Misplaced Pages

Talk:First Battle of al-Qusayr

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wüstenfuchs (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 14 September 2012 (→Christian exodus is part of the page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:49, 14 September 2012 by Wüstenfuchs (talk | contribs) (→Christian exodus is part of the page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconSyria Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force

Secondary parties

Minor secondary parties to a conflict should not be included in a general information box. To include an entry in the info box for twenty individuals is ridiculous. Also, it should be noted that these individuals did not go to Syria as representatives of Fatah al-Islam. However, I'll not stop you from including these twenty fighters since you feel that it helps to establish a neutral point of view. I've included the Iranian government and its fighters that are supporting the Syrian government. This will maintain a neutral point of view with respect to secondary parties. Although, I feel that the Iranian government and secondary parties such as the 20 fighters should not be included in the info box.--Guest2625 (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Per the source that Ekograf included, it mentioned that the fighters from lebanon did not even come into Syria under a banner of Fatah al-Islam. Is it imperative to include in the article that these fighters came in to aid the rebels to matain a neutral point of view, but it is not really nessacry to put Fatah al-Islam in the infobox, as Guest has already stated. You can see that they are a very minor secondary party, these idiviuals have not even gone to Syria as Fatah al-islam.--Goltak (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

EkoGraf quote: "I don't deny the involvement of Iranian special forces and military intelligence in the conflict,as the source itself suggests.But the ref you provided does not make any confirmation or even mention of their presence in Qusayr or the battle."

And, who are these Iranian special forces and military intelligence working with? The Washington Post article says that they are working with the Syrian army. Isn't the Syrian army one of the combatants in the info box, and don't you think for neutrality we should include also the secondary party which is helping them with "hundreds of advisers, security officials and intelligence operatives" across Syria? Or where exactly in the Syrian uprising info boxes should these secondary combatants be included? Based on your criteria that the article state the location which they are fighting I would assume that we should include the Iranian combatants in the Damascus clashes info box since the Washington Post article states "Iranian security officials also traveled to Damascus to help deliver this assistance." the quote appears to indicate that some of these Iranian combatants are operating in Damascus.
It should be clear that the Lebanese combatants and Iranian combatants from the two articles are symmetrical sets of information. In order to maintain neutrality we either include both combatants or we exclude both combatants. That is what neutrality means. And, at the moment it appears that the consensus is weighing towards exclusion, however, consensus does depend on what your response is. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Guest, here we don't have an issue of NPOV, but an issue of verifiability. You are totally neglecting the basic Misplaced Pages rule, that all additions need to based on verifiability. The combatant criteria in the infobox is there so we can put in it groups that are involved in this specific battle, not the general conflict overall, no matter how small the group is. We have a source that confirms the presence of Fatah al-Islam in the battle, but we don't have a source that confirms the presence of the Iranians in this battle. The source you provided confirms they are present in the country, but doesn't confirm they are present in Qusayr. You say we add them cause they are an ally of the Syrian army generally, well per that logic we should add the Polish Armed Forces in the West to the list of combatants in the Battle of the Bulge since they were part of the Ally force, even though they were not even in the same country at the time. Listen, here we focus only on the combatants of this battle, not the whole conflict, and sources confirm Fatah has been involved in Qusayr. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the inclusion of the al-Fatah related combatants on this page. However, the Iranians really do need to be added somewhere. Perhaps, on the main Syrian uprising page infobox. Or based on the Washington Post article it appears that the Iranians are involved in military activity in the Damascus area. This other source http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/syrian-regime-importing-snipers-for-protests/story-e6frg6so-1226254330519 makes it quite clear that Iranian and Hezbollah secondary combatants are operating and living in Damascus, and by the apparent large numbers and the fact that many are snipers that they are operating throughout Syria. But, the issue of other secondary combatants can be addressed on other relevant Syrian uprising pages.--Guest2625 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"While many were members of Fatah al-Islam, they were not traveling under the terror group’s banner. Instead they called themselves mujahideen, holy warriors seeking to help fellow Muslims under attack by the Syrian regime." Firstly, not all of them were even Fatah-al islam. Secondly, they didn't come into to Syria under as the group. --Goltak (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, they weren't fighting under the banner of Fatah al-Islam? Fine. But you yourself said now that they were fighting as mujahideen. In that case we add foreign majahideen to the infobox. You have pointed out to me, which I didn't notice before, that they didn't fight under the Fatah banner, but they did fight as mujahideen per the source. Sorry for my error before. EkoGraf (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Split

Since the Battle of Al-Qusayr practically stalled by mid-April and later resumed only two months later in June (finalizing with the takeover of al-Qusayr by FSA on July 10), i propose to split the aftermath into a second article named June-July 2012 al-Qusayr offensive.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if it is beneficial to make a new article especially one that has the fixed title of "june-july" since the control over the city will likely change. I think that it is better to use headings for the quasi two phases of the battle for the city inside this article as was done in the Battle of Zabadani. I don't really feel that strongly about the split or not, but I do feel that there are an excessive amount of battle articles which have artificial time periods when in fact the fighting is continuous with merely changing areas of control. Guest2625 (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, not important enough to have two pages. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, we can easily rewrite it into two phases. Been done before. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian exodus is part of the page

The rebel takeover of the city and the following expulsion of the christian community are linked and therefore a paragraph on it is an absolute need. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how recent edits can be POV if they are writen by the source... I wonder where is someone's POV when saying that Christians have been expelled? Or quoting a rebel saying that "Alawites must be slaughtered." If you are familiar with Srebrenica case, it's like saying - "it's POV to say Muslims were slaughtered." Same thing over here. --Wüstenfuchs 13:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories: