Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Adding Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Proposing that AQI should be added to the "supported by" section under the Mujahideen and Al Nusra Front belligerents within the "opposition" column of the info box as a good many organisations including now Washington has listed Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group; largely comprised of insurgents from Iraq as well as the larger al-Qaeda network. According to the US state department Jabhat al-Nusra front are effectively a front for al-Qaeda and former AQII operatives make up the majority of fighters in al-Nusra. MrDjango (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=56045 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=isGI_J_eTBg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDjango (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We already had this discussion. All Alqaeda in Iraq has joined Al nusra. Al nusra is in the Muujahideen section. Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I know al-Nusra are in the Mujahideen section, I'm requesting Al-Qaeda in Iraq to be included also, as a supporter, as they are funneling weapons and insurgents into Syria to fight alongside and within the al-Nusra Front.

MrDjango (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django

I'll put them in as a supporter in the Muduhideen section. Fair enough? Sopher99 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is agreeable MrDjango (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django
If they've "joined", then they should be under belligerents, not supporters. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
They stopped fighting under the banner of alqaeda, they are officially loyal to al nusra now. Sopher99 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not completely correct, they are operating through al-Nusra which are as good as their branch. EllsworthSK (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah we can't place them in belligerents realistically, as they are operating under the al-Nusra front command. However AQI does supply large numbers of fighters and arms, so the supporter section is the correct place. MrDjango (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django

Also, who changed the palestinian militia entry in the "opposition" column?!! The current wording is highly inaccurate and gives the impression that the general Palestinian population supports the FSA and that Palestinian militias only fight on the side of the opposition, which is incorrect and not NPOV at all. I'm especially unhappy with the Palestinian flag being included, as this is linking the Palestinian militias on the ground (those who do fight on the opposition side) to the greater Palestinian authority and occupied territories, where there is no real link to be made here. Come on Sopher, I thought we agreed on the text "several Palestinian militias", even though it became clear that there is only one such militia called "Storm Brigade" which I gave evidence to in the talk page. In fact this "Storm Brigade" is part of the FSA's command structure (created to influence Palestinian neighborhoods in the Damascus province), so shouldn't really be considered a seperate organisation at all!. I strongly suggest we give the Palestinian brigade it's proper name and list it as a brigade under the FSA (and take off the flag for God's sake. MrDjango (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django

Article intro

" International organizations have accused the government and Shabiha of severe human rights violations.[69] Anti-government armed rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well.[70] The majority of abuses have, however, been committed by the Syrian government's forces.[71]"

It would sound more NPOV if verb use was consistent, as in:

"International organizations have accused the government and Shabiha of severe human rights violations.[69] Syrian government forces have been accused of the majority of human rights violations.[71] Anti-government armed rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well.[70]" 71.178.211.200 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are accusations, they should be referred to as accusations. It is not the role of wikipedia to be judge and jury on these violations, but merely to report the allegations as they are made. To decide categorically that some violations are only "accused" violations whilst others are undisputed fact, made on the assumptions (and political bias) of the editor(s) is clearly POV. MrDjango (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django

 Done I edited it to specifically state who is saying what. I also added sources. Sopher99 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede looks ridiculous for a war article. 2/3 of the lede is about international reactions and human rights stuff. Those parts definitely need to be trimmed.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

  1. Is there anyway to compact the 'Commanders and leaders' section, because it became the largest and yet the least informative section.
  2. I am not certain that the 'Casualties and losses' section, should list government officials. Unless you can show that they took part in the fighting they are just civilian.
  3. The 'Syrian civil war' timeline use phases(first-third), where can I find explanation as to how those phases defined? Also I dont think that Timeline of the Syrian civil war should be the main article of the 'Uprising and civil war' section.--Mor2 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1) I propose we remove Iranian and Hezbollah leaders (except Ali Hussein Nassif), Riyad Farid Hijab, and Abdul Halim Khaddam. The last two are defectors who don't have any real leadership in the armed opposition.
3) I propose we change the numbering of phases to "Protests and sieges", "Armed clashes", "During ceasefire" and "Resumed fighting".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1) Right now the infobox seems like a mini battle ground, so I suspect that removing anything will raise objections. Maybe we can hide the section details instead? this way those who are interested can see all the details and the rest don't get an infobox that spans over a quarter of this very long article.
3) Sounds good.--Mor2 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

kurds (third column?)

is it just me or have the kurds been moved between both sides in the last few days? It really seems like a good idea to make a third column for them, after all they aren't fighting for the government or rebels, they are fighting for the representation of the Kurdish people to eventually create a Kurdish state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.134.74 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2012‎ (UTC)

