Talk:Civil war

This doesn't seem right. The Spanish, Chinese and Russian civil wars were won by the rebelling side, and in the case of China and Russia, it is referred as both a revolution and a civil war.

I disagree. I have removed this section until someone can rework it:

Many revolutions were in fact civil wars. If the rebelling party was successful in overthrowing the established government, it is usually termed a revolution, but if they were not successful it is usually termed a civil war. Famous revolutions include the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Mexican Revolution and the Irish Revolution.K8I .H. WAS ERE 2006

I don't think that is quite right. The overthrow of the established regime is essential if either of the terms revolution or coup are to be applied. It is not the case though that every failed revolution is a civil war or that every revolution is a civil war. The term Revolution would not have been applicable to the US Civil war if the South had won.

In the English civil war there were two powers with rival (and substantial) claims to legitimacy. It is not a revolution as Parliament claimed to be acting to protect its existing rights not create new ones. The same is true in the US Civil war and the Spanish Civil war. The French Revolution was proclaimed as such, it war not really a civil war or for that matter much of a war of any sort. The same is true of the Russian Revolution. There was plenty of bloodshed but most of it happened after the new power was already in control. --Gorgonzilla 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

The Mexican Revolution is indeed a good example of a revolution that was also a civil war. But the opening generalization is false. In the English Civil War the rebelling party won, yet it was called a civil war not a revolution. Also, although the Americans won their revolution and it was called a revolution, I am not sure I would characterize it as a civil war -- there is a strong argument that the revolution only happened after Americans stopped thinking of themselves a English (or at least, those Americans who revolted). Moreover, the revolutionaries were not fighting for control over England (as was the case in the English Civil War). In short, I agree that there is some overlap between civil wars and revolutions, and the article ought to address this. But the claim that "If the rebelling party was successful in overthrowing the established government, it is usually termed a revolution, but if they were not successful it is usually termed a civil war." is at best unhelpful, at worst, misleading, SR

---

What is the English war between King Stephen and Empress Maud called? Surely that was a civil war that should be noted in this article. -- isis 3 Sep 2002

I am not sure but didn't the Holy Roman Empire have a civil war?

Traditionally (and not necessarily logically), the period of competition for the succession between Stephen and Matilda is referred to as "The Anarchy." This may be because it wasn't entirely internal. Matilda was the "empress" because she was sent to Germany at the age of seven to prepare for marriage to Henry V. Her 2nd husband was Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. For that matter, Stephen of Blois wasn't "English," either. With none of the principals being "English," it's never seemed like a "civil war." At least, that's how I've explained it to my own students! --Michael K. Smith 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)--Michael K. Smith 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Contributors to this page may wish to know someone has stolen the content without credit, violating our license. See Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (low degree of compliance), section Civil-War.ws. You may wish to contact the site at info@civil-war.ws to voice a complaint. Derrick Coetzee 00:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power.

I have a problem with this opening definition, in the context of the American Civil War. Without getting into the eternal, unwinnable political arguments of what the "causes" of that struggle were, it can be fairly argued that the goal of the Confederacy was not to take "control of state power" but to successfully secede -- i.e., to leave the Union and be left alone. You can make the same argument about Biafra's attempted secession and the resulting "Nigerian civil war." Thoughts, anyone? --Michael K. Smith 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Direct link to prominent ones?

Currently it takes three clicks to get to American Civil War from here, and it would take three clicks for English Civil War if that wasn't mentioned in the opening section. Would anyone object to me placing direct links to those in the disambiguation notice? Alternately, a link to list of civil wars would be helpful. --SPUI (talk) 01:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I would think that listing some of the major ones on Civil war (disambiguation) should be enough. - SimonP 01:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this entry to be biased. One example is regarding the Albigensians' beliefs to be "heresy" by the writer. This needs to be edited.

