Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Even Assad said Syria is in a state of war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed addition on defections

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

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

Latest Syrian Defectors Are From Higher Ranks nytimes.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia again

I feel I need to explain it better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jury still out on the "civil war" issue

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

Data points:

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

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

WP:RS indicating ongoing transition to civil war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those news sources who have gone all the way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC Newsnight on 13/07/2012 called it a Civil war at 22:01 (minutes:seconds) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kvrk1/Newsnight_13_07_2012/ Erzan (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

International Red Cross now calls it a Civil War. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/14/uk-syria-crisis-icrc-idUKBRE86D09B20120714?feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA-GoogleNewsUK How long will Wikipedia wait to play catch up and change this from an uprising to Civil War? Erzan (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - There a great many names for armed conflicts and reliable sources, especially with contemporary on-going events will use them all. There are clearly divided positions on the name of this article, but as long as the contents are reliably sourced, the article will serve readers regardless of its specific title. This article is move protected for 60 days Mike Cline (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Enough time has passed to start a new request.

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

Mine is the following:

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

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

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

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

The civil war is a lot more closer

3) The big change in media use:

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

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

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

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

Yahoo: 'syrian civil war'

Yahoo: 'syrian uprising'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. See the media discussion below. The majority of media organisations are calling it a civil war at this point. The latest is NBC: "Q: Have we reached a tipping point in the conflict? A: My view was was that this was a civil war several months ago, and I think if there were any doubt [Syrian President Bashar] Assad answered that question a few days ago when he said this is a war on all fronts." [2] 188.222.88.79 (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Well, this has become more like a move requests-spam --aad_Dira (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of civil war usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Sources

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

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

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

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

• No -BBC: Here is the official BBC topic page for Syria. [3] It calls the conflict “Syria Conflict”. It contains all recent articles on Syria, and I can't find "civil war" anywhere here.
• No -Washington Post: Here is the official Washington Post topic page for Syria. [4] The title calls the conflict “Syria uprising”. No mention of civil war form the WP.
• Most Likely No Maybe -CNN: Here is the official CNN topic page for Syria. Again, don’t see civil war anywhere. Jacob102699 provided a link to a CNN video in which on the bottom, a tag says “From Protest to Civil War”. This is very vague. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Syria is in a civil war yet. Plus, almost all articles on CNN regarding Syria are not calling the conflict a civil war. Saddhiyama provided a few links to a few old articles mentioning that the UN peacekeeper is calling it a civil war, but his second linked article also mentions that "But U.N. Spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters Wednesday that it is up to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva to determine when the crisis in Syria is considered a civil war." I haven't seen any recent articles on CNN calling the conflict a civil war. He also provides a third link to an i-report video, which does describe the conflict as a civil war. However, i-reporters are not affiliated with CNN. It says clearly on the page that this content is "Not vetted for CNN".
• Probably Not -MSNBC: No official topic page for Syria. I don’t see any recent articles calling the conflict a civil war. [5] There are some articles saying that the conflict is escalating into a civil war.
• Maybe -Atlantic Wire: Here is the official Atlantic Wire topic page for Syria. [6] I see only one article calling this conflict a civil war. However, even the columnist admits that “The conflict in Syria isn't officially labeled a civil war”.
• Probably Not -Fox News: Here is the official Fox News topic page for Syria. [7] The only mention of civil war here are articles regarding UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, and articles saying that Syria is descending into a civil war, which is not the same as being in a civil war.
• Probably Not -France 24: Here is the official France 24 topic page for Syria. [8] The only articles mentioning civil war are those talking about the words spoken by UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous. The lead paragraph for the topic page and most articles provided on the page call the conflict an “uprising”.
• Yes -Daily Telegraph: Here is the official Telegraph topic page for Syria. [9] I see one article calling it a civil war. [10]
• Probably Yes -Jpost: Here is the official Jpost topic page for Syria. [11] There is an opinion article calling it a civil war. [12]
• Yes -Christian Science Monitor: No topic page for Syria. There are several articles saying Syria is in a civil war, including this one. [13]
• Yes -Time Magazine: Here is the official Time topic page for Syria. [14] There are several articles calling the conflict a civil war. [15]

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

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

• Maybe –The Globe and Mail: The article Ferrariguy90 cited has a almost vague title. [16] Also the article says the conflict is “increasingly takes on the character of an all-out civil war”. Again, this implies that Syria is heading towards a civil war, but it’s not quite there yet. It appears that the majority of recent articles on Syria from this source are not using the term “civil war”. [17]
• Probably Yes –Huffington Post: There is a topic page here for “Syria Civil War”. [18] However, there are also tags and topics for “Syria Crisis”, “Syria Conflict”, “Syria War”, and “Syria Uprising”. [19]
• No –NY times: Here is the topic page for Syria. [20] It contains an overview of the topic and all recent articles. I see mentions of Syria descending into civil war, and there is a mention of that UN peacekeeping chief calling this a civil war. However, I checked some of the recent articles, and none of them have used the word “civil war”, and most have used the word “uprising”.

