Talk:1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus

380 villages destroyed by Ottoman Syrian Druze?

Does amyone know where I could source and list the names of the 380 Ottoman Syrian Christian villages destroyed by Ottoman Syrian Druze and Muslims during the 1860 Lebanon conflict? Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About a complete list, I suppose it does not exist in any Western language. For a good primary source that narrates the events and that is freely available on the web, you can read: François Lenormant Histoire des massacres de Syrie en 1860 Hachette, 1861 [1]: the number 360 (not 380) is found at pag 89 as summary of the events narrated in the previous pages. About secondary literature, you can check for example Dib, Pierre (2001). Histoire des Maronites: L'église maronite du XVIe siècle à nos jours, Volume 2. Librairie Orientale. p. 467-527., but no detailed list is given A ntv (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunatley, I doubt whether any list indeed exists, this significant historic infomation being lost forever. Chesdovi (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, such lists will exist, just not online. You'll have to go to whatever library or archive has stored them. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chesdovi the number is more than 500 villages and u and u can find it in the book of the eastern Catholic church regarding history of mount of Lebanon & its in Arabic. CommonSenseEdit (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Patriarch, bishop

This article alludes to a Patriarch Arida, but the List of Maronite Patriarchs lists Paul Peter Massad as the then-current patriarch. Also, the archbishop of Beirut, Tobia Aun, seems to have played a role here, based on the citations on his page. Can somebody knowledgeable work him in? Rigadoun (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

fixed. Nwly created article Paul Peter Massad. A ntv (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

French expedition in Syria

Shouldn't that article be merged into here? FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Name change

@FunkMonk: This article should be renamed. For one, this wasn't just a war between Druzes and Maronites. The Maronites played one of the major parts, but other Christians, namely Greek Catholics (Melkites) also played a major part such as in Zahle and Deir el-Qamar. The Sunni Shihabs (not the Maronite Shihabs) also played an important role on the Christian side. The Druzes were undoubtedly the main force on the other side of the conflict, but other forces fought alongside them or otherwise participated in the fighting such as the rural Sunni and Shia clans of Beqaa and to a lesser extent Jabal Amil and the Sunni townspeople of Sidon (not to mention Damascus and other places outside of Mt Lebanon). Speaking of the Damascus dimension, I think it's best that a separate article be created for the massacre in Damascus with a summary section in this article. The events are obviously and intimately intertwined, but the massacre is significant and well-documented enough to warrant its own article.