Definition of civil war

I'm not sure if this belongs in the article but it seems interesting. Juan Cole claims that this is a widely-adopted definition:

"Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.) '[1] --Lee Hunter 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Sambanis, Associate Professor of Political Science, Yale University wrote in an op-ed: "Civil wars are defined as armed conflicts between the government of a sovereign state and domestic political groups mounting effective resistance in relatively continuous fighting that causes high numbers of deaths. This broad definition does not always distinguish civil wars from other forms of political violence, so we often use somewhat arbitrary criteria, like different thresholds of annual deaths, to sort out cases. Depending on the criteria used, there have been about 100 to 150 civil wars since 1945. Iraq is clearly one of them." (New York Times, July 23, 2006, Late Edition - Final, Section 4, Page 13, Column 1 retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/opinion/23sambanis.html on July 25, 2006). He continues with a good argument that clarifies his definition. Sambanis' broad definition is desirable for Wikipedia as it would support a more comprehensive List of civil wars. Of course, in some instances, the existence any government may be disputed: can there be civil war within an anarchy? As for the American revolutionaries, they were not a "domestic political group" within a sovereign state since America was a colony. Problems: if a large distant territory formally united with its "mother country" (e.g., France with Algeria, Portugal with Brazil) houses a large, sustained armed campaign for independence is this an insurrection, a civil war or a revolution? What about the U.S. and Puerto Rico? Is a failed attempted revolution a revolution? A decision on how Wikipedia could best set its boundaries between insurrection, civil war, revolution and large-scale riots (e.g., 1967 Newark riots) requires more discussion here. Myron 12:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sambanis' definition is better than the current one, and I will make a change if there is no further discussion of this. Note that the current definition wrongly includes skirmishes between warlords and warfare occurring across national boundaries (among other deficiencies). The question of whether the situation in Iraq is already a civil war will of course raise argument here, but this may help improve the Wikipedia definition and may even clarify how to classify the organized violence in Iraq. Myron 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

"civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality." Is it just me or is this an incomplete sentence? I only ask because it's been this way for months, thought maybe I was missing something. --Joewithajay 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At what point does the escalation become a Civil War? The escalating sectarian violence in Iraq, has not been declared a Civil War, yet. At what point, or how many Sunnis and Shi'a have to die before it is a Civil War? (RobertHC 11:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

First sentence

I agree. I took the liberty of changing it to something more complete by adding the words "fight for control" to the end of it. none of this is correct...i am right...you are wrong! ah hahahah!'

Vandalism

This article has been vandalised so frequently, should it be semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draicone (talk • contribs)

I dunno. It often seems like no edits are done to this article except vandalism/reverts. See WP:SPP, this kind of falls in the grey area. It's not really kosher to just semi-protect an article perpetually because it might get vandalized. But then again, this article sees 10-20 vandal edits a month pretty much perpetually, spiking quite a bit when school is in session in the US/UK. But it doesn't seem to be anything we can't keep up with... so for now semi-protection doesn't really seem needed. --W.marsh 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The following passage uses condescending, unsupported and subjective terminology against monotheistic societies that do not respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I ask the moderators to please edit it with the following nuances (in bold text).

Quote: In the history of Abrahamic religions, civil wars fought over religion have tended to be reported more frequently in monotheistic societies than in polytheistic societies; one explanation is that the latter tend to be more easily "assimiliated" in terms of dogma, for being bound by strict articles of faith.

In its current version, the text not so subtly suggests that monotheists are bigots, whereas the destruction of Jerusalem by Saduceans Greeks and later Romans was caused by Greco-Romans' imposition of their worship views on Israelites, who refused assimilation. Likewise, early Christians were a persecuted sect under Roman polytheism, as are modern-day Falung Dung under Communist ideology in China. Conversely, Christianization of pagans during the Early middle ages showed an inverse movement against polytheists. The issue is that powerful groups tend to force their views over less powerful groups; the assertion that monotheism is by default more enclined to civil war is a subjective and highly debateable opinion.

In this article, teducing this complex issue to a gross presumed tendency of monotheists to impose their faith on polytheists is not a NPVO. Hence I ask the moderators to nuance the facts therein.

Thanks - ENB, Canada (Oct 5 2006)

"Criteria is"

The following sentence appears: "Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not)." Criteria *are*, not *is*. Since only one factor (prolonged violence) is named, the word should be "criterion." I'm not a trusted member, or whatever it's called, so I can't change it, but I wish someone would. Plkldf 13:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)PTK, Baltimore MD USA

Group sex party?

Under 'Post war' it says that 'in an international war the two parties merely have to agree to a group sex party'. This can't be right.