Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Censored Arab League Observer Mission Report

"27. In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed. 28. The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded. 29. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns."

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf 58.210.98.134 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason why we don't include it is because there are so many parts that report that can be used for and against, it just turns into a flame war. Consequently we don't use firts hand sources like that. This has already been discussed. Sopher99 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, why don't we include this?

74. In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations.

Further more the report has been criticized by arab governments themselves as not being serious or truthful. Sopher99 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This report has been criticized because he did not suit Qatar and Saudi agenda of all blaming the governement and gave evidence of plenty of violence coming from the opposition. Anyway, both should be included to be neutral.--

ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article only has so much room. Can we please make a separate page already regarding the arab league report? Jordan Tunisia Morocco Libya also criticized the mission. Sopher99 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ah yes, Morocco and Jordanian kings are champions of human rights.58.210.98.134 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As is Sudan, Hazbollah, and the People's Republic of China. Sopher99 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, armed rebels were attacking government troops before the so called Free Syrian Army was formed "Syrian state TV is reporting the deaths of at least 120 security personnel in battles with hundreds of gunmen in the north-western town of Jisr al-Shughour." from 6 june 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13672725 58.210.98.134 (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And the opposition clearly stated that they were defected soldiers. The Syrian government never even showed any bodies. That is a separate argument, has nothing ot do with the report. Sopher99 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

what kind of soldier would defect in the middle of a violent shoot out?58.210.98.134 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you get it? there was no shootout. Defected soldiers were executed in mass , like in Idlib in December. Sopher99 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop getting off topic.

Can we agree to make a separate article entirely compromising of the Arab League report? Sopher99 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If first hand sources are a problem, cite analysis or other reporting. It's pretty easy. We don't need more forks on this issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the theory that the terror bombing in Aleppo was perpetrated by the Free Syrian Army. The US government claim the attack was perpetrated by Al Qaeda to shift the blame from the rebels, making the public believe that Free Syrian Army is not responsible for killing civlians.58.210.98.134 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

News sources calling the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising a civil war

Have any news sources started to call the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising a civil war? 70.179.36.58 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not yet. Jeancey (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times did about a week ago.Ericl (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if there was i would hold off, because a probable peacekeeping mission may shut down any civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposed peecekeeping mission will not happen since the governement already refused it. The situation is already a civil war between army and FSA.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, if you look into the archive to first discussion wether we should move article into civil war from November I presented about 3 sources which have already called it such. Here are newer [1][2][3][4]EllsworthSK (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is far from certain it will end up like Libya. (Both this article and the actual conflict. see Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war/Archive_7#Requested_move_1_--_to_.22Libyan_Civil_War.22) SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

See discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Time Magazine has. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

CIA 1949 coup ; I7laseral please read & stop policy-violating deletions

I7laseral, Multiple scholarly references have been given which you seem to not have read or not care about, referring to "no evidence". That is evidence: multiple respected scholars. I'm now adding a fourth refernece and will add more maybe, but you need to stop the policy-violating deletions/undos.

"It does matter if the professor mentioned it in his book, no evidence what so-ever. No witnesses to this, no leaks, no admission, and even the Syrian government does not accuse)"

1. I assume you meant "it does NOT matter if.."

2. "no leaks, no admission" Did you not read my previous Edit Comments? Former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out ("in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE")

3. "even the Syrian governmetn does not accuse"?

This is not particularly helpful or relevant; secondly, how do you know, unless you carried out a full serach of all statements by the Syrian government? Thirdly, which government? There have been many since 1949. Have you searched for records of government statements by *all* previous Syrian governments since 1949? I very much doubt it. In any case, it does not tell us very much whether (in *public*) the Syrian government (this one or previous) talks about this 1949 event.

4. "No witnesses to this"

If China used covert operatives to act against another country, would you or any one of us consider "no witnesses" to be a reason to say something didn't happen? Of course not.

This is the inherent U.S.-centric bias all of us must guard against: we cannot have one reasonable level of evidence "if China did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"

Maybe the idea of a CIA operation is shocking, because they don't teach us in school about the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected president Arbentz Guzman (I see we do have 1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état) or the CIA's involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in Iran (see 4th paragraph of Mohammad_Mosaddegh). Perhaps you should read up on this background, and you'd be less shocked at this 1949 CIA coup. We Americans should find be embrrassing that we know so little of the history of our own government. As for the CIA supported coup in Syria, I am ashamed to say I did not know about it until relatively recently. But once we know, there is no excuse for bias on Wikipedia to protect from posting something embarrassing to Washington.

There are now provided three full references. This is more solid documentation than for most other things stated in this article. Maybe "more solid" is appropriate given the nature of this event, but then very well, this "more solid" level has now been achieved:

1. Joseph Massad, professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University. Published in Nov. 2011.

2. Article by Douglas Little, Professor, Depart-ment of History, Clark University, citing also declassified records. Article from May 2003.

(2.5) There is also a 1990 article by Prof. Little, in Middle East Journal, Vol 44 No 1, Winter 1990, "Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958" see http://www.jstor.org/pss/4328056 but only the first page is visible. Could still add as additional reference.

3. Now also a scholarly work by Irene Gendzier (http://www.bu.edu/polisci/people/faculty/gendzier/ ) professor of Political Science at Boston University, in her book published by columbia University Press in 1997.

Specific page, p. 98 is given, and is even viewable on books.google.com. There is additional information on the coup on other pages. Additionally as noted, former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out (in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE)

I can easily find another one, but don't want to over-do the references right now.

If you were not aware of the wealth of evidence, that is understandable, neither was I not that long ago.

nWhat is not ok however, is to have one reasonable level of evidence "if Chi a did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"

What is not ok is for you to keep deleting *very* well multiple-scholar referenced facts like the CIA's role in the 1949 coup, and to just repeat "no evidence what-so-ever" over and over again, despite the copious amounts of evidence as just cited in journal articles (2.5), books and articles by prestigious well known universities, just because you don't like the facts: THAT IS VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICIES. PLEASE STOP THESE DELETIONS (but I will add reference (2.5) and maybe another, just food good measure. Happy?) Harel (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please

It doesn't matter if a dozen scholars write in their article how they believe there were cia agents involved

Everyday, dozens of "scholars" and "reporters" write about how the USA is part of the illuminati, responsible for 911, is plotting a NWO, and worships Baphomet. Doesn't mean its credible.

You have no evidence, just a dozen people saying "the cia definitely did it". I can find 1000 scholars/historian/pundits right now who would say the USA was behind 911, does not mean we make note of it every time we mentioned 911.

I7laseral (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, no--not "a dozen people". A couple of sources that appear to meet the requirements set out in WP:RS. Conspiracy theorists need not apply. Do not go down the road of treating every "source" as if it's of the same quality: some are better than others. Harel, in case of doubt, take this to the appropriate noticeboard--WP:RSN. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your right, not a dozen. Three. Joseph Messad, Douglas Little, Irene Gendzier. I7laseral (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for dropping by..I see you've identified exactly the false "I can find people who call themselves experts who say Bush and Obama are Martians, therefore, all journal articles can be ignored" arugm,ent he is making. Not all scholars are equal..I will ask onyour Talk page Drmies about use of the noticeboard. Meanwhile I will paste below the reply I had written while yours and I7laseral were posted, which got edit conflict so let's try again:

This is as silly as saying "I can find 100 scholars who say 911 was a conspiracy, therefore, I can ignore a dozen scolars who say that (name any historical fact here)" and therefore ignore any historical fact you like.

"""In fact, you cannot find 100 articles in peer-reviewed well-know established journals that "Bush ordered 9/11 attacks" or other such claims. You can find self-appointed scholars for anything.

But you cannot find 100 citations of peer-reviewed well-know established journals for serious historical facts, like this one. This has been done. Multiple times. When I click on the tab to see history, let me guess, you deleted again? If so, you are in violation of wikipedia policies. It may take me some days to get authorities to intervene, but your unilateral deletions of scholarly established journal historical accounts for historicl accounts you seem not to like, will not stand.

