This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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
-- 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)
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)
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 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 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)
The middle class is not just in Damascus, you got the whole rest of the country. Besides, read this [1] article from January. Even says 55 percent for Assad. But I cut it down to 50 percent because I am looking at the demographic realisticly. You got 16 percent non-Sunni Muslims who almost exclusivly support Assad, 13 percent Christians who for the better part also support Assad, 9 percent Kurds who have not sided with anyone and are docile (but are receiving support from Assad for their conflict with Turkey, so that says something). That's almost 38 percent there that is not part of the opposition, and that's not counting the middle class. Even if half the middle class has at the moment turned against Assad it would still at the very least be close to 50 percent. No, it's much more complicated than Libya. Like I said before, Syria is not Libya. If I would have to compare....than Syria is like Bosnia or Lebanon. Which means a few years of civil war are up ahead. And it wasn't just exclusivly the 90 percent African Libyans who supported Gaddafi, he still had some support from the Arabic Libyans, which would cover my 30 percent estimate. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
That's speculation and possibly original research, not admitted on Wikipedia. Besides, again, Russia itself says they do not support ether side while the Turks, Qatar and the Saudis openly support the rebels. EkoGraf ( talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, what you are saying is speculation and OR, not admitted on Wikipedia. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
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:
WP:RS indicating ongoing transition to civil war:
Those news sources who have gone all the way:
-- Chronulator ( talk) 22:26, 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)
Jerusalem Post calls it a Civil War too http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=275683 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.185.56 ( talk) 17:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
BBC Newsnight on 13/07/2012 called it a Civil war at 22:01 (minutes:seconds) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kvrk1/Newsnight_13_07_2012/ Erzan ( talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
International Red Cross now calls it a Civil War. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/14/uk-syria-crisis-icrc-idUKBRE86D09B20120714?feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA-GoogleNewsUK How long will Wikipedia wait to play catch up and change this from an uprising to Civil War? Erzan ( talk) 12:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
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
According to Yahoo search: the expression "syrian civil war" is now ahead of "syrian uprising" for the search this past month by 20%:
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, 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)
Support As above. I feel it's the right time to move now. -- Tonemgub2010 ( talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sopher99 ( talk) 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Remember, until there are sufficient reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war, the title must remain as it is.
For people who claim that Syria is in a civil war, please provide links to reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war. Don’t just claim that a source is calling this a civil war without providing the link to the source.
Google and yahoo search results can not be used, because not all results are reliable sources. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources.
I am questioning some of the sources Sopher99 provided. I checked his listed sources to see if they are actually calling the Syrian conflict a civil war.
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.
I'd be glad to check some more sources. Just mention them in the talk page.-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 19:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
syrian uprising - 1.14 million hits
syrian civil war - 656,000 hits
syrian conflict - 969,000 hits
syrian war - 122,000 results
Based on this i think it's clear that Syrian uprising should stay for now. And even though me and most other editors think that it is a Civil War, that is journalists decision to make, not ours. I am now formally changing my vote to Oppose even though when Civil War surpasses that of uprising in usage, i will change my vote. We may support the title civil war, but based on WP:COMMONNAME, we can't do that now. Thanks, Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I should repeat: Google and yahoo search results can not be used, because not all results are reliable sources. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources.-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
"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)
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)
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/09/world/meast/syria-unrest/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/08/assad-accuses-us-fueling-syrian-uprising/#ixzz20BU3UTUW
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)
Just wanted to say that claiming numbers stated by a rebel force is never a "good" idea. Heck who should they even know.. Article lacks quite heavily neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.110.192 ( talk) 10:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW and who is reading the indorsement "*Number possibly higher due to the opposition counting rebels that were not defectors as civilians.[24]" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.254.110.192 (
talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Again and again, every expression about the involvement of foreign powers (especially US and Israeli) are being considered as unreliable statements. It seems that Wikipedia has turned into a great bulk of anti-Syria propaganda. I insist to add CIA, Mossad and Blackwater in the list of opposition supporters.-- Preacher lad ( talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
I found a good map of the situation in Syria from a very reliable source. [24] However, I'm not sure if Wikipedia can use it due to copyright issues. I made an amateur map based on the info provided on the map in the document, and posted in the "renewed fighting" section of "Timeline". I'm not sure if this is the best place to put it though.---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: Moved the map to the "Summary" section of "Timeline". ---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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