There's no indication that the current name of this article is more common than alternatives. I would suggest renaming this article to "1860 Lebanon War" or "1860 Lebanon Civil War (or Conflict)". I'd like to hear some thoughts about this proposal before moving the article or opening a formal move vote. I pinged FunkMonk because he seems to have been the most involved editing the article, but I'm notifying WikiProjects Lebanon and Syria as well. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I started this article years ago, and there didn't seem to be any common name for the events, so as you can see in the edit history, I moved the article several times to new names. Only much later did other people begin to expand the article, and good job by the way, al Ameer! But since this also took place in Syria, maybe the name should reflect that too? Which is mainly why I kept it religious based (in most of the titles), rather than geographic, to prevent confusion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. The tensions did spread throughout greater Syria, but from my understanding it was only in Damascus where tensions actually exploded into mass violence (between Sunni/Druze militias and unarmed mostly Catholic Christian civilians) . There were also minor incidents where a couple of people were killed or expelled in al-Bassa, Kafr Bir'im and Zabadani. Actual combat seems to have been restricted to the areas that constitute modern-day Lebanon. Technically, the Beqaa Valley and Wadi al-Taym (where conflict raged) were outside of Mount Lebanon district and part of Damascus Vilayet, and I assume that's why the sources emphasize "Lebanon" rather than "Mount Lebanon" in whatever name they have for the conflict. In any case, from what I gather from scholarly sources, "Syria" is not used in any of the names. I would still lean on renaming the article "1860 Lebanon Civil War" (or the lowercase version of that). --Al Ameer (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Is "civil war" used more often than "conflict", though? And was Lebanon enough of a distinct "country" at the time for it to be called a civil war? And by the way, do you intend to get this article to GA or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey @FunkMonk:, @Al Ameer son:, I wouldn't rename the article "1860 Lebanon War" as Lebanon as an entity did not exist then. Let's look up some sources before taking a rash decision. -Elias Z 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The main source used in the article Leila Tarazi Fawaz titles her book "Civil Conflict in Lebanon and Damascus", but in the book she calls the combat phase in Lebanon as "Civil War". Many of the other scholarly sources I plan to use such as Kais Firro, Chibli Mallat and Tamara Chalabi also use "civil war". So I think the "civil" part should remain if the article is renamed "war" or "conflict". Mount Lebanon was distinct enough as a political and geographic entity although not a country of course, and I think Lebanon was distinct enough as a general region or subregion of greater Syria like Palestine, Transjordan or Hauran. Anyway, I'll wait a week or so for more opinions if possible before moving the article. I might eventually nominate this article for GA but it needs a lot more work. The only part I fleshed out so far was the first combat phase (May-June 1860). I pretty much just stumbled onto the article while editing Qabb Ilyas. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Elie plus:. There was an edit conflict, but see my above response to FunkMonk. As I said, I'm still leaning toward "civil war" because this is what many scholarly sources have used to describe the events, but I wouldn't be opposed to "civil conflict" either. I just think we ought to rely on what a consensus or near-consensus of sources say. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, note that it was called "1860 Lebanon conflict" until someone moved it:[2] The subsequent titles were pretty much chosen because I couldn't just move the article back for technical reasons (an admin would have to delete the page for it to be available for a move)... FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I see guys; this is really tricky. I oppose the move for the following reasons. Al Ameer Son was pointing out that the Druze not only fought with Maronites but also Christians of other denominations, which is correct. But unbiased historians who shun myths for facts (like Kamal Salibi) clearly point at the origins of the conflict. The tensions were brewing for decades because of Druze uprooting from the Metn, Aley and other districts while Maronite peasants were being installed in previously Druze dominated lands. This demographic change was brokered by the Chehabs for political reasons, in an attempt to intimidate and subjugate the Jumblat rival clan and its head Bachir Jumblat (war of the Bachirs). The altercations caused thousands of Druze to leave The Lebanon and settle in Mount Hermon. Bachir Chehab was sowing seeds of hate but he was an able enough leader to stop things from spilling over. After his death the inter-community tensions were stirred by regional powers.