5th scholarly reference (and 4th separate source): André Gerolymatos, Hellenic Studies Chair, Stavros Niarchos Foundation Centre for Hellenic Studies, Simon Fraser University http://cgi.sfu.ca/~wwwhist/cgi-bin/viewfaculty.php?view=15 Castles Made of Sand: A Century of Anglo-American Espionage and Intervention in the Middle East. (Thomas Dunne Books, division of MacMillan Books, November 2010), "Miles Copeland, formerly a CIAagent, has outlined how he and Stephen Meade backed Zaim, and American archival sources confirm that it was during this period that Meade established links with extremist right-wing elements of the Syrian army, who ultimately carried out the coup" http://books.google.com/books?id=HcJMUx3HCU4C

Not to confuse two different former agents:Gerolymatos refers to admissions of Miles Copeland, while Gendzier cites admission of former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland. Plus archival sources above cited by Gerolymatos, and declassified sources cited by Prof. Douglas Little in a published 1990 scholarly journal article (and again in 2003). Case closed: nothing is 100% in history, but case closed that this is now more documented than the level of documentation of the other claims in this article. But those who don't like inconvenient well documented facts can play the games as Drmies noted.. Harel (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

CIA & 1949 coup

The text about the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup strikes me as defensive editing - dumping a list of sources into the text of an article in order to solidify the grounds for including some text. The result is that the list of sources is digressive and irrelevant to the casual reader. I skimmed the Douglas Little article on JSTOR and I agree that there is sufficient sourcing to indicate that there was some CIA involvement in the 1949 coup - or at least to support text that says some historians say there was such involvement. However, I'm not clear why a discussion of CIA involvement in 1949 is relevant. Is someone trying to insinuate something about American intervention around the world? Because this isn't the place for that. (Nor is it clear to me that a coup wouldn't have taken place without CIA involvement, given the whole series of coups that occurred in the years following the Israeli victory in 1948 - many of which - take Nasser for instance - had nothing to do with the CIA) What relevance does the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup have to THIS article? GabrielF (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Ga

Agreed, we might as well put in the history of the Assyrians while we are at it, additionally, that paragraph looked to be written as if it was trying to prove point. Sopher99 (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this debate as well. Wether the CIA was involved or not has very little to do with this article.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note, just to clarify: I'm neither a CIA operative nor a historian of the Middle East. I looked into the dispute about reliability of sources--whether those sources have anything to do with the subject of the article or not is not something I looked for. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the approach by Drmies is precisely the correct one, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about the reliability, we are talking about the necessity of the subject itself. If you want to talk about the reliability of the sources engage in the discussion above this one. Sopher99 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel. If you look over the history you will find that what you refer to as "dumping" was a result of someone else raising the issue of reliability, and arguing against one source (or two) as enough to be trustworthy. Makes me want to joke about "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

I also agree with a comment I think you made, Gabriel, about readability; the sentence was getting to complex, and another sentence after that; this is because of the history with I7laseral's argument that one or two or later 3 (later even "100") sources are not enough. Now updating with a shorter and cleaner read. But still multiple sources because there is a grain of truth to the suggestion that for an important statement, like this, more than one source is a good idea.

That said, I have to strongly disagree with any notion that CIA having a role is not relevant. The CIA (with DIA) is nothing less than of the key players on the planet today, in budget alone (compare with China's entire military budget for example [5]) and while the budget in 1949 was smaller, it was a major player in the 20th century as well, as the present refs show in one single case (Syria, 1949). Truly, I think many of us, especially many of us from English speaking countries (especially but not only the U.S.) have to overcome our Anglo-centric bias in which other countries "meddle" but "we" (our government) is there legitimately, or even, "not relevant to discussion, so no one should mention it" How can we aim at objectivity in answering the relevance question? Here are two ways of looking at it:

First, if China or the Soviet Union had been behind the Syrian coup, it goes without saying we would find it very relevant indeed, certainly relevant enough for a brief mention. Obviously some key history is relevant, hence the history section, and key players, especially powerful players, are doubly relevant. So CIA's involvement is no less relevant than had it been China or the Soviet Union. Hardly "Assyrian history" stuff. In fact, it is arguably even more important (than has it been China) because of of the CIA's widespread involvement in so many coups over history (1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état) or the CIA's involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in Iran (see 4th paragraph of Mohammad_Mosaddegh) is extremely relevant if it was part of how the current regime got into power: ending democracy is pre-requisite to Baathists (or any one else) stating a dictatorship, after all; so highly relevant to readers. After all, enhansing readers' understanding of history - understanding it in context - is without question a desideratum of such wikipedia article. Which brings to the second perspective a simple test, called the Martian test, to ask ourselves. Would a Martian look at something as relevant?

So secondly, what would a Martian trying to understand our world find relevant? Again, if the USSR had it's KGB involved in coups, that would be worth knowing, the USSR having been a major player (a fortiori, even more so relevant in the case of Washington, since unlike the USSR the country still exists today). A defensive anglo-centric reader (as I used to be..) might defensively hear 'they are criticizing' the US as the only perspective. But in fact, this is very straighforward, historical background that an alien trying to understand "how the world works" here on Earth would need to know.

So, I've cut it down to one sentence, plus, I removed direct quotes in the article (they are in ref itself). This ia a major modificadtion to address your concerns. But the idea that it's irrelevant that the CIA was involved, not worth of even mentioning, simply isn't tenable. I think it's fair to discuss the number and which references are best, though. But not down to just one or two for above stated reasons. Harel (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Harel than one sentence on this subject is relevant and appropriate to the history section. Tiamut^talk 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't find this relevant. This regime lasted 6 months before it was overthrown. Syria has not been in the sphere of influence of the United States since that time. This is an article that discusses the current state of affairs in Syria - it doesn't discuss American intervention vis a vis the Cold War, etc. It's quite clear from your lengthy discussion of the role of the CIA above that you want to make a broader point about what you perceive to be a double standard where "[editors] have to overcome our Anglo-centric bias in which other countries "meddle" but "we" (our government) is there legitimately". That's a classic example of WP:COATRACK and I would recommend that you read that guideline. GabrielF (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read COATRACK GabrielF? It discusses articles created to discuss something other than their purported subject. I don't see how it applies in any way to the content we are discussing here. We are talking bout one sentence that mentions CIA involvement in the 1949 military coup. I think its appropriate weight to give to the subject which is certainly relevant to the history of political development in Syria, which is after all, a large part of what this uprising is ostensibly about. could you please explain what policy you think mandates the exclusion of this material? Tiamut^talk 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, COATRACK discusses major additions of text and this is a small quantity of text, but the point is the same - an incident that is merely tangentially related is being introduced in order to imply a broader point about the role of the US in the world. The text does not state that this coup lasted for 6 months, nor that there were a series of coups that followed - more IIRC than in any other Middle Eastern country - and that subsequent American interest was negligible. It does not state that many regimes were overthrown in the Arab world in the aftermath of the '48 war, and that most of those coups did not involve the CIA. By jumping from a mention of the CIA to the Baath party's seizure of power, the implication is that there was some sort of right-wing American-backed government from 49-63, when in fact there wasn't. This is a bit like an article that discusses modern Russian politics saying that the czar was overthrown in 1917 and replaced by a liberal provisional government without mentioning that that government collapsed 8 months later and was replaced with a Bolshevik government. A mention of the CIA's involvement here is misleading and tangential. That Joseph Massad and Stephen Zunes think its relevant does not impress me. These are scholars with a clear POV regarding American foreign relations. I have seen no mention of the 49 coup in mainstream sources' coverage of current events.GabrielF (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You may not share the POV of Zunes and Massad, but they are reliable sources, experts in their field and certainly their analysis is notable, more so than random journalists and nonymous unconfirmed eyewitness reports. I agree we should add more about the instability of the intervening period which was marked by many coups, as Zunes notes. All of this important background to the emergence of the Baath party system, which is being challenged by the current events. So, shall we go to the NPOV noticeboard, or would it suffice to add info about 1949 to 1963 for your oncerns to be addressed? Tiamut^talk 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you propose text that you feel adequately presents the sequence of events that led to the Baathist regimes seizure of power. GabrielF (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing as Zunes does and writing as follows. "Democratic rule ended with a CIA-supported coup in March 1949 that was followed by "two decades of coups, countercoups, a brief union with Egypt, and chronic political instability." This instability continued after the 1963 military coup d'état that brought the ruling Ba'ath Party to power, until 1970 when Defence Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power and declared himself President, a position he would hold until his death in 2000."

