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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The Socio-economic section can be scrapped entirely because the bytes on the page are getting too big. The economics and such are not a good background to the uprising. - I7laseral ( talk) 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I really think the following information should be removed from the intro.
It should be removed because:
XantheTerra ( talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I am against removing it, we can update stats as time goes by. Rebel actions also important to note. The stats are important because people could think its a war and not a crackdown otherwise. It is important to the overal picture of article, I don't get why you think its not. Deaths statistics are a primary reasoning behind the uprising and its wikipedia article. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)/Archive_5#My_solution_to_the_Lede
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Lately, some considerable changes have been made which, to me, seem to contravene earlier consensuses. For one, Hezbollah has been added to the infobox as a belligerent, while there has been a broad consensus not to include alleged belligerents such as Al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah. None of the references given for Hezbollah's alleged involvement actually have them as a declared combatant; rather, they're articles on how certain newspapers and the Free Syrian Army allege that Hezbollah partakes in the conflict. Secondly, the 'concessions' section has been removed from the infobox without any apparent reason; we discussed its inclusion before and back then it was decided not to remove it, so what has changed? For both these changes, no (new) consensus has been sought on the Talk page, so I'm curious as to what was the motivation behind them. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
POV pushers are evident on the article by the way the usa is on record in supporting the opposition but is not mentioned in the infobox which is weird. Baboon43 ( talk) 11:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
They support the opposition politicaly but they are not active participants in the conflict. The infobox exists so it can list those directly involved in the conflict. At this point those are the opposition rebels, the government, and to an extent Iranian special forces and the Hezbollah militia. When there are American boots on the ground only than can we add the US. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The infobox is crystal clear, the section in which the warring sides are named is called Parties to the civil conflict. Is the US or Russia in direct involvement to the civil conflict? No. The Iranians and Hezbollah are. This is a clear example of a proxy war between the US and EU on one side and Russia and China on the other, just like the conflicts during the Cold war. But there we didn't include the US or Russia to be part of every war that happened even though they both allegedly provided support to multiple warring sides. Until there is at least confirmation of US military advisors in Syria, like we had in Libya, the US is not part of the conflict. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This might be a nitpicking...
According to 3 sources provided ( [3], [4] and [5]), Iran confirmed the military aid to the Syrian government. However, if Iran really confirmed this, than it should be expected that Iranian press (e.g. Press TV) would report about it, but such an report is nowhere to be found.
If someone manages to find such an source, it would be good to include it. Video would also be good.
Also, it bothers a bit that out of those 3 sources provided, first one is from 27. May, while other two are from 28. May (which means they might have just used the first one as a source), and this first one is by Ynetnews, which is Israeli newspaper, and Iran and Israel are well known for their mutual hatred, so one might doubt this claim without confirmation from Iranian sources. -- 93.138.49.138 ( talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The confirmation came from the top commander of the Iranian Quds force on the official website of the Iranian government, however, as the sources we have provided say themselves, the statement was quickly removed from the website after he was quoted of confirming their presence in Syria. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You telling me CNN and New York times are not influenced by the view of their own government? Please lets not kid ourselves here. In any case, as far as I know, US media has also been criticized to be spreading US propaganda, and not just by Russia today. Why are we than removing Russia today references and not US media references? Also, the New York times isn't really the best source to cite accusations of russia today being a propaganda channel since its been criticized by many American experts themselves that the Times is more radical and biased in their views than most other US media outlets. In any case, please, per Wikipedia guidelines we need to keep a neutral position and present views of both sides. And for that we use all sources. Wikipedia has not imposed a rule declaring Russia today to be on its list of non-reliable sources that can not be used, until that happens, we regard it as a reliable source, despite what our personal opinions on the matter are. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others to decide whether Fatah al-Islam has confirmed its participation in the military conflict in Syria (I don't know), but it's clear at this time that Iran hasn't.
As far as the reliability of sources is concerned, and in this context, I don't find the New York Times more reliable than Russia Today, and EllsworthSK has failed to establish that Wikipedia does either. - Darouet ( talk) 22:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to compare the independence and reputation of US media and that of Russian media. If you don’t believe me then take a look at what happened today: Protestor Jailed for Spitting on Putin Portrait. This would never happen in the US. Russia is a corrupt country (ranked 143rd in the world on the Corruption Perceptions Index, whereas the US is ranked 24th)… Tradedia talk 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken a few months back US police arrested 300 Wall Street protesters, [12] also I know over the years many protesters in the US were arrested for burning the US flag (which is the equivelent of a protester spitting on Putins portrait in Russia) and per that Index you showed the US may not be in the red on the corruption level, but its not also in the green. Its in the yellow. ;) And don't get me started on the rendition thing and the wiretapping. So please don't talk to me by saying US politicians are not corrupt. Anyway this is off-topic. We were talking about Iranian and Hezbollah presence in Lebanon. But at this point I don't care anymore really. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
this link here CNN quotes an Iran minister saying, "before our presence in Syria, too many people were killed by the opposition but with the physical and nonphysical presence of the Islamic republic, big massacres in Syria were prevented." This was said by Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force. Is this not good proof Iran is in Syria? If it isn't then what is? Because apparently the CIA's intelligence findings are not reliable. Jacob102699 ( talk) 13:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that an infobox is a place to summarize the significant elements of a conflict. The 30 infiltrators of Fatah al-Islam do not constitute a significant “Party to the civil conflict”. I mean we are talking about a country of 22 million people. Therefore, I think Fatah al-Islam should be kept off the infobox. It is already described in the “Foreign involvement” section.
