Talk:Syrian civil war

Seriously, what's wrong with you people?

I'm going to editorialise about the whole "civil war" terminology conflict, and this is the place to do it. Basically, there are three factions which don't want to call this a "civil war":

1. The international community, for whom admitting that it's a civil war would be the admission of its failure to broker a solution
2. The Syrian government, which wants to portray the opposition as a bunch of foreign terrorists with no political legitimacy. Admitting that it's a civil war would be tantamount to admitting that there's a meaningful part of civil society which supports the opposition.
3. The Opposition, which wants to portray the conflict as a matter of the entire Syrian populace rising up against the (illegitimate) Assad regime. Admitting that it's a civil war would be tantamount to admitting that there's a meaningful part of civil society which supports the government.

Against this perfect storm of blinkered bedfellows is the entire rest of the world, for whom it's COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS THAT IT'S A FUCKING CIVIL WAR. Take a look at this video from the BBC . Notice that the rebel soldiers are:

1. Flying a different flag than the government
2. Training in organised training camps
3. Following a command structure
4. Establishing production lines for munitions
5. Clearly controlling territory, albeit in a fluid fashion, given the disparity in armoured infantry

This is not what an "uprising" looks like. These are SOLDIERS FIGHTING A FUCKING WAR, and anybody who can't see that is a fucking buffoon who's being blinded by their own ideological limitations. Sad to see that theirs are the voices who prevail on Wikipedia. 188.222.88.79 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, at last someone is talking sense. A civil war is a civil war, regardless of how the various factions try to disguise it as something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a civil war now

It's a civil war now and it is called "civil war" by more and more media and politicians. So let's move the article to "Syrian civil war"! -Metron (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

more and more media such as? I7laseral (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, it's a civil war if enough websites say it is? This is absurd. Yes, there is unrest, but the oposition controls no territory and the government is in no apparent danger of ceasing to function any time soon. Call it a civil war if you must, but so far it's been an extremely one-sided civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The FSA does have territory, the Idlib province, the Deir Ezzor province, Daraa, the northern half of Homs, Talsibeh and Rastan. The Somalian government is in no danger of ceasing to function any time soon. Still a Somali civil war. I7laseral (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I said "control." While the FSA operates in those areas, they control no provinces or districts. Your comparison to Somalia is a poor one. The Somali government only very barely functions and provides only minimal and inconsistent services to its population. The Syrian government functions largely as usual and continues to provide normal, day to day services (such as sanitation, trash removal, fire, and police services) to the vast majority of its population. 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitation and fire are not taken care of by the Syrian government except in Central Damascus and Central Aleppo, Latakia and Tartous. Police and the army are one entity now. Syria had the lowest Human development index of all arab nations except for Yemen before the uprising even began. The Somali government in Somaliland and Central Mogadashu functions perfectly fine. I7 has a point though, a civil war could be like the one in Algeria, 1992-2002, Shri lanka 1976-2009, , none of which the ruling governments were in jeopardy. Keep in mind civil wars last an average of 5 or 6 years. It took 3 years for Somalians to oust Siand Barre, 3 years for Liberians to Oust Charles Taylor, and 9 years for Ugandans to oust Idid Amin. Sopher99 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh 7,00 pus dead, its not a civil war, just a misunderstanding. I doubt the government controls all the country or the rebels control none. The reports are patchy and unreliable. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

no,the FSA controls alot of territory along the turkish and lebonanese borders,and the proof is that they can't even free the kidnapped lebonanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

UN Officials are now calling it a civil war http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/annan-says-syria-conflict-is-now-civil-war/. Does it count now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian regime is now calling it a "state of war" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18598533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.239 (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Page is not neutral, any mention of uprising as US-instigated color revolution is immediately deleted.

It is not permitted to post any points of view that the uprising is not spontaneous but is the result of long and careful preparation by the US / NATO / CIA. Like in other color revolutions, The opposition consists of US sponsored NGO's like NED, National Endowment for Democracy. The fighters are mercenaries, CIA foreign legion, who infiltrate into Syria over the Turkish border - the Free Syrian Army is not from Syria. Websites like globalresearch.ca, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29234 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/ http://www.voltairenet.org/NATO-preparing-vast-disinformation or http://tarpley.net/2012/06/12/russia-reportedly-preparing-divisions-for-deployment-to-syria/ are replete with details on this alternative explanation of events, but it is taboo, censored and banned from mention on Wikipedia. Therefore this page should be marked NEUTRALITY DISPUTED. JPLeonard (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

All those sources are conspiracy websites. We have already determined ages ago in the talk that the CIA/foreign mercenaries/alqaeda on drugs theories are fringe. We have tens of thousands of sources confirming the opposite, that there are no cia mercenaries or foreign conspiracies. End of story. I7laseral (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that you didn't provide any references with your addition, and besides being conspiracy, they have already been discussed and mark unreliable by the Reliable Sources Notice Board. Jeancey (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

CIA doesn't have to be present in the country for the US to influence things. We've had US funded propaganda channels for some time, and that's just one thing we know for fact. As for the uprising itself, everyone knew an Islamist uprising was going to happen again since the early 80s. It was just a question of when. That's why the government hasn't fallen, they've had plenty of time to prepare. And please, don't bring up token-minorities in the opposition. This uprising being peacful and democratic is "fringe". FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No because we have had a ton of RS confirming the peaceful nature that lasted until January (and which stills go on to this day, just accompanied by FSA insurgency). Islamists did not start apearing until last summer - because they realized the opportunity presented. The vast majority is not islamist. All journalists not accompanied by government minders confirm that. I7laseral (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The opposition knows that any sectarian or Islamist statements will make western support for them less likely. In spite of this, plenty of such is slipping out. And yes, there were armed activists early last year, unlike say, in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain. The opposition took up arms in Syria when less had been kiled than in Egypt at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Tunisia major protests won in a period of 10 days. Egypt 18. Bahrain protesters were initially by the Saudi army after 6 or 7 days. It has been over 450 days in Syria since March 15th. Syria has a genocidal army, like Gaddaffi's (and like Egypt and Bahrain's too, except both countries succumb to international pressure very easily compared to the others). Syria has 1/4 Egypts population, and in Syria people were being systematically killed, rather than random security forces gunfire. There are hardly as much sectarian statements as there are in Egypt, Bahrain, and even current Libya. I7laseral (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Systematically killed" is POV. The armies in Tunisia and Egypt weren't attacked, yet they still shot protesters, Egypt shot more within the first month than were killed in Syria the first month, only after the opposition took up arms did the body count rise dramatically. Of course the clashes weren't sectarian in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, since they're overwhelmingly Sunni. That didn't keep Christian Egyptians from being attacked by Salafists though. If the Shia of Bahrain took up arms as the Sunnis in Syria do, they'll be "massacred" too, no doubt about it. And the West wouldn't do a damn thing. Libya was more of a tribe-thing, though secularism versus Islamism also played a role. Secular Liberals in all countries were just the spice that ignited the unrest, they've had zero influence since, unlike what Western media tries to portray. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I had already stated that the Egyptian and Bahraini army is genocidal but its leadership succumbs to international pressure. I have also stated that Syria has a population 1/4 the size of Egypt. 800 protesters killed in Egypt is proportionally equivalent to 200 in Syria. You should also understand that only 50,000 protesters were active in the first month of the Syrian conflict, compared to millions of Egyptians. Thats 500 protesters killed out of 50,000 initially protesting in Syria, compared to 850 out of 10,000,000 protesting in Egypt. If there had been ten million protesters in Syria, 100,000 would have died. Get it? Furthermore I was referring to the civilian rebels repression of the black populace in Libya (which makes up about 25% of the population) entire towns were evicted by rebels on the premise that they were mercenary/gaddafi sympathizers. I7laseral (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Their leaderships do not succumb to squat. They're not fighting armed uprisings like Syria is, so of course there are less dead. But let's say the Shias of Bahrain or the Salafists of Egypt took up arms... The governments would annihilate them, but the West would applaud it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Once gain, Syria was not in the armed uprising stage in March 2011. Their leadership do succumb, why else would Mubarak resign. Bahrain is a tiny island and if west loses support for Bahrain you might as well call Bahrain part of Iran (not that the civil disobedience campaign and protests in Bahrain have anything to do with iran. Also Salifists are a minority. Free Syrian Army and Syrian Liberation Army (civilians who take up arms) are the vast majority of fighters. I7laseral (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to "know" a lot of details which has eluded the rest of world. Good for you. And lol at Bahrain becoming "part of Iran". That's rich, for someone denouncing every claim against the Syrian opposition as a conspiracy theory. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Bedouins in Suez and Sinai attacked Egyptian police and government buildings with RPG's and engaged them in gunbattles. The uprising in Syria did not start in the capital but rather in the small town of Daraa, sparked by a local incident, similar to Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia. In Tunisia and Egypt, the armies refused to engage protesters, and forced the presidents to resign. What we see in Syria is the army refusing to abandon the president due to sectarian and clan ties. The Egyptian tanks were deployed to restore order; they did not engage in warfare. The Syrian tanks were deployed in late April, around the same time Al Jazeera reported armed opposition in the form of local gun owners to have commenced. However, the tanks became actively involved in conflict, as did the regular army. The Egyptian Army was just smarter than the Syrian Army and survived by changing face. There were no RPG's fired against the Syrian police like in Egypt (although to be sure there were riots and torches). Bear in mind that it took a month for Syrians to take up arms, as opposed to less than a week for Egyptian Bedouins. The Egyptian Army refused to enforce the sins of the Egyptian police; that just didn't hold in Syria. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, Egypt killed more protesters in a month than Syria did in five. And again, let the Bahrainis or Egyptias arm themselves, and we'll see how the West will ignore their annihilation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I cannot adequately express my opposition to allowing article content to be disputed on the basis of bizarre conspiracy theories in words, so I will settle for saying that I pity you for wasting your time in this way and I implore you to study this article: Occam's Razor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, look. Unless we add unreliable sources (3 conspiracy websites and 2 blogs) article is clealy not neutral. Is this a joke? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Military infobox and civil infobox

I have created a military infobox to go with the rename. For the moment, I Have kept the civil box right under the new box. Should the civil box be removed completely or kept at this place?--Maldonado91 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the civil box should be removed. This has evolved into an armed conflict with only a few civilian aspects left. EkoGraf (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with EkoGraf because the opposition's fighters are mostly composed of civilians and 85,000 Army Defectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian map of the Arab spring Should be changed into red and must have an ongoing civil war legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that there should be only one info box without speculation about alliances or foreign support. Turkish airplane is not opposition airplane, it is incident probably connected with Syrian internal conflict, but we don't have reliable information about this connection.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Still...the Turks are turning a blind eye to the shipment of arms and fighters over their border to the rebels. And are housing and guarding the rebels military command. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that Turkey support opposition in Syria, but one incident does not mean that Turkey attack Syria or that these two countries are in war as infobox suggest. In infobox it seems that there are some huge war in Middle East (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Qatar, Syria etc).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think we should wait until this title dispute is over. An "uprising" usually indicates a group of rebels against an already implemented army. If the title stays as "Civil War", then we can change to a military conflict infobox. -- Luke (Talk) 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's military infobox is not just for wars, but also for armed uprisings, in essence for any armed conflict. If you don't believe me check it. Dozens of articles on decades old border conflicts like the Cambodia-Thailand row also uses the military infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is over by consensus process I think. To answer Vojvodae, the fund and support category make it clear that there is no "huge war in middle east" --Maldonado91 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For me problem is not military infobox but content of it. If you one border incident describe as combat lose it seem that Turkey is in war with Syria what is not truth. I don't have problem with type of infobox but I think that we must be more careful when write articles about current events.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Infobox military conflict}} since the article was moved back to original title. -- Luke (Talk) 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, your reason is not logical Luk3, military conflict infoboxes are used for uprisings as well cause they are also of an armed nature. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like bloody mess. I shall keep my hands away from it for at least week to see what consensus will be established, but IMO Funded and supported states should be removed, otherwise you can easily add UK, France and USA to opposition side (all admit to sending non-lethal equipment) and Russia, North Korea and China on government side. Result is that you just invented third world war. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and before I forgett, same goes for foreigner fighters part. Journalists which were in Syria all, to one, claim to have never seen any foreign fighter. It is certain that there are some, but their number is low, up to point of irrelevancy. After all, IRGC commander confirmed that he sent his soldiers there, yet we are not adding foreign fighters to government section. Beside nearly all conflicts involved foreign fighters in one way or another, there were Egyptians and Tunisians fighting on the rebel side in Libya, while Malians, Nigerians and others on Gaddafi side. As for Fatah al-Islam, 30 bloody fighters is nowhere near notable. That number of soldiers and rebels is killed on daily basis. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying that journalists who went to Syria never saw foreign fighters is incorrect. Just recently a number of news articles have emerged about the foreign fighter presence in Syria, most Lebanese but also others. There was an article about 300 Lebanese FSA fighters training just over the border. And the Washington post has put out a number of 500-900 foreign rebels overall being in Syria, source is in the infobox. That is not a small number. Also, most of the major suicide car bomb attacks have by this point been confirmed to be the work of the Al Nusra front, which is mainly comprised of foreigners, thus their presence is notable. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not incorrect, I formulated my sentence because I knew that someone will pull this. Those reports are based on government and intelligence sources which are reliable, but my point about journalist not witnessing them stands. As for al-Nusra, I don´t know where you found out that they are mostly foreign, I saw no such report. 500 foreigners are 2 military companies, not that much given that we are talking about fighting force that is able to battle military organization that had prior to this conflict 300,000 professional soldiers in their service for almost a year and is gaining ground, instead of loosing. 300 Lebanese from Bekka valley - although foreigner we may take into consideration that clans and families from Bekka valley extend to both part of borders, similiary to Deir ez-Zor where Iraqi sunni tribes are smuggling weapons because their offshot tribe joined armed opposition on other side of border. IRGC and Hezbollah are also foreigner had their combined presence be 500 men it is not even noticable. Syrian army fields that much soldiers to small villages with not significant rebel presence sometimes, their numbers in large battleground as Homs counts in tens of thousands. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I somehow over-fought my own laziness and managed to read the reference to foreign fighters. I shall present few snaps from that material

Although no reliable data is available regarding the number of foreign fighters in Syria, many sources have discussed their presence.

