, I suppose. (This question is simultaneously posted on his User talk:Paul Christian B. Yang-ed.) Corriebertus (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
From past discussions, I'd imagine he was referring to a day-by-day account of the conflict. Only major events should be listed in the main article. Daily activities should be placed within their related articles (like 2013 Aleppo offensive) and not in the main article. Coinmanj (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested move (again)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - We go by what sources say. Sources do capitalize the names of the other conflicts you listed, so that's why we capitalize them. However, sources don't use "Syrian Civil War", so we don't capitalize either.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: The MOS overrides sourcing (COMMONNAME does not apply) in matters of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting. Otherwise our article names would be complete chaos. L.c. is appropriate when speaking generically (Syria's civil war, the ongoing Syrian civil war), and that's how many of our sources are phrasing it, but AFAICT that's not the approach of this article. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
All previous arguements were about COMMONNAME and proper nouns, per kwami: COMMONNAME does apply in matters of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting, plus "Syrian Civil War" is proper noun, for some reason this was never acknowledegd like it should have been, that's why I'm bringing it up again, beacuse we kept getting it wrong. Charles Essie (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Support This describes a particular historical event, not all civil wars that took place in Syria or were of a Syrian character. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. First of all, a lot of the conflicts I listed are indeed "full blown" wars, resulting in thousands of deaths. Secondly, whether or not they are "sporadic" conflicts is not important when deciding whether or not the title should be capitalized. Since sources do capitalize "Spanish Civil War", so do we. Since sources don't capitalize "M23 rebellion", we don't as well. Also, a counter example to your point is the Whiskey Rebellion, which although is a "sporadic" conflict, is capitalized because sources capitalize it. We deciding which conflict to capitalize and which not to solely based on the nature of the conflict is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and unacceptable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The internet in Syria
What is the condition of the internet in Syria? To my knowledge there is significant unfair competition in the United states. Is there anyone who knows how electronic trade has impacted inequality and thereby scarcity in Syria. (presumably scarcity is the root cause of the conflict since people with lots of wealth tend to go boating or back yard parties)
So it turns out to be a still from a Voice of America video - this fact alone should have set alarm bells ringing.
File under: PRO-FSA DISINFORMATION? 92.16.146.240 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
And yet, is not the very term "anti-Americanism", in itself, anti-freedom? For someone can be pro-American people and/or nation - but still against US government policy. Would it not be anti-American to ban people from Misplaced Pages for putting forward views that some might consider to be "anti-Americanism"?
As Chomsky makes clear, the concept being anti-American is an interesting one. For the "counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships... "Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture." Natural usage for Voice of America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.180.237 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested revert of move (back to Syrian civil war)
I’m quite unhappy with the recent move ‘Syrian civil war’ → ‘Syrian Civil War’.
What Does It Help Anybody, In The Encyclopedia Or On The Syrian Ground, If We Capitalize Those Words? Mr. Charles Essie 24 Nov 2013, 00:55, gives exactly the reason why NOT to capitalize: this is NOT YET a historical event! (like WW II, etc.) Also the only argument of the next speakers, AjaxSmack+kwami+BDD, is incorrect: this article indeed does describe ‘the general phenomenon Syrian civil war’, because this one, which started 2011, is still the only Syrian civil war we know (I guess). I support the above given arguments of FutureTrillionaire. I suppose, Charles Essie and supporters want to express their sorrow about the Scw by capitalizing it in Misplaced Pages. I consider that a wrong reaction. Send sorry-money to the Red Cross, please, but don’t distort our encyclopedia out of pity or shame or whatever. (Wrong encyclopediae can even make things worse, on the ground: don’t underestimate the power of words.) I propose to turn that move back. Corriebertus (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
If you want to request a new move the normal wait time is 7 days, consensus was to move the page though sometimes things don't always go your way but per WP:STICK I think we should just all go with the flow. Hey consensus can change but right now it has been established. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"Consensus" should not be a handful of people making decisions that affect an entire family of high-visibility content -- against Misplaced Pages guidelines, no less -- over a major holiday that I, for one, spent with my family and loved ones rather than on Misplaced Pages. At the very least, the administrator involved should have recognized that it would have been best to solicit more comments from editors before closing the discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
