I've just removed several figures from the article which claimed, without a specific reference, to be the total of various types of casualties. Per WP:OR we can't add up various figures which were posted in Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for itself. There appear to be a number of well credentialed external organisations monitoring casualties in Syria, and if they're unable to provide figures for total casualties based on their sources and methodologies, we sure shouldn't pretend that figures posted in Wikipedia articles are an acceptable alternative. Please see the lengthy discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox and the following threads in which there was consensus support for not treating casualty figures added up from news reports as being acceptable in situations where no-one has published a reliable estimate of total casualties. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the other totals because they were based on figures that were coming from different sources and thus if we combined them that would have been OR due to possibility of overlapping figures. But, the figures in the new day-by-day table all come exclusivly from one source, the activist group SOHR, so they are in essence cited, there is no OR in this case. Your argument on the talk page was that we can't add up various types of casualties, various figures. I agree with that. But, these are not various, they all come from a unified source, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If you have a problem with this please initiate a discussion on the talk page, I'm sure other editors of the Syria civil war events will join. EkoGraf (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the SOHR have a total figure which can be cited directly? If they don't think that this is a good methodology to reach a total, why should we? Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR gives out daily totals which are cited by the mainstream media every day. They DO give out a total figure, but the problem with it is what we talked about before. In their total figure they combine civilian fatalities with rebel ones (those that were civilians in their previous lives). And than they just say X civilians have died, Y soldiers have died, F defectors have died. P.S. we count armed civilians as civilians. But in their daily totals they DO differentiate between standard rebels and civilians. So it is misleading for our readers that way. And I thought since they do nicely say every day the total number of rebel fatalities, and this does come from a unified sources and not different ones, it would be nice to present how many they said for a given month. If the daily totals came from different sources I wouldn't summ it up because as you said that would be OR, but this is all coming from one source. EkoGraf (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are any reliable sources providing monthly totals based on this data? (for instance, stories on the war by journalists). If not, I really don't think that we should. Given the nature of these kinds of figures (based on battlefield reports from a very confusing war and not collected by a consistent methodology) it's likely that they're not entirely reliable, so adding up totals gives them a false sense of precision. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR is doing the same thing with their monthly totals as with their full total. They combine rebels and civilians into one category...civilian. I would totally agree with you otherwise, but we do have here a consistent methodology by this organisation. And the BBC, Reuters, AP and others obviously consider them reliable since they publish their full total, monthly totals and daily totals on a regular basis. EkoGraf (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how additioning day per day death toll is a problem as they are clearly separated and don't cover the same period. Personally, I am for additionning the death toll found in all sources for a given day, at the condition that they clearly refer to different events. Like we do for all the syrian battles pages. Then , we would compare it to the daily number of the rebel source Syrian Observatory and we would keep the more global. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we are discussing. We already have included SOHR's total figure for civilians, rebels and soldiers killed in the Overall deaths section. But, like I said up above, the problem is SOHR doesn't give out a full total figure of rebels-only killed. Instead they mix them up in their total number of civilians killed. But they do give out total numbers of rebels killed on individual days. And what I wanted to do is present SOHR's day-by-day totals of rebel fatalities, fully sourced, and than combine them so we can present some sort of full total of rebels killed in the war, according to SOHR. I had reservation before about combining the totals because that would have been a combination of figures from different organisations with different methodologies. But in this case all of the numbers are from one unified source, SOHR. So, do you think we should combine those day-by-day tolls given by SOHR so we can get an approximate full number according to that organisation? EkoGraf (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, there's a been a consensus in previous discussions on topics similar to this that adding up casualty figures from unrelated sources is not OK (see, for instance, the discussion at: Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox as noted above. As I noted in my comments above (which EkoGraf has kindly moved across from the discussion on my talk page; thanks for this), my basic concern is that the source doesn't provide this total itself, and no reliable sources are adding up estimates of total casualties from its reports. I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical about whether the SOHR should be considered a reliable source if they're deliberately combining civilian and rebel casualties for propaganda purposes, though I note that their figures have been repeated by reliable sources (though this appears to be less frequent in recent days, possibly due to this issue). Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really actually, reliable sources are still reporting SOHR's daily tolls on a regular basis. Today [1][2] the Telegraph and the Daily Star. The point with that previous discussion over at the Afghanistan war talk page, that you pointed me to earlier also thanks for that, is that there it really was a violation of the OR Wikipedia regulation because those reported deaths were all coming from multiple different sources. That is not the case here where all figures are coming from one source. So in essence this is a totally new topic on which we need a consensus. There it was clear multiple different sources can't be added up, which I agree. Here however is a question whether we should add up figures that are coming from one unified source. As for SOHR's reliability...the Telegraph, Reuters, AP, AFP, BBC news and others obviously regard them as reliable since they use their numbers on a regular basis. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess due to the non traditional way that the rebels dress and behave it is impossible to clearly delineate between a combatant and a non-combatant. While it's important to try and determine civilian deaths, I'm afraid that it's impossible due to the variety of involvement on the rebel side. Some may simply be family members grieving a loss and acting out while others may be more organized. Because of this, I believe the current method of describing the casualties is adequate. Jimerb (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not understand what you said. Do you approve or disapprove of us combining the reported number of rebels killed by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights? Three editors have been in agreement over this while one was against. So I didn't manage to follow you. Also, I should warn you that you saying Some may simply be family members grieving a loss and acting out while others may be more organized is considered original research and a personal point of view on Wikipedia and is thus not allowed. Our edits need to be based on verifiable data that can be found. As far as SOHR goes, they got activists embedded with the rebel battalions themselves and those embedded with civilian councils/committees, and each day the activists report on the number of rebel fighter deaths they manage to document and civilian deaths as well. What me and the other editors have been trying to agree on is that we combine all of the reported rebel deaths by SOHR and present a unified number of rebel deaths reported by that activist organisation. And of course we note that the number has come exclusivly from SOHR. That way readers will be able to easier ascertain how many civilians had been killed as well. That's what you were actually asking me before when asking how you could know how many civilians have died. This way would only make it easier for the readers. Now, would you agree with this? EkoGraf (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the number should be totaled but the details of how it was totaled should not be removed. That level of detail will improve the reliability of the article. A table with each claim of deaths from SOHR would be nice giving a reference and then totaled on the bottom. The proper columns could be included that outline the typical data distributed by SOHR. The current table on the page starts to go down this path, but I don't know if the total boxes (proves) with the total death count (the numbers seems too low.)
My comment that you quoted above is something I would never put into the article. It was my reflection on the situation in Syria and the fact that all of the rebels are not acting as one force. Many don't wear uniforms so it seems unlikely that a clear distinction could ever be drawn between civilians and combat forces. If someone who was out in the morning fighting the Syrian army is killed in his home in the evening by artillery (while eating diner with his family) is that a Civilian or Combatant death? I'm sure you can see the dilemma.
Finally I just wanted to say thank you for providing the contributions to this page. It is a great service you are focusing on.
Actually, that was the whole idea. We don't want to remove the details. As you can see in the article, we already have a table (which is still in the making). We would leave the table. Just add a total at the end of it. So we are in agreement on that, great. And about your comment, what I said was just an advice. Glad we cleared it all up. :) P.S. About that dilemma you mentioned. Actually I don't see it. If a rebel fights during the day, and goes in the evening to his family for dinner and gets killed he is still a combatant, just a combatant on temporary leave as they would say in the military, since he would be back fighting the next morning again. EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a total at the end would be good. An effort should be made to get the details of the table to add up to the overall death total that is being claimed in the article -- complete with references. Regarding the rebel fighting again next morning -- he probably will be fighting but how do you know that? How can one be certain that any civilian couldn't in some way be considered a combatant that is off duty? (Which is precisely what the Syrian government is claiming) They don't have paperwork. I see this as a slippery slope. Jimerb (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are documented rebels killed per the opposition forces themselves. If it were by the government I would think it unreliable. And actually in my own personal opinion, I think that the rebel death toll is much larger than reported because there are probably numerous fighters being listed as simple civilians. But that's all speculation on our part. We stick to what the sources say. EkoGraf (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are included in the overall tolls and you can check the links to the sites provided in the article for an approximate number of civilians if that is what interests you. It was decided that it would be too complicated to try and separate the number of civilians killed due to the fact that the opposition groups are counting rebel fighters that weren't former soldiers as civilians. It would be misleading at best and OR at worst if we tried something like that. So we provide an overall number per the various opposition activist groups and some of the combatant killed figures if we have the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this info EkoGraf and for your contributions on this page. Well done! It's a little tricky to get an idea of how much of a massacre it is without a clarity on civilian deaths. I'm probably missing something but wouldn't the civilian deaths be the Total deaths minus the combatant deaths? Thanks. Jimerb (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would, but as you see in the up above discussions, that would be OR if the source itself doesn't say the number and the figures themselves are coming from different sources and not one unified source. As you can see up above, user Nick-D would be the first to point this out. And I agree with him, since, like I said, the figures are all not coming from a same source so there is a possibility of overlapping. However, if you want to be included more on this article, your opinion on the SOHR totals discussion would be appreciated. As you can see up above, user Nick-D has expressed reservation at my attempt to combine SOHR-only day-to-day numbers of rebels killed into a unified death toll and wants to remove the full toll on the basis that it is OR if the full toll itself was not cited. I have stated that I agree with him if the figures were coming from different organisations, but in this case it is coming from one organisation with its own constant methodology. Sidenote, since you were interested, in my personal view, based on which I can't edit the article, if the numbers of combatants killed are true, out of the estimated 24,000 dead in Syria, about 12,000 are civilians, while 6,000 are government troops and 6,000 are rebels. So that would make the civilian fatalities around 50 percent of the total. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What source do you use for the death totals (24,852 deaths)? According to the homepage of the VDC there are 22,328 deaths or is there something that I'm missing from the homepage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter94 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The homepage you are looking at lists only civilians and rebels killed. The VDC has a separate page from the main one [3], where they list government soldiers killed. And at the moment they list 1,814 dead. However, they haven't been updating that number since mid-June so you can say its out-of-date. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, my bad, I typed wrong, the VDC source says 2,814 soldiers. Typed 1 instead of 2. XD So if it says, at the moment, 22,440 civilians and rebels, in addition to the 2,814, that is 25,254. Which I will update now. The Wikipedia page here can't be exact every minute per the VDC, because the VDC updates literally every minute, and I only edit the page once in the afternoon and once in the evening. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because an editor at the main civil war article requested months ago to combine for the higher estimate Syrian shuhada numbers (which don't include security forces killed) and the SOHR number of security forces killed. While in this casualties article another editor requested the number not be combined. EkoGraf (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation! It seems to me that one of those methods should be picked and used in both articles, or at least that this "calculation" should be described in the article text 213.185.28.232 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a separate article on the topic. One article is about the civil war itself, and within it there is a short section where it is summarized in fine short points what the numbers of dead in the conflict are. While this article here deals more broadly with the casualties. It's per Wikipedia rules that, for the sake of main articles not becoming too large and bloated, we branch of certain parts of the main articles and move the info into articles for themselves. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i change the "palestine" section in foreign civilians killed
"palestinian refugees" that live in syria are syrians that burn in syria and has the same ethnicity and language as the rest of the population their and most of them was never been in israel or in the british mandate time,they cant be "foreign" if they burn ther and the only thing that make the arabs treath them as "palestinians" is from politicaly reasons and for the hope that they one day "return" to the area of israel and change the demography their in favor to the arab population.
and one more thing,many of the arabs that live their befor and after the state of israel has origin from syria(the rest has origin from other arab states)and ther is entire
arab "palestinian" villages in israel that has origin from arab syrians and nomads bedouins that came from ther like Tuba-Zangariyye village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.169.176 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I told you what the problem is. The sources provided regard the Palestinians as foreign nationals in Syria and count them as such. If you are personally regarding them as Syrian Palestinians that's your right but on Wikipedia that's considered OR, because Wikipedia is based on verifiability and we go with the sources. We do not make edits based on our own opinions but on the sources. And if per the sources the Arabs regard them as Palestinians and not their own nationals than they are just Palestinians. That's how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if wikipedia was working blindly on sources even if its not make any sense wikipedia was full of non sense,and calling people that was burn and live ther all ther life a "Foreign" from place that they wasnt even been ther is obviously not make any sense and the political reasons that stand behind that are also obvious.so you take the reliance on sources to far her,wikipedia dosn't relies blindly on sources when its defies any logic or common sence.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It perhaps defies logic and common sense in your point of view, but Wikipedia only takes into account reliable sources. And all sources regard Palestinians as foreign nationals. So please stop removing sourced information or it will be regarded as vandalism. Friendly warning. Please stick to Wikipedia rules if you want to continue editing on it and be constructive. They are still regarded as Palestinian refugees in Syria and not Syrian nationals by most sources. A Palestinian is a Palestinian and a Syrian is a Syrian, big difference. EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
your point of view(or anybody else)make the defenition of someone that burn in one place a "foreign" from a place that he never been ther? of course not because its not make any sense and has nothing to do with point of view and all the people that do it are doing it because many other people do it from political reasons.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
most of the "refugees" ther burn in syria and called like that only for political reasons,they can't be refugees if they dont burn in 1948 when many arabs left the area of today israel to arab states,and the fact that they dosnt have syrian citizenship can't make them "foreign" from place that they never been ther.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both IPs should know that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that works by sources. I do understand POV of both IPs, but they can not expect that other users repalce sources with their opinions. Only then Wikipedia would become unlogical. If you find one, strong, reliable source for you claims, then other users will consider them, otherwise you have nothing so far. What are you doing here is called original research. --Wüstenfuchs08:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
work on sources for information,the information that we get from that source and any other similar source is that ther is some people without citizenship that most of them has parents or grandparents that came to ther from the former mandatory palestine and from the fact that most of them are below the age of 65 they probably burn in syria and never been in that place themselve.so how you can call to this people "foreign" from that place based on that information??.like i said if its not make any sense its should be removed.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
everybody who see this discussion can see that is not about relying on sources but about adopting source obviously biased perspective on the subject just because many people do it even if it defies any kind of logic and common sense.the source talk about arabs that most if not all of them was burn in syria and live them all of ther
life and was never been in the place that they are "foreign" from and that obvious mistake shouldn't be in wikipedia.
