Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Syrian civil war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

→

Adding countries

Please discuss doing so on the talk page first so we don't have to deal with the arguments about Israeli involvement on such a large scale.Pug6666 22:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Best way to solve the "problem" is simply to add Israel in the infobox. There's a reason why it keeps being added, and the reason is that yes, Israel has joined the conflict, as attested by multiple reliable sources. And no, I don't want to hear any home-made arguments. Sources, or keep it shut. The sooner we get Israel in the infobox, and the Kurds in a third column, the better. It will happen eventually, so let's just cut the crap. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

These reliable sources you are referring to are often openly based on speculations, and have been countered by other reliable sources a number of times. I (again) suggest we leave it until Israel steps into the internal conflict in Syria, which it has yet to do. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, none have been "countered", you've provided sources that did not contradict anything, and you ignored the issue when I brought it up. Do we really have to resort to direct falsehoods now? Reliable sources say: "Israel joins Syrian conflict". You come up with sources that say "Israel is not officially aligned with rebels". And I repeat, these two claism are not mutually exclusive. And some more Israeli/Wahabi news: "In general, however, the Sunni-dominated Gulf States have moved closer to Israel in recent years in the shadow of the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Numerous media outlets have previously reported that the Gulf States would be all too happy were Israel to militarily neutralize Iran's nuclear program. Earlier this month, it was Qatar's prime minister who sought to breath new life into the 2002 Arab League Peace Initiative on terms more friendly toward the Jewish state." Aha... And now the Israelis are humanitarians: "Jerusalem native Moti Kahana heads a group of Israeli businessmen and American Jews who travel to the Syrian refugee camps to provide humanitarian aid to victims of one of the era's bloodiest conflicts. "We are Jews and Israelis and we can't sit still as women and children are being butchered nearby," he told Ynet." Laughable.FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is called Syrian civil war, not Syrian conflict and we do have to pay attention to the way RS report the nature of Israelis desultory actions imo - trying to put Israel centre-stage so to speak, and scrabbling for significance of Israeli businessmen and American Jews in refugee camps looks propaganda -ish and fringe-y style verbiage. Sayerslle (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that "Syrian conflict/war/civil war/whatever" are synonyms in this case. And no one is trying to put Israel in "centre stage", only to add Israel, which has been warranted for quite some time now. But I guess that gets the knickers of the pro-insurgents here in a twist. You know, those types that think Assad is secretly allied with Israel, and that these attacks are merely intended to cover that up. Lawl. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bombing weapons designated to Hezbollah is not the same as stepping into the internal conflict in Syria, and none of your sources contradicts that Israel stepping into the Syrian civil war is more than merely speculations (and yes, I have provided sources that clearly state this was all about Hezbollah, not the Syrian conflict). Adding Israel is in the best case misleading and in the worst case counterfactual. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel should be added to the infobox alongside the FSA, Mujahideen, and the Kurds respectively separated on its own row. Jumada (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

To anyone who want to add Israel, please give us sources that say "Israel has joined the conflict", etc. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The source would have to describe them as a combatant/belligerent. Sopher99 (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the sort of language I was reaching for. I agree, thank you. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the source would not need to use the exact words Sopher demands, he's the no1 pro-rebel watchdog on this talkpage. For quality sources that explicitly state Israel has entered this conflict, please see my previous lists of such references in above threads. I have no doubt many more could easily be found, especially after recent events. I'd copy them down myself and add others, were I at my home computer.

For the love of all things sensible, neutral and Wiki-like - add that country already. --Director

Per Goomba's request:
NBC News: "Israel drawn into Syria conflict, fires missile across border"
Los Angeles Times: "With airstrike, Israel steps into Syria conflict"
Wall Street Journal: "A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict.."

Some newer sources. "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. " "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war" "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ". FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

None of these sources describe Israel as a combatant or a belligerent, or that they are fighters in the Syrian civil war or if they are a side against anyone in the conflict. All these sources say is that Israel is part of the news on Syria. They are just stating the obvious, that Israel ties into the conflict somehow to a degree. They are not combatants that go in a combatant section. Sopher99 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol what part of "Israel drawn further into the Syrian conflict" do you not understand? Will the spin never end? FunkMonk (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

To include israel under "Belligerents", we require sources that describe it as such. It's really that simple. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So "joining a conflict" does not make one a belligerent? FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Articlea which carelessly title themselves with "drawn into the conflict" or that shallowly say "joins the conflict" are no where near the same as labeling them as combatants.

For example:

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2013/04/20134231834944540.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9283352/Lebanon-drawn-into-Syria-conflict-after-kidnappings.html

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-war-increasingly-drawing-lebanon-193607171.html

None of which make Lebanon a combatant despite the sources directly saying Lebanon is part of the conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if a party is a considered belligerent, you should have no trouble finding sources that call the party exactly that. There's no need to put the bar any lower. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no reason why sources, which clearly state the country has entered the Syrian civil war, must necessarily use the same words you folks invent here. The use of the precise word "belligerent" is not demanded anywhere on this project for inclusion in the relevant column. I wrote or thoroughly expanded dozens of such templates and never encountered any such requirement. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to satisfy your own criteria on this same article, e.g. for Turkey, the hezbollah, Jordan and perhaps even Iran, etc. Were we mad enough to take them seriously, we would probably need to thoroughly strip this template and many others of real, fighting combatants.

The bottom line is that the template guide describes a typical entry in the relevant category as "countries whose forces took part in the conflict", and makes no mention of any such absurdly specific and strict requirements. The rest is arbitrary raising of the bar. The sources are there, please modify the article in accordance with them - as per cardinal policy (or at least pause stonewalling other editors from doing so). --Director

Can you link to the template guide? Should lebanon be in the list as well? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The military infobox calls for combatants, not "participants". If an article noted Russia or America or Papua New Guinea as a participant of this conflict, it would still not warrant inclusion in the infobox. For example if a source says Russia "participates" in this conflict through sending military advisers, or docking warships on their Mediterranean base in Syria. Doesn't mean they go into the infobox. The guideline calls for combatants. Even then, the guideline recommends to keep lesser combatants out of the infobox and instead elaborate on them in the article itself. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

link? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict Sopher99 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in another one of Sopher's absurd word-mincing exercises. Israel's military involvement is sourced by any standards, and the country fits perfectly the standard requirements for inclusion in the infobox in question. Factions with much less military involvement and refs to their name are in mc infoboxes all over this project - including this article as well.

And no, the template guide does not "recommend we keep lesser combatants in the text". In actual fact, the above referred-to misrepresented text from the infobox guidelines does not refer to lesser combatants as such, supposedly advising their exclusion, but rather specifically addresses a situation with large numbers of factions, such as conflicts with dozens of them per each column (e.g WWII, WWI, Italian wars, Iraq War etc) by encouraging us to group combatants together if possible ("Allies:", "Axis:"). By no means are we anywhere near that territory on this article, where we have a relatively simple conflict with maybe a dozen factions altogether.

P.S. I do apologize if my manner turned out rather rough, I'm afraid this issue has been a cause of some frustration lately. The matter has been complicated by the fact that Wikipedia including Israel in the infobox might adversely affect the popularity of the rebel cause. I sympathize, but Israel has repeatedly chosen to attack one of the participants in the conflict, and the only neutral thing to do in the current situation includes giving the rebels some bad pr. I strongly urge Israel be added and this issue be finally put to rest. --Director

I don't think this is infobox is actually describing policy. I suggest a WP:RFC, since those wishing to add Israel aren't able to meet the level of evidence others are requesting. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the infobox guidelines are indeed not "policy" (who said they were?), but they do describe standard criteria for inclusion - as opposed to arbitrary POV demands by random users.

