Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 3

Contradiction
One of the goals listed on the box to the top right it says "Recognition of Kurdish rights" but later on the article it talks about how the uprising is mostly limited to Arab regions while Kurds are staying silent. How come the recognition of Kurdic rights are is a major goal of an uprising Kurds do not participate in? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Kurds are staying silent? One of the biggest demonstrations were in Syrian Kurdistan. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kurds are indeed staying silent, and are very suspicious about the Turkish endorsed opposition. http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142387417/new-republic-will-kurds-determine-syrias-fate FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @EllsworthSK, well, the article suggest that they don't: "Kurds have participated in the uprising in much smaller numbers than their Syrian Arab counterparts."
 * @FunkMonk, you introduced yet an other contradiction because later on in the article it cites Kurds who say that Turkey haven't been discriminating against Syrian Turks about representation. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That goes without saying as they represent 10 percent of population, while sunnis represent 75. As for not protesting I would refer you to protests in Qamishli or this.EllsworthSK (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the article clearly suggests that Kurds are protesting less than Arabs percentage-wise, not quantity-wise. The article contradicts itself. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposition Factions and Flags
Okay since I'm more or about to be involved in a edit war at this rate, my question is what is the threshold a faction has to be before it is included separately in the infobox, rather than simply swept under the rug as one could say under 'Other opposition groups'? Another is the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, the wikipage for the Syrian National Council purports it to be the "other main Syrian opposition coalition", yet it is excluded from their own mention, where as the Syrian Revolution General Commission is listed separately.

Meanwhile on the topic of flags, I do not understand why it is apparently not allowed to list the Syrian National Council under the current Syrian flag, when they are still using it for all official purposes, as well as the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, until they adopt the Green-white-black flag I'm afraid to keep the article non-biased we need to list them under the respective flags they have adopted for official purposes --Thegunkid (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Those factions should be mentioned instead of removing them from the infobox and saying that they are part of the "other opposition groups". Also, it would be nice to have an article for Syria Pioneering Revolutionist Party Flag.svg Pioneering Revolutionist Party of Syria. Could you create it? --93.142.200.63 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No because I do not author articles, I only contribute --Thegunkid (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay I understand why the Communists faction was removed from the infobox, but the National Coordination Committee which the Syrian National Council article states is a 'main opposition group'? This seems biased now. --Thegunkid (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War or Syrian uprising
I think the right designation should be civil war? --Josef2610 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose such a renaming. Civil wars involve opposing factions taking and/or defending control of part of a country. The insurgents in Syria do not control any territory, they're just fighting the military. This is an uprising, not a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ehm, Iraqi civil war comes into mind. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection Article
If this article has become 2011 Syrian Civil War, then I think its best this article must be protected just like what we did to the Libyan article to prevent more further vandalism. 60.49.56.180 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It hasn't become 2011 Syrian Civil War, though. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. What I meant is that if the article is going to change into 2011 Syrian Civil War, then the article ought to be protected. I'm not asking to change it now. That's all. Understand? 60.49.56.180 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"The uprising, which the United Nations considers a civil war"
I have removed the above statement from the article, as it is false. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has merely said: "The Syrian authorities' continual ruthless repression, if not stopped now, can drive the country into a full-fledged civil war". She didn't say that the UN already consider the situation to constitute a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Civil war !
I am syrian, Civil war , there are one killer in this game ( Bashar Al-assad ) --براء داغستاني (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) .
 * The mere fact that you're Syrian doesn't make you a reliable source. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that Assad and his family are the only ones committing atrocities (and this is supported by sources), that does not make the conflict in Syria a civil war. Once the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army (and possibly other civil militias) are actually undertaking major military operations against the Syrian government, and the mainstream media begins referring to the conflict as a civil war, then it can be renamed.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 14:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Each editor here has his own opinion on this conflict, mine is for example identitcal to yours, but we have to try beeing objective. However if these clashes will continue (and given todays FSA statement that they are holding all security forces responsible for Assad orders and thus beginning today they are targeting all of them, not just those involved in crackdown ) we´ll have to rename the article. However there is little to no doubt that that will happen in next few weeks. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Involvement
There is clear and proven Iranian involvement in this uprising - it is even stated and sourced later on in this very article. I'm sure most people even heard it on virtually all major media outlets. So who on Earth keep deleting the section on it in the info box? Even though that is infact more consistently proven than most the other groups' involvements. This vandalism seems to be the work of the many Persian Nationalists out their, as the section on the Mukhabarrat, Secret Police and other unsavoury involvements in the info box have been wholly untouched. Please keep all politics out of Wikipedia - the involvement of Persians on the side disliked by most people/the media does not reflect the enitire Persian people, and revisionism of facts is a disservice to everyone. I will revert this vandalism, and can someone please just copy/text the sources from elsewhere in the article, as I am not too good at that. Cheers. SaSH (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Iranian involvement is as clear as the Turkish and Gulf Arab involvement, which is even more direct, yet you don't call for their presence in the taxobox. Why? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this alleged Iranian involvement was being repeatedly added without providing any sources to back those claims. 93.142.238.180 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be concise for the sake of everyone's time in this already huge page, so I'll just summarize : there are fresh news reports in Lebanon (television) declaring that this alleged Iranian involvement is just a fabrication by sunni fundamentalist factions, who hired a few Iranians to pose as actual Pasdaran or whatever. Besides, unless we're talking entire brigades, why would the Syrian regime take such a ridiculous political risk at such a sensitive time? Lack of local grunts? Does not compute. Please, people, be very wary of "sensational revelations" in the heat of the moment. "Remember the Anthrax!" -- (Crocket Powell, 1991)


 * One last thing : why do American media "report" things, and (notoriously objective) Israeli diplomats "state", but Syrian govt sources only "claim"? Weasel word alert, anyone? I suggest, for the sake of neutrality (*cough*FOX NEWS!*cough), that everyone's statements be called the exact same : "stating", or better yet "declaring". Wherever there is war, there is dedicated propaganda on all sides. The others I don't care, but I hope to see Wikipedia's neutrality remain timelessly impeccable. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the Lebanese media it´s nice that you say that but you have to provide a source. And huge political risk is also hireing Shabiha and yet Assad regime didnt have much of a problem with it. Also since all Syrian medias are controlled by unelected regime which fits perfectly into definition of dictatorship you can probably answer yourself. Otherwise refer to WP:RS. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting Concessions into the Infobox
I would like to get a consensus amongst the wikipedia editors of whether "concessions" should be included. The 2011 Yemeni uprising doesn't have it, and we haven't put concessions in the infobox for the entirety of of the 9 months the uprising began.