On the other hand, I think that the military support of Iran is significant. Iran is a country of 80 million and has a lot at stake in Syria. Ismail Ghani had a slip up and admitted what we all knew all along: “physical … presence of the Islamic republic.” They then realize that he was supposed to keep their presence secret, but it was too late. I can imagine a high ranking official reading what Ghani said and being like: “Oh damn, this idiot was not supposed to say we have troops in Syria… It’s supposed to be a secret!” Then, he’s like: “Quick, let’s remove this text from the website… hopefully no one would have noticed…” Hahaha… yeah right… the news got out and it is now in CNN and other media outlet. So yes, Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force did admit that Iran had troops on the ground in Syria. When you slip up and tell a secret, it is too late afterwards to take it back. It is barely a secret anyway… Everyone and his grandma know that Iran/Hezbollah are on the ground in Syria. Therefore, I think Iran/Hezbollah should be kept in the infobox. Tradedia talk 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Iran and Hezbollah belong in the infobox, and they have for a long time. This is simply the latest in a long list of sources stating they have an armed presence in Syria. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I will be making the title change to meet wikipedia title requirment so the new title will be 2011-2012 syrian uprising if the uprising continues to 2013 then somebody will have to move the title to 2011-2013 syrian uprising. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
We had actually determined beforehand through consensus on the talk page that 2011-present was the best format. Please see the archives. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Besides of which, what requirements? You did not provide a link to a guideline. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"2011-2012"? This suggests the conflict has ended. It hasn't. Therefore the name should be changed. What is this? Shouldn't it be changed to Syrian Civil War or something (just a suggestion, but calling it 2011-2012 is definitely wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.4.0 ( talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Was thinking the same thing today. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Do we need years at all? i.e.: "Syrian Uprising" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.16.30 ( talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
"Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing" It doesn't say 2012. 2011-2012 sounds wrong and is misleading. It makes assumptions. Totally unencyclopaedic.
So how do I edit wikipedia then?
I agree with Greyshark09. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 18:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You can't just move a discussion from 2 months ago to the forefront like this MohammedBinAbdullah and continue it like it never ended. The discussion ended 2 months ago and consensus was to put 2011-present in the title. If you want to change the name than you need to open a new discussion section, not trying to reopen a closed one. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I just changed the infobox to the "military conflict" one. Is this OK? In my opinion, this is obviously a military conflict by now; the protests have fallen by the wayside, replaced by the FSA's guerrilla war. 48Lugur ( talk) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The uprising article already have too much content and its own outline relate to a civil uprising (2011-early 2012). A new article is need about this borning civil war (2012) so we can structure a fresh outine. The dynamic are different, a new article is need. Suggestion: Syrian civil war (2012). We should avoid an easy move, and take the opportunity to provide a new article dedicated to the rich 2012 events. Yug (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - firstly there is no clear date as to when the "uprising" became a civil war, secondly the uprising and civil war are so closely connected as to make a split highly artificial and impractical. The uprising is not merely background to the civil war, it is one and the same thing just at an earlier stage of development. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should include this under combatants. The information that supports this from reliable sources is undeniable.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/foreign-jihadists-declare-war-on-syria-s-assad-a-824875.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/foreign-fighters-trickle-into-the-syrian-rebellion http://www.smh.com.au/world/syrian-conflict-attracting-foreign-fighters-weapons-20120217-1temk.html http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0607/Syria-conflict-5-warring-factions/Foreign-fighters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 17:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. Foreign fighters are present on both sides, but we only include official belligerents. I7laseral ( talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand.
This is clearly a war, with large amount of troops moving. The conflict has escalated since the collapse of the ceasefire. There are right now 150 soldiers and hundred of insurgents killed per week. This is way past the uprising point.
The vote above has seen an big majority for the name change.
Can someone with knowledge of how to move a page takes the responsability and moves it right now?-- Hellmayor ( talk) 13:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a wide consensus. The number of people opposing the move is negligible. Consensus does not mean unanimity. There will always been some people like you trying to block everything. But the enormous majority has decided. Change it now.-- Hellmayor ( talk) 07:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
so what happened to the main multi-pictures picture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.240.205 ( talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you please advise me of how to resolve this issue. I have provided all the needed copyright information, and it was approved twice. I mentioned the srouces of all the pictures and copyright licenses. -- OSFF ( talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be urgently fixed - the article requires a topic picture. Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I worked a lot on the issue with no result. we need some admin help. I have already wasted a lot of time trying to fix this issue much more than the time it took me to put the topic picture together and provide the licence info. I followed the above mentioned link and opened the issue there without any luck. -- OSFF ( talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
something need to be done to the topic picture -- OSFF ( talk) 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello people help is required here-- OSFF ( talk) 14:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
We should use the libyan civil war style map , in when the red represents the opposition and the green represents the regime and pro-regime cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.172.242 ( talk) 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a big flaw with the “main picture”. It doesn’t show any demonstration! Remember that this is part of the Arab spring… Tradedia talk 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems like this is being ignored, so to make it clear: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA [13]
Asked about remarks concerning whether a civil war is taking place in Syria, the Spokesperson, said that is not for the Secretariat to determine or formally characterize the nature of the conflict in Syria. What we are all focusing on, he said, is that there has been a dangerous intensification of armed violence across Syria in the last several days. That is something that the Secretary-General himself referred to in the statement that came out on Monday evening, and he also commented on the scale of the violence in his comments to the press last Thursday. Last week, Nesirky noted, the Secretary-General said in a press encounter that “the confrontations in certain areas of the country have taken on the character of an internal conflict.” He has made clear his concerns about the implications of an intensification of the conflict, both inside Syria and for the region. Asked about a formal determination of a civil war, Nesirky noted the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross in making such a determination. He noted that the ICRC makes assessments concerning internal conflicts and internal armed conflicts, in line with its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions. Other matters, he added, would be for the Security Council to determine. The situation of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is already a challenging one, he said. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it OK if the official facebook page of SOHR is quoted? On the SOHR Arabic website, a link is directly provided to the facebook page of SOHR. This updates very regularly and contains much clearer, consistent and organised content than the Arabic website of SOHR which rarely updates at all. Can this be made an exception? Jafar Saeed ( talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue is, is that, the SOHR authorised FB page provides clear and detailed information about the overall death toll for the day. I then attempt to proceed to attempt to find a site that references the SOHR death toll. I used to commonly reference 'Support Kurds in Syria', which has recently closed down, and now I am stuck without the ability to quote any external references. This information is deemed the most reliable and is widely quoted by all news agencies. BUT SOHR reports overall death tolls the day after they take place; so news agencies only quote individual events that SOHR reports (i.e. news agencies dont report on events a day earlier when SOHR updates specific events within the 'current day' at the time of the specific news reporting). This information is vital to providing an adequate account of the uprising (and sources such as LCC are hugely biased and unreliable).
Jafar Saeed (
talk) 18:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SOHR is nowhere near as biased as other sources and displays no signs of bias within the overall death toll counts; for instance, civilian deaths are given without the generalisation of labelling all the deaths as regime-caused. It even mentions the killing of civilians due to rebels when necessary. It also reports reliable figures on the regime law-enforcers death toll. I think you are confused, SOHR is not a faceb ook page, it has an Arabic-language website. The problem is is that this website rarely uodates and when it does, the content is minimal and unorganised. The website contains a direct link to the facebook page of SOHR as the 'English language' version of the website which updates very regularly. Jafar Saeed ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SOHR calls a bearded man with a kalashnikov a civilian. They are not reliable.-- Aviri'c ( talk) 20:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that we should consider replacing the multi-picture front picture, with a map filled in with the relative colours of the armies (use red & green) similar to the picture that was present on the timeline of the Libyan conflict. It is known that the rebels control certain areas and I think that it would be proficient ot use such a map to help illustrate the respective areas that the government/rebels control (or hold influence over). Jafar Saeed ( talk) 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to remove. Having read all the discussion I find that there is no consensus to move. I discarded many !votes (both opposes and supports) as they relied on an assessment of whether the situation met some definition of civil war. This is original research and not how we determine the name of an article on Wikipedia - we rely on reliable sources. Moving on to the !votes that use reliable sources for their reasoning I find that there are reliable sources using both terms. This is not a case of some of those sources using an old term but some of them specifically refuse to define the situation as a civil war. What ever type of source we use, the press, government or UN, there seems to be some that are calling it a "civil war" and other elements that are saying it is not. This seems to me to be a classic "no consensus" and so the article should stay at Syrian uprising (2011–present) for the moment. In this instance defaulting to the current situation (and I refer here to when the discussion was started not to the situation after the move by someone involved) is particularly sensible, because as far as I'm aware, from this discussion, there is no one that disagrees that it was an uprising so we're not defaulting to a possibly incorrect name or similar but rather to one that might be outdated. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War – Nobody is using the word uprising anymore. The term civil war is more and more used and as well more accurate. Uprising is a joke of a name. Evidence: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=syria+civil+war&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=
1. It's a movement led by the opposition 2. The movement had goal the restignation of Bashar al-Assad 3. It haves civil involvement but with the help of Syrian National Council's forces 4. It's more that a civil uprising for the human rights, it's a civil war with military intervention of government-in-exile's forces ( Free Syrian Army, Syrian Liberation Army,etc...) 5. More sources says that is a civil war -- Luis Molnar ( talk) 08:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Syrian civilians inside Syria who support the current regime. - Syrian civilians outside Syria who support the current regime. - Syrian Armed Forces who supports the current regime. - Syrian civilians inside Syria against the current regime. - Syrian civilians outside Syria against the current regime. - Syrian "Armed" civilians against the current regime. - Syrian "Armed" ex-military members against the current regime. - Non-Syrian "Armed" groups are joining forces against the regime (due to Islamic culture, concept of patriotism disappears once compared to Islamism). - Non Syrian civilians who support the regime. - Non Syrian civilians against the regime. - Governments who are following the Islamism vs Patriotism concept (shortly mentioned above) - Governments who are going against the current regime because that falls to their benefit. - Governments who are benefiting from the current chaos in Syria. Until this time, the majority of people in Syria are not taking sides, most of the people are too scared to interfere or to give any opinions about the current situation of the country or what is going to happened, however, the majority of people are against civil war, and all are waiting for a resolution. The current regime is not striking with all it's power claiming that this is to save as many civilian lives as possible, while the FSA (Free Syrian Army) cannot make any difference without a foreign intervention. The governments supporting the FSA (both due to Islamism, or having interest in chaos) are providing intelligence information, communication and advanced weapons to maintain a non-stable state of the country. Shiblie ( talk) 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblie ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Other than those alot of material I found is from June 8 and repeats the same words "Warns of a civil war" "Civil war looming" and "Worries of a civil war" with a few but not many new sources saying the same thing. So we editors on wikipedia can either wait a few days, if the violence continues than more sources might be calling it a Civil war ot call it a civil war based on newer sources comming out. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
UN peacekeeping chief says that starting today Syria is at full civil war. I don't think you can get a more potent RS than the very guy whose job is to determine the situation in every country.
Al Jazeera I7laseral ( talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep. If only people weren't too ignorant to change it. This is a war. They are slaughtering children. OWS (which I oppose heavily, I am just using it as an example) is an uprising. This is a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlf ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If the UN says it is a civil war, then it is. I saw this on Al Jazeera too. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
France has now said they also believe it has become a civil war, and in the same article the BBC's diplomatic correspondent says there is a "developing consensus in branding the Syrian crisis a civil war." -- Smurfy 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this gets closed with an overwhelming consensus to move. The U.N. thing really just puts the discussion at a point where the opposes can't argue very much anymore. All we need is someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Strong support - per proposer, really rather surprising that this is still even being discussed. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Strong support Move it now! Or will you wait until there is nobody left to call it an uprising? ( Metron ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC))
Strong support - UN declares that Syria now in full-scale civil war - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 09:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - As with the Libyan civil war, can we please, please, please, uncapitalize the article name. Syrian civil war, not Syrian Civil War. Everyone is saying "civil war in Syria" or "Syria is now in a state of civil war" but not THE Syrian Civil War. Capitalization rules are clear, and it shouldn't be capitalized. Jeancey ( talk) 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Let's call a spade a spade. This business in Syria meets any definition of "civil war" that one could conceivably use. Joe routt ( talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Per the UN decision. This seems relatively straightforward. Also, in response to Jeancey's comment, not to intentionally single this user out, but as this is a proper noun it should be capitalized. See: First Ivorian Civil War and American Civil War as examples. Eagletennis ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest UN statement: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA [46]
Asked about remarks concerning whether a civil war is taking place in Syria, the Spokesperson, said that is not for the Secretariat to determine or formally characterize the nature of the conflict in Syria. What we are all focusing on, he said, is that there has been a dangerous intensification of armed violence across Syria in the last several days. That is something that the Secretary-General himself referred to in the statement that came out on Monday evening, and he also commented on the scale of the violence in his comments to the press last Thursday. Last week, Nesirky noted, the Secretary-General said in a press encounter that “the confrontations in certain areas of the country have taken on the character of an internal conflict.” He has made clear his concerns about the implications of an intensification of the conflict, both inside Syria and for the region. Asked about a formal determination of a civil war, Nesirky noted the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross in making such a determination. He noted that the ICRC makes assessments concerning internal conflicts and internal armed conflicts, in line with its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions. Other matters, he added, would be for the Security Council to determine. The situation of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is already a challenging one, he said. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Support there is enough criteria provided by sources that establish this as a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 ( talk) 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: A civil war is when various factions within a country fight each other. For example if the fighting was between Alawites and Sunnis, yes it is a civil war. But this is not the case in Syria. It is a popular uprising in the country by predominantly Sunnite opposition and a central government using its force to stop the uprising. We sometimes hear political analysts as saying the conflict is now "descending into a civil war". This is basically done on ideological rather than factual grounds. there are no blockades between regions or religious communities fighting each other as was the case in Lebanon for example. Syrian Civil War if implemented by Wikipedia as a result of this discussion is a great travesty towards facts regardless of how much percentage support the move acquires. This is not a popularity contest in which opposers to the admittedly very oppressive regime of Syria use it as a platform to "create history" despite all facts to the contrary. You may hate Assad and his forces as much as you want. But this is no civil war. Even the opposition forces say they are not a sectarian movement of the Sunnis but reflect the aspirations of the whole population being Sunnite, Chiite, Alawite, Christian or Kurdish. So even the opposition leadership doesn't consider this as a civil war, but an uprising to topple a dictatorship and oppressive government. Even if later on, for arguments sake, the conflict does degenerate into a civil war (just a speculation, but it might be the case in the future when various communities, probably Sunnite and Alawite in essence, start building blockades against each other and start slaughtering each other by thousands and forcibly remove minorities having the misfortune of being in the "wrong region"), I suggest making a clear distinction at that time in dividing the Syrian troubles into two clear and separate pages, one for the uprising from 2011 until whenever, and the other to the actual civil war that might follow in some time in the future, let's just assume between Alawites and Sunnis. Meanwhile don't "create" history for a certain agenda or in some cases, possibly plain disregard to the present facts of the conflict and possibly ignorance as well of the actual facts of the region
werldwayd (
talk) 12:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
werldwayd (
talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems you totally missed what happen in Syria. Alawites and Christians heavily supports Assad, while Sunni oppose him and while Kurds are on the sidelines. The sectarian violence has been a huge element of it and is an integral part of the current conflict. By the way, you don't need a community vs community in religious term to call it a civil war.
The secession war was a civil war, the Spanish civil war was a civil war, and it was not on religious or racial ground. So you post is pointless. A civil war is when different faction inside a country are at war, and this is precisely the case.-- Aviri'c ( talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Support- Per the U.N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.38.235 ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Strongly support- as this is clearly a civil war, anyone but the bureaucrats that oppose can see that. Drlf ( talk) 20:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This is how the debate went in changing the the title of the 2011 Libya uprising to the 2011 Libyan civil war.
And only 2 sources, CNN and MSNBC were calling the Libyan conflict a civil war, and yet users still found this evidence enough and consensus enough to call the situation in Libya a civil war.
The vast majority were using the facts about what make a civil war a civil war to conclude a vote.
Sopher99 ( talk) 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Not saying this determines consensus as WP:IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, but it is worth looking at.
Vote Count 25 support, 12 oppose. Closure 18 support, 9 oppose.
It seems we have a almost but not complete consensus on moving, but no consensus on closing yet. You can vote in both the move and closure section,(READ THIS, IMPORTANT) and to make a consensus, you have to vote in the moving section, the first one. Thanks, and the vote is not over. Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Obama: U.S. can work with Russia to 'prevent civil war' in Syria
This article, dated 18 June, directly quotes president Obama as saying "We agreed that (...) a political process has to be created to prevent civil war and the kind of horrific events that we've seen over the last several weeks". Evidently, both president Obama and president Putin, leaders of two of the largest and most influential countries in the world, don't regard the Syrian conflict as currently being a civil war, or else they wouldn't have expressed the desire to prevent civil war. If even those two aren't calling this a civil war, who are Wikipedians to decide it should be called a civil war? N.B., when we renamed 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war, Obama was already referring to that conflict as a civil war and that was actually used as an argument for moving the article, see e.g. here. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Doncsecz has chosen to be WP:BOLD and move the article is this okay with everyone? If this does take issue someone may want to put a request to have this article move protected until the discussion here is closed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Tradedia talk 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Move back to original status: A colleague has unilaterally moved the article to a civil war. This unilateral move by one individual is a matter of grave concern and contrary to all etiquette between colleagues. Very importantly, this goes contrary to general Wikipedia practice when a move is still in discussion. It should be immediately reverted until an admin closes all arguments for a concensus. I repeat that this is not a popularity contest nor an ideological agenda. We are not here to "create history ourselves" simply because we have rights to move an article according to our conception of what a situation is. Particularly when it has been subject to so much pro and con discussion, the status quo and the original title should prevail until closed by an administrator with a resume of all ideas taken into consideration. Until then, original status quo must prevail. werldwayd ( talk) 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Wait for an admin to intervene and close I have alreay placed a request over at WP:ANI, changing the context of the article will just confuse readers I say wait for a closure here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
As an aside the reason that this may not have been closed earlier is because of this edit and later edits that updated the count. The RM bot looks for the first signature timestamp after the request and uses this as the time for the request at WP:RM. That edit introduced a new first signature and then the time was constantly updated resetting the 7 days each time the numbers were updated. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The Socio-economic section can be scrapped entirely because the bytes on the page are getting too big. The economics and such are not a good background to the uprising. - I7laseral ( talk) 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I really think the following information should be removed from the intro.
