Wikipedia

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 11

< Talk:Syrian civil war
(Redirected from Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 11)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by EllsworthSK in topic Requested move 2
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

The page should be renamed "Syrian Civil war (2011-present)" (due to U.N's new definition)

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

The U.N has just declared Syria in "a state of a civil war" - the page needs to be renamed as well. --Midrashah (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


The term civil war is now a lot more used than uprising to refer to the situation in Syria in the media. Bashar Al Assad himself told his country is in state of war. Several officials from different countries or bodies have called it a civil war, including the United Nations. The Red Cross, the organization which officially decide if protected for 60 days so nobody can dare oppose their decision. --Maldonado91 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see the reason given for it not to be renamed is that there was a slight majority consensus little over a month ago that it was not to be renamed. Apparently it is not an issue with the sources or with the actual facts as the previous discussion amply proved, where most of the opposers only used the reason that it it is a civil war or not for humanitarian law in the world, has now offically called it a civil war.

A very big majority of Wikipedia users are in favour of the move to the name civil war.

So what is holding the move? A couple of administrators with some agenda have decided to hijack the title and make it their private property. The page is now even move had been discussed earlier and thus was not to be discussed again. So there is not much to do about it I'm afraid, red tape has been applied. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Im not saying that i support the proposed move at this stage, however i think there is a difference between 60 day page move protection, and preventing any debate on if the article should be moved or not. The above proposed move should not have been closed.. at this stage though i doubt there is enough sources referring to it as a civil war, but it is getting closer. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course a 60-day move protection means that in the meantime, no WP:RM procedures should be started for the article concerned. Move proposals are aimed at obtaining consensus for renaming an article within 7 days (see WP:RM). As the article cannot be moved for two months, it thus makes no sense at all to discuss a move proposal at this moment in time. It's pointless having a discussion if the decision resulting from it cannot be implemented for two months. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a diffrence between a move moratorium and move protection, the red cross has declared this a civil war as well it all depends on what the majority of the media is going to do about this now. The article can also still be moved by contacting the admin noticeboard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I edited the section title so now it looks like a discussion to enhance the page more than an official move proposal. So now, it has the right to stay and be discussed without the intevrention of a wannabe admin.--Maldonado91 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I resent the accusation of being a 'wannabe admin'. If you actually knew Wikipedia policy, you would know that non-admins are permitted to close move proposals. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly but not in this case where it will be a controversial decision. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont think Taal was acting in bad faith, there can be confusion between the two. To mave a move protection in place you have to start a WP:RFC about it first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyways I found this: "The International Committee of the Red Cross says it now considers the conflict in Syria a civil war, meaning international humanitarian law applies throughout the country." This is big as it effects humanitarian laws. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed: if a number of reputable sources are calling it a civil war and not an uprising (UN, Red Cross, etc), then I fail to see why there is still such adamant opposition to the article's renaming. ----Ryan K.

I think we should wait and see what the major news sources are calling it. The UN and the Red Cross are players in the game and therefore inherently less reliable. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the hurry?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I don't understand why there is such an urge or a hurry to rename this article a Syrian civil war. This conflict can STILL(!) be defined as an uprising and should still be considered an uprising; this is as neutral as it can be defined as. Intouchabless (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


" This conflict can STILL(!) be defined as an uprising "

No, it can't and that's the problem. --Maldonado91 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, by definition, a war is a type of uprising. So, yes, it can. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A war is not a type of uprising. That's just silly to say.--Maldonado91 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not silly at all. Not all uprisings are civil wars, and not all civil wars spring from uprisings. However, a war (especially a civil war) can be an uprising. Some of the more memorable wars of all time began as, and often continued to be, popular uprisings. Our own Revolutionary War, from start to finsih, was primarily an uprising. The problem is that many of the detractors in this article have taken a very narrow, very specific definition of uprising, and applied it to all uses of the word, which simply doesn't logically follow. It's like defining "bird" as only being "bird" if it's an eagle.204.65.34.34 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ICRC: Now a civil war

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

The ICRC, the nearest thing to an official authority on this matter, has now declared this conflict to be a civil war, with the Geneva conventions now applying to combatants under international law:

As reported by Reuters and AP, and re-reported by key mainstream news sources:

There are also reports of "heavy fighting" in the capital: see the Sky News report above.

It's time to move the page now. -- The Anome (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC) -- The Anome (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(updated to add more news sources, format citations) -- The Anome (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I would heartily support this move. The Red Cross is now saying the legitimate government is now contested by force of arms ie. Civil War. Perhaps the only thing stronger would be a United Nations endorsement, since it would represent consensus of many nations, but that may not happen since Russia and others on the security council support the Syrian government, who of course wish to frame it as an uprising. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
We had a UN official calling it a civil war as early as last year -- http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/un-syria-now-in-state-of-civil-war-death-toll-at-more-than-4-000-1.399026 -- although that is not the same thing as the UN itself having an official opinion on the matter. -- The Anome (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I watched the SkyNews video link, and the ICRC is saying they upgraded to Civil War because the conflict is no longer limited to just a contest for control of the government, but broken out into sectarian warfare in different parts of the country. Whereas before there were some rules and understanding to the conflict, the Red Cross is saying, the rules have broken down. Skirmishes and battles are happening with unclear motives and participants throughout the country. So this is more than just an uprising against the government, though that still remains a central aspect, it is now broader than that. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Move proposal

Given that the ICRC, the nearest thing to a global authority on these matters under international law, is now calling the uprising a "non-international armed conflict" -- the ICRC's legal term for full-out civil war -- and that the global press are now leading with this as a top news story that this is now officially a civil war, I propose that this article be moved to Syrian Civil War. -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Though you'd have to start an official move request. The results of the former move request above won't negate starting a new one at anytime. However it may make better strategic sense to wait as long as possible for the ICRC upgrade to filter into news outlets, so they being calling it a civil war, most of them are still calling it an uprising as of today (though reporting on the Red Cross news). Green Cardamom (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it will take a few hours for the newsdesks to get the new editorial diktat about the name of the war. Let's wait a bit more, then we can do it once, and do it right. -- The Anome (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I opposed the idea before, but would support now that the ICRC has declared the situation a civil war. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I too support a move this is major news as it effects aid given to Syria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Iran

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why are Iran and Hezbollah listed as being among the dead in the infobox? These are very dubious reports, which could be mentioned in the text, but not in the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Revolutionary Front

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

i will remove it then Tradediatalk 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Army offensive around Damascus

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Considering the ongoing and still unclear events around Damascus, I would like to bring everybody's attention to the merger proposal of Summer 2012 Damascus clashes into 2011-2012 Damascus clashes.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • You go right ahead; I'd fully support that decision. That way things will be more centralized, so people trying to find information on the Syrian crisis can do so without having to trek through ten different articles (note the use of hyperbole). Master&Expert (Talk) 20:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Would be good if you cast your vote and opinion at that articles talk page also Master. EkoGraf (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I wasn't aware that there was a discussion going on there as well. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA is NOT a news page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.127.172 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That's correct, german anon - but I think you're forgetting what the title of this article is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I made a kHz file map here showing what areas were FSA controlled. You have to zoom in on some areas, and government (green) is only shown in middle of FSA territory (red). I hope someone looks at this and makes a good Wikipedia style map. [1]

Thanks, Jacob102699 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you know what areas are under rebel control? If you can show me what sources you used to make that kHz map, I'd be happy to make a Wikipedia map out of it. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a map like the one that was being used for the Libyan civil war should be placed in this article, although this may be more difficult since it is harder to confirm rebel and Syrian army movents than it was in Libya. Stormchaser89 (talk) 8:43pm, 31 July 2012 (US Central)

news sources are concentrating on the civil war in Damascus now

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Lots of news stories, probably deserves some attention in the article? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's some links to stories:
BBC - Syria conflict: Central Damascus hit by clashes
CNN - Dark images of horror and despair smuggled out of Syria (with video)
Reuters - Syrian rebels converge on capital, Russia pressed
The Telegraph - Syria: Heavy gunfire in the heart of Damascus in third day of fighting in Syrian capital
--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, why would we spend time and resources working on the article itself when we can bicker about the title? 85.65.12.162 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Today's Wall Street Journal (excerpt with title): The Syrian Civil War The West waffles at the U.N. as Damascus burns. July 17, 2012, 7:26 p.m. ET

For over a year, we've heard from Obama Administration officials that Western intervention would push Syria into a civil war, kill thousands and put the Assad regime's stockpile of WMD at risk of falling into terrorist hands. The U.S. hasn't intervened, and all of this has happened. - end excerpt HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Very Recent and Good Map Found

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I found a very good map of the uprising/civil war on this website. [2] The creator and copyright holder allows Wikipedia to use it. [3] This is what he says:

"Unless specified otherwise, all maps and charts appearing on this blog and labeled "my own work", "own work", or "By Evan Centanni", are created by me, Evan Centanni (www.polgeonow.com). I hold the copyright to them, and license them to you under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. When using a map under this license, please credit it to Evan Centanni and/or Political Geography Now, and include a link to www.polgeonow.com.

Basically, you're free to reuse and/or modify my maps (but NOT necessarily the maps made by other people!), so long as you credit this site, you're not making any money off of it, and you agree to use the same conditions for any modified versions you make. For details, check out the Creative Commons deed and legal license."

I think this map will be a good addition to the article, and copyright doesn't seem to be an issue.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That won't do, there's the non-commercial clause. The license on the file you uploaded is also wrong and non-free, since it's a CC-BY-NC-SA and not CC-BY-SA. --112.203.5.21 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh whoops. Didn't see that clause. Well, according to WP:FU there are some exceptions for non-free maps, but I don't that applies to this map for this article. I'm guessing the file will have to be deleted. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a very good find, thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

UNSC veto and Chapter 7

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This latest UNSC veto was the result of Russia's and China's opposition to Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which could have lead to foreign military intervention.--Forward Unto Dawn 03:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda now listed as party to the conflict

Latest comment: 12 years ago43 comments12 people in discussion

In this edit Al-Qaeda is added as a combatant force with an article from the Daily Telegraph as reference. Sopher99 reverts swiftly, giving the rational "uh -no - didn't happen. Besides all jihadists count as foreign fighters, as though don't fight under the banner of any group." Since I don't see the logic in that I have now reverted back to the original version, now listing Al-Qaeda as a separate party to the conflict. Especially as the article explicitly documents that Al-Qaeda does fight under its own banner. __meco (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is a third party in this conflict, so it should not be listed under Syrian opposition. Even in the Telegraph article you cited, it says the "local activists and rebel fighters reported that the groups had failed to win hearts and minds". Listing Al-Qaeda under the opposition would be very misleading. The Free Syrian Army are not working with terrorist groups. I think Al-Qaeda should be included somewhere in the article, but definitely not under Syrian opposition.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The Al-Qeada forces should be put in a notebox underneath the primary list of Syrian gov forces vs rebel forces. It is certainly misleading to put Al-Qeada on the side of the rebels in such a way. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed there are no references that support Al-Qaeda working with the Syrian opposition. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Forming a third coloumn just for the sake of 50 Al-Qaeda fighters would leave the infobox messy and would be totally unnecessary. Al-Qaeda is not fighting under the banner of the opposition but is also not fighting IT also, they are fighting government forces exclusivly. So, I think what needs to be done is leave al-Qaeda on the anti-government side of the box BUT do the following. All of the foreign jihadists are in essence at this point fighting separately from the opposition. So they will be not listed under the opposition, while Fatah, Nusra and Al-Qaeda will be under their listing. I think I will do it myself. EkoGraf (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree a 3rd column simply for Alqeada would be far too much, however it is totally misleading and inaccurate to put them under the heading of the syrian opposition. Simply put the fact they are active in a note, in the notebox of the infotemplate at the bottom. Where it currently says " *Number possibly higher due to the opposition counting rebels that were not defectors as civilians.[27] .Numbers do not include foreign combatants from both sides or Shabiha militiamen who have been killed ", simply put an additional bullet point about ALqeada terrorists operating in the country. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have put al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and Fatah al-Islam in the right coloumn under the heading Foreign Mujahideen which are separate from the Syrian Opposition which includes FSA, SLA and SRF. EkoGraf (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
al Nusra is not made up of foreign fighters, I presented source of that in above discussion we had. As for that article, it would be smart to read it all before making assumptions. First of all, Al Queda does not have a flag. Have anyone bothered to read the description of that "flag"? Here [4] CAUTION: This is not "the flag of al-Qaeda". Article meanwhile mentions hard-core salafi group made up of Syrians who were allied with AQI during Iraqi war, but does not brand them as AQ group such as al-Shabaab. Also, it talks about 25 fighters. To be completely frank, having as combatant group which affiliated group has 25 members and other group of 30 fighters which source above states are not fighting under banner of Fatah al-Islam is retarded. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Some put their numbers at 250 and apparently they are Al Qaida like Aqmi or Yemen Alqaida --Bakusverit (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Article which is used as source provide one, sole number. And that is 25. Also, AQMI or AQAP are completely different, they have seats in Al Queda Shura, they are official branches with commanders installed and medialized by Al Queda itself. Ansar al-Sharia is, for example, allied with AQAP but not part of AQAP. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My source (french article wrote by journalist who had been hostage in Iraq) says different : At least 250 members and them being recognized by Al Qaida http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/07/06/01003-20120706ARTFIG00700-syrie-asl-une-armee-rebelle-en-train-de-se-structurer.php --Bakusverit (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your source does not talk about Al Queda, but about al-Nusra front. According to this source [5] it is Syrian salafi group which, although, can be quite easily described as terroristic is not part of Al Queda. That is why I used example of Ansar al-Sharia. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe better example would be Ansar Dine during Tuareg rebellion (2012) EllsworthSK (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I can translate for you if needed

"D'une cinquantaine d'hommes à sa naissance l'an dernier, son effectif atteindrait 250 aujourd'hui. «Le Front fait partie de la mouvance al-Qaida depuis qu'il a été adoubé par plusieurs de ses organisations locales, comme al-Qaida dans la Péninsule arabique, en Irak, et l'Aqmi au Maghreb, qui ont publié les huit derniers communiqués du Front après avoir ignoré les huit premiers», affirme le spécialiste jordanien de la mouvance djihadiste Hassan Abou Hanieh. " --Bakusverit (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And that is what I said. It talks about al-Nusra and Jordanian analysts is wrong. Had al-Nusra front be made official branch of Al Queda, Al Queda would release a statement such as in case of al-Shabaab [6]. Besides, my source above states clearly that it is not so. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your own source

"One difference is that al-Qaeda and key global jihadist ideologues have actively incited individuals to join the fight in Syria. For example, Sheikh Abu al-Mundhir al-Shinqiti, a Mauritanian considered the most important such ideologue still at large, has endorsed the new Syrian jihadist organization Jabhat al-Nusra."

--Bakusverit (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So? First of all, that sheik is not AQ official, he is just salafi nut. Second, he endorsed. Salafi zelaot says that group of salafi zelaots are pretty cool guys. That makes them official part of AQ how? Once again, look at Ansar Dine and Ansar al-Sharia, both with close ties to AQAP and AQIM. None of them are, however, part of it. That is the key difference I am writing about. Gonna get some sleep, will continue with this discussion tomorrow. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ellsworth. Alqaeda endorsed does not mean it is alqaeda. If it is true that all these sources are about al nusra, then its not alqaeda, period. Sopher99 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If your problem is Ellsworth that Nusra is not made up totally of foreigners (has also Syrian members), which actually I had a problem too and was thinking of a way to fix it, why don't we than just change the heading from Foreign Mujahideen to Mujahideen or Islamic Jihadists or Radical Islamists or something like that? In any case Nusra and the other radicals are not part of the opposition, that much we all agree on. EkoGraf (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Eko, I am arguing for the third time that Nusra is local jihadi groups. Not that they also has Syrian members, but they have ONLY Syrian members. I provided you source on this several times. I also do not believe that we need any such section, opposition is not united and as long as they do not fight against each other (like MNLA a Ansar Dine) I don´t see much problem listing them one one banner. My problems are a, PYD about which I argued b, Al Queda (AQ =/= Al-Nusra) c, Fatah al-Islam. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
To be crystal clear. PYD should be completely removed. They do not fight for the Assad as I already argued in appropriate section. Al-Queda should be removed. First of all, there was already consensus months ago to not add them. Second of all, source talks about some local salafi militia made up from at least 2 former fighters of AQI, but never branded them as official part of AQ and says that there is 25!!!! of them. F24 source talks about al-Nusra which we already have there. Third, Fatah al-Islam. 30 fighters, not fighting under banner of Fatah al-Islam. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree Tradediatalk 22:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

After nearly 3 days, no response but when I tried to remove it, I was shot down by argument that talk is ongoing. Is there any logic in that? EllsworthSK (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided any logical reason to remove Al-Qaeda from the list when three sources have been provided which confirm their presence in the country. As far as Fatah goes they have been expelled from the FSA for trying to create their own emirate and stealing money, so they are on their own now. And the issue of Nusra has been dealt with when the main heading was changed from Foreign Mujahedeen to just Mujahedeen. EkoGraf (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have provided a lot of it. From those three sources, one is Iraq, an ally of Bashar al-Assad, second one is based on rumours and third one is speculation. In case of third there was consensus long time ago to not add it. Not even mentioning that it goes against WP:DUE, for example [7] and vast majority of other sources talks about Western leaders fear the conflict, which has been joined by al Qaeda-style jihadists, could destabilize Syria's neighbors: Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan., what clearly is something else than is in the infobox. Morever, I´d like to ask you whether you agree with adding Iran as participant based on comment of head of IRGC? EllsworthSK (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what most of the people here said : in no way we can put Al Qaeda in the same column that the opposition. We can list three columns, or we don't list terrorists groups. I personnally don't believe it is necessary to do it in this case, but if you really want it, this is absolutely NOT the way it should be done. Since everybody here except one contributor consider it is a mistake, I guess we have to agree in the coming days on a way to represent it, or it should be removed quickly 93.22.223.88 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Google 'al qaeda cia link' . Lots of material there. Many of us know this --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)~

Please, just no conspiracy BS. EllsworthSK (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Typical EllsworthSK who is trying to delete sourced content he do not like and who violate neutrality in all of his edits. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So you do want that hug. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

First source, Iraq is not an Assad ally, they have taken a neutral stance, that doesn't make them pro-Assad automatically. Second source, in what way are FSA fighters, local residents and the Daily Telegraph reporter who say they saw al-Qaeda fighters making trouble rumors? Third source, how is Israeli military intelligence unreliable? They predicted at least one invasion of their country hehe. And also to the anonymous editor, Al-Qaeda is in the same coloumn as the opposition because they are both anti-Assad BUT since they are not fighting under the same flag Al-Qaeda has been separated by a line, if you haven't noticed, from the opposition in the box. Besides, example of Iraq war where we had Mahdi Army, Saddam loyalists and Al-Qaeda in the same coloumn just because they were anti-Coalition even though they weren't allies and even fought amongst eachother on ccasion. And it is obvious from this discussion its not just me that thinks al-Qaeda should be included given sources have been provided. Anyway, their presence is sourced, please don't remove sourced information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Eko, Israeli and other intelligencies are talking about infiltration, but I failed to see one report where they´d be talking about AQ having their own branch in Syria fighting for them. Also FSA fighters were talking about AQ guys, not AQ organization. What is in infobox if AQI, Iraqi AQ branch with its own shura, commanders, chain of command etc., not non-unified fighters. And that is what we have right now. That is what vast majority of reports talk about. AQ-style guys - ie jihadists which want to establish islamic state from which many of them fought in Iraq under insurgency banner. What we have in infobox, however, is AQI and it implies that AQI has established military organization in Syria which fall under command of Abu Dua. There is no report which says something about it. In order to keep NPOV, in order to not give undue weight (WP:DUE) it has to be removed. There was a concensus about this months ago so why change it now without any prior discussion on the talk page, even though it is widely known that this is highly controversial topic? Also in order for me to make some concessions I am willing to agree with having Foreign mujahideen as combatants in the infobox, even though I was initially against it. That at least does not imply some structural military organization. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
And Maliki is an Assad ally. He refused to implement AL sanctions, for example. He is in same relation to Assad as Algeria was to Gaddafi. Also officialy neutral country, in practice they were covering his back. Maliki also likes to talk about how Assad is facing conspiracy, basicly copying regime propaganda. He doesn´t crack down on sunni tribes in al Anbar because he is afraid of alienating them after what government managed to unite them in Awakening Councils and bring violence back home. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with EllsworthSK. Also, I think the issue here is not whether the info is sourced or not. But rather about having the infobox be a fair representation of the big picture. As it is, the Belligerents part of the infobox is misleading. It gives as much space to Mujahideen as it does to the opposition, when in reality the Mujahideen only represent 900/40000=2% compared to Syrian opposition. That goes against WP:DUE. So I propose that in the infobox, we just have the word Mujahideen without listing the details of the different elements. In the text, we give all the details and refs. Tradediatalk 20:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would check the facts and reliable sources presented Tradedia, at least one source said they represent 10 percent of the opposition not 2. As for Qaeda, AQI is in the infobox because all of the AQ guys that are in Syria at the moment have come from that branch of the organisation. It does not imply that they have an established military organization in Syria, however per the FSA fighters, local citizens and reporters they have organized control of at least several towns in Idlib. Anyway, it was not me who put AQI in the infobox it was someone else. I originally put just AQ. There was consensus months ago yes because than their presence was almost non-existant. But now there are multiple sources that point to al-Qaeda presence in the country. And you will not find any reliable sources that regard Iraq an ally of Syria, again, keeping a neutral stance on the conflict doesn't make you pro-Assad automatically, so please keep your personal view aside. I removed the word foreign because you Ellsworth had a problem with Nusra being under their heading even though they are jihadists they are not foreign. I agreed so I removed it. So as not to imply that the organised AQI is in the country I will revert back to just AQ. EkoGraf (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here one more source [8]. King of Jordan has also confirmed presence of al-Qaeda, even for some time, and them possibly trying to get to the chemical weapons stockpile. You gonna tell me Jordan is also pro-Assad and thus unreliable? Adding source to the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Eko, there is name of militant organization in infobox as participant in conflict. How exactly does that not imply that there is not AQI organization operating in Syria? Also I recommend you to re-read those sources. Nowhere is mentioned that they control towns in Idlib and Aleppo, it mentions that one "AQ guy" designated himself emir in one town and was kicked out by locals together with his 25 fighters. All other things are rumours and frankly, even ignorancy of reporter who reports that there was flag of AQ, although there is no flag of AQ. Shahada above silver disk is symbol used by salafists and jihadists regardless of organization they belong to, just as Shahada on white banner is not flag which belongs to Taliban.
As for consensus, nothing changed in that matter, two of three sources which are used were presented even before, when the consensus was established. Only thing that changed is one article in Telegraph which talks about number 25. Sure, it talks about more but vaguely, without any details, based on second or third hand informations which still doesn´t give much relevancy to claim that AQI or AQ (both established organizations with structural command) have a branch there.
And I won´t find single source which says that? [9] [10] [11] I found three of them in less than 5 minutes, at 3am.
And there are multiple sources which presents them as non-negligible force? Sources which you used in discussion on this page several time states that there is 900 foreign fighters in Syria max. It also says that number of jihadists and foreigner is negligible (that is what source states, our opinion on that matter are irrelevant). Also I hate to repeat myself, but what I stated several times before is simple thing. What sources report is not even remotely organized level of Al Queda presence, coordination of activities, falling under unified command, but scattered jihadists, many of them Syrians who fought against coalition in Iraq, which are presented around the country. Many of them are in al-Nusra which is not branch of AQ. Let me use an example, which although I used once before I guess no one noticed. Tuareg rebellion. Ansar al-Dine. AQAP. Do we have AQAP in infobox? No. Why not? Because jihadists were organized under Ansar Dine which even though is allied to AQAP very closely, is not part of AQAP. This is the same thing. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Plus, from the same source all agreeing that the group had a widespread but still weak and generally ineffective presence
For the members of Ahrar al-Sham, many of whom are conservative Salafi jihadists following a strict form of Islam, this is a religious war Once again, no mention about group being part of AQ(I)
The "flag" The men insist it was merely a tribute to their God and not a sign of allegiance to al Qaeda.
Whilst the militant Islamic organisation's influence remains small
Hence WP:DUE EllsworthSK (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I used 900 because that is the number in the infobox. Even if it was 10%, it doesn’t change my point. I am not contesting that al-Qaeda is in Syria. I am ok there are multiple sources that support that and have no problem with their reliability. My problem is with how we are presenting the belligerents part of the infobox. So I am not arguing about facts, I am arguing about how we present things. The infobox is not a place to be exhaustive. It is a place to give a representative big picture. Whichever way you look at it, the Syrian opposition is a lot more significant than the Mujahideen, and the infobox belligerents should reflect that. Again, this is related to the infobox and not to the article in general. Imagine someone who doesn’t know much about the Syrian uprising and just wants to get a quick idea, he will look at the belligerents part of infobox and get the idea that there are two big groups facing the government… which is obviously not the case. Tradediatalk 01:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Calling the reporter ignorant just because you don't like it that he confirmed that al-Qaeda has control of a few towns in Idlib shows a highly non-neutral pov on your part Tradedia. Anyway, he didn't just relay what he saw he also relayed what others said. Quoting FSA fighter An al Qaeda group led by a man who called himself Abu Saddiq took control in Der Tezzeh. Also, the infobox does not suggest they are allied with the FSA and SLA. A line has been put to separate them from the rest of the Syrian opposition. The opposition and the radical jihadists are both anti-Assad but are of different views of how to run Syria after. Putting the jihadists in separate coloumn would imply the jihadists and the opposition are engaging in conflict among themselves too, which they are not. The number of al-Qaeda operatives shouldn't matter. By that logic we should also remove Nusra from the infobox since they are probably no more than a few hundred at best, hundred at minimum. Anyway, FSA fighters and local residents have confirmed Al-Qaeda presence in the country, Israeli intelligence has confirmed it, Iraq has confirmed it and EVEN the king of Jordan has confirmed it. Your arguments are: that Iraq is disqualified due to allegedly being pro-Assad (even though has never provided assistance), the FSA fighters (opposition itself) and local residents because they are talking only rumors even though they confirmed it with their own eyes, the reporter due to him being ignorant, Israeli military intelligence (which is one of the best intelligence agencies in the world) due to being unreliable, and you didn't even give a comment on the king of Jordan (who is anti-Assad, not talking rumors, and never known to be unreliable). All of those arguments are, at least in my oppinion, more or less pov. Anyway, at this point there is no consensus to remove AQ from the infobox. Me, DanielUmel and Sopher have not expressed a willingness to remove it (Sopher is even advocating leaving AQ Iraq) while Ellsworth and Tradedia have. In Wikipedia that leaves a status quo. Although there shouldn't be any discussion given multiple sources have been provided. And as time goes by I will just keep adding new reliable sources given their presence as a combatant in the conflict is notable. EkoGraf (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice try to shift this towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But anyone who reads my post can clearly see that I said that reporter saying that he saw flags of AQ is sign of ignorancy as there are no flags of Al Queda. And frankly, this urban legend in western and other media has been thorn in my eye for some time now. Anyone who spends five minutes on Google will find out that it is complete bollocks. al-Nusra is an organized, unified group which made severam bombing runs, captured several army bases and operates throughout the area of Syria. Comparison with AQI stands on no ground. Throwing words out of the context is also something I do not appreciate, I wrote a lot of things to explain those points, you simply threw them because without them you can easily accuse me of POV-pushing. You ignored sources which claims that Iraq is on Assad side, you ignored my remarks that all of those sources were presented last time there was a consensus, you ignored my very bloody long remarks about distinctions between organized group and disorgnized jihadists in several groups without one unified command, you completely ignored sources which I provided and which strengthen those points (Reuters) and king Abdullah mentioned AQ in one sentence and even that vaguely. Also status quo = things remains as they were. In this case it means remaining as it was during last consensus. Also I wonder why you haven´t than add AQIM to Tuareg rebellions. Why you didnt add AQAP to Yemeni revolution. In both cases, just as in this one, there has been presence of AQ, even though not as organiazed group (and in case of Yemen not fighting on anti-Saleh tribial opponents side). You and other editors also went against consensus which already was (please, don´t argue with DanielUmen supporting you, that is some really big shockie) in place. On top of this discussion you can see that several users are against adding AQ into opposition collum, yet it is there (specifically asking for adding AQ only to the article or maybe on notebox). Hopefully you will not mind me adding Iran as combatant, after all I shave a lot of sources [12][13][14][15]. Who knows, maybe in time I shall add Mahdi army as well, there are a lot of sources and it is not like we need any prior discussion, do we? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And about POV pushing, I have been advocating for removal of Hezbollah for months, I have been arguing in favour of removing Iran as well, I have been arguing for removal of AQ. Do you really think that if in this case I´d have a strong POV I would advocate removing Iran and HA? Think about it. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources exist, sources confirm, verifibility established, that's all that matters on Wikipedia. And an equal number of editors is for and against of both your and my position so at the moment there is a status quo. We will see if that changes in a month or so. So lets take a cooling off period now to reduce the tensions. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Medin?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This RT article [16] refers to Medin: do they mean Al-Midan? -- The Anome (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is too long when you put the add-ons in, but we can put them in by cutting them down.184.98.114.65 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a Civil War