The reason i am so concerned is because the 2011 Syrian uprising at this stage is no longer about reforms, its about an entire overhaul of the system. Back in March it was about reforms, but since all the killing by Syrian forces, the opposition would argue the reforms are not special or significant. How can you say the state of emergency (martial law) has been abolished? For this reason the concessions should not go in the infobox, they are no longer significant (or sincere for that matter). Sopher99 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That reforms/concessions "are no longer significant" is blatant POV. In its new UNSC resolution draft, Russia calls for the speedy implementation of reforms. Western powers have described this draft as a basis for negotiations. Obviously, there is no international consensus that it's now too late for reforms. Moreover, the question whether reforms are significant *now* isn't actually relevant, because an infobox describes the entirety of a conflict, not just the current situation. As for your other arguments:
 * * "The 2011 Yemeni uprising doesn't have it"; so? 2011 Bahraini uprising does, and so does 2011 Saudi Arabian protests.
 * * "we haven't put concessions in the infobox for the entirety of of the 9 months the uprising began"; that's not a valid argument. You can't say that something shouldn't be included in an article just because it wasn't before. That would basically prevent structural changes to thousands of Wikipedia articles that are older than nine months.
 * - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We already created a subpage for concessions - so we don't have to put it int he infobox. Just because russia, a country which also thinks there are only "terrorists" on the streets of Syria, says reforms needed to implemented, doesn't mean its worthy of being in the infobox.

In Bahrain, murder at the hand of government officials is not the central theme. Bahrain killed 30 civilians. Syrian government killed 4000 civilians, which lead to defections, which lead to 700 defectors and a 1000 government soldiers dying. Syria is a quasi war. Bahrain is not. Also Saudi Arabia is not even an uprising yet. Sopher99 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Re. "We already created a subpage for concessions - so we don't have to put it int he infobox": that argument is invalid, because *everything* that's in the infobox is already in the text, either or not in its own section. Following this argument, we might do away with the whole infobox. However, that's not how an infobox works: it's a concise summary of the article. And in my opinion, concessions should be in that summary.
 * Regarding the comparison to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia: those are pretty arbitrary criteria. The number of people killed should not dictate whether or not concessions are included in the infobox. Where would you draw the line? 100 deaths? 500 deaths? 1000 deaths? Arbitrary criteria get us nowhere.
 * - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Power struggle
Just read through the article, and I'm surprised to see that there is barely any mention of the fact that this conflict is basically a powe-struggle between Alawites and Sunnis. As is, it reads like just another Tunisia or Libya scenario, which is far from the case, since these are 100% Sunni. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and must add that there is barely any mention to the fact thay Alawi (with Shia Iranian and Hizbullah support) vs. Sunni (with support of the majorly Sunni Turkey and Sunni Gulf countries) confrontation in Syria is in fact splilling out of Syria, and has already prompted deadly clashes in Lebanon.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no question that sectarianism is a factor in this uprising, but I wouldn't consider it to be the most significant aspect of the revolution. The Syrians are just sick of being repressed, and want to live a life of freedom and opportunity. I would support including information regarding the Alawi-Sunni conflict, but I wouldn't mention it in the lead paragraph.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 14:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Master and Expert, while there is sectarian feelings, the uprising is solely based on civilians vs dictatorship. Not islamists vs baathists, not sunni vs shiite. Sopher99 (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sectarianism plays a rule for sure (especially towards Alawite community) but not that large as for example in Lebanon. Druze and Christians are so far playing it neutral (FSA for example have even several Druze officers in their ranks while opposition protestors demonstrated for expelled christian father Paolo Dall'Oglio who spoke against the regime). Also there weren´t so far recorded attacks on Hazara shias or other shia groups in Syria. Let´s keep this in civilian line for now. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MasterExpert, if that was true, Bashar would be gone now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually Master&Expert is right. The only reason why Bashar is not gone now is because of live firing on demonstrators. Even if he were not to fire on demonstrators, he would just pull an Ali Saleh. Ali Saleh faces hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in their capital city every week, any those protesters are no longer disperse, yet still Saleh remains. A similar situation in Bahrain except demonstrators are dispersed by police there. Explain that. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

the hyphen question
2011 is nearly over. So unless Assad resigns or is overthrown by the people in the next two weeks, should we change the title to the 2011- Syrian uprising or the 2011- civil war? or maybe just have it 2011-12?Ericl (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Truly a difficult question, i guess no one has thought of what happens when 2011 is over (in two weeks). Most will be renamed to 2011-2012, but regarding the civil war in Syria - if the uprising and the insurgency escalates, it will be the first civil war in modern time Syria, so just Syrian civil war will be enough.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cant we just remove the year from the name of the article? It´s not like we had any other national uprising in Syria. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What about these guys? 48Lugur (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there had been several uprisings in modern Syria prior to this one (see Syrian uprising) - there must be a specification which uprising is that.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's too premature to change the title to 2011– Syrian uprising, simply because 2011 isn't over yet. Wikipedia can be edited day and night. Feel free to change the title accordingly on 1 January 2012 at 12 a.m. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough although I doubt that anyone will be here at New Years Eve. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there are plenty of people who follow other calendars than Gregorian or Julian.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If this uprising continues into January of next year (which seems likely), we should rename it to 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. This is based on precedent set by the article 2010–2011 Algerian protests, among others.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 15:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "2011-2012" suggests that the uprising ends in 2012, which we can't say for sure. I think the correct way to name this article from 1 January 2012 onwards would be 2011–present Syrian uprising. Compare War in Afghanistan (2001–present). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If the revolution wins, is it possible to named it as Syrian Revolution? I mean of course historically there are bunch of failed uprising in Syria but the victory of this revolution will mark as the first one? Well I think this won't work. Just saying 60.49.63.145 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice try. Problem is, there is already one revolution in 1970. It won't be suitable to put your title unless like the Libyan article you want to change the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution into something like 1970 Syrian Corrective Coup d'etat which I think this is stupid. Myronbeg (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just stupid, but completely violates the WP:SYNTH, because the 1970 event is related as "Corrective Revolution", not "coup d'etat".Greyshark09 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing the title of the armed elements section to armed protesters
User:Funkmonk has tried to change the name of the armed elements section to armed protesters. This is a clear act of violation to NPOV.Sopher99 (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

1- The government does not claim protesters are armed they claim they are protecting protesters from what they call terrorists.

2 - It has become increasingly apparent that the "terrorists" the government were talking about are Syrian army defectors.

3 - We have no source that confirms protesters are fighting the government with weapons.

Sopher99 (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1- It is claimed the armed elements are Salafists, and are clearly aligned with the opposition. But I can see that labeling them as protesters is not fitting, since they act covertly. It could be renamed armed opposition elements instead, with Free Syrian Army as a sub-section.


 * 2- That is your own, irrelevant interpetation, there have been reports of armed gangs fighting the government since the very beginning of the uprising, and it is not up to us to judge whether these reports were true or not.