It is worth noting that the Assad regime has identified only around forty individuals as jihadists, according to a list Damascus sent to the UN in May.

Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin." this is pretty nice quote regarding my previous questions about needlessness of having Fatah al-Islam in the infobox

French media reported in December that a Libyan detachment led by Abd al-Mehdi al-Harati -- a close associate of Abdul Hakim Belhaj, former leader of the defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group -- had joined the conflict. al-Harati is not close associate of Belhadj, for Christ sake. Belhadj was commander of Derna militia, Harati of Tripoli militia. They fought together during battle of Tripoli, but Harati was Irish-Libyan who never met him. Seriously, stupid wikipedian knows more than guys who get paid for this stuff </endoftherant>

There is no hard evidence that the homegrown jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra has recruited foreign fighters, but at least some of them have likely connected with the movement. regarding what you said

Although the trickle of foreign fighters into Syria seems to have picked up in recent months, they still comprise a very small portion of those battling the Assad regime. Any verified evidence of such fighters no doubt plays into Assad's rhetoric, but he has grossly exaggerated a small phenomenon -- all estimates indicate that well over 90 percent of the fighters are Syrian and non-jihadist.

foreign fighters in Syria have yet to have a known force-multiplying effect on the level seen in Iraq

TL;DR the source itself says that their presence is nowhere near significance of Afghanistan or Iraq (where those chaps are included), source also says that those 30 (!) Fatah al-Islam fighters are not operating under group flag and also says that al-Nusra is domestic, not foreign. So let´s remove those foreign fighters and Fatah al-Islam together with unverified claims about casualties of Hezbollah or whatnot. Shall we? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there is here for 4 days, arguments are pretty strong and don´t say they are not as source which you used as reference says that presence of foreign fighters is not notable while FaI is not fighting under banner of FaI. If no one has anything against it, I shall be removing it. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Washington post source at the same time confirms that 10 percent of the FSA fighters are foreign. They even cite a number of 500-900. That is not a small number and their role in the conflict has been talked about at length in many recent articles. Yes, Fatah al-Islam's group was estimated to be just 30 back in March-April and that is not much. However, recently there was an article that stated almost all of the Lebanese fighters joining the FSA are under the overall command of Fatah. And the Lebanese are estimated to be around 300 and rising. Also, the presence of Fatah is notable given they were the main instigator of the Lebanese conflict from 2007 so are thus a Lebanese player. Overall the presence of the foreigners, though still only estimated to be 10 percent of the rebels, is still highly notable. It's being mentioned constantly in the media as being the main fear of not just the various governments who barely support the rebels but of the rebels themselves. Just today there was a CNN report in which an FSA commander confirmed the foreign presence is still small but that he is highly concerned that their numbers are rising. So the foreigners are a combatant in the conflict however you look at it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Eko, I already reacted on it in the first post. Their role in the conflict has been indeed discussed extensively, but pinpoint me where do those sources state that they play significant role in the conflict. Most sources talk about these fighters because of fears of Syria becoming hotbed for them as Iraq or Afghanistan. Once again, see quotes above which says that so far they are not significant enough to be put on level of, once again, Iraq or Afghanistan. By placing them to infobox, which is reserved for notable participants in the conflict, we are giving them on same as level as Syrian security forces (military and paramilitary - meaning Shabiha) and FSA. That goes against WP:DUE. Or let´s take Libyan civil war as an example, one MiG-23 which was downed by rebels near Ras Lanuf was flown by Libyan and Syrian pilot. Should we add Syria as participant in the conflict because of that (they already did so on Russian wiki for reasons unknown to me)? Or Yemeni revolution where foreign fighters (Somalians from al-Shabaab and Arab fighters) operating under flag of Ansar al-Sharia and AQAP played significant actual role in the conflict (took control of nearly 2 provinces and were used as bargaining chip by Ali Abdullah Saleh)? Maybe better example would be Iraqi war, where role of PMCs (as Blackwater) was extremely, extensively discussed by all media, Arabs are using it up until today, together with Abu Ghraib, as rallying cry against United States, despite being only several hundred strong in numbers and only few dozens even got under enemy fire? No because that would make infobox unbalanced.

As for Fatah al-Islam, that is Palestinian group. Based in Lebanese refugee camps, but Palestinian (under 1969 agreement these camps are completely autonomous and state security forces cannot enter them. Lebanese government was simply in 07 fed up with them and went in anyway). Please give me that article which says that Lebanese (from Bekka valley which have tribial and clan connections with Syrians on the other side of the border) are under Fatah al-Islam command, because that is ridiculous. Also there were clashes in Tripoli several times in last year, as you surely know. None of them included Fatah al-Islam. Plus source above states that they are not operating under flag of Fatah al-Islam. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would check the Iraq war article you would see that the contractors are in the infobox there and their number was in fact 6,000-7,000 and not just several hundred as you say. Also, I disagree that only a few dozen were under enemy fire. The Iraq infobox clearly lists more than 1,500 to have died in the war. Let me get right down to it. The foreign fighters are there, they are almost a thousand strong and the number is rising, they operate only nominally under the FSA (who don't want to have anything to do with them and are thus basically separate from them), they are talked about in the media at least once a week if not more, and the foreign guys are behind several of the mass suicide bombings which have been reported on extensively (confirmed on at least one occasion by the UN chief Ban Ki Mun). All that fits the criteria of notability. And everything is properly referenced with reliable sources. Notability and verifiability, prime principles of Wikipedia. I don't see how it causes the infobox to be unbalanced. I will try to look up that source you requested, but it was almost a month since I read that article. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I did and they are enlisted in casualties, not as combatants. Also most of those casualties were killed by IEDs, not during armed clashes as majority of contractors were of non-military nature. And let me react from the end. Suicide bombings were claimed by Nusra. Nusra, as above source says, are local jihadists. Not foreign. Next, media talk about them out of fear of becoming something more - hotbed for them as in Iraq, but do not overestimate their presence which is marginal as, once again, source above clearly states. Bytheway those 300 Lebanese operate in Homs under FSA banner and under FSA command, jihadists from Iraq and other MENA regions tend to operate separately. In the end I noted that you did not react on Fatah al-Islam. Should I take it as your agreement for its removal? EllsworthSK (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Move review and/or AN/I discussion

As alternatives to restarting requested-move discussions or reverting page moves:

1. There is a WP:MRV (move review) process, which is however relatively new and untried.
2. There is a discussion at WP:AN/I

— P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• • If you want a move reviewed, then WP:MRV is an excellent choice. It might be new, but the processes are based on other reviews, so I would expect it to be fair. I think the point Bwilkins is making is that you should wait a month before starting a new discussion, and it should be started in a less controversial way, not passing judgement on the last discussion and when it comes up again, taking a neutral stance and just focusing on the content. I tend to believe that in the end, the name will get changed, but without being overly bureaucratic, we still need to respect the processes for making changes. We don't need our own civil war here, and I'm sure you don't want that either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Russia

Can we agree finally that Russia is not supporting Syria? They are selling weapons, not providing funds and weapons like Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey are doing. Russia says that they are politically neutral, that they are willing to talk to both parts, that both are equally to blame. They reject any foreign intervention because they defend the principle of state sovereignity. They are not like Iran supporting Syria. It is the same for China --Maldonado91 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What Russia is doing is something that they have been doing for decades and is within a legal framework, simple customer-supplier service, independent of support or not. They are fullfilling their contracts that were set years before the conflict. While Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding and arming the opposition in an illegal framework. And also, Russia itself has said they do not support Syria, but they do support a bilateraly, not unilateraly, agreed end to the fighting. Which is common sense. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And USA and EU is since when even selling weapons to rebels? If we do not consider supplement of fighter jets, helicopters (and yes, I know that they were being repaired but still were supplied), anti-ship missiles, AA systems, small arms and ammunition than how come we do not take the same merit for comm devices? Or will we pretend that Russia and China is not politically protecting their ally in Damascus? Why not simply remove that whole section, it will only spark flamewar. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those helicopters were and are Syrian military property, they are only being returned back. EkoGraf (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with EllsworthSK: the Russians are supporting Assad by providing diplomatic cover and by its refurbishment of weapons that will be used against civilians (helicopters and tanks have already been used against Syria's population). The Russians are not neutral, and have interests of their own involved (most notably their presence in Tartus). The US and Gulf states, in particular, are far from neutral, but to claim total Russian neutrality clearly goes against the facts Fanzine999 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the fulfilment of Russia's weapons contracts, I was thinking of adding this recent statement from Amnesty International:

Amnesty International, speaking of the Syrian government's headlong deployment of military helicopters, criticised Russia: "Anyone supplying attack helicopters—or maintaining, repairing or upgrading them—for the Syrian government displays a wanton disregard for humanity."

Given the length of the article, the above can probably be reduced to
Amnesty International criticised Russia's transfer of the refurbished heclicopters.<ref>{{cite web |title= Syria: Reports of helicopter shipments underscore need for arms embargo |url= http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/syria-reports-helicopter-shipments-underscore-need-arms-embargo-2012-06-19 |date= 19 June 2012 |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate= 25 June 2012 }}</ref>
Fanzine999 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Refurbishing attack helicopters = military support. Not refurbishing attack helicopters = no military support. Talk all you want to hide the equation, but the equation remains. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

there should be a map showing areas under the control of the free syrian army and the syrian army

i suggest that there should be a map showing the areas under the control of the free syrian army and the syrian army,as in libya,because there is reports of that the free syrian army controls alot of areas in syrian ,so i suggest that somrone should make a map showing it,i welcome anyone who makes the map or comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is impossible at the moment. Because in Libya we had solid frontlines. In Syria the front is fluid and nobody knows which are is under whose control. You got scattered villages and small towns in Idlib reportedly under rebel control, but the military surrounds them, or viceversa where the military controls the large cities but the rebels are on the outskirts. Not possible at the moment. Maybe in a few months when the situation becomes more clear. EkoGraf (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

then why there is a map for the fighting in homs (Alhanuty (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)).

who has the upper hand in the conflict

alot of news reports confirm that the free syrian army is gaining the upper hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

alot of independent reports confirmed that the free syrian army control 60% of syria mostly rural areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that is not believable, because 40% of Syria is desert, and the government pretty much controls that. Second, they probably do control maybe 40-50% of populated ares. Number 3 is, we can't confirm this in the first place if we don't have sources. Please show sources. Also, you can sign your name with four tildes. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

They're killing more soldiers than ever, but the Syrian military maintains overwhelming force and remains unabashed when it comes to deploying it. I'm not getting excited yet. Fanzine999 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

but reports confirm that the free syrian army control vast areas and they have the upper hand

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Understanding why my contrib was removed

Last March, under the heading "Support for the Opposition" I wrote:

"On March 5, U.S. Senator and former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain said that America should bomb the Assad regime, support the Syrian opposition, and defend civilians from government attacks."

I cited an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/middleeast/syria-permits-united-nations-visit-but-escalates-effort-to-crush-opposition.html)

McCain also said in another speech “At the request of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and Local Coordinating Committees inside the country, the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces. To be clear: This will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country."

McCain is a major politician in the U.S. and the U.S. is a major power, so why was his vocal support for intervention on behalf of the opposition deleted from the "Support for the Opposition" section? If there is a good reason, someone plz explain. FrogTrain (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)FrogTrain

The logic for including McCain's pronouncements, then as now, is that he is a major politician of a major power. Such logic then permits inclusion in this article of the opinions of every major politician of every major power, meaning the article would quickly become buried under such statements, for there are many such politicians. (It might be added that such logic permits McCain's thoughts on every single topic he's ever spoken on to be included on the relevant Wikipedia articles—along with those of every major politician of every major power). Inclusion of simple statements of opinion by individuals in no position to affect anything is not appropriate, and the article is long enough as it is.