Something like that.... Tiamut^talk 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The cia coup accusations do nothing but try to prove an invalid point. Besides of which, how do we know those "admissions' are reliable. Syrian state tv and Libyan state tv have in the past showed "confessions" of "alqaeda members" "admitting" that the urpisings are a "foreign plot". Sopher99 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your comment at all Sopher99. The sources cited are scholarly ones, not Libyan or Syrian state television. Are you contesting the reliability of the sources? If so, we need togo to WP:RSN. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is a scholar more or less trusted than a reporter? Thats not the point anyway. The point is that the coup, cia or not, is not the background to the Syrian uprising. The baathist coup is. Sopher99 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So the reliability of the sources is not a problem. Good. While your POV is that the Baathist coup is the only relevant background here, My POV is that a coup preceding it that was supported by the US is certainly relevant. This POV is shared by Stephen Zunes here, and I'm sure he is not the only professor to have made the connection between the 1949 coup and events today. What we have then is a disagreement about how to present the background here in an NPOV manner? Shall we take it to that noticeboard? Tiamut^talk 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets include the history of the Assyrians, The Ottomans, and the French occupation while we are at it. The Syrian government has yet to even reference the CIA as an assailant in the coup, and the opposition has not made any references or allures to the cia's involvement in 1949. The relativity of the CIA is no where as significant as the relativity of the French Occupation, to which bears much more significance, because the Syrian government is constantly spewing "anti-colonial" rhetoric. Sopher99 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets try to stay on topic. I've made a proposal above. Your feedback is welcome. If you still oppose any mention of his, it looks like the NPOV noticeboard may be a mandatory stop. Tiamut^talk 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As Tiamut said, the scholarship is not in question. The reasons to "not include" seem to keep shifting. Earlier it was doubting the veracity, or the source, or not enough sources. Then when many sources are added, it's "padding" with sources. But now I am even more puzzled: Sopher you wrote that "he point is that the coup, cia or not, is not the background to the Syrian uprising. The baathist coup is" But wait a minute: the 1949 coup was already mentioned (without mentioning CIA) in the version of yesterday and the day before that; you did not delete or express the view that the 1949 coup is not important, back then. As soon as CIA involvement is mentioned - even the far shorter one sentence version - suddenly the 1949 coup is not relevant, and you comment against the inclusion, when you did not argue against it in the previous version? That does begin to strain credulity.

There is a clear Anglo-centric POV bias in some editors, that I will assume (per wiki guidelines) is not on purpose; I assume they are sincerely blind to their Anglo- and Washington-centric bias, simply unable to see it. If it was the KGB that was behind the coup there would hardly be a chorus of protests at the article merely mentioning in the passing the KGB's role. But include the CIA and it is viewed (from this U.S.-centric POV) that you are somehow "picking" on Washington or it's somehow "not relevant" The 1949 coup is extremely relevant: as noted above, the ending democracy was pre-requisite to Baathists (or any one else) stating a dictatorship, after all.

Nothing could be more relevant than the 1949 coup as the starting point for a discussion of modern (not Assyrian, thank you very much) history: it is the starting point where democracy is overturned; after that, a series of coups one after another, follow after the pivotal first coup, the one in 1949 against democracy. The fact some of these governments don't last long, only underscores the centrality of the 1949 coup, ending democracy, after which a series of military coups (and undemocratic governments) ensues. So 1949 coup is as central as you can get to modern history, including what opened the door to Baathists coup. I didn't see the implication suggested above, but if someone wants to add a sentence clarifying it was not all CIA backed in the interim period, by all means do so, I think that's reasonable. I am hoping people will be able to let go of their preconceptions, and we can compromise on this latest short mention. But if not, then Tiamut^talk you may have more experience as to which boards we need to get along, since this is Wikipedia, not USAcentricPedia, and while we cannot reduce Anglocentric POV to zero we should do our best to aim to remove the Washington/Anglo-centric bias against any mention of uncomfortable historical facts. Harel (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Sopher. This is one of the more blatant examples of attempts at coatracking I've seen at the Project in recent memory.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See my comments immediately above starting with "As Tiamut said" Harel (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, COATRACK is talking about the creation of entire articles to discuss a tangential topic. it simply doesn't apply here. In any case, I've opened. section at NPOVN here to solicit input from the wider community. Tiamut^talk 19:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the thrust of it is the same as the issue here. Adding something -- at best, just barely related -- to a main article, that is barely relevant to the main article. We shy away from that behavior, for the reasons discussed in wp:COATRACK. But they are also discussed in other applicable policies/essays, such as wp:SYNTH and Wikipedia:No trojan horses. They're really all about the same thing -- efforts to take a purely tangential factoid, and thrust them into an article, despite questionable relevance to the focus of the article at hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(indent) I agree that information about the 1949 coup is certainly relevant, but to state as a fact that it was the point where democracy was overturned is a bit too much. Especially that there is a divergence of opinion on the matter. Moubayed feels that the point where democracy was overturned (effectively and for good) came actually with the UAR, because it was the point when the parliamentary system in Syria was replaced with a highly-centralized presidential regime (akin to what we'll witness later under Baath). Add to that that the years between Shishakli's downfall (to a popular uprising, in part) in 1954, and 1958 were relatively democratic years that saw the only peaceful (and normal) transition of power in Syria's history from a sitting president to an elected one (Atassi to Quwatli). Just something to keep in mind. Yazan (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point Yazan. Nice to see you by the way :) How about :"Democratic rule was overturned by a CIA-supported coup in March 1949. Two more military coups took place that same year. A popular uprising against military rule in 1954 catalyzed a mutiny that saw the army transfer power to civilians. Free elections resulted in Shukri al-Quwatli, who had been the President at the time of the March 1949 coup, to be elected to that post in 1955. A brief union with Egypt in 1958 resulted in Syria's parliamentary system being replaced by a highly centralized presidential regime. The union ended in 1961 with Syria's secession. A 1963 military coup d'état brought the ruling Ba'ath Party to power, and was followed by another coup in 1966. In 1970, then Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power and declared himself President, a position he would hold until his death in 2000."

sources can include Zunes, Massad, the BBC Article by Anne Alexander [6], among others. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I support Tiamut's revised paragraph. Sopher99 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally support this revision. I read a few articles today and I get the impression that there wasn't so much a sudden end to democracy in 1949 as one step in a series of changes that brought about more or less democracy. In particular, see Khadduri, Majid (1951). "Constitutional Development in Syria: With Emphasis on the Constitution of 1950". Middle East Journal. 5 (2): 137–160. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Khadduri discusses how the Quwatli regime was regarded as corrupt and oligarchic and that al-Zaim, who came to power in the first coup, ordered elections with universal suffrage (including women). Harel seems to be making an argument above that there was democracy, then there was a CIA-sponsored coup and then there was never democracy again. Hence his discussion of how the CIA "is nothing less than of the key players on the planet today", etc. I appreciate that Tiamut and Yazan are approaching this with a more appropriate degree of nuance. GabrielF (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion. I definitely think the 1949 coup and CIA involvement are worth (brief) mention, and Tiamut's paragraph is great. Many declassified documents dealing with the March 1949 coup remain to be published, and we can look forward to the interesting histories that will be written on the subject. When that material does come out, we can put it into the primary article on that subject. -Darouet (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to imply (nor, frankly do I believe) a 100% changes from pure white to pure black took place overnight; but rather as others indicated: there was democracy, then the 1949 coup (by definition you now have non-democracy on Day One of the coup), then, a series of coups and something other than democracy (namely something like the outline by Tiamut with alternation between) I was merely responding to the suggestion that the 1949 was "irrelevant" to understanding either today's events and the Baathists rise.