Second, we already had 2 RfCs.

Third, "levels of evidence" are not determined by random internet users, but by Wikipedia policy. And those levels, as defined therein, have been met. If one is a pro-rebel lobbyist on this talk page one would probably feel inclined to continuously keep raising the bar and demanding higher "levels of evidence", which actually happened in this thread alone. Wikipedia is not quite so dysfunctional. It is, however, apparently dysfunctional enough as to have no remedy for this brand of blatant WP:STONEWALL (at least until I can find the time to bring all this up at WP:AE or something..)

-- Director (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to the two rfcs about Israel and infobox? Would you like to suggest another algorithm for determining if a country is added to the infobox? (Presumably, this would cause Israel to be added but not, for example, Lebanon.) TippyGoomba (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm on my phone so its rather difficult to link things. They're above, plus I think there was a DRN thread as well. No consensus was reached, though if I recall supporters of inclusion were the majority (for what that's worth). Sopher himself at one point agreed as well if memory serves.

Re Lebanon, I didn't do any research so I really can't say. Its inclusion may or may not be warranted, its an entirely separate issue. As far as general algorithms are concerned, I really see no reason (apart from POV) to deviate from standard wiki practice with regard to this template, as implemented all over the project and loosely defined in infobox guidelines. When countries are concerned its particularly easy: if a country's military engaged in the conflict, include the country. If not - don't: this is the Military Conflict Infobox. The bid for inclusion can then perhaps be further supported, if necessary, with sources explicitly stating the country's involvement in the conflict (as with Israel here). But even that can be considered superfluous if military involvement as such was already sourced. -- Director (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel should probably have been added months ago right after the first one or two air strikes and artillery attacks, and that based only on sources confirming said military engagements as such. This what we have now is just overkill.. Even the Haaretz is reporting Israel has joined the war, and the incidents themselves are legion. -- Director (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 provided links above with regard to the Lebanon question. Tell me if they meet the standard for inclusion under the algorithm you are thinking of. Tell me specifically what criteria you used to come to your conclusion(s). I'm still not clear on what your algorithm is. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Its really very simple when countries are concerned. Include a country if its military engaged in the conflict. I.e. if engaged in fighting with one of the other factions in the conflict. If the country considered for inclusion is a minor combatant, then add a note indicating that - don't exclude it unless there are really dozens of combatants as in WWII or such huge complicated conflicts. (On the other hand, of course, if a country's military did not engage in combat - don't include it.)

I hope I've managed to be clearer this time around.

With the Lebanon.. I really ought to do proper research before voicing my opinion, and I cant do that right now. Again, though, if it meets the above standard criteria, I would include it. If not, I wouldn't. Regards -- Director (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Lebanon has no involvement on the gorund in Syria. Lebanese soldiers have clashed with FSA soldiers who were illegally in Lebanon, but so have Jordan and Turkey. This is far from Israel's attacks on Syrian factions on Syrian territory. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Fox has now filmed Israeli soldiers within Syria: http://video.foxnews.com/v/2387678544001/exclusive-israeli-special-forces-inside-syria/?playlist_id=2114913880001 FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction. If the soldiers were not authorized by their government, that would seem to exclude them from being added based on a single skirmish. I withdraw my Lebanon objection on that basis. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FunkMonk; Crossing the border on a few occasions does not qualify to being added in the infobox by a long shot. That Fox report adresses the danger represented by the possibility that Israel might get dragged in, not the danger of its already existing involvement. I again suggest we wait before drawing any conclusions regarding Israeli involvement. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And by the way; Do you remember when Israel struck Khartoum last year? The Sudanese government was fighting rebels in Dharfur and South Kordofan at the same time. Is Israel now a combatant in that war too? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A few points.

It makes no difference whether confrontations take place strictly within Syrian borders or not. The issue is military involvement with other factions in this war. Again Israel has been so involved and in a big way, it indubitably warrants inclusion; I couldn't say re Lebanon.
A note on legal history: technically Israeli troops have been on Syrian territory for decades, as the Golan is legally Syrian territory. Also, there exists a long-standing formal state of war between the Syrian government and Israel (which is all the more reason to include Israel)
Actions of a country's military force can be considered to have been actions of that country unless there is reason to think otherwise (such as a government condemning the actions).

@Mikrobogoevn. Yes, if the Israeli military attacked the city of Khartoum in some way, Israel should be mentioned in the relevant infobox, accompanied with a brief note explaining the marginal nature of their involvement. You generally do not appear to be informed with regard to the sources, please read the above discussion. Any country that has been militarily involved against factions in this conflict should be included (except when there are far too many such factions, which is by no means the case here). Not only has Israel been sourced as having repeatedly bombed and shelled Syrian Army forces and facilities, but reliable sources (including Israeli news) explicitly describe and interpret these events as Israel's entry/involvement in this war. There really appears to be no conceivable basis for excluding the country as a combatant (again, probably with some sort of note stating its limited involvement). -- Director (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense. Was Iraq a combatant in the first intifada because Saddam Hussein fired 39 Scud missiles on Israel at the same time? You fail to accommodate the fact that it's possible to fight two conflicts at the same time, and as of now, theories regarding secret Israeli motives are pure speculations. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a non issue. Israel is involved but there are no official sources to support the wording which would allow it to be put into the infobox. Im sure with the new delivery of Anti-Ship missiles this week from Russia and there impending destruction by Israel will give plenty of reasonable and acceptable sources in due course. Johnsy88 (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel just wants Arabs to kill Arabs., Any ther claim is ridiculous. But in this case, they have attacked a single side within a conflict. Whatever their motives are, this makes them part of the conflict, and as long as they do not attack the rebels, an attack on the government puts them on the same side as the former. This would be logical in any other conflict, but when it comes to Israel, we apparently need exceptions. Yes, Israel doesn't want to seem as if it is on the same side as the jihadis, and the jihadis don't want iot to seem like they are on the same side as Israel. but the fact on the ground is that they are fighting the same enemy at the same time. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You're getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory now. We need sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@Johnsy. Israel's inclusion is indeed a non-issue - as there are more than enough high-quality sources that explicitly state Israel has entered this war. To demand that a ref explicitly use the word "belligerent" is absurd beyond belief, and is a criteria that the vast majority of combatants in mc infoboxes throughout this project would not meet - including most od those currently in this article's infobox. Gentlemen, please read the presented sources and the guidelines of this infobox. By the stringent criteria demanded for the inclusion of Israel, practically all combatants in this infobox should be removed.
@Mikrobolgeovn. Yes, an entry along the lines of " Iraq (missile attacks)" would indeed probably be warranted. Military conflict is included in the "military conflict" infobox, Mikro. I suggest you read the infobox guidelines at some point, lest we be forced to go through the entire history of the Middle East with these pointless examples.
More importantly, you appear to believe conflicts are somehow "mutually exclusive", and that a military confrontation can only be within the scope of one conflict. I should not even have to point out the fact that arguments along those lines make no sense.