It should be removed because:
XantheTerra ( talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I am against removing it, we can update stats as time goes by. Rebel actions also important to note. The stats are important because people could think its a war and not a crackdown otherwise. It is important to the overal picture of article, I don't get why you think its not. Deaths statistics are a primary reasoning behind the uprising and its wikipedia article. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)/Archive_5#My_solution_to_the_Lede
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Lately, some considerable changes have been made which, to me, seem to contravene earlier consensuses. For one, Hezbollah has been added to the infobox as a belligerent, while there has been a broad consensus not to include alleged belligerents such as Al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah. None of the references given for Hezbollah's alleged involvement actually have them as a declared combatant; rather, they're articles on how certain newspapers and the Free Syrian Army allege that Hezbollah partakes in the conflict. Secondly, the 'concessions' section has been removed from the infobox without any apparent reason; we discussed its inclusion before and back then it was decided not to remove it, so what has changed? For both these changes, no (new) consensus has been sought on the Talk page, so I'm curious as to what was the motivation behind them. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
POV pushers are evident on the article by the way the usa is on record in supporting the opposition but is not mentioned in the infobox which is weird. Baboon43 ( talk) 11:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
They support the opposition politicaly but they are not active participants in the conflict. The infobox exists so it can list those directly involved in the conflict. At this point those are the opposition rebels, the government, and to an extent Iranian special forces and the Hezbollah militia. When there are American boots on the ground only than can we add the US. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The infobox is crystal clear, the section in which the warring sides are named is called Parties to the civil conflict. Is the US or Russia in direct involvement to the civil conflict? No. The Iranians and Hezbollah are. This is a clear example of a proxy war between the US and EU on one side and Russia and China on the other, just like the conflicts during the Cold war. But there we didn't include the US or Russia to be part of every war that happened even though they both allegedly provided support to multiple warring sides. Until there is at least confirmation of US military advisors in Syria, like we had in Libya, the US is not part of the conflict. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This might be a nitpicking...
According to 3 sources provided ( [3], [4] and [5]), Iran confirmed the military aid to the Syrian government. However, if Iran really confirmed this, than it should be expected that Iranian press (e.g. Press TV) would report about it, but such an report is nowhere to be found.
If someone manages to find such an source, it would be good to include it. Video would also be good.
Also, it bothers a bit that out of those 3 sources provided, first one is from 27. May, while other two are from 28. May (which means they might have just used the first one as a source), and this first one is by Ynetnews, which is Israeli newspaper, and Iran and Israel are well known for their mutual hatred, so one might doubt this claim without confirmation from Iranian sources. -- 93.138.49.138 ( talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The confirmation came from the top commander of the Iranian Quds force on the official website of the Iranian government, however, as the sources we have provided say themselves, the statement was quickly removed from the website after he was quoted of confirming their presence in Syria. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You telling me CNN and New York times are not influenced by the view of their own government? Please lets not kid ourselves here. In any case, as far as I know, US media has also been criticized to be spreading US propaganda, and not just by Russia today. Why are we than removing Russia today references and not US media references? Also, the New York times isn't really the best source to cite accusations of russia today being a propaganda channel since its been criticized by many American experts themselves that the Times is more radical and biased in their views than most other US media outlets. In any case, please, per Wikipedia guidelines we need to keep a neutral position and present views of both sides. And for that we use all sources. Wikipedia has not imposed a rule declaring Russia today to be on its list of non-reliable sources that can not be used, until that happens, we regard it as a reliable source, despite what our personal opinions on the matter are. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others to decide whether Fatah al-Islam has confirmed its participation in the military conflict in Syria (I don't know), but it's clear at this time that Iran hasn't.
As far as the reliability of sources is concerned, and in this context, I don't find the New York Times more reliable than Russia Today, and EllsworthSK has failed to establish that Wikipedia does either. - Darouet ( talk) 22:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to compare the independence and reputation of US media and that of Russian media. If you don’t believe me then take a look at what happened today: Protestor Jailed for Spitting on Putin Portrait. This would never happen in the US. Russia is a corrupt country (ranked 143rd in the world on the Corruption Perceptions Index, whereas the US is ranked 24th)… Tradedia talk 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken a few months back US police arrested 300 Wall Street protesters, [12] also I know over the years many protesters in the US were arrested for burning the US flag (which is the equivelent of a protester spitting on Putins portrait in Russia) and per that Index you showed the US may not be in the red on the corruption level, but its not also in the green. Its in the yellow. ;) And don't get me started on the rendition thing and the wiretapping. So please don't talk to me by saying US politicians are not corrupt. Anyway this is off-topic. We were talking about Iranian and Hezbollah presence in Lebanon. But at this point I don't care anymore really. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
this link here CNN quotes an Iran minister saying, "before our presence in Syria, too many people were killed by the opposition but with the physical and nonphysical presence of the Islamic republic, big massacres in Syria were prevented." This was said by Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force. Is this not good proof Iran is in Syria? If it isn't then what is? Because apparently the CIA's intelligence findings are not reliable. Jacob102699 ( talk) 13:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that an infobox is a place to summarize the significant elements of a conflict. The 30 infiltrators of Fatah al-Islam do not constitute a significant “Party to the civil conflict”. I mean we are talking about a country of 22 million people. Therefore, I think Fatah al-Islam should be kept off the infobox. It is already described in the “Foreign involvement” section.
