Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Expanding lists as default mode on view

Sorry all, I didn't realize there was a mediation going on. I don't agree regarding undue weight, but of course I'll wait for the mediation outcome. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkey Retaliates

[Turkey returns fire after shelling of village, killing 4](http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/10/2012103181110169706.html) I'm no good Wikipedia editor by any stretch, but this is rather important, hope you guys can do something with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurryaany (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This promotes Turkey from supporter to combatant. It is obvious and more straightforward than in the case of Iran. --93.139.71.198 (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparenty not. Firing shells at another country's military targets appears to be non-combative support and apparently a totally peaceful, loving thing to do. By this logic, every country in the world should be able to bomb the Syrian military just one time and get away with it without being classed as a beligerent. This logic could totally destroy the Syrian regime without anyone actually participating in armed combat!Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 08:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Assad seems to be tolerating the bombardments along the border peacefully because he knows he cannot afford a war with Turkey, let alone NATO. Still, these exchanges represent a strong escalation--BBC claims that the Turkish parliament is currently debating whether or not to send troops in. The politicians have dismissed the idea of a full scale invasion or war, but that doesn't mean that they won't try to carve out a buffer zone.98.117.213.253 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, for now this is an isolated incident, not a "change" in the war direction. Certainly the relations between Turkey and Syria are one step lower, but this is still far from Turkey waging war on Syria.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And Iran is waging war in Syria? --93.139.71.198 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Like Greyshark said, this is only an isolated incident. Until Turkey consistently attacks Syrian forces, Turkey should not be listed as a combatant. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no reports of such consistent (or any other) attacks by Iran, yet it is listed as a combatant. Therefore, either Iran should be unlisted or Turkey should be listed as a combatant, because Turkey is more of a combatant than Iran. --93.139.71.198 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Iran should be listed as "Supporter" in my opinion, but unfortunately there are many editors who are certain that Iranian troops are all over Syria engaging the rebels...Greyshark09 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Turkish Parliament has authorized military action within Syria "if the Turkish government deems them necessary." http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=286684. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a separate article for the incident? Jmj713 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If Iran is a combattant, Turkey sure as hell is too. Otherwise, remove both. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No reason to include Turkey as combatant, per Greyshark, and per this recent statement by Erdogan [1] --Jethro B 03:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys would probably be interested in this article recently created - October 2012 Syrian–Turkish border clash. --Jethro B 05:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So who's winning?

Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.132.66 (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Kurds are winning. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Assad will run out of money soon and his inner circle will start to defect. It's only a matter of months. The rebels will win. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What's "ridiculous" is believing that Assad's potential fall would make any difference or that there is any kind of unified "rebel" faction. The Alawites will keep fighting forever from western Syria, the Kurds will rule the north, and the hundreds of Salafists gangs will fight each other in an internal turf war in the east which has already begun. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There will be no winner... But the the Syrian population are clearly the lossers 177.17.21.66 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Trimming down from 200k

The article seems to be hovering at 200k. Someone will remove a few thousand bytes here and there by performing ref tidies or whatnot, but this is always undone by new content additions.

In order to pare this down to a reasonable size, we must consider WP:SPLITTING content from it. Not necessarily getting rid of it altogether, just finding somewhere else for it. The foreign involvement section seems to be an obvious place to start: Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war is a huge topic, but currently only redirects to this article (a reverted copy/paste move by the now-indeffed User:Oxycut notwithstanding).

Discussion on how to proceed should be centralised here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know. I once done a massive summarizing project that brought the article down from 206k to 196k, but the size just keeps returning back up. What we could do is create a new article and copy and paste all the material that's currently in the foreign involvement section to there. After that I will try to summarize the foreign involvement section in this article. Anyone agree? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, and the section Battles of Damascus and Aleppo should also be significantly trimmed, since we already have two articles on it. --Jethro B 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -The foreign involvement article has been created. Soon I will start to summarize the foreign involvement content here. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations guys, the article is now at 162k. I've just finished writing a concise summary for the foreign involvement section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you see the article size? --Jethro B 19:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Should a Syria religions map be made?

I've found a Syria religions map made by the Wall Street Journal here: [2] (Make sure to click on the "Refugees" tab). It shows where the different religious sects live. I was thinking about updating this map (File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png) based on the WSJ map, but I think there was a dispute about this issue earlier: [3]. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Update it according to previously published maps, not on written descriptions, as Moester did. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Grafit eyewitness

I am deleting information, because it doesnt provide the eyewitness last name. WP:Disputed statement clearly indicates that information which is particularly difficult to verify should be deleted. Besides, it is also WP:IRRELEVANT on the war contest.Dafranca (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1 - Surnames are not provided to avoid reprehension from the Syrian government

2 - TIME is one of the most reliable sources there is.

3 - Its entirely relevant because it gives detail into the sectarianism issue

4- You can't just delete long-standing context and then say "discuss on talkpage". I7laseral (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We must follow wikipedia guidance. I assume you did not read WP:Disputed statement It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. . The guidance is very straightforward. If you do not read it and reconsider, I will request dispute resolution. Dafranca (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. News organisations almost never reveal the identities of eyewitnesses in these situations out of concern for their lives. The information is cited to a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Your removals constitute illegitimate blanking and therefore vandalism. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Despide the fact that Time is a reliable source, not all times articles are reliable information. According to Wikipedia guidance, if source can not be checked it does not fit on Wikipedia. Dafranca (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous sources are a cornerstone of modern reporting. If you have an issue with this source, I suggest that you take it up with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Jeancey (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to judge the reliability of a WP:PRIMARY source, which is not permissible: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is the case, the author, Aryn Baker has raputation of conflict of interest. "With Its Horrifying Cover Story, Time Gave the War a Boost. Did Its Reporter Profit?" Dafranca (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Not Found: Apologies, but no results were found." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

http://observer.com/2010/08/with-its-horrifying-cover-story-itimei-gave-the-war-a-boost-did-its-reporter-profit Dafranca (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll need more than a single, speculative article from 2 years ago that deals with events that happened 3000km away to make any sort of case here. TIME stood firmly by Baker's piece even after these allegations. You seem to be grasping at straws now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious, There are none so blind as those who will not see Dafranca (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And yours is the truthiest truth that truth has ever known. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, quit this childish talk. Case opened at the Dispute resolution noticeboard ‎

With reporters like Amber Lyon blowing the whistle, more and more is coming out every day on how the propaganda war is on in the US. 155.247.166.29 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Iranian and Hizbullah support

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion is that countries and parties who sources report have sent or contributed individuals engaged in the actual fighting of the conflict should be listed as combatants. Otherwise, they may be listed as supporters if they have provided support short of actual troops or soldiers engaged on the ground. MBisanz ^talk 15:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Iran and Hizbullah are prequently mentioned as "aiding" the Syrian regime, "supporting" it, or their troops are "present" in Syria in some numbers (or some units being sent to Syria). This clearly shows a support, but this is completely different that saying that "Hizbullah is fighting the Syrian rebels" or "Iran declared a war on Syrian opposition". Please don't try to push POV into the infobox.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so Greyshark. The Hezbollah sources directly say that Hezbaollah troops are helping storming rebel bases. And for Iran, any aid by sending troops is combative - how else can you aid by sending troops unless those troops fight? If the USA sent troops to "aid the FSA' we would put the USA as a belligerent, so in the same way we do so for Iran. Also the Iranian Comander said that Iran is fighting Every aspect of the war. Please don't change it until discussion is finished.Sopher99 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What "Hezbollah sources" are saying this? The "sources" who apparently talked yo Yalibnan and NowHariri? FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess we have no choice but to make a poll.