 * 3- See answer one. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I support changing the title to Armed opposition to the government. Sopher99 (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. My problem with the previous title was that it was too unspecific. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrian opposition
It has been a lot of talk about opening a single page that collects the Syrian opposition under the same roof. I have now spent a whole day to do research and try to gather information, but I need some help. Please help me in getting the article into place. Thanks in advance! --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose I believe that it would be wrong to classify the struggle as a (civil) war. Civil war (as indicated by red cross) is between two or more diverse groups, but in this case the struggle is between an oppressive regime and its people. This should quantify it as an uprising. Gauravdewan21 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

can we PLEASE call it a civil war now?
Hundreds of people on both sides have been killed in major battles in the past couple of days. How is this NOT a civil war?Ericl (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

See the above discussion, it is still being voted on.I7laseral (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are people so desperate to label this a civil war? 3000 defectors and a bunch of Islamists hardly make for a faction in a civil war. it is an insurgency at best. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources like this make it pretty clear that this is now in essence a full-blown civil war and a few reliable sources are now calling it this expicitly (e.g. ) but most still seem to be using wording such as 'on the brink of civil war'. As with the initial period of the Libyan civil war, most major news outlets, at least English-language ones, seem very hesitatant to actually describe this as a civil war until the reality is completely unavoidable.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually in agreement with FunkMonk on this one. As I've said before, once the term "civil war" becomes ubiquitous in mainstream media sources, then we can rename it. For now, it's fine as is.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 00:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ericl and Rangoon11, have you perhaps missed this discussion? As of now, there are 14 support votes and 18 oppose votes. There is, therefore, no consensus to move the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, very few media sources have explicitly described the killings and massacres in Syria as a "civil war." However, the actual tactics and events easily meet the perimeters of what is commonly described as a civil war. No mainstream media sources are referring to the conflict as an "uprising." Each day the conflict more resembles the Iraqi Kurdish Civil War than a traditional civilian uprising. Several Syrian parties have been founded in opposition to Assad's rule. There is now documented fighting between armed rebels and Assad's military. BBC, Syria’s civil war is bigger than Syria itself. @Taal, votes don't take precedents over content. Consensus is crucial in resolving conflict disputes but failure to recognize new sources makes No and Yes voters irrelevant. The move shouldn't be up for debate, the article needs to be moved eventually. This discussion should remain open because it is more than likely the conflict in Syria will be declared as an official state of civil war. When that happens this article will need to be split or renamed. Wikifan Be nice  11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What you're saying is basically original research. You're using sources about the nature and intensity of the fighting to form your own conclusion that this is a civil war. Wikipedia will start calling this a civil war when reliable sources do. As it stands, reliable sources are not calling this a civil war. The UN, the Red Cross, the American government, major news outlet all don't consider the Syrian situation to be a civil war at the moment. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, what you describe in Syria actually more meets a definition of a rebellion, rather than a civil war. The opposition doesn't have a government or anything like that, and actually reside in exile, depending on the success of the Free Syrian Army insurgency to progress their cause. It reminds the 1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran (which by the way resulted in 10,000 deaths).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No no no no no and not a damn 'Civil War' are allowed to be used. Protests are still controlling the opposition than being an armed rebel. Until now there still many both supporters and opposition hurling chant at each other. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A rebellion can also be a civil war. Two movements - the Assad government and the opposition parties - are now engaging in full out conflict. Former Syrian military officers are not part of the "uprising" and are obviously building an army. The attack on Monday was targeting defectors getting weapons and training near the border with Turkey. They weren't passive victims. Whatever is going on, it is beyond an uprising. No one recognized the Kurds in Iraq and Saddam was never seriously condemned during then 70s and 80s put downs. Wikifan Be nice  22:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

New picture
Picture on top of the infobox got deleted. Please add a new picture, preferably of the hama protests. Sopher99 (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at Wikimedia Commons, there are plenty of unused pictures of protests. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrian civil war
Before anyone goes on a crazy rampage trying to change the name of the article to the 2011 Syrian civil war, in response to the UN now identifying it as one ( http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/2011121151646992237.html ), I propose we create a separate article called the 2011 Syrian civil war. The protesters are not the same as the Free Syrian army and thus we need to make a separate article entailing the Free Syrian Army's struggle against the Syrian government titled the 2011 Syrian civil war. We keep the 2011 Syrian uprising page as to entail the events of the protests. Sounds good? Sopher99 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * the events throughout have included armed attacks and the events to come will no doubt still include protests. I don't think we should split off what historians are likely to treat as part and parcel. I also don't think a name change should be done until its clearer how the opposition and the government and other people and governments are describing whats happening. Just my two cents.  T i a m u t [User_talk:Tiamut 17:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is no need for a separate page. If the UN's characterization catches on in widespread usage, then I would support a name change; until then, the UN is just one of several agencies reacting to this situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am FOR creating a new page, there were many, many protests during the Libyan civil war, remember.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goltak (talk