What I meant by historical event was that this is a major event with history-making impact (like the Arab Spring itself, which is capitalized!), and no, this article is not about "the general phenomenon of civil war in Syria", it is about a unique "Civil War" that started on March 15, 2011, "general phenomenon" would mean an article about the history of "civil war" in Syria comprising all internal conflicts throughout Syria's history, that's not what this page is about. Charles Essie (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree. The discussion was still ongoing, and was closed too soon. We need to wait for the supporters of the move to respond to the "sporadic conflict" counter example. I suggest that we file a request for WP:Mediation if necessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
@Yerevanci: The difference is that professional sources do capitalize the names of the conflicts you listed: Spanish Civil War, Greek Civil War, etc. Look in any history book about one of the conflicts you listed and you will see that it capitalizes the name of the conflict. However, this is not the case for the Syrian conflict. There are no professional/reliable sources that uses the capitalized term "Syrian Civil War". They usually say something like "Syria's civil war" or "civil war in Syria", or "Syrian civil war", etc. For example: Death toll from Syrian civil war tops 125,000". I don't think Misplaced Pages shouldinvent proper nouns. Do you understand my argument? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with FutureTrillionaire. We have effectively decided that there is a "rule" of sorts about civil wars that we must follow, even if it means making up our own proper names for things and establishing them site-wide on one of the most visited websites in the world. It's utterly improper; I'd go so far as to cite WP:OSE and WP:OR in arguing against this poorly conceived move. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You got a point. I overlooked that. But it's not all of them. Britannica is definitely a good source. I don't know about you, but for me that source alone is enough to support the capitalization of "civil war." --Երևանցի16:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It baffles me how an old, but fundamental discussion, at length discussed in: ‘Speedy move’ (23 July 2012),
‘New move request’ (23 July – 5 August 2012) and
‘Requested move to Syrian civil war’ (6 – 19 August 2012),
gets reopened – which ofcourse is always permitted – and, in only eight days, with only nine! people joining in the discussion, apparently without any substantial or new argument, quickly leads to such enormous change in our encyclopedia. I can’t blame Charles Essie and his seven supporters for this to happen, because discussion must always be allowed; but how can moderator tariqabjotu have overseen the fact that no (serious) (new) argument was given, and that far too few people have been asked for their opinions? I mean: I beg your pardon, I’m very busy making Misplaced Pages better, I don’t spare me the time to run over to this Talk-page every second day to check if disastrous edits or moves are imminent. But if something has been seriously discussed before, like in this case, you (tariqabjotu and colleagues) should give a re-discussion far more room, far more time, before closing and concluding it. This going-about is utterly disrespectful towards all those who invested their time and energy in those mentioned earlier discussions in 2012.
Charles now says(2Dec): ‘ArabSpring is capitalized’ (irrelevant: we follow sources who do that); ‘major event etc.’ (personal opinion). He gives no encyclopedial argument, like he already did not in 24Nov-1Dec. The fact that 24Nov2013 he immediately started to swear by Jesus Christ shows that his move came out of his emotional involvement in this war. I don’t disapprove of emotional involvement, on the contrary. But it shouldn’t lead us to wrong encyclopedial decisions. Corriebertus (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Let me correct myself. I don’t disagree with Charles that this Scw is rather a ‘major event’. We all know that, and we all knew that when the title was still lower case (Syrian civil war). I don’t see a reason in its being ‘major’ to capitalize the page title: Misplaced Pages follows sources (as FutureTr. said,24Nov; as TaalVerbeteraar explained 6Aug2012). Charles does see that reason, so we obviously disagree on that point. I respect his opinion, but I disagree on that opinion. The point is, Misplaced Pages is a community, and I would like to hear the others about this thing. And I blame the moderator who perhaps too quickly moved the page, on 2Dec2013. Corriebertus (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree the move was done too quickly. I strongly oppose the move and would have been happy to chime in, but apparently I blinked (over the holiday weekend, no less, in my country) and missed the discussion. We're tremendously jumping the gun to declare "Syrian Civil War" the proper name of this conflict; there are wars that have been going on for much longer that don't have proper names (War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and War in Darfur) come to mind. This is a civil war, indisputably. It is happening in Syria, indisputably. But where I get off the bandwagon is where we make the jump (over WP:COMMONNAME, mind you) to saying that because other wars in history have been named the American Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, a civil war in XXX country must rightfully be called the XXXn Civil War, regardless of whether WP:RS call it that or not. This move was completely bungled and made against Misplaced Pages guidelines, and it should be reverted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. If you "strongly oppose" then you should have voted. Why didn't you? The move request lasted over a week (Nov. 24 - Dec. 2). Did you just find out about it? That's weird. And since when is Encyclopædia Britannica not a reliable source? Are magazines and newspapers more reliable than the most famous English encyclopedia? --Երևանցի20:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I found out about the discussion after the move closed. As I pointed out -- it was a holiday week in my country, and I had a number of things happening in my personal life that meant I had very little time for Misplaced Pages and other websites I normally spend time on during the week. Are you doubting that if I had seen the discussion, I would have weighed in? I think you'll find I've been quite active on Arab Spring content for the past three years. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I resent the idea that my proposal was done out of emotional reasons, I consider that an insult to my intelligence, and the intelligence of the supporters of the move, I you want to continue the discussion, that's fine (I'm also starting to think that maybe it was a little premature), but let's keep this mature. Charles Essie (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@Charles, I didn’t try to insult you, I was just guessing what your real reason was because I couldn’t find a logical reason. Nobody was confused about what our ‘Syrian civil war’ would mean, so why would mr. Charles make such effort to change it? Now you deny any emotional reason. Up till now I see one argument, and it didn’t come from Charles: argument ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ (see above, 2Dec, 23:58). I’m in doubt now. @ Vquakr: we (or I) want to see reasons for edits, and yes, also for Capitalizing. Charles (or whoever) must have a reason for it, and in a community-project we have a right to ask each other the (real) reason. Personally I dislike prematurely idolizing things, even or especially wars, putting them on some pedestal, so to speak. Makes it perhaps harder to end them. @ Can this Yerevantsi(20:59,3Dec) please get off that insulting tone?Corriebertus (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@Corriebertus:, thank you for your reply. Personally I do not particularly care how the last two words of this article are spelled, but the requested move above does appear to be correctly closed. Consensus can change with time, the RM was open a week, and there was no way a neutral admin could close that as anything but move. Charles gave an extensive reason in his move nomination, and referring to the "real" reason seems to be a mild violation of WP:AGF. In English proper nouns, not idols, are capitalized so that portion of your statement seems melodramatic. It certainly is not our role as editors to make it any easier or harder to end wars - we seek to document information, not influence it. VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your last sentence, which is why I think this move was a bad idea. And I don't think the administrator acted correctly; he seemed to treat the move discussion as a simple vote, rather than noticing that FutureTrillionaire made convincing arguments that editors simply ignored (or perhaps didn't have time to respond to) in their scramble to write some variation on "Support per nom". Move requests that affect an entire tree of content, in my opinion, should be treated as having a higher threshold than requests that pertain only to a single page. In this case, it should have been obvious that the issue had not been fully addressed by the time the discussion was closed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Yerevantsi|Երևանցի: “...Hmm … then you should have …Why didn’t you? … That’s weird. And since when …”: is such contribution relevant to the discussed issue? Hardly, I believe; it seems to me rather a series of (personal) attacks at Kudzu1, which I, perhaps loosely, characterized as ‘an insulting tone’. (And not correctly placed at the bottom but half way the discussion, which proves that you were specifically after Kudzu1 and hardly trying to help forward this discussion.) @ VQuakr: “violation of Assume good faith”: are you crazy? I’m fully entitled to judge what I myself consider a logical reason and what not. And entitled to guess at whatever I’d like to guess at. And why do you suggest that I proclaimed that it is our role as editors to make it easier or harder to end wars? I resent that, if I may rightly quote the honorable CharlesEssie ☺ Corriebertus (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I’ve been thinking over this Encyclopaedia Brittannica (EB) argument from Yerevantsi|Երևանցի (3Dec,16:09), and find it not convincing. As FutureTrillionaire has pointed out (24Nov2013,02:44, discussion ‘Requested move (again)’): Misplaced Pages follows ‘reliable sources’, as to yes or not capitalizing. The only source we’ve found that capitalizes Syrian Civil War appears to be … a rival (or colleague) encyclopedia! But that is not what we mean by: we follow ‘sources’. EB may have its own reasonings and principles, which we perhaps not even fully know, and certainly not have to blindly follow. We are Misplaced Pages, and are capable and entitled to develop our own style, guidelines, conventions, and so forth.