The relevant material will consist only of the actual policies being implemented by actors in a position to have an effect on the course of the crisis—be that the Obama Administration, the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Gulf states, neighbouring countries, the Syrian government, other Syrian groups, the UN, human rights organisations, and so on (already quite a list, without mentioning opinions of people in no position to affect anything)—the effects of those policies on the crisis, and the opinions and stories of the most important people: those on the receiving end of said policies (and who are themselves powerful actors), namely the Syrian people. I therefore believe McCain's thoughts on Syria would better placed on his Wikipedia article. Fanzine999 (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian jet

Request the following be added to the end of the section titled "Renewed fighting", concerning developments of the downing of a Turkish jet by Syria:

Turkish Prime Minister [[Recep Tayyip Erdogan]] vowed retaliation, saying "The rules of engagement of the Turkish Armed Forces have changed," and that "Turkey will support Syrian people in every way until they get rid of the bloody dictator and his gang." <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164903/Turkey-brands-Syria-clear-threat-vows-retaliate-downed-fighter-jet.html |work=Daily Mail |title=Turkey brands Syria a 'clear threat' and vows to retaliate over downed fighter jet as Nato rejects military intervention |author=Staff writer |date=26 June 2012 |accessdate=June 26, 2012}}</ref>

Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a different source, though? ;D

Turkish Prime Minister [[Recep Tayyip Erdogan]] vowed retaliation, saying: "The rules of engagement of the Turkish Armed Forces have changed . . . Turkey will support Syrian people in every way until they get rid of the bloody dictator and his gang."<ref name = "nation bloody">{{cite web |url=http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/26-Jun-2012/turkey-dubs-syria-a-clear-threat-vows-to-retaliate |title=Turkey dubs Syria 'a clear threat', vows to retaliate |work=[[The Nation (Pakistani newspaper)|The Nation]] |agency=[[Agence France-Presse|AFP]] |date=26 June 2012 |accessdate=26 June 2012}}</ref> Ankara acknowledged that the jet had flown over Syria for a short time, but said such temporary overflights were common, had not led to an attack before, and alleged that Syrian helicopters had violated Turkish airspace five times without being attacked and fired at a second, search-and-rescue jet.<ref name = "nation bloody"/><ref>{{cite web |last1= Borger |first1= Julian |last2= Chulov |first2= Martin |last3= Elder |first3= Miriam |date= 26 June 2012 |title= Syria shot at second Turkish jet, Ankara claims |url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/syria-shooting-second-turkish-plane-claim |publisher= guardian.co.uk |accessdate= 26 June 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1= Fielding-Smith |first1= Abigail |last2= Dombey |first2= Daniel |last3= Khalaf |first3= Roula |date= 25 June 2012 |title= Turkey says Syria fired at second jet |url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a60fa15c-bebe-11e1-b24b-00144feabdc0.html |publisher= FT.com |accessdate= 27 June 2012 }}</ref> The White House said the shooting down of the jet furnished further evidence that the Assad regime was "losing its grip" on the country.<ref>|title= Signs growing that Assad losing control of Syria: US |url= http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1210093/1/.html |publisher= channelnewsasia.com |agency= AFP |date= 26 June 2012 |accessdate 26 June 2012 }}</ref>

Hate the Mail!! Fanzine999 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, what did Erdogan do in retaliation for the Gaza Flotilla massacre again? FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition on defections

I hope the admins currently editing the article will consider the addition of recent reports on what appear to be accelerating defections from the Syrian military.

wave-of-syrian-defections-piles-pressure-on-assad independent.co.uk

Latest Syrian Defectors Are From Higher Ranks nytimes.com

Brigadier General Ahmad Berro, a former Syrian general who recently defected, said the country's armed forces were "destroyed physically and mentally." An official from the Free Syrian Army reported that eight more Syrian pilots had sought asylum in Jordan recently. (from: Mideast Daily Turkey threatens Syria with military retaliation)

--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should not give much credit to what that general says considering first that the first general who defected back in January said that the military would collapse by the end of February. Second, the opposition claims 60,000 soldiers have defected (count possibility of propaganda inflation), add to that the oppositions estimate of almost 4,000 government soldiers dead and probably 4 times that wounded, 16,000. That's 80,000 troops out of action per the opposition. The military has 250,000 soldiers. That would show that little over 75 percent of the military is still operational and under government control. So, I don't see how they are physically and mentally destroyed. If it continues at this pace, the military would collapse....in 2-3 years. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not a propaganda number. It was widely agreed that during the Libyan conflict the rebels had around 40,000 fighters, for a country of 5.5 million. Syria is a country of 23 million. The rebels in Syria, if Syria is anything like libya, should have a fighting force of 160,000. But they don't, as they do not have enough weapons. During the Libyan conflict 40%-60% of gaddafi's weapon storage sites fell to rebels. In Syria, only 1% have fallen to Syrian rebels. The Syrian rebels don't have a proper weapon source to feed anywhere close to 100,000, let alone 160,000. THe current government of Libya says that 70,000 fighters are requesting payment, meaning that the rebels in Libya, in actuality had over 70k. THere Syria would have 280k+ rebels. They don't, due to the weapon problem. In conclusion, if anything 40k FSA fighters is an understatement. I7laseral (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And those numbers were wrong. Today you have in Libya about 250,000 registered militiamen - not counting rebels which joined ministry of interior or ministry of defense forces (I won´t call it army and police as they are still in process of restructuralization and MoI forces are called SSC). Frankly, I don´t think that anyone knows how many rebels operate in Syria as we have many groups independent on each other with little to minimal conflict, villages and towns creating their own militias which provide security instead of kicked-out government forces but do not fall under command of Free Syrian Army by either col. Asaad or command inside Syria in Rastan. We have to be realistic and look on FSA for what it really is, loosely coordinated name for most of the militias in the country which call themself such for lack of better name. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian regime is only using elite troops of the republican guards and the forth regiment and the sabeeha all them are alawi troops because the regime is afraid of using Sunni troops now,because mostly they will defect.(Alhanuty (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

The Free Syrian Army has 1 000 000 soldiers and the Syrian governement only 1 000. How I know that? I watched youtube and video of "defections" of "wholes brigades". Seriously, some rational thinking is needed. Of course the rebels won't say that their opponents are much stronger than them. But the reality on the ground is so far Syrian Army> FSA and it could stay like that for a long time... or for always as far we know.--Maldonado91 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe how poorly you are misreading things. The FSA claims to have only 40,000 fighters, but that 70,000 defected over all (ie many people went home). No where did the FSA say that they outnumbered the Syrian army. Which right now has around 200,000 members. I7laseral (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So in essence, like I said, I give this conflict another 2-3 years before the government military collapses. And that is actually IF that even happens. Because at one point the defections will stop because all those that wanted to defect would have defected already, and I think that will be soon. And you guys are forgetting that the military has another 300,000 reserve personnel to call upon if needed. And in response to I7laseral, Syria is not like Libya In Libya you had 70 percent opposition vs at the most 30 percent loyalists. In Syria its a totally different reality. It's fifty-fifty. The Alawites have a large number of Christians standing beside them, along with the Shiites, and the middle and upper classes of the Sunni establishment. And the Kurds are on the sidelines at the moment staying neutral. The opposition is mainly the Sunni poor. EkoGraf (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Defections from the regime's forces to the Free Syria Army have been constant for the past few months, but Damascus maintains control of many key divisions and is not known to have lost any members of its most elite units or inner sanctum." Fanzine999 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Defections have only really had pace starting January. The defections are 7 months in, not 16. Most defectors had over a year to defect, and they are only defecting now. Syria lost 21 generals to defections, of which 16 have publicly released their names. Higher ups have in fact defected, including the deputy oil minister and the crisis cell chief of staff. Sopher99 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote makes no mention of when defections began to pick up, merely that they've been "constant for the past few months", so I am unsure why you wrote a correction against a claim which wasn't made.

The deputy oil minister cannot be regarded as part of the inner sanctum: "unfortunately I think we should differentiate between significant defections from people high up in the regime, and resignations from people in the government." So you have either lost sight of such a distinction or are again making a correction to a claim which does not exist. Fanzine999 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

its not "50-50" EkoGraf. Even the middle class Sunnis have protested. Mezzeh, Kafre Souseh, Midan, Jobar, Barzeh, and Ruk Al addin, Baramkeh, Hamidiya, and Shaghour Damascus are the only middle class areas in Damascus, all of which receive constant protesting, and Kafre Souseh, Mezzeh, Jobar, Barzeh, and Ruk al Addin all have some degree of FSA presence.

That leaves Malki, Muhajareen, Abou Roumani and Shaalan as the only neighborhoods in Damascus which still supports the regime. All four are rich sunni areas. So only the rich support Assad amongst the Sunnis. Sunnis makes up 80% of Syria (1/3 to half of all Christians in Syria have already left to Lebanon and Europe, meaning the true Christian populace is 5-10%, not 15%). Most alawite live in Tartous and Latakia, where nothing happens. The only reason why Assad has not already been overthrown in Damascus and Aleppo is due to the lack of weapons and supplies amongst opposition forces.

Libya did not have 70-30% ratio either. Africans make up 25% of Libyan population, and 90% of them supported Gaddafi. Additionally for nearly the entirety of the war Tripoli seemed like "a loyalist stronghold". This means for most of time during the war Rebels were fighting as 50-50 nation. Just because a city does not come out against the regime does not mean its supports the regime, it usually mean the secuirty forces have too tight a grip. Bani Walid and Sirte in the end were the only true Gaddafi loyalist centers. Everyone thought Sabha would be one, but only a dozen people died in the battle for Sabha. The "millions" did not come out to support gaddafi in tripoli, and in the end he only had 50,000-100,000 "real support" for him in Tripoli. Sopher99 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Millions came, and your figure still speaks a lot, cause not even 1000 came for opposition. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually hundreds of thousands came. Just because Matyrs/green square, a capacity of 250k, was filled, doesn't mean it was millions. That protest was payed and forced, like most of the pro-gaddafi protests. Why even when gaddafi came to new york, his staff payed dozens of New yorkers to protest in support of him, to make it look like people liked him. Also 300k came in an anti-gaddafi rally at the protests height in Benghazi. There were only two people with a camera (sky news and al jazeera) upon the liberation of tripoli, but hundreds of thousands did come out in support for the rebels in the final days of the battle for tripoli. Sopher99 (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Any proof? not even 1000, you are only one saying this btw, in real no body was ever paid to support him show your source please, there were over 1.7 - 2 million in month of july, who came to hear the speech, go figure. Now some people may make same about Assad, but doesn't means it's true. The claim wasn't 300k in anti rally, but 10k, and if you clearly watch that blurry video, you won't even see the faces of people properly, probably faked just like fall of tripoli or copied india's protest then presented as Libya as usual, or staged in Qatar as we have found qatar's number plate in few 'rebel' video, many reasons but in short word, even those 10k was fake. Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The middle class is not just in Damascus, you got the whole rest of the country. Besides, read this [1] article from January. Even says 55 percent for Assad. But I cut it down to 50 percent because I am looking at the demographic realisticly. You got 16 percent non-Sunni Muslims who almost exclusivly support Assad, 13 percent Christians who for the better part also support Assad, 9 percent Kurds who have not sided with anyone and are docile (but are receiving support from Assad for their conflict with Turkey, so that says something). That's almost 38 percent there that is not part of the opposition, and that's not counting the middle class. Even if half the middle class has at the moment turned against Assad it would still at the very least be close to 50 percent. No, it's much more complicated than Libya. Like I said before, Syria is not Libya. If I would have to compare....than Syria is like Bosnia or Lebanon. Which means a few years of civil war are up ahead. And it wasn't just exclusivly the 90 percent African Libyans who supported Gaddafi, he still had some support from the Arabic Libyans, which would cover my 30 percent estimate. EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

For future note I wouldn't trust anything Jonathan steele (author of that article) says. Jonathan steele is a 70+ year old Russia today goon who misses the days of the USSR. Furthermore that article was written on January 17, one week before anyone knew that the FSA took territory. When people started feeling Assad was losing out (when it was announced FSA temporarily took the Dmaascus suburbs) people and the military started abandoning assad by a far greater rate. regardless, yes, if no intervention happens, it would take 2-3 years for the opposition to topple assad. The only thing that may cut it the time down is if Assad runs out of money (he has 9-12 months worth of money in the reserves right now - including iranian finacial aide) Sopher99 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, i believes that if foreign intervention happens, opposing countries(who intervene first) will be attacked by the Syria's allies or partners, and if no foreign intervention happens, then i guess no removal for assad would be possible, as those so called "100,000s" are not strong enough. I got to read that he got aid from Iran(who's doing good at economy) so wonder if he runs out of money or not.Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sopher99's ad hominem-cum-straw man regarding Jonathan Steele can be safely ignored. Fanzine999 (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you read that survey you´d find out that 90 percent of those asked were from diaspora. It has no relevance. We don´t know how many support Assad and how many do not. We know that large part of population is against him and other large part of the population for him. That is all. Just like we didn´t know in Libya who has popular support. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Now we are witnessing high-level defection from the inner circle.(Alhanuty (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Reports say the Republican Guard general was suspended from the inner circle last year due to him being a Sunni. So don't know how much that matters than. EkoGraf (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

About the Zero hour plan

the Free Syrian Army has planned a plan called the zero hour plan,this plan is like the Libyan rebels plan when they got out of the western mountains to the capital Tripoli,in this plan they will called all people to uprising and burn all government post (including airports) of the Syrian regime's as the Egyptians did in the beginning of their revolution and all people will uprise in the same time so that the army can't afford to send the military because they can never send the military to all cities and towns and villages in Syria,and that all force still in the Syrian army sympathies with the revolution will join the opposition and it like going to be like like what the Libyan protesters did in Benghazi when they took control of all government posts in the city,and all forces of the opposition will then go to liberate Damascus beginning with an uprising in the capital then all forces from the areas around Damascus will attack from all four direction,my question could this plan work out and what is the possibility for the success of the plan ,I appreciated anyone commenting (Alhanuty (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

While your enthusiasm about the subject is good, the talkpage is a not a place to discuss the subject - rather it is a place to discuss edits about the article of the subject. Please don't create new section discussing the syrian conflict on talk page, as I believe it goes against the guideline, for the reason I just stated. But Yes, I believe the zero hour could be effective, granted that enough FSA and rebel members know when the zero hour would take place. I7laseral (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia turned into a conscpiracionist blog? The last few talk sections on this page are very poor.--Maldonado91 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if you were to read my response to Alhanuty you would see why. I7laseral (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lawl. The insurgents in Libya were only able to do this because NATO did all the work for them. Not so in Syria, yet. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

they did it in Libya because the Libyan arny was collapsing and after the tactic change the rebels did in their strategy, they where able to break out and enter the capital ,the NATO airstrike could be considered a secondary reason for the rebels victory,but NATO really wasn't the reason for the rebel breakout ,it was the rebel tactic change by by attacking from behind Qaddafi's army lines (ie.attacking from two sides the rebels inside the Qaddafi's territory and the rebel's from rebel's territory) and the prove is even when the nato bombardment was strong, Qaddafi's forces didn't crumble under the airstrike's pressure ,they collapsed when rebels attacked from inside and outside. (Alhanuty (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC))

Assad formally declares Syria to be in a state of war

Now, im not advocating changing the title to civil war, as efforts at that keep getting shot down. But now that even Assad seems to realise his country is in a civil war is there more likely to be a consensus reached on name change? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE85D0IS20120626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If FunkMonk, Tradedia, Jeancey, Tal Verberetaraar, Guest2324 and Supreme Deliciousness all believe that Assad's recognition of civil war in Syria qualifies the article to be changed, we would have consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet I don't see the term "civil war" used anywhere in that article, not even in the biased editorialisation. And that's the thing, most sources simply don't call it a civil war, whether pro or anti Syrian. Common name is what this is about. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on already FunkMonk, he says they are at war. And the common name is not Syrian uprising anymore so the current title for the article is incorrect. In my oppinion probably 45 percent are calling it an uprising, 45 percent a civil war and 10 percent a revolution. I think we should pick the most realistic one and note in the first sentence of the article that the conflict is also known by the other two terms. EkoGraf (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Come on" what? This is Wikipedia, no original research or interpretation of the sources are allowed. Your estimation is quite irreletant, look at the news sources, none actually refer to the conflict as a civil war, they only report that "some guy said it was a civil war", that Syria is "on the verge of civil war" and "some say it is like a civil war". FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just some guy. It's the head of the UN observer mission who is a veteran soldier and the French foreign minister who speaks for France. And not to mention that the president of Syria himself is now calling it a war. You can't just dismiss all three of them like that, that's simply not a neutral POV. EkoGraf (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. - "We are in a state of real war, in every aspect of the words, and when we're in a state of war, all of our politics has to be concentrated on winning this war," President Bashar al-Assad told his cabinet during a speech about the economy and domestic issues in which he called for unity to make the country strong. This was the front page article on CNN international edition (and concurrent with front page coverage in BBC news). With all due respect, most global news organizations are characterizing Syria as being in a state of war right now. This has happened only in the last 24 hours, which is why before I would not have characterized such conflict as a "civil war", in agreement with FunkMonk. Shall we do a new vote regarding consensus to move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If the President is calling it a war, then it probably is a war. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk of war is not the same thing as a civil war. Was the so-called War on Terror a civil war? Given how Assad likes to spin the situation as him against a bunch of terrorists, isn't a "war on terrorists" the more reasonable interpretation of his comments? I'll now reintroduce my is it?/isn't it? article from one of FP's blogs: "Herve Ladsous, the U.N.'s peacekeeping chief, acknowledged on Tuesday that Syria was now effectively in a state of civil war. . . . 'Talk of civil war in Syria is not consistent with reality,' the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. 'What is happening in Syria is a war against terrorist groups plotting against the future of the Syrian people.'" According to Amnesty after its recent visit to the country, levels of violence in Idlib and Aleppo during the first half of 2012 "reached the level and intensity of a non-international armed conflict. . . . The fighting appears to have reached the minimum level of intensity and the parties to have the minimum level of organization required for the existence of an armed conflict of a non-international character." Not having it characterised as civil war is to take the Assad line, who has vested interests in keeping that characterisation away (one good one being the legal framework changes—from that Amnesty report: if you have "a non-international armed conflict" then "international humanitarian law (the laws of war) applies alongside international human rights law"). Fanzine999 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not war but foreplay. No point debating a non starter Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Foreplay? Tell that to the ones lying in those mass graves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Assad didn't say his country is in a state of civil war. He said it's in a real state of war from all angles, a reference to Western help for the rebels and the Syrian airspace incursion by a Turkish fighter jet. Civil war is neither what he said, nor what he meant. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

IT'S OFFICIAL!: Syria is now in a Civil War!

I have now changed my mind. I just read that Bashar al-Assad has, just now, stated that Syria is, indeed, in a civil war. Therefore, I now completely support moving this article, as soon as possible. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You misread. Assad did *not* say Syria is in a state of civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We just had a huge discussion about this closed 4 days ago and now you want to change the title? Based on consensus we shouldnt go on words alone but what the sources say and what the yare calling it for POV sake. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as "No Consensus". Much different than saying "Based on Consensus". Very prudent to reopen a move discussion if no-consensus was reached, if new information comes to light.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is the link: [2] And, also, I am sorry for that initial post. I had no idea that there was already a discussion, about this. Sorry! SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the section above, and in general, just read what has already been written before adding new, redundant sections. He did not mention civil war, but war. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The key question would be, "Who is he at war with?" Is it just the insurgency? Or is it also Turkey and NATO and some others? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's more and more and more ridiculous! Some People just don't want to call it a civil war: Facts seemingly don't matter. (134.2.64.111 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC))

Some people just don't want to interpret the sources, since it's not allowed on Wikipedia. If he says "war", we cannot cite it as "civil war". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If other countries are getting involved (and are they, or not?) then it's more than just a civil war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no sources that suggest more countries are involved except perhaps in an arms supplying capacity. Assads war definition is clearly aimed at the armed groups he is fighting in his own country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Assad only says they're at war (like it wasn't obvious already), and continues to refer to the rebels as "terrorists" who don't represent the people. Yeh, that's propaganda. However, since the big honcho says it's war, then maybe the article should be called "Syrian war" rather than "Syrian uprising"? Actually, "war" is probably more neutral anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Syrian Conflict(2011 - present) would be more suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.128.126 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We have it as uprising and we are keeping it that way until consensus on civil war. Yemeni uprising Bahraini uprising Libyan uprising Syrian uprising. I7laseral (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You talk as if you own the article. Which you don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good try Superhero, but no use talking to dead ducks. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember, until there are sufficient reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war, the title must remain as it is. Futuretrillionaire 02:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

I'm saving my vote until it comes up for decision whether to merge the article with World War 3. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, if this isn't a civil war, then, the Libyan uprising isn't a war, either. SuperHero2111 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Could really Al Jazeera be considered as a neutral source of information on this subject?

This page reference the state of Qatar as "Economic and military support" of one of the belligerent. Therefore, as Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned broadcaster, its neutrality can be debated. Therefore, to make sure this article present a neutral point of view, I suggest the removal of all references to Al Jazeera publications and suppression of all text part referenced by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.134.82 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on... has Al-Jazeera ever lied to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is not state controlled, the broadcasting company's shares are simply initiated by the government. It is not state tv like Russia today, Press TV, or Voice of America. Especially Al jazeera English is independent. Sopher99 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between an independent broadcaster financed by a state owned broadcasting company and a state controlled television. Sopher99 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Russia Today and al-Jazeera are fully state-owned through a government-owned media corporation. In Russia Today's case, that corporation is RIA Novosti (100% Russian government ownership), in al-Jazeera's case it's Qatar Media Corporation (100% Qatari government ownership). Yet you describe the former as 'independent' and the latter as 'state controlled'. Objectively, that difference is fictional. They're either both propaganda channels or they're both independent media. You cannot have it both ways. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Al jazeera is state owned but not state controlled. (ie there is no government regulation on the what is being said or not being said in Al jazeera). Russia Today however there is government regulation on what is being said and not (ie state controlled). Al jazeera's broadcasting company is state owned, but Al ajzeera is not state tv. Al ajzeera is an independent channel. Sopher99 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source on your claim that "there is government regulation on what is being said and not" regarding Russia Today? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RT is not gov't regulated, this is illegal under the Russian constitution. Please provide a source for your claims here, because frankly they are not believable.96.238.211.182 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO government ownership is not decisive factor. BBC is also owned by British government, yet it is reliable. It is more question for WP:RSN but RT is at least very controversial given their hosts, which many times include prominent conspiratists. Press TV is not viewed as reliable majority because of their holocaust denial reports, not state ownership. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh, the old 'you disagree with the Jewish line and everything you say becomes invalid' argument, I think Socrates was the one who first established this as one of the core tenets of rational discourse.96.238.211.182 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Socrates talked about Jews? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the Juice overlords. Are you not afraid of Mossad killing you for edits like this? Quick - get your tin foil hat and do not let reptilians take you alive. Or just bugger off. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN It was discussed there, together with al Arabiya. It is reliable source. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today is definitely government controlled. That's a big part of Putin's so called "dictatorship" by this CNN blog by Fareed Zakaria [3]. Al Jazeera though, is not controlled by Qatar, and I have seen nowhere that Qatar is called tolitarian or statist like Putin. AJE is even more so reliable because it is based in the U.K. and the U.S. which don't control it as it is an independent media. AJA barely controls AJE. Only that AJE just is a western media that heavily focuses on Middle East. You can say AJE is biased towards the FSA, but that's not completely true. They're not biased towards anybody, except being biased against the government. The only news agencies you would find that are biased for Assad are SANA, VOA, Peyvand, Tehran Times, Iran Daily, FarsiNews, and whatever other Iranian news there is. So, Syria news, Iranian News, and Russian news are the only biased for Syria. All of Western Media is not. So in conclusion, I'm saying we have no neutral sources except maybe, strong emphasis on maybe, the U.N. We're going to have to balance the sources the best we can of the 90% Western or Arabian Anti-Assad news, and the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian Pro-Assad news. Thanks, Jacob102699 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jazeera never criticises the Qatari government, what does that mean? FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OOOOOH REEEAAALLLLY?, then I suppose you missed last week's headlines http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/06/201261264715371679.html and http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/06/201261472812737158.html Sopher99 (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Qatar is a country of 1.8 million people with one of the top five highest gdp per capita (living standard) countries in the world. Qatar does not have any internal conflicts or histories of massacres or ethnic divions. So what is there to cover in Qatar. Not much really. Boring place. It's like criticizing the Delaware newspaper for hardly writing any news about delaware. Sopher99 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In an amazing coincidence, Qatar is Arabic for "Delaware". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Any sources?

In the infobox, it says Iran and Hezbollah are providing economic and military support for the Syrian Armed Forces. Do we have any solid reliable sources to back that statement up? That goes for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar as well for the Syrian opposition. -- Luke (Talk) 02:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, i think there is some misleading or unconfirmed info regarding such things, although the opposition really got outsiders, Assad has added that they are fighting foreign mercenaries[4] . Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Google is your friend. You will have millions of answer if you search about Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. You really should have done a quick search before posting this.--Maldonado91 (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the infobox title changed?