Lets create a new page after we definitively know what both the opposition and the government are calling this conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to wait for Assad to say anything. If we had waited for Gaddafi's opinion, the page for the Libyan Civil War wouldn't have appeared until it was nearly over. Fancyflyboy (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/2011121151646992237.html 141.214.17.17 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Every other conflict has developed from protests to a civil war or revolution. If you search any other uprising that has progressed, it leads to civil war or revolution. Why should this be any different? Why create a whole new article that will have the same info essentially? All that needs to be changed is the title and some wording. The protests are and will be part of the civil war. An uprising is a pre-civil war or pre-revolution. At the same time, we should also not be going based on the UN necessarily. The UN is not the be-all end-all authority and has its own agenda. I think we should wait until its termed in the media, or by scholars, as a civil war (even if this is because of the UN decision).--Metallurgist (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update guys: the UN is calling it a civil war now. As soon as I get the green light (and log in using my real account) I'll update the page.
 * Thats why i started this discussion, if you look on top. Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, I'm divided on whether to use it generally or just for the FSA clashes, but I'm leaning more towards using it generally. I guess I support moving this section to "2011 Syrian Civil War". IntrospectiveReader (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree for a new article "2011 Syrian civil war" in addition to the existing article on "uprising". I think it is a civil war for about two months now (as per definition of civil war). The only question is when the protests and uprising became a civil war:
 * > The opposition consolidated in October (together with the Free Syrian Army), making a side in what can be related as a balanced two-sided conlict, when both parties claim the same state - hence a civil war.
 * > The newspapers and several state officials related this conflict as civil war since November, most notably the Russian officials.
 * > The UN began calling it a civil war since today (December 1).
 * That is it for now.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm willing to help create such a page when I have time; I'll take some ideas off of the 2011 Libyan Civil War page. Any sources to help add to the content would be greatly appreciated. IntrospectiveReader (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a mistake to make a separate page for the civil war. Think about how this event is going to be viewed historically. Are we really going to invent an artificial distinction between the protests and the clashes? Or an artificial "start date" for the civil war distinct from the beginning of the uprising, which some sources claim has been partly characterized by clashes since the outset and virtually all sources report has seen the use of violence in some form or another? Think about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless, we shouldn't vote on this until we definitively know what the SNC and the Syrian government are calling the conflict.Sopher99 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we care? During the Libyan civil war neither NTC, nor Gaddafi administration called it civil war with both sides claiming to be fighting small pockets of local enemy resistance supported by huge number of mercanaries (just see the official announcments - Musa Ibrahim was talking about army fighting Al Queda while Younis was talking about fighting army of subsaharan mercenaries). In civil war no side wants to accept that what they are fighting is their own population which holds another points of view and so when sources start calling it civil war (they did) we should rename the page according to it just as we did with Libyan Uprising page since the initial Uprising was a pretex to the civil war in which Syria is right now, we cant separate these incidents as something that isnt intertwined.EllsworthSK (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Kudzu: sure, I guess we can move this to "Civil War" instead of "Uprising. @Sopher: I don't think it will be adressed by either side, especially by the Assad govt., as they stick to their claim of "armed terrorists" being the reason for the protests. Either way, when the UN says something's a civil war, isn't it most likely that the event has been a civil war for a while? IntrospectiveReader (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how SNC and Assad's rule relate to the conflict, as wikipedia should reflect WP:COMMONNAME per majority of notable WP:RS.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You got a point that historically the conflict would be remembered as "Syrian civil war", but don't forget that for more than half a year (a notable period of time), the events were related as "protests" or "uprising". This period is much longer than the respective period in Libya, and there are plenty of articles in the media that reflect "protests" or "uprising" in Syria already. Therefore, I think we should create a new article "Syrian civil war", which would encompass both the events described as "protests/uprising" (current article on "uprising" would remain), while "Syrian civil war" will encompass a summary of the "uprising" phase. It is similar to "2003 Iraqi invasion" being part of the "Iraqi civil war", rather than entirely renaming and eliminating the "invasion" article.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the UN and the Russian government calling the Syria conflict a civil war, I've found recent articles by Xinhua and Reuters that also refer to the "Syrian civil war" and a number of other articles that also call the situation a civil war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard the same from the BBC, this should be renamed. Fancyflyboy (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greyshark's above statement on this issue. Sopher99 (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that a Senior UN official has called this a civil war, the media will quickly follow. It is time to change the article from Uprising to Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.74.229 (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we change the article or create a new one, lets put that to a vote, in a few days after enough media sources call it a civi war. Sopher99 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another article would just create a mess. What goes where, etc. This page is trouble enough to maintain at a decent quality; adding another with some arbitrary distinction or dividing line that I don't think reliable sources support (are we really going to use the date of Pillay's report as the start date of the civil war, just because that's when a UN official first referred to it that way?) would make more work for us and more confusion for the general audience. I think we should change the name of this page, note that clashes were low-level and one-sided but not infrequent prior to the formation of the Free Syrian Army, and change to a military conflict infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How about we literally split the page in half, the first half describing the protests and the government's response and the second half describing the eventual Syrian army mutiny and rebellion. Sopher99 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we really need to split it in half; just rename the title, add the infoboxes, and move relevant sections and data to a new section labled "Course of the war" or something similar. IntrospectiveReader (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources just don't support a split. I would argue that fighting reliably began with resistance in the Syrian North when the army conducted its push against the Turkish border, and some sources indicated some sort of low-level, possibly Islamist insurgency in the northeast even prior to that. There's no clear date when the civil war Pillay posits "began" as distinct from the general uprising. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my point of view (uprising and civil war both being notable), it seems to me that for technical reasons it will be rather simplier just to rename to "Syrian civil war", though mentioning that first phase of the conflict (from March till November) was an uprising. Anyway the sources still have not consilidated in the naming as "civil war", so not yet.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with creating a new page entitled "Syrian Civil War" once the conflict escalates to the level it was at in 2011 Libyan Civil War where armed insurgents actually gained control over large sections of the country, or if the term "civil war" becomes ubiquitous among mainstream media outlets. For now, I think referring to it as an uprising is sufficient. Just my two cents, though. If people see it differently, then I'm fine with having a separate article relating to the conflict between the Assad regime and the Free Syrian Army.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be worth keeping in mind that this is not only a question of how the involved parties or the general public refer to the events. It also represents an interpretation of what is happening. An 'uprising' implies a single faultline between the regime and basically the whole population (- which seems to be the view taken by the opposition as well as most Western media). A 'civil war', on the other hand, suggests that two sizeable parts of the population are fighting against each other (- which would be closer to the Syrian government view, even though they would probably reject the term 'civil war').--46.115.22.70 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for move to "2011 Syrian Civil War"

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Several reliable media have started referring to the ongoing events in Syria as civil war. There are already several discussions about this above. Now I want you to vote for or against. Please highlight your answer so it can be easier to track and count, thanks! --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree: It is already a civil war since the death toll reached to 5000+ and as you see all around the news they view Syria's uprising into Civil war and some of the civilians are taking up arms and fighting against Bashar "The Rat" al-Assad's Government and the city of Homs, Daraa are under the control of Syrian National Council and are well guarded by the Free Syrian Army which is already having 50000 defecting soldiers . -VinxeAdun 24 December 2011


 * Agree: I would have to agree that this is now a civil war, a low intensity one, yes, certainly compared to Libya, but a civil war none the less. The insurgency is growing, the FSA seems to be getting more weapons and manpower and growing bolder. When a countrys army splits and begins shooting eachother, its a civil war no doubt. It took a while to get the Libya article renamed to civil war from uprising but im confident the same will happen here, sooner rather than later. -kspence92 6 December 2011