All I wanna say is, despite the fact that Christians from other denominations were part of the conflict, it was the Maronite settlement of druze feudal lands by a supposedly Maronite Emir that sparked the tensions that developed later into a fully fledged civil war. I do agree though to the "civil war" part of the name change (1860 Druze-Maronite civil war). -Elias Z 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The origins of the war were indeed a Druze versus Maronite affair, but I think the situation of Zahleh needs to be taken into account as well (See Fawaz, pp. 33-37). In the years and decades preceding the war, relations between Melkites and Druze were deteriorating. Melkite immigration into Zahleh and its vicinity from Baalbek and Hauran in the 19th century made them the overwhelming majority in the area (whereas before it was around 50/50 Druze and Melkite). The Zahalni Melkites were notably militarized and were in frequent conflict with non-Melkite sects. However, their qabadays also saw themselves as the guardians of Christians. They ended the dominance of a Druze family over Zahleh during Bashir's time and also came into frequent conflict with the Harfush-led Shias of Beqaa (who also participated in the war to a lesser degree). The actual war itself was not solely a Druze-Maronite affair. The Melkites of Zahleh played a huge role in the war and the fall of the Melkite center of Zahleh was a major turning point. In any case, my main issue with "1860 Druze-Maronite blank" is that I don't really see any scholarly sources using it to describe the actual 1860 war. So far I've mostly seen "Lebanon" being used. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I get you. Would "1860 Druze-Christian conflict / civil war" do? Including "Lebanon" in the title is not factually correct as the geopolitical entity didn't yet exist. I really can't think of any one place name that can accurately delineate the locations of the events. -Elias Z 10:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Elie plus: I think "1860 Druze-Christian civil war" would be a better title than the current one, but I still think that "1860 Lebanon civil war" would be a much more fitting title and one that corresponds more to the sources. The massacre in Damascus and the tensions elsewhere in Ottoman Syria were direct spillovers of the conflict in Lebanon rather than scenes where Druze and Christians were fighting each other. As for Beqaa, Sidon, Jabal Amil and Wadi al-Taym, it is true that these areas were outside of Mount Lebanon, but didn't they all form a distinct enough geographical region called "Lebanon"? Or was this greater "Lebanon" an alien concept at the time of the war and something that only came about during the French Mandatory period? I'm still not completely sure to be honest. As I've said before, my main reasoning for "1860 Lebanon civil war" (or a variation) is because this is what the bulk of sources use. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What sources are you referring to and why would these sources ignore a historical fact? If you insist maybe you should go with "1860 Mount Lebanon civil war" _Elias Z 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Elie plus: @FunkMonk: Mount Lebanon seems to be much better supported than Lebanon. Taking a better look at sources, I was incorrect (embarrassingly). "Lebanon" or "Lebanese" when referring to the 1860 civil war is used by general info sources, rather than expert sources. The expert sources like Leila Tarazi Fawaz, Phillip Khoury, Tamara Chalabi, Kamal Salibi, etc. don't use "Lebanon". Fawaz, probably the most detailed source, titles her book "... Civil Conflict in Lebanon and Damascus", but in the book itself she calls the first phase of the war "Civil War in the Mountain" with "Mountain" implying Mount Lebanon. She also makes it clear that this was essentially the culmination of increasing Druze-Christian conflict in Mount Lebanon. Kais Firro just says "Civil War of 1860" but implies throughout that this was essentially a Druze-Maronite/Druze-Christian affair in Mount Lebanon. Philipp Khoury calls it a civil war in Mount Lebanon as does Chalabi. Salibi calls it a "Druze-Christian civil war". So either of your suggestions "1860 Druze-Christian civil war" and "1860 Mount Lebanon civil war" work, but my vote would go for the second choice. What do you guys think? It would be great if we had more input into this discussion from WikiProjects Lebanon and Syria, but I'm not counting on it. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ameer thank you for taking the trouble and verifying the sources. Getting more feedback would be nice too. -Elias Z 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I'd also be in favour of "1860 Mount Lebanon civil war/conflict". The names of other wars/conflicts rarely seem to include the belligerents. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave this discussion open for a few more days in case of new input. If not, "1860 Mount Lebanon civil war" will be the new title. Thanks for taking the time to discuss fellas, cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Name change # 2

Hi everyone, the current name of this article is inaccurate and troublesome for the reader, because it ignores the second location of the massacres (Damascus), which according to the sources, were just as large as the ones in Mount Lebanon. I call on to change the name to the one that was used in the majority of primary sources at the time "Civil War in Syria" , except I would add the year 1860 to differentiate it from the current modern-day state of Syria. Here's one ref from the time of the events, http://www.nytimes.com/1860/07/21/news/the-civil-war-in-syria.html.George Al-Shami (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, we should use the term that is used by most modern sources, not sources from the time. Otherwise, we might as well rename WW1 as "the Great War" or some such, since contemporary sources called it that. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk that we should use the name or variations of the name that most contemporary, and expert, sources use. It would be interesting if more primary sources from the time besides the NY Times used "Civil War in Syria". In any case, as the NY Times article itself indicates, this was a civil war in Mount Lebanon essentially between Christians and Druze. The war had spillover effects outside of Lebanon into numerous other Syrian cities and villages, but these were limited to relatively minor incidents. The major spillover event was the riots and massacre in Damascus. In any case, I'm open to changing the article name if enough contemporary sources use "Civil War in Syria", but if not, I think we should keep the current title and list "1860 Civil War in Syria" as an alternative name in the first sentence of the lead. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also open to a different name, however I still disagree with the current title, in that, the readers who don't read the whole article will assume that all the massacres took place in Mount Lebanon, which is simply not true. The fact that 10 000 (conservative estimate) to 30 000 (liberal estimate) Christians were slaughtered in Damascus is as relevant as the number of Christians that were slaughtered in Mount Lebanon; it doesn't matter where the conflict began, the fact that it reached Damascus and resulted in a massacre of Christians is very relevant. How about "1860 Mount Lebanon and Damascus Civil War". The majority of modern sources don't call it the "1860 Mount Lebanon civil war",in Leila Fawaz's book, the title is "An Occasion for War: Civil Conflict in Lebanon and Damascus in 1860". The current title is misleading and unencyclopedic, by keeping it you are unintentionally discounting and ignoring the tragic consequences of the war that began in Mount Lebanon. George Al-Shami (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess adding Damascus could be a good compromise. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I can agree with that compromise yet. My main disagreement with George's argument was that what happened in Damascus was not a front in the actual civil war. This was a spillover effect of the war in Mount Lebanon, which occurred in its own environment of tensions between the Druze and Christians over political power in the mountain. The massacre in Damsascus was an opportunistic spillover related to growing communal tensions in that city and other Syrian cities that exploded into an anti-Christian pogrom by Muslim militias so to speak after news of the Druze rout of Christian forces in the mountain.