relience on sources dosnt mean quote them blindly.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nothing blind in quoting those sources. The sources say they are foreign nationals and they say they are Palestinians, they don't even call them Syrian Palestinians let alone just Syrians. And like all three of us told you, your position goes against Wikipedia's policy on Verifibility (reliable sources), Original Research (personal opinion edits) and even Commonname (call something as the majority of sources call it). So sorry, but this is how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the source talk about foreign people that came from foreign place not on nationality and as you can see yourself the chart working on countries not nationality or self-determination,and anyway syria has many people with a second nationality like kurds and assyrian people that both of them have diffrent language and culture from the rest of the arabic population but still they arent "foreign" in the chart.like i said befor they can't be a "foreign" from mandatory palestine because most if not all of them was burn in syria and was never been ther or in israel,and what you doing is not relying on sources but blindly quote the obvious wrong perspective of some people about the information they present.you should accept the fact that i am right her and stop to resist to simple correction.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Wikipedia is clear on this, saying I am right, they are wrong simply does not work on Wikipedia. Also you have 3 editors in agreement on this issue and only you are against. There is also a Wikipedia rule on a majority consensus based on sources. And at this point there is consensus. Like Wusten told you, if you find sources that back up your claims than we may reopen the debate, but until than....sorry. P.S. Assyrians are an ethnic group, not a national grouping, unlike the Palestinians. EkoGraf (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly i should back up with source her? that most if not all of the people who called "palestinians" in the source are probably less than 65 years old and just cant be refugees from 1948 and therefore burn in syria(or other arabic country)and obviously can't be "foreign" from mandatory palestine? of course not its so obvious that you probably realize it yourself but still arguing and resist to my correction even when you also can see at yourself that the chart work on countries that the foreign people came from and dosnt have realation to any kind of self determination like the "palestinians"(and no it dosnt matter if its a "ethnic grouping" or "nationality")in syria.the other people her back off because they has nothing to say to back up the claim they came to support and probably realize that i am right and anyway everybody else who came her and see this discussion can see that you resist for no reason,if you dosnt have somthing to prove your point you should atleast think about what i said and stop resisting to simple correction with no reason.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The others are not engaging into this discussion so much because they have spelled out Wikipedia's rules to you as have I did and they have nothing else to say. I am still discussing this with you because I am trying to point you to Wikipedia's guidelines so your edits in the future could be constructive and contributing, in essence I am trying to help you. I am not resisting for no reason, I am simply asking you to back up your claims with sources, which is a founding rule of Wikipedia. Any edit without a source is automatically reverted here on Wikipedia, that is simply how it works. Our personal opinions do not count. Wikipedia does not care what you or I think, it only cares what the sources say. EkoGraf (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i ask you somthing,what exactly i should back up with sources her? the fact that people we talking about can't be arab refugees from mandatory palestine(1948)? the fact that the chart working on countries that the foreign civilian came from and therefore can't include those arabs that most if not all of them was never in the place that they are presented as "foreign" from? that what you telling me?,ther is no sources that prove your claims and obviously dosnt relate to the concept of the chart about foreign civilian from another countries.and they has nothing to say from the same reason that you avoid the discussion and ignores the facts and the article itself.if you dosnt have somthing to say against what i am saying you shouldn't resist to my edith,simple as that.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