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The International Red Cross has called Civil War the uprising against the Ba'athist dictatorship of the President of Syria Bashar Al-Assad, so should rename Syrian Civil War --Danrolo 00:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to move your comment to the section above which is discussing the issue at length. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It may look like a civil war, but this is in fact a proxy war between several powers. Its got overt and covert involvement by great powers and regional powers. On its own, left alone there would be no civil war in Syria. Cant you all see this. The evidence is above and in the article. The Western powers are after control of the Mid East with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. This may lead eventually to WW3 --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And... the moon may fall, rocks will melt and the sea burn up into a sea of lava and flames. Seriously though it being a proxy war is your opinion noplace does it come out and say it is in widespread reliable sources, we cant go and call it the Syrian Proxy war as that would be a huge POV violation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I mention a renaming? Did I? No. Get informed http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31309 --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Anytime someone uses globalresearch.ca as a source, god kills a kitten. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

New belligerent proposed: Kurdish's PYD

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I think a new belligerent should be added to this civil war.

The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) with has its own military forces. They seem to have a deal with the Syrian governement, which allow them to have an autonomy in Kurdish area in extchanges for them to crush the opposition in these areas.

The sources are the following:

They are preventing the syrian rebels from operating in Kurdish ares by military force: http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4882.html http://jonathanspyer.com/2012/06/29/syrian-rebels-kurdish-separatists-face-off-in-syria/ They are clashing with the rebels http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=273504. It seems that they are also arresting Kurdish opposition members and are sending them to the Syrian military forces. http://www.todayszaman.com/news-286211-syrian-pkk-holds-trials-for-kurdish-opposition-members.html

I believe their inclusion is important because on the ground their influence is real. One source say they have been reinforced by 4 000 PKK fighters in additions to the local Kurdish fighters. They are also in full control of Afrin District in Aleppo Governorate, which has a population of 400 000.

That being said, I am not sure where to place them. Should they be placed with the Syrian governement forces because they are cooperating in a deal of autonomy for support against the rebels, or should they be placed as a third party, because they play their own Kurdish card and don't really support the governement goals and also just don't want rebels bring the war to them ? --Maldonado91 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This [17] shows that the Kurdish National council, the KNC, complained to the FSA that the PYD or PKK was suppressing anti-Assad demonstrations and kidnapping Kurdish activists. Between 3-5 people were killed in clashes in Erfin between the FSA and PYD on July 3.

Salih Muslim Mohammed, the PYD leader has made it clear that they don't support the Syrian Government and that the Assad government has indeed lost control in Syria's Kurdistan. Eg, all the checkpoints being set up in Kurdish villages and towns. [18] Therefore, it would make sense to have a third column. -Goltak (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Politically they are a third party certainly. But military, they only clashes with rebels, give opposition members to the governement and have been played as a card by the Syrian governement which released more than 600 PYD prisonners. The PKK also said they would fight with Syria if Turkey attacked. That's why I hesitate, between their political and military sides.--Maldonado91 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Kurds should not be included as a belligerent because their role in the conflict can be at most described as ambiguous. According to the New York Times, [19]the kurds for the most part don't support either side.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This article does mention an alliance between PKK and the Syrian governement. In reality, this is the PYD, which is close to the PKK by some degree.--Maldonado91 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

They haven't been involved thus far in a large manner in the conflict, if they do in the future we add them. EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be put on the government side but separated like the jihadists are on the opposition side. Because, they are not in conflict with the government, like the jihadists are not with the opposition, but they do not support the government, like the jihadists don't support the opposition, and are also in a degree of conflict with the FSA, compared to jihadists who are in open conflict with the government. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Per [20] EllsworthSK (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are contradictory. The question is more between putting them into the government support or putting them as a third party rather than erasing them completely even if they are a lot less mediatized compared to the bigger sides.--Maldonado91 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is complete bogus. If they support government, how come they stroke a deal with opposition Kurdish National Council [21]. PYD is not pro-Assad (as PKK), but rather anti-Turkish. They do not fight for Assad. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish are always interested by one thing, their autonomy. If the Syrian governement made a deal with them for autonomy against no armed rebels there, it makes sense. Also , they struck a deal with the opposition Kurdish under the banner of Iraqi Kurdistan to avoid civil war among the Kurds. But for the moment, they are more a problem for the rebels than for the governement. --Maldonado91 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Than how come that Iraqi Kurdistan is hosting Kurdish deserters and Peshmerga are training Syrian Kurds who come there while Kurdistan officials are full of hate towards Assad? Assad and his father ripped Kurds of all rights they ever had, they even took their nationality. Rest of your post is complete speculation, when was there fighting between Kurds? And when did Assad proposed autonomy (in Syrian ARAB republic) for Kurds? Never and he never will, that is why Qamishli is out of government control and yet not under control of PKK. There are Kurdish militias allied with KNC and there is PKK, KNC has support of Iraqi Kurdistan, PKK does not. And why would they be more problem for the rebels than for the government given that they want both of them to keep from Kurdish territory? EllsworthSK (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Also I am adding interview with head of PYD [22]. Does this look like an ally of Assad? I believe he won’t leave until he kills all of Syria. He might leave when the country is a total mess. The Syrian regime is brutal. We must do whatever we can to prevent it from shedding blood in the Kurdish areas. The regime is preparing to build an Alawi government. he also explain FSA incident It is not the PKK and PYD who have prevented the Free Syrian Army from entering Efrin, it is the people. They want to protect their areas themselves. We don’t want the Free Syrian Army to enter Kurdish villages and give the Syrian military an excuse to wipe them out. It is our duty to protect our people. What is basically same bloody thing that Druze are doing. I am removing it. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree Tradediatalk 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok fellas, this just came out [23]. Kurdish militias, allied to PYD started taking control of several cities (starting with Kobani) from the government. I propose creating third collum with Kurdistan flag and just name "Kurds" and list as units PYD and Kurdish militias. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with adding the Kurds, but no need for a third coloumn since they haven't engaged in conflict with the opposition. Since they are anti-Assad just add them to the anti-Assad coloumn. But separate them with a line like we have done with the mujahedeen and the official syrian opposition since the kurds have not alligned themselves with ether. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was they removed? new sources tell us that they (YPG) have clashed with the government forces in Qamishli http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4984.html 17:49 22 Juli 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.178.107 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Border posts allegedly falling to rebels