So no, I don't believe or say that it was the only singular transformative moment: I was arguing that it was a very important transformative moment, very relevant to understanding today's events and to understanding the progression of steps which saw the Baathists taking power, and not "irrelevant" as some suggested. I haven't looked yet but as for references I would trim at least 2 of the 5 I had there (again, recall the initial discussion where "two refs isn't enough" (later "even 100 references are not enough") comments prompted me to add another, and another ref. The two books and the scholarly journal seem most relevant, plus the ones Tiamut mentioned, Zunes, is well known. Harel (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was glad to see the agreement by everyone, that the 1949 coup and CIA's involvement are both relevant and important to mention, and to make a trimmed down mention, per Tiamut. I was somewhat surprised to see the latter was again, removed, this time by GabrielF, despite Gabriel having stated his agreement to Tiamut's version. Perhaps this agreement on Talk page came after the initial removal? I haven't looked at time stamps. I put "/* History */ Per agreement on Talk page, Tiamut's version(07:15, 15 February 2012) plus 4 refs;I removed AlJazeera ref, others seem sufficient" with said Tiamut version, adding more from Tiamut's above (talk page) paragraph is fine too. As noted in my edit comment, I removed one, leaving scholars Doug Little (scholarly journal plus online pdf with more text); Gendzier of Boston Univesity, and Gerolymatos of Simon Fraser University. So maybe we're all set and can move to substantive issues like the two broken links at the top grey box (see section below). But if deletions (after such agreements) continue then we really will need intervention to end Anglo-centric POV bias where the same things which would be obviously relevant (if KGB had participated directly in 1949 coup) suddenly are things to be hidden, brushed aside away from readers delicate eyes, if the actor was the CIA. I hope I'm wrong though, and we can leave it at this current version - supposedly uniformly agreed upon per above.

Please read the text that you added and compare it to the revised text that Tiamut wrote. You'll find Tiamut's revised text directly above where Sopher and I say "I support". GabrielF (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I already put his entire paragraph in. Harel (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way GabrielfF, you added a link to al Za'im, have you read this part of his own wikipedia article? "Al-Za'im's takeover, the first military coup in the history of Syria, would have lasting effects, as it shattered the country's fragile and flawed democratic rule, and set off a series of increasingly violent military revolts" (emph added) Pretty ironic, this is quite stronger language than the language I used myself on the Talk page, which you seemed to object to Harel (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(Incidentally, to clarify, I was not saying "hence" the CIA is a major player, but quite the reverse; because of the CIA/DIA being major players today ($70 billion budget, comparable to recent China entire military budget) and likewise very major back then (1949 Syria, and 1950s Guatemala and Iran CIA coups, for example) N Not an operation run out of your granmother's attic, to be sure. Hence, per the Martian Test, a Martian wanting to understand Earth history and wanting to know key events and actions by key, "major" players ..it easily passes that test..it's transparent that this would merit inclusion. As for "Nor is it clear to me that a coup wouldn't have taken place without CIA involvement", had it been the KGB which had directly participated in making the coup happen, who would suggest that it's irrelevant to mention the KGB, on ground (whether right or wrong) that "it's not clear to me that a cop wouldn't have taken place without KGB involvement"? Maybe some unreconstructed pro-Soviet warrior would; surely no reasonable NPOV person would suggest that as a reason to omit any mention of KGB's role, however...) Harel (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Refs 20 and 21 are broken

While fixing minor formatting of reference I've added, I found these much earlier (in article) refs:

^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Saqba; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text ^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Suburbs; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

They come from the "Characteristics" section of the grey right-hand side bar at the top. Mayhbe someone can fix? Harel (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Harel & compromises

Harel,

You initially added text to the article with the following edit summary: "Per agreement on Talk page, Tiamut's version(07:15, 15 February 2012) plus 4 refs;I removed AlJazeera ref, others seem sufficient"

When I pointed out to you that your inclusions did NOT reflect the agreement on the talk page, you added your preferred text back anyway with the edit summary, "Then please add those parts".

If you are going to implement a compromise, you need to implement the ENTIRE compromise, not just the parts that YOU like. Otherwise you are acting in bad faith, by claiming to be adhering to an agreement when you are, in fact, not and when you know you are not. GabrielF (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel: This is what I saw: First, I saw you agree to a paragraph by Tiamut. Then, I saw not only that the CIA mention was deleted, but that you deleted a version by Tiamut. Not my version, but his. This looked to me to be acting in bad faith, on your part. After all, why would you agree to his Talk post, then delete his edit? It seemed reasonable to assume, that, if you had wanted other parts added, you could have edited them in (they are a simple nearly instant copy/paste) but that fact that you did not, suggested that you agreed with the shorter version Tiamut posted. But then you deleted it. Very strange.

When I discovered your latest assertion, that it was the missing words that bothered you, I wondered aloud, in the undo comment, why you didn't just add them in, if that was the true, honest objection you had? As you well know, Gabriel, less than 60 seconds later I added those words back in. The undo I carried out 60 seconds earlier was my own reaction to what seemed, and still seems, bad faith actions on your part, or at best, a strange reluctance to copy/paste the parts you wished there, making it look like a fig leaf for an excuse to (yet again) delete mention of CIA.

Let me ask you directly: it took one copy-paste to put in those words, WHY did yo not do that yourself, and why, did you choose, instead, to undo the entire Tiamut version (his, not mine), then, if your stated objection is the real objection? Why not do something that takes 10 seconds and copy/paste it in? Harel (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I wanted to give Tiamut, who proposed the compromise text, the opportunity to insert the text as she saw fit, with the references that she chose. GabrielF (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

When you responded to my revert you said "adding more from Tiamut's above (talk page) paragraph is fine too. " The way I read this, you chose certain selections from Tiamut's text. That's a no-no. Either implement the entire compromise or don't touch it, but don't pick and choose the pieces you like and say that you're implementing an agreement. GabrielF (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose, given the history, suspicions are not unexpected I suppose. It seemed reasonable to me that if you truly liked his Talk suggestion, that you would not have done an Undo on his "Revision as of 07:15, 15 February 2012" unless a covert effort to again delete all mention of CIA. Then I decided to assume good intentions, on your part, but had no idea you would find "Revision as of 07:15, 15 February 2012" language a problem, it looked similar enough to the Talk page. Don't forget, you use the term "generally support"

When someone says they "generally support" the last thing that comes to my mind is "I insist on word for word verbatim" it sounds more like "I agree with the spirit of this" Even more strange and bizarre is that you preferred the stronger term "overturned" (Tiamut's Talk version) to "[democratic rule] ended" in the [Revision as of 07:15, 15 February 2012] version. Obviously I was not picking and choosing or else I would not have "picked and chosen" the milder language! Again, your "generally agree" didn't suggest (and I didn't see anyone else say) that word for word is necessary. I also for my part added to confusion by copy/pasting from his 7:15 but also had an earlier sentence in my buffer about "declassified documents". No doubt this is proof of evil conspiracy for you. In fact, it's again upside down, since it was "your side" (note the quotes) which insisted on "give more proof, give more proof". So now in a 180 reverse, we don't need language to alert readers this is based on solid documents and former agent statements? To my ears, it is temping to see "proof of evil conspiracy" that taking 10 seconds to copy/paste was not your chosen action, but yet another excuse to delete mention of CIA. Again I didn't see anyone say "this version verbatim or none" and the 7:15 version by Tiamut seemed like a good starting point to copy/paste from. Why not improve rather than undo? It would take about as much time? I still find the choice of actions puzzling, since adding this word, deleting that, would have fixed your (stated) concerns. I find other reasons to distrust: I noticed you added in a related article about the coup leader, "he ordered elections" but failed to mention what I found online elsewhere: under those elections he called, he was the only candidate for President.

I think the record of changing reasons not to include, and "oh but coup might have happened without CIA" etc speaks for itself, but whatever the case, I'm glad folks like Tiamut are here to help get to the compromise.