On the other hand, I think that the military support of Iran is significant. Iran is a country of 80 million and has a lot at stake in Syria. Ismail Ghani had a slip up and admitted what we all knew all along: “physical … presence of the Islamic republic.” They then realize that he was supposed to keep their presence secret, but it was too late. I can imagine a high ranking official reading what Ghani said and being like: “Oh damn, this idiot was not supposed to say we have troops in Syria… It’s supposed to be a secret!” Then, he’s like: “Quick, let’s remove this text from the website… hopefully no one would have noticed…” Hahaha… yeah right… the news got out and it is now in CNN and other media outlet. So yes, Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force did admit that Iran had troops on the ground in Syria. When you slip up and tell a secret, it is too late afterwards to take it back. It is barely a secret anyway… Everyone and his grandma know that Iran/Hezbollah are on the ground in Syria. Therefore, I think Iran/Hezbollah should be kept in the infobox. Tradedia talk 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Iran and Hezbollah belong in the infobox, and they have for a long time. This is simply the latest in a long list of sources stating they have an armed presence in Syria. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I will be making the title change to meet wikipedia title requirment so the new title will be 2011-2012 syrian uprising if the uprising continues to 2013 then somebody will have to move the title to 2011-2013 syrian uprising. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
We had actually determined beforehand through consensus on the talk page that 2011-present was the best format. Please see the archives. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Besides of which, what requirements? You did not provide a link to a guideline. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"2011-2012"? This suggests the conflict has ended. It hasn't. Therefore the name should be changed. What is this? Shouldn't it be changed to Syrian Civil War or something (just a suggestion, but calling it 2011-2012 is definitely wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.4.0 ( talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Was thinking the same thing today. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Do we need years at all? i.e.: "Syrian Uprising" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.16.30 ( talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
"Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing" It doesn't say 2012. 2011-2012 sounds wrong and is misleading. It makes assumptions. Totally unencyclopaedic.
So how do I edit wikipedia then?
I agree with Greyshark09. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 18:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You can't just move a discussion from 2 months ago to the forefront like this MohammedBinAbdullah and continue it like it never ended. The discussion ended 2 months ago and consensus was to put 2011-present in the title. If you want to change the name than you need to open a new discussion section, not trying to reopen a closed one. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I just changed the infobox to the "military conflict" one. Is this OK? In my opinion, this is obviously a military conflict by now; the protests have fallen by the wayside, replaced by the FSA's guerrilla war. 48Lugur ( talk) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The uprising article already have too much content and its own outline relate to a civil uprising (2011-early 2012). A new article is need about this borning civil war (2012) so we can structure a fresh outine. The dynamic are different, a new article is need. Suggestion: Syrian civil war (2012). We should avoid an easy move, and take the opportunity to provide a new article dedicated to the rich 2012 events. Yug (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - firstly there is no clear date as to when the "uprising" became a civil war, secondly the uprising and civil war are so closely connected as to make a split highly artificial and impractical. The uprising is not merely background to the civil war, it is one and the same thing just at an earlier stage of development. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should include this under combatants. The information that supports this from reliable sources is undeniable.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/foreign-jihadists-declare-war-on-syria-s-assad-a-824875.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/foreign-fighters-trickle-into-the-syrian-rebellion http://www.smh.com.au/world/syrian-conflict-attracting-foreign-fighters-weapons-20120217-1temk.html http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0607/Syria-conflict-5-warring-factions/Foreign-fighters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 17:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. Foreign fighters are present on both sides, but we only include official belligerents. I7laseral ( talk) 18:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand.
This is clearly a war, with large amount of troops moving. The conflict has escalated since the collapse of the ceasefire. There are right now 150 soldiers and hundred of insurgents killed per week. This is way past the uprising point.
The vote above has seen an big majority for the name change.
Can someone with knowledge of how to move a page takes the responsability and moves it right now?-- Hellmayor ( talk) 13:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a wide consensus. The number of people opposing the move is negligible. Consensus does not mean unanimity. There will always been some people like you trying to block everything. But the enormous majority has decided. Change it now.-- Hellmayor ( talk) 07:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
so what happened to the main multi-pictures picture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.240.205 ( talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you please advise me of how to resolve this issue. I have provided all the needed copyright information, and it was approved twice. I mentioned the srouces of all the pictures and copyright licenses. -- OSFF ( talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be urgently fixed - the article requires a topic picture. Greyshark09 ( talk) 16:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I worked a lot on the issue with no result. we need some admin help. I have already wasted a lot of time trying to fix this issue much more than the time it took me to put the topic picture together and provide the licence info. I followed the above mentioned link and opened the issue there without any luck. -- OSFF ( talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
something need to be done to the topic picture -- OSFF ( talk) 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello people help is required here-- OSFF ( talk) 14:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
We should use the libyan civil war style map , in when the red represents the opposition and the green represents the regime and pro-regime cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.172.242 ( talk) 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a big flaw with the “main picture”. It doesn’t show any demonstration! Remember that this is part of the Arab spring… Tradedia talk 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems like this is being ignored, so to make it clear: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA [13]
Asked about remarks concerning whether a civil war is taking place in Syria, the Spokesperson, said that is not for the Secretariat to determine or formally characterize the nature of the conflict in Syria. What we are all focusing on, he said, is that there has been a dangerous intensification of armed violence across Syria in the last several days. That is something that the Secretary-General himself referred to in the statement that came out on Monday evening, and he also commented on the scale of the violence in his comments to the press last Thursday. Last week, Nesirky noted, the Secretary-General said in a press encounter that “the confrontations in certain areas of the country have taken on the character of an internal conflict.” He has made clear his concerns about the implications of an intensification of the conflict, both inside Syria and for the region. Asked about a formal determination of a civil war, Nesirky noted the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross in making such a determination. He noted that the ICRC makes assessments concerning internal conflicts and internal armed conflicts, in line with its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions. Other matters, he added, would be for the Security Council to determine. The situation of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is already a challenging one, he said. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it OK if the official facebook page of SOHR is quoted? On the SOHR Arabic website, a link is directly provided to the facebook page of SOHR. This updates very regularly and contains much clearer, consistent and organised content than the Arabic website of SOHR which rarely updates at all. Can this be made an exception? Jafar Saeed ( talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue is, is that, the SOHR authorised FB page provides clear and detailed information about the overall death toll for the day. I then attempt to proceed to attempt to find a site that references the SOHR death toll. I used to commonly reference 'Support Kurds in Syria', which has recently closed down, and now I am stuck without the ability to quote any external references. This information is deemed the most reliable and is widely quoted by all news agencies. BUT SOHR reports overall death tolls the day after they take place; so news agencies only quote individual events that SOHR reports (i.e. news agencies dont report on events a day earlier when SOHR updates specific events within the 'current day' at the time of the specific news reporting). This information is vital to providing an adequate account of the uprising (and sources such as LCC are hugely biased and unreliable).