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to the BBC news website, a number of border posts along the Iraqi and Turkish borders have fallen to rebel forces. It specifically mentions a crossing at Bab al-Hawa (which I guess is on the Turkish border).--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And per BBC and CNN government troops have retaken Bab al-Hawa. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please pardon me for posting a source which I thought might be helpful to the article. I just saw it when I checked the BBC site.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Latest comment: 12 years ago154 comments61 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Page moved by an admin User:Bwilkins. His reasons were RM discussion - consensus [24] EllsworthSK (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War – Further to the above, I'm opening a requested moves discussion to move this article. Though the previous proposal failed to gain consensus, the International Committee of the Red Cross announced today that it classifies the situation as a civil war. Given that they are the de facto body that decides such matters, I feels this changes what our stance should be. Usage of the term "Syrian Civil War" is now standard usage in the mainstream press, and using that term on wikipedia is a neutral representation of fact. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong support The media are now using the term civil war a lot more than the obsolete "Uprising". Officials in various countries are also calling it a civil war. Even the president of Syria, is calling it war. The Red Cross decision is the icing on the cake as they are the body which officially announce when a conflict reach war point regarding to humanitarian matters. Per pure definition it is also a civil war, a war between two entities within a state. I think a tag should be placed above the page to advertize the requested move --Maldonado91 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Peacekeeping chief, French foreign minister (thus France), UN human rights chief, Assad (thus Syria) and now the Red Cross (enforcer of the Geneva conventions). EkoGraf (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - it's visibly, obviously true, with the whole country convulsed by conflict, the term is already in wide currency in the media and in use by parties on all sides of the conflict, and the ICRC, the only entity with legal authority under the Geneva Convention to declare something a war for the purposes of international humanitarian law, has just declared it to be one. -- The Anome (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not necessarily a civil war until there's significant amount of civilians armed but right now it looks more like terrorists like al qaeda and israeli mossad along with saudi arabia. Baboon43 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you trolling to get a rise out of editors, or just deranged? The Talk Pages are for serious discussions to improve the article. Please knock it off. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you an idiot or just acting like one? Baboon43 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely you're not serious. -- The Anome (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course he is. Alqaeda and Mossad have been natural friends ever since Mossad faked the moonlanding. Sopher99 (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Support I support renaming this article "Syrian Civil War" but Anome you need to understand that foreign countries are playing a heavy hand in this conflict. 70.71.17.180
I'm not completely unworldly. However, while it's clear that various foreign elements are helping out both sides, the main forces on both sides are Syrian. -- The Anome (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not so heavy. only started training and giving a minimal amount of weapons last month. Free Syrian Army are defectors. Iran plays more a role than the west/gulf/turkey. Sopher99 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Mossad and al qaeda happen to be on the same side on this particular event of destabilization although its a fact they are almost always on the same side, that still is yet to be uncovered in the mainstream. Its clear syrian regime is at war with nato and the terrorists so this is not a civil war but a covert invasion which is why russia sent warships to dock in Damascus. Bitter enemies are tag team partners in syria which is very odd to you but nothing new to those who are "illuminated". Baboon43 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda is opposed to the very existence of Israel as an independent state. If Mossad really is in cahoots with Zawahiri and his cronies, I'll eat my hat. Until that day dawns, I'd prefer we build our articles around information which can be independently verified through the use of reliable third-party sources. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
How is it a conspiracy when they are on the same side? anyways i would appreciate users stop personal attack just because i dont agree with the move. Bullying users will get you nowhere. Baboon43 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of bullying and committing personal attacks when you can quite clearly see from my post that I'm doing no such thing. You on the other hand have violated Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks by what you posted on my talk page. Please remove it.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose What red cross has said does not change anything with respect to the naming. In Wikipedia, we use WP:COMMONNAME, So what matters is what the majority of the media are calling it. The majority of the media are still not calling it civil war. They are merely reporting on what the red cross said. For the same reason, what the UN said before did not matter for the naming. Tradediatalk 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
More and more weight is being thrown behind the term "civil war" and less around the term uprising, not every major news source is going to agree but the fact that the red cross now defines this as a civil war means that war crimes can be issued to those involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia does not think. Wikipedia just follows the media. Tradediatalk 02:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You bet. Look what the media call Edelweiss, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Tradedia is right. Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME, not the WP:NAMETHATTHEREDCROSSHAPPENSTOUSE. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, what an insight. Who says Wikipedia doesn't think? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm isn't going to win you the argument. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support How many more people need to die for this uprising to be called a civil war? AP published a short writeup about the progression in how the world views the conflict. People keep saying Syria is being pushed toward civil war, but if that hasn’t happened yet we’re gonna have to redefine “civil war.” —Ferrariguy90 (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The number of people killed has nothing to do with it. During the French revolution, hundreds of thousands died. In spite of this, it is called revolution and not civil war. Besides, using some definition of "civil war" constitutes original research and is therefore invalid argument to determine the name of the article. Tradediatalk 23:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — I have stated every other time we've had this discussion that I would wait until the term "civil war" becomes ubiquitous. The Red Cross has recognized the conflict as such, and even Assad himself describes it in that way. Syria is now almost indisputedly in the midst of a civil war, and there's broad international consensus backing it up. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, since the red cross has stated it and international media is following it. - —Goltak (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support With the Red Cross declaration, it does appear that civil war is the proper designation for the conflict. And while some sources are still using uprising, many others are using civil war, enough I believe for it to be considered the common name at this point. SilverserenC 10:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yet again, a premature request. This conflict isn't referred to as "the Syrian civil war". The media just reports that some organisations or individuals say it is a civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The Red Cross declaration is very important and was deemed so notable it made it on to the front page of wikipedia. There is now enough justification to rename this article and to describe it as a civil war. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The Red Cross announcement is conclusive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The ICRC is the de facto legal authority on this. -- Smurfy 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. Now, I strongly support moving the article. Not only has the ICRC declared that it is a civil war, but if you just use common sense, then, it is obvious that this is not just an uprising, anymore. As another user here has pointed out, the nature of the conflict has now changed. Rather than being only an uprising against the government, there are also sectarian clashes, now, all across Syria. In my opinion, if this isn't a civil war, then, the Libyan civil war isn't a civil war, either. SuperHero2111 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Honestly, if this page isn't moved, then, I guess I'm just going to have to edit Wiktionary, and change the definition of civil war! Because, it boggles my mind how this cannot be a civil war, while the situation in Libya was! Actually, I even think that not renaming the conflict to a 'civil war' status is not a neutral point-of-view. As a previous post on this talk page has - quite correctly - pointed out, the two groups of people who do not want the conflict to be called a civil war are the Syrian government, and the Syrian opposition. That is because the Assad government does not want the international community to know that they are oppressing and massacring their citizens, and the anti-Assad opposition does not want the international community to know that there are actually some pro-Assad protesters, as well. However, if a person approached the topic from a completely neutral point-of-view, then, it is amazingly clear to them, that this conflict is, indeed, a bona fide civil war! SuperHero2111 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


Could someone please close the above RM? It is very clear consensus has now changed, in part due to the recent developments over the past couple of days with the Red Cross. This article should now be renamed as the overwhelming majority clearly believe. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move discussions run for 7 days to give all interested parties the opportunity to provide their opinion, even if a clear consensus appears to develop earlier. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose + speedy procedural close. Firstly, the previous move request was closed as not moved on 12 July. It's now 16 July; it's not plausible that the situation has in the course of 4 days changed so much that an article move is now warranted while it wasn't 4 days ago. As has been said numerous times before: move discussions aren't meant to be repeated ad nauseam until the 'right' result is achieved. Secondly, this article is subject to a 60-day move protection so it's quite pointless having this discussion; hence my call for a speedy procedural close. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as a 60 day moratorium on a this move. It's been protected so that only administrators can move it for 60 days, in order to prevent the boneheaded moves/removes we had earlier. Your argument for "procedural close" is pure wrong. If the argument above convinces an admin to move it when the time comes, it will be moved by them. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This move was *not* subject to a formal moratorium like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep what I agree with you on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support My vote is now changed to support as the REd Cross is what got Libya to change to Civil War on our title, as also Media's not saying either Syrian uprising or Civil War. They just say conflict which is what media usually says. But i have seen several media say Civil War. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As the Red Cross is the closest thing to an official authority on these types of matters, and they say it's a civil war, I support renaming the page.--Wikien2009 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Jacob and Wikien I believe you need to place your votes just above the discussion section. ;-) Pro66 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Just as a point of discussion, is not a civil war a kind of uprising? The reason I ask is we're relying a lot on commonname, but not taking into account that the two terms may not be being used as mutually exclusive by the media. For example, one comment above referred to a story with civil war in its title, but uprising in its text. In this case, I'd argue that there is a popular and ongoing uprising that has grown to the level of civil war. The two terms are not gradations or mutually exclusive once you have gotten to the point that civil war may be applied. i.e., uprising may refer to a small revolt, or a system-wide upheaval. A civil war may be come about as an uprising of a significant part of a country against another part of the same country. It doesn't cease being an uprising just because it is a civil war, if the same relationships (regime versus "rebel" population) exist. I think calling it a civil war should not be negated by the fact that "uprising" is still used. We can't take a narrow definition of the latter and assume that's the one everyone is using, and then argue commonname.204.65.34.34 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Strong Support. It's evident both sides have support from a large percentage of the population, both sides have armies with hierarchy,training and financial/logistic support and there are hundreds of casualties per day. It used to be an uprising, but now it has escalated to full-blown civil war. Even the Red Cross now considers it as a civil war. If this is not a civil war then I don't know what is.Alexispao (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree with the necessity of having to rename this article as "The Syrian Civil War". There are plenty of examples of civil wars in history that are not commonly named so. For EXAMPLE, the wars in Korea and Vietnam are not commonly called "The Korean Civil War" or "Vietnam Civil War", nor does anyone argue that they should be, even though they are obvious examples of civil wars. Although the ongoing conflict in Syria likely meets the criteria of a civil war, there is no pressing need to name it the "Syrian Civil War", especially if that label has not entered popular usage in the media or by the public. It is one thing to categorize the conflict as a civil war for politico-legal reasons, and another thing entirely to establish the popular or historical name of the conflict.
    • A second point is that the term "civil war" brings the connotation of a conflict between two well organized sides. The "rebels" in Syria are somewhat disorganized and haphazard in form. It began as and has continued to be a confusing, formless, and not-well-defined conflict. This unclear nature of the conflict could be a factor why the media and public continue to use the term "uprising", as it may better reflect the spontaneous, grassroots, and loosely-organized nature of the rebel elements in Syria.
    • The term "Syria Civil War", though accurate as a definition for many purposes, is not yet an established or popular name for the conflict. As public and global perception of the conflict continues to evolve, this may change in the future. Oygp (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. There is no media consensus to call it an "uprising". It's called many things: "Syrian Uprising", "Syrian Civil War", "Syrian Conflict". Titling this article the "Syrian Uprising" implies a consensus that simply doesn't exist. On the other hand, there is a consensus of reliable sources that Syria is now in a civil war. As evidence of this, you can weigh all the articles which from reliable sources which explicitly state that this is so, against all the articles from reliable sources which explicitly state that it is not in a civil war. I don't think you'll find a single example of the latter within the last month. Case closed. In the absence of a clear consensus about what to call it, we need to defer to the clear consensus about what it actually is. Skybum (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The majority of credible media sources are describing the conflict as a civil war. The Assad regime acknowledge they are at war. Amnesty, The Red Cross and UN define this as a civil war. The game is up, Wikipedia should stop playing catch up and change the title. It is still an uprising, but it is one that has achieved Civil war status. Erzan (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support per everything. IRCR, UN, France, all are calling it civil war, while Syrian regime and Rebel forces are calling it war. However I don´t see point in opening discussion as the page is move-protected till September. Hell, by than it may be over. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support With the bombing of the inner circle in Damascus and fighting in the streets there, it looks like it may all be over soon, at least as far as Assad. The various rebel factions may then fight amongst themselves. StuRat (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, as above it is "officially" a civil war now, and that title better reflects the reality of the situation whereby both groups are armed and fighting. LukeSurl t c 09:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support since the FSA has clearly turned the game around and instead of innocent civilians being slaughtered, you have a well-formed army taking government positions and even entire cities. You don't need to have foreign intervention like what happened in Libya for this to be considered a civil war. If the FSA and Syrian Armed Forces are fighting sophisticated battles for control of territory then this is absolutely considered a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.210.172 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - 'civil war' is clearly quite far from being the common name for the situation, with UK prime minister David Cameron today warning al-Assad that if there isn't transition it's quite clear there's going to be civil war[25] (note how his use of the future tense makes clear that he doesn't regard the conflict as currently being a civil war), and the king of Jordan Abdullah II today saying that the "danger of civil war is increasing".[26]
This shows quite clearly that 'civil war' is not the common name for this conflict and should therefore not be the name of this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Strong Support. "Civil war" has become increasingly prevalent in the media, which no longer offers much consensus as to a "common name." It may still be referred to as an "uprising" (even simultaneously**) because that is how it began, but it will ultimately be called the "Syrian Civil War" in historical texts. Not the first time people have been overly hesitant to adopt the term in regards to a conflict. The page for war gives the definition as "an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality.," while Merriam-Webster is more general: "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations... [or] a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism." The issue driving this debate, of course, is not proper definition, but common name. Here we run into the problem of trying to glean consensus from among the media, where this none presently, though "civil war" is rapidly becoming more common. This effectively tasks the media with something that is as much outside of its intellectual jurisdiction as it is ours. Further, it must be considered that opposition to calling this conflict what it properly is (by any reputable metric, such as the definitions offered previously) may be politically motivated. **EDIT: Also worth noting that I can think of no reasonable definition of "uprising" that would mutually exclude a conflict also being a "civil war." Hence, many sources not even agreeing with themselves on the matter. Plenty of historical examples of "civil wars" that result from "uprisings." Hard to imagine where one could (reasonably) draw the line between the two that would delineate this conflict as "not a civil war." Rail88 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

