Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:34, 19 July 2012

The article Al-Bukamal protests was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 July 2012 with a consensus to merge the content into Syrian civil war. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

Syrian civil war received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Syrian civil war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Syrian civil war at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Syrian civil war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on Error: Invalid time..

A news item involving Syrian civil war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 July 2012.

Seriously, what's wrong with you people?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also agree. This is a civil war, not an uprising anymore. If this is not a civil war then please someone tell us how a civil war is different to what is happening now in Syria.Alexispao (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. At this rate the only source that will refuse to admit it is a civil war is the Syrian Assad regime and Misplaced Pages. Erzan (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This clearly isn't a mere uprising anymore.Sirtywell (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. Military units on maneuver, efforts to seize and hold territory, and oh by the way, the ICRC has certified the conflict as a Civil War. The debate should be over IMO. Its a Civil War. ArcherMan86 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree if this is not a civil war then i would like someone to show me what is, and how it differs from this. And also be sure to include a more authoritative source on the matter than the ICRC (is there even one?i dont think so)

the refusal to name the article correctly is now blatantly stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.210.194 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree! It's a full blown civil war. Only some people don't want to call it, what it is. (Metron (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC))

I would like to propose that this article be unlocked temporarily so that kspence92 has a chance to rewrite it. He has made some very persuasive arguments that the authors of the article clearly do not have an adequate understanding of the political, social, and cultural history of Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.32.51 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Military infobox and civil infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed addition on defections

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

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

Latest Syrian Defectors Are From Higher Ranks nytimes.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia again

I feel I need to explain it better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even Assad said Syria is in a state of war

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

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

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

Jury still out on the "civil war" issue

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

Data points:

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

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

WP:RS indicating ongoing transition to civil war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those news sources who have gone all the way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 1

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

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

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

Enough time has passed to start a new request.

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

Mine is the following:

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

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

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

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

The civil war is a lot more closer

3) The big change in media use:

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

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

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

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

Yahoo: 'syrian civil war'

Yahoo: 'syrian uprising'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of civil war usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google

Let this stand as proof:

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

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

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

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

UPDATED with quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Vote So Far

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syrian Revolutionary Front

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

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

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

Hezbollah included in the casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belligerents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human rights violations section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regime change bot needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keeping track of the sources calling it a civil war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN's definition of a civil war

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

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

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

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

Flaw in the "reliable media" argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition

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

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

Agreed, a simple map will be a good idea. Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The source Tradedia provided had a good map in it on page 8 of the document, and it appears to be a very reliable source. However, I'm not sure if Misplaced Pages can use it due to copyright issues. I made an amateur map based on the info provided on the map in the document, but I'm not sure if it's good enough to be included in the article.

File:Map of the Syrian Uprising- June (Final).gif

Description: "Situation in Syria as of June 2012." ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What about Deiz-Ez Zor, that's in control of the FSA. Syria's Kurdistan is out of assads control also. - Goltak (talk) 5:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The source didn't provide information on Kurds or the situation in Syria's eastern parts, so I didn't include that in the map. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This source shows that large swathes of Deiz ez zor province in rebel hands whilst this shows that the army withdrew from the main city and then it was almost completley controlled by the oppostion, . Good work on the map, I hope you can include this information to make it even more accurate. - Goltak (talk) 8:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay I added this to the map's description: "(Note: this map does not contain the situation in Syria's eastern parts, due to lack of solid information. However, it has been reported that parts of Deiz al-zor governorate are in rebel control as of June 24, 2012)". The Reuters article you cited does mention that because of media control by the Syrian government, information on the situation in Syria's east is hard to get. This explains why this report didn't provide details for the eastern provinces. I don't want to change the map now, because there are still other parts of Syria's east in which the situation is very unclear. If I include Deir al-Zor, then I'd have to include those other parts as well. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice work with the map, you are welcome to post it. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

On the map key it says "Rebels". But they call themselves the Free Syrian Army. "Rebel" has a romantic tone with a lot of baggage associated. They probably don't see themselves as rebels, but legitimate citizens trying to take back their country from an illegitimate war criminal and his mafia cronies. Others see it as a sectarian religious conflict. Others tribal conflict. Anyway, I think rebel is a POV term, maybe change it "Free Syrian Army and allied groups". Green Cardamom (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah

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

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

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

Casualties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iranian Basij

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

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

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

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

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

CIA, Mossad and Blackwater

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia3

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on

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

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

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

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

Al-Qaeda now listed as party to the conflict

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. .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 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 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 . 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 Tradedia (talk) 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 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)

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)

Map for the Syrian Uprising Added to the Article

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

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

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

New belligerent proposed: Kurdish's PYD

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 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. 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, 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 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 . 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 . 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 Tradedia (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

We are no more discussing about that, right now. Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:39, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

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

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:

• "Exclusive: Red Cross ruling raises questions of Syrian war crimes". Reuters. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross declares Syrian conflict to be civil war". Associated Press. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Syria in civil war, Red Cross says". BBC. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross: Syrian conflict now a civil war". The Guardian. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross classifies Syrian violence as 'internal armed conflict'". Haaretz. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross: Syria is now in civil war, humanitarian law applies". MSNBC. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross says Syria conflict a civil war, humanitarian laws now apply throughout country". Washington Post. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross Declares Civil War In Syria". NPR. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross says Syria conflict is now full-blown civil war". Fox News. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross: Syrian conflict now a civil war". USA Today. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Red Cross: Syria is now in civil war, humanitarian law applies". Msnbc.com. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
• "Heavy Fighting Breaks Out In Syrian Capital". Sky News. 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2012-07-15.

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 ⁄_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)

Requested move 2

It has been proposed in this section that Syrian civil war be renamed and moved to Syrian Civil War. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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 ⁄_berate 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support By the red cross calling this a civil war now both sides have to abide by the Geneva Conventions, this is huge as it changes the status in Syria humanitarianwise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support I'm not fully convinced that "Syrian Civil War" is the primary term in use by the media, but it's pretty obvious that's where the prevailing winds are blowing among governments and NGO's. Kiralexis (talk) 23:01, 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 - The Red Cross designation is significant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support the ICRC has designated that it has now become a civil war, so war crimes penalties apply from now forward -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Peacekeeping chief, and now this. Sopher99 (talk) 23:34, 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)

• Support, based on recent news change. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:03, 16 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)

• Let's try to keep the conspiracy theories to a minimum, shall we? Master&Expert (Talk) 05:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please discount votes based purely on conspiracy theories.--Forward Unto Dawn 23:33, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Tradedia (talk) 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)

• Oppose -Most of the news media still prefer the term "uprising" over "civil war". See my proof below (Google News).---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So, wikipedia is smarter than the Red Cross??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Misplaced Pages does not think. Misplaced Pages just follows the media. Tradedia (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You bet. Look what the media call Edelweiss, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Tradedia is right. Misplaced Pages uses the WP:COMMONNAME, not the WP:NAMETHATTHEREDCROSSHAPPENSTOUSE. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what an insight. Who says Misplaced Pages doesn't think? ←Baseball Bugs 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. Tradedia (talk) 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. Most common usage by the best sources supports or will soon support Civil War. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The Red Cross definition is important, but most news agencies has been calling it civil war for some time now anyway. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral, while the Red Cross, and a UN official named it a civil war, media still refer to it as "uprising". All articles below are recent, mostly the most recent article on this conflict. We name articles based on the most common name in reliable sources/media, not what an international party/organisation call it.
  • looking at the top news in The Guardian, it's titled "Bashar al-Assad could face prosecution as Red Cross rules Syria is in civil war", however in the article the conflict is referred to as "uprising" four different times. This is true for most sources, don't just put 10 sources quoting the Red Cross to support your position.
  • The term "uprising" is still used in a big number of reliable sources. These results were reached by simply opening the websites, rather then going to Google and searching specifically for "civil war" or "uprising". BBC, International Business Times, CNN, Washington Post, Al Jazeera, France 24/AFP, The Telegraph, Sky News, Foreign Policy, Washington Times, CBS News, Daily Mail.
  • A small number of sources didn't use any of the terms.
  • See my comment below. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support As per reasons above. Pro66 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sources consistently call it a civil war; so should we. bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Way overdue; this is clearly a civil war rather than merely an 'uprising', and has been for some time. Every day it keeps its current name makes Misplaced Pages look a little worse. Robofish (talk) 09:54, 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. Silverseren 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 ⁄_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)
  • Actully there are move moratoriums like the one put in place by an admin for The Libya civil war Talk:Libyan civil war#Counterproposal RfC: Move moratorium which was put in place after a consensus for it was done. This is the big BUT though, the moratorium was put in place due to bad faith move requests which were either started by Ips/new editors or by editors which always ended in no consensus by a majority. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 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)