Charles’ first argument 24Nov: “for Christ’s sake, every Civil War article is capitalized”, has been shown by FutureTrillionaire(FT)24Nov as not very relevant. Charles’ second argument was: “that’s what you do with historical events”. He explained this on 2Dec,21:51 (above) as: “major event…” (and 30Nov,19:28, as: “full-blown…”). This shows, that he wants it to be capitalized not just because it is a proper noun (which is not proven) but because he judges this war to be BIG, MAJOR! And that’s exactly the sort of judgement that we as Misplaced Pages should NOT (want to) make! Because then we would be “trend starters”, as FT called it, 27Nov,17:05! The third argument came from AjaxSmack,24Nov,02:37: “(proper) name”. This seems not proven, because Enc.Britt. is not a source which can prove that, as I explained above. (Kwami,24Nov,02:47, talks uncomprehensible secret language; if he posed a new argument I have not been able to decipher it.)
The score in this section is now: three people in favour of a return to Syrian civil war (Corriebertus, FutureTrillionaire, Kudzu1), two people against such a move (CharlesEssie and Yerevantsi|Երևանցի). Corriebertus (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If there's consensus for a move, then so be it. I think the discussion was closed way too soon, and due consideration was not given to the strength of arguments on both sides. I think the move should be provisionally reverted and the move discussion should be reopened. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I see no real reason to change it back. People are going to have their opinions for or against and if the title is changed again I'm fairly certain someone will try to revert it back. I think people are spending far too much time on something that really isn't all that important (than say the length and quality of the article itself), especially given that sooner or later the proper name will become "Syrian Civil War". This is about a specific event, a singular civil war, and for me that makes its name worthy of being a proper noun. Just my thoughts on the matter. Coinmanj (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
But right now the proper name is not "Syrian Civil War", which appears to be an invention by a handful of Misplaced Pages editors. And as for saying the proper name will "sooner or later ... become 'Syrian Civil War'", that is textbookWP:CRYSTAL. I think your argument is case in point as to why this move was improper. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
3Dec,16:37, I openly reasoned: CharlesEssie consistently gives no ‘encyclopedic argument’ for his move(request) Syrian civilwar → Syrian CivilWar; did however start off his request(24Nov2013,00:55) by invoking the name of the Christian saint and messiah Jesus Christ (which invoking usually is called swearing, if I’m not erring); therefore, I openly guessed that Charles’ move request had primarily come out of some emotional involvement towards the outcome of that ‘move request’24Nov-1Dec (which I tersely indicated as: the ‘real reason’). VQuakr 4Dec04:25 calls that referring to (i.e. guessing at) the ‘real reason’ of that move request: violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. If I look at just the nutshell-summary of that ‘general accepted behavioral guideline’, VQ apparently accuses me of having assumed that Charles is deliberately trying to hurt the Misplaced Pages project. I believe I have neither assumed that, nor accused Ch of that. Therefore, I ask VQ to either prove or underpin, or take back his accusation; I also ask CharlesEssie to testify that there is no ground for VQ’s accusation; I also ask the other discussants in this section to testify that there is no ground that accusation of VQuakr’s. If no one proves prepared to clear my name from that accusation, I will no further discuss in this section.