I know listening to the bbc world service tonight, 20 November, from south-eastern turkey , the journalist saying he'd heard fierce fighting just over the border in Syria Ras al-Ayn, Syria - last week it was being bombed by Assad but today the PKK had been fighting with Syrian anti-Assad forces and that the wounded anti-Assad fighters were treated in Turkey but the PKK wounded could not do this and were treated on the Syrian side of the border. It does seem odd therefore to see any PKK flags on the Opposition side at this time as it's a more muddled picture. a third column might be a good idea really.Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Was discussed previously and decided to give it a month or so to see if the kurdish-fsa conflict flares even more. EkoGraf (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Last I checked, PKK officially denied any presence in Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Third column needed. Absolutely conflicting reports of who are they backing, they are too pragmatic to choose a side, as always do they are gonna switch sides depending on the conditions they offer to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polmas (talk • contribs)
  • Support for a third column for the Kurdish forces, I think the problem raised before was one of "undue weight" however it seems obvious we cannot ignore the Kurdish presence any longer, and including them with the Syrian opposition lends "undue weight" to the opposition forces as they themselves are deeply divided and are fighting constantly now with the Kurdish population. Eko: more reports of Kurd-Opposition clashes - [1]. "opposition fighters repeatedly battled Kurdish militias this past week, adding fresh ethnic dimensions to a bloody civil war." The other issue was FutureTrillionaire complaining about "cluttering the infobox" but that is clearly nonsense and hasn't affected any other articles on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDjango (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Whatever we choose as a solution, the Kurds should certainly not be grouped with the FSA. They've fought more with them than with the Syrian army. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the third column. The Kurdish forces had several clashes with the rebels. Those can't be ignored any more. We gave a "month" to see what is going to happen, and today, rebels clashed with the Kurdish forces. If we wait for another month, I bet we'll see another clash/es. --Wüstenfuchs 21:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support third column. In the future, it might even be necessary to add a fourth column for the Islamists if they decide to conclusively break with the Syrian National Coalition. Here's an article about an ongoing battle in which hundreds of Kurds are fighting against rebel Islamists in Hasakeh province: [2] Esn (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
First, PKK's presence is irrelevant. Secondly, the Kurds and the Syrian government share a common enemy as well. Guess who. See where I'm getting at? FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
To make it more explicit, FunkMonk is talking about Turkey. The Kurds (or at least the PYD, the only Kurdish group with a substantial armed presence) have rejected the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces largely because they believe it to be too loyal to Turkey: [3]. Esn (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not talking about Turkey. I'm talking about the FSA. FSA is a common enemy of the Syrian gov and the Kurds. The Syrian gov is a common enemy of the Kurds and the FSA. Everyone in Syria is a "common enemy". FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope, the result was "wait and see what happens". A lot has happened since, basically all Kurd-FSA clashes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The Kurds play a relatively minor role in this conflict. Giving a third column just for them is completely undue. We can explore alternative solutions if you want.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Leaving them out entirely would almost make more sense than what we have now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not the third row? It wouldn't make it undue. First reason for that is they have northeastern Syria second, the media are talking about them. Notable media will always report clashes between the FSA/Syrian Army versus PYD units, they even report their views, goals etc. They are highly notable in this conflict. --Wüstenfuchs 01:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are almost as many Kurds in Syria as there are Alawites, so they are not exactly insignificant, and have the potential to play an even larger role in the conflict than they do now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That's my point as well. We can't ignore them. They are an important factor for both, the Syrian governemtn and the rebels, which we could saw froum various reports. Also, conflict between the rebels and the PYD formations can't be ignored anymore. --Wüstenfuchs 01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I was the one who originally made this point about the kurds and I am glad to see there is a mature and open discussion about whether to give them a third column. My original points still stand, the kurds aren't on anyone's side other than their own, they've been fighting for independence for the kurdish people and a kurdish state for many years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.2.61 (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It was discussed before, see: [4] FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize that it was discussed before, but that was a month ago. A lot has changed since then and the kurds are taking a more active role in the conflict. The media may not always cover every event that happens regarding the kurds, but this is a very significant time for the kurds and their people, they are basically fighting a separate war for their own independence, if you will. According to the map on this very page they control many of the border areas, I think that is significant enough to warrant their own column, especially since they are on no one's side but their own, and only time can tell what will become of their controlled areas once the war is over.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.134.74 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak support On one side we cannot ignore that Kurds are hostile to anyone that enters their areas with weapons. Be it Syrian army (events in Kobane, Shekh Maksoud and others) or rebels (Ras al-Ayn). However KNC is part of National Council. PYD is not but Kurds =/= PYD. Also significant as they are I do not really know if they hold straw to force of rebels or army. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Kurds haven't yet gotten around to centralising their military efforts, but are planning on doing so rather soon. As to whether they are as strong as other groups, that's difficult to say. In comparison to the professional Syrian Army or well-trained jihadists like al-Nusra, probably not. But they clearly represent a significant enough force that both rebels and government forces are reluctant to engage them in full-scale combat. Aside from some clashes around Eid and a few other sporadic firefights and shellings, the Kurdish sector of Aleppo has been more or less left alone, as has most of Syrian Kurdistan. Whether or not Kurds can win in battleground combat alone is also not the full story. Look at PKK in Turkey—I don't think that anybody in Syria wants to deal with that kind of guerilla warfare on top of what is already going on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I am following Kurdish conflict rather closely so I do know about that. Also signed agreement has a long way to implementation, this agreement means creation of unified military command, not military unit. There are thousands of Peshmerga waiting on other side of the border which PYD does not want right now in Rojava because they fear it may shift balance of power there. There is also other issue, YPG may not be working with, but is certainly not working against mainstream FSA (this term got really popular in last few days). Their fight was with al-Nusra, we know who these chaps are, and Ghubarat al-Sham. Now this group is rather interesting because is started years ago as Assad-allied jihadists which were involved in transfering foreign fighters to Iraq - http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4481 - (can´t wikilink it because of the brackets) and went rogue afterwards. Notice that article is 5 years old. Hence why their call for reinforcements was completely ignored by other groups such as al-Farouq (in Tell Abyad) or Tawheed (in Jarablus). Therefore given the strength of YPG, connection of KNC to NC (their participation there, to be exact) and mentioned above I am more inclined to add them to third collum but not completely sure about that. EllsworthSK (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
So we have ten supports and three opposes. Is that a consensus or what? FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
WP is WP:NOTAVOTE. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No, but Wikipedia does work through consensus. I'd call what we have here a pretty clear consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - As an outsider who was drawn here after reading the WP:ANI filed over this dispute, I will mirror the remarks of other editors and admins in the ANI stating that it appears no WP:Concensus or WP:FILIBUSTER has occurred. As well as no need for admin intervention. Finding an alternative such as the infobox or going to RfC might be your best bet. This poll has likely not met its intended purpose. Mkdwtalk 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying the infobox?

When referring to the civil war in Syria, the vast majority of sources discuss the conflict between Assad and the opposition. There is mention of Kurds here and there, but they play a minor role. Making a third role just for them is undue and misleading, giving the impression that they play a major role in the conflict. There is already an article about the Kurdish conflict. Maybe we could remove the PYD from the infobox and replace it with a just a redirect to the 2012 Syrian Kurdistan rebellion. However, I suspect that this new standard will require some other minor parties in the infobox to be removed as well. Something similar was done for the Iraq War article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Same problem, where would you place this redirect? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter? It's like a note. It does not indicate which side the Kurds are on. It'll say something like: (For Kurdish involvement in the conflict, see 2012 Syrian Kurdistan rebellion). It really doesn't matter where we put the note. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
What matters is that there is overwhelming support for a third row. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there's no consensus here for a third column. Like I said, I'm willing to accept a redirect in replacement with listing the party. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a very strange definition of "consensus". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlike FunkMonk, I do not define consensus by the number of votes. Nobody has refuted the UNDUE weight argument against the third column proposal.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
A party that takes control of thousands of square kilometres of territory, over 350 towns, and a major portion of the largest city in the country, killing and losing scores of fighters in the process is I think a "major" enough combatant for anyone's purposes. Consensus need not be unanimous, and it need not even be airtight. Notably, this consensus includes bipartisan support from those variously described as "regime cheerleaders" and "opposition activists". You may count yourself as a dissenter here, but that does not entitle you to filibuster the result. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You're interpretation seems like OR. Find me a source that says that the Kurds are a major party in the conflict. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm not the only "dissenter". I think you've forgot about EkoGraf, Spoher and 17laseral. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to take OR-thodoxy to that extent, then: [5] [6].
Eko voiced no opinion on the matter; he merely stated that the last discussion ended in "wait a month". It's been a month. If Sopher and I7laseral wish to discuss further, I invite them to do so. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article for the Kurdish conflict: 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, which is separate from the main conflict between Assad and the FSA. The main article is about the main conflict. Adding a third column in this article just for the Kurds is definitely undue, considering the minor role they play, AND considering that the Kurds article already contains a 3 column infobox, so there's no need for 3 column infobox here. I don't like the current format either, which is why I proposed a redirect as a compromise. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you constantly claim it's undue? It's not, especially after considering the attention the PYD's fighters have recieved. --Wüstenfuchs 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why do you constantly claim it's not undue? It is, especially after considering the lack of attention the PYD's fighters have recieved. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What is this, we play kids now? The Washington Post, the Guardian, Hurriyet, etc... --Wüstenfuchs 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Cherry-picking a few incidents of Rebel-Kurd clashes does not say that the Kurds play a major role in the main war between Assad and the FSA. There is already an article for Kurds with its own 3 column infobox.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Your claim that the conflicts are "separate" is complete and utter OR on your part, directly contradicted by the sources. See Foxy's Washington Post article: "Clashes between Arab rebels and Kurdish militants in northeastern Syria are bringing additional complexities to the already murky front lines in the country's civil war." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
OR? See this: [7]-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"Within" means "inside of" (in this case as in "a constitutive part of"), not "separate from". So it's a "civil war part of a civil war", not a "civil war separate from a civil war". That source is actually a pretty strong support for the third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, the main civil war (which is what this article should be about) is between Assad and opposition forces. The "civil war within a civil war" is a more complicated matter that ideally should be explained in the Kurdish conflict article. This is why I support adding a note/redirect in this article's infobox that will take the reader to the Kurdish involvement article. The Kurds play an important role in the "sub-civil war" but not the "main civil war". Again, I recommend taking a look at the Iraq War infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not a separate conflict, unlike the civil war in Iraq. All sources that I have encountered treat it as part of this war, if a small part. Slovenia cleared Yugoslav forces out of its territory in ten days, losing less than 20 soldiers, but they still make it into the Yugoslav Wars infobox. The Central Powers suffered a tiny fraction of the massive casualties of the Russian Civil War and exited the fight years before it ended, but still get themselves a third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