Hizbullah and Iran - combatants or supporters

Please express you opinions whether Iran and Hizbullah should be mentioned in infobox as combatants or supporters of the Syrian government (supported by tag).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters - most of the sources mention those parties as assisting / aiding / supporting the Syrian government:

"Nasrallah placed all of Hezbollah’s capabilities at al-Assad’s disposal, in the event of the Syrian regime requiring urgent assistance" Al-Sharq Al-Awsat

"... also accused Hezbollah of assisting operatives of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Quds Force in training Syrian forces inside Syria. " NYT

Hizbullah and IRGC troops in Syria are in limited numbers and largely assist in intelligence and training or limited involvement. There is no mention in sources of Iran or Hizbullah directly waging war on Syrian opposition, so unless this changes they should be mentioned as supporters.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh no, not another poll. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dialogue is the best way to settle things, don't become upset of this.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Combatants, it is well sourced that hizbullah has sent numerous snipers and iran has sent military strategists and elite IRGC commandos. Not to mention I've personally seen some videos showing hizbullah members being greeted by Syrian army troops, and a lot of the military defection videos cite the presence of both these parties inside Syria as one of their reasons for defecting. Moester101 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters - adding e.g. Iran as a combatant suggests that there's a state of war between Iran and the Syrian opposition. Sending over some troops/elite units (and there's not even proof that Iran does that) is merely support for one of the factions, not a declaration of war. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So you need a genuine "declaration of war" now, do you? Guess the US wasn't a combatant in the Vietnam War, then.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not again. They are combatants [4], period. This is well sourced information and no voting will change that. Or let´s take what Tall now said and use it for the another side. I believe in that case we should be moving AQI into support drop-box, shouldn´t we? This POV pools are getting ridiculous. Let´s include Canada in the infobox but NOOO do not include Russia. Lets include every small group I found on the internet that supports opposition or was rumoured to be there but NOOO do not include Iran who confirmed himself having troops there fighting the opposition. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Iran did not confirm sending troops to Syria. There's only BS reports about "senior officials" in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard / government who mysteriously "cannot be named" claiming that Iran has troops in Syria. Anonymous people claiming to be a senior official aren't exactly trustworthy sources. In fact, Iran consistently denies being military involved in the Syrian uprising. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

in fact, they did. And since when is "General Salar Abnoush" mysterious commander who cannot be named? EllsworthSK (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The alleged interview from which the general's comments were supposedly taken is nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, since the publication of that Guardian article (dated 28 May) Iran has on multiple occasions denied being involved. E.g. [5] (25 July) and [6] (5 August). If Iran had really confirmed sending troops to Syria, as you claim, they wouldn't be issuing denials now. Besides, from a military point of view, it's highly unlikely that Iran has sent troops to Syria. Syrian Army personnel numbers 500,000 (in contrast to the FSA's 40,000). They hardly need foreign help. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

He wasn´t reacting on that previous article and it is clearly stated in article that it was later withdrawn from there. Since multiple RS reported it hence WP:VNT applies. It is also nowhere near FRINGE, we have multiple sources in multiple articles. Also Syrian army personnel numbered 300,000 but that for a long time does not apply. Otherwise government wouldn´t be forced to creation of militias had they overpowered enemy combatants 10 to 1 (not even talking about superior logistics, mechanized warfare units and air force). EllsworthSK (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can claim that they got their information from an interview "that was later removed". It's a very convenient way to make up facts. However, that's beside the point. The fact remains that, apart from that one alleged interview that mysteriously disappeared, Iran has consistently denied involvement in Syria. In my vocabulary, that's the exact opposite of "confirming" one's presence. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I made a mistake and slipped into that discussion several times before. If you are doubting informations in several reliable sources, bring it to RSN, I am staying out of those waters. As for denying involvement, you couldn´t expect them to admit to it. Just like they do not admit to sending arms what has been confirmed by UN. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First you claim Iran has confirmed its presence, now you say "you couldn't expect them to admit to it". Pretty much undermines your own argument, doesn't it? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not even worth discussing. Of course they're combatants. If we classify them as supporters, what would that make Turkey, Qatar and Suadi Arabia? These 3 countries are not sending troops, but just weapons and other military aid. So if they're not sending troops, we can't call them supporters? -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the fundamental argument between us - i think that sending limited troops for advisory, intelligence, training and special operations is not direct participation in war, especially if countries / organizations do not declare a war and act accordingly. In Turkey's case by the way, it allegedly trains the Syrian rebels, which is in my view also a support on the ground (in Qatari and Saudi case i'm not sure the sources are sufficient to show they have actual presence in Syria or its borders).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There are actually quite convincing indications that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are sending mercenaries to Syria to help the rebels. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yet again, no proof that Hezbollah are fighting in Syria. I see many "claims", though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Funkmonk: read my comment on bottom it shows proof of Hezbollah & Iran fighting in Syria (if all the referenced articles weren't enough for you) Moester101 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For exactly the same reasons as above: the infobox should be kept simple and big picture. If there are any caveats or qualifications or uncertainty, leave it to the actual text of the article where it can be discussed in context. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose to what? the question is whether Hizbullah and Iran are combatants or supporters in the Syrian civil war (correct for today).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - so far 3 say "supporters" (including FundMonk) and 3 say "combatants". No consensus to both sides. Let's see more opinions.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters Iran => There was only one source that was shortly removed that people have said that 1 polical/general sentence sugested that they were having direct involvement. It was only one sentence, perhaps he had exagexaggerate and misled. The Iranian Governament officialy says they are not having direct involvement. Hizbullah => For me source 1 is not RS and source 2 is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Combatants - per others. Why are we even discussing this again? Multiple sources provided confirming Hezbollah is providing support units and Iran military advisors. EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide those multiple sources instead of simply claiming that there are multiple such sources. Also, sources which have basically the same content count as one. --93.138.45.161 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ekograf, you say they are "supporting" yourself - I quote: "Hezbollah is providing support units and Iran military advisors".