In any case, next time, you can maybe say, "I'm ok with this but only if we use it word for word" That would be (much) clearer, Gabriel. Saying you "generally support" something sounds like you're ok with the spirit of it, not that you will care so much about democracy "ended" versus "overturned" (this is not "using the parts YOU like" since I didn't like "ended" but rather liked "overturned") or regarding, changing from needing lots of documents to now wanting "according to declassified documents" portion of text deleted. I can live with these for now. Next time, more clarify than "generally ok" would be helpful. Use the word "verbatim" verbatim (i.e. use that word exactly) when you mean that's the condition for your "support" rather than "generally" support. Harel (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

US spy chief declaration

"Al-Qaeda's branch in Iraq likely carried out recent suicide bombings in Syria and has infiltrated opposition forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad's regime, the US spy chief said Thursday.

Bombing attacks in Damascus and Aleppo since December "had all the earmarks of an Al-Qaeda-like attack," James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"And so we believe Al-Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria," he said.

His comments confirmed earlier media reports that US officials suspected Al-Qaeda's hand in the bombings and follows a recent video message from Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he endorses the uprising against Assad's rule.

Clapper voiced concern that Al-Qaeda militants had inserted themselves inside a divided opposition amid the spiraling violence.

"Another disturbing phenomenon that we've seen recently, apparently, is the presence of extremists who have infiltrated the opposition groups.”

"The opposition groups in many cases may not be aware that they're there," said Clapper, director of national intelligence.

To read more: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=365628#ixzz1mZcZoBI2 "

So the question is, how many more time some editors will prevent the necessary inclusion of islamists terrorists among the opposition? --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to your tedious never ending pursuit to try to get alqaeda included as an opposition member.

We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Nir rosen, who went on the ground himself, confirmed that alqaeda and extremists do not play any large role.

The Syrian government has spies within the Free Syrian army, does not mean we add government spies as part of the opposition group?

Libyan rebels aldso infiltrated the FSA, as did pershmega. What you are doing chronical ids a lame attempt to try vindicate the government's crackdown on civilians.

We already had this diccussion. The Answer is no. Alqaeda is not part of the opposition, Even if they fight alongside them. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pershmega supports the rebels, Hamas supports the rebels. Hezbollah supports the Syrian government. iran supports the Syrian government. If we put Alqaeda, we put in Iran and Hezbollah, and Pershmega.

To quote ElsworthSK from the previous discussion

“fact that there are salafists in Syria means nothing. They are also in France. Doesnt make them AQ members now, does it. Salafi are religious group, not an militia network under command of Zawahri. Thirdly - misintepreting original article, or even lack of reading it seems to be common here. Yes, we have report from reliable source. That one quotes suspistion of unnamed US officials (what could be basiclly anyone in US beuroctatic army), it does not say wether they are from DoD, WH, MoD, army or otherwise. Worth adding to article, but using as proof of AQ beeing side of the conflict? Hardly. As far as I remember, official US stance is that there is no concrete proof of AQ involvement. And lastly - Zawahri statement. Where exactly did Zawahri said that there are AQ operatives in Syria? Because I missed that part. Al Queda was supporting revolution in Egypt, in Libya and in Yemen. In one of these countries group linked to them has taken control over capital of Aden district. However when I look into Yemeni uprising page I dont see AQAP as part of the conflict. And good that you started with Hizbollah and IRGC discussion, number of reliable sources talking about their involvement is uncountable and its pretty obvious that HA and Iranian government deny this, AQ never said that they are operating in Syria either. So it´s seems little hypocritical from ChronicalUsual to write was he has written in this context.

if you didnt notice, al Queda isnt exactly open for inquiries and interviews and is not state-running organization like Hezbollah. Zawahri is not answering questions and Zawahri never, ever said that AQ operatives went to Syria, nor we do have any evidence to make such claim, nor do reliable sources claim so. If you state otherwise source it. As for Iraq, they are Iranian ally in the first place and bytheway he says nothing about AQ but claims that according to his sources Syrian fighters which fought in Iraq are returning to Syria."

United States intelligence officials told The Washington Post that while the bombings in Syria have the hallmarks of al-Qaeda operations, they have found no conclusive link to al-Qaeda or its Iraqi affiliate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/top-general-assassinated-in-damascus/2012/02/11/gIQAfYPn6Q_story.html

Sopher99 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that you, and some other editors have been trying to sugarcoat the reality about the opposition to the syrian governement. Al Qaeda and islamists are there, they openly supports the rebellion and fight alongside them on the ground. They are not part of the SNC or FSA, but they are another group of armed insurgents. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No chronical. You are trying to scapegoat the reality that alqaeda does not play a role in the uprising, but as an influence on arab event on the scale of the arab world. Alqaeda is in almost every arab country, opposing every arab government. But they are not a member of the Syrian opposition, but a pre-existing insurgency. The opposition is not allied with alqaeda. They said so themselves, that they despise alqaeda. Sopher99 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What opposition? The opposition you talk about is not an unified thing, there is more than 20 different organization and the FSA itself is virtually a franchise name for a lot of different armed groups. There is no "syrian opposition" as a whole. And it's because the FSA rejects them that we have to mention the djihadists as another group against Syrian governement. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to your tedious never ending pursuit to try to get alqaeda included as an opposition member.

We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The USA are a big ally of syrian opposition and have no interest to attack their reputation. So it is quite reliable. They are also experts on Al Qaeda. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2012/02/06/Syrias-Assad-frees-al-Qaida-strategist/UPI-89631328564646/ Assad intentionally release leading alqaeda figue. Assad is on the side of alqaeda.

We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well.

Sopher99 (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your attempts at wanting to hide the truth are desperate. Between Zawahiri, Iraki minister reports and USA official spy chief, which sides with the syrian rebels, we don't even need to mention the governement accusations on the opposition fighters. But you still fight the evidence with as much energy. That shows a lot of dedication.... and activism. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No chronical. Zawahiri also supported the libyan rebels in a video statement. Alqaeda was not involved in Libya. Iraq is an ally of Iran, and the opposiiton fighter agree to fight alqaeda, meaning they are a third bar.

Once more

Nothing has been confirmed

Once more

hezbollah and iran are also hgihly accused of participating.

I am not an activist, i am just tired of your pathetic attempts to derail wikiepdia. Sopher99 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How about we put it to a vote? Sopher99 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree for a vote, even if I know that there are several activists here, most notably Kuzdu. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Too long

The article is again way too long -- twice the size of the suggested max. If someone would like to address that (with spin-off articles and sprucing), that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a spin off for the military side but some cry babies like Kuzdu and some other are pressuring admins to keep the article like that. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful, you are bordering on a personal attack Jeancey (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• However its done, I think it is becoming a greater and greater necessity. Events will certainly only continue to unfold, and more will be written -- and the article is already unwieldy and out-of-guidelines large. The article is now over 185,000 bytes, making it one of the 370 longest articles at the Project. WP:SIZERULE states: "Some useful rules of thumb ... What to do ... > 100 KB ... Almost certainly should be divided".--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought down the article to 175k, by eliminating the peace proposal, international, and refugee section in favor for suggestions to the readers to read the articles specifically about. Sopher99 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. A start.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think a big problem isn't really the length, but the HUGE amount of sources that are being used. What we really need to do is consolidate sources, so one source that contains lots of information can be used instead of 10 sources containing small bits of info. Jeancey (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think it may be both, but it is certainly the length -- per Wikipedia:Article size. As to the refs, perhaps they can be put in a collapse box? I'm not sure, though I do believe I've seen that done in cases similar to this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you should also remember that while the references don't appear inline, they still contribute a lot to the size of the article. The browser doesn't care that you can't see it, it still has to load them. Jeancey (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to put the references in news format always, or is there a simpler way? Sopher99 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That format is best because it includes a lot of information useful for repairing dead links. Since most of the arab spring articles have been using that format, it is also consistent. Jeancey (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/Jean that it is the best format, among other things for primary reason given. And agree that putting it in a collapse would not address the load time -- but it would address (to a small extent) the "wow -- this looks like a confusingly long page to read" issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI -- as to to collapsing the refs, I received this advice.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the problem is the content of the article. By example, the military battles are completely left out and nobody know the postions on the ground with this article. A sub page is needed but it has been deleted by moderators due to syrian opposition members request.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quit complaining about your WP:POVFORK being merged back into this page, Chronical. That discussion is closed, and your attempts to discredit the myriad people who favored deleting the fork just make you look intransigent. As to the page size, I think the biggest culprit here is WP:RECENTISM. A lot of content on this page should be reevaluated from a historical standpoint. The gritty details are for other pages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to all those who have brought the article size down to 157,000 bytes. Obviously, this will be an ongoing issue to address, but some great culling was done, which no doubt makes the article far more readable and less daunting for new readers. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  More stuff was added recently, but I pruned some of the references. When I started this morning, it was at 165.3kb, now its at 151.1kb. I'll try and prune a little more. I'm going to try and see if I can't combine some of the references, i.e. if one reference can be used in place of several other references in the article. We'll see how that goes. Jeancey (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cut down the "reactions" section by half, and that'll solve it. It already has its own article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working my way through the article. I'm at 150.8kb atm. Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Down below 150kb!!! Its at 148.3kb! On a side note, I found an amazing reference on the opposition parties in syria here Jeancey (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Section blanking