LIke 17laseral said, the vast majority of the fighting is between Assad's forces and the FSA. Adding third column just for the Kurds is ridiculous.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my day arguing about this. I've said why I think a third column for the Kurds is undue and inappropriate for this article, and I've even offered a compromise. I'm not going to say anymore. You can reply to this if you want. But I won't respond. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I read your comments and before i put my 5 cents, can i ask you what are WP:RS saying about this? any source on belligerents by a good media report/analysis?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be undue if we didn't actually have frequent clashes between the FSA and the Kurds. But we do. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
True, and only Futuretrillionaire is opposing this... I think it's time we made a thid columne in the infobox. --Wüstenfuchs 23:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually many people are opposing it, and a dozen people is a very small pool. I support adding the Kurds as a note. Sopher99 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Currenty its 9:2... so... 11 people is well enough. Moreover, Future's arguments are not so strong, I'd say. He claims that Kurds are not important to the conflict, and as I got it, he would even go with expelling them from the infobox. I think he would keep Iranians and others, which would be preaty ironic. --Wüstenfuchs 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I would remove Kurds from infobox, but under the "ongoing" I would put Kurds establish autonomy. Sopher99 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
That's actually a very interesting idea, placing a summary of Kurdish involvement under the "Ongoing" rather than in the belligerents section. This would eliminate the need for a 3rd column. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's give it another month. If the Kurds become inactive, we could consider removing them. Right now, it doesn't cut it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's give it a year? What about that. Definetly not. So far, they proved to be a significant combatant, and this article should show the current situation, which is as it is. Second, why to be a hypocrite? Iranians are relevant factor and Kurds aren't, what are we talking about? This is laughable. --Wüstenfuchs 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I was never a strong supporter of including Iran and Hezbollah and the other even smaller groups. We can remove them for the sake of neutrality. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In fact, we could remove all foreign parties in the infobox and change the notes to "(For foreign support, see here)" -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
^This. Sopher99 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No, that is what we can not do. We had discussion about this, and I wouldn't like to repeat this. You can see the archive. Your main argument is that they are not relevant in the Syrian civil war, however, reports from the relevan media show otherwise... I can't see how your argument is valid, explain this to me if you could. --Wüstenfuchs 04:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The "discussion is not over", but we have ten in support against two or three. That is overwhelming consensus, so you better start arguing in favour of two rows, instead of reverting the third, Sopher. Your arguments so far are simply too weak. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Its not overwhelming consensus. The 47 to 29 vote to include iran and alqaeda in the infobox is consensus. The small pool of 13 with half of them being editors who don't even edit this page tells us nothing. especially because they did not address the problem of undue weight that was brought up later. Sopher99 (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I already argued this before and stated my reasons dozens of times. So I will just simply say, a third column is not needed, the way the infobox is now is all right. EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The~issue of "undue weight" has been discussed from the beginning. The Kurds are a fighting force on their own, who are engaging in clashes wit the FSA on an almost daily basis. It is certainly "due". FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The vast vast majority of the fighting in this conflict is between the FSA and Assad. When the news media discuss the civil war in Syria, they rarely even mention the Kurds. Also, Sopher's brought up a good point. Many of the people who supported a third column rarely edit this article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Shia Mahdi army was also in conflict with Sunni insurgents in the Iraq war but we didn't give them a separate column Funky. They were both in the same column but it was noted that occasional conflict between the two also erupted. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Kurds are often mentioned in the news, what are you talking about? Where do you get your news? And the Iraq war is irrelevant, Sunnis and Shias only started duking it out for real after the US had practically pulled out and left them alone, and it became it's own sub-conflict. And that's why we have Civil war in Iraq, which has three columns, by the way. The Syrian case is a kind of hybrid between that, the Lebanese civil war and the Algerian civil war. Not comparable to any invasion war lead by a western country. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Father Funk (my, how strangely these lines are drawn). All this talk of "simplifying" is pointless. Parsimony in infoboxes is only a goal insofar as it does not obscure the reality of the situation on the ground—I encourage everyone to review the infoboxes at Yugoslav Wars and Russian Civil War. After a point, less is not more; less is simply less. Whereas there is a case for not including certain marginal noncombatants, I can see absolutely no good reason to omit a notable belligerent party outright. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You are making false assumptions. Nobody has said they want to "omit a notable belligerent party outright". I suggested we replace Kurds listing with a note that will redirect the reader to the main Kurds conflict article. This is far from omitting. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Sunnis and Shias only started duking it out for real after the US had practically pulled out and left them alone??? Are you even aware that sectarian death squads were rampaging throughout 2005, 2006 and 2007 at the height of the war while the US was still there and in the thick of it? The Sunni insurgents and the Mahdy army were killing eachother on a regular basis while at the same time they were fighting the Americans. In any case, I support Future's proposal. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course the two who voted against a third row would then want to remove the Kurds entirely as a last resort, but it still doesn't work. As for Iraq, again, the civil war is separate from the US war on all of Iraq. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't see how removing the Kurds is any sort of "compromise". The dissenters think that Kurds are unimportant in the conflict, whereas everyone else sees them as important. I don't see how removing them outright balances the concerns of both parties—if anything, it is a more radical "dissenter" position that is even less palatable to the rest of us.