Somebody changed the title of the infobox to "Syrian Civil War", while the title of the article is still "Syrian uprising (2011–present)". This needs to be changed back. Also someone added Russia under "Economic and military support" for the Syrian regime. I don't recall a consensus for that either. -- Futuretrillionaire 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

Sometimes this is done by IPs if you see something like this you should revert it and explain that no consensus was reached on the talk page as no new official move chat has opened since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

why there is alot of reference errors

why there is alot of reference errors

there alot of information erased from the article can some one fix it .(Alhanuty (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Maybe because they are no more relevant or available. Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fanzinette vandalizing the page

This editor has made 60 contributions in less than 9 hours , completely changing and rampaging the page as he wanted. He deleted whole parts ot the page and expanded other without any balance. The unreal number of his contrbitutions and their size make it nearly impossible to understand that as a whole and to check it individually. But he does not seem a very balanced editor and other should review very carefully all of his deletions and additions. It will not be easy seeing he has nothing else to do apparently.--Maldonado91 (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard for me to pin down the ideology of an editor who both chops out huge chunks of the article that contain information presenting the Syrian regime in a rather negative light (human rights violations, arrests, etc.) but also adds in a lot of information about how Russia is plying the regime with weapons and whatnot. Regardless of ideology, the editor clearly needs to discuss the changes on Talk and stop willfully removing massive pieces of the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. My point of view is this: I utterly despise Assad, and I take a dim view of people who support him, whether that's Russia, China or whoever. The human rights section I have done is a reflection of my negative view of Assad, as are the additions about Russia. The bits I am deleting are an attempt to remove excess detail and to reduce the number of specific incidents. There are terrible things happening to so many people, it just isn't possible to list so many of them in my view. That's what I was trying to achieve with my deletions. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to reduce the size of the detentions section and expand on the treatment of journalists. It is a very bitty section as it stands. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would caution you against editing from the perspective of trying to impose a certain POV. I think it's a noble aim to shrink this bloated page down to a more appropriate size, but POV editing is really frowned upon at Wikipedia and a consistent pattern of editing in that way is going to earn you more scrutiny and less respect than you probably want. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. I have tried to keep my language neutral and write it like a report, even though I do not like Assad or Putin. Please do make adjustments to what I have written if you think it needs it. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Russia again

I feel I need to explain it better.

Qatar , Turkey, Saudi Arabia and USA are supporting the syrian rebels by providing intelligence, weapons and other material freely, in order to help them.

*Not the USA, yet (non lethal aid does not count as military support and funding). Sopher99 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Russia is not supporting the Syrian governement as they are not providing anything freely. Syria buys weapons from Russia, and Russia will sell weapons to any country that are not hostile to them. Syria is treated like any country by Russia here.

If Russia was giving weapons for free or intelligence, it would be different, but they are not. They are one a few country that has maintained a neutral point of view by not helping any side and by rejecting any foreign interference. They are not blackmailing Syria but are not helping thel neither. --Maldonado91 (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy that, and neither do a lot of reliable sources. Even as countries that traditionally stay out of commenting on foreign affairs have condemned Damascus, the Russian government continues to turn a blind eye even in the face of what is really insurmountable evidence at this point of a massive-scale crackdown. I think it's worth noting, though perhaps not on this article, that Russia remains stubbornly "neutral" (i.e. they sell arms to Syria and have sent troops ostensibly to protect their Tartus base) even as many of Syria's allies and many countries with no reputation for getting involved in such issues have turned against President Assad's regime. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not buy it either. As Amnesty points out, fulfilling contractual orders still makes you complicit. Supposing you're exporting machetes to Rwanda in 1994, yet continue to do so after the genocide has begun that genocide. Or in a domestic setting: it is not just principal culprits who are prosecuted, but accessories. They are under no moral or legal obligation to fulfil the helicopter and tank refurbishments at this time. And there is another obvious and critical source of support: vetoing Security Council resolutions. The ultimate cover for an ally—doesn't the US do it all the time for the Israelis? Then there's the selective use of rights report that HRW complained about. It's undeniably there: material and diplomatic support. And it isn't just me stating the obvious: HRW has criticised Russia for its "misguided" support of Assad. And we've got motive: Russia's important military base at Tartus. Fanzine999 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Say your friend gives you a knife to sharpen for $10. You sharpen it and your friend comes to collect the sharpened knife, but before collection tells you that he is going to kill your mom with the knife. If you take the tenner, you are therefore complicit and an accomplice in the murder of your own mom and have provided the military support for him to do it. Same goes for refurbishing Mi25 attack helicopters. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's speculation and possibly original research, not admitted on Wikipedia. Besides, again, Russia itself says they do not support ether side while the Turks, Qatar and the Saudis openly support the rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You can claim all you want that you don't support the killing of your mom, but if you sharpen the knife and give it to the killer knowing that he will brutally stab your mom to death with it, you're still supporting the murder of your mom. You are just trying to blag your way out of a crime. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, what you are saying is speculation and OR, not admitted on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is a parable, or a similie to help people understand the situation. You can read my references about the Mi25 attack helicopters in the article. I don't understand how it can be interpreted as speculation or OR and accusing me of such seems to be just more blag to get the Russians off the hook. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch agrees with you and me, Paul Bedson: they criticised Putin's "misguided" support for Assad. Their statement follows from the truism that you judge people by actions, not empty words. If words were the important thing, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact really was a "foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe". Actions, not words. Fanzine999 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)#

As the Russian supplied, refurbished and militarily advised attack helicopters batter Doura against the puny weapons supplied by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi, can we have some consensus that the refurbished ones to be supplied by Russia with the purpose to machine gun lots of rebels to death blatantly constitute military support for the Alawite regime? Some editors still seem to consider those attack helicopters are getting refurbished by magic. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth: "As long as you offer any kind of support to terrorists, you are a partner. Whether you send them armaments or money or public support, political support in the United Nations, anywhere. Any kind of support, this is implication." That was Assad talking about US support for "terrorists", but we can shine those words on the Russia-Assad partnership. Fanzine999 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

CNN

CNN, a major RS, is now calling it a civil war.[5]. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

CNN has been calling this a civil war for some time now, we should still wait a bit more before opening up another discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is the first time I have heared them call it a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried clicking the link Jacob provided, but the video didn't play, saying that "There was a problem playing this video". Anyways, here is the official CNN topic page for Syria [6]. It contains all recent articles on Syria, and I can't find "civil war" anywhere here. -- Futuretrillionaire 16:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

It'son left sidebar of this page, [7], and is titled there, Syrian opposition armed and organized. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Map and chart in "Arab spring" Wikipedia page is calling the Syrian uprising a civil war. This needs to be changed.

In the "Arab Spring" Wikipedia page, some one changed the map and chart in the "overview" section, calling Syrian crisis a civil war. However, in the "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" talk page, there has been no consensus on changing the name of the conflict to Syrian civil war. The map and chart needs to be changed back. I've added this notice to the "Arab spring" talk page as well. --Futuretrillionaire 17:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Even Assad said Syria is in a state of war

So why hasn't the name been changed yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Because two or three pro-Assad editors don't want it to be changed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Since when does opposing a name change here make someone pro-Assad? I was originally for the name change but after the first round as much as even now I want the title changed say I think its better to wait as the media seems to be split about this as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jury still out on the "civil war" issue

Numerous bloggers have taken the leap to calling the uprising a "civil war", but the current consensus between third-party reliable sources seems to be suggesting that a transition to a state of civil war is now in progress (which of course still implies that it's not quite there yet), and some have moved to using the term itself.

Data points:

• Some UN representatives seem to have used the term "civil war", but the UN does not, I think, count as a WP:RS in this current context, because it is caught up in the politics of the conflict.

• The ICRC, which I belive does count as a WP:RS in this context because of its noted political neutrality, uses the technical legal term "non-international armed conflict" instead of "civil war", and although they are monitoring the conflict, I don't believe they've spoken yet on that matter.

WP:RS indicating ongoing transition to civil war:

• Radio Free Europe (which is pretty much an organ of the U.S. government, so not really a neutral source), is calling it "Syria’s emerging civil war".

• BBC News echoes the UN report, as "Syria descending into civil war".

• The Washington Post is saying "as Syria slides towards civil war".

• Fox News (yes, I know, I know, but it's a published, edited news source nonetheless) calls it "verging on a full-blown civil war".

• Time magazine calls it "a slow-motion civil war" -- which I think is one step away from describing it an actual war.

• The Daily Telegraph is using the term "spreading civil war", which goes one step further.

Those news sources who have gone all the way:

• France24 is now calling it a "civil war",

• the Christian Science Monitor is also using the words "civil war".

-- Chronulator (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The previous move discussion was closed only a week ago as "no consensus" to change the title to "civil war". In my opinion, right now, the usage of "civil war" is still split. Be aware that "descending into civil war" or "sliding towards civil war" does not equal Syria is in a civil war at this time. -- Luke (Talk) 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you read above, with sorc provided CNN is now calling it a civil war. Jacob102699 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And combined with the fact CNN is calling it a civil war, looks like a good majority of reliable sources that we use as sources here on this article is calling it a civil war. Its a civil war now. Sopher99 (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post calls it a Civil War too http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=275683 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.185.56 (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian government's carbombing

Syrian government orchestrates car bombing to kill about 80 in anti-assad funeral in Zamalka. Sana of course does not report it. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/more-than-70-killed-by-car-bombing-at-funeral-in-syrian-town.html Still have doubts that the Syrian government can't be the orient of these "bombings" they happen to experience when monitors are around? Sopher99 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti government claim actually, and about 85 to be exact, there should be a probe into this issue, we can't directly blame on government, as we have seen before that such claims were proved to be lie. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My intention of establishing a new talk here was actually to promote putting the incident into a paragraph on the main page somewhere along the timeline or so. Feels kind of awkward saying it so I added personal commentary instead (a distinction I should note from personal reasoning - I was not attempting to coerce any edits with that view) Sopher99 (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Put your presentation here then, and just got to read that now CNN reported "14000+ killed in Syrian uprising; more than half in last 4 months", Might be a point regarding this whole scene. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we should renew the voting process

With a slew of RS that we use commonly in this article, now calling it a civil war, we should reinstate a vote. How about this time a simple Support/Oppose vote (yes or nov vote). No lengthy explanation or comments. Just whether you agree that because a dozen of the top 20 English RS now call it a civil war, the article should be changed too. (not to mention the French foreign ministry, the UN Human rights spokesmen, the UN piece keeping chief, and arguably assad himself). Sopher99 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your call for a simple yes/no vote contravenes Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTAVOTE). Therefore, I oppose the proposal. Furthermore, the last discussion on this subject was closed on 23 June, which is only a week ago. I don't think it would be very productive to call a new discussion so soon. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per TaalVerbeteraar while I feel that the title should be "Civil war" we should wait at least a few more days, also yes wikipedia is no ta vote its through consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War – The common name is now Syrian Civil War and now uprising. Maldonado91 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough time has passed to start a new request.

In the previous time, there was a large consensus to move the page to Syrian Civil War name but an administrator who opposed the move cheated, arguing that some of the voters did not gave their reasons. In order to avoid such a fraud, please give a reason to support or oppose the move.

Mine is the following:

1) The common name has changed among the world powers.. France and UN official have called it civil war . Even Bashar Al Assad himself says that Syria is in a war.

2) Then, the definitions of the world are clear:

Uprising: 1. A sometimes limited popular revolt against a constituted government or its policies; a rebellion. 2. The act or an instance of rising or rising up.