Incredible stuff on this talk. -- Director (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand it's possible to fight two conflicts at the same time. The Israeli strike on Khartoum had nothing to do with the ongoing war in Kordofan, and the Iraqi missile strikes on Israel was not related to the intifada. I can point out a thousand similar examples. Your suggestions does not exactly help your cause here. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At this point I think it's not reasonably disputable that Israel should be added in; the discussion should fall to placement within the infobox. The Jewish State has affirmed that it would prefer to keep the Arab Republic around if the alternative is the jihadi-infested opposition , which would argue against classing Israel as a "supporter" of the rebels. Of course, this has not visibly influenced Israeli strategy on the ground, which seems to be more directed against targeting weapons sites to keep them from Hizbullah. But Hizbullah in turn is quite involved in this conflict, having many paramilitaries actively fighting in both Damascus (Sayyidah Zaynab) and Homs (Qusayr) provinces, so war with Hizbullah is not at all mutually exclusive with participation in this conflict. Given that Israel's few but notable attacks have uniformly targeted the Syrian government (to date, at least), the right column is probably the best place for them—but at the very bottom, with one or two separation bars to denote the fact that they are operating quite independently of the Syrian opposition.

Additionally, given that Nusra and ex-Ba'athi, pro-"FSA" settlers have proven themselves to be unable to keep from attacking the YPG in Hasakah Province , and that rebels in Aleppo (where collaboration between the rebels and PYD is ostensibly strongest) are similarly lacking in self-control , I still maintain that the third column is the most accurate presentation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@Lothar, I tend to agree on both points.

Mikrobølgeovn, you do not appear to be reading my posts.

@"Again you fail to understand it's possible to fight two conflicts at the same time."

On the contrary, I understand that quite well. Which is why I've twice been explaining that conflicts are not somehow "mutually exclusive". Regardless of whether or not, as you personally believe(!), the Israeli attacks are also a part of some other conflict, the sources indicate they are most certainly part of this one as well. And thus are up for inclusion. Again, I emphasize that references explicitly place the Israeli attacks in the context of this war ("Israel joins Syria conflict", etc..). -- Director (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I get your point, but I think you're taking it too far. Suggesting we add Iraq as a combatant in the first intifada just illustrates how misleading every single infobox on Wikipedia would be if we follow this line, and although conflicts are not "mutually exclusive", they are neither "mutually inclusive". Besides, the speculative words of a journalist does not count as much as the words of a military expert or a state leader by a long shot. Years ago, I can remember a popular Norwegian online newspaper claimed the United States had lost its credibility due to its "ill-fated" involvement in Iraq, and that its position in the world would be replaced by the EU. These are speculations on exactly the same level as those who claim Israel has "stepped into the Syrian conflict", and if we are going to take the word of every journalist as an undisputable truth, then we clearly have a reliability problem. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line, once again, is that reliable news sources state Israeli military actions are part of this conflict. This is more-than-sufficient sourcing with regard to the standards of the article, while the issue of whether or not these attacks also belong in some other conflict is entirely irrelevant with regard to this subject. Or, to put it in more depth:

Nowhere did anyone claim that conflicts are "mutually inclusive". That would mean that Israel, by virtue of being a participant in one war, would necessarily need to be considered part of another war. That entire "mutually inclusive" sentence above is so weird it doesn't even resemble a counter argument of some kind.
And once again, yes, Iraq most certainly can be added in the first intifada infobox for launching dozens of missilies at factions in that conflict. It would need a standard note in clarification, but yes, definitely. Can we focus on this article, now, please?
Practically the entire article is written on the "speculating words of journalists". Raising the bar that high would necessitate the removal of the vast majority of article text as well as practically all infobox combatants. More to the point, news sources are acceptable by Wikipedia policy, and are about as reliable as can be expected for any source on this subject for a long time in the future (untill scholarly books and papers get published on the subject in significant numbers). Again, I see no counter argument here. Selective raising of the bar is the definition of POV.

-- Director (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The article must be based on facts, not speculations. When a city fall, that's a fact. When a massacre occur, that's a fact. However, when someone think Israeli actions against Hezbollah might possibly constitute clandestine support to the rebels, that's a speculation. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Even further: clandestine actions alone, even if established as fact, would probably not be sufficient basis for the inclusion of any country. That's a straw man, though. The basis for the inclusion of Israel are military confrontations, more specifically repeated bombings, shelling, tank forrays.. Those are facts too.

As I said before, such "facts" alone, when sourced, are sufficient basis for inclusion per infobox guidelines. The reliable news sources that explicitly describe these events as Israel's involvement in this war, those are just the "cherry on top". -- Director (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, we aren't talking about "support to the rebels". We're talking about simple participation in the conflict. Not the same thing per se. Israel would be put in the right-hand column not by virtue of the fact that it "supports" the rebels (they would rather have Assad than the jihadi-saturated opposition ), but by virtue of the fact that it has not engaged in open hostilities with the rebels. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Director - claims made by journalists are not undisputable facts. While the journalists are only doing their job by making such allegations, I suggest we refrain from drawing any conclusions before Israel actually assumes the role of a combatant here. Our standards are (or should be) higher than that of journalists (and don't get me wrong). --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, Mikro, you're just repeating an argument that makes no sense.

News sources are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia, and particulatly in articles such as this.
This entire article, including ALL infobox combatants, are sourced almost entirely by news sources, and your shameless raising of the bar above that point is simply ridiculous, in that it would entail the removal of practically all of the text, and, again - virtually all infobox combatants.

On Wikipedia, Mikro, we determine who has "assumed the role of a combatant" based on what the sources tell us, not by whatever cockamamie definition you or any other user invent. By any relevant standards, Israel has been sourced as having "assumed the role of a combatant". -- Director (talk)|

For goodness' sake, people! Add that country already!

Countries are added into the Military Conflict Infobox when (quote) "their forces take part in the conflict", and some such may only be omitted when there are far too many to list (as in WWII e.g.).
Sources not only confirm numerous such confrontations involving Israel, but many reliable references also explicitly state that (quote) "Israel has joined the war in Syria" e.g. and directly interpret said attacks as Israel's involvement in this war. This includes mainstream Israeli media as well! (Haaretz)
Israel is also in a formal state of war with the Syrian government.
Regardless of whether Israel's numerous attacks are or are not also a part of some other conflict, they are most certainly part of this one as well - as reliable sources state explicitly. Conflicts are not in some way "mutually exclusive".

This issue is really turning ridiculous, what do they have to do? launch the A-bomb? What is there to discuss?? If this were any other country, or if the Islamist rebels didn't stand to get bad PR over this - Israel would've been added months ago. -- Director (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel's actions has at least got to have something to do with the internal conflict in Syria before we should even consider adding her to the infobox. Despite media claims that "Israel has stepped into the Syrian conflict", the Israeli strikes has been all about Hezbollah. This is just getting incredible. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not the SCUD missile as reported

Folks,

After reports of SCUD missile strikes by the news media, a lot of people were thinking: damn Syrian Scuds are accurate and where is the big hole (Scuds make a very deep hole on impact) of a Scud strike! Now it is known that actually the basically missile strikes, are most likely by Iranian 110s sold to Syria. There are some news reports admitting the error but I am to lazy to post them.

Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Source? TippyGoomba (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear TippyGoomba --I did not write down the source so I don't have it. As I said I was lazy. That is why I never post it or challenged it in an article. I remember one source though was a NYT article. But since the 110 is a 'game changer' if any are given to Hezbollah there will be plenty of sources. But until then I thought the various editors of this article would like a heads up. Didn't mean to cause a ruck'us on a talk page. I could have understood the concern on the article page. Btw, you might find this article interesting. I use to be a assistant sysop for Compuserve, and after the first SCUD landed on Israel, journalist were demanding to know what the initials SCUD stood for and they would not believe me when I said "nothing" (remember in early 1990-91 the wide world of the internet for most people did not exist) I forgot about it till I found out a small forum had saved it.