 * Oppose: Either a seperate article should be created or the page should be split. The Syrian uprising orients at the arab spring protests. for 6-7 months there was no civil war, only prosecution of protesters, that period is an entirely different one to a civil war, and thus must have its own article, in the same way that the Japanese killed 30 million Chinese from 1932-1939, yet it is not part of the world war 2 article. Sopher99 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that while it eventually developed into a part of WWII, the Second Sino-Japanese War began in earnest in 1937 and its article here on Wikipedia notes that a low-intensity conflict was ongoing since 1931. Riyuky (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose, for two reasons:
 * 1) This is not a civil war. Civil wars involve opposing factions taking and/or defending control of part of a country. The insurgents in Syria do not control any territory, they're just fighting the military. This is an uprising, not a civil war.
 * 2) International organizations, world leaders and major news outlets are not currently calling the conflict a civil war. When 2011 Libyan uprising was renamed to 2011 Libyan civil war in March, CNN, the Red Cross and president Obama were already referring to the Libyan civil war as such. For the situation in Syria that kind of terminology has yet to be used. The Red Cross, CNN, and the Obama administration are all calling it "unrest". The UN has so far only warned that the conflict could become a civil war if violence doesn't stop. Therefore, the proposed new name does not comply with WP:RELIABLE. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I already stated my arguments in the posts above, plus I have something more to add. Civil war doesnt neccessary mean that opposition has to control some concrete territory as was demonstrated in Iraqi civil war, nor were there any clear frontlines during Lebanese civil war or Salvador civil war. Also we have recent report from Sky News correspondent which smuggled himself in Homs, I suggest all users to read it - FSA has armed checkpoints inside the city, buildings (not only in Homs but also in Hama, Rastan, Latakia and other cities) leveled with the ground and Syrian army was reported to be in state of war . EllsworthSK (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re. the comparison with the Iraq civil war: not only is the use of the term 'civil war' for that conflict highly controversial, also that war actually did involve opposing factions taking control of (mainly Baghdad) areas. The Lebanese and Salvadoran civil wars had elements of that as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And so does Syria. We have reports from several cities but we have independent confirmation from Homs about FSA setting up their own checkpoints in the city. In case of Baghdad US and Iraqi army had there several times bigger presence than Syrian Arab Army and Shabiya in Homs. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that one (!) source is right, my second argument still stands: reliable sources are not calling this a civil war. And so Wikipedia can't call it a civil war either, as doing so would violate WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One, you say.   These are only independt confirmations from reliable sources out there. As for RS not calling it civil war       and dont forget about my first Sky source. Quote Homs, like many of Syria's cities, is a war zone. The buildings are ruins and there are army checkpoints everywhere - 260 checkpoints encircle Homs, there are 42 in the district of Bab Al Amr, the restive heart of this revolution, where we stayed throughout our visit. What started as a peaceful revolution has morphed into a civil war. The FSA, made up of defected soldiers and volunteers, have a single job, to protect the civilian population. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But I changed my mind and am changing my vote to wait. Although I do not believe that this can be called Uprising anymore I think we´re still one step away from calling it full-scale civil war. However with things as they are it probably won´t take long till we get to that point. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the first set of links: will take a look at them as soon as I can find the time. As for the second set of links: that's a multitude of news websites bringing the same story (about the UN supposedly saying that it's a civil war), all based on the same source. And they all manage to misrepresent what the UN said, as I explained here. The UN has not said that Syria is in a state of civil war; merely their High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that if repression doesn't stop it can drive the country into civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After recent events in Idlib governorate Im chaing my vote once again to support. After clashes like these we have crossed that line. Up to that we have confirmed that many areas of Zawiya mountains serve as FSA bases, that several villages in Idlib governorate are under local anti-Assad control, fighting in Homs has worsened, not otherwise, Syrian army launched offensive in Idlib, Hama and Daara with little success and death toll is twice as high as when we renamed Libyan Uprising to Libyan civil war. This is war. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The interactions, contradictions and excesses between the domestic, regional and international levels of interest and demand make the case of Syria's future more complicated than expected.  The uprisings themselves include three opposition groups.  1.) Turkey-based Syrian National Council (SNC) 2. Damascus-based National Council of Coordination 3.) Syrian Free Army (FSA).  All of these oposition groups have different objectives, and dispite their excistance, most Syrian's protesting in the streets don't feel that any of these groups are connected with the ordinary people living there.  The result of these uprisings may infact lead to a civil war, but I say wait for the time being. Stubbleboy 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As far as I know the opposition haven't manage to control any piece of land. Going by the Further Definitions section of the Civil war article of Wikipedia Syrian uprising haven't transformed into a civil war, yet. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The FSA seems to have control of the bab amr quater of Homs, Stuart Ramsey's video shows this, (http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16124327) and the UN calls the situation a civil war (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iBg3fuPcJQRkDUTmFnEYtneUoBvg?docId=cafa973e2ff444c1b50f50d1f6707711) these are both strong reasons for changing the name of the article. -Goltak (talk
 * The UN does not call the situation a civil war. See here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond the definition favored by political scientists, the accepted concept of a civil war is based on the idea that it is two-sided. But it remains unclear just how two-sided the violence in Syria is. Stubbleboy 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support per kspence92.  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 12:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Enough violence for a civil war (and without a miracle it surely will become worse). Metron (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - mostly for technical reasons (not sure if it should be rename or split), but also due to the fact the conflict is not yet clearly a two-sided equivalent conflict and it is not yet related as "civil war" per WP:COMMONNAME.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I support changing it to Civil War. We are presently in the lead, 7 (S) to 5 (O). --Smart (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not clear that it is a civil war yet.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The Red Cross have stated that the situation in Syria does not yet qualify as a civil war under international law. Read here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Let's hold off until we have clear consensus for a move. Right now sources seem to be in some disagreement, and I haven't actually heard the term "Syrian civil war" used with regularity to describe this crisis yet. We have to avoid WP:SYNTH. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my reasoning last time. The situation in Syria has not yet escalated into a civil war, nor are there any major media outlets identifying it as such.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 14:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, - It seems the FSA might control a few Damascus suburbs, parts of Daraa province, parts of Deir ez Zoir province, Idlib, and most notably and likely parts of Homs. It obviously is loose control, and Homs is every day under siege. Sky News also went in to Homs and the FSA definitely controls where they showed video from, though there are Shabiba snipers. The opposition does control territory, so this is a civil war.


 * Please state your source for FSA controlling parts of Damascus. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Definitely a civil war. Most news sources are calling it a civil war now. Fancyflyboy (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to major news outlets which you claim are calling the situation a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support I'm leaning toward support, but still it seems we are not quite there yet. But I still support civil war more than uprising by a small margine. EkoGraf (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Same here. Question is what is the red line when we´ll start calling it full-scale civil war? Major clashes between FSA and SAA (Syrian Arab Army)? Already happening. Armed actions against the provinces and cities where result is hundreds to thousands of civilian deaths and destroyed partions of cities? Already happened. Army in state of war? Already happened. So when exactly will armed mutiny, civilian demonstrations, riots and strike evolve from something where we are to civil war? Opinions? EllsworthSK (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support You have close to 900 defectors in the south fighting 70 tanks, and battles in the North. Weapons are being smuggled in from other countries. Looks like a civil war to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordsloth2 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support It's clear now that this is civil war. If we were able to call the civil war in Libya civil war at the time that we did, I think it's safe to say we can call this civil war now. --Reddbaron1 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When we renamed 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war, international organizations including the Red Cross were already referring to the conflict as a civil war. Now, however, the Red Cross have explicitly stated that the situation in Syria is not yet a civil war and the UN has merely warned that it could turn into a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for now as per the comment above. It's probubly inevitable at this point but let's wait for the intenationals before renaming. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose per TaalVerbeteraar - the template should be removed from the page until widespread agreement has been reached on the situation being a civil war. Currently it is a predominantly civil uprising, with most defectors primarily protecting civil action - this is not yet a conflict. | Moemin05 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment not a conflict?
 * Homs, like many of Syria's cities, is a war zone
 * Hundreds of army defectors clash with Syrian military Kfar Takharim
 * Assad lost control over areas in Idlib province
 * FSA attacks air force intelligence HQ in Damascus itself
 * Army and defectors fight over opposition controlled town of Rastan
 * Fresh clashes in Syrian civil war - Talakesh
 * And list goes on. This is without any hint of doubt a conflict, question is wether it is civil war.EllsworthSK (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Both sides must own areas of land but only one does. 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.14.52 (talk)