Please do not close the discussion above until 22:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

The following summary was last updated by -- I7laseral (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Currently stands at 6 opposes to 44 supports. 88% support. I7laseral (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Support (19) Maldonado91, Ferrariguy90, Smurfy, SuperHero2111, Bobbyb373, Gaston28, Forward Unto Dawn, HammerFilmFan, 48Lugur, Alexispao, Jamiroquai500, stay a7x, Cattus, Skybum, Erzan, Tonemgub2010, EllsworthSK, I7laseral, 68.39.210.172
  • Support (25) Basalisk, Knowledgekid87, Baseball Bugs, Sopher99, EkoGraf, The Anome, Hurricanehink, Master&Expert, Goltak, Saddhiyama, Pro66, bobrayner, Robofish, Silverseren, BritishWatcher, Necrothesp, Jacob102699, Wikien2009, Sturat, LukeSurl, 76.65.131.160, 86.42.245.86, Jimerb, Bender235
  • Weak Support (1) Kiralexis
  • Neutral (1) Futuretrillionaire (following change of opinion, see discussion below)
  • Oppose (4) Baboon43, FunkMonk, Oygp, Nstrauss
  • Strong Oppose (2) Tradedia, TaalVerbeteraar
It shouldn't be broken down like this at all ... RM is WP:NOTAVOTE, and should be removed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a Democracy and this is not a Vote. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly not a vote, but dividing the sets of users up like this can be a first hack into dividing them up by argument: which I'll try later, if I have the time. -- The Anome (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't. There are admins monitoring this page, and I'm pretty sure that w ehave the capacity to read and gauge arguments ourselves, thank you very much. Anyone who intends to still put their 2c in can read the arguments first, unaltered. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Google News Results

The great thing about Google News is that all the news results are recent and reliable, so let us compare:

  • News results for "Syrian uprising": about 8,680 [27]
  • News results for "Syrian civil war": about 627 [28]

See? "uprising" is still the more popular term in the news media.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Now try Google News searches without the quotes, which gives you the relative weighting for the concepts, as opposed to the exact phrases. I get:

  • Syrian civil war: about 45,500
  • Syrian uprising: about 36,100

-- The Anome (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC) I suggest you remove your wrong results to avoid cluttering the page. Tradediatalk 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you're suppose to do it with quotes. No quotes makes the results too ambiguous. Some news articles might say that Syria is descending into a civil war or on the verge of civil war. However, this doesn't mean Syria is in a state of civil war. Also, without the quotes, Google might give you results for "civil war" and give you results for "Syrian" but not both in the same article. Also, I'd like you see your links, because this is what I got:

  • Syrian uprising: about 44,400 [29]
  • Syrian civil war: about 42,100 [30]

Not that this matters. We must search with quotes.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How many of those numbers are newer sources and how many older though? If a large number of newer sources are calling this a civil war then that makes a diffrence - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
All Google News results are recent ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The reported Google hit numbers are not reliable. This is well known. It is actually just a made up number, you could not view all the pages if you tried. "Syyria uprising" for example I got up to page 52 of the hit results and it stops (results vary). Try it, try to get to the last page of hit result. You will bottom out very quickly, often well short of 1000 hits. Also. even though you had it in quotes, after a few pages it starts reporting on non-quoted versions. This is just one of many problems with using Google for this sort of thing. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok I paged through the Google hits and found, in reality, that for "Syrian civil war", there are 190 hits. For "Syrian uprising" I got 240 hits then it bottomed out. These are too close to call. Your results will vary since Google changes with each search. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Define "recent". SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Mouse does have a point I found sources in the google search that were up to a month old. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Past month Google News results:

  • Syrian civil war

78,000 results

  • Syrian uprising

36,800 results

Past month Google results:

  • Syrian civil war

1,090,000 results

  • Syrian uprising

216,000 results

...with the Red Cross declaration, civil war is the proper designation for the conflict. Gaston28 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your results are wrong since you forgot to include quotations marks (see above, the same mistake was done). I suggest you remove your wrong results to avoid cluttering the page. Tradediatalk 21:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
What? Bottomed out? What do you mean? I can open all the news results just fine, even the ones on the last pages. Google News results are far more reliable than Google web results.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
What? No. To see 4000 hits you would have to scroll through 400 pages of Google results (~10 per page), but you'd be lucky to scroll through fifty pages of results, before it ends. I challenge anyone to scroll through more than around 50 pages of hit results before it stops (bottoms out). Google's reported results are a farce and that is well known, it's just that nobody bothers to actually check and scroll through page by page the hit results. In any case many of those hit results are old, and statistically it's a logical fallacy to use brute force numbers like this. Do what Anome has done and list those news agencies who are currently, today, using "uprising" and not civil war. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think the number of google hits makes any difference whatsoever. The situation is changing and is being reclassified as a civil war and google will pick up all the results from before that. What matters is what is the prevailing term right now. If the Titanic sank today, the number of google hits would suggest it's a floating ship than a wreck, but it wouldn't be correct. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You are right. This is why I present here Google Search results for the past week:
  • News results for "Syrian uprising": about 4,000 [31]
  • News results for "Syrian civil war": about 280 [32]
So the media are calling it right now "uprising" not "civil war". Tradediatalk 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I realise Wikipedia names conflicts based on policies like WP:COMMONNAME as opposed to any objective criteria. But that does lead to surprising inconsistencies. For example:

  • Gaza War - lasted 3 weeks, approximately 1500 dead. 'A war', according to Wikipedia.
  • Syrian uprising (2011–present) - has lasted well over a year and still ongoing, over 15,000 dead. 'Not a war', according to Wikipedia.