Also, Leila Fawaz's title of her book also refers to Mount Lebanon as "Lebanon", and in the book she distinguishes between the "Civil War in the Mountain" and the "Damascus incident". The latter, as she notes, was part of the spillover of tensions throughout Syria's cities. Of course, it was only in Damascus where the spillover became a massacre.

Another concern, albeit a comparably minor one, would be that the proposed title is too lengthy. If I understand correctly, the new proposed title would be "1860 civil war in Mount Lebanon and Damascus" or perhaps with the "1860" be dropped? If that's the case, where we're including the spillover violence as part of the main title, then we might as well go with "1860 civil war in Syria" because the spillover effects were not limited to Damascus (that's just where the worst of it occurred). --Al Ameer (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, a solution to George's concern about readers who don't read the entire article not knowing that a massacre of Christians also occurred in Damascus, we could expand on the Damascus massacre in the lead. The lead as it stands now needs to be rewritten anyway. I was trying to continue working on this article, but as usual I got distracted with other subjects. Currently, the lead needs a rewrite, the section about the Damascus massacre needs to be expanded as does the International intervention section. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Might it be a solution to split off the Damascus article? FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Have a separate article on the Damascus massacre and keep a section here that summarizes that section. There's plenty of info out there about the Damascus massacre to warrant a spin-off article. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Al Ameer the reality is more nuanced than what you're arguing, about simply a mere spillover. In Fawaz's book, she mentions "Lebanon" in the title for contemporary reasons, however she is obviously referring to Mount Lebanon. Moreover, why would she put the word incident in quotation marks, she is being ironic in this regard, in that, it was more than just an incident. Lastly on page 134, when talking about the restoration of order in Damascus (the whole chapter is devoted to this) she even employs the term, civil war. A fourth miracle, one that Dimitri did not mention, was the fortitude that enabled him and thousands of other refugees to survive at all. Even under the worst of conditions they struggled on. In a civil war with no heroes and no cause, they were the closest thing to being heroes and to having a worthy cause. I support a separate article on the massacres in Damascus, but I still don't your understand your insistence that a massacre, perpetrated by people who sided with one of the belligerents of the civil war, the Druzes, based on religious and anti-christian hatred, in Mount Lebanon was simply a spillover that resulted into a massacre. The international boundaries imposed by the French in the 1920s did not exist at that time, the cities in Syria were linked by blood, trade, and a very long history; it's not like the people in Mount Lebanon were aliens to the people in Damascus. The people of Syria and Lebanon come from the same ethnic groups, the Maronites originate from Modern-day Syria -close to Aleppo- and they moved south to Mount Lebanon, to escape religious persecution, 800 years ago. A civil war is a war between two groups from the same country; let me ask you this, didn't the partisans that attacked the Christians in Damascus side with the partisans who attacked the Maronites in Mount Lebanon? Weren't there rumors that reached Damascus from Mount Lebanon that Christians were attacking Muslims. Al Ameer, there's a definite connection that is uniting the partisans in Mount Lebanon to the partisans in Damascus; it's more than just a spillover when the Muslim partisans in Damascus sided with Druze partisans in Mount Lebanon. George Al-Shami (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

