Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 101: Line 101:
This map contradicts the situation on the ground. [[User:Jumada|Jumada]] ([[User talk:Jumada|talk]]) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This map contradicts the situation on the ground. [[User:Jumada|Jumada]] ([[User talk:Jumada|talk]]) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:Seems it makes the common mistake of showing unpopulated desert areas as FSA controlled. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 08:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
:Seems it makes the common mistake of showing unpopulated desert areas as FSA controlled. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 08:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
: Areas where there should be only flows military.
: Areas where there should be only flows military.

Revision as of 18:07, 4 June 2014

Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Template:Hidden infoboxes


Archives
Topical archives

Section 'Video footage'

While we’re all striving to make a relevant Wikipedia, especially in this case a relevant article about this Syrian (civil) war, and while a majority of us apparently consider this article (232,000 bytes) already rather long or very long or too long or unconveniently or undesirably long, I was struck last month by section 8 entitled: ‘Video footage’. It seemed, and still seems, rather trivial and (therefore) non-essential or even non-encyclopedic to me. Therefore I removed the section while trying to give my arguments, on 19April2014,9:47: (“sorry,this is all non-encyclopedic.Okay 'hundreds millions views',so what?Okay YouTube,'unprecedented': so what? Okay 'videos help documenting': do we need an encyclopedia to tell us that? It seems totally trivial,obvious”). One can ofcourse criticize the way I have formulated those arguments back in April, but I still can’t really see why this ‘information’ would be (very) relevant in this article. Immediately after my edit, it was reverted by mr/mrs Mezigue who doesn’t have more to say about it than: “It is of encyclopedic interest”. Are words too expensive down where he lives? Or does he not consider me deserving of a more serious, substantial, disputable answer, motivation? How relevant is it to write in this article that 100,000,000 people have viewed a video about this War? Could perhaps be relevant for an article on Videos, but why here? Are we also going to write in this article how many people have been watching television news bulletins about this war? How many people have been reading news papers about this war? How many people have talked about it to their wife, son, brother-in-law, plumber? Corriebertus (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sections, nor subsections, of Syrian Civil War is titled 'media coverage'. You (dear FunkMonk) also don't present 'the media coverage article' as a wikilink. If such article 'media coverage' nevertheless exists (which is not obvious, yet), then why is it not properly incorporated into (I mean linked from) main article 'Syrian Civil War'? If such (presumed) article is supposed to be of any relevance to this war, it ought to be attainable via wikilink(s) out of this main article. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this, all the way back from 2011: Syrian media coverage of the Syrian Civil War FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved it to Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War to broaden the scope, then we can dump most of such information there instead of deleting it. There are a lotm fo media controversies that could be mentione dthere as well, for example Gay Girl in Damascus, Elizabeth O'Bagy, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your remarks and thinking, FunkMonk. I’ve read that article ‘Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War’: it does not (yet) look relevant enough to me to give it a (new) section in main article ‘Syrian Civil War’ (SCW). Perhaps, in time, when more important “media controversies” (as you say), or other important media issues, have been added to it, it can become advisable to give it a new section in SCW. I see no Wikipedia-logic in "dumping" this 'information' of section 8 'Video footage', that apparently, after 10 days discussion, nobody considers relevant in any way, into another Wiki-article. Therefore, in line with this discussion, I now remove section 8 ‘Video footage’ from the article ‘Syrian Civil War’. Corriebertus (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Gay Girl in Damascus was not part of any "media controversies" - but a fully reported news story. A timely warning against media outlets taking YouTube videos and other 'information' at face value. A warning to double-check (FSA related) stories, and not report them as fact. Given this, I suggest a section titled:

A Gay Girl in Damascus and the stage-managing of the 'news'

92.20.242.92 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Elizabeth O'Bagy, her story is both telling and interesting. For MSM reports that this Syrian 'expert' was sacked for lying about having a Ph.D. This was only days after her sexed-up report in the Wall Street Journal was used - by John Kerry at Congressional hearings - to improve the case for bombing Syria.

Responding to concerns about her close links with the FSA, O'Bagy claimed she never tried to conceal her ties with opposition groups and that she was not paid to advocate her views on Syria. "I'm not trying to trick America here," O'Bagy tweeted on September 7 2013. Then again, she did little to highlight any of this.

Given how this fits in with media management - perhaps Wikipedia should cover this story in greater detail?