@Sopher, can you please clarify what is your reason for blanking several of the sections in the article (refugees, sectarianism etc.)? Just because there is an expansion article doesn't mean you should completely delete summary info on the main page! It damages the encyclopedic quality of the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The section clearly says that if the reader wishes to find info on that sections subject, they should see the main page. I only did such things to reduce to bytes from 190k (which is only 10k short from the intolerable 200k). The Sections are still easy for the readers to navigate, as the main page links are clearly seen. Full transparency, just with the extra feature of having to click a link to see the requested info. Sopher99 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you did this in order to avoid the 200K threshold, then there is justification to what you did, however we can later find those sections completely deleted by irresponsible users, who don't like "empty sections". I think at least several sentences are required. Anyway, in order to avoid the 200K problem we should better switch from civilian conflict template (which has become huge and unreadible) -> military conflict template and summarize "reactions" and "parties", to reduce tertiary subsections. What do you think?Greyshark09 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we should use a civilian conflict infobox or a military conflict one, it is about what information we put into it. If we simply change templates but leave the content as is, the size will not change. That being said, I think the first candidate for a cutdown is the casualties section (in the infobox, that is). Instead of detailing which particular number is claimed by which organization, something along the lines of claims vary between 3,895 and 8,325 would suffice. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be a summary at least, having empty sections simply isn't done anywhere else, it is bad practice. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Changing the infobox template would reduce the size of the article. Consolidating sources would also be wise. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are really important sections about the conflict blanked and receive small, useless articles, while the bloated "reactions" section remains? It should really be the other way around, reinstate the relevant sections about the issue itself, and keep out the reactions. Same with "media coverage", irrelevant in comparison with actual events. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, there were references used in the removed sections that are also used elsewhere in the article. Could someone find them and put them back in the appropriate places? Jeancey (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The gigantic "domestic reactions" section was just reinserted, even though it now has its own article. It should be trimmed down to at least half of its current length. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It was I who reinserted it, even though I agree that it is too long in its current form. However, simply deleting the whole section from the main article with a link to the subpage is not the way to go at it. The most important facts from the section should remain in the main article. Otherwise, crucial information (such as the fact that a constitutional referendum has been planned for 26 Feb) would not be in the main article at all. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this has to be done by someone. If it isn't done, having an empty or very small section is almost better than having the whole thing. It's currently about one third of the article! FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased intro

The intro is heavily biased towards the intro. It goes into minutiae of too many claims that can only be traced to the "Syrian Observatory of Human Rights" (and people complain about article size?), and treat them as fact. Also, it leaves out any mention of sectarian motives, direct foreign backing of the opposition (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia), and leaves out any mention of the well-established importance of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in the uprising. It should also be mentioned that the Syrian government has the support of pretty much all the world, apart from Western Europe and a bunch of fellow dictatorships in the Arab world. The controversy over facts should also be mentioned in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Response

I totally disagree. The intro actually has a big paragraph about the FSA, but we had to take it out to conserve space.

1 - The opposition armed elements belong on a military page, not the intro.

2 - The LCC, Syrian general revolution commission, Amnesty international, Arab League, UN, Human rights watch, and avaaz, all play a big role in claiming the civilians deaths. not just the SOHR>

4 - We already include the government's claim that armed gangs and "terrorists" are responsible.

5- The uprising entirely centers around the Syrian governments killing of protesters and subsequent rebellion. The Syrian governments claims are conventionally. considered ludicrous and unreliable.

6- The Syrian govement does not have support of the entire world, infact 120/140 nations who voted in the UN general assembly voted Against the Syrian government. Europe and America is alot less than 120 Nations. Another 10 Abstained, meaning no opinion.

I understand you are sad that bashar assad may fall, but does not call for skewing thew lead if tripe of foreign conspiracy claims. Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol at your last sentence. We don't need such accusations here, are you for example sad that Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood won't take over Syria if Bashar stays? Ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)\

Quite. I have been in love with Mossad and Alqaeda ever since they faked the moonlanding. Sopher99 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's at least more realistic than bombing your own strongholds and sabotaging your own pipelines. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian government wants to vindicate its claims, as international support plays a key role in its survival. Bombing yourself is not so uncommon. How else do you think Saleh got put in the hospital? Additionally the pipelines are heating oil pipelines. The destruction of pipelines is a form of punishment to the rebellious neighborhoods. Sopher99 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Even US government officials admit Al-Qaeda was behind the bombings. The US is not exactly pro-Assad, so that says a lot. Until now, every ridiculous claim made by the opposition has been take as fact, I'm happy to see it is ending. Rest in pieces, Egyptian babies[7], Amina al-Arraf and Zeinab al-Hosni[8], lulz. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting kind of long. Talk to me on my talk page or yours if you want responses now. Sopher99 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Our discussion is irrelevant, bottom-line is that this article really needs balance. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And you got what you wanted. You added Alqaeda and sectarianism to the intro. Sopher99 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not what I wanted, it's what this article needed to be balanced. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the article, 1: Why? 2: They all take their info from Syrian opposition activist, not neutral observers, so their numbers are inherently biased. 3: Then why is it filled with international responses? 5: Yes, but only if you live in the West or in a Sunni-Muslim dictatorship. Coincidentally, I see you're notably absent from the Bahraini uprising page. Democracy? FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

1: It´s common, same was done in Libyan civil war article. 2: What observers? It takes also info from United Nations and Arab League which is up to date the only single and sole body which sent observers there. You know, the guys you says are the only one together with west against Assad. And meanwhile let´s ignore how much support did he get in UNGA. 3: I don´t get this one. 5: Balant POV pushing. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2:Neither the UN or the Arab League make independent death-tolls. 3: See Sophers point 3. 5: See Sopher's point 5. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2 - The arab league doesn't, but the UN does. 5. The Uprising centers around the killing of protesters. Even Journalists on the ground from CNN to RT to The Guardian agree on that. The only reason why i am not on the bahraini uprising page is because the bahraini uprising page does not get the same degree of POV pushers like you. The Syrian uprising page also alters faster, due to being a quasi war. For your information, i am anti khalifa and anti saudi arabian monarchy. I am anti Maliki, anti Moroccan king, and anti Omar Bashir as well. But none of that matters because this is wikipedia. Sopher99 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2: Their sources are Syrian activists, not independent UN observers. 5: Show me a source stating this then. The uprising has been sectarian and violent since the early days (Salafists have been wanting to overthrow the regime since the 70s), the Western media simply didn't acknowledge it until after several months. Same with the Al-Qaeda bombings. They're too reliant on Gulf Arab news-networks that are inherently biased toward Shias. That's why this site at least has to be balanced. And the reason why the Bahrain page doesn't receive more Western White Knights is that the media simply doesn't report on anti-regime events in the Gulf countries. And I'm about as POV-pushing as you, but at least I try to be balanced with my edits and refrain from name-calling (unless provoked, of course). FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Im done with the conversation. Sectarian and salifi involvement pales in comparison to the ongoing protests, and the subsequent rebellion against the regime killing machine. I won't be responding to your direct questions towards me anymore, unless i feel a need to. Sopher99 (talk)