Nobody here seriously claims Iran and Hizbullah are engaged in a full-scale war against the Syrian opposition (it is pretty much a nonsense), but rather logistic and military support to the regime of Bashar Assad, with probable limited and unofficial presence of advisors and special operative units.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters - there are no sources directly confirming their alleged role as combatants. Drawing conclusions that they are active combatants constitutes original research. Also, regarding alleged Iranian self-confirmation in May 2012 (allegation which originates from Ynetnews article), there was a discussion about it. --93.138.45.161 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not even worth discussing - Iranian commanders admit to sending troops to fight the war. Sopher99 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Commanders or a commander? Where are the sources?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Combatants per sopher 99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoorichter (talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Improtant Comment To all those still in doubt over their involvement, please watch these: [[7]] [[8]]. There are many more videos proving their presence on the ground but I'm not gonna bother. It should be clear to everyone by now how involved Iran & Hizbollah are in the Syrian war. The first video shows Assad troops in Daraa province welcoming a fighter from Hizbollah as they say "welcome son of Hassan Nasrallah" around 0:27. The other video (one of many) shows Iranian IRGC after being captured by FSA. Anyone still in doubt over their direct involvement should get a MRI to check his/her brain's health. Moester101 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Youtube video are not evidence. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Funkmonk: First of all, my comment was in direct response to your earlier comment saying that you were only seeing "claims' and no proof, but now that I think about it, nothing is considered evidence to you! There are tons of written sources (and now even video sources) that prove IRGC and Hezbollah on the ground in Syria, but you will never be convinced no matter how many different sources you are shown. There is no point trying to convince you, I just hope this poll will seal the fate of this issue once and for all for the 'combatants' side. Moester101 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How does this contribute anything to the combatants vs. supporters discussion? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@TaalVerbeteraar: If you read the fist sentence in my comment you would've seen "To all those still in doubt over their involvement" which means that I am trying to present solid evidence (not to mention all the cited articles) that proves IRGC and Hizbollah presence inside Syria to those remaining few who still try to deny IRGC & Hizbollah presence inside Syria. My comment was a direct response to all those people saying that there's not enough evidence that Hizbollah and IRGC are combatants, but I hope that it should be clear as the sky by now that IRGC and HIzbollah ARE DEFINITELY COMBATANTS and NOT merely supporters of the Assad regime. Moester101 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not debating the presence of Hezbollah in Syria, though. We're discussing whether this presence makes them supporters or combatants. As far as I can see, your YouTube links do nothing to clarify if it's the one or the other. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Truth, nobody argues on the activity of Hizbullah and Iran in Syria. The question is whether their presence in Syria is supportive (i.e. "Supported by") or they are full combatants in the conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters I'd say they are combatants only if there is an evidence that they are fighting separete from the Syrian Army, that is in their own units. I think that is not the case. We only have sources claiming Iran sent members of the Revolutionary Guard and that Hezbollah also has its fighters in Syria. If they are fighting they are probably wihin the Syrian Army. It's like foreign volunteers in the Waffen SS during the World War II. --Wüstenfuchs 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point, which nobody puts attention to. The fact is no units under the banner of Iran and Hizbullah fight in Syria, means those cannot be called belligerents, but supporters.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Combatants No longer just rumours, but confirmations, and per above arguments. I7laseral (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Combatants Honestly. We "only" have sources claiming Iran sent members of its Rev. Guard.... "only"?!! I'm pretty sure, if the US or France or whatever happened to send troops into Syria, they would be on as a combatant in a matter of seconds... a combatant is a combatant. --Yalens (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Combatants For above arguments. Fighters are fighters. Zenithfel (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters This is not rocket science folks. Baboon43 (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters, as the Iranians are not officially involved any more than Western powers, and probably contribute less militarily to the Assad regime than does the United States to the opposition, through direct or indirect means. -Darouet (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supporters, as you can see throughout the uprising in Syria, we have been hearing reports about "some witnesses of Hezbollah fighters and Mahdi Army" fighting alongside with the regime forces. However if you people notice both regime and the opposition are lying, and thus the lies of the opposition were reported in Western and Arab media, you can see that there are no actual concrete evidence to support this. All medias were using the word "alleged Iranian fighters" so you cannot possibly verify it properly. Another thing you need to know is the opposition sides has the history of sectarianism, and they will rant anything about Iran and any Shia militias and fighters. Rant, but no concrete evidence. So for now we will stick it to Supporters, not Combatants. Myronbeg (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Combatants Iranian regime confirms they have sent fighters to fight "All aspects of the war". If you fight your a combtant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.46.165 (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Combatants enough evidence has been presented to confirm their direct role in combat (see the referenced articles and the videos posted by user above). Surrealsteel (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - the press relates to the role of Hizbullah and Iran and purely "supportive". A recent publication by Al-Arabiya says Hezbollah supports Assad regime in ‘brutal repression’ of Syrians: top U.S. official [9]. As one of the editors mentioned - as long as there are no units fighting under the banner of Iran or Hizbullah in Syria, those cannot be called combatants. Their role is supporting the Syrian military, not fighting on their own.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Combatants - To the comment above me, one report does not necessarily disqualify others, especially when it simply says they support the regime. If they're combatants for the regime, then it would make sense they support the regime. If a media outlet just says they support the regime, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they aren't also combatants for the regime. For the latter, we have multiple RS outlets confirming that, and it should be included as combatants. --Activism1234 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No source i have seen so far said that Iran or Hizbullah are engaging the Syrian opposition (do you have such source?). The sources imply their presence and support to the Syrian army. Support is support, don't manipulate the wording. period.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Iran admits their special forces are on the ground in Syria [10][11]. EkoGraf (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and they also add (see Al-Arabiya news [12]) that those Iranian military forces are performing "non-military assistance" (i.e. support), and "Iran may get involved militarily if Syria comes under attack". I would assume that the claim of Iranian military giving a "non-military" assistance is not accurate ("non-military support" collapsable box), but they rather provide military assistance ("supported by"). Here however for the first time Iran says it might engage its forces under Iranian banner (as "belligerent") in case "Syria is attacked". In any case, this is a WP:RS sufficient source to put Iran as a major supporting power on the Syrian government side, but claiming Iran is already a belligerent is WP:SYNTH.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - lets summarize opinions (excluding ip's):

Supportive role - Greyshark, Taal, FunkMonk, Dafranca, Wustenfuchs, Baboun43, Darouet, Myronbeg (8 7 votes)

Combatant role - Moester101, EllsworthSK, Future, EkoGraf, Sopher, Zoorichter, I7laseral, Yalens, Zenithfel, Surrealsteel, Activism (11 votes)

Neutral / unclear opinion - Lothar, FunkMonk (1 2 votes)

I herewith conclude that there is no clear consensus, despite a slight numerical advantage to the "combatant" claiming side. Unless somebody would like to change his vote, i would ask an administrator to close this dispute.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that FunkMonk doesn't want Iran and Hezbollah at all in the infobox. So I'm not sure if you can count him as supporting "supportive role" -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Corrected.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Mr. Greyshark, but I do not think that an 11-7 is a mere "slight" advantage, but rather quite significant (considering the # of voters is about 20) Just trying to be more precise on the terminology of course... 71.160.221.143 (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies usually don't regard vote as democracy (majority and minority), so it is not important so much. In any case, consensus is usually accepted at least with 2:1 majority and better with 3:1. Considering 11:7 ratio, it is still not close to 2:1 (14:7) ratio.

