Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Shortening

The Socio-economic section can be scrapped entirely because the bytes on the page are getting too big. The economics and such are not a good background to the uprising. -I7laseral (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely deleting all references to al-Qaeda support is not part of socio-economics, I assume. FunkMonk (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It belongs on International reactions page now. we know now that al nusra is responsible, and Zawahiri's response is just an international response. I deleted S-E section anyway. I7laseral (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
We know that Western sources keep referring to al-Qaeda, which is all that counts. Nusra's participation doesn't negate Qaeda's. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The Syrian government describes those who commit these terrorist acts actually not as Al Qaida. In his interview with Rossia-24 President Assad said in May 2012: "Some of them are religious extremists of the al-Qaida movement. And I mean here not only this organization, but also an ideology; I say that they share the same extremist and terrorist ideology with al-Qaida.". Unfortunatly, I have only a German language translation: "Einige von ihnen sind religiöse Extremisten der al-Qaida-Bewegung. Und ich meine hier nicht nur diese Organisation, sondern auch eine Ideologie; ich sage dass sie mit al-Qaida die gleiche extremistische und terroristische Ideologie teilen." --Dinarsad (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
In any case, I agree with FunkMonk. They are mentioning al-Qaeda all the time which warrants a mention in the main article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Material from Intro

I really think the following information should be removed from the intro.

UNICEF reported that over 500 children have been killed,[50][51] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons.[52][53] Both claims have been contested by the Syrian government.[54] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.[55] Human Rights Watch accused the government and Shabiha of using civilians as human shields when they advanced on opposition-held areas.[56] Anti-government rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well, including torture, kidnapping, unlawful detention and execution of civilians, Shabiha, and soldiers. HRW also expressed concern at the kidnapping of Iranian nationals.[14] The UN Commission of Inquiry has also documented abuses of this nature in its February 2012 report, which also includes documentation that indicates rebel forces have been responsible for displacement of civilians.[57]

It should be removed because:

  • This is not material that is important to the overall picture of the article
  • This material will grow more outdated as events progress
  • This page already has enough death statistics that are mentioned in isolation.

XantheTerra (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am against removing it, we can update stats as time goes by. Rebel actions also important to note. The stats are important because people could think its a war and not a crackdown otherwise. It is important to the overal picture of article, I don't get why you think its not. Deaths statistics are a primary reasoning behind the uprising and its wikipedia article. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Update stats surely are not suited for an intro. The intro should rather summarize, along the lines of "NGO monitoring organizations report a steady number of human rights violations". The main article below can then be more detailed and possibly also contain update stats. --Dinarsad (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the opposite, some update stats are totaly suitable. For example if the lede says xxx died but then 2 months later we discover that really xxxx died, we update it. Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
You are write on the stats angle, they will naturally need to be updated as events progress. However, I just think the paragraph is not needed. It tells how many children have been killed. Given the number of dead mentioned in the section above, I think we can assume they are not immune. Also, given that this is war/revolution/uprising I think it is safe to assume there are human rights abuses. The paragraph just seem unnecessary as part as an introduction.XantheTerra (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Children are specifically targeted intentionally. A major concern for aid groups. Its not like Afganistan/Iraq/Gronzy where children are coincidently killed. Its important to note human shields, as well as rebel kidnap of iranians and "displacement of civilians". I think the lede is fine the way it is and contributes a good picture. The lede is fine and was actually created sentence by sentence by me on consensus from all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)/Archive_5#My_solution_to_the_Lede

Sopher99 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent removals / additions

Lately, some considerable changes have been made which, to me, seem to contravene earlier consensuses. For one, Hezbollah has been added to the infobox as a belligerent, while there has been a broad consensus not to include alleged belligerents such as Al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah. None of the references given for Hezbollah's alleged involvement actually have them as a declared combatant; rather, they're articles on how certain newspapers and the Free Syrian Army allege that Hezbollah partakes in the conflict. Secondly, the 'concessions' section has been removed from the infobox without any apparent reason; we discussed its inclusion before and back then it was decided not to remove it, so what has changed? For both these changes, no (new) consensus has been sought on the Talk page, so I'm curious as to what was the motivation behind them. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

POV pushers are evident on the article by the way the usa is on record in supporting the opposition but is not mentioned in the infobox which is weird. Baboon43 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been going through a few dozen news articles on the strategic importance of this conflict to the United States, and their role in it. Hopefully that will end up becoming a nice background paragraph at some point. -Darouet (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

They support the opposition politicaly but they are not active participants in the conflict. The infobox exists so it can list those directly involved in the conflict. At this point those are the opposition rebels, the government, and to an extent Iranian special forces and the Hezbollah militia. When there are American boots on the ground only than can we add the US. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Support from the U.S. and Arab League for the opposition, and from Russia for the Assad regime, is both political and military. I suppose Pentagon spokespeople might argue over whether delivery of night vision goggles, or "coordination" of arms shipments from U.S.-backed Arab League countries, constitutes military support. That's not our job here, as we're not representatives of either party in this conflict. [1][2]. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is crystal clear, the section in which the warring sides are named is called Parties to the civil conflict. Is the US or Russia in direct involvement to the civil conflict? No. The Iranians and Hezbollah are. This is a clear example of a proxy war between the US and EU on one side and Russia and China on the other, just like the conflicts during the Cold war. But there we didn't include the US or Russia to be part of every war that happened even though they both allegedly provided support to multiple warring sides. Until there is at least confirmation of US military advisors in Syria, like we had in Libya, the US is not part of the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is by no means clear that the Iranians are directly involved in the conflict. Please merge this discussion with that below. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any Iranian sources for confirmation?

This might be a nitpicking...

According to 3 sources provided ([3], [4] and [5]), Iran confirmed the military aid to the Syrian government. However, if Iran really confirmed this, than it should be expected that Iranian press (e.g. Press TV) would report about it, but such an report is nowhere to be found.

If someone manages to find such an source, it would be good to include it. Video would also be good.

Also, it bothers a bit that out of those 3 sources provided, first one is from 27. May, while other two are from 28. May (which means they might have just used the first one as a source), and this first one is by Ynetnews, which is Israeli newspaper, and Iran and Israel are well known for their mutual hatred, so one might doubt this claim without confirmation from Iranian sources. --93.138.49.138 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are engaged in WP:FRINGE - the above cited sources are all reliable, and there is no need to do WP:OR over the facts they present.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE; we are responsible for the content we place here. Yes, please verify that the Iranians have confirmed the delivery of military aid to the Syrian government. -Darouet (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
It's just aiming for the caution, although it may be overcautious or nitpicking... --93.136.252.145 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The confirmation came from the top commander of the Iranian Quds force on the official website of the Iranian government, however, as the sources we have provided say themselves, the statement was quickly removed from the website after he was quoted of confirming their presence in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

According to one source, an Iranian website uploaded and later removed a quote from an Iranian general in which he said that if the Iranians weren't in Syria, there would be many more civilian casualties. This source was then cited by two other news sources including the Guardian. Is this the justification for writing that the Iranians have armed forces on the ground operating and actually fighting in Syria? Or is there some other? This report would not constitute an admission by the Iranian government that it is engaged in the conflict.-Darouet (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Iran should not be removed from the infobox. There are plenty of sources which all confirm that Iran has in fact deployed troops in Syria and thereby should be considered a combatant. [6][7] --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You need to read the article more carefully. "Had physically and non-physically stopped the rebels from killing many more among the Syrian people." It is on the same level of confirmation as the Qatar confirmation to presence of their troops in Libya (see Libyan Civil War page as an example). As for copying, although that is not the point, first time it was mentioned on one Iranian opposition persi website (I had it opened 3 days ago). Whether additional sources tracked it there, their editors saw it on the website of Iranian press agency or used one another as a source is to us unknown and therefore all we can add to this topic is nothing more than a speculation. Also you removed the contect "based on discussion" which was not closed yes and which continues. Do not do that in the future, unless there is a concensus established among the editors. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mikrobølgeovn for providing two additional sources, which are published after these three cited by our article. And thank you EllsworthSK for your concern; I had read the quote attributed to general Qa'ani prior to writing here.
What 93.136.252.145 is pointing out is that the Iranian government has not confirmed that Iranian forces are fighting against the Syrian opposition on the ground. Now from my own perspective I don't doubt that there are all kinds of Iranian military advisers in Syria (I believe that is consistent with the citation provided above), but we don't know what that really means, even if we accept the "few-hours post" report as good enough for the encyclopedia.
Also according to an Israeli source, wrote RT, "British and Qatari troops [were] directing rebel ammunition deliveries and tactics in the bloody battle for Homs." RT also reported, a day later, a Chinese newspaper's statement that Iran would send 15,000 soldiers to Syria. The Iranian regime actually spoke to RT directly: "as far as I know there is not and will not be any program to dispatch Iranian military troops to Syria... Iran has no troops in the country..."
We should not uncritically believe any of these reports, and for my part I'm no more credulous regarding claims from either side. You don't know from the report above whether Iran has soldiers fighting in Syria, any more than you know if Qatar or the UK have them. So let's be cautious, especially in the infoboxes, where it's hard to explain all this. -Darouet (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
First of all, Russia Today reliability is heavily questionable and is applicable only in limited way and with care, in case of this conflict their credibility goes out of the window. Please, read the RS noticeboard archives for more informations. And debkafiles is anything but reliable since it has long history of posting BS (in last year there was, according to them, about dozen or so imminent US attacks on Damascus). And again, putting your own perspective in this matter won´t help much. You have an opinion, but so do others. That is why we use RS to determine the issue. They say, without referencing to some wannabe intelligence website with long history of publishing sensationalistic news and unreliable informations, that head of Quds forces said to Iranian state news agency that Iranian military opposed physically Syrian rebels on Syrian soil. Meanwhile Iranian regime made no attempt to react on that. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
EllsworthSK, are you arguing that ISNA is clearly a reliable source, whereas Debka.com is not? These are both the sources of the articles we've cited above. I don't believe that you will argue this here.
In terms of the subsequent reporting based on two these sources, do you furthermore believe that Ynetnews, Al Arabiya, "News Track India," or RIA Novosti are really more reliable than the "heavily questionable" Russia Today, which you write is "applicable only in limited way [sic] and with care?" I love the Guardian as a source, but as you note yourself, my opinions aren't important here: there are plenty of people in Russia, in Syria and elsewhere who will find RT more reliable. In any event, I know that the Guardian is reporting from ISNA.
You probably know that all these sources have their own political perspectives regarding the Syrian crisis. Listing Iran as a direct participant in this conflict while excluding Russia, members of the Arab League, the EU or the United States, all of which we know are delivering weapons or some kind of military support, just isn't tenable. -Darouet (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Its quite obvious iran is not militarily involved some media outlets have an agenda to possibly enlarge the war, had iranians been involved im sure we would see them in uniform on the ground by the way if iran is involved the usa will not sit back and watch and also the russian war ship is sitting in the docks of damascus which the media will not even mention for obvious reasons. Baboon43 (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a tendency amongst certain editors to question the reliability of sources which do not go along with the Western narrative on the Syria crisis. This has led to the bizarre situation in which claims based on pieces of substandard journalism ("according to an unnamed man presenting himself as a senior official...", "based on unverifiable video footage...") are included in the article as long as they're from Western media, while the inclusion of well-sourced articles from Russia Today rarely goes unopposed because the channel's state ownership supposedly makes its reliability questionable. In this case, the claim that Iran is militarily involved in the conflict is based on a statement that allegedly was on ISNA's website but has now miraculously disappeared. No Iranian official has confirmed this supposed involvement since. I'd say this hardly warrants a reference in the article body, let alone an infobox entry.
I'm sticking to my position that only self-confirmed belligerents should be included in the infobox. If we go including belligerents on the basis of loose allegations, we'll soon have a long list of co-belligerents in the infobox. Including Iran en Hezbollah based on the current information opens the door for the inclusion of e.g. France. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just going to say this. Russia Today is just as reliable as CNN or Al Jazeera. Provided the info they are saying isn't ridiculous or suspect, there isn't any reason to question their reporting. Even if it is suspect, it should be taken on a case by case basis, NOT as a whole organization. On the point of belligerents, I will repeat what I said when people wanted to add Al Qaeda as a belligerent in the Libyan civil war; members of an organization can be involved in a conflict, fight for one side or another, but that does NOT mean that organization is fighting in the conflict. Just because members of Hezbollah are fighting in Syria (a point which I have zero doubt is true) doesn't mean that Hezbollah, as an organization, is fighting in Syria. It would be like a Janitor at Google saying that aliens exist, and then you assume that Google, as a company, believes aliens exist. Until Hezbollah releases a press release or other statement directly confirming their involvement, they should not be added to the belligerents list. Same goes for Iran. And if the statement can no longer be found on the internet, THAT is suspect, because any press release or statement of that magnitude would still be around if it was made at all. Jeancey (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem of RT isn´t really as much state ownership, but their bias in reporting when it comes to Russia or Russian interest. Anyway, I think we can remove the Iran part until some other or stronger confirmation comes out but it won´t hurt mentioning it in the article. Also we should remove Hezbollah on the same basis and Fatah al-Islam. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Dekba is not reliable. I believe if you look at the RS board you would find repeated complaints on Al Dekba. Russia today same thing. Russia today is owned and influenced directly by the Kremlin. Not only that, but many RS sources, even as far as the NY times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/arts/television/julian-assange-starts-talk-show-on-russian-tv.html ), criticize russia today as a propaganda channel.
Iran is a self-confirmed belligerent, but since the information was removed from the iranian website, we now have doubt. The question is hand is how strong the doubt is. Sopher99 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You telling me CNN and New York times are not influenced by the view of their own government? Please lets not kid ourselves here. In any case, as far as I know, US media has also been criticized to be spreading US propaganda, and not just by Russia today. Why are we than removing Russia today references and not US media references? Also, the New York times isn't really the best source to cite accusations of russia today being a propaganda channel since its been criticized by many American experts themselves that the Times is more radical and biased in their views than most other US media outlets. In any case, please, per Wikipedia guidelines we need to keep a neutral position and present views of both sides. And for that we use all sources. Wikipedia has not imposed a rule declaring Russia today to be on its list of non-reliable sources that can not be used, until that happens, we regard it as a reliable source, despite what our personal opinions on the matter are. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me - CNN and New york times are occasionally inspired by the government's point. Russia today is influenced as in commanded by the Russian government. The only American media commanded by the US government is voice of America, as it is only legal in America to have international state tv (television which does not air in America). National State television (state tv which airs in America) is forbidden by the constitution via Congressional Amendments. Sopher99 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You do know that senatorial and congressional lobbyists have a large stake and a lot of influence in US media? But never mind. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuity of the argument

On the contrary, it was. See Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media EllsworthSK (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly stated here, and as others have written as well, most of the media sources we're discussing are backing the foreign policy objectives of the governments that host them. What, does anybody believe it a coincidence that CNN or the New York Times are aligned with the Obama Administration regarding Syria? Or that the RT is aligned with Putin? This isn't a recent phenomenon: if you go back and read newspapers from WWI you'll see that the major papers backed the war aims of each nation hosting them, whether they were "free" or not.
RT is not just aligned with Putin. Its controlled by the Putin Administration. Its State Tv.
And by the way - any news source which does not align themselves with the alqaeda-hired-by-foreign countries claim is considered anti Syrian government by the Syrian government Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Sopher99, this is text from the NYTimes article you posted above to demonstrate that the NYTimes, a reliable news source, doesn't consider the RT to be reliable:
"In a preshow promotional interview with an RT reporter, Mr. Assange said he chose that network because it has greater penetration in the United States than Al Jazeera and because no other networks would have him. He isn’t looking forward to the reviews of his show. He predicted that The Times, among others, would dismiss him as 'an enemy combatant and traitor getting into bed with the Kremlin.' Of course, practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn’t put out."
I'm sorry, you may consider that great or objective journalism, but I find it worse than bad taste. We, here, can do much better than this. I think we are collectively able to have, as editors, a far more neutral perspective than these papers, in part because Wikipedia is an international project. -Darouet (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Moscow is at odds with Washington over Syria, and RT accordingly colors its reports from Damascus with sharp digs at the West and American support of opposition fighters that RT describes as “terrorists.” Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed. (Mr. Assange mentioned among the many dead “a journalist I had dinner with a year ago, Marie Colvin,” referring to the Sunday Times of London correspondent who was killed in Homs in February.)" Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but that's a two-way street. From the NYT, in an article titled The Enablers: "China, Russia and India see themselves as global leaders. So why have they been enabling two dangerous regimes, Syria and Iran, to continue on destructive paths? ... It’s time for Russia, China and India (which desperately wants a Security Council seat) to meet the test of leadership. That means all three need to work to find ways to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For Russia and China, it means standing against Mr. Assad’s siege on his people.[8]" -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I read the New York Times every day, but they aren't necessarily known for their neutrality, and there are a few infamous cases in particular ([9], [10], [11]). I'm not the only person who remembers these incidents. Also, EllsworthSK, I'm not sure if you saw this warning at the top of the essay you linked: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." -Darouet (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It says potentially not exclusivly. Also, I see Xinhua on that list but it isn't explained why it is considered potentially unreliable. I'm seeing the two big news broadcasters of the same two countries that are supporting the Syrian government on the list, what a coincidence. In any case, doesn't matter, like I said above, it is well known US media is influenced by senatorial and congressional lobbyists and by US foreign policy, they don't have to be directly commanded by the US government when you got the politicians. They follow what the White house says. Simple as that. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Xinhua is Chinese Communist Party press agency, it is Chinese variation of Soviet-time Pravda. Also I see that you want to draw a line between what is happening in Syria and the presence of RT and Xinhua on the link, however if you check history you´ll see that they are there for years and were put there by an administrator. Also claiming that users know much better what is going on than WP:RS may be true, but it blows hole so big into wikipedia guidelines that if we accept it as a norm we can say goodbye to Wikipedia. Hence WP:V. Bottom line, we have administrator who identified Russia Today as unreliable source, yet we have no such thing with New York Time which is considered to be one of the most reliable source on the planet with more than 1,000 editors working in their foreign section, not controlled by state, not subject to either auto-censorship or censorship. Pulling few articles which quoted unnamed intelligence officials (which were partially wrong as history showed) from hundreds of thousands articles New York Times published over the decade cannot be qualified even as ridiculous. Now, I do not know if I am the only one who remembers it but this discussion had nothing to do with something that belongs to WP:RSN where, by all means, we can continue with this discussion. We were discussing whether to include or not Iran in the article/infobox. Option which I presented was to remove the Iran till other sources come up with something else, but put the same merit on everything else and together with it remove both Hezbollah and Fatah al-Islam. Does anyone agree with it or not? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to decide whether Fatah al-Islam has confirmed its participation in the military conflict in Syria (I don't know), but it's clear at this time that Iran hasn't.

As far as the reliability of sources is concerned, and in this context, I don't find the New York Times more reliable than Russia Today, and EllsworthSK has failed to establish that Wikipedia does either. -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put in a section for international backers? This would allow us to place Russia and Iran in that category for the government, and the Unites States, EU (arguably) and Arab League in that category for the opposition? Just a suggestion. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Nah, we already have a foreign involvement section, a Sup for Gov section, and a Sup for Opp section. Thats more than enough already. Sopher99 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to compare the independence and reputation of US media and that of Russian media. If you don’t believe me then take a look at what happened today: Protestor Jailed for Spitting on Putin Portrait. This would never happen in the US. Russia is a corrupt country (ranked 143rd in the world on the Corruption Perceptions Index, whereas the US is ranked 24th)… Tradediatalk 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken a few months back US police arrested 300 Wall Street protesters, [12] also I know over the years many protesters in the US were arrested for burning the US flag (which is the equivelent of a protester spitting on Putins portrait in Russia) and per that Index you showed the US may not be in the red on the corruption level, but its not also in the green. Its in the yellow. ;) And don't get me started on the rendition thing and the wiretapping. So please don't talk to me by saying US politicians are not corrupt. Anyway this is off-topic. We were talking about Iranian and Hezbollah presence in Lebanon. But at this point I don't care anymore really. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Proof

this link here CNN quotes an Iran minister saying, "before our presence in Syria, too many people were killed by the opposition but with the physical and nonphysical presence of the Islamic republic, big massacres in Syria were prevented." This was said by Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force. Is this not good proof Iran is in Syria? If it isn't then what is? Because apparently the CIA's intelligence findings are not reliable. Jacob102699 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jacob102699 this has already been reviewed above. -Darouet (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that an infobox is a place to summarize the significant elements of a conflict. The 30 infiltrators of Fatah al-Islam do not constitute a significant “Party to the civil conflict”. I mean we are talking about a country of 22 million people. Therefore, I think Fatah al-Islam should be kept off the infobox. It is already described in the “Foreign involvement” section.

On the other hand, I think that the military support of Iran is significant. Iran is a country of 80 million and has a lot at stake in Syria. Ismail Ghani had a slip up and admitted what we all knew all along: “physical … presence of the Islamic republic.” They then realize that he was supposed to keep their presence secret, but it was too late. I can imagine a high ranking official reading what Ghani said and being like: “Oh damn, this idiot was not supposed to say we have troops in Syria… It’s supposed to be a secret!” Then, he’s like: “Quick, let’s remove this text from the website… hopefully no one would have noticed…” Hahaha… yeah right… the news got out and it is now in CNN and other media outlet. So yes, Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force did admit that Iran had troops on the ground in Syria. When you slip up and tell a secret, it is too late afterwards to take it back. It is barely a secret anyway… Everyone and his grandma know that Iran/Hezbollah are on the ground in Syria. Therefore, I think Iran/Hezbollah should be kept in the infobox. Tradediatalk 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. It is just as probable that someone from Ynetnews simply made this up. There is no way to confirm (or refute) this alleged Iranian self-confirmation. --93.139.151.226 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It has not. And it not just Ynetnews. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Iran and Hezbollah belong in the infobox, and they have for a long time. This is simply the latest in a long list of sources stating they have an armed presence in Syria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Title Change

I will be making the title change to meet wikipedia title requirment so the new title will be 2011-2012 syrian uprising if the uprising continues to 2013 then somebody will have to move the title to 2011-2013 syrian uprising. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We had actually determined beforehand through consensus on the talk page that 2011-present was the best format. Please see the archives. Sopher99 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides of which, what requirements? You did not provide a link to a guideline. Sopher99 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Title

"2011-2012"? This suggests the conflict has ended. It hasn't. Therefore the name should be changed. What is this? Shouldn't it be changed to Syrian Civil War or something (just a suggestion, but calling it 2011-2012 is definitely wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.4.0 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

...No? How does it suggest that at all? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think he/she means that something such as Syrian uprising (2011–present) would be more suitable, cf. War in Afghanistan (2001–present). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Was thinking the same thing today. EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we need years at all? i.e.: "Syrian Uprising" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.16.30 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, having the years in the title is very pointless. I don't even know why/who put it there in the first place. I remember it being just "Syrian uprising".72.53.153.82 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There were so many Syrian uprisings over the history, that putting years is something crucial to define the event.Greyshark09 (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it is weird to have the year in the title


So the consensus is that it should be changed... But it isn't being changed...? Also to Kudzu1, of course it suggests it has ended or at least that it will end soon. The conflict has every potential to go on past 2012.

"Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing" It doesn't say 2012. 2011-2012 sounds wrong and is misleading. It makes assumptions. Totally unencyclopaedic.

So how do I edit wikipedia then?

I agree with Greyshark09. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't just move a discussion from 2 months ago to the forefront like this MohammedBinAbdullah and continue it like it never ended. The discussion ended 2 months ago and consensus was to put 2011-present in the title. If you want to change the name than you need to open a new discussion section, not trying to reopen a closed one. EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox

I just changed the infobox to the "military conflict" one. Is this OK? In my opinion, this is obviously a military conflict by now; the protests have fallen by the wayside, replaced by the FSA's guerrilla war. 48Lugur (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This would be ok, but it seems to be reverted by now. -93.138.177.210 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

New phase : new article need (Syrian civil war)

The uprising article already have too much content and its own outline relate to a civil uprising (2011-early 2012). A new article is need about this borning civil war (2012) so we can structure a fresh outine. The dynamic are different, a new article is need. Suggestion: Syrian civil war (2012). We should avoid an easy move, and take the opportunity to provide a new article dedicated to the rich 2012 events. Yug (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why "2012"? There is no prior Syrian civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Note This is the first Syrian civil war. There is not one that precedes this. Also, there is no need for a date, nor a new article. The event is the same thing, just evolved, and evolving. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If we have a "civil war" subject, then the one year uprising is its background section. Yug (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I support this motion. Unlike Libya, the Syrian revolution remained a low level insurgency. The end of April saw the deployment of heavy military units by the regime while noteworthy fighting began around June, escalating steadily throughout the months; it escalated into ambushes and assaults on military bases by the rebels in December (when the Russians said Syria is "like a civil war"), and by January the FSA claimed it controlled 50% of Syrian territory while major centers like Idlib, Homs, and even Damascene towns like Zabadani and Douma fell to its fighters. Later in January and especially from February the regime commenced an all out war against rebel positions, recapturing Damascene towns in January and Homsi towns and the city itself in February. In March it did the same in Idlib. Now it seems the fighting has recommenced with towns falling and getting recaptured time again and again all over the country. I'm detailing this because I'm not sure if we partition the article, which date can we consider the "civil war". In my opinion the stepping up of FSA operations in December and the territory it held in January marks the commencement of the indisputable civil war period. I say this because the situation seems a bit blurry in the June-November period (although I notice there's a Battle of Rastan, 2011 article dating September that shows the opposition did indeed control territory). I support this idea, but I think there might be confusion about where the civil war starts - parts of the current article might need to be included in the new one, with the events from September/November and before getting a summary. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - firstly there is no clear date as to when the "uprising" became a civil war, secondly the uprising and civil war are so closely connected as to make a split highly artificial and impractical. The uprising is not merely background to the civil war, it is one and the same thing just at an earlier stage of development.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Foreign fighters on the side of the rebels

I was wondering if we should include this under combatants. The information that supports this from reliable sources is undeniable.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/foreign-jihadists-declare-war-on-syria-s-assad-a-824875.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/foreign-fighters-trickle-into-the-syrian-rebellion http://www.smh.com.au/world/syrian-conflict-attracting-foreign-fighters-weapons-20120217-1temk.html http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0607/Syria-conflict-5-warring-factions/Foreign-fighters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Foreign fighters are present on both sides, but we only include official belligerents. I7laseral (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the name is not changed now?

I don't understand.

This is clearly a war, with large amount of troops moving. The conflict has escalated since the collapse of the ceasefire. There are right now 150 soldiers and hundred of insurgents killed per week. This is way past the uprising point.

The vote above has seen an big majority for the name change.

Can someone with knowledge of how to move a page takes the responsability and moves it right now?--Hellmayor (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because there are more votes one way doesn't mean that it gets immediately changed. There must be consensus (i.e. all parties give input which is taken into account. The voting is simply a way for people to understand the different views on an issue, not decision making system. Jeancey (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The name is not changed because there is no consensus to change it. A majority is not enough. You need a consensus and, there are too many editors that oppose the name change to have a consensus. The number of casualties is not a valid reason to change the name. During the French revolution, you had hundreds of thousands of deaths yet, it is not called a civil war. Syria is in an attempt at a revolution. An attempted revolution is called “uprising”. Tradediatalk 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a wide consensus. The number of people opposing the move is negligible. Consensus does not mean unanimity. There will always been some people like you trying to block everything. But the enormous majority has decided. Change it now.--Hellmayor (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If that was reference to me on blocking everything, if you look, you will see that I have not voted. My only addition is urging that civil war remain uncapitalized, as people aren't calling this THE Syrian Civil War. Jeancey (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
RfC was already posted here EllsworthSK (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The UN has retracted, see: http://www.un.org/sg/spokesperson/highlights/index.asp?HighD=6/13/2012 FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Although your reaction has nothing to do with what I wrote it changes little to nothing. UN Secretariat said that it does not define Syrian conflict as anything because yadayadayada. We still have UN officials describing it as such, French foreign ministry and large amount of sources making that describtion. One way or another, it is now on the decision of admin, I am sure he will take into consideration all arguments. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

flaw with main picture

so what happened to the main multi-pictures picture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.240.205 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please advise me of how to resolve this issue. I have provided all the needed copyright information, and it was approved twice. I mentioned the srouces of all the pictures and copyright licenses. --OSFF (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well looking at the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_uprising_multiple_photos.jpg page, it says that it was deleted because one of the photos - File:Syrian_bombing.jpg - was deleted because of copyvio. What I would recommend is closely watching your files and respons when you see that someone nominated your file for deletion. If it was speedy deletion by non-admin user you can bring up that issue on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard, otherwise you can upload the images, provide copyright informations and ask for further assistance of administrators on noticeboard regarding the copyright issues. If they find none, you should be ok. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be urgently fixed - the article requires a topic picture.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I worked a lot on the issue with no result. we need some admin help. I have already wasted a lot of time trying to fix this issue much more than the time it took me to put the topic picture together and provide the licence info. I followed the above mentioned link and opened the issue there without any luck. --OSFF (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