Does that seem logical to anybody? I'm just saying, if the Gaza conflict was a war, surely this one is too. Robofish (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Robofish. My oppose !vote was based on WP:COMMONNAME. However, if we use common sense and ignore all rules, then the article name can be changed. This is probably helpful to the closing admin. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME has a significant flaw that it does not consider the rapid changing nature of news item and recent event and thus the name used in just a few days difference can change greatly. The Wikipedia:Search engine test does not point it out either. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Deviating from WP:COMMONNAME would set a very dangerous precedent that could lead to the renaming of thousands of articles. I don't think many admins would easily go down that path. SYSS Mouse, what you're describing is not a flaw, on the contrary: it prevents WP:RECENTISM.- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense that gaza is called war, whereas Syria is called uprising. Gaza was a war between Israelis and Palestinians. On the other hand, Syria is an uprising of people against their government. The number of people killed has nothing to do with it. During the French revolution, hundreds of thousands died. In spite of this, it is called revolution and not civil war. Tradediatalk 22:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The civil war in France during the Revolution is certainly called a civil war by historians (for example in the title of this book by a wellknown historian of the French Revolution). The civil war was a part of the French Revolutionary Wars. The recent events in Libya which has many similarities to the present troubles in Syria was also called a civil war (also on our own article is called Libyan civil war). Civil wars are usually the result of some people rising up against their government, the difference seems to be the extent of hostilities. Uprising is usually the early stages and if it never gets on the ground and is quickly stamped out by authorities. Civil war is when the conflict has escalated to a long term affair between two or more sides. With the Red Cross statement this has definitely entered the civil war stage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
So you found a book calling it French civil war. Big deal. That does not mean that it is its WP:COMMONNAME. If you do a google search on “French revolution” you get 11,900,000 hits. If you do a google search on “French civil war” you get 716,000 hits.
Libya is a different case and we let the media decide on Libya. The rest of your analysis is WP:OR. Tradediatalk 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Red Cross now declared, that the Syrian conflict is civil war. Doncsecztalk 10:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Doens't matter, the term still isn't commonly used to refer to the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I feel that there are currently enough recent sources to use the term "civil war" in the article, and that enough weight has been thrown behind the term by groups and people, something that is mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME. By the red cross calling it a civil war as I have said it changes how this "conflict" is now handled. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
google news search results does not support this. Tradediatalk 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple major news sources, including AP, now using the term "civil war"

The following major news sources are now using the words "civil war" directly to describe the conflict. These are direct reports on the war, and not reportage of the ICRC announcement.

  • Christian Science Monitor: [33] Quote: "Syria: Civil war engulfs Damascus"
  • Associated Press: [34] Quote: "Neighboring Iraq called on its citizens living in Syria to return home, as the fighting overshadowed another round of diplomatic maneuvering to end the civil war"
  • Fox News: [35] Quote: "The fierce clashes, which have raged over the past three days in at least four neighborhoods across the city, were the latest sign that Syria's civil war is moving ever closer to the heart of President Bashar Assad's regime"
  • The National: [36] Quote: "A Syrian civil war threatens region"
  • Foreign Policy: [37] Quote: "The Other Side of Syria's Civil War"
  • CBC: [38] Quote: "Now, the conflict is a full-blown civil war,"
  • Russia Today: [39] Quote: "Palestinian refugees who fled the long struggle in their own region now wearily watch the Syrian civil war unfold."
  • London Evening Standard: [40] Quote: "London has influence over the civil war in Syria"
  • The Daily Telegraph: [41] Quote: "While the focus of Syria's civil war is shifting towards Damascus, it is far from certain that the rebels are yet in a strong enough position to take the capital."
  • gulfnews.com: [42] Quote: "The proclamation by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) came as UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan said the 16-month crisis now increasingly described as a civil war was at a "critical time."
  • CNN: [43] Quote: "But the aftermath rings true for Syrians caught in the maelstrom of what is now called a civil war and the sight has become routine in areas where resolute residents have not buckled under to regime soldiers and their militia allies."
  • Vancouver Sun: [44] Quote: "Russia ready to seek consensus in UN on new resolution aimed at ending Syria's civil war"
  • Washington Post: [45] Quote: "Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi told a parliamentary committee that the Islamic militants have taken advantage of the chaos created by the Syrian civil war to approach the Golan area."
  • Deseret News: [46] Quote: " The bodies of two Iraqi journalists killed in Syria's civil war have been handed over to Baghdad, an Iraqi official said."
  • StarTribune: [47] Quotes: "Rebels pushing Syrian civil war to heart of power" ... '"The sounds of war are clear" throughout capital of Damascus.'
  • Belfast Telegraph: [48] Quote: "Syria is caught up in a civil war brought about after President Bashar Assad violently cracked down on a popular uprising that began 16 months ago. Activists say the conflict has killed more than 17,000 people."

That's sixteen major WP:RS, from multiple countries, and all over the political spectrum, using the term "civil war" to describe the conflict. The combination of this, the ICRC's announcement, and the fact that there is an obvious, visible, massive, all-out civil war being reported on all over every single news outlet, should make this page-move a no-brainer, surely? -- The Anome (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

FFS, we get it. Calm the heck down. Move requests last a minimum of 7 days. There's no bloody rush to to move an article: after all, Wikipedia is not a news source in and of itself. You've made your point more than once - doing it moreso is just disruptive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to provide a collection of definitive evidence of the new usage in one place, to make it clear that WP:RS are all converging on the use of "civil war". You're right, though, that I should calm down now. I can wait until the 22nd. -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is you already posted the same info above in another section in the talkpage here (doubled info), on top of that there are at least 4 sections that list references here now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it's two different sets of cites, to establish two quite different points. The first lot are cites providing evidence that multiple reliable sources regard the ICRC's statement categorizing the conflict as being a civil war as definitive; the second lot are evidence that multiple reliable sources are now themselves using the term directly in their own editorial voice to describe the conflict, in contexts in which they are not simply reporting the ICRC's take on the matter. -- The Anome (talk) 00:04, 18 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. 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! I will give a few examples. The first example is Associated Press. You show an article there with the term “civil war”. However I can easily find an article there from just two days ago with the title: Syria uprising puts Hezbollah on defensive. In another article from yesterday (Syrian troops recapture Damascus neighborhood) they write: “…all central to directing the crackdown on the uprising against his rule.” In spite of all the violence, they continue to use the term “uprising”, because it is a good description. It is exactly an uprising “against the rule of the president” The second example is The National. Again, an article from today says: “In Syria, Kurds are sitting on the sidelines of the uprising…” Your links relating to Washington Post, Deseret News, CBC, Star Tribune and Vancouver Sun just show articles by Associated Press… Concerning Daily Telegraph you have from yesterday an Article titled: “19,000 killed in Syrian uprising: NGO”. Concerning London Evening Standard, your link shows a comment piece by Nabila Ramdani and it says nothing about London Evening Standard "official" position. CNN article from today says: “Syria, a country engulfed by a fierce government offensive against dissidents and an armed uprising against the regime.” I will stop here as I am starting to get tired of this… Tradediatalk 23:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Google News search results

I’d like to point out that there are a lot of !Votes in this discussion, votes that shouldn’t count because of not enough reasoning using Wikipedia’s common name policy. Common name for current events depend a lot on what the media are calling them.

My hope with the Google News results is that they will provide a less painstaking way to check what the media is calling this conflict than searching for dozens of individual sources. The search results are also provide a less biased presentation of information. I realize that The Anome has presented a lot of reliable sources that appear to be calling this conflict a civil war, but this kind of presentation is kind of misleading because there could be an equal amount reliable sources not calling this conflict a civil war, that are not presented.

An important argument I see against the search results I provided above is that they are not recent enough to take account of the Red Cross’s decision to name the conflict a civil war. It turns out that contention is somewhat correct. Although most of the results are no more than a day or two old, a few are more than a week old.

To fix this issue I am narrowing the search to only include those less than a week old. Here’s what I got:

  • Results for "Syrian uprising" less than a week old: about 2,940 [49]
  • Results for "Syrian civil war" less than a week old: about 856 [50]

(Note: These numbers might change over time. The number you seen in the link might be different from the number I have entered above.) As you can see, “uprising” is still more commonly used in the media.

Should we narrow the results a bit more? Why not. Let’s narrow the results to less than 24 hours. However, the results for these are definitely a lot less stable. The numbers might fluctuate chaotically depending on when they are searched. Oh well. This is what I got:

  • Results for "Syrian uprising" less than 24 hours ago: about 409 [51]
  • Results for "Syrian civil war" less than 24 hours ago: about 224 [52]

I rest my case. As of now “Syrian uprising” is still more widely used, and therefore should remain the title of this article. Please don’t bring up an argument regarding the use of quotation marks in the search. I and others have already explained why they must be used above. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read in your sources that still say "Syrian uprising", they are articles written recently that have references to events that happened when it was still called the Syrian uprising. In particular a lot of them are duplicates of this article from the Associated Press, which has this particular quote [53]:

The violence is the most widespread and sustained fighting in the capital since the Syrian uprising began 16 months ago.

This is correct since the events back then should be properly referred to as the Syrian uprising. However this would have the side effect of buffing search results for "Syrian uprising" when in fact the news articles are just referring to it as history.
As a bonus, the same article which again I note has been duplicated on many other news sources has this quote too which does call the conflict as the Syrian civil war.

Now, the conflict is a full-blown civil war, and activists say more than 17,000 people have been killed since the revolt began. There are fears that the violence and chaos could spread across the region.

