Misplaced Pages

Definitely support. The truce only lasted for a few days. Not enough content for its own article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox

...of this article is a complete mess. I suggest we remove any "supporters" and stick to those parties that actually has engaged in combat. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that would do is remove Qatar Turkey and S.A. It won't make much of a difference. Sopher99 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't remove turkey. Since turkey has fired on positions inside Syrian, they are technically engaged in some combat. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that different forces like the United States, Al Qaeda, Israel , Turkey, Saudi Arabia are all engaged in one direct goal, destroying the Syrian governement.--Marjonesto (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Its also interesting to see different forces like Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, the Al Mahdi army are all engaged in one direct goal, killing the Syrian people. Sopher99 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Or rather, fighting rabid Salafists that will threaten the entire world if they get hold of Syria. I look forward to 9/11 #2 when I can say "told you so". FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

why is israel under "spillover"?? its a known fact israel funds and supports the opposition & also funds terrorists like al Qaeda. Baboon43 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Israel has fired and hit targets inside syrian over the weekend. It is definitely part of the spill over. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Low-scale border clashes does not make countries combatants unless they engage themselves in war against Syria, which neither Turkey nor Israel has done so far. As for SA and Qatar, none of these countries has sent troops and should thus be removed. Same goes for Iraqi Kurdistan and propably also the PFLP unless direct involvement can be proved. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, there is quite a bit of precedent for including countries that support one side or another. Unless you have an extremely good reason why, in this case, we shouldn't include them, I don't see them being removed at all. Jeancey (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we remove them. With the important exceptions of Iran, Hezbollah and the Mujahideen, this is an internal conflict in Syria and not a regional war as of November 2012. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There are other articles that include supporters in the infobox as well as combatants, see Spanish Civil War (a GA). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Germany and Italy participated directly, and so did the foreign volunteers. Not sure about Portugal, but the USSR and Mexico should definitely be removed.

That's a whole different case. The Soviets provided pilots and advisors, and the Germans and the Italians sent their respective air forces and troops. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that Iraqi Kurdistan can be removed (not any active part so far), but PFLP-GC did take an active part in Yarmouk fighting on the side of the Syrian Army - a dozen activists of PFLP-GC were killed over past two weeks (probably hundreds took part).Greyshark09 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well here's some more examples of articles that include weapons suppliers in the infobox: Mozambican War of Independence (a FA),Soviet war in Afghanistan, and Angolan Civil War (a GA). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In case of Angolan civil war, Soviet Union wasn't just delivering weapons but sent intelligence officers, dozens of which got killed through the conflict - it was a significant deployment of logistics and troops not simply "weapon sales".Greyshark09 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire, you can't drag in other articles and expect that to be an argument. We should remove Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia from the infobox and stick to the realities and the facts, which is that none of these countries or autonomous regions have intervened with their respective armed forces. That, or let the infobox remain extremely misleading. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it misleading? It clearly says "support", which is different from combatants. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn and Greyshark09, there was a heated discussion on this issue a few months ago, which also included an administrator I think, and a fine consensus among a majority was made to list all of the supporters, not directly engaged, on the supporters lists, but to leave Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the infobox because their open supplying of weapons and logistics to the rebels has been notable enough to warrant them staying in the infobox. Since than Turkey has also now engaged in direct conflict of sorts on an enough notable and major scale. There are multiple precendents on Misplaced Pages for listing supporters, this has also been discussed in those previous discussions. Read the previous discussions first please. The infobox is not a mess at all. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

GCC countries shift official recognition to opposition coalition

Syria crisis: Gulf states recognise Syria opposition This obviously does not reflect the situation on the ground (nor is it particularly surprising that the Sunni-run GCC states would choose to recognize mostly Sunni rebels as a legitimate governing body), but perhaps it should be mentioned in the article nonetheless.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Other than the fact that Sunni's and Kurds make up 85% of Syrians and 95% of willing opposition? You do know that the leader of the SNC is George Sabra is Christian right? Sopher99 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? All I was saying is that the move by the GCC isn't surprising, due to Sunni-Shi'ia tensions/rivalry.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

SNC goes out of its way to look "diverse" by putting minorities as essentially figurehead leaders. Still by and large Sunni-dominated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Libya and Tunisia(?) already recognise the opposition a while back as well? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

I think you're right because I remember hearing about Libya a long while back. I don't know about Tunisia though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, either. I'll try and dig up some material. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the International recognition of the Syrian National Council page, only Libya recognizes it (cited from what appears to be a middle eastern source, and the Washington Post. It doesn't say that Tunisia has recognized it, but it looks like the page has been edited in a while, either.

Actually, come to think of it, I didn't recall seeing that page (the international recognition page) wikilinked anywhere in the this article. I only just came across it by searching. Shouldn't it be linked here somewhere though?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source describing Tunisian recognition. Haven't found much else, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Everybody keep in mind that today's article is not about the recognition of the Syrian National Council but about the recognition of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate gov't. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware. The two are related, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On that note, since the SNC is now part of the NCS (holding 22 out of 60 seats), do we know whether Libyan (and Tunisian?) recognition transfers automatically? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

russia

why was russia taken off the side of the syrian government? they are supplying them with weapons...I noticed russia was there a few days ago now its gone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.2.61 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

See this: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

In our summary table of belligerents, it can seem (as currently presented) that all those below "Iran" are Iranian. That obviously isn't the case (e.g., Hezbollah, Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas brigade, PFLP–GC). I think the best way to clarify may be to bold the entities listed in the above parenthetical.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 14 November 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 - . "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: Esn (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support 86.160.248.214 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)-Django
• Strongly Oppose PKK deny they are in Syria, while the Kurdish Supreme Committee wants independence from the Syrian government and fights against them. Rebels and Kurds share a common enemy. Sopher99 (talk) 20:55, 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)

• Oppose, 99% of the combat is between Syrian army and rebels, adding a third column is ridiculous. best to use the line segment showing that they are not directly on the same side. I7laseral (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• We've had this discussion already - Not this again. We already had a discussion about this not too long ago: Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 17#Third row for Kurds. The result of the discussion was to keep it on the right side with a separation line unless the Kurds declare open hostilities towards the rebels. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:58, 25 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)