Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.128.221.196 (talk) at 17:46, 30 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Even Assad said Syria is in a state of war

So why hasn't the name been changed yet?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move to Syrian Civil War title

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

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

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

      • The count currently stands at 32 unique supports compared to 14 unique opposes in all (both rename and closure sections). Wikipedia's neither a poll or a democracy, but so far the percentage is 70% in favor of changing the article's name, which I believe qualify's as consensus. (A sharp change compared to 14-15 two months ago). I7laseral (talk) I7laseral (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. This represents a majority but, is not enough for a consensus. As it stands now, there is no consensus. So the title stays the same and is not changed. Tradedia (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria do you have to make that point? I think 2-1 is consensus. I7laseral (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't close - if 33% oppose, it's not a consensus! While a consensus does not exclude the possibility of there being dissidents, they should be a small minority. If as much as 33% of participants disagree, then there wasn't a consensus in the first place.- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought 33 percent is a minority when you compare to 67 percent? Side-note, 22 at the moment support and 10 oppose, that's 31.25 percent against the term civil war. And the number is still going down. Ok, we wait a bit longer Taal to see opinions of others on the matter, but in the last 24 hours the oppose number has only been going down since the head of the UN peacekeeping mission has declared the country to be in a state of civil war. You cann't get more official than the UN. EkoGraf (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus is defined as a general agreement or even as an opinion that everyone in a group agrees with or accepts. Under neither of those definitions does 67% agreement qualify as a consensus. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be someone who disagrees. But fine, ok, we see how the situation developes in the next few days and hold of on the consensus thing. Although, I think the reality is starting to sink in (French foreign minister has called it a civil war half an hour ago). EkoGraf (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but your evidence only shows that the term "civil war" is commonly used, not that "uprising" is out of use yet. So please provide more convincing evidence or accept the facts. Thanks. --Bassmachine89 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But is uprising out of use yet? We should check if that is still be used as well. Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though previously i had opposed such a move, the collapse of the Kofi Annan peace plan and surging violence, as well as the shift in COMMONNAME referation by sources to the conflict as a "civil war" justify the rename of the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Has all the criteria of a civil war, sources constantly saying that this is war, borderline civil war. Enough sources say that this is a civil war falsely called a ceasefire. Sopher99 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult decision. Most of the sources I've seen say that Syria almost meets the threshold for a civil war. But when you look at what's happening, it seems as if the hostilities are only increasing in numbers on both sides. In my eyes, it is now a de facto civil war. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - With the UN now calling it a civil war, the few outlets still saying it 'could become a civil war' will switch over within days -- Smurfy 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, altogether premature. Iraq had a much longer and bloodier insurgency, but the term "civil war" was not used to describe it in mainstream media sources. Generally, the term "civil war" tends to be used when both sides semi-permanently hold and govern distinct territories (US civil war 1860s, Spanish civil war 1930s) albeit with shifting front lines; it does not tend to be used when one side is a guerrilla or insurgency movement that does not try to permanently hold territory (i.e., insurgents slip away and melt into the general population whenever central government troops show up in force in any one particular location), and there are no "front lines". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Aufrette, you are a bit wrong. What happened in Iraq was called in the mainstream media sources a civil war. And we even have an article, see Civil war in Iraq. Also, on the question of holding territory. Most sources at the moment state that the FSA is holding under its control the entire northern part of Idlib province and some parts of the central Hama and Homs provinces. So there actually are frontlines and no-mans lands in Syria at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per arguments made by Greyshark, Sopher, and EkoGraf. I7laseral (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the previous state didn't change, there is "worries" of a civil war, but no one use the term "Civil war" itself yet, it is still "uprising", "crisis", "protests" etc. Besides, there is still two independent types of movements in Syria; peaceful and military, and even if the conflict is taking increasingly a sectarian scope, it didn't become an obvious sectarian war at all. Until this changes, it is still very early to call it a "Civil war". By the way, taking a fast look at BBC, France24, Reuters and Al-jazzera, I don't see anyone calling it a civil war, it doesn't seems really a notable term yet as said above --aad_Dira (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose Uprising remains a more accurate depiction of what's happening. It's not a war between two organizations within the country, but rather an uprising of the citizens against the government. --mjlissner (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (see below for reason I changed my mind) - a civil war is when the civil population of a nation fightes along ethnic/racial/religious lines; however in Syria people are fighting against government led, organized and equipped security forces, who have been ordered to suppress all opposition. It will be a civil war when whole units of the military change sides and civilians on a large scale begin to fight against each other. As of now it is overwhelmingly civilians vs. government forces - hence uprising is the appropriate term. Syria is definitely heading to a civil war, but it is not there yet! We can not glass-bowl here what events the future brings! Please also note the the British Foreign Secretary defined the situation is Syria today as "We're on the edge of that kind of sectarian murder on a large scale" - therefore: wait and see! (read also: Sign of growing sectarian strife and/or Can Syria avoid sliding into 'catastrophic civil war'?) noclador (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Civilians still count as civil war: Algerian civil war, russian civil war, Costa rica civil war, Colombian civil war, ect. Besides you do realize the FSA is almost all military defectors? I7laseral (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources call it a civil war? If you listen closely all politicians refer to it something that might/will/could become a civil war and so does the press! Besides - do you understand the difference between "defectors" and "whole units of the military"?? noclador (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with this official announcement, my earlier call to wait has been superseded; Therefore: close discussion, and move. noclador (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, The only reason why sources are not calling this a civil war is because no media taken the lede in doing so. All the media just copycat's each other. I guarantee that after 1-2 weeks of wikipedia changing the name to civil war, all other media will follow. Zenithfel (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reasoning is reversed here, see WP:NOT and WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting any particular terminology or naming scheme. We generally look to secondary sources like news media for usage guidance, not vice versa. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that we should take the media issue down a notch, and the facts issue up a notch. Zenithfel (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“facts issue”? In Wikipedia, all facts come from sources. In this kind of wiki articles, the sources are the media. Tradedia (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=273364&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter --93.137.197.52 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is actually why we should not change the name. This guy wrote a whole article trying to convince us that Syria is in civil war. This shows that it is still far from obvious in the mainstream that it is a civil war. No one would be writing an op ed piece stating the obvious… Tradedia (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This same CNN article also says: "In both places we've seen not just more armed clashes than ever in the past, but also a revival of the protest movement in its peaceful dimension (my emphasis)Tradedia (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't link to any specific CNN article.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I googled what you wrote: “CNN is saying that the battle for the two largest cities of Syria has begun.” and found the article you were talking about. I link it here: Syria: Battle for the cities, CNN Tradedia (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Truth by consensus is not enough in itself to warrant a move and/or rename of the article in question. Whilst by simple definition the events may constitute as a civil war (OED: Civil war, n. a war between citizens of the same country), in reality and in practise the events that constitute a civil war are much more complex than simple argumentum ad populum, circular definition, and in itself is a wicked problem. The parameters of the current conflict do not constitute a civil war under international law under the Geneva Conventions - Fourth Geneva Convention, customary international law or the United Nations Charter a.39 (per the general rules of interpretation: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic), of which all members are assigned, per the Syrian Arab Republic being member to the United Nations.--D Namtar 00:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus matters alot on wikipedia and we should not go with dic def opinions rather we should go with the sources found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not an opinion peace based upon Opinion Journalism. As in the case of your "New Reliable Sources", (of which I chuckled at the fact you included a Daily Mail article amongst them - Especially when in the right hand bar, there is a William Hague article regarding Syria as not yet reached the ultimatum). If you wish to ignore the VCLT I aforementioned as part of International Law for Opinion Journalism then be my guest, but if you think that is how Wikipedia solely operates then you are sadly mistaken. Consensus is an important part of Wikipedia, but even more so is neutrality, Wikipedia does not take sides. Consensus is not black and white, even within Wikipedia policy, which is why this discussion is taking place to resolve this impasse. Your statement is nothing more than the obvious, as to why this discussion is in function in the first place, and furthermore you clearly did not read my original statement as I argued against the use of the dictionary definition, not for it, rather I utilized International Law regarding the issue, not opinion pieces. Any further opinion disputes and/or canvassing in response to this can be made on my talk page, this is not the place to do so. --D Namtar 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth Geneva Convention does not define what civil war is and what is not. Read sources you like to use again. And with that article 39 you have got to be kidding. As for sources, little googling can make everyone life easier. [3] [4] (remove the slash) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] And these sources are just recent. Here are few sources from last year which call it as such [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The selective reading of users here is astounding. No, it does not, which is why I elaborated upon the points in relation to the VCLT as aforementioned. Again (as aforementioned), if you or other uses wish to canvas (especially with freelance Opinion Journalism of the same editorial tripe as outlined in my previous statement), do so on my Talk Page. Per Wikipedia guidelines this is not the place to do so, nor the place to argue semantics, rhetoric, nor the social, political, or cultural definition of a non-neutral term.