• Combatant to say Iran is not in a combatant role would be disingenuous imo - the guardian had reports the other day about revolutionary guards and weapons being delivered daily, via Iraq, - combatants. Sayerslle (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Combatants. When news broke out that Qatari special forces were fighting alongside the rebels [13] in the latter stages of the Libyan war, Qatar got a new place in the infobox right under the NTC—and rightly so. The situation here is not appreciably different. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - since there is an ongoing dispute on the inclusion of Russia in the infobox [14], i don't proceed with this dispute, until the Russian issue is settled. It seems to me, that the dispute on Russia, and essentially who is a combatant and who is a supporter in this war, will directly affect the discussion whether Iran and Hizbullah are combatants or supporters. Except that, so far 13 editors think that Iran and Hizbullah are combatants, 7 think they are supporters and one thinks they should be deleted from the infobox (no consensus so far).Greyshark09 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire has asked that I comment on this issue. The guidance at Template:Infobox_military_conflict states that the infobox should generally include "the countries whose forces took part in the conflict", and the order in which multiple parties are listed is up to the editors involved in editing the article. In general, 'combatants' are countries/parties whose forces have been directly involved in the fighting (eg, they had 'boots on the ground' which partipated in battles). 'Supporters' and the like are parties which provide aid to one of the sides, but stay out of the fighting. How this works in practice is, of course, fluid and it depends on what the sources say. As examples of how it should (in my view) work, it's reasonable to list the US and USSR as 'supporters' of Israel and the Arab states respectively during the Yom Kippur War as they provided logistics and intelligence support, but were careful to stay out of the fighting. In this that instance, it's also appropriate to list Iraq as a combatant as it contributed forces to the fighting. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean Iran? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Iraq - I'm using the Yom Kippur War as an example of how to handle this kind of thing (I've tweaked my post as I think that the last sentence wasn't well worded). I don't have an opinion on who should go where in this particular article as I haven't read much about foreign involvement in the conflict. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Iran, Syria, Hezbollah alliance name in info box

Axis of Resistance, the official name of the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah alliance should be added to the infobox. Its the name the combatants refer to their alliance and the name the media uses to refer to it as well. The names of combatant alliances are typically included at the top of the belligerents section of conflict infoboxes, for example the Nine Years' War, WWI, WW2, Gulf War, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide RS references for this statement? --Jethro B 03:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a significant number of sources that are specifically using the term in their coverage of the conflict. It may be the name of the alliance, but nobody says things like "rebels aligned with the Syrian opposition engaged in heavy fighting with Axis of Resistance forces today in Aleppo". It can be included in the body text, but I haven't seen the term to be used with enough currency to justify including it in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Its used quite frequently when discussing the alliance by western analysts and syrian/iranian officials alike. Here are a smattering of sources. [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], ect.XavierGreen (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of those are terms designated by Assad and Iran themselves, for example in a quote by Assad or Iran. Indeed, two of those refs (including the latter NYT ref) write specifically that's what they call themselves, while most of the others use it as a quote by a Syrian or Iranian official. It seems like a propaganda term - they can "resist" those "terrorists." We can use it, but it'd need to be explained that's a self-designated term. --Jethro B 04:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually they call themselves that since they consider themselves the resistance against Israel. Most names of alliances throughout history are self designated terms, for example Allies of World War II, Axis powers, the various Holy Leagues, NATO, the Grand Alliance (League of Augsburg), the Coalition of the Gulf War, the Schmalkaldic League, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

But we say NATO or Axis Powers without using quotes to describe it. That's the difference. Here, most of the references put the words in quotes, or write it's a self-designated term. --Jethro B 16:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a term that's used regularly, but it's not an official term, and etymologically it's complicated because it's really a sort of propaganda phrase in response to the Bush Administration's "Axis of Evil" term, which was also employed for propaganda purposes.-Darouet (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Many of the references i used don't use quotes around the term. Most names of alliances have some propaganda purpose behind them to show the unity of the powers behind them or the purpose behind the alliance. As for officiality, the Syrian and Iranian government use the term regularly in their official dialogue and communiques.XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Iran involvement seems exaggerated, possibly for political reasons. The article states that 530 IRGC members have been killed in Syria. I reviewed all three references and there is only a mention of just 42.

Also, it lists ALL 15,000 IRGC members as being in Syria which is undoubtedly incorrect. That would mean the ENTIRE division is in Syria. Even with 5 747s, it would take hundreds of flights to move that kind of personnel. The reference article cited clearly says that IRGC has 15,000 total members with very few, probably dozens, actually inside Syria. There is a systemic attempt I think to exaggerate Iran's role. There is also little mention of US facilitation of supplies, albeit non military, to Syrian rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.94.113 (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Supporter

Where are the USA? The USA are supporting the rebels like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Please add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.49.45 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See this: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

more to the point IP - where are Putin/Russia ?? Turkish PM has said defence equipment was found on that plane yesterday - it's POV versus reality . Sayerslle (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh no... not this again. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

this again - well reality doesn't just stop does it,- it's like the war , it goes on and on -

A brief flash from AP: Turkish prime minister says intercepted plane was carrying military gear, ammunition to Syria. According to Today's Zaman, he also said the munitions were Russian-made and destined for Syria's defence ministry. Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that transporting ammunition and communications equipment via a passenger plane is rather suspicious. I think we need to wait for more details to get a clearer picture of the situation. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Among they many things they've done so far, they've notably supplied Assad with attack helicopters earlier this year, in addition to all the diplomatic favors and other episodes of covert weapon supplying. That now they've taken to hiding arms on passenger jets shouldn't be so surprising (the "news" is that Turkey intercepted one). --Yalens (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As for the infobox, we've already discussed this, plenty. Personally, I'd be against anything but symmetrical treatment for Russia and the various Western countries, at the moment. They don't have exactly the same stances for their "buddies" in the conflict (i.e. Russia gives arms and diplomatic support to Assad, whereas the West is more focused on picking which opposition currents to deem legitimate and give advice to, but no arms), but it seems to be the best compromise. --Yalens (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

They didn't supply them with attack helicopters, they were returning Syrian Army helicopters that were in Russia for retrofitting and were sent there by the Syrian military even before the war. They were returning Syrian military property. EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC:Proposal to change the type of infobox used by the early siege articles.

"I don't see why a military infobox is appropriate for these articles: (April–May 2011 Daraa siege, May 2011 Baniyas siege, May 2011 Talkalakh siege, Siege of Rastan and Talbiseh, June 2011 Jisr ash-Shugur operation, Siege of Hama (2011), Summer 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya operation). They are crackdowns, not battles. An "operational plan" infobox is far more appropriate, such as the one used in the Siege of Latakia article. If no one disagrees, I will change the infoboxes for these crackdown articles.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion here:Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012)#Major problems with the early "battle" articles and share your thoughts. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You can post your response on either this page or the other one. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's already done. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Aljazeera Neutrality

Aljazeera is founded by emir of Qatar, it clearly represents the foreign policy of Qatar,[23] which is on the front of aggression against Syria. Are those journalist neutral?[24] [25] [26]

"The man behind Al Jazeera, the man who created the influential channel, is the emir of Qatar, His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani." [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca (talk • contribs)

He founded the channel in 1996, but he has hardly any influence. It is neither state controlled or state funded. We also use Al jazeera ENGLISH, NOT ARABIC. AL jazeera English is completely different of an issue than Al jazeera Arabic, and by the way the Reliable source noticeboard says its reliable. Al jazeera English is entirely neutral, and even Al jazeera arabic is still a reliable source. Thousands of citations in wikipedia correspond to al jazeera. Sopher99 (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sopher99, having thousands of citations on the wikipedia do not automatic grant them a neutral point of view over this article context. There are thousands of citation for Russian Times and PressTV as well. Does this article fails under double standards approach for neutrality?