92.20.242.92 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those cases have specific articles that could be expanded. But I don't understand why such media controversies aren't relevant in an article about, well, the media coverage, Corriebetus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Abbas brigade

Can someone tell me how necessary it is to have the apparently inactive Liwa Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas in the infobox? How significant are the group's contributions in combat? And how is it more unique than Hezbollah and the PFLP in the conflict? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An update on the lead section

In the introduction one can read that "By July 2013, the Syrian government was in control of approximately 30-40% of the country's territory and 60% of the Syrian population". Would it be possible to update this information ? Thanks.--Kimdime (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assad in May2011 releasing prisoners

On 7January2014,16:42, BoogaLouie added information in section 2.1 ('Protests, civil uprising, and defections (March–28 July 2011)') about Assad in May2011 releasing hundreds of political prisoners (which later was changed by someone into: releases in March–May2011). Considering that section to be presenting protests and uprising Jan–July2011, I wonder, what has that info on supposed releasing of prisoners to do with that subject? Can BoogaLouie, or someone else, explain that to me? Corriebertus (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=589621906&oldid=589599284[reply]

The section is Uprising and civil war, and is about (among other things) the transformation of the Arab Spring protest into a civil war. The release of prisoners relates to the the development of the insurgents, specifically the current dominance of Islamists/Jihadist/Salafists in the insurgency. Here is a quote from the source I gave (Blanford, Nicholas (October 10, 2013). "Jihadis may want to kill Assad. But is he lucky to have them?". csmonitor.com. Retrieved 7 January 2014.)
Even the Assad regime is believed to have played a role in establishing a hard-line salafist presence within the armed opposition. In May 2011, when the rebellion was in its infancy, the Assad regime granted amnesty to political prisoners, releasing hundreds of them from jail, including members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. The newly released Islamists went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, including helping found Ahrar ash-Sham.
When Jabhat al-Nusra emerged on the scene in January 2012, it was widely dismissed by the Syrian opposition as a creation of Syrian intelligence. Since then, however, Jabhat al-Nusra has become one of the most effective rebel forces and has publicly declared its loyalty to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The Syrian regime is nominally secular. But it has a long history of tacit cooperation with militant Islamist groups that on paper it should regard as mortal enemies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, that information (release of prisoners) in section 2.1(Protests etc.,Jan–Jul2011) relates to (the) (supposed) development of (the) (specifically Islamist/Salafist) insurgents (as relevant party/parties in this Syrian conflict). In that case, that information should probably be placed in section 4 'Belligerents' (subsection 4.2 'Opposition' ? ), I suppose — but surely it should not stand in section 2, which recounts chronologically the actual concrete developments and events in these protests and uprising and war. (Arab Spring transforming into (this) civil war is, by the way, for the moment, only interpretation of Wiki editor(s) — until we’ve seen sources saying that; more on that issue, in the Talk section directly underneath.) Also, I don’t understand what is meant with ‘development of insurgents’, and still don’t understand what releasing of prisoners in March–May2011 has to do with ‘development of insurgents’. Corriebertus (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

still don’t understand what releasing of prisoners in March–May2011 has to do with ‘development of insurgents’.
Didn't you read this: The newly released Islamists went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, including helping found Ahrar ash-Sham. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't seriously suggesting that I'd say "I don't understand..." about something I would not have read!? Of course I've read your statement(7Jan2014): "...released ...prisoners...including Islamists, some of whom went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, such as Ahrar ash-Sham". Anyway, the main point I wanted to make (because I'm trying to clean up and improve section 2.1) is: this portion of information belongs in section 4, because it relates to developments within a (belligerent) party, while section 2 is relating on the developments of the uprising and protests and war itself. But even if you kindly replace it into section 4, I'm not sure the info is relevant even there, because you don't make clear what Assad's release has to do with development of an opposition group. That opposition group can consist of one or two ex-detainees, one or two ex-football players, one or two ex-soldiers, one or two ex-lawyers, one or two ex-bakers, farmers, students, etc etc.; so what? Perhaps I'm wrong, as I've never studied section 4, perhaps your information is very relevant over there in section 4. But I wouldn't seem honest to myself if I would not have warned you about my doubts in that matter, as I did. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...response to Arab Spring... ?

Section 2.1 (Protests etc. Jan–Jul2011) claims, ambiguously, that something (either ‘conflict’ or ‘uprising’ or ‘protests’) was/were a response to Arab Spring and corruption and abuses. First of all: does that ‘response’ linguistically refer to conflict or uprising or protests? Secondly: is that contention based on sources or is it personal interpretation of one or several Wiki editors? Corriebertus (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Image

Map of war in June 2014.

189.101.45.94 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This map contradicts the situation on the ground. Jumada (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it makes the common mistake of showing unpopulated desert areas as FSA controlled. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Areas where there should be only flows military. 189.101.44.90 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war&oldid=611560582"