George, I hear you and I agree with most of your comments. I think you have misunderstood my comment. I'm not trying to downplay the relationship between the massacre in Damascus and the war in Mount Lebanon, but what happened in Damascus was indeed a spillover and that could be attested by numerous sources. And it's not that I insist on the current title, it's that I'm not convinced the contemporary sources refer to it as the "civil war in Mt Lebanon and Damascus". In fact, I think "civil war in Syria" is preferable to the latter, but it has not been demonstrated that "civil war in Syria" is used by contemporary sources either. The reason the sources call it a spillover is because this was essentially a Mount Lebanon affair with the Druze and Christians fighting a power struggle for control of the mountain, where all combat occurring in the mountain and its immediate vicinity and ultimately ending with foreign intervention in the mountain and its immediate vicinity i.e. Beirut. People throughout Syria reacted to the events in their midst in Mount Lebanon, and tensions or outright attacks on Christians by Druze, Sunni and Shia Muslims were reported from Bethlehem to Aleppo, with a full-blown pogrom/massacre (not actual combat like in Mt. Lebanon) occurring in Damascus. In any case, if it could be demonstrated that modern sources use "civil war in Syria" or a variation of that, I would not be opposed to a name change. I also think we should go ahead and work on an article about the Damascus massacre. If no one decides to start it, I'll probably get to it in a week or so. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What would you think of an article split, George? FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I`m not against it, but preferably I would push for a compromise on the title on this page, because of the sensible points outlined above. I fear that a separate article by itself with only 1 paragraph would get nominated for deletion, unless an editor with time can fill it up with reliable sources.George Al-Shami (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm confident that a very informative article about the Damascus massacre could be made. There's enough reliable sources out there and Leila Fawaz's book alone has enough information for a decent article. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Notes

• I've started a draft page about the Damascus massacre per the discussion above. See User:Al Ameer son/1860 Damascus massacre. Anyone should feel free to add, copyedit, restructure, and make corrections to it. I'll continue adding to it and hopefully we could move it to mainspace sooner than later.
• Does anyone know how Bishop Tobia Aun was involved in the war? I keep seeing his name in relation the subject, but I can't exactly figure out if he had a leadership role, he incited conflict or was involved in the diplomatic or military aspects of the war.
• The figure of 326 to 380 villages being destroyed in the Lebanon seems like a stretch. Makdissi (page 2) states "some 200 out of an estimated 700 villages were left destroyed". I don't know if Fawaz cites a figure too. Worth exploring further. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Counter-factual or nonsensical statements

I've just fixed one in the lead. Here is another one: "Bitter conflicts between Christians and Druzes, which had been simmering under Ibrahim Pasha's rule (mostly centred on the firmans of 1839 and, more decisively, of 1856, which equalised the status of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, the former resenting their implied loss of superiority)...". It makes no sense, since both the Druze and Christians are non-Muslims, so by common logic they both only had to gain from the Tanzimat laws. Why should they fight each other as a result of these laws? If you know that the Muslims (who? Ottoman authorities, Sunni or Shia locals - who?) felt closer to the Druze, then this must be explained. The Druze as a faith are apostates from Islam and not a natural ally for the Muslims. After a quick look, it seems that it was more of a social uprising, in which the more Western-influenced Christians became active, and the southern FEUDAL LORDS, who just happened to be Druze, managed to keep the Druze population under control and form Druze militias, transforming a social conflict into an ethnoreligious one. Is it so? Did the Ottoman authorities side with the Druze? Needs to be clarified in the lead, many Wiki users probably don't go beyond reading the lead - and please consider that they are unlikely to be well-versed in Lebanese intricacies. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Druze of Mount Lebanon were classed as Muslims by the Ottomans, ever since the initial Ottoman conquest of the Levant by Sultan Selim I in 1516. Supposedly Fakhr al-Din Uthman ibn al-Hajj Yunis Ibn Ma', Chief of the powerful Ma'n (معن) tribe/dynasty/family who dominated the rugged mountain territory of Chouf in Mount Lebanon, aided Selim in at the Battle of Marj Dabiq, and was subsequently awarded the title of "Emir" of Mount Lebanon. At any rate, the so-called Emirate of Mount Lebanon existed as a small but strategically important vassal of the Ottoman Empire in one form or another from 1516-1840. All the Sublime Porte really cared about is that they had some locals they could trust to collect the Sultan's taxes for him. The Emirs were all, with one exception, either Druze or later Sunni Muslim. But intermarriage between sects was relatively widespread, with one branch of the dominant Shihab tribe converting not to the customary Sunni Islam (to gain favor in the eyes of their Ottoman overlords), but Maronite Catholic Christianity: Bashir Shihab II. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

I would like to use the following sources to improve the article. If anyone has any suggestions, please let me know!