Do you have inside information, which we dont have? because The Guardian, CBS and the other 3 sources I have provided says they are not neutral on the Syria Civil War context. Dafranca (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any newspaper truly "neutral." Just make sure that you note most newspapers (and all journalists) have political perspectives of their own when you edit this and other pages. That's true for Al Jazeera as much as for any other paper. -Darouet (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between being "biased" and being a mere mouthpiece.Al Jazeera is nothing but a mouthpiece for Qatari foreign policy. The Arabic version to an even more extreme extent. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think aljazeera might not be reliable in this case, take it up as WP:RSN, not here. Jeancey (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be reliable when it comes to events that are not directly linked to Qatari foreign policy. This war is a unique case, Qatar is actively supporting a faction in the conflict. So yes,perhaps we should take it up there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The matter I am bringing is not a question if Al Jazeera is a trustful source in its whole entity, however, Al Jazeera fail under Qatar influence, which publicly declares support for the opposition.Dafranca (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RSN determines reliability on a case by case basis. It doesn't have to be on a whole. Jeancey (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

PKK-PYD

Lol, how you guys list PYD as part or rebels and PKK as part of Syrian government supporters, when both are part of the same organization called Koma Civakên Kurdistan and the PYD is basically the PKK's Syrian branch. Pushing pro-American agenda in this article has completely messed up all logic and reality I see...Kermanshahi (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There just isn't a lot strong evidence of PKK-PYD military cooperation from RS. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed PKK's alleged support for Assad because in the source you use, there is no information provided to back this up. First read your own sources, before you use it. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.202.165 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It clearly says "In Aleppo, both sides reported heavy fighting in the Sheik Maksoud neighborhood, a Kurdish district largely controlled by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has long been allied with the Syrian government." PKK fighters in Aleppo are helping the Syrian government. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence which has long been allied with the Syrian government probably refers to PKK's long alliance with Assad, which ended in the beginning of the 21st century when Assad and Erdogan boosted the relationship between both countries. One could argue that this civil war completely destroyed this friendship, and that's indeed true, but the foundation you use to claim the PKK is supporting Assad in this civil war because of that short sentence I quoted, is just too weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.202.165 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Believe it or not but this is bullshit. PKK = PYD. It is the same and you guys put it in both conflict partys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.49.45 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Another source [28]. Australian reporter clearly says rebels with whom he was with described the PKK as Assad-backed, no doubt about what he said. Read it. EkoGraf (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have a subscription to the Australian, here is the equivalent article:[29]-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. PKK commander denies his fighters are in Syria: [30] Looks like we might have something like the Hezbollah-Iran debate again.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Full quote from AJE interview with Murat Karayılan (emphases mine):

"Turkey does not want us to be part of the changes in the Middle East .... Turkey is afraid of the changes in the region. They are afraid that the Kurds will wake up and also rise like the rest of the people in the Middle East ...

There are no PKK fighters inside Syria. This is Turkish propaganda. As far as I know and I follow the Syrian situation very closely, there are PYD forces in that area but they are not cooperating with the regime or the government forces. PKK is an organisation that wants peace and democracy in the region. PKK has been fighting for peace for 40 years. PKK supports change and democracy in Syria. But PKK does not accept Turkish interference in Syria. That's the main problem ...

There are many Kurdish political parties inside Syria and they don't cooperate with either the Syrian government or opposition, they have chosen a third path, in the middle. For example in Aleppo, the Kurds decided to stay outside the fight because they see that the opposition in Syria is backed by Turkey. The opposition has not recognised Kurdish rights. They have not reached an agreement. So the Kurds in Syria have decided to stay neutral. But they also want change .... Generally speaking if the opposition recognise the rights of the Kurds in that area, then the Kurds might join the opposition there ...

Now the Kurds in the area are not fighting any battles or getting involved because their goal is not to take over the Damascus regime. The Kurds just want to have their own natural rights. This is the Kurdish reality .... We want a revolution and we are on the side of the revolution. But we believe in a different way of achieving the revolution. We do not support the regime, we are on the side of change and democracy ...

The region is heading towards a sectarian war. This is very dangerous. We will not get involved in the Sunni Shia divide. Kurds will stay neutral. We would like to see constructive politics. Turkey is trying to twist our position. Because they want to finish the PKK and they want us to become a target in the current war ...

It's a path for democracy and freedom that started in Tunisia and Egypt. We will take part in this path. The Kurds will not be anybody's army. We have to stay independent and work with the people. We will be on the side of democracy, if the West brings democracy we will take part in it. But if the West has hidden agendas then we will not take part. This is what we are preparing for ...

This is the time to end those kinds of regimes. Sooner or later they will fall. But the use of force alone will only bring more destruction now and later. Change is a must and Assad should not insist on staying in power."

I personally think that Kurds would be better off in a third column, but the current presentation of PYD as separate from but similarly aligned to the opposition is not terribly unreasonable. Other sources do support that Kurdish separatists have engaged in sporadic combat with government and sometimes opposition forces, so they may reasonably be considered combatants. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There are Kurds fighting against the Syrian regime:

"Since the outbreak of the uprising against Assad in March 2011, Kurds have been split in their loyalties, some siding with the regime while others joined opposition protests." (http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-29/news/34164738_1_aleppo-neighborhood-syrian-observatory-syria-conflict) , "On September 27, 2012, Jigar ʿAbdurrahman Oso (b. 1981 in ʿAfrin) and Zuhair Hasan Muhammad (b. 1976 in ʿAfrin), members of the Kurdish Salahuddin-al‑Aiyubi battalion of the Free Syrian Army, were killed fighting members of the Democratic Union Party's (PYD) Peoples Protection Units in the village of Isko near ʿAfrin. " (http://www.kurdwatch.org/?aid=2660&z=en&cure=245) You have to note Kurds that are against the regime but not sympathic to the PYD forces, like the Salahuddin-al‑Aiyubi battalion. Kavas (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations in lede

I would suggest that the citations in the lede be pared down.