For the time being, I've put a second divider line between the Kurds and everyone else in the second column to show more separation between them. Kind of a kludge, but I hope it will do. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ingenious move Lothar, that could serve as a temporary solution. --Wüstenfuchs 21:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't understand which part of my support I ment to Future's proposition. I am not advocating removing the Kurds from the infobox. What I am in support of is that there should be a note in the infobox which in 3-4 words points to their occasional conflict with the other rebels and a link to the main article on the Kurdish campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's far more than just occasional. They're fighting the FSA more than they've ever fought the Syrian army, does that mean they should be moved to their side? FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. Both Ghubarat al-Sham and Nusra are not FSA, nor they do call themselves such and like to distance themselves from them. Ghubarat started as Assad takfiris dating back to Iraq war and were his honchos in Aleppo, recruiting jihadists to fight in Iraq under auspice of this fighter against terrorism. I linked it above. Yet Kurds (KNC and PYD both) call for downfall of Assad, refer to this no other than revolution and are hoisting oppo flags. Yekiti has even their own fighters in Salahedin brigade of FSA, Syrian Peshmerga which is being trained in Iraq is made of Kurdish defectors (under auspice of Barzani who has his own "issues" with Salih Muslim) and when Ghubarat and Nusra called for reinforcements from Jarablus and Tell Abyad Farouq and Tawheed sent zero, none, nada fighters even though most of them are having basically vacation in those areas. Kurdi al-Maliki even slammed those groups and called them shameful while other groups which participated in first fight against Syrian government left the town because they saw no point in fighting Kurds. And they were right as that was retarded. Also you are forgetting that those towns (including al-Malikiyah where YPG celebrated removal of security forces by shashing Hafez statues and Bashar portraits) were taken from government. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
All half-true. Open combat between Kurds and government forces is not common, as Father Funk says. This, however has more to do with the fact that the government does not want to waste resources and manpower fighting the Kurds than anything else. Like you said, it is also true that PYD/YPG have no love for Assad & co at this point. Government troops in e.g. Qamishlo are at the mercy of YPG fighters—basically caged in. As we saw in the fallout of Ras al-Ayn (is the truce still in effect there?), YPG can basically walk into a Kurdish town occupied by government troops, wave their hands, and the soldiers scurry off into the wilderness like roaches when the light is turned on. This very good overview of Kurdish participation by ISW refers to at least PYD/YPG as a "third force", while noting their touchy and at times antagonistic relationship with the KNC. Really, I think that this section should not speak of "Kurds" broadly construed, but rather the PYD as it is listed in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, so the Kurds are effectively removed from the infobox. I fail to see how that's any sort of compromise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I never said to remove them from the infobox, just to make a note of their conflict with the FSA and the link. EkoGraf (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, FT's solution is to remove them from the infobox and replace them with a short note of the conflict. So you have your own proposal is what you are saying? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was supporting his proposal of a note of the conflict, but not the removal of the Kurds from the infobox. What I was proposing is the example of the template we have at the Iraq war infobox, and that is why I mentioned that war. Because there you have a note in the box that says For fighting between insurgent groups, see Civil war in Iraq. I am proposing to add an asterix to the Kurds which says For fighting between the PYD and other rebel groups, see 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict. I think actually this was already done by someone before, but somebody else removed the asterix/note. EkoGraf (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ras al-Ayn

Hehe. :D EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Although I think we have way too many articles I agree with this. This is fist full-scale confrontation between Kurds and rebel groups (Aleppo were just clashes which ended after few days in truce where both sides agreed to work against government). Per SNOW it may grow in something larger (or may not but given how Turks are supporting groups and Arab tribes with strong opposition to Kurds - Ghubarat and Nusra came there from Turkish side of border after all - because they see them as arm of PKK it looks likely. Hasaka and Qamishlo will likely result in another shitstorm) so for now let´s keep it that way. But if it will not I will propose merger with main. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
And yet another good reason for a third row. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no magic number of articles that determines "too many". If a conflict, battle, or skirmish is sufficiently covered by a number of reliable sources, there is no reason why it should not be made into an article. Ras al-Ayn/Serekaniye has already gotten a lot of coverage, and notability is not temporary. WP:SNOW is for talkpage discussions, not articles. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems the FSA-Kurd clashes are being systematically downplayed around here. We have a long list of stub articles about minor clashes between rebels and the army where hardly anyone died (why do these[8][9][10] need articles?), so this one should be a no brainer. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yet it fades under pressure of hundreds of thousands articles about the war at all. Notability does not depends on popularity but rather whether it is worthy of notice. And many are not - for example battle of Taftanaz, Anadan checkpoint, having separate articles for 3 Rastan "battles" etc. They can be as easily incorporated into the main without actual invention of battles (since many were just clashes). Than we have articles which are notable but are basically opposite of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (*cought* Aleppo *cought*). This was case in Libya where we have such irrelevant cases as Ghadames raid or Ra's Lanuf raid. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
An article in the French press announced a ceasefire in Ras al-Ayn. The source dealing exclusively with the Kurdish question, can I translate the article if you want http://www.actukurde.fr/actualites/390/cessez-le-feu-a-rass-al-ain.html Maurcich (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kurds as combatant #3 again

The discussion above imo obviously presents a clear WP:CONSENSUS that the situation on the ground warrants placing the Kurdish faction in a third column. By my count there are 12 users in support (9 + Sayerslle, the proposing user, and myself), with 3 in opposition. That's about as decent a consensus as anyone can hope for. Sopher99, I think your opposition has been noted by everyone, but if you actually start WP:EDIT-WARRING here to have your own way, we'll obviously need to take the matter somewhere else. -- Director (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOTAVOTE. It's not just Sopher, there are others who opposed a third column as well.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not a factual dispute, its a subjective organizational issue - its a matter of personal opinion. Yes, the "others", so far as I can see, are yourself and User:I7laseral. Another 11 users disagree with you, however. -- Director (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If you would look down to the simplifying the infobox, other users agreed to the double line as a solution. I7laseral (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also readded the note describing fighting between Kurds and rebel groups with a redirect to the 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, we only have four guys disrupting this inevitable change over and over, because they want the Kurds to be "rebels". Can we cut to the point and get it done? There are practically no counterarguments, apart from the "undue weight" mantra, which is invalid. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not True. First of All Ekograf and I also disagree. Second of all that "vote" did not discuss the issue of the valid point of undue weight of the third coloumn. The only person to oppose the double line solution or even the note solution was FunkMonk.Sopher99 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't object to anything, look again. Why is it so important to have the Kurds and insurgents on the same side? No one outside of Wikipedia is fooled by that narrative anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You fellas are in a very clear minority, and are resorting to classic organized edit-warring to push through a two-column infobox against consensus. Most users favor a three-column solution as being more accurate. That's all I (or anyone) needs to know. And yes, I read the whole discussion. Seriously: people disagree with you - give it a rest already. -- Director (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
That "vote" did not discuss the issue of undue weight of the third column. Second of all if you look a bit further we found a solution. That was much more agreed upon. And apparently Funkmunk says he didn't object to it. Sopher99 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Look here:[11] The "clear minority" you're talking about made the vast majority of the edits on the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The current solution was only ever meant to be a temporary solution, until you guys had cooled off. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, isn't that a convenient "logic" that allows you to have your way even if the entire planet happens to disagree :). No, Sopher, this project functions by WP:CONSENSUS. And this is not a factual dispute - so yes, "votes" matter. I've reverted you for the last time, next we'll take your edit war to the appropriate noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, you've already broken WP:3RR. Please stop adding the 3rd cloumn. The status quo remains until there's a real consensus. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote. The consensus has to adress all the problems at hand, not just "iz likz kurds to hav lots of notability". and if anything the fact that its not about fact vs fiction make it especially not a vote. Several users including Wustenfuchs and Lothar von agreed to the double line solution, let alone the note solution. And apparently Funkmonk doesn't oppose it either. Both solutions adress the issue of undue weight and correct implications (as well as wikipedia article patterns). Sopher99 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Its not a vote, its valid arguments against your position supported by the vast majority of participants. You folks are simply bullying everyone. @Futuretrillionaire, the 3RR actually sets the limit at four reverts, not three. That's a limit I abide by.
The matter is now up on ANI [12]. -- Director (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • comment, placing all the opposition forces in one column doesn't mean, they all play by the same tune of "the enemy of my enemy...", that and in light of the minor part the kurds play in the conflict I'd rather have the two line solution aswell, with a readable infobox.--Mor2 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a precedent. See Algerian civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
3RR is a brightline rule. Not 4 but 3. The fourth revert is what crosses the line. 3 is the limit. Having said that, also be aware that even a single edit can be an edit war and could incur sanctions. Consensus is a colaboration of all invloved and if a consensus is not reached the information is not changed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Pardon, Amadscientist, but such has not been my experience in my several years on Wiki. What you're describing is a situation where users have a veritable veto on any changes to the article. In fact, if I remember correctly, policy explicitly points out that unanimous agreement is not at all required. -- Director (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well "IREKTOR" (if you want to drop a letter from my name expect it in return) I really have no idea what you are talking about. The rules are set and the limit is three and it really does look as if you crossed that line. As for as a single edit being an edit war....take that chance if you wish. No skin off my nose if you recieve a temp block really. And consensus is indeed a colaboration and is not a unanimous agreement. If you don't fully understand that I can point you to the guideline or policy if you would care to tell me what you are disagreeing with exactly. Consensus is not a vote, it is what all editors can live with. Yes, if no consensus is gained, the content is not altered. Sorry for being curt, but we have the guidelines to guide us.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You say that consensus "is not a unanimous agreement", then turn around and say "it is what all editors can live with". So which is it? Not unanimous, or agreeable to all? Can't have it both ways. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
"Agreeing" is different from being able to "live with it". example: "I can live with something that I don't agree with." -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, since we're discussing the subject, I thought WP:WHATISCONSENSUS might help.

"Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process.

Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action."

— WP:NOTUNANIMITY

-- Director (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in other words, consensus is not a vote and is not a unanimous agreement (some may still not agree but will live with it). It does not require all agree on the same thing. When a consenus discussion is begun there may be no consensus reached. In that case policy dictates that the change not be made. it isn't that hard to understand and I think DIREKTOR is getting there.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If you took a break from patronizing me, Amadscientist, you might notice I have about double your contributions on this project. I for one here do not require self-contradictory and inaccurate "clarifications" of the above sort, and I dare say very few do. First you implied that consensus requires that all be satisfied. Then you contradicted yourself in claiming that all need be satisfied, but not really, and now you appear to be attempting to rationalize said erroneous interpretations. What do votes have to do with consensus not requiring unanimous consent?
Quite simply: WP:CONSENSUS does not, in fact, require unanimous agreement. Not by any means. And 3RR was specifically designed to protect against WP:TE of the sort we have here (among other reasons). Naturally, bare votes are not acceptable on the project, but the above long and detailed discussion can by no means be characterized as merely a process of participants casting votes. I submit the above discussion is a textbook example of a user consensus, grounded in very sound arguments, that is being blocked by three users engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING. -- Director (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not at all accurate. I really don't care what the amount of contributions are that you have. I was not patronizing you, just stating that you seem to be getting it now. You didn't seem to be getting it before. What you described is no consensus. If you can demonstrate that there is a consensus....please do. As for others, you could just report the 3RR violation and let the admins decide whether or not DIREKTOR is in violation. If not, that is fine as well. But it doesn't seem to be discouraging anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
(I'm sorry, your {{User MAWcustom}} template seemed to suggest you do care about such things.)
I didn't actually describe anything. I merely pointed to the above discussion, where one finds twelve users arguing in support of the edit, with three opposing it. Of course, there is no clear definition of a "consensus" in terms of user support, but imo a 4:1 ratio, with the participation of about twenty users is about as strong a consensus as any one could possibly get on an article about a current civil war. The rejection thereof by the users in question suggests that they have no intention of ever budging on this issue, regardless of the amount of support this logical step gains. It is, in my opinion at least, textbook TE. -- Director (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I am a firm believer in rough consensus. if you can demonstarte (something you have yet to do) that there is reason to dismiss these three opinions as not being relevant to the discussion than you can claim a rough consensus. But to do that you most show that the three editors have not demonstrated a good faith effort to disagree. You claim it....but that is not enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
One can only review the discussion, evaluate, and offer an opinion as an entirely impartial outsider. Which is basically what I'm doing. I'm not sure what exactly it is you require? -- Director (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If you can't, or are unwilling to demonstrate what it is that you claim, then you are not on the strongest footing. And, by the way, you are involved and are not an outsider.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Literally the only people complaining about the stall DIREKTOR are you and Funkmunk. On the other side, future, me, and EkoGraf are very much engaged in making sure there is no third column, and you know what else, we are the top 3 contributors so it makes sense that we will be actively engaged in denying a third column. I should further point out the two columns system is long-standing. When there is no debate consensus, Status quo remains especially for long standing content Sopher99 (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam. On the contrary, I'd think that heavily-involved editors would be the most entrenched in their bias and so unlikely to change. There's a reason why WP:3O is a popular and effective means of dispute resolution—uninvolved editors can see past the stubbornness of the regulars and cut to the heart of the matter. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Implying we have bias. Future and Ekograf have never been accused of bias. I on the otherhand have been accused countless times. But thats only because I am the most dramatic. The top editors should through experience know what is undue weight, pov pushing, and notable inside and out.Sopher99 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Bias against change. Sentimentality, conscious or unconscious, towards the article that "they" built. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Even a single editor that has not accepeted the content may dispute it....but there are venues for it. I suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as the best venue to dispute content.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
They may dispute it, but that is not the same as filibuster its implementation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not a filibuster because 12 users including 4 users who don't return to the talkpage and 4 anon ips doesn't say wikipedia-style consensus, especially if they do not address the issues behind the so called filibuster. Sopher99 (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The 2 week 47-32 vote we had on including iran and alqaeda in the infobox was consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Issues of weight etc. were repeatedly addressed, but y'all didn't seem to be listening. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
We listened, but the explanations for how a third column is not undue were not convincing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a fine line.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The rebel clashes with the kurds happened for a week. This entire conflict is in its 91st week. The rebel-kurdish clashes killed less than 50 people. The death toll right now for this conflict is 42,000. 50,000+ if you include government soldiers. Sopher99 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Right, so if its all about numbers, consider how many FSA the Kurds have killed compared to how many Syrian soldiers they have killed. By this logic, they would fit better on the regime side than what we have now. That, or leaving them out entirely, would make more sense than dumping them with the insurgents. FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
48 known soldiers and 65 known rebels. Okay i was wrong the death toll slightly surpasses 100. Keep this in mind, the rebels have an activist network who report death tolls, the soldiers do not report death tolls to the public. Whats the most important is that the YPG seized land from the government and made peace and cooperation deals. Furthermore the KNC joined the SNC today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Syrian_Kurdistan_conflict Sopher99 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If you'll look carefully, you'll see that it is the PYD and not the KNC in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
KSC will be member of NC. Their representatives will be from KNC only but KSC decisions are 50/50 between PYD and KNC. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way Funkmunk, I am fine with taking out the Kurds from the infobox and replacing it with a note in the infobox that clashes have occured several times with Kurdish groups, and linking the page to the Kurdistan conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, that's a more radical iteration of your own position. As I said before. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it? We didn't even have the kurds in the infobox period a few months ago. Its not a longstanding thing. I clearly stated that we would keep the mention of kurds in the infobox, just not in any one side but more as an obvious note. Sopher99 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Having a third column for the Kurds just because of a few minor clashes is greatly undue. It gives readers the impression that the Kurdish role in the conflict is equal to that of the Syrian govt and the FSA, when in reality, the vast majority of the fighting in this conflict is done by the latter two parties. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@FunkMonk The Iraq War article "dumped" the Sunni and Shia insurgents together, and the level of fighting between those two groups is far greater than that seen between the Kurds and the rebels/jihadists. People were okay with that format for years. Why can't this article be treated similarly? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat my counterexamples, which you ignored earlier: Slovenia cleared Yugoslav forces out of its territory in ten days, losing less than 20 soldiers, but they still make it into the Yugoslav Wars infobox. The Central Powers suffered a tiny fraction of the massive casualties of the Russian Civil War and exited the fight years before it ended, but still get themselves a third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Bad examples. Those third parties were nations-states, completely different organizationally and politically from insurgents (which the Kurds are). By the way, the only filibuster going on here is the one aimed at my bed time. zzzz...-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note. According to this article, the Kurds are preparing to create their own independent army. "The main goal of our army is to protect the territory of Syrian Kurdistan from any armed intervention, whether Assad's forces or Islamist militant groups." Esn (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be the PYD, because there are many Kurds who are fighting with the Syrian National Coalition(although most reports lump them together).--Mor2 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Nah, that would be Peshmerga which is under auspice of Barzani whose main arm in Rojava is KNC. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
@FutureTrillionaire - it is completely irrelevant whether the third faction in a conflict are nation states, transnational empires, provinces, principalities, militant groups, rebel factions etc. It matters not at all whether the combatant authority is small or large (by your "expert opinion"). What matters is that they're an independent combatant, engaging in conflict with both sides. Nothing else. And they are. By the way, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Baltic German volunteers and the Freikorps are not "nation states". -- Director (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - (to reiterate) As an outsider who was drawn here after reading the WP:ANI filed over this dispute, I will mirror the remarks of other editors and admins in the ANI stating that it appears no WP:Concensus or WP:FILIBUSTER has occurred. As well as no need for admin intervention. Finding an alternative such as the infobox or going to RfC might be your best bet. Mkdwtalk 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I stated my opinion before and I state it again. Put a double separation line between the Kurds and the others and put the note that points to and links to the FSA-Kurdish conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Commanders