Civil War: (Military) war between parties, factions, or inhabitants of different regions within the same nation

The civil war is a lot more closer

3) The big change in media use:

According to Google: the expression "syrian civil war" is used 10 times more than the expression "syrian uprising" over the past month and with the same criteria

http://www.google.ca/search?q=syrian+civil+war&hl=en&tbo=1&gbv=1&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=kwfyT6-3DYji2QWoj93TCg&ved=0CBIQpwUoBA

http://www.google.ca/search?q=syrian+uprising&hl=en&tbo=1&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=pQfyT9uFEuTS2QXP8pyBAg&ved=0CBIQpwUoBA

According to Yahoo search: the expression "syrian civil war" is now ahead of "syrian uprising" for the search this past month by 20%:

Yahoo: 'syrian civil war'

Yahoo: 'syrian uprising'

For all these reasons, I think that this is time to change the name of this page. Don't forget, explain your opinion if you want to make it count and not being discounted.--Maldonado91 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The question is, will common sense prevail this time? or will silly formalities that only two or three people want to keep going along with prevent this conflict being called what it really is - a civil war? In a way it is belittling to the Syrian victims of this civil war not to call it what it actually is. I mean, the Syrian army have turned their guns on one another, neighbouring Awawite and Sunni villages are battling eachother. This has evolved into a full scale civil war now, like Lebanon, use your logic and common sense people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.185.56 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, common sense will not prevail this time. It is not about "logic and common sense". It is about the name most widely used in the reliable sources. Tradedia (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

90.246.185.56, I find your use of argumentum ad misericordiam deplorable. This isn't about "belittling Syrian victims", this is about WP:COMMONNAME. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral I will wait for editors to weigh in here but if this is again closed as no consensus I suggest a move moratorium as Talk:Libyan civil war has, this is just getting to be crazy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  I am changing my opinion to Oppose Looking at how close the prev move discussion was I think we should give this more time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The UN peacekeeping chief has called it a civil war, the UN human rights head has called it a civil war, the French foreign minister (in essence France itself) has called it a civil war, the Syrian president himself, as Sopher has pointed out, has arguably done the same, the opposition-affiliated group SOHR has called it a civil war (noting that its even bloodier than a real civil war) and the rebels themselves have been using the term for some time. That's a lot of high-ranking officials who have an intimate knowledge of the reality on the ground calling it a civil war. Also, most notable and reliable news media have been phasing out the term uprising and replacing it with civil war more and more every day for the past month. I think that says it all. If people still don't want to rename the article at least rewrite the first sentence of the lead-in paragraph of the article to something like The Syrian uprising (also referred to as the Syrian civil war) is an ongoing internal armed conflict in Syria. I think nobody could deny that at least. EkoGraf (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Reuters (via the Globe and Mail) just published an article titled Assad forces bomb Damascus suburb as civil war escalates --Ferrariguy90 (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Edit: Also, the Arab Spring wiki page has elevated the conflict to "Armed rebellion" status, essentially the same designation given to Libya during its uprising/civil war/revolution. --Ferrariguy90 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although a few sources are calling the conflict a civil war, the majority of the media is still calling it an uprising. I say let's wait until more sources change it to civil war.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Uprising is a broader term, which we all can say accurately describes the situation in Syria.--A Lurker 12:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.223.232 (talk)
• Support. The majority of news sources, as well as the UN and Assad himself calls it a civilwar. About time this article followed suit to reality. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close. "Enough time has passed to start a new request", are you kidding me? The last discussion was closed only a week ago! Does anyone really believe that while one week ago there weren't sufficient arguments for a rename, a week later there suddenly are? It's no use holding new polls again and again until the 'right' result is achieved. This isn't the Irish Lisbon Treaty referendum. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Jesus, not this shit again. It doesn't matter what editors here apparently want, what matters is what the sources say. The sources simply don't refer to this as "the Syrian civil war". FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly reliable sources that cite highly notable diplomats and soldiers that refer to it as a civil war have been provided FunkMonk, and please don't use the word shit during a discussion, it is in violation of Wikipedia policy on civility. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

They cite people that call it a civil war, they don't call it a civil war. That's the important part. FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Support, But Close as not moved I support this per EkoGraf and everyone above, but as Tradeia, TaalVerbretaar, and Futuretrillionare don't support this, we still at least not yet don't have consensus. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, it wouldn't even matter if everyone supported a move, the sources don't call it a civil war, so Wikipedia can't either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep repeating that, but you also keep forgetting to add any sources that support your claims. Most news agencies have clearly switched to calling this a civil war, as the investigation below shows. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at the break down below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Support As above. I feel it's the right time to move now. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. See the media discussion below. The majority of media organisations are calling it a civil war at this point. The latest is NBC: "Q: Have we reached a tipping point in the conflict? A: My view was was that this was a civil war several months ago, and I think if there were any doubt [Syrian President Bashar] Assad answered that question a few days ago when he said this is a war on all fronts." [8] 188.222.88.79 (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Well, this has become more like a move requests-spam --aad_Dira (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC).

The event develops, and so must the article. Please provide a better reason for your opposition to the renaming of this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply, my reason was introduced sufficiently in the previous discussion, so there is no need to repate it here. This discussion in the first place is totally unnecessary --aad_Dira (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC).

• Support per EkoGraf arguments. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support It reached the civil war stage months ago. Both sides now control signifcant territory. It is a civil war.Goltak (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Actually, I think that this conflict is best charachterized as a civil war, even if that's not what the media is calling it. However, this issue is getting out of hand. I think that in this case the name of the artifcle is significantly less importent then the context of the article itself. I think that we can all agree that at some point this will be a civil war and their will be enough consensus to change the name of the article, and therefor the classification of the conflict. But in hte meantime lets make the content high quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.24.86 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Futuretrillionaire's work below and my comments two weeks ago in the previous move discussion above. —  AjaxSmack  01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A month is a long timeframe to look at given what's happened recent weeks. A google search over past week shows Syrian Conflict gets most hits in terms of sources - reliable sources seem to be moving away from uprising but not quite civil war yet in terms of consensus. Either way we need to shorten name as 'Syrian uprising (2011–present)' is very long and no reliable source refers to it as this, i don't think we need date just a simple "Syrian Conflict" or "Syrian xxxx". Tom B (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support I am lebanese, I know what a civil war is. Whats going in syria is a civil war. 2A00:C440:20:1094:1412:8C8B:98AB:F063 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per above arguments and arguments I have already made. Sopher99 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support The definition of civil war stated on the Wikipedia article would define the Syrian uprising as a civil war, see Civil war#Definition.--Wikien2009 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per Wikien2009's observation that the Syrian conflict meets definitions of civil war found in Wikipedia itself. Part of me feels Wikipedia should strive for internal consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.31.156 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a valid argument. The admin who closed the previous name change request wrote: "[arguments that] relied on an assessment of whether the situation met some definition of civil war [are not valid]. This is original research and not how we determine the name of an article on Wikipedia" This includes any definition, whether it is wikipedia, britanica, Oxford dictionary, etc. Tradedia (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support Per this guy. 71.87.213.78 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary of civil war usage

• UN Peace keeping chief
• UN Human rights head
• French Foreign minister
• *arguably* Assad himself
• Results for Syria civil war more popular than results for Syrian uprising this past month on google and Yahoo
• BBC, Washington post, CNN, Msnbc and the Atlantic wire (for a month now), Fox news, France 24, Daily Telegraph, Jpost, Christian Science Monitor, and Time Magazine have as recently as this week been calling it a civil war.

Sopher99 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought. Most of these sources call it a war, many of them without the word civil in it. Why not rename it to Syrian war (2011-present) and be done with it? It seems like a reasonable compromise that could convince even those who oppose it. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Some people still don’t get it and your google and Yahoo “results” are wrong!

It seems that you have not read (or not understood) the conclusion of the discussion of the previous move request. First, your google and Yahoo “results” are wrong. You forgot to put the expressions between quotation marks! The correct results are as follows:

Google: "syrian uprising" has FOUR times more hits than “syrian civil war”

Yahoo: "syrian uprising" has THREE times more hits than “syrian civil war”

This is enough evidence to make any admin decide against the move.

Moreover you did not read what the closing admin has written: “arguments that relied on an assessment of whether the situation met some definition of civil war are not valid. This is original research and not how we determine the name of an article on Wikipedia - we rely on reliable sources.” So your point number 2 is completely irrelevant.

Concerning your point number one, we already discussed these. Assad did not call it civil war. For him rather, it is a war between Syria and the conspiring countries (usa, france, Saudi, etc) and their infiltrated terrorists. I also find it interesting that you are still mentioning the UN and French officials. It highlights the fact that no more officials have called it civil war since…

You might not have noticed but, the closing of the previous move request was formally reviewed by other admins and they all concluded that the closing admin did a “great job” closing the case with no change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Syrian_Civil_War_.282011.E2.80.93present.29)

The outcome of this move request will be exactly the same as the previous one. I ask you to withdraw this move request as to avoid wasting our time redoing the same exact thing we did before… Tradedia (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Tradedia we all know your opinion on the matter there is no need to be so lengthy and clog up the discussion. You can state your oppinion in just a few sentances. And please don't be so heated about the debate, talk calmly. EkoGraf (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on the use of search results for current events. Supposing all the media, every reliable source, started calling it a civil war. Well, for a while, all their previous usage of "uprising" would still overwhelm the number of new search results of "civil war". We need to to wait and see what reliable sources are calling it, not how many search results turn up (which will be misleading for a time even if terminology does change). Fanzine999 (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that the search was done over the past month (see Maldonado91’s original message above) Tradedia (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, OK. Mine and whoever else's point about the quotation marks for the searches still stands, however. Fanzine999 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

the search results i give above include the quotation marks (Maldonado91 did not include them which is why i said his results were wrong) Tradedia (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Media Sources

Remember, until there are sufficient reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war, the title must remain as it is.

For people who claim that Syria is in a civil war, please provide links to reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war. Don’t just claim that a source is calling this a civil war without providing the link to the source.

Google and yahoo search results can not be used, because not all results are reliable sources. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources.

I am questioning some of the sources Sopher99 provided. I checked his listed sources to see if they are actually calling the Syrian conflict a civil war.

• No -BBC: Here is the official BBC topic page for Syria. [9] It calls the conflict “Syria Conflict”. It contains all recent articles on Syria, and I can't find "civil war" anywhere here.
• No -Washington Post: Here is the official Washington Post topic page for Syria. [10] The title calls the conflict “Syria uprising”. No mention of civil war form the WP.
• Most Likely No Maybe -CNN: Here is the official CNN topic page for Syria. Again, don’t see civil war anywhere. Jacob102699 provided a link to a CNN video in which on the bottom, a tag says “From Protest to Civil War”. This is very vague. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Syria is in a civil war yet. Plus, almost all articles on CNN regarding Syria are not calling the conflict a civil war. Saddhiyama provided a few links to a few old articles mentioning that the UN peacekeeper is calling it a civil war, but his second linked article also mentions that "But U.N. Spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters Wednesday that it is up to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva to determine when the crisis in Syria is considered a civil war." I haven't seen any recent articles on CNN calling the conflict a civil war. He also provides a third link to an i-report video, which does describe the conflict as a civil war. However, i-reporters are not affiliated with CNN. It says clearly on the page that this content is "Not vetted for CNN".
• Probably Not -MSNBC: No official topic page for Syria. I don’t see any recent articles calling the conflict a civil war. [11] There are some articles saying that the conflict is escalating into a civil war.
• Maybe -Atlantic Wire: Here is the official Atlantic Wire topic page for Syria. [12] I see only one article calling this conflict a civil war. However, even the columnist admits that “The conflict in Syria isn't officially labeled a civil war”.
• Probably Not -Fox News: Here is the official Fox News topic page for Syria. [13] The only mention of civil war here are articles regarding UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, and articles saying that Syria is descending into a civil war, which is not the same as being in a civil war.
• Probably Not -France 24: Here is the official France 24 topic page for Syria. [14] The only articles mentioning civil war are those talking about the words spoken by UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous. The lead paragraph for the topic page and most articles provided on the page call the conflict an “uprising”.
• Yes -Daily Telegraph: Here is the official Telegraph topic page for Syria. [15] I see one article calling it a civil war. [16]
• Probably Yes -Jpost: Here is the official Jpost topic page for Syria. [17] There is an opinion article calling it a civil war. [18]
• Yes -Christian Science Monitor: No topic page for Syria. There are several articles saying Syria is in a civil war, including this one. [19]
• Yes -Time Magazine: Here is the official Time topic page for Syria. [20] There are several articles calling the conflict a civil war. [21]

I hope this helps, whatever your view may be. Personally, I'm against changing the title.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: I checked some more sources that have been mentioned.

• Maybe –The Globe and Mail: The article Ferrariguy90 cited has a almost vague title. [22] Also the article says the conflict is “increasingly takes on the character of an all-out civil war”. Again, this implies that Syria is heading towards a civil war, but it’s not quite there yet. It appears that the majority of recent articles on Syria from this source are not using the term “civil war”. [23]
• Probably Yes –Huffington Post: There is a topic page here for “Syria Civil War”. [24] However, there are also tags and topics for “Syria Crisis”, “Syria Conflict”, “Syria War”, and “Syria Uprising”. [25]
• No –NY times: Here is the topic page for Syria. [26] It contains an overview of the topic and all recent articles. I see mentions of Syria descending into civil war, and there is a mention of that UN peacekeeping chief calling this a civil war. However, I checked some of the recent articles, and none of them have used the word “civil war”, and most have used the word “uprising”.