Oppose It is not a "civil war" in the eyes of many sources, yet. A quick search on the internet shows major news sources using quotes around the term and mentioning that the conflict is resembling or turning into a civil war. One source within the UN categorized it as a "civil war" while the ICRC says it is not. The Los Angeles Times running a piece on if it is or is not is good reasoning for us to not make the decision. It very well could turn out to be a civil war. Only time will tell and it is not Wikipedia's role to start defining conflicts that sources are not able to come to a consensus on. Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, but please, change the infobox into a military conflict one (dark blue) --93.137.101.115 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox now used in the article is the Infobox civil conflict. Both uprisings and civil wars qualify as a civil conflicts, so I would say the current infobox is perfectly in place here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Support It is obviously a civil war, a classic official governement vs guerilla. The protests in streets have almost disappeared, except from pro Assad rallies and only the military operations and guerilla attacks are left. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose... for now Right now it's a nascent insurgency, so I think uprising is still a more appropriate term. But stay tuned, we are likely only weeks away from full-blown civil war. It's a question of when, not if. --nwh21089 (talk) 6:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - The Syrian army has fractures and is fighting eachother, and the holding of territory is irrelevant, Iraq has a sectarian civil war yet the insurgents never controlled territory, and yet that has its own page on here. over 5,000 are dead now and FSA attacks are occurring every day seemingly. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/14/syria-in-a-state-of-civil-war-as-death-toll-hits-5-000-115875-23633703/ "Syria now in a state of Civil War" is the name of the article in the above link from the UK paper The mirror. Al Arabiya is also calling it civil war as is USA today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have already voted in this poll. You cannot vote twice. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As TaalVerbeteraar and others have pointed out, the situation does not yet meet the definitions of a civil war (per Red Cross and others). However, this may change in the coming days/weeks. Kevin Renfrow (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - As I argued at : Riyuky ( talk ) 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In 11 months over 5000 people have been killed according to the UN Commission on Human Rights, of which the Assad government claims about 1,100 are security forces (though it's unclear whether they're counting defected security force members in that total): http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/syria-idINDEE7BC00720111213 As these have been combat and quasi-combat/massacre deaths the number of substantially injured is likely at least two to three times the number of fatalities. Plenty of modern conflicts now referred to as "wars" both in the vernacular and in scholarly literature have involved comparable or lower numbers of casualties, for example the Sino-Indian War, Falklands War, 2006 Lebanon War, and 2008 South Ossetia War.
 * The opposition elements have formed shadow governments, with many now apparently under the umbrella of the Syrian National Council (and apparently other groups, though I haven't heard much about them in news reports), which has attained varying sorts of formal recognition from Libya, France, Spain, Bulgaria, and the United States.
 * Militia groups including and led by defectors from government forces have organized into the opposition Free Syrian Army, which claims affiliation with the Syrian National Council: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15984682.
 * The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has described the situation as a civil war, first making a statement to this effect on November 30 or December 1: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45514855/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/un-syria-now-civil-war/#.TutqHbIk6dA


 * Support: I echo the arguments from kspence92 in the first comment. This has gone way beyond armed State repression of unarmed civilians, as time will confirm "when the dust clears". Also, I've spoken to Syrian workers here in Lebanon, they assure me it's a full-scale national thing, "unrest absolutely everywhere". Not to mention US diplomacy sounding like Syria is now at the very top of their "to liberate" list, which could make it a full un-civil war like Iraq and Libya. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. ;-)

However, if the vote is relatively tied, I feel the renaming is not an encyclopaedic emergency either. We can leave this option open until the perspective on these Syrian events gets clearer for everyone. Like in Libya. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Break: It seems there is a significant disagreement at this point, so it is useless to go on with this vote. I propose to close it with No consensus, and alternatively propose to split an article Free Syrian Army insurgency from the 2011 Syrian uprising. The "insurgency" is much more supported by sources, and if escalates, we can easily rename it to "Syrian civil war".Greyshark09 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I know that you fancy the idea of splitting the article into two but this is one event which evolved itself from peacefull civilian protests, into uprising and than into armed mutiny/insurgency/civil war. It has taken more time than in Libya but it did and per common name no source ever referred to it as Free Syrian Army insurgency. Also per common name in past week on news.google.com syria, insurgency has 566 results while Szria, civil war 3360 results. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, we should close the request to rename to Syrian Civil War, because there is no consensus.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose: This is not a civil war because the people are defending themselves from a dictatorship that is using the army backed up by paramilitary forces to attack the civilians. -18 December 2011Ahmedzanabli (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose- because this is not a civil war. Until there is genuine fighting for brief periods at a time to capture certain areas of Syria; where the people are no longer governed by Bashar al-Assad's regime, then that will be the start of the Civil War. The Free Syrian Army is not yet strong enough to bring down the existing Syrian Army, as well as the fact that it tends to protect civilians rather than start a conflict. Furthermore, UN intervention (which seems increasingly likely), will try to stop the violence and bring the regime down peacefully, rather than let the violence escalate and more innocent civilians be murdered by Government forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.224.22 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The "Free Syrian Army" is incapable of anything but weak insurgency, so no. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - Events have clearly accelerated over the past couple of weeks, and a civil war is what this has now become. Some more honest and frank reliable sources are now calling it so, e.g. and, as is the U.N. senior human rights official.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

'''* Requested is now withdrawn until further notice. Result: No consensus. Signed votes: 15 support and 15 oppose.''' Support: (kspence92, EllsworthSK, Goltak, Fluttershy, Metron, Smart, EllsworthSK, Fancyflyboy, EkoGraf, Lordsloth2, Reddbaron1 ChronicalUsual, Riyuky, Issar El-Aksab and Rangoon11). Oppose: (Sopher99, TaalVerbeteraar, Stubbleboy, TheDarkLordSeth, Greyshark09, Supreme Deliciousness, Kudzu1, Master&Expert, U5K0, Moemin05, Cptnono, nwh21089, Kevin Renfrow, Ahmedzanabli and FunkMonk). --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