--D Namtar 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strongly oppose - Just like the last time we had this discussion, authoritative sources are in fact NOT calling this a civil war. Just yesterday, British foreign minister William Hague warned that Syria "is on the edge of civil war",[25] UN chief Ban Ki-Moon has said that there is an "imminent and real threat" of civil war[26] and Kofi Annan warned that "if things do not change, the future is likely to be one of (...) civil war".[27] Note how none of them are saying that it is currently a civil war! - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - We can change the article name to civil war, and then in the opening sentence say the conflict is an uprising and de facto civil war, alerting readers that common media may or may not be calling it a civil war. I7laseral (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is no such a thing as “de facto” in Wikipedia. We only reflect what our sources (media) say. If the majority of the media is not calling it civil war, we shouldn’t either. We don’t go against the media. We are not better or smarter than the media. Tradedia (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes absolutely no sense here i.m.o. De facto is used in contrast with de jure, which doesn't apply here: there's no such thing as a 'de jure civil war', as there are no laws defining civil wars. This either is a civil war or it isn't; it can't be a 'de facto civil war'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The common name by reliable sources is not the Syrian civil war. Wikipedia policy is to follow the news not lead the news in naming events. Also, those wishing to change the name have the burden of proof to show that common reliable sources such as the nytimes, wall street journal, washington post, guardian, bbc, cnn, etc. are calling the event now the Syrian civil war, so far a set of solid references for naming it the Syrian civil war has not been presented. Guest2625 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im not finding much for "Syrian uprising" that is recent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for God knows how many time. This has seriously become a joke; the vast majority of people who have commented here have wanted to rename this, a number which has only increased since the collapse of the UN peace plan. The majority of news sources have referred to this as a civil war, it is a civil war by all definitions. This is by far the most retarded debate over a name that I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and it is being continued by a select few people who were opposed to it in the beginning and continue to comment and argue with the people who do support it simply because THEIR chosen source has never referred to it as such or they're holding out for some elusive common name which for political reasons is never going to occur in the lifetime of the conflict. Pull your heads out of your asses, people. --71.87.213.78 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC} Please log in before voting. Your anonymous vote arouses suspicion, particularly because you imply that this is the "God knows how many time" you've made this point, yet your IP address shows only 2 previous contributions to Wikipedia. -TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • MAJOR NEWS FLASH The head of UN peacekeeping says Syria is now in a state of civil war. Source here [28]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a UN official has said the same thing in December 2011 (see EllsworthSK’s links above) but the media did not follow him. Besides, in this Al Jazeera article that is similar to your BBC one, it says: “Kieran Dwyer, a spokesman for the UN peacekeeping department, told Al Jazeera that Landous' description was "related to what is going on in the last five days." We should not change the title of the wiki article based on 5 days. We need to wait for a majority of the media to permanently change the way they talk about the conflict… Tradedia (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take blame for this, I just copied links which I used in December without reading them. UN officials in fact didnt call it back than as civil war, but as close to civil war. They were misunderstood by media which corrected themself later on. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were correct. The UN official was not misunderstood. She said exactly: "As soon as there were more and more defectors threatening to take up arms, I said this in August before the Security Council, that there's going to be a civil war," Pillay told reporters in Geneva. "And at the moment that's how I am characterizing this." So the UN official did call it civil war back in december. Tradedia (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have good memory. I remember discussing this on this very same page, it is in archive. Anyway, if you do not believe it take a look at this [29]. She was not characterizing situation as civil war, but as close to civil war (ie she characterized situation as As soon as there were more and more defectors threatening to take up arms that there's going to be a civil war) EllsworthSK (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you have it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure

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

Agreed media was just quoting UN on whether or not it is a civil war. Now that UN says so most media would be obliged as well. I7laseral (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe trying to ask on WP:ANRFC? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the drive to rush this proposal through? At WP:RMCI, it is stated that editors should only move to get the discussion closed "after the normal seven day listing period has elapsed". This proposal for moving the article was coined on 9 June, which means that it has only been active for four days. Give editors some time to voice their opinion. The assertion that editors opposed to the proposal cannot possibly have any valid arguments is quite a one-sided view of things. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"here are some more sources now calling it a Civil war" No, these articles are simply reporting on what the UN official said. So it is only a one time thing. Tradedia (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only 15 minutes after you said it is a one time thing the French foreign minister has called it a civil war. Source here [31]. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also want me to report hour by hour on all the officials that did not call it a civil war? We know some sources are calling it civil war. However, the majority of sources are not. The UN and french officials said what they said in answering journalists questions and were reacting to the horrific events of the last few days... which does not mean they will keep saying this next week if things evolve in the direction of appeasement. I still consider it a one time thing because both officials (and others) are reacting to the same event (heavy battles in last few days). We are an encyclopedia and a name change is a very radical move that requires we wait for the dust to settle instead of reacting (over-reacting) to the hour by hour events... Tradedia (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So far, the only authoritative source calling it a civil war is one UN observer. The last time people like Kofi Annan, Barack Obama or Ban Ki-Moon spoke about the conflict in public, they were still referring to it as an uprising. One source can surely not be enough to change the title of this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
French foreign minister has called it a civil war. Source here [32]. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move strongly: new phase = new article A new phase means a new article should be create. Sources are flooding. If we really have a civil war to cover, we need a new space (article) to cover it with a fresh outline dedicated to this raising "civil war" topic. Yug (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every civil war doesn't start as a war, but as a revolt, uprising etc. This is still the same event, just evolved as one other editor put it. The direct FSA-Army fighting has been going on since at least August of last year. No reason to create a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is an inquiry, can you please be more specific? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he wanted to say so what if they say it is not a civil war. The US called Vietnam a police action but you don't see us calling it the Vietnam police action but the Vietnam war. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite important, because the Syrian government's denial that the situation is a civil war effectively means that renaming this article "Syrian civil war" is taking sides in the conflict, which violates WP:NPOV. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DId Gaddafi call the Libyan civil war a civil war? Nope. Sopher99 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eko is right and I am screenshoting this TaalVerbeteraar answer for future usage. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a screenshot, you can simply use the diff. I can't see what future usage you envision, though. If you're hoping to somehow catch me on being inconsistent in my points of view: good luck. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it as pretty good sarcastic remark, it can be useful when I try to be funny (so far I have not succeeded in that matter). I mean, it´s great argument - if one participant of the conflict, unreliable source by that very definition, does not call it civil war, than screw all other RS, we cannot call it as such as well because we would be taking sides even though other side call it revolution. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that the government of Syria is going to admit that they are in a civil war? In any case we cant use their statement as per above it is WP:NPOV - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good one. As if statements from other organizations aren't POV. And yes, many governments have actually acknowledged that their countries were in a state of civil war, such as many African countries. I think Somalia might be a currently ongoing example. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the BBC's Jim Muir notes, both sides reject the term "civil war" to describe the present conflict on ideological grounds, and "the appellation has not become official UN policy."[1] weriov (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same Jim Muir also says in the same paragraph that the chief of the UN mission is right in his assessment that its a civil war.
And yet, he is wrong. Rebels are calling it war (and revolution) for some time. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1- Syrian Army deploys tanks to Daraa late in April. Deployment of heavy weapons to curb protests becomes widespread.
2- Rebels in the mountainous area of Jisr as-Shughur clash unsuccessfully with the Syrian Army in the first reported significant militant action in June. Free Officers Movement formed this month, and the Free Syrian Army follows in July. I'm not sure holding a mountainous area by insurgents qualifies as "territory".
3- The Syrian Army kicks out the FSA from Rastan in September, showing more clearly a town in the heart of Syria being held by rebels as "territory". Battle of Rastan, 2011 In October clashes for control of the Jabal az-Zawiya region erupted with inconclusive results.
4- In early December the FSA assaults a military base - the headquarters of Air Force Intelligence. Russia says that Syria is "like a civil war". This marks the first such escalation in tactics to include outright assaults on core targets by the FSA.
5- By mid January, Douma and Zabadani, two Damascene towns, are held by the FSA. Additionally, towns and cities all over Syria, especially Homs and Idlib, are captured by the FSA, who declares that "50% of Syria" is under its control. I believe this period in January is where it became clear that the FSA is a potent force holding territory. Assad commences an assault on Damascene FSA territory the same month, retakes Homs in an all out military assault in February, and does the same to Idlib in March. In February more FSA fighting in Zabadani and Douma emerges, and in March the first clashes in al Mezzeh, a neighbourhood of Damascus city, erupt.
The FSA has been expelled from towns like Douma and Zabadani in Damascus; Saraqeb, and Taftanaz in Idlib; and Haffa in Latakia. Additionally, the FSA still has several positions in Rastan, Talbieseh, Qusayr and Homs city in Homs, Idlib city and several localities in Idlib, and Azaz in Aleppo, as well as a presence in Hama, Daraa, Damascus, and Deir ez-Zour. Recently, the FSA has clashed control on more than one occasion of neighbourhoods in the heart of Damascus such as al Mezzeh, and recently controlled it briefly. Right now Aleppo is under siege by the regime with the FSA operating in the city. Towns and localities switch hands all the time all over Syria. I think we passed the civil war mark ages ago. At best, it entered the civil war phase in January, when the government lost control of several major parts of the country. The government can't even control cities without occupying them because the citizens themselves will support an insurrection. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are based on predictions and personal opinion:
-“the fact that the UN monitor head himself called it a civil war, though in itself of little significance” = I agree with you.
-“and will likely encourage usage of this term from now on.” = This is a prediction that might or might not happen.
-“will make an impact on the terminology used by mainstream sources.” = again this is a prediction
-“so it's not gonna die.” = prediction again.
-“here's my timeline of the crisis based on what I've understood so far:…” = this is primary research and your personal opinion.
How about we just wait for the majority of the media to routinely talk about it as a war instead of making personal predictions? Tradedia (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest UN statement: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA[33]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