I'd be glad to check some more sources. Just mention them in the talk page.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The above poster is approaching the name change correctly by laying out clearly with references what different media organizations are calling the Syrian conflict. Only such a clear detailed analysis will be able to convince other editors what the most commonly used name for the topic is. Without any clear proof or references the name should stay the same. Guest2625 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I just did a small test of the results posted by Fututretrillionaire by checking the results on the CNN page. And indeed it does have several articles about the civil war discussion, here and here. As well as a video report of June 24 which has the description text "As Syria’s civil war escalates..." in a prominent first line position. So I disagree with the assesment that this news organisation is a "most likely no". I don't have the time to check on the rest of the results, but I think it is obvious that there has been a change in most media to call this a civil war during the last week, and the negative results provided from a superficial search only reflects an older stance to this conflict because the majority of the older stories doesn't include this term, while newer stories seems to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I changed CNN's status to maybe. I also added a response to your links above in the CNN bullet point. Please read.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

STRONG Support, and move Note that the NY Times typically calls it a "Conflict", and sometimes a "War" [27]. "Uprising" seems to be on the outs. I'd classify it as Maybe. This means that including the NY Times, the above Media sources would are: 2 "No", 3 "Probably Not", 3 "Maybe", 1 "Probably Yes", and 3 "Yes". This is stronger support for calling it a "War" than an "Uprising. So to sum it up: "Civil War" has more Google hits, more major media organisations, and more Wikipedia editors behind it. Move it already! 85.115.58.180 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, "Civil War" does not have more Google hits. The editor who requested the name change had wrong google “results”. He forgot to put the expressions between quotation marks! As i indicated above, for the last month, the correct results are as follows:

Google: "syrian uprising" has FOUR times more hits than “syrian civil war” Tradedia (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated above that doesn't say anything. This conflict was called an uprising in its early phases, and only recently has been upgraded to civil war by most news agencies, so obviously there would have accumulated more news stories calling it an uprising. The date is the crucial factor and your search as well as the initial search above doesn't reveal anything about that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that the search was done for the last month only Tradedia (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article which discusses this very topic : http://www.middleeastvoices.com/2012/07/viewpoint-lets-finally-acknowledge-that-war-is-raging-in-syria-13090/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.68.67 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Google

Let this stand as proof:

syrian uprising - 10.4 million hits syrian civil war - 18.6 million hits syrian conflict - 29.3 million hits syrian war - 68.6 million hits

Let this stand as evidence and you see that civil war is more used, but still not the most used term. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

your google “results” are wrong (just like those of the editor who requested the name change). You forgot to put the expressions between quotation marks! As i indicated above, for the last month, the correct results are as follows:

Google: "syrian uprising" has FOUR times more hits than “syrian civil war” Tradedia (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATED with quotes

syrian uprising - 1.14 million hits
syrian civil war - 656,000 hits
syrian conflict - 969,000 hits
syrian war - 122,000 results

Based on this i think it's clear that Syrian uprising should stay for now. And even though me and most other editors think that it is a Civil War, that is journalists decision to make, not ours. I am now formally changing my vote to Oppose even though when Civil War surpasses that of uprising in usage, i will change my vote. We may support the title civil war, but based on WP:COMMONNAME, we can't do that now. Thanks, Jacob102699 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I should repeat: Google and yahoo search results can not be used, because not all results are reliable sources. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Google numbers here are irrelevant. The question is: is the conflit NOW a civil war ? You are asking Google about the title since the beginning. But what about this last month ? What term is more used NOW (and not What term has been used the most during the whole conflit). --Kormin (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The search results i show above are done for the last month only. I repeat the result here:

Google: "syrian uprising" has FOUR times more hits than “syrian civil war” Tradedia (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Vote So Far

I'm not sure if this matters, but here's the poll result so far.

9 Support: Maldonado91, Sopher99, 90.246.185.56, EkoGraf, Ferrariguy90, Saddhiyama, 85.115.58.180, Tonemgub2010, 188.222.88.79

6 Oppose: Tradedia, Futuretrillionaire, FunkMonk, TaalVerbeteraar, aad_Dira, Jacob102699

That's a 60% approval for renaming this article, hardly a consensus.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAVOTE - but you're right, consensus is the title remains as is. If you people spent more time improving the article instead of worrying about the title, this might actually be a useful article. The latest requested move was poorly thought-out, far to close to the last one, and is clearly disruptive. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever title is used the article should show how Western and middle eastern powers are supporting / financing / arming the groups fighting Assad. This is a bit like Libya. Its regime change to a model the West favours. Civil war reflects this more than uprising --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no such consensus reached and there will never be a changed title into "Civil war". Some people think that the Syrian article should follow the same pattern as the Libyan revolt, but its not. Despite few fighting places in some cities and village, there are still many reports of civillians protesting and making demonstrations outside. Besides, its just "violence" but it doesnt mean its "war". 175.138.58.135 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it not war? The Syrian Army has SPLIT ! They are shooting at eachother using all kinds of weapons. the rebels even have a few tanks too. When a country's army is fighting itself, and over 15,000 people are dead and large tracts of cities lying in ruin, id say its war. Most sources now call it war at the very least including Reuters, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, ITV, Sky news and even Assad himself ! They all call it war, just type in Syria war into google — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.17.105 (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is war, but it is not widely reported to be a civil war, only that some call it a civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's a civil war at this point, but the consensus of reliable sources does not yet do so, and we should leave it as "uprising" for now. I don't think we will have to wait too many more weeks for this to change, given the recent high-profile defection of the senior Syrian general Manaf Tlas, who I think has seen which way the wind is blowing. -- Chronulator (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is fighting therefore it is a type of war. There is outside funding and logistic / adviser / manpower support. Therefore it is a war with outside political involvement. Some parts of Syrian society fight each other but those who are anti establishment would not have success without outside arming / funding. It is therefore a covert open war or the early stages of out right war funded by enemy states who are trying to portray it as an insurrection / popular uprising. Like many civil wars in the past it would not happen without outside help. It is a civil war funded by enemy states and opposed by other states which may lead to open war between these states --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Several Syrian activists so far admits its an armed conflict, but denied its a civil war: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/escalating-violence-in-syria-doesnt-equal-civil-war-activists-say/ 115.134.116.182 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

More Casualities

No damages regarding armored tanks/vehicles, MiGs(if any), Cannons, etc have been listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarificationgiven (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there are no sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be some research, page looks really good when we will have such information. Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Revolutionary Front

This newspaper article says that there was an attempt for fighters to unite under ”…a new rebel group … calling itself the “Syrian Revolutionaries Front” but “…the effort immediately fizzled” So that group is apparently defunct and should be removed from the infobox. Tradedia (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah included in the casualties

Hezbollah is known to provide some sort of political support for the Syrian government. But come on... You can't really include Hezbollah casualties since "yalibnan.com" states so? That site is well known to be against the Hezbollah and Iran in general and provides a lot of materials with no substance. Where's the source criticism on Wikipedia that is usually of a high standard here??!

If you intend to keep it, at least move it to another section and put it as "allegation of militarily involvement". Because, quite frankly, those who reads this page won't check if this is true or not. They will just believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.185.238 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of what is in this article is based on opposition sources which are against the Syrian government, but we still use them. Besides, the other source is Stratfor. EkoGraf (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yalibnan has always been staunchly anti-Syrian (it was created in relation to the "Cedar Revolution", and is pro-Future Movement/Saudi), so they're certainly not neutral in this, and would publish any rumour, provided it is anti-Syrian. As for Ekograf's argument, those other claims are published in less biased outlets. And what does stratfor say? That there are "claims" or some such? Not strong enough for inclusion in the infobox at least. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line - is Yalibnan unreliable? I'm experienced in well provided info in the website, but i could be wrongGreyshark09 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps reliable enough for a mention, but not for infobox inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of everything in the article are "claims", nothing is definetly confirmed. All depends on a person's point of view. The number of government troops killed is based on an opposition source which is anti-Assad thus not neutral but we still use it. If you feel so strongly about it we can add next to the numbers that those are opposition claims (all figures came from defecting soldiers that joined the FSA) so the reader can form his own point of view. I will add to the infobox who is claiming it. Besides, these are just the only sources that have given a definite number of Hezbollah and Iranian dead. The FSA and the SNC have been saying for almost a year that Iranians and Hezbollah are in the field, which can be found in dozens of sources. And so based on this I am noting in the infobox it is based on opposition claims. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are many claims, but yet again, only widely reported (by good sources) claims should be featured in the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

It is custom to include in belligerents section only sides, who take active part in a military conflict; it is also possible to add "supporters", whose troops operate to significantly assist one of the conflict sides. In this regard, economic support and military equipment sales are not issues which justify adding any such country in "belligerents" section, since this is very different than taking an active part in a conflict; in addition such claims of financial and arms support are usually very problematic to verify (money is hardly traceable). Please do not include Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Russia or Turkey in the belligerents section, unless you bring a solid proof for their troops being involved in active battles or at least ground/air support to one of the sides. As for Iran and Hizbullah, more sources would also help on their involvement. As for Iran, it has openly announced siding the Syrian government, so it is possible to put it as a belligerent party, and not just a supporter.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The infobox is not just for official beligerents with troops on the ground. Those providing economic support and arms sales are listed in infoboxes on Wikipedia. I already told you, just check the Soviet war in Afghanistan and Angolan Civil War articles for an example. There foreign arms and money contributors are listed in the infoboxes. And there is nothing problematic about verifying Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Qatar since Saudi Arabia and Qatar have openly and frankly stated that they are sending the money and weapons and Turkey is openly providing logistical support for the rebels in the border area. If you have a problem with this than you will have to take up the issue with a lot of infoboxes in other war articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise please don't remove properly sourced information. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course infobox is not for official belligerents (actual fighting), you can add "supported by", for those who bring logistic troops or units/engineers which are not operating at the front lines (i guess Iran is then a supporter, probably also Hizbullah). Russia, Qatar, Saudia and Turkey don't have any logistic units supporting the rebels, Turkish troops are totally neutral and Saudi/Qatari/Russian units or engineering units are absent (Russians were evacuated).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again...money and arms contributors are listed in infoboxes as well, check other articles on Wikipedia, for start the two I listed for you. EkoGraf (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Both articles list mostly unsourced data in the infobox, a very bad example - a will check WP:RS and WP:FRINGE in this regard. I would have thought twice prior to bringing such a bad examples. Greyshark09 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the sources in Angolan Civil War and had to remove nearly half of listed "belligerents", while adding one side and one supporter. Some listed sides had been completely unsourced (Libya, Algeria, Gabon, Cote d'voir), some just provided humanitarian assistance to civilians (like Sweden), North Korea just happened to sell several missiles to one side of the conflict; on the other hand such an important conflict party as SWAPO had not been even listed and French foreign legion participation as a supporting force for evacuation of European citizens had not been mentioned in the infobox as well. This was clearly a very bad example.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The belligerents section of the Soviet war in Afghanistan is based on popular 2007 Holliwood movie Charlie Wilson's War. Not withstanding that, some editor of the article is defending against any changes of the article, violating WP:OWN. I herewith conclude your examples were WP:FRINGE, and that Qatar, Saudia, Russia and Turkey should not be on the list here.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see it it's not based on the movie, but on the real-life story on which the movie is also based on. It's a fact of life that the US supplied arms and money to the rebels in Afghanistan. Anyway, except you no other editor has expressed a problem with having economic and arms suppliers in the infobox. And I'm not the only one who has reverted you, at least two other editors have reverted you. And since Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are properly sourced please don't remove sourced info. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Human rights violations section

Any complaints if I move this section over to its own article? Takes up quite a bit of space, and we are near the 200k limit. Fanzine999 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Human rights violations during the Syrian Uprising—I have started this new page. If people don't like the idea, I can always put my new page up for speedy deletion and shift the material back. Fanzine999 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT. The split seems reasonable to me. But see WP:SPLIT on attribution (editing history). It's too late to do it directly in the edit comments (or maybe with a new edit where you make a trivial change?), but you can at least do it on the talk page. Boud (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed a new page is a fine option. Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Finmeccanica's relation with the Syrian authorities be excluded from the Finmeccanica article?

According to Western mainstream media reports about WikiLeaks' Syria Files, Finmeccanica's support for the Bashar al-Assad government by providing communications equipment for helicopters etc, up to at least February 2012, is a notable topic. An editor at Finmeccanica believes that the topic should be excluded from that article.

If you have an opinion and arguments either way, please participate in the discussion at the Finmeccanica talk page.

Incidentally, an interesting file - which doesn't seem to have been made "notable" by mainstream media - is the attachment on the "Tetra Project's Invoices" email: http://wikileaks.org/syria-files/docs/444131_tetra-project-s-invoices-.html, a February 2012 .xls file (readable with gnumeric or other widely available software) - this lists the towns in the provinces of Damascus, Homs, Tartus, Lattakia, Deir Ezzor, Al Hassakeh, Edleb, Alepo, Hama, Al Raqqa and Al Sweida where 467 pieces of communication equipment were (presumably) delivered and the associated costs. Dates of delivery don't seem to be written there. Boud (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Regime change bot needed

Western mainstream media seem to almost universally refer to the Bashar al-Assad government as a "regime". However, wiktionary:regime ("Usage notes - This word is often used as a pejorative.") makes it obvious that this is a WP:WEASEL word ("pejorative") in this context. We mostly use Western media mainstream sources for information, but the Western mainstream media/Western governments' opinions are supposed to be represented in an encyclopedia as opinions, not by using weasel words.

I've changed "regime" to "government" in a few Syria-uprising-related articles, but certainly not everywhere. My suggestion is that someone geeky write a regime change bot and submit it to the page where bots are discussed. It would have to avoid replacing the word when it's quoted, since a quote illustrates the speaker's opinion - this would require careful escaping.