something need to be done to the topic picture --OSFF (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello people help is required here--OSFF (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No one will help you here, this is issue for commons. And looking at commons Admin noticeboard, I don´t see anything opened there by you. Look, try to make another main picture from other pictures, open a topic on commons admin noticeboard and paste there all links on those original pictures. Ask if they are ok and not copyvio. If they say yes, no one will delete it. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We should use the libyan civil war style map , in when the red represents the opposition and the green represents the regime and pro-regime cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.172.242 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlike in Libya what we see here is asymmetric warfare, map would be useless. Also we have little information about control of several major cities, for example status of Syrian Kurdistan, status of Deir ez-Zor province, status of Daraa countryside and such. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a big flaw with the “main picture”. It doesn’t show any demonstration! Remember that this is part of the Arab spring… Tradediatalk 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been planned and expected since 1982, the "Arab Spring" is just an excuse. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You keep singing the same old song, FunkMonk. I find it interesting that the leaders of this "Islamist revolt" are a Paris-based liberal Muslim (Burhan Ghalioun), a Paris-based liberal Christian (George Sabra), a moderate Kurd (Abdel Basset Sayda), and a defected military officer (Riad al-Asaad). -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

UN retracts civil war claim

Seems like this is being ignored, so to make it clear: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA[13]

Asked about remarks concerning whether a civil war is taking place in Syria, the Spokesperson, said that is not for the Secretariat to determine or formally characterize the nature of the conflict in Syria. What we are all focusing on, he said, is that there has been a dangerous intensification of armed violence across Syria in the last several days. That is something that the Secretary-General himself referred to in the statement that came out on Monday evening, and he also commented on the scale of the violence in his comments to the press last Thursday. Last week, Nesirky noted, the Secretary-General said in a press encounter that “the confrontations in certain areas of the country have taken on the character of an internal conflict.” He has made clear his concerns about the implications of an intensification of the conflict, both inside Syria and for the region. Asked about a formal determination of a civil war, Nesirky noted the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross in making such a determination. He noted that the ICRC makes assessments concerning internal conflicts and internal armed conflicts, in line with its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions. Other matters, he added, would be for the Security Council to determine. The situation of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is already a challenging one, he said. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The UN did not retract any statement, instead the UN secretariat declines to call it anything, including an uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Which means they do not call it a civil war anymore. Which is a retraction. And therefore the rationale for moving the article used above is invalid. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
They did not retract anything you are getting the secretary and the peace-keeping chief confused. Sopher99 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Like Sopher said, they did not retract and they did not specificlly say that they do not call it a civil war anymore. Instead, he declined to comment on the nature of the conflict. Which is actually more of a confirmation of it being a civil war than not being since the UN was always touchy on the issue of naming any civil war a real civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the details are, the point is that moving this article because the UN calls it a civil-war, which was the rationale of many above, isn't an option. Because it doesn't. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the first dozen or so paragraphs of the discussion, you can clearly see the discussion started days before any UN officials made any move. Sopher99 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that people made it their main argument afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Facebook Page of SOHR

Is it OK if the official facebook page of SOHR is quoted? On the SOHR Arabic website, a link is directly provided to the facebook page of SOHR. This updates very regularly and contains much clearer, consistent and organised content than the Arabic website of SOHR which rarely updates at all. Can this be made an exception?Jafar Saeed (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Facebook, Twitter and other social networks can't be used as references, due to the multitude of privacy settings, visibility, and fluid nature of the posts. The SOHR page might be ok, but most other Facebook pages would not be and you can't allow this one without allowing them all. So Facebook is out. Jeancey (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


The issue is, is that, the SOHR authorised FB page provides clear and detailed information about the overall death toll for the day. I then attempt to proceed to attempt to find a site that references the SOHR death toll. I used to commonly reference 'Support Kurds in Syria', which has recently closed down, and now I am stuck without the ability to quote any external references. This information is deemed the most reliable and is widely quoted by all news agencies. BUT SOHR reports overall death tolls the day after they take place; so news agencies only quote individual events that SOHR reports (i.e. news agencies dont report on events a day earlier when SOHR updates specific events within the 'current day' at the time of the specific news reporting). This information is vital to providing an adequate account of the uprising (and sources such as LCC are hugely biased and unreliable).Jafar Saeed (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SOHOR is partisan, on top of the problem of it being a Facebook page, so no. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SOHR is nowhere near as biased as other sources and displays no signs of bias within the overall death toll counts; for instance, civilian deaths are given without the generalisation of labelling all the deaths as regime-caused. It even mentions the killing of civilians due to rebels when necessary. It also reports reliable figures on the regime law-enforcers death toll. I think you are confused, SOHR is not a faceb ook page, it has an Arabic-language website. The problem is is that this website rarely uodates and when it does, the content is minimal and unorganised. The website contains a direct link to the facebook page of SOHR as the 'English language' version of the website which updates very regularly.Jafar Saeed (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SOHR calls a bearded man with a kalashnikov a civilian. They are not reliable.--Aviri'c (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Front Image

Do you think that we should consider replacing the multi-picture front picture, with a map filled in with the relative colours of the armies (use red & green) similar to the picture that was present on the timeline of the Libyan conflict. It is known that the rebels control certain areas and I think that it would be proficient ot use such a map to help illustrate the respective areas that the government/rebels control (or hold influence over).Jafar Saeed (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For the tenth time, no. This is assymetrical warfare, there are many territories in Syria which control is unclear (Kurdistan, Dier ez-Zor, countryside of every province) etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to Syrian Civil War title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to remove. Having read all the discussion I find that there is no consensus to move. I discarded many !votes (both opposes and supports) as they relied on an assessment of whether the situation met some definition of civil war. This is original research and not how we determine the name of an article on Wikipedia - we rely on reliable sources. Moving on to the !votes that use reliable sources for their reasoning I find that there are reliable sources using both terms. This is not a case of some of those sources using an old term but some of them specifically refuse to define the situation as a civil war. What ever type of source we use, the press, government or UN, there seems to be some that are calling it a "civil war" and other elements that are saying it is not. This seems to me to be a classic "no consensus" and so the article should stay at Syrian uprising (2011–present) for the moment. In this instance defaulting to the current situation (and I refer here to when the discussion was started not to the situation after the move by someone involved) is particularly sensible, because as far as I'm aware, from this discussion, there is no one that disagrees that it was an uprising so we're not defaulting to a possibly incorrect name or similar but rather to one that might be outdated. Dpmuk (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War – Nobody is using the word uprising anymore. The term civil war is more and more used and as well more accurate. Uprising is a joke of a name. Evidence: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=syria+civil+war&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=