Jack E. Hammond--Jackehammond (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Misquoting sources

The following was included in the Government Offensives section by Sopher99:

"Meanwhile The the death toll of the Syrian army's massacre of civilians in Baniyas vity was updated to 145." He based it on this Link.

I updated it to read:

"Meanwhile the pro-opposition SOHR claimed that the death toll from an alleged massacre by the Syrian Army and pro-Assad paramilitary groups in Baniyas was 145."

This was reverted by user Darkness Shines, who claimed I had "misrepresented sources"

Now, in the link the only claim regarding this massacre comes from the anti-Government SOHR, I believe my edit was in line with what was in the link.

Reasoning:

I included the claim that paramilitary groups were involved, as it says so in the link. This was reverted to claim it was only Syrian Army which directly contradicts the link. I was told by DS I was "misrepresenting the link"
The alleged massacres have not been verified by any independent group. The pro-Opposition SOHR ^[1] is making the allegations. Therefore it is appropriate to describe them as claims. The fact that this is claims reported by The Australian does not change the fact that it is just a claim. Again I was told that I was engaging in "source misrepresentation" by user Darkness Shines.

Darkness Shines has since posted a warning on my talkpage claiming I am involved in "disruptive editing"!

--CommieMark (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It says the residents said so in this new York times story , and "Multiple video images that residents said they had recorded in Bayda and Ras al-Nabeh — of small children lying where they died, some embracing one another or their parents — were so searing that even some government supporters rejected Syrian television’s official version of events, that the army had “crushed a number of terrorists.” One prominent pro-government writer, Bassam al-Qadi, took the unusual, risky step of publicly blaming loyalist gunmen for the killings and accusing the government of “turning a blind eye to criminals and murderers in the name of ‘defending the homeland.’ “ " Sayerslle (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That is fair enough, but that was not the source which was being used in the piece. Again, I quoted the source which was used correctly yet I was told I was "misquoting" and "misrepresnting" it. When in fact it was the other users who were doing that.--CommieMark (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Where in the Australian does it say anything along these lines "Meanwhile the pro-opposition SOHR claimed that the death toll from an alleged massacre by the Syrian Army and pro-Assad paramilitary groups in Baniyas was 145." The source does not even mention that SOHR is pro-opposition nor that the massacre is "alleged". That is OR & misrepresentation. Do not do it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not misrepresentation to say that SOHR is "pro-opposition", it is described as such on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights wikipage. The inclusion of paramilitary groups is directly mentioned in the article yet was still removed. It is not misrepresentation to describe the Bayda and Baniyas massacres as 'alleged', they are described as such on the Wikipage. By your logic, allegations from any organisation which references any incident (real or imagined) and which has not been independently verified, should be stated as fact if they are regurgitated by a mainstream-ish news source. --CommieMark (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Size (yet again)

The page has now ballooned to a browser-choking 280k. The "if you're going to cram your POV into the article, then watch me do the same!!!" model of editing that seems to have become the norm here should be eschewed for the moment so that we can cut the article down to size. As it stands, this article dwarfs our articles on both World Wars and the Holocaust. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire cut the article down last time. We can ask him to do it again this time, since no one had a problem with his edits last time. Sopher99 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've stopped editing this article a while ago. Too much stress. Good luck.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the intro is a good start for trimming. It should be a summary, and not go into as much detail as it does. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

FSA cannibalism

This is now in the mainstream media. Should we mention that there has been at least one incident of an FSA soldier eating the heart of a SAA soldier?

http://world.time.com/2013/05/12/atrocities-will-be-televised-they-syrian-war-takes-a-turn-for-the-worse/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to provide specific examples. Believe me I can provide many more specific examples of "shocking" things, particularly of the Syrian army. If we provide one specific example in a summary article, why not provide them all? Sopher99 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's see all your evidence please. Thank you, this entails mainstream media confirmation and ideally a video from Youtube or another uploading website

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sopher99, I am not the IP users. But, what about the more noteworthy example such as use of rape, chemical weapons, and canablism as tools of war. The cite is to the Foreign Policy magazine. See below.

On 26 March 2013, near the Syrian town of Qusayr, Abu Sakkar, a founder of the Farouk brigade ate the heart and liver of a dead soldier and said "I swear to God, you soldiers of Bashar, you dogs, we will eat from your hearts and livers! O heroes of Bab Amr, you slaughter the Alawites and take out their hearts to eat them!" in an apparent attempt to increase sectarianism.^[2]

[1]
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/uk-britain-syria-idUKTRE7B71XG20111208
[2]
BOUCKAERT, PETER (MAY 13, 2013). "Is This the Most Disgusting Atrocity Filmed in the Syrian Civil War?". Foreign Policy magazine. Retrieved 2013-05-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FSA and the rest of the syrian rebels may think canibalism is allowed according to their religion if the person killed is an apostate. Baboon43 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh you know, Syrian Army isn't very nice with pro-opposition civilians neither... --78.232.100.63 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying that cannibalism is allowed in the muslim religion is pure bull**** it's just maybe a "savage rebel"--78.232.100.63 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should put this information in specific article about crimes in this war.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the human rights violations article, it is too specific for this page. And Sopher, I'm curious to see what you can come up with from the regime side that matches this or the child executioner videos. And no, airstrike aftermaths don't count, happens every day in Palestine, and you don't utter a peep about that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How about being burned alive, children knifed to death, babies knifed to death, female prisoners having rats stuck up their vaginas, people buried alive, mothers with children in their arms hacked to death death, starved to death? The list goes on. Tell me, how many people in Palestine die a day from airstrikes and artillery shelling? In Syria it is over 100. But I don't hear you uttering a peep about that. In Burma, there are actual concentration camps like in world war 2 being set up for the Rohingya, but I don't hear you "uttering a peep" about that. Sopher99 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How about something that has actually been filmed/happened, instead of mere Twitter-propaganda? Who do you think you are fooling with those fantasies? Anyhow, even if we accept your claims, none of that hasn't been practised by the "rebels" as well. The difference is that the "rebels" are stupid enough to film themselves doing it. Reliable, western media are calling this one "the most disgusting act" filmed during the war, though:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/13/most_disgusting_atrocity_syrian_civil_war_rebel_eat_heart?page=full#.UZKLilDQ4KE.blogger http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/14/video-syrian-cannibal-rebel-eating-dead-soldier-heart-surfaces-leads-to-outrage/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/video-purporting-to-show-syrian-rebel-biting-heart-highlights-challenges-for-west-on-aid/2013/05/14/d06585de-bca6-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/world/meast/syria-eaten-heart http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-rights-group-atrocities-syria-20130514,0,6291313.story FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ll you did just here is give me 5 links to the same thing. Brilliant. I never gave any fantasies. These actually happened. Sopher99 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol, ok, show some reliable sources/videos that cover your outlandish claims, then. The FSA are lucky they still have some sympathisers here, now the western media is cutting down on propaganda on their behalf. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are five links that are all NOT the Same. Including videos for your viewing pleasure. Sopher99 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135413/Syrian-rebel-buried-alive-gunpoint-horrific-video-emerge-brutal-civil-war.html ("the most horrific video to come out of Syria")

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/12/syria-children-burned-alive_n_1339554.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/opinion/ghitis-syria-killing-children

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/rape-abuse-syria-detention-centers-video_n_1919656.html

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/42143

"Reports activists". Need I say more? Where is the rat story? FSA propaganda is getting more and more desperate/ridiculous. And people on both sides have been raped and burned alive, believe it or not, that's not unusual in modern war. Cannibalism and child executioners are not, though. Does it hurt more to be burned alive than to be slowly beheaded with a dull knife? Really? FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-read. You can't use activists as an excuse when most of those reports are interviewing civilians. Your attempt to divert the conversation is what is really desperate/ridiculus. I even provided you video, which you specifically stated was criteria. "filmed/happened". We can provide many more incidents of civilians being burned alive (which does hurt alot more) than of soldiers being knifed. Sopher99 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original point, we don't use specific examples in a summary article, especially one that happens to be 60k over the byte recommendation. Sopher99 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This would violate WP:WEIGHT in my opinion. If someone wants an atrocity section and to give as an algorithm for determining when an atrocity should be added, that's a different edit request... For those who think this should be added (and not other atrocities), I suggest a WP:RFC. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so now that all major news outlets are talking about how this video pinpoints the dilemma the West faces in arming the opposition, I think it is relevant. We could say something like.