Either way citing the number of hits on search engines as your basis for common name policy is rather unreliable due to the nature of news outlets having duplicates from the international press. --112.203.46.42 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that the Associated Press is now calling it civil war? Well, this is not true. Just two days ago they have the article titled: Syria uprising puts Hezbollah on defensive. In another article from yesterday (Syrian troops recapture Damascus neighborhood) they write: “…all central to directing the crackdown on the uprising against his rule.” In spite of all the violence, they continue to use the term “uprising”, because it is a good description. It is exactly an uprising “against the rule of the president” Tradediatalk 01:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicates are just as likely to be on the “side” of uprising as on the “side” of civil war. So, the comparison is still valid. Tradediatalk 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Futuretrillionaire's metric is flawed and should not be used as a basis for naming this or any article. Using quotations limits search results to articles with that exact string, and ignores popular permutations such as "Civil War engulfs Syria," "Civil War in Syria," and "Syria: Civil war engulfs Damascus."(67.171.97.185 (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC))
112.203.46.42 and 67.171.97.185 have it exactly right. Google hit counting for something whose name has just changed is going to be totally misleading. Simple Google searches will generate false positives, even for articles which are actually evidence for use of the "civil war" name. It will also pick up retrospective articles which are still up on sites, and refer only to the war's previous history as an uprising.
For example, if we were to take Futuretrillionaire's figures of 224 "war" vs. 409 "uprising", and assume that every article that mentions the war also talks about its past as an uprising, then remove the double-counting, we would end up with 224 "war" vs. 409-224 = 185 "uprising", making it actually support the opposite assumption to that assumed by Futuretrillionaire. -- The Anome (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
“assume that every article that mentions the war also talks about its past as an uprising”: this is a very unrealistic assumption. You might as well assume that every article that mentions the uprising also says something like “if things worsen, it could become a war”, then remove the double-counting, we would end up with 409 "uprising" vs. 224-409 = -185 "war"! The reality is that we will have some double-counting on both sides, but the comparison is still valid. Tradediatalk 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Really? Do you have a better way? So just listing a bunch of articles with the terms civil war and ignoring all the article that use the term uprising is the way to go? Futuretrillionaire's metric is a good approximate way to figure out the relative occurrence of the competing terms. You say that it ignores popular permutations, and this is true. However, it also ignores popular permutations relating to the term uprising, such as “the uprising is syria”, etc. So both competing terms lose some permutations, but the comparison is still valid.
Not using quotations is not an option. It will bring articles like: “Syrian cuisine is delicious, and civil servants love Tabbouleh, so the war on fat is declared” Tradediatalk 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think it has become clear now that both "uprising" and "civil war" are being used in the news media, which is why I now formally change my vote from oppose to neutral. As of now, I believe either term can be an appropriate title for this article. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in your analysis and should not change your vote based on an invalid rebuttal. Tradediatalk 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to move

Reading through the above discussion, it seems pretty clear that community consensus supports renaming this article to Syrian Civil War (2011–present), yet it remains Syrian uprising (2011–present). What are we waiting for? Master&Expert (Talk) 05:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The administrator instructions for closing Requested Moves are pretty clear on the point - you don't close early, even if consensus appears to be reached. There's no rush: this is an encylopedia, not CNN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 07:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, then. But there doesn't appear to be very much dissent against renaming this article, nor am I convinced that anything of the sort will develop over the next few days. Nevertheless, if the community is confident in abiding by standard procedures (which is not necessarily a bad thing), then I'll support it. I was not aware that there was a seven day holding period for requested moves (I am not active in the area). Master&Expert (Talk) 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hold your horses, there's a seven day period for discussion.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as a relative outsider here I'm not seeing a consensus, let alone a "pretty clear" one. There appear to be strong arguments going both ways. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh what? o.O You are not seeing a consensus? 42 people have expressed arguments backed up by credible, reliable and highly official sources about it being and being called a civil war while only 6 people have expressed the opposite. How is that not a consensus? And a pretty clear one at that. There will always be a few people who disagree, but in this case a high majority of editors (almost 9 to 1), based on provided sources, have supported the rename. You will never have 100 percent approval in these kinds of discussions, but a 90 percent approval says a lot. Also, I didn't want to comment before, but your oppose vote argument, that just because the New York and London Times are not calling it a civil war is enough for you, is not really an argument and shows a bit of a non-neutral pov. EkoGraf (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not determined by vote. Rather, "[c]onsensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." In fact, specifically with respect to the moving of articles, "Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus." Now, with respect to my own opposition, my personal view is that we should look at the few most reliable sources and go from there. If you can identify sources more reliable that the New York Times and the London Times, then by all means I will consider them. And as I explained above in this Talk page, the ICRC is not as reliable as newspapers because it is not a true secondary source. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, would you than consider, besides the ICRC,[54], the following: France,[55] the UN peackeeping chief,[56], UN human rights chief,[57] CNN,[58] Associated Press,[59] Fox News,[60] CBS,[61] Russia Today,[62] Belfast Telegraph,[63] Star Tribune,[64] Washington Post,[65] Vancouver Sun,[66] Daily Telegraph,[67], etc? I can continue if you want. EkoGraf (talk) 06:45, 22 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. 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! I will give a few examples. The first example is Associated Press. You show an article there with the term “civil war”. However I can easily find an article there from just two days ago with the title: Syria uprising puts Hezbollah on defensive. In another article from yesterday (Syrian troops recapture Damascus neighborhood) they write: “…all central to directing the crackdown on the uprising against his rule.” In spite of all the violence, they continue to use the term “uprising”, because it is a good description. It is exactly an uprising “against the rule of the president” Your links relating to Washington Post, Star Tribune, CBC and Vancouver Sun just show articles by Associated Press… Concerning Daily Telegraph you have from yesterday an Article titled: “19,000 killed in Syrian uprising: NGO”.CNN article from today says: “Syria, a country engulfed by a fierce government offensive against dissidents and an armed uprising against the regime.” For france, you are quoting the French foreign minister from june 23, however, the French president himself said the opposite on july 14: “France's Hollande: still time to avoid Syrian civil war”. I will stop here as I am starting to get tired of this… Tradediatalk 00:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
EkoGraf, I think you're misunderstanding my approach. I care not for the number of reliable sources, I care about the most reliable sources. The NY Times is more reliable than any of the sources you list. They have more reporting experience, more editing experience, and more boots on the ground in Syria. Basically they're the pinnacle of journalism IMO, so I trust them. The Washington Post is close behind and I acknowledge that they're calling it a civil war (though not consistently). That's why I'm not a strongly oppose. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact, saying that NY Times and London Times are most reliable sources is very POV, and non-neutral. For one thing there are many other sources reliable too, and it's somewhat opinion which is most. I like Fox News, and CNN, and AJE, but that's my opinion. Also, NY Times and London Times you could say are liberally biased just like many Western sources. Saying they're the most reliable is biased and using different bias sources together is most reliable. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I know it's fashionable in some quarters (both right and left) to dis the NY Times but my preference for them has nothing to do with their political perspectives of their editorial board on U.S. domestic policy. The Times has been around MUCH longer than any of the media outlets you list, they are better respected within journalism circles, they put a lot more effort into their editorial process AFAIK, and they have more boots on the ground. The media outlets you list are all TV outlets, and all have a reputation for sensationalism and rushed and dumbed-down reporting. I believe Fox News and CNN both initially reported the Supreme Court's health care decision incorrectly. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have in fact identified a source more reliable and more widely used that the New York and London Times. This is Reuters, the biggest news agency of the world, and each of its article is used thousands of times by other media sources in the world. So what Reuters writes now? This was two days ago:
"The conflict has changed from an uprising in poor towns and villages to a civil war tearing the capital."
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/syria-crisis-bekhtyar-idINDEE86J0C420120720
Any objection now? It is a civil war, by name, definition, media, use and everything.--Maldonado91 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that Reuters is now calling it civil war? Well, this is not true. Just today they have this article where they write: “making it by far the bloodiest week in an uprising that has claimed the lives of 18,000 people”. And in this other article from today they write: “Assef Shawkat, seen as the strategic brain behind the crackdown on the uprising” Tradediatalk 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As admin already stated, this article will be dealt with in appropriate time. There are other articles in que which are waiting for admin decision and this one is no different. Everyone already presented his or hers opinion, so now we wait. Few days at max will not kill any of you. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Reliability isn't based on syndication. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
@Nstrauss — Consensus may not be a raw vote count, but when the vast majority of people are clearly in agreement with something, that's about as clear a consensus as there is. True, it is important for decisions made with regarding articles to have a basis in policy (even if consensus on the talk page is otherwise), but there are numerous other reputable sources that now refer to it as a civil war (including, of course, the Red Cross, the UN, and President Assad himself). As an aside, the people here who support the move are generally very well versed in Wikipedia policy, so their sentiments do not come from a misinformed perspective. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Of the three sources you name, only the Red Cross actually calls it a civil war. The UN doesn't wish to attach a name to the conflict, and al-Assad has said it's a "war" (meaning that his country is under attack from the outside), not a "civil war". Besides, consensus amongst editors isn't enough; the proposed title also has to be the common name in order for the move to be carried out. At the moment it seems that civil war is not the common name yet. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said, consensus -- especially with respect to administrative decisions -- is based not so much on numbers as much as on the strength of the arguments pro and con. I agree there are reliable sources calling it a civil war, but there are more reliable sources still calling it an uprising. You cite primary sources, which are of course disfavored. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Admin comment - for those clamoring for a premature close, the above two editors are correct. WP:RMCI calls for at least a seven-day period for an RM discussion to ensure ample time for any voices that want to be heard. This particular RM is about at the half-way point in a que of 202 formal RM discussions underway at this time that eventually have to be dealt with. This RM, regardless of the decision, is no more or no less important than the other 201 RMs ongoing. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_11&oldid=1092044971"