Jafar Saeed (
talk) 18:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SOHR is nowhere near as biased as other sources and displays no signs of bias within the overall death toll counts; for instance, civilian deaths are given without the generalisation of labelling all the deaths as regime-caused. It even mentions the killing of civilians due to rebels when necessary. It also reports reliable figures on the regime law-enforcers death toll. I think you are confused, SOHR is not a faceb ook page, it has an Arabic-language website. The problem is is that this website rarely uodates and when it does, the content is minimal and unorganised. The website contains a direct link to the facebook page of SOHR as the 'English language' version of the website which updates very regularly. Jafar Saeed ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SOHR calls a bearded man with a kalashnikov a civilian. They are not reliable.-- Aviri'c ( talk) 20:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that we should consider replacing the multi-picture front picture, with a map filled in with the relative colours of the armies (use red & green) similar to the picture that was present on the timeline of the Libyan conflict. It is known that the rebels control certain areas and I think that it would be proficient ot use such a map to help illustrate the respective areas that the government/rebels control (or hold influence over). Jafar Saeed ( talk) 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to remove. Having read all the discussion I find that there is no consensus to move. I discarded many !votes (both opposes and supports) as they relied on an assessment of whether the situation met some definition of civil war. This is original research and not how we determine the name of an article on Wikipedia - we rely on reliable sources. Moving on to the !votes that use reliable sources for their reasoning I find that there are reliable sources using both terms. This is not a case of some of those sources using an old term but some of them specifically refuse to define the situation as a civil war. What ever type of source we use, the press, government or UN, there seems to be some that are calling it a "civil war" and other elements that are saying it is not. This seems to me to be a classic "no consensus" and so the article should stay at Syrian uprising (2011–present) for the moment. In this instance defaulting to the current situation (and I refer here to when the discussion was started not to the situation after the move by someone involved) is particularly sensible, because as far as I'm aware, from this discussion, there is no one that disagrees that it was an uprising so we're not defaulting to a possibly incorrect name or similar but rather to one that might be outdated. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War – Nobody is using the word uprising anymore. The term civil war is more and more used and as well more accurate. Uprising is a joke of a name. Evidence: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=syria+civil+war&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=
1. It's a movement led by the opposition 2. The movement had goal the restignation of Bashar al-Assad 3. It haves civil involvement but with the help of Syrian National Council's forces 4. It's more that a civil uprising for the human rights, it's a civil war with military intervention of government-in-exile's forces ( Free Syrian Army, Syrian Liberation Army,etc...) 5. More sources says that is a civil war -- Luis Molnar ( talk) 08:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Syrian civilians inside Syria who support the current regime. - Syrian civilians outside Syria who support the current regime. - Syrian Armed Forces who supports the current regime. - Syrian civilians inside Syria against the current regime. - Syrian civilians outside Syria against the current regime. - Syrian "Armed" civilians against the current regime. - Syrian "Armed" ex-military members against the current regime. - Non-Syrian "Armed" groups are joining forces against the regime (due to Islamic culture, concept of patriotism disappears once compared to Islamism). - Non Syrian civilians who support the regime. - Non Syrian civilians against the regime. - Governments who are following the Islamism vs Patriotism concept (shortly mentioned above) - Governments who are going against the current regime because that falls to their benefit. - Governments who are benefiting from the current chaos in Syria. Until this time, the majority of people in Syria are not taking sides, most of the people are too scared to interfere or to give any opinions about the current situation of the country or what is going to happened, however, the majority of people are against civil war, and all are waiting for a resolution. The current regime is not striking with all it's power claiming that this is to save as many civilian lives as possible, while the FSA (Free Syrian Army) cannot make any difference without a foreign intervention. The governments supporting the FSA (both due to Islamism, or having interest in chaos) are providing intelligence information, communication and advanced weapons to maintain a non-stable state of the country. Shiblie ( talk) 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiblie ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Other than those alot of material I found is from June 8 and repeats the same words "Warns of a civil war" "Civil war looming" and "Worries of a civil war" with a few but not many new sources saying the same thing. So we editors on wikipedia can either wait a few days, if the violence continues than more sources might be calling it a Civil war ot call it a civil war based on newer sources comming out. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
UN peacekeeping chief says that starting today Syria is at full civil war. I don't think you can get a more potent RS than the very guy whose job is to determine the situation in every country.