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

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

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

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

STRONG Support, and move Note that the NY Times typically calls it a "Conflict", and sometimes a "War" [21]. "Uprising" seems to be on the outs. I'd classify it as Maybe. This means that including the NY Times, the above Media sources would are: 2 "No", 3 "Probably Not", 3 "Maybe", 1 "Probably Yes", and 3 "Yes". This is stronger support for calling it a "War" than an "Uprising. So to sum it up: "Civil War" has more Google hits, more major media organisations, and more Wikipedia editors behind it. Move it already! 85.115.58.180 (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

BBC Newsnight on 13/07/2012 called it a Civil war at 22:01 (minutes:seconds) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kvrk1/Newsnight_13_07_2012/ As usual the people editing Wiki are playing catch up with the world. Take your time. Erzan (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Google

Let this stand as proof:

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

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

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

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

UPDATED with quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Vote So Far

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support - A majority of sources now recognise the conflict as a civil war, and therefore the title must change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.117.68 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Belligerents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human rights violations section

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

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

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

Regime change bot needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping track of the sources calling it a civil war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN's definition of a civil war

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

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

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

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

Flaw in the "reliable media" argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hezbollah

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

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

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

Casualties

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

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

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

What about unknown, the rebels aren't an "army" or have at least a structure they can't even know the numbers, nobody can at least know. As it's done in other wiki projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.120.178 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I would be for unknown and in the article we could write what you said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.120.178 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Basij

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

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

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

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

I get you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

CIA, Mossad and Blackwater

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

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

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

I agree with Eko on the sourcing, but I don't have a problem with listing the US as a supporter. Let's keep it at the level of countries, though, rather than citing specific intelligence agencies. Iran is listed as a government supporter, so listing the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar with the other side seems fair enough. More on SCG International (not Blackwater: SCG is run by the former director of Blackwater/Academi): [22] [23] Fanzine999 (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm less happy with Clarification's source: "CIA, Mossad and Blackwater agents are involved in military violence in the Homs district, an Arab news agency exclusively reports. . . . Israeli, American and European-made weapons were also seized in the district." Regarding the weapons: I'm sure they were, given that Gulf states get their arms from us and most of the top arms dealers comprise the US and European countries. The actual military involvement claim comes via a Hizballah outfit from a lone government-aligned analyst, and were strongly denied. Claims of actual military involvement doesn't really match what we know so far from reliable sources. If the military involvement claims are true, the information will leak to the US press eventually anyway. Fanzine999 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The source you pointed to Clarification, al-Manar, a Hezbollah-affiliated news service is also not what I would call reliable. As far as the US goes, they have still not provided any direct military support to the rebels. What the newer sources are confirming is that CIA agents are still in the field assessing wether and to which groups to provide weapons due to the presence of Islamist elements. Thus they haven't become involved...yet. When they do I will personally add them to the infobox. As far as Blackwater is concerned...I haven't formed an opinion yet. If they were to be added they would be on the same level as Hezbollah's support for the government. So: al-Manar and the Turkish politician not reliable sources, direct CIA support still not provided, Blackwater support possible but not definite. EkoGraf (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Russia3

We should consider that it's not against any law to sell weapons to Syrian (No UN mandate). Actually it's against law to hold their contracts. And the article lacks of the kind of the weapons. You can't really kill any rebel with an airdefence system. And Russia never sold any helicopters but refurbished them. Please consider my thoughts, thanks in advance.

• I've considered your thoughts and think that refurbished attack helicopters can kill loads and loads of rebels (or Free Syrian Army troops to be more accurate). Refurbished attack helicopters can kill masses, they have big machine guns on them that can blow your head off and missiles that can blow you to pieces and cause horrendous loss of life, maiming, limbs flying everywhere, blood, gore, etc. It's too horrific to go on considering your thoughts....but still Russia is supplying them and hence providing military support that even the blindest of blind rats should be able to see (and scorn appropriately). Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Selling weapons to a country is not the same as providing military support for a particular conflict. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Or we could all consider that this is the talk page for a wiki article. General suggestions sans sources without specific recommendations are unlikely to generate change, at the same time that rebuttals based on personal opinion are not likely to be accepted. Let's talk specific suggestions for the article based on sources, and evaluate them based on the same, please.204.65.34.34 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right with the refurbished attack helicopters, but though they were not delivered so far. You comment is probably true but have nothing to do with what I suggested to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.115.180 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving on

Now that the move discussion is closed I propose we all focus on the article and NOT the title, we currently have an article linking up for AfD and the conflict gets updated daily with new info. Please as much as you would love to bring out sources for it, unless Syria comes out and says they are in a civil war or if ALL of the major news networks (This includes BBC and such) calls it so, there is no need to bring it up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually Assad (thus Syria) has come out and said the country is at war lol. XD EkoGraf (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Well.. Blessings then, hope they(assad) are doing good. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I hope Riad Assad is doing good too. Sopher99 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Map for the Syrian Uprising Added to the Article

I found a good map of the situation in Syria from a very reliable source. [24] However, I'm not sure if Wikipedia can use it due to copyright issues. I made an amateur map based on the info provided on the map in the document, and posted in the "renewed fighting" section of "Timeline". I'm not sure if this is the best place to put it though.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: Moved the map to the "Summary" section of "Timeline". ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be best to make an svg map based on this one, just like one for the Libyan civil war article. Copyright issues would be avoided and it would be easy to update. --93.142.215.231 (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)