Too bad. So much for free speech and democracy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Crushed by the Assad and Khalifa. Sopher99 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was Skeletor. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a response to skelator, but the western propaganda machines didn't believe them. Only the Eastern propaganda machines did. Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I read this in the intro, "Al-Qaeda has voiced support for the uprising, and its Iraqi branch is believed to be operating against the regime." ... I think that needs a source ASAP or else it needs to be taken down. Usually such groups flaunt about their accomplishments and involvements, so finding them shouldn't be hard, if not it should be taken down. There are also two statements in that one sentence, 1) Al-Qaeda supports the uprising, 2) Iraqi branch is operating in Syria ... sources for both are needed!207.112.63.146 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Both issues are further explored in the article body, with sources and all. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hello all. Under NOTAFORUM, it may be helpful if editors keep from accusing each other of being pro-Assad or anti-Assad. As to the meta-issue, I concur (as I hope we all would) that the lede should summarize the text of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is long over, no worries. Article is still too long, though. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think this issue relates to the above, so I'll park it here. First off -- both the lede and the ibox are meant to be summary in nature; much information routinely appears in both. With that as background, I'm not sure I agree with the reversion here, of me by Sopher, on the edit summary rationale in part of "We already put it in the intro." Though perhaps I'm missing something on our long talk page -- the rest of the stated rationale was "Not agreed to, vote did not pass" ... and frankly, I'm unclear what vote that refers to. In short, my view is that it is appropriate for items such as that one to appear in both the lede and the ibox, and the fact that it is in the lede is not reason for it not to be in the ibox (perhaps just the contrary, in fact). Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Supreme State Security Court

Hi ... Supreme State Security Court is in the infobox, twice. Uncited. I had redlinked its first appearance, thinking I myself perhaps or perhaps someone else would at some point write an article on it. Someone deleted the redlink.

My questions are: a) does it belong in the ibox?, b) if so, should it be in the body as well (it is not reflected in the body)?, and c) if it is reflected in the article, does anyone object to it being redlinked?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not uncited. The second time that it's mentioned in the infobox it is accompanied by this reference confirming its abolition. I hadn't realized that the abolition of the SSSC is not in the body, but it would indeed be proper style to include anything that's in the infobox in the article body as well. Regarding the red link: I think the proper order would be to first write the article and then create a link to it. Red links in the infobox should be avoided imho. Until the article has been created, it would be best to just leave Supreme State Security Court as non-hyperlink, plain text. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

As a general rule, wp:REDLINK provides that it: "is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." If the subject is in the infobox of this article, no doubt it is notable.

Is there a policy that says redlinks should be avoided in the infobox?

But whether or not it is redlinked in the infobox, if it is reflected in the article body (as we agree it should be, if it is in the infobox -- which, after all, is meant to be summary in nature) it should be redlinked there I would think, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to nip it in the bud

We should really not put claims like this into the article unless we have solid confirmation: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/defected-syria-general-vows-return-fight.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14223&NewsCatID=338 A Turkish (partisan) newspaper quotes an FSA (partisan) source for a ridiculous claim. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference

There is a difference between the Ba'ath Party (dissolved in 1966), the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region (a regional cell) and the Ba'ath Party (Syrian-led faction) (a transnational organisation). Stop mixing these things... --TIAYN (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede

"The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs."[9] Our lead is currently 7 paragraphs long. Someone might be interested in combining paras and/or trimming. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reduced the lead by throwing out unnecessary details that belong elsewhere in the article. But it still need to be reduced a little.--FavorLaw (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs would be removed - the "concessions" do not play a big role, especially because they mean nothing and that this is a quasi war. The last two paragraphs which talk about international stuff can be removed, as we talk about that at length in the sections below. Sopher99 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some opposition supporters editors are opposed to reduce the lead, it seems. --FavorLaw (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No we are opposed to reducing th lead the in the manner you brought forth, especially after we established a talk page on such. Sopher99 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are again violating wikipedia rules by reverting edits without any justification. You already failed with your abuse of speedy deletion on another page where you broke as well the rules of moving a page, and where you started to remove sourced contents after all your attempts failed miserably. I fear that you do not see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that needs improvement, but as a tool to advance your opinion on a given event. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Its the total opposite. You intentionally removed all the information about civilian deaths and sieges and left only the sectarian, concession, and free syrian army component, even though we were not done with his talk on this talk page. Sopher99 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I considerably reduced the concessions and international reaction parts, as well as the detailed casualties. The global figure of casualties by UN stayed, but now need for categorization in the lead. That belongs in the page, not in the lead. But of course, if it is not written by the syrian opposition, there are big chance that you will oppose it. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you reduced everything that you decided was what makes the regime "look bad". I suggest that the last three paragraphs only get cut, as the last three paragraphs are the least significant, as they are the least domestic and have the least effect on the uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to provide any solid exemple of what should be in the lead and that I left out, speaks volume. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I just said, everything in the lead is necessary other than the international and concession components. I'll be out for the next hour. Don't do anything that you would regret. Sopher99 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

After Harassament with you following me on various page just to revert edits, you are making threats. Wikipedia has a policy against such behavior and you should show some moderation before I have to use the appropriated administrator board, which I don't to use, because I am not a child who hides behind some authority. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My solution to the Lede

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.

The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion.

The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.

Verification of death-tolls and specific events have been hard to verify due to the Syrian government putting restrictions on foreign journalists. According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 8,000 people, including 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total, many more injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.

I believe this shortens the lead to wikipedia standards while also not leaving out the important things. Sectarian and iraqi alqaeda are still kept in, as well as the free syrian army and the deaths toll. All major points about the page are kept in, and so we have an unbiased but wikipedia standard lead. Sopher99 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear reception and thoughts about my solution. And not just by FavorLaw. Sopher99 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sopher99 - thanks for your suggestion regarding the Lede. This article has obviously been contentious because of the very different perspectives brought by different editors; I actually think that the result has been surprisingly good, in the sense that a lot of research and sourcing has gone into providing a great deal of information, and also important perspectives, for interested readers. The lede presents the greatest complications because it is hard to quickly convey the appropriate nuance that would be provided by reading the entire article.

I think one terribly important thing missing from the present lede is the international context of the conflict in Syria. That context will be written about in history books and is part of a more "long-term" perspective; it helps readers avoid getting lost in details, and rather makes those details comprehensible. The regional tension between the United States and Iran is something that deserves mention. It is also part of a more global tension between the United States and Russia, and China, though this larger point may not belong in the lede. I don't think the 2nd paragraph of the lede should describe details of Syrian regular army summary executions, but not summary executions carried out by the Free Syrian Army, and all of this before a broader context is given. I abhor what the Assad government is doing and I want it documented here. But I'm also not a party in this conflict and I can see that mentioning these details, but not the greater international context in which they've occurred, actually advances an argument that's not explicitly stated.

I will not be a philistine and say that events do not sometimes themselves advance an argument. I also don't think that someone shouldn't edit an article because they may be a partisan of the conflict they're seeking to describe. But it really should be our project to write a careful and a neutral article, and if that's done properly, readers will be able to come to their own conclusions.

One thing I do like about your proposed lede, among other things, is the brief mention of internal divisions within the opposition. This has been widely reported on and is not simply a matter of Al-Qaeda or extremist groups. Can we perhaps bring in more international context to this article, perhaps another sentence or two about the complexity of the opposition, and mention, in the second paragraph, the regional conflict between the United States and Iran? Thanks for your help so far. -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New proposed lede with considerations on advice given by Darouet

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.

The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership.

The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.

According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total.. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.

I should make note that i will not be logged in for the next hour or so. Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Whatever is done to the lede -- and it can be a combination of pruning, editing, and paragraph-combining -- I think it would be good to bring it to 4 paras.

Also, I think it would be good to strip out (and, if appropriate, embed in the text below) all the footnotes in the lede that don't support any highly controversial statements. It is enough per our policy for the refs to be in the text below, as the lede is summary of that text. And here, IMHO, the heavy use of footnotes in the lede is part of what makes it difficult to read.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New lede with regard to suggestions by User:Epeefleche

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.