Al Jazeera I7laseral ( talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep. If only people weren't too ignorant to change it. This is a war. They are slaughtering children. OWS (which I oppose heavily, I am just using it as an example) is an uprising. This is a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlf ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If the UN says it is a civil war, then it is. I saw this on Al Jazeera too. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
France has now said they also believe it has become a civil war, and in the same article the BBC's diplomatic correspondent says there is a "developing consensus in branding the Syrian crisis a civil war." -- Smurfy 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this gets closed with an overwhelming consensus to move. The U.N. thing really just puts the discussion at a point where the opposes can't argue very much anymore. All we need is someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Strong support - per proposer, really rather surprising that this is still even being discussed. Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Strong support Move it now! Or will you wait until there is nobody left to call it an uprising? ( Metron ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC))
Strong support - UN declares that Syria now in full-scale civil war - Eugεn S¡m¡on (14) ® 09:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - As with the Libyan civil war, can we please, please, please, uncapitalize the article name. Syrian civil war, not Syrian Civil War. Everyone is saying "civil war in Syria" or "Syria is now in a state of civil war" but not THE Syrian Civil War. Capitalization rules are clear, and it shouldn't be capitalized. Jeancey ( talk) 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Let's call a spade a spade. This business in Syria meets any definition of "civil war" that one could conceivably use. Joe routt ( talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Per the UN decision. This seems relatively straightforward. Also, in response to Jeancey's comment, not to intentionally single this user out, but as this is a proper noun it should be capitalized. See: First Ivorian Civil War and American Civil War as examples. Eagletennis ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest UN statement: U.N. SECRETARIAT WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE CONFLICT IN SYRIA [46]
Asked about remarks concerning whether a civil war is taking place in Syria, the Spokesperson, said that is not for the Secretariat to determine or formally characterize the nature of the conflict in Syria. What we are all focusing on, he said, is that there has been a dangerous intensification of armed violence across Syria in the last several days. That is something that the Secretary-General himself referred to in the statement that came out on Monday evening, and he also commented on the scale of the violence in his comments to the press last Thursday. Last week, Nesirky noted, the Secretary-General said in a press encounter that “the confrontations in certain areas of the country have taken on the character of an internal conflict.” He has made clear his concerns about the implications of an intensification of the conflict, both inside Syria and for the region. Asked about a formal determination of a civil war, Nesirky noted the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross in making such a determination. He noted that the ICRC makes assessments concerning internal conflicts and internal armed conflicts, in line with its responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions. Other matters, he added, would be for the Security Council to determine. The situation of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) is already a challenging one, he said. FunkMonk ( talk) 12:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Support there is enough criteria provided by sources that establish this as a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 ( talk) 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: A civil war is when various factions within a country fight each other. For example if the fighting was between Alawites and Sunnis, yes it is a civil war. But this is not the case in Syria. It is a popular uprising in the country by predominantly Sunnite opposition and a central government using its force to stop the uprising. We sometimes hear political analysts as saying the conflict is now "descending into a civil war". This is basically done on ideological rather than factual grounds. there are no blockades between regions or religious communities fighting each other as was the case in Lebanon for example. Syrian Civil War if implemented by Wikipedia as a result of this discussion is a great travesty towards facts regardless of how much percentage support the move acquires. This is not a popularity contest in which opposers to the admittedly very oppressive regime of Syria use it as a platform to "create history" despite all facts to the contrary. You may hate Assad and his forces as much as you want. But this is no civil war. Even the opposition forces say they are not a sectarian movement of the Sunnis but reflect the aspirations of the whole population being Sunnite, Chiite, Alawite, Christian or Kurdish. So even the opposition leadership doesn't consider this as a civil war, but an uprising to topple a dictatorship and oppressive government. Even if later on, for arguments sake, the conflict does degenerate into a civil war (just a speculation, but it might be the case in the future when various communities, probably Sunnite and Alawite in essence, start building blockades against each other and start slaughtering each other by thousands and forcibly remove minorities having the misfortune of being in the "wrong region"), I suggest making a clear distinction at that time in dividing the Syrian troubles into two clear and separate pages, one for the uprising from 2011 until whenever, and the other to the actual civil war that might follow in some time in the future, let's just assume between Alawites and Sunnis. Meanwhile don't "create" history for a certain agenda or in some cases, possibly plain disregard to the present facts of the conflict and possibly ignorance as well of the actual facts of the region
werldwayd (
talk) 12:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
werldwayd (
talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems you totally missed what happen in Syria. Alawites and Christians heavily supports Assad, while Sunni oppose him and while Kurds are on the sidelines. The sectarian violence has been a huge element of it and is an integral part of the current conflict. By the way, you don't need a community vs community in religious term to call it a civil war.
The secession war was a civil war, the Spanish civil war was a civil war, and it was not on religious or racial ground. So you post is pointless. A civil war is when different faction inside a country are at war, and this is precisely the case.-- Aviri'c ( talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Support- Per the U.N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.38.235 ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Strongly support- as this is clearly a civil war, anyone but the bureaucrats that oppose can see that. Drlf ( talk) 20:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This is how the debate went in changing the the title of the 2011 Libya uprising to the 2011 Libyan civil war.
And only 2 sources, CNN and MSNBC were calling the Libyan conflict a civil war, and yet users still found this evidence enough and consensus enough to call the situation in Libya a civil war.
The vast majority were using the facts about what make a civil war a civil war to conclude a vote.
Sopher99 ( talk) 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Not saying this determines consensus as WP:IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, but it is worth looking at.
Vote Count 25 support, 12 oppose. Closure 18 support, 9 oppose.
It seems we have a almost but not complete consensus on moving, but no consensus on closing yet. You can vote in both the move and closure section,(READ THIS, IMPORTANT) and to make a consensus, you have to vote in the moving section, the first one. Thanks, and the vote is not over. Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Obama: U.S. can work with Russia to 'prevent civil war' in Syria
This article, dated 18 June, directly quotes president Obama as saying "We agreed that (...) a political process has to be created to prevent civil war and the kind of horrific events that we've seen over the last several weeks". Evidently, both president Obama and president Putin, leaders of two of the largest and most influential countries in the world, don't regard the Syrian conflict as currently being a civil war, or else they wouldn't have expressed the desire to prevent civil war. If even those two aren't calling this a civil war, who are Wikipedians to decide it should be called a civil war? N.B., when we renamed 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war, Obama was already referring to that conflict as a civil war and that was actually used as an argument for moving the article, see e.g. here. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Doncsecz has chosen to be WP:BOLD and move the article is this okay with everyone? If this does take issue someone may want to put a request to have this article move protected until the discussion here is closed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Tradedia talk 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Move back to original status: A colleague has unilaterally moved the article to a civil war. This unilateral move by one individual is a matter of grave concern and contrary to all etiquette between colleagues. Very importantly, this goes contrary to general Wikipedia practice when a move is still in discussion. It should be immediately reverted until an admin closes all arguments for a concensus. I repeat that this is not a popularity contest nor an ideological agenda. We are not here to "create history ourselves" simply because we have rights to move an article according to our conception of what a situation is. Particularly when it has been subject to so much pro and con discussion, the status quo and the original title should prevail until closed by an administrator with a resume of all ideas taken into consideration. Until then, original status quo must prevail. werldwayd ( talk) 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Wait for an admin to intervene and close I have alreay placed a request over at WP:ANI, changing the context of the article will just confuse readers I say wait for a closure here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
As an aside the reason that this may not have been closed earlier is because of this edit and later edits that updated the count. The RM bot looks for the first signature timestamp after the request and uses this as the time for the request at WP:RM. That edit introduced a new first signature and then the time was constantly updated resetting the 7 days each time the numbers were updated. Dpmuk ( talk) 23:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)