"The West has been apprehensive in arming Syrian opposition due to fears that weapons may end up in the hands of opposition fighters like those who eat the heart of pro-government individuals."

Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As with over-the-top claims of people being burned alive/babies knifed to death, reports of an FSA rebel eating the heart of a SAA soldier seem no more believable. Give this, might it not be said that:

“The West has been apprehensive about arming the FSA due to the growing danger of weapons ending up in the hands of Islamist rebels. Rebels such as the ones that executed 11 Syrian soldiers – Reuters, 16 May 2013.” 88.107.52.72 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S: Seemed like a reasonable (if slightly boring) question. And yet no one is interested - maybe Tony and his mates could sex it up? 88.107.49.156 (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

FSA Using Russian AT-4

Intro

Deir ez -Zor

Hezbollah fatalities

My recent edit

Israel & the infobox

For goodness' sake, people! Lets add that country already! Just to bring everyone up to speed:

Countries are added into the Military Conflict Infobox when (quote) "their forces take part in the conflict", and some such may only be omitted when there are far too many to list (as in WWII e.g.).
Sources not only confirm numerous such confrontations involving Israel, but many reliable references also explicitly state that (quote) "Israel has joined the war in Syria" e.g. and directly interpret said attacks as Israel's involvement in this war. This includes mainstream Israeli media as well! (Haaretz)

And so on and so forth: "The Israeli launch of two air strikes on Syria last week presents a marked and dangerous escalation of their involvement in the Syrian war. " "Israel’s attack turns Syria’s civil war into regional war" "Israeli air strikes in Syria may change direction of civil war ".... etc.

Regardless of whether Israel's numerous attacks are or are not also a part of some other conflict, they are most certainly part of this one as well - as reliable sources state explicitly. Conflicts are not in some way "mutually exclusive".
Israel is also in a formal state of war with the Syrian government.

I agree and I don't see any sensible opposition to such a move. The reliable sources are there. However, Israel should be listed in a third vertical column. They certainly don't support the rebels, nor is their intention to overthrow or help overthrow the government. This contrasts with situation of the Kurdish militias, the rebels and the jihadists who are all fighting for the same goal, even if there are some confrontations between them. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What leads you to say that the Kurdish militias are fighting for the same goal? If that were true, then we'd see YPG fighting in tandem with "FSA" across the country as opposed to keeping them at arms length (on good days) and forcibly barring them from Kurdish areas.

Israel should not get its own column because—unlike the PYD/YPG—it has not clashed with both rebels and the government, only with the government. The infobox shows the combat situation on the ground first and foremost. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess one could say the Kurds are mostly in this fight for some form of autonomy or independence, but if that's the case, and if they are indeed engaged in battles with both the regime and the rebels, why are they listed on the vertical column with the rebels and the jihadists? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I find it as nonsensical as you do :) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Syrian civil war[57] is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba'ath Party government and those seeking to oust it." Unless Israel is considered a part of "those seeking to oust [the Syrian Ba'ath Party government]," we should not include Israel as a participant in this war. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Then how do we classify Israel's bombardment of Damascus military bases and weapons storage facilities and the minor skirmishes between the Israeli and the Syrian armies in the Golan, including the cross-border shelling? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Israel is in a formal state of war with the Syrian government further confirms that info on Israel doesn't belong in this article, as it has to do with seperate and preceding conflict altogether. Sopher99 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Phil. Pointless semantics. I repeat that Israel is sourced as having joined this conflict. Their exact intent in doing so is irrelevant - and is not a place where this discussion should be dragged to.

@Sopher. I suggest that at some point you start reading and properly responding to posts by your fellow editors. Please see point #3 above. -- Director (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son Not as part of the Syrian civil war. Israel has not taken a definite position against either side; it says that it's concern is to prevent Syrian weapons from being sent to Hezbollah or rebel groups linked to Al-Qaeda. And Director, please show me a source saying that Israel has joined the effort to overthrow Assad's government (that is the explicitly stated criteria to be a member of this conflict after all). --Philpill691 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read any of the previous threads to find myriad reliable sources to that effect. As for your insistence on Wikipedia "divining" Israel's intent in joining this war - I'm afraid I can find no such requirement in policy. Israel could bomb Damascus to the ground and still not warrant any mention by your standards. Again, silly pointless semantics.

Sources state Israel has joined the Syrian civil war. You don't really have contradicting sources unless you have contradicting sources.-- Director (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are some sources which imply that Israel has not yet become a part of the Syrian civil war (but may soon). --Philpill691 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR. And anyway, what these sources really do have to say (as opposed to what you interpret them as implying) - actually supports the case for inclusion. -- Director (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

...Which is original research on your own part. --Philpill691 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really: I'm referring to their stating Israel intends to escalate its involvement even further. That in itself, without any interpretation, adds to the case for inclusion. I shan't insist, however. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying that Israel may intend to escalate its involvement, therefore warranting inclusion in the infobox is ludicrous. None of those sources say that Israel is currently a participant in the Syrian civil war. Therefore, Israel cannot currently be included in the infobox.--Philpill691 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah and so the convoluted arguments begin.. Only too happy to unravel:

Firstly, up there you have a pretty impressive straw man: Israel's obviously not to be included on the basis of those sources you yourself just brought up up there, but based on sources such as this, as clearly explained before.
Secondly, Wikipedia is not a news agency. Our goal is not to convey the current state of affairs, but the war as a whole. Should we scrap the WWII infobox because its not "current"? And this is provided you can find a source that says Israel left the Syria conflict it has clearly entered as per the previous source. So a faulty argument on 2 levels.