      • The count currently stands at 32 unique supports compared to 14 unique opposes in all (both rename and closure sections). Wikipedia's neither a poll or a democracy, but so far the percentage is 70% in favor of changing the article's name, which I believe qualify's as consensus. (A sharp change compared to 14-15 two months ago). I7laseral (talk) I7laseral (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No. This represents a majority but, is not enough for a consensus. As it stands now, there is no consensus. So the title stays the same and is not changed. Tradediatalk 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
What criteria do you have to make that point? I think 2-1 is consensus. I7laseral (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't close - if 33% oppose, it's not a consensus! While a consensus does not exclude the possibility of there being dissidents, they should be a small minority. If as much as 33% of participants disagree, then there wasn't a consensus in the first place.- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I thought 33 percent is a minority when you compare to 67 percent? Side-note, 22 at the moment support and 10 oppose, that's 31.25 percent against the term civil war. And the number is still going down. Ok, we wait a bit longer Taal to see opinions of others on the matter, but in the last 24 hours the oppose number has only been going down since the head of the UN peacekeeping mission has declared the country to be in a state of civil war. You cann't get more official than the UN. EkoGraf (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A consensus is defined as a general agreement or even as an opinion that everyone in a group agrees with or accepts. Under neither of those definitions does 67% agreement qualify as a consensus. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
There will always be someone who disagrees. But fine, ok, we see how the situation developes in the next few days and hold of on the consensus thing. Although, I think the reality is starting to sink in (French foreign minister has called it a civil war half an hour ago). EkoGraf (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but your evidence only shows that the term "civil war" is commonly used, not that "uprising" is out of use yet. So please provide more convincing evidence or accept the facts. Thanks. --Bassmachine89 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
But is uprising out of use yet? We should check if that is still be used as well. Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - though previously i had opposed such a move, the collapse of the Kofi Annan peace plan and surging violence, as well as the shift in COMMONNAME referation by sources to the conflict as a "civil war" justify the rename of the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Has all the criteria of a civil war, sources constantly saying that this is war, borderline civil war. Enough sources say that this is a civil war falsely called a ceasefire. Sopher99 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Difficult decision. Most of the sources I've seen say that Syria almost meets the threshold for a civil war. But when you look at what's happening, it seems as if the hostilities are only increasing in numbers on both sides. In my eyes, it is now a de facto civil war. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - With the UN now calling it a civil war, the few outlets still saying it 'could become a civil war' will switch over within days -- Smurfy 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, altogether premature. Iraq had a much longer and bloodier insurgency, but the term "civil war" was not used to describe it in mainstream media sources. Generally, the term "civil war" tends to be used when both sides semi-permanently hold and govern distinct territories (US civil war 1860s, Spanish civil war 1930s) albeit with shifting front lines; it does not tend to be used when one side is a guerrilla or insurgency movement that does not try to permanently hold territory (i.e., insurgents slip away and melt into the general population whenever central government troops show up in force in any one particular location), and there are no "front lines". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually Aufrette, you are a bit wrong. What happened in Iraq was called in the mainstream media sources a civil war. And we even have an article, see Civil war in Iraq. Also, on the question of holding territory. Most sources at the moment state that the FSA is holding under its control the entire northern part of Idlib province and some parts of the central Hama and Homs provinces. So there actually are frontlines and no-mans lands in Syria at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per arguments made by Greyshark, Sopher, and EkoGraf. I7laseral (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the previous state didn't change, there is "worries" of a civil war, but no one use the term "Civil war" itself yet, it is still "uprising", "crisis", "protests" etc. Besides, there is still two independent types of movements in Syria; peaceful and military, and even if the conflict is taking increasingly a sectarian scope, it didn't become an obvious sectarian war at all. Until this changes, it is still very early to call it a "Civil war". By the way, taking a fast look at BBC, France24, Reuters and Al-jazzera, I don't see anyone calling it a civil war, it doesn't seems really a notable term yet as said above --aad_Dira (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose Uprising remains a more accurate depiction of what's happening. It's not a war between two organizations within the country, but rather an uprising of the citizens against the government. --mjlissner (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (see below for reason I changed my mind) - a civil war is when the civil population of a nation fightes along ethnic/racial/religious lines; however in Syria people are fighting against government led, organized and equipped security forces, who have been ordered to suppress all opposition. It will be a civil war when whole units of the military change sides and civilians on a large scale begin to fight against each other. As of now it is overwhelmingly civilians vs. government forces - hence uprising is the appropriate term. Syria is definitely heading to a civil war, but it is not there yet! We can not glass-bowl here what events the future brings! Please also note the the British Foreign Secretary defined the situation is Syria today as "We're on the edge of that kind of sectarian murder on a large scale" - therefore: wait and see! (read also: Sign of growing sectarian strife and/or Can Syria avoid sliding into 'catastrophic civil war'?) noclador (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Civilians still count as civil war: Algerian civil war, russian civil war, Costa rica civil war, Colombian civil war, ect. Besides you do realize the FSA is almost all military defectors? I7laseral (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Do the sources call it a civil war? If you listen closely all politicians refer to it something that might/will/could become a civil war and so does the press! Besides - do you understand the difference between "defectors" and "whole units of the military"?? noclador (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - with this official announcement, my earlier call to wait has been superseded; Therefore: close discussion, and move. noclador (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, The only reason why sources are not calling this a civil war is because no media taken the lede in doing so. All the media just copycat's each other. I guarantee that after 1-2 weeks of wikipedia changing the name to civil war, all other media will follow. Zenithfel (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    Your reasoning is reversed here, see WP:NOT and WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting any particular terminology or naming scheme. We generally look to secondary sources like news media for usage guidance, not vice versa. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
What I am saying is that we should take the media issue down a notch, and the facts issue up a notch. Zenithfel (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
“facts issue”? In Wikipedia, all facts come from sources. In this kind of wiki articles, the sources are the media. Tradediatalk 00:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=273364&R=R1 --93.137.197.52 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is actually why we should not change the name. This guy wrote a whole article trying to convince us that Syria is in civil war. This shows that it is still far from obvious in the mainstream that it is a civil war. No one would be writing an op ed piece stating the obvious… Tradediatalk 01:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This same CNN article also says: "In both places we've seen not just more armed clashes than ever in the past, but also a revival of the protest movement in its peaceful dimension (my emphasis). Tradediatalk 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't link to any specific CNN article.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I googled what you wrote: “CNN is saying that the battle for the two largest cities of Syria has begun.” and found the article you were talking about. I link it here: Syria: Battle for the cities, CNN Tradediatalk 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Truth by consensus is not enough in itself to warrant a move and/or rename of the article in question. Whilst by simple definition the events may constitute as a civil war (OED: Civil war, n. a war between citizens of the same country), in reality and in practise the events that constitute a civil war are much more complex than simple argumentum ad populum, circular definition, and in itself is a wicked problem. The parameters of the current conflict do not constitute a civil war under international law under the Geneva Conventions - Fourth Geneva Convention, customary international law or the United Nations Charter a.39 (per the general rules of interpretation: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic), of which all members are assigned, per the Syrian Arab Republic being member to the United Nations.--D Namtar 00:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Consensus matters alot on wikipedia and we should not go with dic def opinions rather we should go with the sources found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not an opinion peace based upon Opinion Journalism. As in the case of your "New Reliable Sources", (of which I chuckled at the fact you included a Daily Mail article amongst them - Especially when in the right hand bar, there is a William Hague article regarding Syria as not yet reached the ultimatum). If you wish to ignore the VCLT I aforementioned as part of International Law for Opinion Journalism then be my guest, but if you think that is how Wikipedia solely operates then you are sadly mistaken. Consensus is an important part of Wikipedia, but even more so is neutrality, Wikipedia does not take sides. Consensus is not black and white, even within Wikipedia policy, which is why this discussion is taking place to resolve this impasse. Your statement is nothing more than the obvious, as to why this discussion is in function in the first place, and furthermore you clearly did not read my original statement as I argued against the use of the dictionary definition, not for it, rather I utilized International Law regarding the issue, not opinion pieces. Any further opinion disputes and/or canvassing in response to this can be made on my talk page, this is not the place to do so. --D Namtar 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Fourth Geneva Convention does not define what civil war is and what is not. Read sources you like to use again. And with that article 39 you have got to be kidding. As for sources, little googling can make everyone life easier. [16] [17] (remove the slash) [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] And these sources are just recent. Here are few sources from last year which call it as such [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The selective reading of users here is astounding. No, it does not, which is why I elaborated upon the points in relation to the VCLT as aforementioned. Again (as aforementioned), if you or other uses wish to canvas (especially with freelance Opinion Journalism of the same editorial tripe as outlined in my previous statement), do so on my Talk Page. Per Wikipedia guidelines this is not the place to do so, nor the place to argue semantics, rhetoric, nor the social, political, or cultural definition of a non-neutral term.--D Namtar 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


  • Strongly oppose - Just like the last time we had this discussion, authoritative sources are in fact NOT calling this a civil war. Just yesterday, British foreign minister William Hague warned that Syria "is on the edge of civil war",[38] UN chief Ban Ki-Moon has said that there is an "imminent and real threat" of civil war[39] and Kofi Annan warned that "if things do not change, the future is likely to be one of (...) civil war".[40] Note how none of them are saying that it is currently a civil war! - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • comment - We can change the article name to civil war, and then in the opening sentence say the conflict is an uprising and de facto civil war, alerting readers that common media may or may not be calling it a civil war. I7laseral (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No. There is no such a thing as “de facto” in Wikipedia. We only reflect what our sources (media) say. If the majority of the media is not calling it civil war, we shouldn’t either. We don’t go against the media. We are not better or smarter than the media. Tradediatalk 00:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense here i.m.o. De facto is used in contrast with de jure, which doesn't apply here: there's no such thing as a 'de jure civil war', as there are no laws defining civil wars. This either is a civil war or it isn't; it can't be a 'de facto civil war'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The common name by reliable sources is not the Syrian civil war. Wikipedia policy is to follow the news not lead the news in naming events. Also, those wishing to change the name have the burden of proof to show that common reliable sources such as the nytimes, wall street journal, washington post, guardian, bbc, cnn, etc. are calling the event now the Syrian civil war, so far a set of solid references for naming it the Syrian civil war has not been presented. Guest2625 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Im not finding much for "Syrian uprising" that is recent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, for God knows how many time. This has seriously become a joke; the vast majority of people who have commented here have wanted to rename this, a number which has only increased since the collapse of the UN peace plan. The majority of news sources have referred to this as a civil war, it is a civil war by all definitions. This is by far the most retarded debate over a name that I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and it is being continued by a select few people who were opposed to it in the beginning and continue to comment and argue with the people who do support it simply because THEIR chosen source has never referred to it as such or they're holding out for some elusive common name which for political reasons is never going to occur in the lifetime of the conflict. Pull your heads out of your asses, people. --71.87.213.78 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC} Please log in before voting. Your anonymous vote arouses suspicion, particularly because you imply that this is the "God knows how many time" you've made this point, yet your IP address shows only 2 previous contributions to Wikipedia. -TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • MAJOR NEWS FLASH The head of UN peacekeeping says Syria is now in a state of civil war. Source here [41]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a UN official has said the same thing in December 2011 (see EllsworthSK’s links above) but the media did not follow him. Besides, in this Al Jazeera article that is similar to your BBC one, it says: “Kieran Dwyer, a spokesman for the UN peacekeeping department, told Al Jazeera that Landous' description was "related to what is going on in the last five days." We should not change the title of the wiki article based on 5 days. We need to wait for a majority of the media to permanently change the way they talk about the conflict… Tradediatalk 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I take blame for this, I just copied links which I used in December without reading them. UN officials in fact didnt call it back than as civil war, but as close to civil war. They were misunderstood by media which corrected themself later on. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No, you were correct. The UN official was not misunderstood. She said exactly: "As soon as there were more and more defectors threatening to take up arms, I said this in August before the Security Council, that there's going to be a civil war," Pillay told reporters in Geneva. "And at the moment that's how I am characterizing this." So the UN official did call it civil war back in december. Tradediatalk 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have good memory. I remember discussing this on this very same page, it is in archive. Anyway, if you do not believe it take a look at this [42]. She was not characterizing situation as civil war, but as close to civil war (ie she characterized situation as As soon as there were more and more defectors threatening to take up arms that there's going to be a civil war) EllsworthSK (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It has the characteristics of a civil war and it has already been confirmed a civil war by the UN. --TheWillis909 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have the reasons for calling it civil war:

1. It's a movement led by the opposition 2. The movement had goal the restignation of Bashar al-Assad 3. It haves civil involvement but with the help of Syrian National Council's forces 4. It's more that a civil uprising for the human rights, it's a civil war with military intervention of government-in-exile's forces (Free Syrian Army, Syrian Liberation Army,etc...) 5. More sources says that is a civil war --Luis Molnar (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: It isn't called civil war by most sources. End of story. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: To elaborate, it doesn't matter how convincingly you can prove it's a civil war through the definition of a civil war, doing so counts as Original Research. Until reliable sources states that it is a civil war (and not just saying that it is moving towards it) we cannot change the article name. Jeancey (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It is widely agreed that the UN has the highest say in regard to reporting the status of the Situation. The department in charge of peace keeping and monitoring conflicts has concluding, as of today, that Syria is in Civil war. Just about all media echo the UN's stance. I7laseral (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In this case, we will let the "media echo the UN's stance", then we will echo the media. We should not anticipate the media. A UN official has said the same thing in December 2011 (see EllsworthSK’s links above) but the media did not follow him. Tradediatalk 00:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose This is a struggle of people to topple a despotic regime. The term civil war will obviate the origins and rational for the conflict. It should be called “uprising” and, after the regime falls, it should be called “revolution”. The level of violence and number of casualties should not be a criterion in the naming. For example, in the French revolution, hundreds of thousands were killed but, it is still called “revolution” not “civil war”. A civil war implies some symmetry in terms of the belligerents. Here on the other hand, we have a regular army with planes and tanks and on the other side, fighters with AK47s and rpgs.
If you do a google search with syria civil war between brackets, you get on the first page the following titles (all more recent than a week): “…Syria civil war imminent…"; “…Syria civil war risk…”; “…Syria civil war warning…”; “…Syria civil war?”; “Warning of Syria civil war…”; “Syria civil war threat…”; “…potential Syria civil war…”; “Syria’s civil war…”; “…fears civil war…”; “Syria: civil war...” As you can see, 8 titles consider it not yet a civil war. Only 2 titles consider it a civil war. Wikipedia should definitely not be a trend setter, but rather wait for the media. If we change the name, we would be clearly jumping the gun. Tradediatalk 23:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
We have full intention of emphasizing the civil resistance movement that has lasted for over 15 months, and emphasizing that the term civil war was not applied until after 15 whole months of prior events. If the civil war launches the fall of the regime, the article will likely be renamed to Syrian revolution. I7laseral (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The conflict only continues to escalate, and as per some below links, the media seems to finally be coming around to (rightfully) calling this a civil war. bob rulz (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportOppose Just like many others here have said, I support moving this page to "Syrian Civil War". After all, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon even said that the situation in Syria is starting to look more and more like a bona fide civil war, in the country. In my opinion, the Syrian situation, at present, very closely resembles an actual civil war. This is because, in a civil war, there are almost always 2 opposing sides, in the conflict. In this case, there are two armies: The Syrian Government, and The Free Syrian Army. I even think it could be compared to the American Civil War of the 1860s, with the Free Syrian Army being sort of analogous to the Confederate States, and the Syrian Government being sort of analogous to The Union. In conclusion, I agree that this so-called "uprising" now has all of the features of a civil war, and should probably, therefore, be referred to as such. SuperHero2111 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have now changed my mind. After reading many different news articles, I found that almost all of them mention that the Syrian uprising is not a civil war, yet, but it might become one, in the future. So, now, I support keeping the name the same, for now. Maybe in the future, when the majority of the news sources start saying that it is currently a civil war, then, I will support changing the name. However, as of now, I don't think changing the name is a very good idea. Not yet. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the name should remain as uprising and not to be changed to civil war, the current situation in Syria is much more complicated than what the media are presenting. There are many groups currently on the ground with totally different objectives:

- Syrian civilians inside Syria who support the current regime. - Syrian civilians outside Syria who support the current regime. - Syrian Armed Forces who supports the current regime. - Syrian civilians inside Syria against the current regime. - Syrian civilians outside Syria against the current regime. - Syrian "Armed" civilians against the current regime. - Syrian "Armed" ex-military members against the current regime. - Non-Syrian "Armed" groups are joining forces against the regime (due to Islamic culture, concept of patriotism disappears once compared to Islamism). - Non Syrian civilians who support the regime. - Non Syrian civilians against the regime. - Governments who are following the Islamism vs Patriotism concept (shortly mentioned above) - Governments who are going against the current regime because that falls to their benefit. - Governments who are benefiting from the current chaos in Syria. Until this time, the majority of people in Syria are not taking sides, most of the people are too scared to interfere or to give any opinions about the current situation of the country or what is going to happened, however, the majority of people are against civil war, and all are waiting for a resolution. The current regime is not striking with all it's power claiming that this is to save as many civilian lives as possible, while the FSA (Free Syrian Army) cannot make any difference without a foreign intervention. The governments supporting the FSA (both due to Islamism, or having interest in chaos) are providing intelligence information, communication and advanced weapons to maintain a non-stable state of the country. Shiblie (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblie (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose per User:Zenithfel's comments above in support of a move: "The only reason why sources are not calling this a civil war is because no media taken the lede [sic] in doing so. All the media just copycat's [sic] each other. I guarantee that after 1-2 weeks of wikipedia [sic] changing the name to civil war, all other media will follow." Wikipedia should reflect what other sources use, not attempt to be a vanguard of revisionism. As mentioned by others, the citations using the term "civil war" usually qualify it with terms such as "almost" or "looming" or are reporting other usage without using the term "Syrian Civil War" themselves. When the usage changes, Wikipedia can move the article. —  AjaxSmack  03:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - New reliable sources calling this a "civil war". Note: All sources are within 2 days old

Other than those alot of material I found is from June 8 and repeats the same words "Warns of a civil war" "Civil war looming" and "Worries of a civil war" with a few but not many new sources saying the same thing. So we editors on wikipedia can either wait a few days, if the violence continues than more sources might be calling it a Civil war ot call it a civil war based on newer sources comming out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It is different when you hunt for the word "Civil war" itself in any place it is mentioned in, and when the civil war is really the dominant term. All large news agencies like Rueters, BBC, France24, RT and Al-Jazeera still don't use the term "civil war". It is not important if it was used occasionally once, or twice, or even more, but when you open a random article about Syria in any news agency, what is the possibility to find someone calling it "civil war"? I have opened random article in each of the news agencies I just mentioned, and didn't found the word "Civil war" at all, unless quoting the speech of someone "worried" that Syria is near the civil war. I don't understand why the people here are so hurried about it, let everything take its time --aad_Dira (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC).
There were numerous requests to change the name into civil war (hopefully, this will be the last one), and there were always some excuses to oppose the renaming, despite the fact that this conflict is obviously a civil war. Well, now even UN calls it civil war, so this should finally be enough do this name change which was supposed to be done a long time ago, but it's ok, this will probably be solved now. --93.139.62.105 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathon Marcus says there is a "developing consensus in branding the Syrian crisis a civil war." -- Smurfy 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"developing consensus" means there is no consensus yet. Only a small minority of officials have called it civil war. Tradediatalk 20:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you have it

UN peacekeeping chief says that starting today Syria is at full civil war. I don't think you can get a more potent RS than the very guy whose job is to determine the situation in every country.

Al Jazeera I7laseral (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. If only people weren't too ignorant to change it. This is a war. They are slaughtering children. OWS (which I oppose heavily, I am just using it as an example) is an uprising. This is a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlf (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling Occupy Wall Street an uprising is ridiculous. In wiki, it is called a “protest” as it should be. In the French revolution, there were hundreds of thousands killed, but it is not called a civil war… Tradediatalk 01:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The gang of 12 leading the French revolution committed wide-scale oppression on hundreds of thousands, leading to about 100,000 deaths of "non revolutionaries". Not a civil war, because no one fought back. 1600s English civil war nobody died and they still call it a civil war. Second Ivory Coast civil war only 800 died in a country of 20 million, still called a civil war. I7laseral (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
“because no one fought back”: This is not correct. In Vendée, peasants revolted against the French Revolutionary government in 1793. 170,000 died in the fighting. “1600s English civil war nobody died”: This is not correct. Historical records count 84,830 dead from these wars. “Second Ivory Coast civil war only 800 died in a country of 20 million, still called a civil war.”: This proves my point that the name "civil war" is not about the number of death, but rather the nature of the conflict. You couldn’t call Ivory Coast an uprising or a revolution, so you call it civil war. On the other hand, Syria is an attempted revolution (uprising) Tradediatalk 23:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
No he said "I THINK" that means he's not sure yet but al jazeera put the header as if he is sure there is a civil war going on. Im starting to think al jazeera has their own agenda here. Baboon43 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It was not a prepared speech, or even a speech in general. Saying "I think" was not a meticulous choice of words. When he says "he thinks" he is referring to the fact he has put 2+2 together (ie combining and reviewing all the evidence and signs to convey a conclusion). I7laseral (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If the UN says it is a civil war, then it is. I saw this on Al Jazeera too. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a UN official has said the same thing in December 2011 (see EllsworthSK’s links above) but the media did not follow him. Besides, your aljazeera article says: “Kieran Dwyer, a spokesman for the UN peacekeeping department, told Al Jazeera that Landous' description was "related to what is going on in the last five days." We should not change the title of the wiki article based on 5 days. We need to wait for a majority of the media to permanently change the way they talk about the conflict… Tradediatalk 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay how, where and when do you define that tipping point where the majority of the media shifts to "permanently changing the way they talk about the conflict"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think what Tradedia means by 'permanent' is that the media will itself start using the term 'civil war' instead of merely reporting on the event that a UN observer called it a civil war and subsequently continuing to use 'uprising'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Do you also want me to report hour by hour on all the officials that did not call it a civil war? We know some sources are calling it civil war. However, the majority of sources are not. Tradediatalk 15:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A "developing consensus" as France agrees with the UN