WP:LEADCITE says, in pertinent part: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, this article is often a battle ground for edit wars, and opposing parties refuse to accept any uncited information. This is partly why there is a lot of citations in the lede. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That explains some of the cites. But many of the 20 that are now weighing down the lede could, I believe, be dispensed with. That would make it more readable -- the article already suffers from a deficit in that area. I would leave the cites in, for the reason you mention, where they support material that is more likely to be challenged.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any specific refs you think it's possible to remove without causing havoc? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it to others to decide -- this is just on my part an effort to make the article easier to navigate. But, looking at the current ref numbers, I would consider (as long as they are footnoted in the body) deleting from the lede refs 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 61, 40, 65, 67, 70. If that works well, there may be another couple that could also be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to remove 53,54,56,58,65 from the lede. From my experience, the rest of the refs you listed are sensitive areas. Plus EkoGraf often updates the causalities numbers, so the refs for those should be left alone for now. You are welcome to remove the ones I mentioned if you want.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed those refs, and a couple more. I think that any ref that is used later in the article should be moved there and removed from the lede. The idea behind a lede is that it contains general information that is included later in the article, and I think that if we can remove most of the citations that are used elsewhere, we cut down on them in the lede without losing any of the information. Jeancey (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Former Shi'ite Iraqi militias backing Assad troops

Former Shi'ite Iraqi militias backing Assad troops

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/16/syria-crisis-iraq-militias-idUSL6E8L4KX920121016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.112 (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's already in the infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Socio economics

This section should be removed or rewritten. There is no proof of free market reforms causing the protests and resulting civil war. Decades of state control of the economy and sanctions are more likely. Also the source of this information is the "Syrian Communist Party". Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluxqubit (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the section is not great, but it shouldn't be removed. The part about youth unemployment is pretty significant factor that lead to the protests [31]. Thanks for pointing out the communist party source. I'm not sure if that's reliable. I'll try to find some more info from RS about Syria's economic conditions before the conflict. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the youth unemployment was a significant factor the other reference makes that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluxqubit (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've removed the content from the Communist source and added info about droughts, per an independent source. The section definitely needs to be expanded. I recommend checking out the new source I added (for the droughts). It contains a lot of economic analysis. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This atomising of causes isn't appropriate for the main article. For a separate Causes of the Syrian civil war or Background of the Syrian civil war article maybe, but this seems a little too peripheral as far as providing a summary of the most important points goes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The bad economic conditions for rural and young people was an important factor that lead to the protests: [32], so I do think that it's important to mention it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's kept around, it should probably be combined into the history section. Socioeconomic conditions always factor in somehow to these sorts of things, but far more sources treat political conditions and simmering sectarian strife as more predominant causes of this particular conflict. Having a separate section for something so sparsely covered just clutters the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Socioeconomic factors have been discussed a lot actually: [33], [34], [35]. I think we should expand the section to briefly summarize the economic conditions that lead to the protests. A few sentences will probably do. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Assad/Anti-Assad forces

I just came to this article for the first time and I have new eyes. After reviewing a small section of the article, I see that there is no definition of what Anti-Assad forces are. Doing a search on the page reveals only two mentions of them (one on the map) but readers have no idea if it refers to the rebel forces or government forces. More clarification is needed. There is a third mention in a reference name. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's discussed in the "Non-State parties of the conflict" section. Also, the infobox basically summarizes the parties involved in the conflict. The Syrian conflict is very complicated, which is why the terms Assad or anti-Assad are not used often.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, however it doesn't specifically call anything "Assad forces" or "Anti-Assad forces" per se. The map specifically notes them as those two items, but the main article does not define them specifically. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The map does oversimplify the conflict. The map classifies the Kurds as anti-Assad even though the FSA and Kurds have very little cooperation. Perhaps we should change the legend. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be the easiest fix! Leitmotiv (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Leitmotiv (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Non neutral map

This map currently shows inaccurate boundaries for Syria: [36], it shows the southwest in a very deranged way as if the southwest is not part of Syria. This is also done in a very unprofessional way, as if someone did it in MS Paint. Just because Israel occupies a part of Syria doesn't mean the area is not Syria. The occupation can be shown with a ceasefire line or stripes in the occupied part, the area is internationally recognized as part of Syria but the map currently goes by the Israeli pov. Therefore it can not be used in this or any other Wikipedia articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually did make this map using MS paint (although most of my creations are in svg format). If you're unhappy with the coloring, what do you propose we change the color of Golan Heights to? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple. To the same color as the rest of Syria. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It was fine in this edit: [37] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Barred is better than solid colouration. Israel exercises de facto control over much of the area, and most of the pre-1967 Syrian population either fled or were expelled by the Israelis, who have since been importing their own people. Solid white colouration is thus just as POV as the current, as it swings entirely to the other side of the spectrum. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Israels occupation of Syria doesn't mean that the occupied land is not Syria. Same thing with the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Sinai, south Lebanon. The pov of solid white is the international view, current map is Israeli pov, so its not the same at all. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It makes them de facto part of Israel, just as Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Northen Cyprus etc. are de facto independent. Syrian state exercise no control over that part of Golan, that is a fact with which we work with. We are not international court or organizations to deter legality of such action. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The current map is reality, friend. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I made that part barred. Is it better now? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not good, it should be majority white and the grey stripes much thinner. Also the border between Syria and Israel is missing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What border? the border between Golan Heights and Syria? I think it's clear now that the area is disputed. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Although Israel a few years ago entered negotiations to give up the Golan to Syria, this has not actually happened yet. It is extremely POV to unilaterally declare the Golan to be Syrian, until such time as Israel leaves the Golan. In fact, during the civil war in Syria, Golanis w/o Israeli citizenship have been debating whether it's more worth it to accept Israeli citizenship. The map, as it is now, seems fine and neutral. --Jethro B 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Golan is Syrian land de jure, according to international law. Not a single country in the world (including the US) recognizes Israel's sovereignty over the heights, and it's considered occupied Syrian lands. The map is certainly POV, and needs to be altered to show that the heights are indeed considered part of Syria; and a striped line can show the current status-quo. The Syrian-Israeli border is the internationally recognized border line (the Green Line). Yazan (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is striped now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Occupation means very little when the entire global community agrees on what the borders are, regardless of who is exerting control there or not. If the global community recognizes it as Syrian land, then the map should reflect that globally held view. Not the POV of just Israel. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it a POV, just the situation on the ground. GH are indeed de jure part of Syria, but de facto they are under Israeli control. The fact that the Invasion of Poland was illegal does not change the fact that occupation occurred. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is in a pickle on this issue. The Syrian wikipage clearly shows it belonging to Syria. Whereas this article does not. Which is it? Ground occupation means nothing. Poland is still Poland regardless of who has put boots down on their turf. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

De jure, but not de facto. Maps should seek to strike a balance between the two. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well you better go edit the Syria map too if you are so convinced. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the Outline of Syria shows it fully in Syria too. Why the disparate views within Wikipedia. I'm willing to bet that since both Syria and Outline of Syria have already gone through this discussion, that Syrian civil war should probably also fall in line. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It can also be said that the rebels do not "legally" control any of the green areas depicted on the map. Should we just leave a blank white map, then? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Nice one Lothar XD. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, but not bursting out funny. Right now I see what you're saying, but am stuck on the discrepancies of Wikipedia pages on Syria which need to be resolved. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's already been some debates on WP about this issue before, so I don't see any point having it again. By having the area striped, it doesn't clearly belong to either country. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change "governorate" to "province"

It looks like the term "province" is used far more in the news than "governorate". I propose we change all the "governorate" in this article to "province". Here's some evidence: [38] [39]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would then also suggest changing the name of the articles themselves from governorate to province, since that is why they are being called governorate here. Jeancey (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Army Casualties

I notice the casualty figure for the Syrian Army keeps inching up without any new references in the infobox, where is the (Reliable) source, that Syrian casualties are now above 10,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.54.53 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Information wars: "Shi'ite militias from Iraq"