-- Director (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You yourself are guilty of a straw man here: By current I do not mean delete everything which is not in the present. Obviously events which happened in the past are distinct from speculation about the future. Accurate, up-to-date information, without speculation as to the future, does not make a "news agency." We can't be adding members to the war which haven't entered yet and may not. Wikipedia is meant to convey the current state of affairs, as well as the past, but not the future. And Israel has not "clearly" entered the conflict; please see FutureTrillionaire's source below for a source supporting the position that Israel has not entered the war in the first place. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

My good man, what are you talking about here? Were there no sources for Israel already having entered the war I would not be arguing her inclusion. And you were pointed towards said sources. You keep talking about your own sources which talk about Israel's intention to escalate its involvement. Why?? Israel is not "going to" enter the war - it has entered the war. That is sourced. I don't have the intention to continue with you on this weird tangent.. -- Director (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also sourced that Israel is not a participant in the war. What we have here are conflicting sources. As that page encourages the use of all conflicting sources, I would support a compromise in which the article neutrally explains both sides of the issue of whether Israel has entered the conflict or not. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not sourced that Israel isn't a participant. No source I saw stated anything of the sort - as I said, that's your OR interpretation. By your own statement, you believe some refs "imply" Israel hasn't joined. You're entitled to your opinion, but as you probably know - we can't quote your synthesis. -- Director (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The source which we have already discussed, and can be found below says "The most important notion to dispel is that Israel has decided to play an active role in the Syrian conflict." How you can blow that off as "my interpretation" is beyond me. Sounds like denial to me. Or just ignoring the facts to suit your own opinion. The fact is that two valid sources contradict each other. As such we should follow the policies related to contradictory sources, which are as follows: "If two reliable sources offer contradicting information on a subject and none of them can be demonstrated unreliable, then an article should cite both." So as I have already said, we should neutrally explain both sides of the issue of whether Israel has entered the conflict or not. Please try to compromise. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources do not conflict. All that source indicates is 1) that Israel's target in entering the war is the Syrian government's ally; and 2) that Israel is only involved in a limited way. In effect it does state Israel is playing a role in the conflict, just not a big one. It does not actually deny that Israel is involved in this war.

But let me be clear: I in no way wish to imply that Israel is a particularly active or major participant here. I am open to compromise in agreeing to a have a note accompany Israel's entry to the effect that Israeli participation is limited. But let us not have an infobox that pretends it doesn't exist. -- Director (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement "Israel's airstrikes were intended to prevent Hezbollah from upgrading its arsenal, not to influence Syria's civil war" is completely contradictory to "Israel enters the civil war in Syria." To argue that these sources do not contradict is insane. Therefore this article cannot take a stance as to whether or not Israel has entered the civil war, but must explain both stances, which, like it or not, do exist. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You're starting to shift to offensive language, and I don't know what more to say. One can become involved in a war with or without a specific desire to influence it overall, particularly if one is a marginal participant such as Israel.. More importantly, the intention behind the entry, whichever it might be, has no bearing on the question of whether or not the entry as such took place.

I have honestly seen no indication that you have anything but your own interpretations and WP:SYNTHESIS behind your claim of a "sources conflict". I would hope to discontinue this bizarre exchange at this point. -- Director (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What was offensive? The word "insane"? I have not synthesized anything; the fact is that the two sources we have been discussing do not agree with each other. That doesn't mean that I want to combine their information to create a third argument, which is the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. I think it would be a good idea to explain both sides of this issue, which is the definition of WP:NPOV, without taking an unsourced position, which you have implied I want to do. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You can repeat your position however many times you like, as I explained just above: it simply is not so. None of the sources you listed contradict with the ones above on the crucial fact of Israel joining the war. I am, of course, willing to compromise, and, needless to say, represent all sources - but within the context of Israel finally receiving her long-overdue infobox entry. All that your source conveys is the marginal nature of the involvement, which is something that isn't disputed and should of course be made clear. -- Director (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, Israel should be there. I would rather see it grouped with the opposition than having a separate column. Although Israelis probably don't want Assad to be gone, they hit government forces and are clearly opposed to Iran and Hezbollah. --Emesik (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what professional analysts are saying about this: "Israel's airstrikes were intended to prevent Hezbollah from upgrading its arsenal, not to influence Syria's civil war." (Washington Institute for Near East Policy). Case closed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so Israel has entered the Syrian civil war (as per the other news refs) even though its real target is actually Hezbollah (Syria's ally in that war). Fascinating. Even were one to concede that point, what does that have to do with the (sourced) fact alone that Israel has entered the Syrian civil war? Would anyone care for some sea food while we wait for the "case" to be "closed"?

Please see the third point in the first post here: conflicts are not mutually exclusive. Provided the latter claim is properly sourced as well, Israel's attacks can be viewed within the context of the Hezbollah conflict as well. That has no bearing whatsoever on this issue though. -- Director (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

we had consensus and included israel in the infobox till these drive by editors set us back 100 years by removing it. France could make the same excuse, "we were at war with radical islamists not intending to invade mali"..nobody in their right mind would buy that unless they are pro POV and bias. clear israeli-syrian clashes im guessing it was for the love of hezbollah as well perhaps? Baboon43 (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course, but keep in mind:

it doesn't matter whether Israel entered the Syrian civil war to fight the government or its allies (Hezbollah). All that matters is that it did, in fact, enter the war (as the sources indicate).
it also doesn't matter whether the Israeli attacks on government targets are or are not also a part of some other conflict like the Israeli-Hezbollah love affair. They're certainly a part of this war as well.

One must be wary not to get sidetracked into such endless - and ultimately irrelevant - debates. -- Director (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Director, can you fill in your bullet points at the top with references and links to policy? (Or restate them here with this information.) Is anyone suggesting a specific edit? I can't tell from the above. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've listed the sources in the first post. The proposed edit is the introduction of "

Israel (limited involvement)" into the infobox (the exact wording of the note can be modified to whatever we think is best, maybe "air strikes, border skirmishes" or something like that). The entry would, of course, be separated with a horizontal dividing line. -- Director (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to disagree per what Sopher99 said. The conflict between Israel and Syria is a separate conflict and must be treated as such. Pug6666 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The analysis that I've read, including the WINEP article linked above, support what Pug6666 is saying. GabrielF (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Also can we remove the Israeli Arab conflict tag. It is becoming problematic to only have one revert every 24 hours on an article like this. These two events are separate. That tag creates more problems than it solves anyway. Pug6666 01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@Pug, apparently the Arab-Israeli arbitration tag was put 2 months ago in order to reduce sockpuppetry on the page and without any real relation to Arab-Israeli conflict (it was an arbitrary decision by an administrator). However the tag was put by an administrator, so i asked him to clear out this issue. For the future, i think there is a need to create "Syrian conflict arbitration" tool if needed, so there will be no confusion with other conflicts in the region.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Fellas, that's a non-argument. Are conflicts mutually exclusive? Certainly the Israeli attacks can be viewed within the context of several conflicts in the extremely troubled region - but that does not mean we need to "pick one" for some reason. The confrontations can be seen as part of the Israeli-Syrian conflict, or the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, but, as the presented sources indicate - they are also a part of this conflict as well. Arguably more so, due to the latter being a larger and much more high-intensity war (if we were to compare, I dare say that view would actually find more sources to its name).

I am not of the opinion that this project should effectively ignore and sideline the position of reliable sources - for no real reason whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel's position in this conflict is not neutral its quite clear they support rebels and their ally saudi arabia..even nethanyahu says the two countries have similar interests including regional politics Baboon43 (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel has repeatedly attacked a single party in this conflict. Whatever their motivation is, is besides the point. They are a belligerent. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone has to call this, I'll say I myself see significant support per WP:CONSENSUS, and no policy-relevant and/or source-based objections. WP:STONEWALLING aside, this should go through on any neutral article, as there is no coherent argument against including an active participant (whose participation is supported by references). On this article, however, content is usually controlled and censored through edit-warring, not reliable sources. Political interests however, pro-rebel or otherwise, have no place on this project. I'll say openly I intend to keep re-inserting the sourced addition unless confronted with policy-relevant arguments (i.e. contradicting refs) and a clear opposing consensus that might justify sidelining and disregarding published reliable references. I believe this is fundamentally in accordance with the intent of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- Director (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all conflicts are mutually exclusive, but this one is because the sources do not describe Israel as a combatant or a belligerent, regardless of who or where they strike. Being "involved" does not mean being a combatant. John McCain is officially "involved" in the conflict, doesn't mean the United States senate is added to the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Such POV "demands" can and should be ignored as they are without basis in Wikipedia policy or infobox guidelines. To illustrate the overt bias and absurdity of your request, I once again point out that every combatant in this infobox would need to be removed if such ridiculous standards were taken seriously (not to speak of other conflict infoboxes). I seriously doubt you would be able to satisfy such demands even for the Syrian Army or the FSA . In effect, you are arbitrarily raising standards of sourcing for one faction that you personally do not wish included, out of political (propagandist) concerns. Posts like the above only make clear one's bias and lack of objectivity.