• Baron, S. (1932, January). The Jews and the Syrian Massacres of 1860. In Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (Vol. 4, pp. 3-31). American Academy for Jewish Research.
• Rogan, Eugene. (2004). Sectarianism and Social Conflict in Damascus: The 1860 Events Reconsidered. Arabica, 51(4), 493-511.
• Forster, John, ; Hunt, Leigh, ; Fonblanque, Albany William. (1860). THE MASSACRE AT DAMASCUS. Examiner (London, England : 1808), (2740), 487-488.
• Yeʼor, B. (1985). The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam. Associated University Presse.
• Makdisi, U. (2000). The culture of sectarianism: community, history, and violence in nineteenth-century Ottoman Lebanon. Univ of California Press.

MLPQG (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@MLPQG: Looking forward to your additions, though I'd be careful to avoid the polemics of Ye'or if and when using her book. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Thank you for your response! At the moment I will be focusing on a different article, so feel free to use the sources I proposed!

MLPQG (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

More unused sources:

• Schilcher, Linda Schatkowski (1985). Families in politics: Damascene factions and estates of the 18th and 19th centuries. Franz Steiner Verlag.
• Rafeq, Abdul-Karim (1988). New Light on the 1860 Riots in Ottoman Damascus in Die Welt des Islams. pp. 412-430.
• Grehan, James (2015). Imperial Crisis and Muslim-Christian Relations in Ottoman Syria and Palestine, c. 1770-1830, in Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, pp. 490-531.
• Fawaz, Leila (1990). The Changing Balance of Forces between Beirut and Damascus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. pp. 208-214.
• Firro, Kais (1992) The History of the Druze. pp. 103-126.

Requested move 18 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

1860 Mount Lebanon civil war → ? – There were two previous discussions, 1st and 2nd, whose participants were limited to @George Al-Shami:, @FunkMonk:, @Elias Ziade: and myself regarding the name of this article. After all of this time, I would like to revisit the issue. I originally advocated that the article's name be centered around Mount Lebanon as it was the original epicenter and terminus of the conflict and that two separate articles be created for the 1860 events in Mount Lebanon and Damascus, respectively. I am now much closer to the view that because the events in Mount Lebanon and Damascus were so directly tied together that it would be appropriate, even necessary, to modify the current name to "1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus" or "1860 civil conflict in Ottoman Syria", or close variations of either. In this case, "civil conflict" cannot be replaced by "civil war", as the latter term is only relevant to the actual war between mainly the Druze on one side and the Maronites and other Christians on the other in Mount Lebanon rather than the massacre in Damascus and the more limited incidents elsewhere in Syria. Also, no source I am aware of uses "civil war" to describe events in Damascus, with some limiting their usage of the term to Mount Lebanon and its environs.

If we decide to rename the article to properly incorporate Damascus, I would then merge the non-redundant parts of my draft on the Damascus massacre here. If the article becomes too large, this could of course be solved by having three sub-articles devoted to the Druze–Christian strife in Mount Lebanon, the massacre in Damascus, and the French-led international intervention, with this article remaining the parent article, but this could be for a later discussion. I invite the original participants pinged above to weigh in once more, and invite anyone else who is interested to offer their opinions. Al Ameer (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC) --Al Ameer (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just reading the old discussion before. It seems tricky to find a fitting, yet concise title. Maybe a survey of what the various sources call it could be done? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Frustratingly, there is no name that is used substantially more than others in the modern sources, and many sources, specialized and general, just refer to the "1860 events", "1860 massacres", "1860 disturbances" in "Mount Lebanon", "the mountain", "Damascus", "Syria". Here is a survey of three modern sources I have on hand for the time being. I encourage any one else to please add to the survey as well:

• Fawaz, Leila (1994)—Part of the title of her book, which is entirely devoted to the events, is "Civil conflict in Lebanon and Damascus in 1860". The book is divided into several chapters, one of which is titled "Civil War in the Mountain", (Mountain → Mount Lebanon), and "The Damascus 'Incident'".
• Makdissi, Usama (2000), whose Culture of Sectarianism is specifically devoted to Druze–Maronite sectarian dynamics in Mount Lebanon and "deliberately eschews" (his words) the 1860 events in Damascus, refers to the "Druze–Maronite war of 1860" (p. 96) in the context of the "crisis of communal representation unfold[ing] in Mount Lebanon".
• Harris, William (2011), referring to events on the Lebanese side calls it the "Maronite–Druze mountain war of 1860". --Al Ameer (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, would seem "1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus" is the most inclusive term, thought it's quite a mouthful. "Ottoman Syria" would also be accurate, but it seems most sources wouldn't term it such, so it would be a bit of a convenient invention on our part. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree—either name would technically work, yet neither is ideal. Ultimately, we will probably have to decide between the two, unless someone could offer a viable alternative. In the meantime, I will continue to survey sources. Al Ameer (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a valid point EbnelAmeer. In most of the affected areas the incidents do not amount to a full-scale war especially in Damascus where the aggression was reportedly one-sided. "1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus" sounds inclusive and I am all for starting three sub-articles as you proposed. _Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – come back when there's a proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support move to "1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus". _Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support move to "1860 civil conflict in Ottoman Syria" which is my preference, however I would still support "1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus". I would beg to differ with what FunkMonk said about "Ottoman Syria" being a "convenient invention on our part."; academics have started to use this term, after all there is a British America. Here are 5 contemporary books that employ "Ottoman Syria": Twilight of the Saints: Everyday Religion in Ottoman Syria and Palestine, Protestants, Gender and the Arab Renaissance in Late Ottoman Syria, Governing Property, Making the Modern State: Law, Administration and Production in Ottoman Syria ,Dressed with Distinction: Garments from Ottoman SyriaThe Resistance Network: The Armenian Genocide and Humanitarianism in Ottoman Syria, 1915–1918 . George Al-Shami (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean that the term Ottoman Syria is an invention, but referring to this event with a name that includes Ottoman Syria might be. Yes, logically it could be said to be, but I could imagine even more sources would say for example Levant. In any case, both names are probably fine. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see; thanks for the clarification. George Al-Shami (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to "1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus" as Damascus definitely needs to be included, would agree also on "1860 civil conflict in Ottoman Syria". The 'civil conflict' inclusion relating to Damascus could be problematic as it was more akin to a massacre, which begs the question whether a separate article on Damascus should be created. I have just seen Al Ameer's draft and it looks excellent and would be in more support of a separate article relating to the massacre than anything else. JJNito197 (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support "1860 civil conflict in Ottoman Syria" per WP:criteria as more concise whilst at the same time more accurate than the present title. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Credulity!

"The relationship between the Druze and Christians has been characterized by harmony and coexistence, with amicable relations between the two groups prevailing throughout history." I could just be crazy but this makes no sense as a statement. You expect me to believe this was their relationship and "Bitter conflicts between Christians and Druzes, which had been simmering under Ibrahim Pasha's rule (mostly centred on the firmans of 1839 and, more decisively, of 1856, which equalised the status of Muslim and non-Muslim subjects, the former resenting their implied loss of superiority) resurfaced under the new emir." Are true? The Christians just asked for equal-rights that supposedly was already present(?) since they had good relations with each other but suddenly when that was granted (Nominally?) the druze who are not even properly muslim threw such a fit that what 10,000 Christians were killed? That strains credulity surely. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@John Not Real Name: Yes, this is a silly statement not befitting an encyclopedic article about this subject and it is not supported by a modern scholarly source, but rather a single Western traveler’s account. Should be removed and ideally replaced by a more nuanced summary of relations between the two communities leading up to the conflict, supported by modern and reliable sources. —Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)