There is no founded evidence for Shi'ite militias from Iraq supporting Assad. This kind of sectarian psychological warfare from Reuters and Al-Jazeera only serves to alienate Turkish moderate laicist Sunni Muslim, Jordanian Sunni and Lebanese Sunni citizens from the Syrian president Assad. The Syrian Arab Army consists for up to 82 % out of Sunni Muslim drafted and voluntary soldiers, officers and others. Shia are close to zero, Alawis high in officer corps and Pz. Divisions (Armoured Tank Batallions), Christians are very well-represented into the Syrian Army too. But no "Christian militias" serving Assad are there. The Syrian government army is large enough to battle by itself. The only proven thing are four fights of Hezbollah Lebanese (Shia) armed persons shooting at Sunni jihadist and FSA rebels at Shia shrine and village in Southwest Syria, near Lebanon. Unlike the rebels, the government army has no large scale of militias. The sectarian aspect of this war is exaggerated, also due to Sunni (Wahhabi rather as well as Salafist) jihadist foreign elements at the FSA side. Press reports from Reuters in quotes "..." are not enough evidence. The Syrian Arab Army is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim itself, especially in comparison to the Turkish Army (with numerous Turkish and ethnic Kurdish Alevis drafted into military service). The sectarian aspect is a Qatar strategy for sectarianistic propaganda. Wikipedia should remain neutral and not be biased. The Voice of Russia, Cypriot news services, Malta, Lebanese and Serbian journalists all give a more nuanced image of the conflict. Shia militias from Iraq are not proven at all, whereas Sunni Jihadist Wahhabi and Salafi fighters from Syria and especially from abroad (including EU) are widely reported by all sides of journalism.NiederlandeFW (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. Voice of Russia is a Kremlin propaganda site, and the Serbian sites are not much better (The serbians can't get enough of preaching "anti-nato philosophy" and consider any state anti-american an ally), malta? the only RS news source I can think of there is the times of Malta, and that generally follows the same reporting trends as the Jerusalem times, the Jarkata globe ect. Lebanese Journalists are clearly going to be biased as they are either going to be sympathizing with the March 8th or the March 14th alliance. There is no "sectarian propaganda". Its a fact that Shiite blocs such as Hezbollah and Iran are helping the Syrian government, and it is unsurprising that Sadrists will as well. Sopher99 (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Sopher's attack on Serbian sources (which is a bit discriminative and out-dated; Serbia stopped having an anti-american government 10 years ago) I do agree with him that it is more than likely that Shiites from Iraq are coming into Syria to help out government troops, since the Iranians and Hezbollah have already been confirmed of doing this. Reuters has reported on it and Reuters is a highly notable and reliable source, and has been for 160 years. Also, it has been confirmed by the Shiite commander himself. So, removing such a properly sourced peace of info is simply pov-pushing and in violation of a few Wikipedia rules. So please do not remove properly sourced info NiederlandeFW. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For Christ sake, bring it to RSN and leave us alone. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add Sunni/Shiite Iraqi involvement

Insert for Syrian civil war is based on the New York Times article cited. It is a major event in any civil war when oppossing forces are supplied by different elements in a third-party country. The New York Times is not a soapbox. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In October 2012, various Iraqi religious sects join the conflict in Syria on both sides. Shiites from Iraq, in Babil Province and Diyala Province, have traveled to Damascus from Tehran, or from the Shiite holy city of Najaf, Iraq, to protect Sayyida Zeinab, an important Shiite shrine in Damascus. According to Abu Mohamed, with the Sadrist Trend, said he recently received an invitation from the Sadrists' leadership to discuss the shrine in Damascus. A senior Sadrist official and former member of Parliament, speaking said that convoys of buses from Najaf, under the cover story of pilgrims, were carrying weapons and fighters to Damascus. Some of the pilgrims were members of Iran's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Some Shiites "describe the Syrian conflict as the beginning of the fulfillment of a Shiite prophecy that presages the end of time by predicting that an army, headed by a devil-like figure named Sufyani, will rise in Syria and then conquer Iraq's Shiites." According to Hassan al-Rubaie, a Shiite cleric from Diyala Province, said, "The destruction of the shrine of Sayyida Zeinab in Syria will mean the start of sectarian civil war in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia."

You've already added that. It's still there, in the Sectarianism section. The content I undid was some soapbox nonsense from an IP user, which you for some reason added back.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The "The Syrian Civil War is a real shame, as are all conflicts." statement from the IP user was not intended to be added back. I cut and pasted from my word processor into the main article. As I clicked save, I did get a messege about an "edit conflit." From my prospective, my edit about the develpoment of the civil war, with the NYT cites, disappeared. I saw FutureTrillionaire in the edit history and noted the editor's edit summary. Then, in order to discuss the issue, I turned to the talk page. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. When you experience an edit conflict, just go back to the article without saving and try to edit again. Sometimes this happens.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

How about including a picture of a pro-Assad rally? Some in Aleppo and Damascus have attracted hundreds of thousands and in the name of objectivity, it should be included as one of the "clockwise four" pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim226 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I can expand the collage to include 5 or 6 pictures rather than just 4. Are there any specific pictures that someone would like to nominate to add?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is finding a picture of the rally that has the proper copyright information. Jeancey (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We already 2 pictures of rallies in article. I've also discovered that finding free images is not that difficult. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this picture? It's from a pro-Assad rally in Aleppo: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EejM0wVOgwc/ThUXVYQGPVI/AAAAAAAAAP8/Ey-WpWCPtww/s1600/pro-assad 1.jpg For more such pictures, just google terms like "Pro-Assad rally Damascus" or "Pro-Assad rally in Aleppo." Karim226 (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Karim226

adding these extra rallies are undue wheight. Sopher99 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, is there anyone other than Karim226 who would like to see the montage expanded?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Free image.[40] And since this is now a war, and not just the "uprising", it is only undue weight not to show both sides, Sopher. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

But the thing is the uprising wasn't about pro assad protests. The largest weight is news articles about the uprising was the anti-assad protests. Its the equivalent of putting pro-mubarak pic in the Egyptian revolution infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed the title of this article? It is "war" not "uprising". There are two sides in a war. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And is a protest a war? It would be fairer to remove the anti-assad protest from the infobox than to add a pro-assad protest. Sopher99 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Protests can be part of a war, as they are in this one. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove any protests picture simply because you want to imitate the Libyan-style civil war. Those early protests were part of the history of Syrian uprising. The history says: The uprising started with a peaceful protests but later on turn into a bloody civil war, but that doesn't mean the early protests don't exists. And user Sopher99, please don't use with your pro-opposition rhetoric. The actually truth is that not all Syrians were anti-Assad (although for me I don't really like the regime), and if you really want to know the exact truth, 55% of Syrians actually supports the bloody regime according to a YouGov poll, like it or not. So if you really wish to be a good user with NPOV attitude, stop trying to defend yourselves as people are suggesting a more fair and balance article for both the regime and the opposition sides. Myronbeg (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that poll was taken in January by the Doha research center with a pool of 100 random people claiming to be Syrian on the internet? Sopher99 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's only the pro-opposition claims. Myronbeg (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding Israel as a supporter of the Free Syrian Army in the Belligerents Box

I know Israel hasn't openly stated it supports the Free Syrian Army, but there are sources of their alleged involvement. Hezbollah and Iran deny being in Syria and yet they're still included in the Belligerents Box. So as to not keep this article politically-motivated, as long as we are including ALL possible allegations, Israel will go up. Unless Hezbollah and Iran are kept out of the box.