-- 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)
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)
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 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 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)
The middle class is not just in Damascus, you got the whole rest of the country. Besides, read this [1] article from January. Even says 55 percent for Assad. But I cut it down to 50 percent because I am looking at the demographic realisticly. You got 16 percent non-Sunni Muslims who almost exclusivly support Assad, 13 percent Christians who for the better part also support Assad, 9 percent Kurds who have not sided with anyone and are docile (but are receiving support from Assad for their conflict with Turkey, so that says something). That's almost 38 percent there that is not part of the opposition, and that's not counting the middle class. Even if half the middle class has at the moment turned against Assad it would still at the very least be close to 50 percent. No, it's much more complicated than Libya. Like I said before, Syria is not Libya. If I would have to compare....than Syria is like Bosnia or Lebanon. Which means a few years of civil war are up ahead. And it wasn't just exclusivly the 90 percent African Libyans who supported Gaddafi, he still had some support from the Arabic Libyans, which would cover my 30 percent estimate. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
That's speculation and possibly original research, not admitted on Wikipedia. Besides, again, Russia itself says they do not support ether side while the Turks, Qatar and the Saudis openly support the rebels. EkoGraf ( talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, what you are saying is speculation and OR, not admitted on Wikipedia. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
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:
WP:RS indicating ongoing transition to civil war:
Those news sources who have gone all the way:
-- Chronulator ( talk) 22:26, 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)
Jerusalem Post calls it a Civil War too http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=275683 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.185.56 ( talk) 17:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
BBC Newsnight on 13/07/2012 called it a Civil war at 22:01 (minutes:seconds) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kvrk1/Newsnight_13_07_2012/ Erzan ( talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
International Red Cross now calls it a Civil War. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/14/uk-syria-crisis-icrc-idUKBRE86D09B20120714?feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA-GoogleNewsUK How long will Wikipedia wait to play catch up and change this from an uprising to Civil War? Erzan ( talk) 12:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
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
According to Yahoo search: the expression "syrian civil war" is now ahead of "syrian uprising" for the search this past month by 20%:
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, 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)
Support As above. I feel it's the right time to move now. -- Tonemgub2010 ( talk) 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sopher99 ( talk) 21:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Remember, until there are sufficient reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war, the title must remain as it is.
For people who claim that Syria is in a civil war, please provide links to reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war. Don’t just claim that a source is calling this a civil war without providing the link to the source.
Google and yahoo search results can not be used, because not all results are reliable sources. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources.
I am questioning some of the sources Sopher99 provided. I checked his listed sources to see if they are actually calling the Syrian conflict a civil war.
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.
I'd be glad to check some more sources. Just mention them in the talk page.-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 19:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
syrian uprising - 1.14 million hits
syrian civil war - 656,000 hits
syrian conflict - 969,000 hits
syrian war - 122,000 results
Based on this i think it's clear that Syrian uprising should stay for now. And even though me and most other editors think that it is a Civil War, that is journalists decision to make, not ours. I am now formally changing my vote to Oppose even though when Civil War surpasses that of uprising in usage, i will change my vote. We may support the title civil war, but based on WP:COMMONNAME, we can't do that now. Thanks, Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I should repeat: Google and yahoo search results can not be used, because not all results are reliable sources. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources.-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
"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)
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)
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/09/world/meast/syria-unrest/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/08/assad-accuses-us-fueling-syrian-uprising/#ixzz20BU3UTUW
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)
Just wanted to say that claiming numbers stated by a rebel force is never a "good" idea. Heck who should they even know.. Article lacks quite heavily neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.110.192 ( talk) 10:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW and who is reading the indorsement "*Number possibly higher due to the opposition counting rebels that were not defectors as civilians.[24]" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.254.110.192 (
talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Again and again, every expression about the involvement of foreign powers (especially US and Israeli) are being considered as unreliable statements. It seems that Wikipedia has turned into a great bulk of anti-Syria propaganda. I insist to add CIA, Mossad and Blackwater in the list of opposition supporters.-- Preacher lad ( talk) 21:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
I found a good map of the situation in Syria from a very reliable source. [24] However, I'm not sure if Wikipedia can use it due to copyright issues. I made an amateur map based on the info provided on the map in the document, and posted in the "renewed fighting" section of "Timeline". I'm not sure if this is the best place to put it though.---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: Moved the map to the "Summary" section of "Timeline". ---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)