Is there a good reason for why we include non-military/security leaders (Abdullah al-Ahmar, Mohammed Saeed Bekheitan, Wael Nader al-Halqi, Hasan Turkmani) in the already-huge infobox? FA aricles like Finnish Civil War only contain leaders with a military role. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the leadercruft in the infobox really peeves me. Aside from maybe Bashar and whatever token minority guy the opposition has selected as their leader this month, I'd say the rest should be cut. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda, Sunni Islamists

The exclusion of Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Levant, the various Islamist Sunni subdivisions inside the Free Syrian Army in the list of fighting groups is seen by me as an attempt to blur out certain elements. The Al-Nusra Front is an example of the Salafi takfiri and Wahabi-financed Sunni Islamist character of the uprising since the End of 2011 at least. Leaving it out in order to "protect" the Syrian rebels from receiving a bad image via this wikipedia article is all too unscientific as it is POV and biased. Al-Nusra Front and other foreign mujahedeen have been considered by the United States and Russia as terrorist organizations. Sectarianism increase, Al-Nusra took an airfield of the Syrian Airforce in Aleppo Governorate (in the north towards TUrkey) and foreign Wahabi supported Salafi takfiri Sunni jihadists are increasingly important for the battle as a whole. They are well-trained jihadists formerly based in Libya, Saudi Arabia and Qatar where they received military training and education more than the FSA or Syrian Liberation insurgents who are natives mostly.NiederlandeFW (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

....are you actually being serious? Please, before squawking so loudly about such things, show at least the competence to look at the infobox, where you will find mujahideen including Nusra and AQI listed with a nice black jihadist flag right under FSA & friends. Or the nice mujahideen section in the article under foreign involvement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I just hope he doesn't want a fourth column.--Mor2 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Al Nusra is by far strongest on the ground that the FSA and is the main belligerent against the Syrian army. They should be higher on the list, above the FSA. --Getkit (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No.EllsworthSK (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree with EllsworthSK. FSA is more numerous and more prominent, even though al-Nusra maybe has better fighters (anti-Iraq Coalition veterans). EkoGraf (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian rebels, Sunni Islamist-dominated FSA brigades

Al-Tawheed, Liwa al-Islaam and other Free Syrian rebel brigades are also Sunni Islamist and radical, having destroyed churches and stated to Christians in Homs Governorate captured villages to "leave within 24 hours to Lebanon or be forced to Islam or be decapitated, Alawis will be slaughtered". This is the "secular" nature of the Free Syrian rebel army (FSA)? It is very dubious to consider the FSA insurgents, often from very radicalized Sunni villages (or opposed anti-government Sunni clans in disadvantaged regions in the far north, far east and and far south of Syria), as "secular" fighters. This is a United States attempt to influence public relations. Also, why would the Erdogan regime of Turkey which harbours both Jihadists and the FSA Sunni Islamist brigades (alongside the - more or less - "secular" Sunni defectors ex-officers from the Syrian Army), be questioned by CHP and other parts of the Turkish population (including minorities) as giving support to sectarian policies and sectarian terrorism against Syria's government? The FSA has more secular elements in itself, but it is still in part dominated by Sunni Islamist brigades and it fights with the terrorist-designated Al-Nusra Front terror organization. Most FSA insurgents do not obey the orders of Riad al-Assaad and other defected officers and want to establish an Emirate of Sham. The sectarian nature of the FSA cannot be overestimated right now. Maybe in the beginning it was different. The few Christian exiled politicians of the pro-insurgency opposition and some Druze and Kurds are mere excuse puppets for the Doha Coalition led by former Royal Dutch Shell Dutch tv prominent Moaz al-Khatib, who is allegedly "Sufi Sunni imam". al-Khatib also spreads hatred against Jews, against Israel, against Christians and Shi'ite Muslims (including Alawites) whenever speaking in Arabic. It is a "soft face" for the outside U.S. and NATO member states and subjects. But like Mohammed Mursi an Islamist radicalizing figure once in power. The FSA is dominated by Sunni Islamist-minded fighters and brigades. The deserted ex-SAA officers are all or mostly Sunni. They may be officially secular, but what will they do? Like in Iraq, the Naqshbandi "Sufi" Sunni Islamists of the former Saddam Hussein army became mostly also armed Islamists against Shia, against Christians. Al-Tawheed, Al-Sham etc. are all FSA radical Sunni brigades allied with Al-Nusra in practice too. There is no clear distinction. Only the few regional clan-based "FSA" militias in the far north may be in contact with SAA defected officers, Turkey and prepared to become moderate. But they are a minority and most of their civilians abandoned their clansmen and clan's leaders to flee to the government in Aleppo or Damascus or Latakia, or into Turkey. Hijacked revolution. Of course Assad's ally Shia Iran was also the 1979 scene of such a revolution taken over by the Islamist majority in the opposition. But it was Shia Islamic revolution. Shi'ites are hated by the Sunni radical FSA insurgents. The 3 % Ismaili and Twelver Shia Muslim minority, alongside the 12 % Alawi minority, are amongst the most threatened groups in Syria under rebel control.NiederlandeFW (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Militias (Anti-Government)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/31/us-syria-crisis-palestinians-idUSBRE89U0H320121031 http://www.americantaskforce.org/daily_news_article/2012/11/02/pflpgc_says_palestinian_brigade_syria_dangerous http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2012/11/05/8-martyrs-in-fsa-shelling-on-palestinian-camp-syrian-army-repels-attacks-on-taftanaz-airport/ http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/rebels-form-brigade-damascus-fight-armed-palestinians-aligned-president-assad