On a different note

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libyan_civil_war/Archive_3#Rename_Article_from_.22uprising.22_to_.22Civil_War.22_or_.22Revolution.3F.22

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

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

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

No, that is not actually true. You're linking to a move request from February 2011, which resulted in the article not being moved because of lack of consensus. By the time the Libyan article was actually moved, in March 2011, it was not only CNN, but also the Red Cross ([34]) and president Obama who were calling the conflict a civil war. Which is much more than merely a UN observer describing the situation as a civil war, as in Syria. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are def more than 2 sources here calling this a "civil war" that are not echo reports of the UN statement CBS and MSNBC to name 2 as I showed above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didn't make my statement clear. I meant there were only two sources originally calling the libyan conflict a civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No you did im saying that with all the sources that are not echo reports im surprised that this is so much of an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Its not that the UN, France, and others are now calling this a civil war - it is that they are now calling this a civil war After there has already been many reliable sources that have called this a civil war (please see above). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

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

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

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

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

Here you have it

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

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

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

So the article has been moved

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

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

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

Tradedia (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military conflict infobox

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

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

Syrian rebels

Heres an article that questions the moral legitimacy of the rebels. Does anybody have ideas as to how to incorporate this into the article? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9321068/Channel-4-journalist-Alex-Thomson-says-Syria-rebels-led-me-into-death-trap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Un rights reports that the former assad soldiers are not perfect. This article is not defending anyone's moral legitimacy or not. Sopher99 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-There you go again Sopher, "former assad (sic) soldiers." Your writing is intertwined with propaganda that leads me to question your motives in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Syrian army is mostly made up of former Assad soldiers. Its a fact. Logically, I would expect the former Assad soldiers to have a similar mentality as they did serving under Assad.Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address if you look at the contributions, is an obvious vandal. Could likely be ChronicalUsual. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you should put the Syrian Revolutionary Front's number of fighters : 12,000 fighters view here =======> http://jn1.tv/video/news?media_id=28385 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New phase : new article need (Syrian civil war)

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

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

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

Foreign fighters on the side of the rebels

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

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

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

Why the name is not changed now?

I don't understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

flaw with main picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN retracts civil war claim

Seems like this is being ignored, so to make it clear: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA[35]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Front Image

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

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

Facebook Page of SOHR

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

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


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

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

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

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

Title 2

The title has been moved back to "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" by Dpmuk, move discussion was closed as "no consensus". -- Luke (Talk) 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move it so badly, at least do it properly. There has not been any civil war before it, therefore the year is unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed The years are not needed in the title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German, Italian and some other wikipedias also used the designation of civil war, moreover from 2011! Doncsecztalk 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that it hasn't been referred to as THE Syrian Civil War, therefore, civil and war shouldn't be capitalized. Jeancey (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, there was no civil war prior to this conflict, so the (2011-present) in not needed. -- Luke (Talk) 03:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the title is disputed, if the Civil war title sticks we can fix it then =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other civil wars was in the beginning uprisings, or wars againts a other state. The prelude of the Syrian Civil War was the Syrian uprising. Otherwise also the German Wikipedia dated 2011 the start of the Civil War (and the prelude is the uprising). Doncsecztalk 06:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish F-4 fighter shot down

I've added this recent development to the article. I'm wondering how people think this should be incorporated into the article/infobox if this escalates further or if it should be split. Obviously if NATO got involved completely, we would probably have an article like the one about the international intervention in Libya, but it will probably remain a diplomatic crisis before anything of that scale potentially happens. Hello32020 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have place it in the infobox, as a opposition casualtie since the aircraft was flying in syrian airspace, probably gathering intelligence for the opposition, which is harbored and funded partially by Turkey.--Maldonado91 (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably gathering information for opposition? It look like original research. This article is not for spacalation but for facts published in reliable sources.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is analyst search http://www.examiner. com/article/turkey-caught-peeking-syria-s-back-yard?cid=rss--Maldonado91 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't exclude possibility they were trying to provoke the Syrians. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was possibly to test the newly russian supplied and trained syrian air defenses. Anyway, Turkey is supporting rebels and I doubt very higly that without this context , this Turkish fighter aircraft whould have been downed. --Maldonado91 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Turkish airplane was shot down above Syrian territorial waters not above surface where pro and contra-Assad forces fight against each other. Second, I can't see how Turkish airplane gather information for Syrian opposition fighters when they don't lead attacking operations, only defensive in some areas. As I read it was not unusual for Turkish aircraft to get in this area but now Syrian AA forces react and shot it down. It is border incident between two countries, not Turkish military operation against Syria.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wether its territorial waters or above the surface, Syria is Syria. And saying the rebels don't lead attacking operations is simply wrong. Just in the last few days they have started an offensive operation to recapture Baba Amr. EkoGraf (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was shot 1km off the syrian coast. --Maldonado91 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's Syria hehe. :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that territorial waters are territory of Syria. My point was that it is strange that Turkish airplane above Syrian territorial waters collect information for Syrian rebels. I think that we can threat this event as heavy border incident. Maybe it should be elaborated in specific article?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Ok to start article Turkish F-4 Phantom shot down incident? I think that there are enough material for specific article and subject is separated enough from mainstream events to put into specific page.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, does every single incident need an article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not if there are enough independent sources?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it results in anything, then yes, but as for now, it's less than a footnote in this conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this video[36] might show the shootdown, and provide some indication whether turkish or syrian side are right on the location - I don't know if this is a good source Karpaat (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stop changing the lede

The article is over 180k characters long, and warrants an extensive lede. Besides the lede has already been discussed and established by concensus 2 months ago.