France has now said they also believe it has become a civil war, and in the same article the BBC's diplomatic correspondent says there is a "developing consensus in branding the Syrian crisis a civil war." -- Smurfy 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Strongly Support Besides UN and France call it a civil war, it is visible: there are well armed forces in each side, each one financed by the superpowers, and they are now fighting for conquesting territory. We cannot say anymore the opposition is simply a group of protesters, they are warriors and murders too. Now, unfortunately, "may the best men win". Beegeesfan (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • BREAKING NEWS British foreign ministry did NOT call the events in Syria a "civil war": “Asked by reporters whether he felt Syria had descended into civil war, Mr Hague said: "I continue to put it the same way as the last few days, that Syria is on the edge of collapse or of a deadly sectarian civil war." BBC Tradediatalk 19:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"developing consensus" means there is no consensus yet. Only a small minority of officials have called it civil war. Tradediatalk 21:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The world does NOT revolve around BBC and what they say, there have been a number of various sources that have been calling this a civil war that dio not echo the UN statement as repeated elsewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reason why what the UN and French officials said is not very important: Just because these officials say it is a civil war, does not mean we should take their word at face value. These officials are a party in the conflict and what they say might be strategic. According to BBC: “Professor Gerges also sees the increasing recognition of the Syrian conflict as a civil war as a deliberate attempt to telegraph a diplomatic message. "My take," he told me, "is that statements by UN and Western officials about Syria reaching the tipping point of all-out civil war are designed to impress on Assad's allies, particularly the Russians, the urgency and gravity of the situation and the need to exert pressure on Assad to accept the Kofi Annan peace initiative." Tradediatalk 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So if we can't trust certain sources because we believe they may be acting towards political ends, who can we trust? If we start suspecting certain sources as being untrustworthy for these reasons, we could easily suspect ALL sources of these sorts of things. The BBC is a western news organization, how can we trust them? They might be acting in favor of the British government. We can't start picking out sources to call to say are not legitimate just because they disagree with your opinion on the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warioman86 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying not to trust certain sources such as media outlets. I was just responding to editors who were arguing that since the UN and French officials said it’s a civil war then, it is officially a civil war. I am saying there is nothing “official”. We should not change the name because an important person said so. But rather, we should look at what the majority of the media is saying. At this point, the majority is not saying civil war. Tradediatalk 21:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure

I propose that this gets closed with an overwhelming consensus to move. The U.N. thing really just puts the discussion at a point where the opposes can't argue very much anymore. All we need is someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed media was just quoting UN on whether or not it is a civil war. Now that UN says so most media would be obliged as well. I7laseral (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe trying to ask on WP:ANRFC? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Why the drive to rush this proposal through? At WP:RMCI, it is stated that editors should only move to get the discussion closed "after the normal seven day listing period has elapsed". This proposal for moving the article was coined on 9 June, which means that it has only been active for four days. Give editors some time to voice their opinion. The assertion that editors opposed to the proposal cannot possibly have any valid arguments is quite a one-sided view of things. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"here are some more sources now calling it a Civil war" No, these articles are simply reporting on what the UN official said. So it is only a one time thing. Tradediatalk 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Only 15 minutes after you said it is a one time thing the French foreign minister has called it a civil war. Source here [44]. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you also want me to report hour by hour on all the officials that did not call it a civil war? We know some sources are calling it civil war. However, the majority of sources are not. The UN and french officials said what they said in answering journalists questions and were reacting to the horrific events of the last few days... which does not mean they will keep saying this next week if things evolve in the direction of appeasement. I still consider it a one time thing because both officials (and others) are reacting to the same event (heavy battles in last few days). We are an encyclopedia and a name change is a very radical move that requires we wait for the dust to settle instead of reacting (over-reacting) to the hour by hour events... Tradediatalk 16:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - So far, the only authoritative source calling it a civil war is one UN observer. The last time people like Kofi Annan, Barack Obama or Ban Ki-Moon spoke about the conflict in public, they were still referring to it as an uprising. One source can surely not be enough to change the title of this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
French foreign minister has called it a civil war. Source here [45]. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose move strongly: new phase = new article A new phase means a new article should be create. Sources are flooding. If we really have a civil war to cover, we need a new space (article) to cover it with a fresh outline dedicated to this raising "civil war" topic. Yug (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Every civil war doesn't start as a war, but as a revolt, uprising etc. This is still the same event, just evolved as one other editor put it. The direct FSA-Army fighting has been going on since at least August of last year. No reason to create a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
So? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
If that is an inquiry, can you please be more specific? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think he wanted to say so what if they say it is not a civil war. The US called Vietnam a police action but you don't see us calling it the Vietnam police action but the Vietnam war. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
This is quite important, because the Syrian government's denial that the situation is a civil war effectively means that renaming this article "Syrian civil war" is taking sides in the conflict, which violates WP:NPOV. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
DId Gaddafi call the Libyan civil war a civil war? Nope. Sopher99 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Eko is right and I am screenshoting this TaalVerbeteraar answer for future usage. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You don't need a screenshot, you can simply use the diff. I can't see what future usage you envision, though. If you're hoping to somehow catch me on being inconsistent in my points of view: good luck. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I find it as pretty good sarcastic remark, it can be useful when I try to be funny (so far I have not succeeded in that matter). I mean, it´s great argument - if one participant of the conflict, unreliable source by that very definition, does not call it civil war, than screw all other RS, we cannot call it as such as well because we would be taking sides even though other side call it revolution. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that the government of Syria is going to admit that they are in a civil war? In any case we cant use their statement as per above it is WP:NPOV - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Good one. As if statements from other organizations aren't POV. And yes, many governments have actually acknowledged that their countries were in a state of civil war, such as many African countries. I think Somalia might be a currently ongoing example. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the BBC's Jim Muir notes, both sides reject the term "civil war" to describe the present conflict on ideological grounds, and "the appellation has not become official UN policy."[1] weriov (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The same Jim Muir also says in the same paragraph that the chief of the UN mission is right in his assessment that its a civil war.
And yet, he is wrong. Rebels are calling it war (and revolution) for some time. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note Both the United Nations and the Government of Syria do not, officially, call this a civil war. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support Not only has the chief of the UN mission called it a civil war, but just 15 minutes ago the French foreign minister has also called it a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support per French Foreign Ministry now calls this a civil war. Please see France's Foreign Minister: Syria is in civil war. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As the state of civil war has been going on for a while now.Goltak (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If there was any doubt about it before, the fact that the UN monitor head himself called it a civil war, though in itself of little significance, has made all mainstream outlets quote him, and will likely encourage usage of this term from now on. Whether or not we agree with the speaker, the fact that he will be quoted repeatedly on this will make an impact on the terminology used by mainstream sources. And as pointed out by Ism schism, the French have picked up on this too, so it's not gonna die. Regarding the definition of a civil war that involves holding territory and positions, here's my timeline of the crisis based on what I've understood so far:
1- Syrian Army deploys tanks to Daraa late in April. Deployment of heavy weapons to curb protests becomes widespread.
2- Rebels in the mountainous area of Jisr as-Shughur clash unsuccessfully with the Syrian Army in the first reported significant militant action in June. Free Officers Movement formed this month, and the Free Syrian Army follows in July. I'm not sure holding a mountainous area by insurgents qualifies as "territory".
3- The Syrian Army kicks out the FSA from Rastan in September, showing more clearly a town in the heart of Syria being held by rebels as "territory". Battle of Rastan, 2011 In October clashes for control of the Jabal az-Zawiya region erupted with inconclusive results.
4- In early December the FSA assaults a military base - the headquarters of Air Force Intelligence. Russia says that Syria is "like a civil war". This marks the first such escalation in tactics to include outright assaults on core targets by the FSA.
5- By mid January, Douma and Zabadani, two Damascene towns, are held by the FSA. Additionally, towns and cities all over Syria, especially Homs and Idlib, are captured by the FSA, who declares that "50% of Syria" is under its control. I believe this period in January is where it became clear that the FSA is a potent force holding territory. Assad commences an assault on Damascene FSA territory the same month, retakes Homs in an all out military assault in February, and does the same to Idlib in March. In February more FSA fighting in Zabadani and Douma emerges, and in March the first clashes in al Mezzeh, a neighbourhood of Damascus city, erupt.
The FSA has been expelled from towns like Douma and Zabadani in Damascus; Saraqeb, and Taftanaz in Idlib; and Haffa in Latakia. Additionally, the FSA still has several positions in Rastan, Talbieseh, Qusayr and Homs city in Homs, Idlib city and several localities in Idlib, and Azaz in Aleppo, as well as a presence in Hama, Daraa, Damascus, and Deir ez-Zour. Recently, the FSA has clashed control on more than one occasion of neighbourhoods in the heart of Damascus such as al Mezzeh, and recently controlled it briefly. Right now Aleppo is under siege by the regime with the FSA operating in the city. Towns and localities switch hands all the time all over Syria. I think we passed the civil war mark ages ago. At best, it entered the civil war phase in January, when the government lost control of several major parts of the country. The government can't even control cities without occupying them because the citizens themselves will support an insurrection. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Your arguments are based on predictions and personal opinion:
-“the fact that the UN monitor head himself called it a civil war, though in itself of little significance” = I agree with you.
-“and will likely encourage usage of this term from now on.” = This is a prediction that might or might not happen.
-“will make an impact on the terminology used by mainstream sources.” = again this is a prediction
-“so it's not gonna die.” = prediction again.
-“here's my timeline of the crisis based on what I've understood so far:…” = this is primary research and your personal opinion.
How about we just wait for the majority of the media to routinely talk about it as a war instead of making personal predictions? Tradediatalk 17:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - per proposer, really rather surprising that this is still even being discussed. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong support Move it now! Or will you wait until there is nobody left to call it an uprising? (Metron (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC))