Numerous sources unambiguously indicate Israel is involved in this war, and the country meets standards for inclusion described in the guide for Template:Infobox military conflict, i.e. its forces have (quote) "taken part in the conflict". Your own arbitrary, selective "standards" are absurd and are not worth serious consideration (or a single additional post on this talkpage). -- Director (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are sources that say Israel is involved in this conflict. But none say they are a combatant or a belligerent or a side in this conflict.

Even if Israel was a combatant - which it is not - we will still draw out this clause of wikipedia policy:

"When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles."

Sopher99 (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

All you do, Sopher, is repeat these nonsense "arguments" over and over again - even though you yourself at one time admitted they are nonsense and agreed to the addition of Israel. You simply ignore counterarguments as per WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which is a form of disruption.

Sources do not have to use the terms you dictate. The infobox guideline states that countries are added if their forces are sourced as having participated in the conflict. If we were to take your demands seriously, we would have to delete ALL other combatants from the infobox (and many other infoboxes). So only when you remove the others that are not called "belligerent" in sources, your position might actually begin to make sense. Talk to me then.
Your quote refers to situations where there are excessive numbers of participants, as in e.g. WWII and WWI which is not the case here. It is entirely without significance to this discussion or this article, yet you keep quoting it without reason over and over and over again - as if it somehow justifies your censoring sourced material.

Incredibly, you are able to ignore posts by other users even if they are right above your next post. I've not seen stuff like that in a while. -- Director (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Me and Sopher are not the only one who keeps "repeating" the same arguments over and over again, as this whole discussion has turned into a circle. As I've already pointed out a number of times, attacking Hezbollah or their Syrian allies is not the same as stepping into the internal conflict in Syria.

On a note, you have broken the 1RR twice today. I expect you to revert yourself, otherwise you will be reported. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

More precisely; attacking Hezbollah and weapons shipments is not the same thing as being a combatant or having their forces taking part in the Syrian civil war < notice the "civil war" in the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn. Not only are you repeating one faulty false dichotomy argument over and over again - you also appear to be missing some pieces of the puzzle here. Puzzle Piece:

The Israeli military repeatedly bombed and otherwise attacked Syrian Army targets - not Hezbollah. They claim this is in order to weaken Hezbollah, yes - and that may even be true - but the point is that they are involved in the conflict because of attacks on the Syrian military, not someone else. I'm sure if they launched a nuclear bomb on Damascus it would also considerably "weaken Hezbollah" (Assad's ally in this war), yet that does not mean they should not be included - as it would also weaken the Syrian Army!
Further, even if they did only attack the Hezbollah and not the Syrian Army - they would still merit inclusion here as the Hezbollah are another participant in this war.
And even if they did nothing of the above, and the sources overwhelmingly stated they were involved (as is the case) - their inclusion would still be justified. This project is a tertiary source and is written in accordance with sources.

So a faulty argument on three separate levels. The false dichotomy in your argument is that a military confrontation can only be considered a part of one conflict, and that we must "choose" and delete it from mention in any other infobox. Which is manifestly absurd (as false dichotomies generally are).

@Sopher, I'm sorry, but at this point I really do not care what you yourself think ("not the same" and so forth). The sources say it is the same, and state Israel is a participant here. And your "combatant" word games are really below response-value. -- Director (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've already made clear, attacking the Syrian Army is not the same as stepping into the Syrian civil war as long as it's all about Hezbollah. Your second point is merely a speculation, and your third point is anything but unchallenged. I think you might misunderstand the purposes of the infobox, which is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". A few Israeli air strikes is not a "key fact", and neither does it necessarily make Israel a combatant in this particular conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not up to you to make these sort of "decisions". Its up to the sources. The sources state Israel has entered this war. Whether or not its entry is "all about Hezbollah" or about Iran or Iceland - is entirely without relevance for this discussion (a red herring

). The purpose of this infobox and its "combatants=" entry, as stated in the guide, is to represent "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Your arbitrary personal definitions of "key" facts concern no one but yourself.

All you've made clear, as far as I myself can see, is a disruptive attitude and an intense bias. Having shifted your argument several times already in pursuit of the same POV goal.. -- Director (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Professional sources

Let me repeat. Let's see what professional analysts are saying about this: "Israel's airstrikes were intended to prevent Hezbollah from upgrading its arsenal, not to influence Syria's civil war." (Washington Institute for Near East Policy). Case closed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, copy-pasted red herring. Your source indicates that Israel's goal in attacking one participant in this conflict (Syrian Army) is to damage another participant in this conflict (Hezbollah). And that's all. It in no way actually disputes that Israel has entered this conflict; in fact, if anything - it implies their involvement. Also apparently another false dichotomy: we do not need to "choose" a single conflict wherein to include Israel due to these attacks, and discard the other(s). (I don't even need to mention that your source is in a minority, as there is no real contradiction in sources.)

And, if you'll note, the first listed source in the article is a scholarly source by prof. Fawaz Gerges from the LSE. That's much better than "professional" (as in a government source from a country with a stated position with regard to this war) - its scholarly. -- Director (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is not a think tank, not a governmental agency. It should be treated similarly to an academic source. GabrielF (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Any speculations regarding any clandestine Israeli goals are just that - speculations. Right now, let's stick to the official version. Israel striking Syria is nothing new, and it's only random that a civil war is going on at the same time this time. This was all about Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is supported by Syria. Israel has not stepped into the internal conflict in Syria, and are thus not a combatant in this conflict (at least not yet). And by the way, I am still waiting for you to revert yourself. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@GabrielF. Granted. Be that as it may, however, its just a red herring regarding this issue - in that it discusses Israeli motivations in entering the conflict, not its entry as such. It does not contradict what other sources state with regard to Israel being involved in this war. Whichever Israeli goals and motivations may be, they make the country's involvement no less. Especially when one considers that the Hezbollah are also a participant in this conflict (ally of Assad) and not some third, neutral party.

@Mikrobølgeovn, "Israel striking Syria is nothing new, and it's only random that a civil war is going on at the same time this time." Possibly. But because the civil war is taking place, these attacks on Syria belong in its context as well - as the sources state. Its not my assessment - reliable sources explicitly state that the attacks are part of this war.

@"Israel has not stepped into the internal conflict in Syria, and are thus not a combatant in this conflict." Again, the sources say that they are, or I wouldn't be making any of these arguments in the first place. -- Director (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear:

I grant that Israeli bombings in Syria can be viewed as part of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict and the general state of war between Syria and Israel, but, as numerous, numerous sources explicitly indicate - they are also a part of this war as well. Perhaps even more so. To argue a false necessity of choice between conflicts is a fallacy, a false dichotomy.
And I grant that Israeli motivations may well be the weakening of Hezbollah, and that the Hezbollah is possibly their main target. Such concerns regarding motivations, however, are an irrelevant red herring. Regardless of whether Israel entered this war to hurt Assad or the Hezbollah - they have entered the war in no less a measure. Note, for example the Haaretz source (Israel enters the civil war in Syria) which essentially explains that "Israel has entered the civil war in Syria" - in order to stop weapons shipments to the Hezbollah.