By the way: Kudzu1 here on 5Dec seems to (try to) get lost in this ‘labyrinth’. The actual move request is: back to Scw. Don’t call that a ‘provisional revert’; don’t prophesy a discussion after that move; don’t keep repeating that the move of 2Dec,05:41 was ‘improper’ (I think it was indeed questionable, but that should not be the issue, here and now). Coinmanj 5Dec says: ‘specific event’ (correct); ‘therefore worthy of being a proper noun’ (that’s a new ‘argument’. The point is: that argument is hardly deserving of belief, hardly relevant. Everyone in the world will understand, and be able to look up in our discussion history, that we’ve capitalized Scw to SCW because we (Charles, and after him Misplaced Pages) have judged this war to be BIG, MAJOR! That will be taken by the world as the real reason for Misplaced Pages to have capitalized that lemma title. And they will rightly take it so, because that was the reason for that capitalization, as I’ve argued 4Dec21:43.) Nevertheless: this standpoint of Coinmanj brings the score in this discussion at three against three. Corriebertus (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The article does not present facts in an accurate way but it seems that is trying to make the rebels to look much better than they are and the government to look much worse than it is
It blames most of the human rights violations to the government forces, while all those thousands and thousands of you tube videos are showing cannibal rebels eating hearts and doing all kind of atrocities, beheadings included, while filming and celebrating about them. We are talking about endless videos here that they are posting themselves.
It does not mention the tens of thousands of rapes that were made by the rebels, it does not says the atrocities that the jihadists are doing in Syria. The article resembles more of a typical western mainstream media which always tries to propagandize against the one that the western politics doesn't like... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people agree with you, but you are going to need to provide sources. Unfortunately you are not able to use YouTube videos as sources and most of the sources deemed 'reliable' are Western sources that are vehemently pro-rebel/Islamist. You might be able to get by with Russia Today, but we have a few users here who will kick up a stink for using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.172.4 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Our new Syria crowdmap numbers of sexualizedviolence: 85% of reports show govt/shabiha perps of male & female attacks. Rest=unknown/FSA - Sayerslle (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What did you expect? Truth, freedom of speech? Please... Misplaced Pages was created by the people who are behind all these wars. Sure, we need to give sources from the media when contributing to the article? The thing is, pretty much every Syrian and non-Syrian pro-Government media outlet is sanctioned (taken off satellites, jammed), blocked or put offline (like DDoS attacks on www.sana.sy happening right now for example). All we have are "neutral" media outlets which rarely tell the real truth. Do you now see how Wiki works? Now they'll accuse me of "anti-Americanism" or some similar nonsense and this comment will be deleted just like everything else that they don't like.
you can see the article in Russian language, and you can see: two very large tables, each of war crimes (al-Assad, / opposition), which is now in this article in English is almost all against al-Assad, and I think it's just laziness authors to not write about crimes of the opposition, reported by the UN, XRW, world health organization, representatives of mass media(Wall Street Journal and many others).Rqasd (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the same thing happen to me. When questioning why a still picture, from a Voice of America video, was used in the Photoshopped image section, "Երևանցի" said: "Take your anti-Americanism to somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum." What a nice person. 92.17.180.237 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It has poured money and influence into the conflict over years, so its decision to punitively withdraw support, to effect a policy change, doesn't mean we should change our description. -Darouet (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
NEWS UPDATE: The CNN story is interesting for what it does not say. For for both the BBC and RT reported that "aid" was halted due to Islamist rebels seizing bases (and perhaps weapons?) belonging to the "Free Syrian Army". Fighters from the Islamic Front took control of the bases at the Bab al-Hawa border crossing. Since the US government has started waking to the kind of people it was giving aid to - why not mentioned this? 92.17.180.237 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
create subtitle shelling of peaceful quarters
as sources cite a few long movies (20 to 40 minutes), in which the residents of districts talk to the camera, not hiding who they are and where and when, who and when and how to shoot (shooting / firing). references will be the most usual,,,/. but these films are available in Russian. I hope this is not a problem?
--Rqasd (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
the subtitle of the shelling of peaceful quarters
text - TV channels # 1 and # 2 shot several films, including documentaries and just movies) with numerous and detailed stories about firing from the side of***** ,,.
In these films, people talk about attacks not hiding his face and place of event, and the time when it was.
Just wait a couple of days, and it'll spread around. After all, Higgins himself has tried to explain his comments without even trying to claim they're fabricated. Vandyke has gone completely nuts on the other hand, and is suspiciously defensive on his Twitter profile. Good times. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
Democratic Union Party
Syrian Government
Israel
is quite clearly photoshopped and should be removed from the article.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)