Strong support - UN declares that Syria now in full-scale civil war - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - As with the Libyan civil war, can we please, please, please, uncapitalize the article name. Syrian civil war, not Syrian Civil War. Everyone is saying "civil war in Syria" or "Syria is now in a state of civil war" but not THE Syrian Civil War. Capitalization rules are clear, and it shouldn't be capitalized. Jeancey (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Let's call a spade a spade. This business in Syria meets any definition of "civil war" that one could conceivably use. Joe routt (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Per the UN decision. This seems relatively straightforward. Also, in response to Jeancey's comment, not to intentionally single this user out, but as this is a proper noun it should be capitalized. See: First Ivorian Civil War and American Civil War as examples. Eagletennis (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest UN statement: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA[46]

Asked about remarks concerning whether a civil war is taking place in Syria, the Spokesperson, said that is not for the Secretariat to determine or formally characterize the nature of the conflict in Syria. What we are all focusing on, he said, is that there has been a dangerous intensification of armed violence across Syria in the last several days. That is something that the Secretary-General himself referred to in the statement that came out on Monday evening, and he also commented on the scale of the violence in his comments to the press last Thursday. Last week, Nesirky noted, the Secretary-General said in a press encounter that “the confrontations in certain areas of the country have taken on the character of an internal conflict.” He has made clear his concerns about the implications of an intensification of the conflict, both inside Syria and for the region. Asked about a formal determination of a civil war, Nesirky noted the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross in making such a determination. He noted that the ICRC makes assessments concerning internal conflicts and internal armed conflicts, in line with its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions. Other matters, he added, would be for the Security Council to determine. The situation of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is already a challenging one, he said. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That statement doesn't change a thing really. They did not retract the frank statement of the monitoring groups chief who said its a civil war. Instead, the spokesperson declined to comment on the nature of the conflict. Which is rather logical. A experienced UN soldier who is right in the middle of it on the field in Syria has more knowledge to characterise it properly than a UN civil diplomat who is way back in New York thousands of miles away. EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What FunkMonk accomplished is that he debunked the notion that what the UN guy did by calling it civil war was somehow an official position and confirmation and that we should change the name because it was now official as some voters claimed. Tradediatalk 15:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support there is enough criteria provided by sources that establish this as a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


Strongly oppose: A civil war is when various factions within a country fight each other. For example if the fighting was between Alawites and Sunnis, yes it is a civil war. But this is not the case in Syria. It is a popular uprising in the country by predominantly Sunnite opposition and a central government using its force to stop the uprising. We sometimes hear political analysts as saying the conflict is now "descending into a civil war". This is basically done on ideological rather than factual grounds. there are no blockades between regions or religious communities fighting each other as was the case in Lebanon for example. Syrian Civil War if implemented by Wikipedia as a result of this discussion is a great travesty towards facts regardless of how much percentage support the move acquires. This is not a popularity contest in which opposers to the admittedly very oppressive regime of Syria use it as a platform to "create history" despite all facts to the contrary. You may hate Assad and his forces as much as you want. But this is no civil war. Even the opposition forces say they are not a sectarian movement of the Sunnis but reflect the aspirations of the whole population being Sunnite, Chiite, Alawite, Christian or Kurdish. So even the opposition leadership doesn't consider this as a civil war, but an uprising to topple a dictatorship and oppressive government. Even if later on, for arguments sake, the conflict does degenerate into a civil war (just a speculation, but it might be the case in the future when various communities, probably Sunnite and Alawite in essence, start building blockades against each other and start slaughtering each other by thousands and forcibly remove minorities having the misfortune of being in the "wrong region"), I suggest making a clear distinction at that time in dividing the Syrian troubles into two clear and separate pages, one for the uprising from 2011 until whenever, and the other to the actual civil war that might follow in some time in the future, let's just assume between Alawites and Sunnis. Meanwhile don't "create" history for a certain agenda or in some cases, possibly plain disregard to the present facts of the conflict and possibly ignorance as well of the actual facts of the region werldwayd (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems you totally missed what happen in Syria. Alawites and Christians heavily supports Assad, while Sunni oppose him and while Kurds are on the sidelines. The sectarian violence has been a huge element of it and is an integral part of the current conflict. By the way, you don't need a community vs community in religious term to call it a civil war.

The secession war was a civil war, the Spanish civil war was a civil war, and it was not on religious or racial ground. So you post is pointless. A civil war is when different faction inside a country are at war, and this is precisely the case.--Aviri'c (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Support- Per the U.N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.38.235 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support- as this is clearly a civil war, anyone but the bureaucrats that oppose can see that. Drlf (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

On a different note

This is how the debate went in changing the the title of the 2011 Libya uprising to the 2011 Libyan civil war.

Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)/Archive_3#Rename_Article_from_.22uprising.22_to_.22Civil_War.22_or_.22Revolution.3F.22

And only 2 sources, CNN and MSNBC were calling the Libyan conflict a civil war, and yet users still found this evidence enough and consensus enough to call the situation in Libya a civil war.

The vast majority were using the facts about what make a civil war a civil war to conclude a vote.

Sopher99 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not actually true. You're linking to a move request from February 2011, which resulted in the article not being moved because of lack of consensus. By the time the Libyan article was actually moved, in March 2011, it was not only CNN, but also the Red Cross ([47]) and president Obama who were calling the conflict a civil war. Which is much more than merely a UN observer describing the situation as a civil war, as in Syria. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
There are def more than 2 sources here calling this a "civil war" that are not echo reports of the UN statement CBS and MSNBC to name 2 as I showed above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry didn't make my statement clear. I meant there were only two sources originally calling the libyan conflict a civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No you did im saying that with all the sources that are not echo reports im surprised that this is so much of an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note Its not that the UN, France, and others are now calling this a civil war - it is that they are now calling this a civil war After there has already been many reliable sources that have called this a civil war (please see above). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Information

Not saying this determines consensus as WP:IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, but it is worth looking at.

Vote Count 25 support, 12 oppose. Closure 18 support, 9 oppose.

It seems we have a almost but not complete consensus on moving, but no consensus on closing yet. You can vote in both the move and closure section,(READ THIS, IMPORTANT) and to make a consensus, you have to vote in the moving section, the first one. Thanks, and the vote is not over. Jacob102699 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See also: WP:NOTAVOTE consensus comes from the strength of arguements involved as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you have it

Obama: U.S. can work with Russia to 'prevent civil war' in Syria

This article, dated 18 June, directly quotes president Obama as saying "We agreed that (...) a political process has to be created to prevent civil war and the kind of horrific events that we've seen over the last several weeks". Evidently, both president Obama and president Putin, leaders of two of the largest and most influential countries in the world, don't regard the Syrian conflict as currently being a civil war, or else they wouldn't have expressed the desire to prevent civil war. If even those two aren't calling this a civil war, who are Wikipedians to decide it should be called a civil war? N.B., when we renamed 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war, Obama was already referring to that conflict as a civil war and that was actually used as an argument for moving the article, see e.g. here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We already know that France was the first, and so far only known nation to conclude directly that it is a civil war. Putting forth this article here does not promote any point we didn't already know. I7laseral (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If "France was ... only known nation to conclude directly that it is a civil war." then we shouldn't be changing the name but rather, waiting for more countries to give confirmation... Tradediatalk 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There are more appropriate ways of improving Wikipedia than arguing over titles and semantics; this commentary will go nowhere. I wonder if "also referred to as the Syrian Civil War" will satisfy the pedants.ProfNax (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Yesterday, Associated Press wrote: “An uprising that began with mostly peaceful protests has now evolved into an armed insurgency.” So, they are not calling it civil war. Tradediatalk 16:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So the article has been moved

User:Doncsecz has chosen to be WP:BOLD and move the article is this okay with everyone? If this does take issue someone may want to put a request to have this article move protected until the discussion here is closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

At 32 support to 14 oppose I say we reached a modicum of consensus. Keep in mind no one can convince everyone, and 20%-30% oppose is natural in consensus winning debates, especially when about 50 or more people vote. I7laseral (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus just making sure, this can be closed now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This move is absolutely not acceptable. I want you to revert it and wait for an admin to close this discussion. I will be complaining to an admin if this is not done.

Tradediatalk 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You can debate that in the above section. A minimum qualification of consensus was reached. I7laseral (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Several weighty news sources support such a move: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself, calm down take a break from editing and work through this with editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Move back to original status: A colleague has unilaterally moved the article to a civil war. This unilateral move by one individual is a matter of grave concern and contrary to all etiquette between colleagues. Very importantly, this goes contrary to general Wikipedia practice when a move is still in discussion. It should be immediately reverted until an admin closes all arguments for a concensus. I repeat that this is not a popularity contest nor an ideological agenda. We are not here to "create history ourselves" simply because we have rights to move an article according to our conception of what a situation is. Particularly when it has been subject to so much pro and con discussion, the status quo and the original title should prevail until closed by an administrator with a resume of all ideas taken into consideration. Until then, original status quo must prevail. werldwayd (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The article title has been unstable to begin with, changing the article name is valid especially after the discussion reached beyond its de facto time limit (to which it concluded in 70% of editors believing the article name should be changed). I7laseral (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait for an admin to intervene and close I have alreay placed a request over at WP:ANI, changing the context of the article will just confuse readers I say wait for a closure here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As an aside the reason that this may not have been closed earlier is because of this edit and later edits that updated the count. The RM bot looks for the first signature timestamp after the request and uses this as the time for the request at WP:RM. That edit introduced a new first signature and then the time was constantly updated resetting the 7 days each time the numbers were updated. Dpmuk (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18421334
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_8&oldid=1172279036"