• Strong Support. The ICRC is the de facto legal authority on this, and the response from mainstream news groups is clear. Bobbyb373 18:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Support, with the Red Cross declaration, civil war is the proper designation for the conflict. Gaston28 (talk) 21:01, 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 The only change in my vote since the last one is the addition of "Strong". My reason is unchanged: if reliable sources call it a civil war, it's not our job to argue over it, but merely to publish it.--Forward Unto Dawn 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support For the past 48 hrs, every televised news report I've seen is calling it a civil war now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The Red Cross has designated it a civil war; there is no doubt anymore. 48Lugur (talk) 01:37, 17 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)

• Strong Support. It's painfully obvious that it's a civil war and has been so for quite a while now, this should have been moved long ago. - 86.42.245.86 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support. It's evident it has escalated to full-blown civil war. Jamiroquai500 (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Uh duhhhhh!!! —stay (sic)! 01:26, 18 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. Per all the multiple reliable sources calling it that and per the Red Cross definition of the conflict.--Cattus 09:20, 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, Misplaced Pages 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. As above. I feel it's the right time to move now. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 21:19, 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)

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
• News results for "Syrian civil war": about 627

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. Tradedia (talk) 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
• Syrian civil war: about 42,100

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. Tradedia (talk) 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 ⁄_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
• News results for "Syrian civil war": about 280

So the media are calling it right now "uprising" not "civil war". Tradedia (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I realise Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
• Syrian uprising (2011–present) - has lasted well over a year and still ongoing, over 15,000 dead. 'Not a war', according to Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages: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. Tradedia (talk) 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)

The Red Cross now declared, that the Syrian conflict is civil war. Doncsecz 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)

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: Quote: "Syria: Civil war engulfs Damascus"
• Associated Press: 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: 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: Quote: "A Syrian civil war threatens region"
• Foreign Policy: Quote: "The Other Side of Syria's Civil War"
• CBC: Quote: "Now, the conflict is a full-blown civil war,"
• Russia Today: Quote: "Palestinian refugees who fled the long struggle in their own region now wearily watch the Syrian civil war unfold."
• London Evening Standard: Quote: "London has influence over the civil war in Syria"
• The Daily Telegraph: 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: 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: 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: Quote: "Russia ready to seek consensus in UN on new resolution aimed at ending Syria's civil war"
• Washington Post: 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: Quote: " The bodies of two Iraqi journalists killed in Syria's civil war have been handed over to Baghdad, an Iraqi official said."
• StarTribune: Quotes: "Rebels pushing Syrian civil war to heart of power" ... '"The sounds of war are clear" throughout capital of Damascus.'
• Belfast Telegraph: 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

As of now, 31 support, and only 4 oppose. In other words, 31/35 of the votes are 'Support'. Now, I know that Misplaced Pages's requested move discussions are not about voting, but I just felt like pointing that out. SuperHero2111 (talk) 22:34, 17 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 Misplaced Pages’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
• Results for "Syrian civil war" less than a week old: about 856

(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
• Results for "Syrian civil war" less than 24 hours ago: about 224

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 :

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)

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)

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)

Rough count: Civil War: 37, Uprising:5. Misplaced Pages is not a poll or a democrocy, but this does show (borderline) consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.24.86 (talk) 20:50, 18 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)

Syrian Army offensive around Damascus

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)

It's a Civil War

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 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)

Hezbollah and Iran

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)

Map

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 Misplaced Pages style map.

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 Misplaced Pages map out of it. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

news sources are concentrating on the civil war in Damascus now

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

I found a very good map of the uprising/civil war on this website. The creator and copyright holder allows Misplaced Pages to use it. 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)

I liked this map, it should be uploaded over here. Clarificationgiven (talk) 04:12, 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)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Turkey articles
• High-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• C-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Requested moves