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

Al-qaeda
User ChronicialUsual is trying to assert that alqaeda is part of the uprising, but I believe this to be wrong. Check the Yemeni uprising and the Libyan civil war. In both cases Al-qaeda fought with government soldiers or claimed to be in support of the rebellion/protesting, but alqaeda is clearly not part of either. Asserting alqaeda's role is the same as asserting hezbollahs and iran's role, both use rhetoric in support of syria, both are alleged to be engaged in killing protesters. Both declared their support of Assad, but you can't honestly say that iran and hezbollah are bellligerants - unless you think alqaeda is too. I7laseral (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * High ranking Al-Qaeda members actively fought against Gadaffi in Libya. And what do we have in Libya now? As for Yemen, the government there is pro-Saudi, so try to figure that one out. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A, Belhadj was never part of AQ, when al-Libi announced merge of LIFG with AQAP he was in prison. Also al-Libi at a time didnt hold any position in LIFG and LIFG as itself was destroyed at the end of 90s/beginning of 2000s with its members beeing in prison or in exile. B, That is not flag of Al-Queda for AQ does not have a flag. Try to translate what Al-Queda means (or I´ll help you - it´s "base"), than try to find out why was it named as such and by whom. C, When al-Libi announced that so-called merge Belhadj has written something called Corrective Studies on the Doctrine of Jihad, Hesba, and Rulings what got him out of the prison despite his death sentence. C, that flag is used by salafi movements world wide. D, it was taken down next day and was hoisted during salafi demonstration. E, Try to talk to someone who actually lives there before you start getting an opinion and declaring that AQ rules Libya. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Iran supports Assad but don't fight with him. Al Qaeda jihadist are on the ground fighting, like in Lybia. Both Irak and Lebanon governmentt have warned Syria that Al Qaeda fighters were coming--ChronicalUsual (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The LIFG may be allied with al-qaeda, but alqaeda never fought on the ground in Libya. In Yemen they do, but they are not part of the uprising. there are many sources that claim Hezbollah and iranian intelligence services are on the ground fighting in Syria, doesn't mean we add Hezbollah and iran as part of the uprising. I7laseral (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is too early to include anything at this point, even the Syrian government has only said the suicide bombs were al-Qaeda-like, not that they were in fact done by al-Qaeda. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is too early as well. Just because a group declares support, doesn't mean its part of the conflict. Al-qaeda is a separate insurgency, they have been at war with syria for 20+ years. This is the 2011 syrian uprising. It just happens to be parallel with an alqaeda insurgency. Furthermore it appears that the alqaeda apparently responsible for today's bombing came form Lebanon 2 days ago. It is an international terrorist attack, not part of the uprising. I7laseral (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but this is the first time I agree with Chronicle. However you try to spin it, these suicide attacks are part of the uprising because they were in support or at least a result of the protests and unrest. If there were no protests most likely there wouldn't have been suicide attacks. In addition, even if al-Qaeda didn't do it, the opposition is claiming it was staged by the government itself (which I think is less likely), in that case the attack was committed by one of the beligerents of the uprising, the government. I think that pretty much covers this whole thing. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that irresponsible for someone to say. Iraqi suicide bombing happens without protesting, alqaeda insurgency in Yemen happens without protesting, and is bolstered by protesting, suicide bombing attempts happen all the time in Saudi arabia where protests are crushed. I do not support adding alqaeda into the equation. Alqaeda is a separate affair. Furthermore no one has claimed responsibility yet, so everything is alleged at this point. How do you know the FSA did not do this? The Syrian government could have easily done this as well. They did want the Arab observer mission to vindicate their claim that terrorists are the source of their problems.Sopher99 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On a separate note, one should remember this ABC report, despite a large-scale al-qaeda terrorist attack on yemen, alqaeda is not recognized as part of the uprising.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwyzfRT9k3M Sopher99 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraq suicide bombings happen as a result of the war there, don't know the point of mentioning them at this time. Listen, you misunderstood me completely Sopher99. My point is, I wasn't supporting to add al-Qaeda as one of the beligerents. I was just supporting to add suicide attacks in the infobox under the category Characteristics. I'm not for adding Al Qaeda as a beligerent cause there are too many unknowns at this stage who did it. But, as you said, it could have been done by the FSA or even the government itself. Per that logic, since they are the beligerents of this conflict than suicide bombings should be added under characteristics. I'm not for adding al-Qaeda as a beligerent until it is properly investigated and confirmed if it was realy them. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, but please refrain from calling someone irresponsible. EkoGraf (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You in turn misunderstand me, I did not call you irresponsible. I meant lack of regard to other factors, ie irresponsibility, but not the same thing as fault - Saying bombings are a direct result of protesting is a radical statement that does not regard other key factors. I apologize for not taking time to review my own words to make sure the language is suitable for a neutral, accusationless, discussion. Furthermore the alqaeda group the Syrian government claims is responsible came from Lebanon, so by the logic for engagement in the uprising put forth by some of the users here, maybe we should change the article to the 2011 Syrian-Lebonon Uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here:

1) Irak said hundred of Al Qaeda jihadist fight in Syria 2) Lebanon warns Syria about Al Qaeda coming from their territory 3) Al Qaeda say they are involved in the fight against Assad