My feeling is that this problem has been around for many of the Arab Spring articles. Until an uprising in country X gets past a critical threshold,he Western authorities/media still support leader Y of country X and his/her "government", and when/if the uprising has got past the point of no return, Y's government magically becomes a "regime" and because we have to rely mostly on Western mainstream media sources, Wikipedians have tended to import the change without realising that it's unencyclopedic. I'm suggesting (but not volunteering to write :) a bot because IMHO the problem is likely to continue for possibly several years. Boud (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support this, because the term regime is indeed loaded language (that article even specifically gives regime as an example) and its use therefore violates WP:NPOV. Regardless of this non-neutral nature of the term, it is widely used by editors and a bot would be helpful in fixing this. However, there are a few difficulties I see that could arise. That is, there are contexts in which regime does not have negative connotations, such as in a sporter's "training regime". Furthermore, there are some established terms in which regime cannot be substituted by another word. E.g. there is no alternative for the term regime change, such as *government change. A bot should be programmed in such a way that in those instances, the word regime is left unchanged. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My idea is that the bot would only be used on series of articles where the weaselly usage/loaded language is likely, e.g. Arab Spring related articles - not on articles generally. The human mentor of the bot would have to use his/her common sense to define these - as well as track feedback from bot errors. There are plenty of non-weaselly usages of regime in some specialised topics in English - including some parts of physics (linear regime, non-linear regime). AFAIK there are quite strict guidelines for running bots, so there would be some community feedback before the bot would be accepted. Boud (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I also support this. I already had a dispute over that term with an IP user who wasn't showing any neutrality and was highly anti-Assad. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeping track of the sources calling it a civil war

Aside from the UN peace-keeping chief and the France foreign ministry, here are sources thus far

Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/

Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/topic/Syria

The New York Times "Syria's de-facto civil war" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/why-russia-supports-assad.html

CBS news http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57452001/a-look-at-the-front-lines-of-syrias-civil-war/

Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/0627/What-war-in-Syria-looks-like-journalist-killings-deadlier-IEDs

Al Arabiya http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2012/06/15/220774.html

The Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/syrias-war-ignites-sectarian-strife-in-lebanon/article4178463/

The Atlantic Wire http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/06/declaring-civil-war-syria-no-longer-overstatement/53497/

Time Magazine http://search.time.com/results.html?N=0&Nty=1&p=0&cmd=tags&srchCat=Full+Archive&Ntt=syrian+civil+war&x=0&y=0

The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/31/the-revolt-in-syria-could-easily-spread-to-other-middle-east-countries.html

Huffington post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/syria-civil-war

The Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d927067e-501a-11e1-a3ac-00144feabdc0.html

France 24 http://www.france24.com/en/20120615-syria-civil-war-spills-over-into-Lebanon

CNN http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-13/middleeast/world_meast_syria-civil-war_1_james-fearon-civil-war-rebel-group?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrias-civil-war-is-bigger-than-syria-itself/2011/12/15/gIQANGEzwO_story.html

Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-civil-war-threatens-entire-region-230108354.htm

The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/06/syrias-civil-war/100319/

Sopher99 (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like all thats left is BBC, Reuters and Al jazeera.

I disagree on the characterisation of the Financial Times coverage. The article used above is an opinion piece rather than editorial or reportage, and so does not reflect the actual newspaper's terminology. Compare with this report from a few days ago: "France confirmed the first defection of a member the president's inner circle during Syria's 16-month uprising." The paper still calls it an uprising, rather than a civil war. And see http://www.ft.com/indepth/syria where you can see it clearly: Syria uprising. Fanzine999 (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Different editors and authors. Duh. Sopher99 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring the reasons I gave. One is simply the opinion of the opinion-piece authors; the other constitutes the editorial line of the newspaper. The latter is relevant, not the former. Fanzine999 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Your “analysis” is wrong and misleading. All you did was to go to the newspaper websites and do a word Search on the expression Syria civil war. This can be seen from the link you provide for time magazine: http://search.time.com/results.html?N=0&Nty=1&p=0&cmd=tags&srchCat=Full+Archive&Ntt=syrian+civil+war&x=0&y=0

In the case you find an article with the terms “Syria civil war”, does that mean that “the source is calling it a civil war”? No, of course not!

Fanzine999 has shown the flaw in your “analysis” for the Financial Times. I will give a few more examples. The first example is CNN (see my comment below). The second example is yahoo. You show an article there with the term “civil war”. However I can easily find an article there from today with the title: “Assad accuses US of fueling Syrian uprising”. The third example is the Washington post. Again, an article from two days ago says: “Either way, it appeared to be the most senior defection since the uprising…” The link you picked up on the other hand, is only an opinion piece… Also, from your link I don’t see that Jerusalem Post is calling it civil war. Your Daily Telegraph link shows that one out of dozens of articles use the term “slow war”. Concerning The New York Times, your link shows one op-ed piece by a russian writer and it says nothing about new York times position. Again, your link to Al Arabiya shows an op-ed piece by a political scientist. The first sentence in the Atlantic Wire article admits that: “The conflict in Syria isn't officially labeled a civil war…” The title in The Daily Beast is: “The Revolt in Syria Could Easily Spread to Other Middle East Countries” I will stop here as I am starting to get tired of this… Tradedia (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with Tradedia's analysis. I understand people are keen to use the term civil war, since not to do so is to "agree" with the Assad line, but we have to go with the sources. Given the "massive increase" in support for the opposition that's reportedly in the pipeline, I'm sure we won't have to wait too many more months for civil war to make its appearance. Fanzine999 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

They said the same thing in December. Countries are going to be "warning of civil war" until everyone in Syria is dead. Sopher99 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

CNN's definition of a civil war

"A state actor vs a non state actor with at least 1000 deaths of which at least 100 are on the two belligerant's sides" http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-13/middleeast/world_meast_syria-civil-war_1_james-fearon-civil-war-rebel-group?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

Syria: Syrian gov vs FSA, 17k deaths over all 4k gov deaths 3k FSA deaths Sopher99 (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the FSA also has around 4k deaths but hard to ascertain due to opposition policy to count rebels who were not defectors as civilians. In any case, at least 50 percent of the estimated 17,000 dead are combatants while the rest are non-combatants. I think that more than qualifies as a civil war under CNN's definition. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not “CNN's definition of a civil war”. This is the definition of Stephen Biddle who was interviewed by CNN. Again, you are picking and choosing authors who mention the terms civil war in a media outlet and wrongly characterizing this as the source calling it a civil war. Tradedia (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Flaw in the "reliable media" argument

Saying "wait until what most media call it" in arguing for or against renaming the article is totally invalid.

All this implies the media has the ability to change direction in what they call things. They don't. They only refer the situation to what the UN is calling. Al Jazeera, BBC and Reuters do not have the ability to decide for themselves what is a civil war or not.

Consequently I believe we should all agree that when Ban Ki Moon or Kofi Annan say it is a civil war, we change the article's name. Sopher99 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OH, REALLY? Then I guess you miss these one:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/09/world/meast/syria-unrest/

"Even as Annan was in Syria, al-Assad's regime reported it had conducted live-fire training exercises that simulated a defense against foreign attacks. Throughout the 16-month uprising, the regime has blamed violence on armed terrorist groups involving people from outside Syria."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/08/assad-accuses-us-fueling-syrian-uprising/#ixzz20BU3UTUW

"In one of his rare interviews with Western media since the deadly uprising in Syria erupted last year, Assad brushed off a question about whether he feared for his family, including his wife and three children."

This: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-opposition-group-says-death-toll-from-uprising-has-topped-17000/2012/07/09/gJQATeu2XW_story.html

And this: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/0709/Syria-Has-Obama-done-enough-to-bring-the-violence-to-an-end-video

I'm sorry to say this, user. But if you are asking whether who is the one making such invalid statement, then its those people who wants are rushing to re-name the article as civil war.

What I see here recently is just armed conflict, turmoil, unrest, uprising, protests, violence, but they still rarely call it civil war and certainly its not equivalent to that latter term. In fact, there are many analyst and political science were skeptical about whether Syria has enter a civil war. Also, Syrian activists acknowledge that there was a violent conflict, but denies they are entering a civil war: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/escalating-violence-in-syria-doesnt-equal-civil-war-activists-say/

Therefore in conclusion, no such consensus was reached. Until then, the word "uprising" must stay for now. Like it or not you have to accept the fact. 115.132.41.110 (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

From how I understand your argument, Sopher, your logic seems flawed. If you're right that the media take their cue from the UN, then it shouldn't take them long to switch their terminology to 'civil war' as soon as Ban Ki-moon calls the conflict a civil war. So then why do you insist we change the name as soon as Ban Ki-moon does so, instead of waiting a few days until the media have copied this terminology? Only the latter option ensures that the right WP:COMMONNAME procedure is followed. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition

I just created List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition to help us in the future in having a supporting reference about the geography of the conflict and maybe even allow us to create a map for the conflict. I thought it would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it seems helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. In the future, this list will make the creation of a map really easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on a template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…)Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion and receiving delete votes from editors who are not involved in editing Syria articles. Take a look at the article (List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition) and see if you find it could be useful and if you would like to vote in the deletion discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_areas_currently_held_by_Syrian_opposition Tradedia (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it into a map instead? --78.1.183.86 (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah

Shouldn't Hezbollah be listed as a direct belligerent rather than a supporter? It's listed as a direct belligerent on the page for the Battle of Zabadani, and has suffered over a hundred killed. It just seems so bizarrely inconsistent. --68.8.14.28 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

no they shouldnt be listed in that article or this one because they have not declared they are involved in the war and i find it odd that al arabiyah has that info and press tv does not. Baboon43 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah can't really declare war since it isn't a nation. Anyway, you don't need to declare war officially to be listed as a belligerent on Wikipedia; see the Korean War article.--68.8.14.28 (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

Just wanted to say that claiming numbers stated by a rebel force is never a "good" idea. Heck who should they even know.. Article lacks quite heavily neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.110.192 (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW and who is reading the indorsement "*Number possibly higher due to the opposition counting rebels that were not defectors as civilians.[24]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.110.192 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but then who's claim we should add? That's the question. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The casualties are neutral. We do in fact have both sides of the claims presented. The Syrian government is in fact more unreliable, as they restrict media access and have a higher frequency of falsifications. Sopher99 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly did it for avoiding gossips, or else we will have 1000s of more sopher99 around, Hahaha!Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

All users here are fully aware of the need for neutrality, which fully entails the use of opposition reports. You are wrong to call me out directly on this. Sopher99 (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but somethings should be noted like, for example it's written "3300 rebels and supporters killed", but why there's nothing like 'supporters' being added to the index of Pro-Assad? Clarificationgiven (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Rebels and opposition do not retain a command structure or hierarchy of positions anywhere close to what the Syrian government has, and why not? They are the Syrian government after all. There are defined occupations and chains of command ranging anywhere from baath party secretaries to lieutenants officers in the security directorate. Members of the opposition have a lot more vague roles, mostly due to the fact they were just formed a year ago. As such the clearest way is to express an unarmed opposition is a "supporter". Sopher99 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the oppositions numbers are as unreliable as the governments figures. But, we don't have the luxury of a neutral organisation on the ground so we cope with what we got. For now, the only realistic figure we have is the number of government forces dead, 4,300+, due to the numbers from both the opposition and the government overlapping on this toll. The number of defectors killed, based on the VDC and the Shuhada websites, as seen in the combatants section, can be placed well over 1,800. The tricky part now is the number of civilians and rebels who were not defectors that have died due to every opposition group counting them all as just civilians. I have managed to confirm, among the oppositions figure of 11,900-13,500 civilians through reliable sources, the deaths of at least 2,000 rebels that were not defectors. However, I think this number is by at least 1,000 higher, but I can't add that to the box due to it than being OR. That's why the note Number possibly higher due to the opposition counting rebels that were not defectors as civilians is there.So, like I said, we stick with what we have. EkoGraf (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Basij

I am not happy with the sourcing of the number of Basij. The linked source does not mention the word Basij, yet it forms part of some synthetic OR that gives a total 85 such fighters killed. Fanzine999 (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the word Basij is not in the ohchr report when referring to the three reported executed snipers. But, the only Iranians that are reported to be in Syria are the Basij. No other Iranian combatant groups have been reported to be in Syria. And the opposition has been talking about the Basij exclusively when claiming Iranian snipers are firing on the protesters and rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's still a problem for you we can than remove the word Basij from the infobox and just say Iran. Although, again, they are the only Iranian group reportedly present at the moment in the country. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Eko. It's more for me just a matter of we have to accurately represent what the source says. I have no doubt you are right, but that for me is the issue. Fanzine999 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

CIA, Mossad and Blackwater

Again and again, every expression about the involvement of foreign powers (especially US and Israeli) are being considered as unreliable statements. It seems that Wikipedia has turned into a great bulk of anti-Syria propaganda. I insist to add CIA, Mossad and Blackwater in the list of opposition supporters.--Preacher lad (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but only if it is backed-up by reliable sources. Your source, a politician of a Turkish Muslim conservative party which never even made the threshold to enter parliament, isn't what I would call reliable. Let's wait and see what the other editors say. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

if iran and hezbollah is included than i dont see why mossad and c.i.a cant be included since these groups like to play proxy wars in the region. Baboon43 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Right on Baboon43, i am sure that they should be included.[28] Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)