Sources verifying that the belligerents currently listed (and surreptitiously reverted to), as "Palestinian militias" are in fact a brigade under the command of the "Free Syrian Army", known as the Liwa al-Asifah, or "Storm Brigade".

These belligerents are only active in the Damascus province, in the Yarmuk District, and do not represent the totality of Palestinian demographics in Syria - in fact they have been formed to combat other, Pro-Assad groups such as PLFP-GC. Further more they are under the command, and coordinated by the "FSA", and should therefore be referred to as an armed unit, and subordinate, of the FSA, not as "Palestinian militias" which is an innacurate, and deceptive title.

'"We've been arming Palestinians who are willing to fight ... We have formed Liwa al-Asifah (Storm Brigade) which is made up of Palestinian fighters only," a rebel commander from the Suqour al-Golan (Golan Falcons) brigade (said).

"Its task is to be in charge of the Yarmouk camp. We all support it and back it (sic)," he added.'

'"Now they are targets for us, targets for all the FSA. All of them with no exceptions," said another Syrian rebel commander who asked not to be named.'

I suggest using the correct name for this unit, "Several Palestinian Militias" was an acceptable compromise, but these developments indicate that the correct position for this belligerent at present is under the FSA's command structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDjango (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Any militia not under FSA command falls in the "Local militias" listing. I don't see a real need to include "Several Palestinian militias". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Basically what I've been saying. Doesn't even merit a mention here on the main infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This, of course, does not mean that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command should also be eliminated from the info-box; as they are a small, but distinct, belligerent (filling the Pro-Assad miltant category) and are qualitatively operation in the Yarmouk area. There appears to be a tendency, among some editors who are sympathetic to the Syrian opposition, to arbitrarily add groups to the opposition column. The PLFP-GC, however are provably not under the direct command of the Assad government and are independent from the SAA. MrDjango (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Django

Yeah, the sources are pretty clear that PLFP-GC members are fighting rebels, but they seem to operate only around Damascus, like the Lijan militias, so I'm not sure if they're significant enough to be included in the infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As a discrete unit with a history unto themselves, I'd say they nose over the bar of significance. The "several Palestinian militias" were a perfect storm of A) poorly-defined B) geographically limited C) recently-established D) parts of another group. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The way I understand it, any party that is operating within the country should be classified as a belligerent and included in the infobox. Some groups have a limited scope of operation, such as PFLP-GC, Kurds, Shia militants etc. But if they are inside Syria, represent a faction of Syrian society, and are engaged in military action, they must be represented on the infobox; unless of course, they are operating directly under the command of a larger organisation and/or a part of that organisation's command structure, in which case only distinguishible units (i.e. Syrian Army, Syrian Navy, Political Security Directorate, and so on) should be included, and the rest filled out in subsection. As the "several Palestinian militias" are in fact a brigade, among many active brigades, of the FSA, they should either be examined elsewhere in the article, or itemized beneath the FSA's infobox title, as per the Syrian armed forces column. MrDjango (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd say these are too low-level to merit inclusion. We include the branches of the military because they are all on a similar organisational level. But the FSA doesn't have an air force or navy equivalent. We don't list individual divisions of the army in the infobox, so there's no reason to include FSA brigades. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Intrestingly, the day after you discussed this issue the PFLF-GC seems to have switched sides to the opposition and is calling for the arrest of their leader Jibril, who has fled Damascus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.146 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The PFLP-GC Palestinian organization is under allied command with the Syrian Arab Army and its military secret service coordination committee. There are many pro-Assad Palestinians in Syria. Despite the defection of Sunni Islamist Hamas from the Assad government in late 2011, the majority of Palestinians still see Syria and Iran as vital allies in an eventual opposition against Israel and the Palestinian refugees' return to Palestine. So whereas Hamas took an opposition stance, their adherents not all joined the armed FSA opposition insurgents, who came from the outside into Yarmouk, until then a very peaceful camp. NiederlandeFW (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

fourth column

I think that there should be a fourth column for the table that lists the "sides" in the civil war. column one would be the syrian military and any supporters. column two would be the free Syrian army and any related units (not islamists or jihadists), column three would be the kurdish people and associated military units, and finally column four would be the jihadists/extremists. each of these factions has something to gain from the war, should victory become theirs. each faction is fighting for something completely different and with recent news updates, it clearly seems that there are at least 4 sides in this conflict. the syrian civil war is truly a multi sided conflict with some sides temporarily aligning with each other to fight a common enemy, but later going at it with each other again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.134.74 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't many people would support 4 columnns. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Aaaaaaaabsolutely not. Columns are for distinct sides in the war who fight against one another. Jihadists are largely aligned with the secular opposition, with whom they coordinate to a high degree. Their leadership structures are separate (hence the dividing line), but they fight side-by-side on the front lines—with the jihadists often forming the most "elite" rebel units. You clearly haven't been paying much attention at all to the news recently, otherwise you would've seen and heard the outcry from the opposition when the US blacklisted their comrades in Jabhat al-Nusra. One doesn't make such complaints about an opposing faction. It's possible that they may come to blows much further down the road, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. At the moment and for the entire conflict thus far, the secular opposition and jihadists effectively form a single side—the "rebels".
Furthermore, do not speak of "Kurds" as a monolithic block; factionalism is rife in Western Kurdistan. There are Kurdish brigades within the FSA, and even non-FSA Kurds in the Iraqi-backed KNC are taking steps to align with the opposition. Only the PKK-connected PYD merits its own column, as it engages in combat with the opposition (particularly jihadists) at least as frequently as it does government forces. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Fourth column? No way, not a chance. EkoGraf (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The FSA, Lothar von Richthofen, is not a "secular opposition". The secular opposition is in Damascus or Doha or inside their houses, or in the Al-Assaad Turkish defectors' Syrian Officers central. The FSA fighters are overwhelminly Sunni Islamists (both Syrian and non-Syrian) themselves too, not "secular" at all. Despite NATO and US claims to the contrary, the FSA is Islamist too and sectarian Sunni-minded. This is clear from the FSA Al-Tawheed, Liwa and other batallions which collaborate with the Al-Nusra Front terrorists and other jihadist takfiri Wahabi and Sunni Salafist radical rebels. The "Kurdish" brigade in the FSA is also Sunni Islamist explicitly. This is very clear. I agree with Lothar that the Kurds are factionalized. There are also even many Kurds of Qamishli and Al-Hasaka who want more government troops to remain there. And by now I can even speak with Kurdish refugees from Syria in Germany who recently came to mentally support the Assad government and the Syrian Arab Army against the FSA insurgents. "Yes we are Kurds, but Assad is not bad, we do not need FSA, Saudis, PKK, Turkey, Erdogan. We are Kurdish-speaking Syrians too and not sectarian!" The jihadist terrorists belong into the same column with the FSA Islamist rebels. It was an FSA group of takfiri FSA Islamist rebels which taught the child recently to behead kaffir Alawi officers and Army officers of Christian faith. The Al-Nusra and foreign Wahhabi (Salafist Sunni etc.) jihadists are not in such close contact with ordinary citizens and children in public. This beheading video is available. Also FSA fighters destroying Shia mosques and Shia Ismaili prayer houses wherever they find them. And FSA rebels calling Romanesque and Greek Antique statues "pagan idols" near a villa. All available. All "secular" FSA fighters. Yes, very "secular".NiederlandeFW (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tall Kalakh