We are not including ALL allegations. Hezbollah and Iran have been PROVEN by Reliable sources. It has to have a legitimate reliable source AND A GOOD REASON. Sopher99 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wouldn't post it without a good source and a a good reason. The change will be made soon. Karim226 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Karim226

It's undeniable that most of Israel supporters the Free Syrian Army. There have been videos of Israeli ministers telling counterparts that they support the army, or persuading them to support the army. There are Israeli rights groups assisting refugees in Jordan. But there isn't any indication of actual governmental support that is other than official statements and condemnations. The infobox as established requires more than just statements or sentiments among citizens. Karim, please don't post this without first discussing it. (Btw, if we end up agreeing to put them in the box, a lot of members of the FSA who see this article are going to drop out. --Jethro B 01:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"members who see this article". You do realize that only 3k people visit this article a day right? And only occasionally does it come from Syria. A FSA member with a computer? What is there like 10 FSA's with computers in all? And one that can speak English? Sopher99 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Relax, I put it in small text for a reason. It was a joke. Sheesh! --Jethro B 01:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"10 FSA members with computers"? Not after all the "communications equipment" pumped into Turkey by the US, remember. Now they can all snugly masturbate in Turkey via Skype while watched by their al-Arabiya hostesses of choice. Anyway, not much evidence for Israel being directly involved, though there was a video from some former Mossad or IDF guy who gave his support to the "Syrian people". And opposition people (even the notoriou Sheikh Arour) have pleaded for Israeli help themelves, so I doubt Jethro's sentiments. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How did this discussion go from Israel to masturbating? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Solid point. --Jethro B 01:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Abdul Razzaq Tlass. FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Atleast he didn't cheat on his wife like Bashar did in the Anonymousop leaks Sopher99 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the actual mails, there's no indication of that, it's only an interpretation by tabloids. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this has veered slightly off topic.... Jeancey (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, back to work, boys. So again, Israel isn't directly involved, fro all available evidence. Pro-Zionist groups are pushing for America to take a stronger stance against Syria to weaken Iran, but the Israelis don't want to get into the mess themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To weaken Iran? What is Syria Iran's last stand? The USA has to get through Syria to get to Iran? Sopher99 (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? I suggest you go and read some recent op eds from American newspapers, or even to Mitt Romney himself. FunkMonk (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And Qatar is supporting the FSA to strengthen Israel and investing in Hamas in Gaza to weaken Israel and doing natural gas investment with America to weaken Opec and selling its stock to Opec to weaken the American economy and investing in the American doller in a conspiracy to strengthen the American Economy. Sopher99 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Qatar wants to get Hamas into the "moderate" Sunni fold, which means they won't attack Israel anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, FunkMonk, I heard something about a sale on tin foil at Wegmans. If you run, you might catch it. In all seriousness, though, as an American, I can tell you two things: 1) Mitt Romney is not likely to be elected president next week, and 2) there is just no appetite here for military operations against Syria, and very little sentiment at all that it has much to do with Israel. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, Funky. I am liberal and all for rights for LGBT community, weed, free alcohol and stuff. But I really think that social courtesy dictates that no one wants to hear that you watch videos of guys masturbating. Keep this stuff of the wikipedia talkpage and preferably to yourself. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow this is absurd. Guys, this isn't a forum. See WP:SOAP. I'd respond to some of the absurd ridiculous claims here, but this jsut isn't a forum to talk about masturbing soldiers or conspiracy theories about pro-Zionist groups (how can you be pro-Zionist? You're Zionist or you're not!). Let's focus on the article and use reliable referneces whenever we discuss something, and get back on topic. --Jethro B 02:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess Mitt Romney is a Zionist then. Anyway, as I said already, Israel is not supporting directly, so shouldn't beinthe box. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. Sopher99 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Israel CANNOT be inside the infobox because it has no clear position whether they supports the FSA or the army. While at the beginning they said they want the downfall of the Assad regime, but so far they were silent about the conflict. So no. Myronbeg (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Zionist groups in the US are clearly pushing for intervention. They just don't want Israel itself entangled in the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Dude! What did I say above. This isn't a forum. If you're going to make a claim that's actually relevant to the article, make sure you can back it up with reliable references. If it's not relevant, then there's no reason to push it. --Jethro B 04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know about that. Still there's no direct evidence about the Jewish state of Israel's involvement in the conflict, whether they have pro-Zionist ideology or whatever. This is like saying if there was a neo-Nazi group in Greece attacks the immigrants, then Germany is involved in those attacks. In fact, if you really want to notice, Israel is scared recently about the rise of bogeyman jihadist attempting to takeover those chemical weapons should if the regime falls. So if they are so scared, why would they want to back those FSA jihadist groups in the first place? Myronbeg (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I can think of any number of reasons, among them humanitarian reasons, the fact it's Assad & Hezbollah they're concerned with regarding chemical weapons and not the rebels, and a great way to forge a relationship with an Arab country if they think Assad will fall. Whether any of this outweighs the risk of a jihadist taking over or someone who hates Israel even more than Assad (the front with Syria has been quiet for 30 years), I don't know. All I know is we don't have any evidence to put them in the infobox, on matter the pros or cons, or public sentiment. --Jethro B 04:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Because these jihadists are controlled by Saudi Arabia, who is an indirect ally of Israel's through the USA. They have similar regional interests. That's why there exist groups like Al-Qaeda who preach violence against Israel yet in reality have never so much as thrown a pebble at Israel.Karim226 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Karim226

See Mujahideen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem. --Jethro B 04:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That was the Israeli claim, according to their media. To them, they fear someone worst (understood to be jihadists) will come into power should if Assad falls, even though the current regime were enemies of Israel. And speaking about the Assad and Hezbollah alliance and dependencies, I keep hearing that Hezbollah will be "weaken" should if Assad falls, as if Hezbollah really needs to depends on the Syrian regime. This now comes to the relationship, do you know that there was a time when the Syrian army and the Hezbollah militants actually fought against each other during 1987 in West Beirut? During that time, the Syrian regime re-entered the city and it inaugurated its entry with a massacre of Hezbollah fighters in the Fathallah barracks.

So I would say their relationship with the Syrian regime is somewhat similar to the Saudi-Qatari friendship: Most of the times good friends in public, but bad enemies in their inside propaganda sites. Hezbollah, contrary to the popular belief, already prepared for the collapse of the Syrian regime. That was their Plan B.

PS: My reponse were referring to the second last post by user Jethro B's about jihadist and Assad/Hezbollah alliance, not the current ones. Myronbeg (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

All right again, I'm going to request we just stay on topic, and not talk about what we as individuals keep hearing and our own opinions. Looks like there's unanimous consensus, except for Karim, against putting this in the infobox, so I think this can be considered resolved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethro B (talk • contribs)

I wonder what would happen if there was some sort of border incident involving Israel, and either the Syrian Armyor FSA (like we saw with Jordan). Where would that put Israel in the box? FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see... --Jethro B 17:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Period. Bytheway you have such great sources and yet you failed to provide one. So no, no, no, no, no. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)