And I knew we'd see both the false dichotomy and the red herring used here. Which is why I included a cautionary note in the first post of this thread. Amazingly, a constant repetition of WP:ICANTHEARYOU followed even so. These are no kind of counter arguments to the addition of Israel in the infobox.

And in the end, people, what are we discussing here? Numerous sources have been listed stating Israel has entered the war: what do these OR opinions and declarations along above lines have to do with anything - when the sources say what they say? No Wikipedian with an understanding of policy should be trying to sideline what the sources explicitly support through some conclusions of his own. -- Director (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For someone who likes to accuse others of the ICANTHEARYOU card, you sure do like to ignore answering the simple arguments.

We have no source that says Israel's forces participated in the SYRIAN CIVIL WAR. We have plenty of sources about "drawing into the conflict", but keep in mind the "conflict" includes everything from the UN to Richard Engel.

We have no sources what so ever that define Israel as a combatant who actively fights in this war.

Even if we somehow did we still won't include it in the infobox as it wouldn't be a major factor. Wiki policy clearly says that combatants can be left out and explained later in the article. You can't use world war two as an excuse, world war two was the biggest conflict to have ever took place. Sopher99 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? It is unbelievable that an editor as incredibly disruptive as you has still not been sanctioned. You do not read talkpage posts and then attack others for not responding to your repetitive arguments - when they have done so three times in this thread alone.

As I have said three times, your entire argument above is childish wordplay. Nobody here is required to cater to your demands regarding specific words and terms. The sources are in the article and unambiguously indicate Israel's involvement in this conflict, meeting the parameter criteria described at Template:Infobox military conflict. Thankfully, we have clear instructions on how to use the template, and do not need to care about what you think might or might not be a "major" factor.

Please go ahead and remove all the other participants from the infobox, because none of them have sources that use the word "combatant", or "belligerent", nor state that "[xy] is an active participant", or whatever arbitrary demand pops out of your mind.. When you do remove everyone else, then I'll take down Israel myself. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

All those source tell how those factions are fighters in the Syrian civil war. Your point is invalid. You can cry about "wordplay" and "disruptiveness" but that is just superficial excuses to the fact your arguments are not straightforward and are instead very ambiguous when it comes to wikipedia policy. Sopher99 (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Third row for Kurdish militants (again)

Apart from the Israel issue, the most urgent one is removing the Kurds from the FSA side. Latest news: "KURDISH militants are battling rebels in northern Syria near the border with Turkey a day after deadly clashes killed 11 insurgents." http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/killed-as-syria-rebels-kurds-clash/story-e6freoo6-1226651019659 FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say the FSA is fighting them. It says al nusra is.

Furthermore, there are no sources describing the conflict as a three way battle.

If Israel was added it would be easily put on the rebels side, despite the fact the mujaheddin are arch enemies with Israel. The civil war is defined as a battle between the government and insurgents.

Lastly The Al nusra front went on full scale battle against Ghurab al Sham, another islamist group. By your logic we would have to create a whole separate column for Ghurab al Sham. But we don't, because no source defines the conflict as a three way battle between Syrian army, insurgents, and Ghurab al Sham. Sopher99 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, FSA-aligned—and SMC member (23)—Tawhid Brigade (one of the largest in Aleppo) is there on the frontlines attacking Kurds as well . They top the list of participating brigades on the official declaration of war against the PYD . ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't say it is a three way battle? Who cares? The sources say the Kurds ar enotaligned with the rebels, and that's what counts. "Since the beginning of Syria's uprising more than two years ago, the Kurds, who make up about 15 per cent of the country's population, have tried to stay out of the fighting, stopping both rebel and regime forces from entering their areas." And no, separation doesn't apply to other Sunni rebel groups, despite infighting, because these have mostly worked closely together with the others. The Kurds never did. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Besides, the so-called FSA arent even a big player in the whole story. The bulk of the oposition, the SAA is fighting against, are foreign backed mercenaries and terrorist groups. Also, good to know that the information on the real Kurdish stance is finally getting out. Was getting tired of the Kurds vs SAA propaganda.Ratipok (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Completely untrue. The foreign backed mercenaries in Syria are the Shabiha and Hezbollah, which has long been proven. Daily the PYD is fighting Syrian army in Aleppo. The civil war page is about the civil war not side conflicts. Sopher99 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the YPG is fighting the army in Aleppo. Really don't see why that changes anything. Clashes between rebels and the YPG have by now taken place in every Kurd-held area—in Afrin, in 'Ayn al-Arab, in Aleppo city, in Hasakah Province.

And no, Ratipok, the PYD is not fighting for the government. That is also a POV distortion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Iranians and Hezbollah are just two of the many foreign-backed mercenaries in Syria at the moment Sopher. You forgetting about non-Syrian Sunnis fighting on the rebels side? At least 700 of them have been confirmed as being killed in action in Syria by their respective countries and SOHR. Just go look at the info on the Syrian civil war casualties page. I am wondering why the western community wasn't reacting much when those foreigners were flowing into Syria in the last two years, but Hezbollah has been there for only 2-5 months and already it's an "invasion by foreign mercenaries". Guess its double standards as always. :P In any case, I agree there is, for now, still no need to add a third row for the Kurds. EkoGraf (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone recognized there were foreign fighters among the rebels since early 2012. But they are volunteers, no real organization. Hezbollah is an entire foreign entity. And its I - not the west- thats calling it an invasion by foreign mercenaries - in response to the other user's suggestion that the FSA is outdone on its side by foreigners. Sopher99 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

wOW is the title of this section "who is foreign in syria"??? I thought it was "third row for Kurdish militants (again)"!!! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually Sopher you are not the first to describe it as an invasion by foreign mercenaries. An FSA officer used the same sentence word for word three days ago. And volunteers? Come on, lets be real here. When they were hurrying to fight as "volunteers" in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Americans they were then called foreign mercenaries and terrorists. Now they are freedom fighters? I would direct you to read this article by the Guardian very carefully. It seems those volunteers, mainly from the al-Nusra front, have brokered deals in the east with the Army to transfer oil to their ports on the coast for a profit. Quote In some areas, al-Nusra has struck deals with government forces to allow the transfer of crude across the front lines to the Mediterranean coast. So my friend, they are not there to help the Sunni Syrians, they are there to make a profit, get more weapons, and when Assad is gone they will turn their guns on the FSA just like they have already attacked the Kurds. So I wouldn't praise them much. But in any case, like Lothar said, back to the main topic, I'm against a third row for the Kurds. EkoGraf (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

More information Hush, now. ...

Hush, now.

The main problem with the whole article is that at one point someone decided which media's are reliable and which are not. Thereof, usually the pro-rebel media are decided to be the reliable ones. Even though the majority of their on-field informations are provided by a guy that operates in a small bedroom, located in the UK. Facebook info basiclly Ratipok (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "pro-rebel" sources being used in the article. Just because a source cites SOHR doesn't mean it's pro-rebel.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is Sopher allowed to single-handedly obstruct this article from becoming less POV? He has announced his Internet-allegiance to the FSA on numerous occasions, so he is obviously never going to agree with anything that could be interpreted as bad PR. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, POV editors appear to be a big problem with this talk page. When faced with WP:SPA's attempting to introduce systematic bias, I'd advise someone with clean hands to collects diffs and eventually take it to WP:AN/I. Of course, this isn't a discussion topic for this talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Professional sources

Related Articles