Why are there objections to put Al Qaeda among the armed belligerents?--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Because Those are parallel insurgencies Just like the alqaeda insurgency in yemen is not part of the uprising, and just like alqaeda in Saudi arabi is not part of the 2011 Saudi arabia protests, despite alqaeda frequently trying to bomb embassies there, alqaeda in Morocco blew up a cafe yet alqaeda is not part of the 2011 Morocco protests. Tell me, are the neo-nazi, kkk, black panthers, and the communist liberation army part of Occupy Wallstreet? These alqaeda come from Lebanon, and we don't have any confirmation it is alqaeda. I7laseral (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? The parallele insurgency? There have not been this kind of attacks in Syria since the last big urprising. This is totally part of the uprising. Al Qaeda come in Syria to take part in the fight against the Syrian governement that they want to overthrow. Without this uprising, they would not be there. They are part of the uprising, this is not parallel at all. From the beginning the opposition at Assad is divided and Al Qaeda are part of it--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? Than what about 2008 Damascus car bombing, Imad Mughniyah assassination or 2006 attack on US embassy in Damascus? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Alqaeda group comes form Lebanon. The pro-Assad Lebanese government says so. They are angry Lebanese alqaeda who are frustrated with the situation in Syria. It is an international terrorist attack, in the same way alqaeda's attempted attacks on the Bahraini embassies are not part of the 2011 Bahraini uprising, and the alqaeda insurgency in Saudi arabia are not part of the 2011 Saudi Arabia protests. I7laseral (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They are in Syria, they are part of the fight against Assad. This is absolutely related. They are armed elements of the uprising. No questions about that. They are in Syria to help protesters against the governements--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is interesting how alqaeda had to cross the border from Lebanon to Syria to engage in this attack.I7laseral (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that they are foreigners don't exclude them from being part of this uprising. They are one of the armed element fighting against Assad army, alongside with armed civilians, defections and some tribes.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How about we settle at Alleged attacks by alqaeda as part of the characteristics? Sopher99 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if we put in alleged Hezbollah involvement as part of the characteristics.I7laseral (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we would need Libyan and Iranian involvement too, and that's just a slippery slope. How about Turkey and so on? They're probably more directly involved than anyone else. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will settle at putting Alleged Al-qaeda involvement in the characteristics (without Hezbollah). But I rather wait a few hours or a day or so, because if it is confirmed that it is Lebanonese al-qaeda, is it really part of the Syrian uprising, or just a terrorist attack that happens to coincide with one? We can put Alledged alqaeda involvement in the characteristics, but not in the belligerents, as that would justify iranian/hezbollah/turkey/libya in there as well. Anyone agree?I7laseral (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I was fine with just suicide bombings, no mention of al-qaeda or anything else. And in regards to your earlier reply to my post Sopher, its ok, we cool. EkoGraf (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It is important that we specify al-qaeda linked suicide bombings, because new readers might assume that suicide is a practice of the protesters and the SNC. Sopher99 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, again, there is no excluding any suspect at this point. Someone is to blame, weather it is the FSA, the SNC, AQ, the government or some fifth party. Someone is using suicide bombing as a tactic, and against the government's security apparatus at that. So it can be any of the above mentioned, including the opposition. We wait a while to see what further investigations discover, however, for now it doesn't seem to have been the government blowing itself up XD. So it must have been one of their adversaries. And how ever anybody spins it, this conflict has now reached a whole new level with suicide bombings. We see what happens next. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone is but it is not up to us to decide. Syrian government claims that attack was orchestrated by AQ, opposition is pointing on false flag operation and its timing, Saad Hariri meanwhile didnt really cared about political correctness and announced that Syrian government is behind it, The Guardian has uncofirmed reports about roads beeing closed in vicinity of targets before the blasts took place, FSA denied responsibility and so did every opposition group while AQ (which normally takes pride in their attacks) is silent and same goes for Muslim Brotherhood or Fatah al-Islam. So why dont we keep it in line with "suicide car bombing took place in Damascus, this and this number of people were killed and injured, this and this building was damaged, government blames AQ, opposition blames government, the end".? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right that phrasing - BBC news tonight sounded very suspicious - saying it was out of the ordinary and thought the timing highly significant - at the very moment the govt wants to say its just terrorists - this happens Sayerslle (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if opposition and other Assa haters or political forces ahve conspiracy theories, it does not change that a suicide attack was made and can be added to the "characteristics" part of the infobox, and it also does not change that Al Qaeda have jihadist on the ground, independantly than today. I don't understand why it is a problem to put them among belligerent, because unlike Hezbollah, there is evidence of their presence and they even confirm it.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Although Im not really sure if one event equal characteristics of 9 month long uprising I have no particullar problem with its adding there. As for AQ there is no evidence, just claims made by Syrian government. Although you mentioned that Zawahri said something like that I probably missed the source. Yet, even if he did I dont really think that AQ is much of a reliable source and given current AQ status its also hihgly unlikely. Than again, we have to differ between AQ and AQ-affiliated groups like Fatah al-Islam for example. Or salafi groups like armed wing of Muslim Brotherhood which largely operated in Syria in 80s. As for Lebanese claims, take in account who is in charge of Lebanon - Nasrallah and Aoun (who famously said when he was visiting Damascus that he feels like part of Bashar army, so much for anti-Syrian commander), than we have Hariris Future Movement in opposition who is even harsher than Syrian opposition groups (fe todays Damascus car bombing or attack on UNFIL in southern Lebanon). EllsworthSK (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is in charge of the Lebanese government is really irrelevant, Sunni Islamist groups have been in charge of Northern Lebanon for decades now, they've been shown to smuggle weapons into Syria and harbour Syrian deserters. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sunni islamists? Seriously? Care to point out those sunni islamists? Or did suddently Future Movement came up with their own militias like one particullar shia party? Jesus, even Phalanage, Lebanese Forces, Aounists or Druze have more manpower than sunnis ever did and ever will in Lebanon. There is only one region that is out of official Lebanese security forces (army and police) control and that is south which is controlled by Hezbollah, all other militias are only ad hoc militias armed with small arms and minimal to no activity recorded since withdrawal of Syrian troops (and that 2008 incident when Hezbollah went batshit crazy and was kicked out of Druze areas) with sunnis beeing the weakest of them. If you´re refering to PLO they were destroyed during Israeli invasion of Lebanon back in 1982 and what remained was surpressed by Lebanese security forces themself. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like you know absolutely nothing about Lebanese politics. The northern city of Tripoli is infested with Salafists who are independent of the Future Movement. The Muslim Brotherhood and al-Tawheed, among others, are strong there. A little overview: http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0801/0801_1.htm As for Hariri's own people, they massacred a bunch of unarmed SSNP members in Halba in 2008, in frustration over being to weak to inflict harm on Hezbollah itself. (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to doubt that you even read articles that you post here. Otherwise you´d known that Fatah al-Islam operates in Palestinian refugee camps and its activity in Nahr al-Bared was crushed in 2007. Or no, give me here some conspiracy theories about M14 secretely donating Fatah al-Islam in order to defeat Hezbollah that turned out so logical in 2008 when they did nothing during Hezbollah invasion of western Beirut. And you have to be just kidding me with al-Tawhid. You really want to say they infested Tripoli? Is this some kind of joke? They are nothing, for a decade they exist only pro-forma and they are bud-buds with Nasrallah and Aoun. And in elections they recieved exactly 0 seats. What a success! Or mention Muslim Brotherhood which even doesnt have official branch in Lebanon. I am amazed by your knowledge about Lebanese politics and "infestation" of northen Lebanon by salafi groups, as you called it but truth to be told its bunch of bollocks. And giving example of parties which exists only pro-forma won´t help your cause. As for massacres that happened in Beirut, you can expect that when Hezbollah and its buddies from SSNP started assaulting western Beirut and firing rockets on everything that moved. Also do you know who has base of operations in north-east Lebanon, ie on Syrian borders? I´ll give you a hint - it ain´t sunnis. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My cause? This is getting way off topic. Fath al-Islam is hardly even part of the equation. But you might like Hizb ut-Tahrir? All over Tripoli. Again, read up on Salafist activities in Northern Lebanon, I'm not your teacher, there are plenty of articles on the web you can sink your teeth into. But I'll help out: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CMEC6_abdellatif_lebanon_final.pdf, http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/Iraq%20Syria%20Lebanon/Lebanon/96%20Lebanons%20Politics%20-%20The%20Sunni%20Community%20and%20Hariris%20Future%20Current.pdf, http://www.democracyinlebanon.org/Documents/CDL-World/SalafistJihadism%28SaabandRanstorp07%29.pdf, and from STRATFOR, of course: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/lebanon_exposing_countrys_jihadist_movement FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you´re not a teacher, you´re a googler and that´s it, nothing more. I doubt that you read even one of the links you posted here. Nor have you any idea about internal politics in Lebanon. So let me be your teacher for a while. There is not a single family in Lebanon without a gun. Not one, christian, Druze, sunni, shia it doesnt matter, hence why every political party has something that can be called militia, simply because those "militias" are in fact members of that particular party which have guns as probably everyone else. Same happened in Bosnia and Hercegovina after war, uncle of my friend kept in his backyard T-55 MBT till 2002 when SFOR confiscated it. Moving on - what makes Hezbollah so special? Simple - not only numbers but also their telecomunication network which is completely independent of state-controlled one and is under Hizballah surveillance, also number of APCs, rockets but especially friggin artillery and anti-ship missiles (Y-8), making Hezbollah the strongest known militia and also stronger than national army, hence why even Saad Hariri never went too far in his agenda of disarming Hezbollah. Next, HuT? Seriously? Guys who dream about pan-islamic caliphate? They have strong armed presence in Tripoli? Even though you did not notice till now, Tripoli is under Saad influence, its his main base of operation, city political figures are on his side and even clerics. And if you think that sunnis in Lebanon are buddies with Palestinians in their camps than think again. If they would their political representation wouldn´t be allied with Phalange and LF who during civil war cleansed several of those camps and destroyed PLO in Beirut. As for your question about the sunni weakness (what bytheway I claimed in the first post and what you laughted about just to have it in your source now) it is on part of other militias, they dont have the luck of beeing financly sponsored by Iran and Syria without which Hezbies would be another joke of militia and would never dare to attack Israel just for the fun of it and their political representation sought strenghtening of national army in order to avoid another civil war, hence why their militias are un-trained, not supplied and with AKs which were passed from father to son. Now, you finally know something about Lebanese internal politics. Good for you. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5 live tonght - a story that dead bodies were put in cars and then the cars exploded - a phony attack - certainly the Syrian govt is Machiavellian enough. Sayerslle (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if Bashar al-Assad dies, we know he killed himself to make the opposition seem violent. That's just how Machiavellian he is! FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Holding up the supposed threat of Islamist terror has been a common trait among dictators trying to cling to power during the popular revolts in North Africa and the Middle East".(Kim Sengupta) lotta continua. Sayerslle (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, true. I'm currently doing the projects regarding Yemeni and Bahraini Uprising, its funny how (from my point-of-view) the Bahraini King Hamad claims that the Hezbollah are 'financing' terrorism and extremism among the protesters. Like Bashar, Hamad claims those protesters were seek to 'destable-lize the region'. Likewise the funny dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh too. Although I'm not doing project for this article but this al-Qaeda thing is a fully POV to be honest. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)