Further more I see total hypocrisy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)

I7laseral (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article is the same you should know that, I do not see why this article needs info that can easily be placed elsewhere in teh article here, the lead is a short summary not a long intro per WP:LEAD - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see why we can sum up a confusing overwhelming amount of information in the lede just like the other articles do. I7laseral (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the lead is at 3 to 4 paragraphs, not everything in the article needs to be in the lead just the highlights of the conflict. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say everything in the article needs to be in the lede. I am just saying the lede in insufficient, at that many articles on wikipedia go to 6 paragraphs in the lede, particularly in war articles, like this one. I7laseral (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said every article is diffrent the ones with 6 paragraphs in the lead go against WP:LEAD, using WP:OTHERSTUFF as an arguement here does not fly by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section I removed was about the children and civilian deaths in the lead however the lead already gives an estimate on the total amount of people killed ("According to various sources, including the United Nations, up to 15,200–21,390 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 7,000–7,480 armed combatants from both sides and up to 1,400 opposition protesters.") so in a way it is listing the same info twice, I didnt get rid of the info though as it is well referenced so I placed it under the deaths section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lede, are all the mentions of United Nations, Arab League,European Union, Gulf states, China, Russia, Lebanon, Jordan really that useful for the lede? The both observing missions seem also being from the past.--Maldonado91 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus????

Is this real? So now an admin can say no consensus by removing each vote he does not like? Has Wikipedia adopted Laurent Gbagbo or Egyptian constitutional court methods? I believe this is a case of admin abuse and that the process should be restarted properly --Maldonado91 (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of my closure of Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present)#Requested move to Syrian Civil War title. Dpmuk (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Move because there is consensus

This requested move is a disruptive re-creation of a recently closed move request that did not achieve consensus to move, and is being closed as such. Additional similar immediate move requests will lead to blocks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War –

The precedent move had a large and vast consensus in favour of a move. But it appear that using some confusion about the organization of the process, an admin blocked the move per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. So let's rebegin the process without making any mistakes, for clearly showing the wide consensus here on Wikipedia.

I think we need moves to be explained:

Officials sources calling it civil war:

French official calls it civil war. The chief of UN monitors calls it civil war.

Media sources calling it civil war:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kFZ0OZP.BoAtCtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyY2lvdnUwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTNzBfODQ-/SIG=136etgem9/EXP=1340555481/**http%3a//news.yahoo.com/syria-conflict-now-civil-war-u-n-peacekeeping-165010818.html

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

The shift in the use of the name has been very heavy.

Here a comparator of searches between "Syria civil war" and "Syria Uprising" http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Syria+Civil+War&word2=Syria+Uprising. The terms Syria civil war is a lot more used over the web.

And finally, the definition:

The conflict is a civil war per Wikipedia definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

And between all online dictionnaries: 1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

civil war noun :a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

And what is a war? a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties

There is everything: Officials, common name, proper definition. And there is also consensus. Let making it again so the admin can't ignore it this time. --Maldonado91 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, it's still just called "unrest in Syria" by news sources and such. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Funded and supported by"