The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. In late 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. The insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership. The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising, and the Syrian government has yet to mention sectarianism.

According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total.. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.

Sopher99 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned that the government still has considerable support within the country, from minorities and Sunnis from the middle class and above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• comment I would add {{who?}} to the sentence: "The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch.". I would also wonder if it is really a notable claim to be mentioned in such a summary for the article, it sounds rather like people wants to make Al-Qaeda and the Muslim brotherhood looks like standing behind every anti-regime movement in the Arab world. Personally, I have heared so many times about the armed gangs, terrorists and conspiracies trying to make chaos in Syria, but this is the first time I hear about Al-Qaeda too --aad_Dira (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

"Who" is US officials. It is thoroughly sourced in the article, so such a tag is unneeded. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on whether or not to include alqaeda can be found above, where we actually voted on whether or not to include alqaeda. The vote ended up with no consensus to include alqaeda in the infobox. But we conceded that it would ok to include iraqi alqaeda in the lede. If you believe otherwise, there are discussions for that above. I7laseral (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• comment the sectarian sections should not be included in the lede, the lede should only focus on daily occurrences, such as civilian deaths, insurgency, and international response. Sectarianism and concessions are not daily news. I7laseral (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the concessions are worthless, particularly if this is going to be a civil war, I think we should at least mention sectarianism. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire conflict is sectarian to its core, it is what it will be remembered for, and is more important than any single occurrences. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The conflict is not sectarian any where near its core. The conflict owuld be remembered as being an Arab Spring protest which was ransacked by the regime and subsequently faced a rebellion. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is cute how some Westerners still see this as some kind of proletarian revolution. No one in the Middle East ever bought it, apart from maybe the few Leftist who unknowingly paved the way for the Islamists. This is all about increasingly Islamist populations rising up against secular governments, everyone knows that nothing will change economically, and nothing has. We are getting some nice theocracies, though. The situation in Syria is just a tad bit more complex, due to the fact that the government is secular and belongs to a sect the majority believes to be heretical. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamism can coexist with democracy. I think the biggest test, once Assad and the rest fall, will be in how these countries integrate Islamist sentiments with the burgeoning desire on the part of the people to play a role in selecting their governments and making their laws. But perhaps this is a discussion for elsewhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably a discussion for elsewhere. But yes, Islam and democracy can coexist (see Turkey), but not Islamism, as sharia is inherent to it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a matter of sharia's interpretation and implementation. I think the popular sentiment among, for example, Tunisian and Libyan Islamists is that the likes of the Saudis, Iranians, and al Qaeda (spanning the political and sectarian spectra) have the wrong view of sharia and are unnecessarily violent and repressive. But it's certainly an open question as to what form of government emerges and how rule of law is handled, and it may well be a different result in Tunisia than it is in Libya than it is in Yemen (if Hadi cedes power eventually) or Egypt (if SCAF cedes power eventually) or Syria (if Assad is deposed eventually). In the meantime, I think the best we can do is present as best we can a factual picture of what is happening in Syria, as in Libya or Yemen or Bahrain or elsewhere, and try to avoid our edits being colored by our politics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the daily occurences reasonning. Most important characteristics have to be noted. But just in case, there are daily sectarian tensions. And the constitutional vote of tomorrow is very important.--FavorLaw (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The concessions are not significant as Half of the towns and villages across syria will not participate in them, Deir Azzor, Idlib, Hons, The damascus suburbs half of Hama and half of Daraa city and every town in Daraa province will not participate in the referendum. Even in government controlled areas turnout will be low, and we will have nothing that will give us hope that the referendum numbers reported by the government are even going to be true. The referendum is a joke designed to try to keep Assad in power, the same way that lifting the state of emergency changed nothing. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if you could use opposition language elements less heavily. --FavorLaw (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How is the constitutional "referendum" important? Homs, Hama, Idlib, Daraa, and many Damascus suburbs, and even parts of Aleppo, among other parts of the country, are under siege. You think anti-government Syrians - Sunni, Druze, Shia, Kurd, or Armenian - will get the vote while their neighborhoods are being shelled? We include information reliable sources report is going on. Your editorializing and pontificating about Assad's magnanimity in allowing a rigged referendum while the country is sharply divided by violent conflict and many Syrians are afraid to venture from their homes for fear of being shot by government snipers or shelled by government tanks, isn't helpful here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is important because it is a big change. For the moment the situation is deadlocked because the opposition wants to seize the power by force and not by democracy. If the Syrian Army successfully defeats the guerilla, the opposition will have to accept the political reforms. That's why there are 2 faces in the syrian policy..--FavorLaw (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no democracy in Syria right now. Even if the constitution is adopted and the regime genuinely relaxes the Ba'ath Party's control over the state (which I doubt will happen; refer to the case of United Russia or the People's Action Party in Singapore), elections won't be held until 2014. President Assad has plenty of time to rig the vote simply by killing or driving into exile enough of the people who oppose him, and that's before threatening the jobs of civil servants who support the opposition, as his counterparts in Venezuela and Zimbabwe routinely do. The result of the constitutional referendum should not be given WP:UNDUE weight, considering the opposition figures quoted in reliable sources expressly say it will not change anything and they regard it as meaningless. At most, it merits a few words in the paragraph of "concessions" Assad has offered that the opposition has dismissed as meaningless. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Result

The consensus shows that my latest lede is best. I will take FunkMonk's suggestion to re-add minority support for Bashar Assad as well. Sopher99 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are very generous with yourself in calling it a consensus. Anyway, the result of the referendum will have to be added.--FavorLaw (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The result can go n the constitution referendum section. But its not going into the lede. Sopher99 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The adoption or reject of a new constitution would be a major development, so it will be in the lede. You don't have any monopoly in writing the lede, contrary to what you seem to believe. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No-it won't go in the lede. We all know that 90-99% of the voters are going to vote yes. All pro assads are going to vote, few anti assad people are going to vote. The draft constitution is meaningless, but goes in the consensus section. I don't have a monopoly. Darouet, Funkmunk, Epeefleche, I7laseral, Kudzu1, and you are the ones who contributed to this talk, and everyone but you agree that this is a good lede. Sopher99 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not mean the lede is frozen. As the event goes it will be modified. And let them talk about the inclusion of the result of the referendum instead of speaking in their name. You are gifting yourself consensus and talking like you are 6 people in the same time. Enough is enough. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The referendum is not considered important by the those that participate in the uprising. This is the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising. Not the 2011-2012 Assad endorsement.This referendum literally changes nothing. The current constitution already forbid human rights abuses. We wouldn't even know how sincere the "poll results" are, even if it was somehow below 90%. Sopher99 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you realize how biased your explanation attempts are. To conclude, a constitution is the main text of law and is the main attempt at national reconciliation done by the governement toward non armed opposition. It has to be mentioned, the syrian governement has done two important things, military operations and anew constitution. Not mentionning it would be pro opposition bias. --FavorLaw (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lifitng the state of emergency was also considered pretty important, and it turned out it wasn't. We are mentioning the "new constitution", just not in the lede. Sopher99 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the lede looks great now, though I'd like to see a source for the Syrian government not mentioning sectarianism in the conflict. I'm pretty sure it has. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think sectarianism plays any big role in the uprising compared to the personality cult, censorship, arbitrary arrests and secret police, I guess well leave it in. I don't think the Syrian goverment ever mentioned sectarianism, as it is not in their interest. If they publicly announce on state tv or to the world that "People are only protesting/rebelling to get rid of the Alawites" the admit that

a - There are protesters/Syrian rebels, and consequently not terrorists or foreign plot

b- Assad lost at the very least half of his support, and subsequently its not a foreign conspiracy.

c- They risk losing widespread support in the sunni arab world (like Algeria or Mauritania).

Its not worth admitting sectarianism as it will heavily devalue the sense of "national unity for Bashar Assad" the government is trying to employ.
I7laseral (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reworded that section of the lede slightly in the hopes it will flow better and be less confusing for readers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)