The November 30, 21 Lebanese Sunnis who came to Syria to fight with the rebellion were ambushed and killed, three others are being held for trial in Damascus and another is missing. I think this event is important enough to be an article, this event had a strong echo in the French press, I do not know if it was the case on the other hand, what do you think ? Maurcich (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's covered in the 2012 Lebanese conflict article. Didn't really have any impact in Syria itself. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Homs

I suggest you enclose the article "siege of homs" Because the seat itself is finished, the army is in the city although districts still elude his control. In October and November, if I remember correctly, the army took two neighborhoods. The main article is too long. Should therefore enclose the main article and open another article stating although fighting affect some neighborhoods. Maurcich (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the siege is not complete yet because the rebels still control a few districts in Homs. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree but the army is in the city. I agree to the rebel areas but why not open a new section called "Battle of Homs" because the situation is the same as Aleppo now a war of position, but of course not with the same importance. Maurcich (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's already sections in the article detailing recent clashes. Also, the military campaign that began in early May 2011 to rout out insurgents in Homs still isn't complete, so I don't think we should "end" that article, or create new ones. I agree that the word "siege" in the title is kinda misleading, but it was the word used by media at that time to describe what was going on.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No. Also you do not remember correctly. Also Old City and Hamidiyah is under bombardment. Also siege isn´t over. Also take it to talk page of that article. Regards, EllsworthSK (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I think at first the media were right, the army was actually on the outskirts of the city but the situation changed since then, but maybe I'm wrong, leave it as it then ;) Maurcich (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the army was restricted from the whole city to begin with. In May 2011, only a 2 districts that were under insurgent control were shelled. The word "siege" in the title refers to the siege of rebel-controlled neighborhoods, not the whole city. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that was the title that left me puzzled at first, then let go the item;) Thanks for your answers Maurcich (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I find this article to update the article http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/news/homs-is-calm-for-now-but-the-fear-remains-8405423.html Maurcich (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like EkoGraf changed the status of the siege to be over. Oh well.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how much I agree with the "over" designation, especially as sieges often are characterised by stagnation and a lack of open combat. Plus, the phrase "Homs is safer than Damascus" seems kind of meaningless when you consider the situation there now, with fighting utterly tearing apart the suburbs and creeping into Barzeh and Yarmouk neighbourhoods. Aleppo is probably safer than Damascus now; doesn't mean the battle there is over. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really sure either. The Old City of Homs is still in my opinion "under seige". Maybe we can change the title to Homs clashes? Just throwing stuff out here.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
*shudder* Our disorganised fustercluck of articles on various "clashes", "battles", "offensives", etc. in the vicinity of Damascus are bad enough. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
An Independent reporter went to Holms and reported that, except for one district, the Old City, the whole city is under Army control, and the rebels that are left are only present in that area and cut-off. There is no longer a siege of the city as a whole. It was noted in the results section that pockets of resistance remain. Also, in reply to Future, the city as a whole was in the beginning under siege because in January 2012 the rebels held 2/3 of it and supplies to the city were being diverted by the military. This was widely reported on at the time. Also, you said that Siege of Homs is not the official term. Well, simply I don't see that being true because that has been the common name used in the media for the most part. Here are the sources [13][14][15][16][17][18]. I will add them to the lead paragraph in the article as sources for the name. As for the changing of the status, it wasn't me that changed it, it was changed more than a week ago by someone else, but I agree with it, because a siege of the city no longer exists, the only thing still under siege is the Old City area. EkoGraf (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
According to the latest sources in Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war, there is rebel presence in Old Homs, Khaldiya, Qusour and Jouret el-Shayah (Aljazeera from oct 5 says: “government forces were mainly firing rockets and heavy mortars at the rebel-held neighborhoods of Old Homs, Khaldiya, Qusour and Jouret el-Shayah” and FARS from dec 17 says: ”The army also attacked the terrorist hideouts in Hay al-Khaledia district of Homs”). So either the Independent article is not complete (as the journalist was visiting with the army), or some of these neighborhoods have been taken back by army since oct 5, which is something I have not seen a source for… Tradediatalk 03:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That earlier report was from October 5, that's two and a half months ago. So it can be considered out-of-date. There were reports of a new offensive during that time period against those same areas. So new events did happen in the meantime. FARS is not considered a reliable source, but even if it were, hideouts in a district does not translate into rebels holding an entire district. Also, SOHR has not been reporting any clashes or deaths in Homs city for some time now, or at least very very minimal. Only in Qusayr to the north and near the Lebanese border to the west there have been reports of regular clashes and deaths. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Homs in Mid November 2012 was entirely under Syrian Army and government control again, although some minor clashes continue at the outskirts. There is no battle anymore. For some (biased anti-Assad commented) but true video images from Homs on November 12, 2012, here is the Dutch State Media Agency NOS with a report on "scorched earth tactics" in Homs. Nevertheless, most of the city is intact and under Army control. Slowly people are returning, but 100,000 Christians were driven out by the rebels and their homes and churches are now totally destroyed and plundered by Al-Nusra and FSA insurgent units. You can also see citizens calling the rebels terrorists to Dutch state news (which is anti-Assad and pro-NATO intervention).NiederlandeFW (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If you'll at least pretend to read the Independent article, you'll see that the Old City remains definitively under rebel control. Last I checked, the Old City is located centrally, not at the "outskirts". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

AFP is picking up SOHR reports of a frontline between Khaldiyeh and Bayada. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_18&oldid=1140148125"