There are some issues there. Why for example is Hezbollah, and not Russia, listed as supporting Syria? Hezbollah is only one of a myriad of Lebanese groups supporting the government (there are Christian and even Sunni groups that support them), why should they be listed over anyone else? And there are now reports that the CIA are helping the FSA in Turkey, so the US is directly involved too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not funding, nor supporting Syria. They are not funding Syria, they have a customer relation with this country and do not provide any fund unlike Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey. Someone removeed the United States mention... --Maldonado91 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if Russia is not supporting Syria, how is Hezbollah, which does even less? And as for the US, it should be added when more reports of CIA involvement comes in. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Maldonado said, Russia is not supporting Syria, which they themselves have said, they are in a customer relation. Hezbollah is however providing military support in the form of military advisors and some fighters. Note - Opposition confirmed at least 120 Hezbollah fighters killed in the conflict. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are providing funding, weapons and housing, which are not of a legal nature, to the opposition, thus they fall into the category funded and supported by. EkoGraf (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol at the "confirmation". A couple of months ago, they claimed the government had used chemical attacks against them, so such accounts are not sufficient. And still, why is the US[37] not in the box? FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not in the box because they still haven't provided any support to the opposition. They are still only assessing wether to provide them with assisstence. That's why the reported CIA teams are in the field at the moment. They are trying to distinguish the radicals from the moderates and the uncoordinated from the coordinated groups. I personally think that unless there is a major policy shift change by Obama the US is gonna stay on the sidelines for the moment, despite what Clinton is saying which anybody can see that she has her own agenda independent of Obama which can be seen in the twos different speaches on the Syria situation. EkoGraf (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So once they arbitrarily "distinguish between moderates and radicals" (are any armed insurgents "moderate"?), we can expect that they at least divert weapons bought by Gulf states to these fighters, and then they're directly involved, and have to be in the box. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just replying to your question as it is. Anyway, seems someone found a nice compromise solution. Two categories. Economic and military support and Political support. I think its better now than even before. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remark concerning closed discussion Move because there is consensus

enough already - there's plenty of blocks for disruption available for everyone. Focus on the content for now, worry about the title later (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just to say that the Google 'fight' used is incorrect: the search terms should include double quotes:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syria+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syria+Uprising%22
The winner is now Syria Uprising.

The victory becomes even more conclusive when you do this 'battle' (Syria ——> Syrian):
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syrian+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syrian+Uprising%22

By leaving out the double quotes, one is partially weighting the comparison of terms by whether the word war is more common than uprising, regardless of context. This is not the relevant comparison. Fanzine999 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at another 'battle', though: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22civil+war+in+syria%22&word2=%22uprising+in+syria%22
civil war in Syria wins this one easily. Fanzine999 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the best two results: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22civil+war+in+syria%22&word2=%22syrian+uprising%22
Syrian uprising gets 50% more results than civil war in Syria. Fanzine999 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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."[2]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Why two?!

Only ONE F4-Phantom is missing, not two. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.111.116 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say 2 F4 Phantoms shot down and missing, it says 2 F4 Phantom pilots shot down and missing. Read carefully please before asking for and edit. EkoGraf (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Full protect 3 days, move protected 2 days, to let things iron out, due to multiple requests. Please use this time to discuss, find consensus, move forward. Any admin is free to modify this protection in any way without permission. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18421334
  2. ^ "Syria: Reports of helicopter shipments underscore need for arms embargo". Amnesty International. 19 June 2012. Retrieved 25 June 2012.

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The middle class is not just in Damascus, you got the whole rest of the country. Besides, read this [38] 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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If the President is calling it a war, then it probably is a war. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Its not war but foreplay. No point debating a non starter Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreplay? Tell that to the ones lying in those mass graves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Well, here is the link: [39] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Oh, come on... has Al-Jazeera ever lied to you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Socrates talked about Jews? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:RSN It was discussed there, together with al Arabiya. It is reliable source. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Russia Today is definitely government controlled. That's a big part of Putin's so called "dictatorship" by this CNN blog by Fareed Zakaria [40]. 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)[reply]
Jazeera never criticises the Qatari government, what does that mean? FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In an amazing coincidence, Qatar is Arabic for "Delaware". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[41] . Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Russia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CNN

CNN, a major RS, is now calling it a civil war.[42]. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Actually, this is the first time I have heared them call it a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 [43]. 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)

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)

  1. ^ http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/syrian-rebels-gaining-upper-hand/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war&oldid=500073379"