Talk:Syrian revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page views of this article over the last 90 days:

Misnomer[edit]

The premise of this article is that there was a "peaceful" beginning of this conflict, which is a complete propaganda myth. Yes, there were peaceful elements from the beginning, but also extremely violent ones. What this article is really about is the protest part of the uprising, and it should be renamed accordingly, and the scope changed. It could be called something like "protests/demonstrations during the Syrian uprising". FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk: ‘(the conflict began as a) civil uprising’ (that's how section Syrian civil war#Civil uprising (March–July 2011) starts) does not at all mean nor imply: totally peaceful. This is even emphasised in the first sentence of this subarticle: “Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war was an early stage of violence in the Syrian conflict”.
You seem to suggest to ’change the scope’, and make a split between: (non-violent) protests/demonstrations during the Syrian uprising/war’ and: violence during the Syrian uprising/war’? I would advise against that suggestion. The only practical way to go, I believe, is to organise the article 'Syrian civil war' (and sub-articles) in chronological phases.
This means though, that we have to improve the partition between subarticle Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war – which would have to end either at 31 July or at another exact date in July 2011 – and Timeline of the Syrian civil war, which would have to start the day following. It does not matter whose ‘fault’ it is that both subarticles present information about July+August 2011 – but we certainly have to fix that up, I believe. Corriebertus (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section title "Misnomer" is also misleading, but the article is much more so. Apparently this civil war sprang out of the air, completely spontaneously in 2011. Try searching the article for earlier dates, and it is obvious the NPV idea is being totally violated. The PoV of the article is that the next door war in Iraq had nothing to do with this war, and the prior history of Syria is barely acknowledged--because the article has been sanitized so carefully. I'll save you the speculations on what actually happened before 2011, but I'd bet my bottom dollar the long-term historical perspective will laugh at the bias and framing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.104.108.8 (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Defections/desertions April-June-August 2011'...?[edit]

Section June-August 2011 says:

‘ in response to the use of lethal force against unarmed protesters, many soldiers and low-level officers began to desert from the Syrian Army. (…) The first defections occurred during the April Daraa operation.[ref 26] The number of defections increased during the following months, as army deserters began to group together to form fighting units. As the uprising progressed, opposition fighters became more well-equipped and organized, and senior military officers and government officials began to defect as well to the opposition.[ref 53] Some… ‘

These ‘defection/desertion’-statements seem vague and/or not-referenced. Source 26 (ISW 2011) does not give that info about Daraa April’11; source 53 (aljazeera) is vague about three military or security officers defecting until Dec 2011: who? when? where? Does anyone have real serious precise information about desertions and defections in that period? If not, we have to sober this section up, I believe. Corriebertus (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Section crackdown:) Torture?[edit]

This article (Civ.upr. phase) covers period Mrch-Jul.2011. Do we have sources for torture in that period? Mentioned source, Human Rights Watch 3 July 2012(!), gives no facts pertaining to Mrch-Jul 2011. Corriebertus (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'the regime of Assad’[edit]

“The uprising … was marked by … demonstrations against the … regime of Bashar al-Assad…”, was written in the lead section, until 3May2014. Mr LibDutch considers that word ‘regime’ incorrect: he calls it (in edit summary 11May2014) “POV”. ‘Pov’ or ‘POV’ is not in my dictionary. Could we please discuss in English in this Wikipedia? What is incorrect in ‘…demonstrations against the regime of Assad’? Corriebertus (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an introduction and general information, have a read at the page located at WP:NPOV. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regime is not a objective term, we also don't say the American regime.--LibDutch (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in my dictionary, I read: ‘regime = government of a state’. It therefore seems to me just a synonym to ‘government’ in cases where it pertains to a state (Syria is a state). ‘Objective = unprejudiced’. Words, terms (‘regime’, in this case) aren’t even capable to judge, so they can’t even have a prejudice. In case you mean some editor has been expressing some prejudice with the word: what prejudice might that be, and why do you think he holds that, or any, prejudice, when using that word ('regime') for 'government'? --Corriebertus (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms don't necessarily share the same connotations, though. Within English literature, the word regime tends to be used in a negative fashion, and so it would be more neutral to word it as "the Assad government" instead. The words "homosexual", "sodomite" and "fag" are also synonyms of each other, however I assure you that they express things quite differently when in context. Being a synonym doesn't mean that such words can be replaced and still have the same, unmodified expression. --benlisquareT•C•E 19:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked LibDutch: if you are suggesting some prejudice by some editor (using in this context the word ‘regime’), which prejudice is that then? I don’t mind waiting longer for an answer of him (I can’t blame him to be busy also elsewhere). In the mean time, benlisquare starts some sort of new line of discussion: ‘regime’ is usually “used in a negative fashion” and suggests some or other (negative) “connotation(s)”, he claims. Does he have any proof at all for those two contentions? Corriebertus (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have any proof, you ask? Is this one of those "let me tell you about your language" cases, where a non-native English speaker is telling me, a native English speaker, about how I should use my native tongue? How about you give reasoning as to why you think the word "regime" is neutral terminology? You're asking for the preposterous, you may as well ask why "red" means red. Ziet u niet de ironie van een Nederlandse spreker vertellen van een native speaker Engels wat juist is?

Regime is a loaded word, do a trawl through usage of the word in print and online literature, and it's clear as day that it has a different connotation to "government", despite being synonyms. Even Wiktionary lists wikt:regime with the note "This word is often used as a pejorative". The Oxford Dictionary suggests that the term is more often used to describe authoritarianism, whilst the Cambridge Dictionary notes that the term is "mainly disapproving". The Merriam-Webster Dictionary only provides definitions without usage notes, however the examples it uses also suggest the same as the other dictionaries (none of the examples used are done in a positive sense); the Macmillan Dictionary uses similar examples as well. The Collins Dictionary states that "If you refer to a government or system of running a country as a regime, you are critical of it because you think it uses unacceptable methods". --benlisquareT•C•E 11:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for arguments, benlisquare. Have you ever heard though of '(no) personal attacks'? Corriebertus (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ik was alleen maar te wijzen op de ironie binnen uw verzoek. Als u het duurde als een aanval, dan verontschuldig ik. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted. I don’t see irony in a native Dutch speaker (who masters English reasonably well) collaborating on the English Wikipedia project, and seriously discussing there the meanings and connotations of certain English (perhaps also internationally used) words. I agree that ‘regime’ can be, and often is, used with disapproving connotation. Corriebertus (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to apologize to mr/mrs LibDutch, for a small mistake I made, 9 June, on Syrian Civil War, by again writing 'regime' in a section where I should better have written 'government'. LibDutch corrected that, 10 June. I must tell you though, that there will be instances where we might better write 'regime' and not 'government'. For example: on 2June2011, opposition delegates gathered in Turkey, and afterwards one of them said, that demands for political reform are no longer enough, and that the leaders of the opposition now call for the regime to be replaced. It is obvious, that the news website (VOA) here deliberately chooses the word 'regime' because that opposition spokesman used that word 'regime' and not the word 'government'. It would be incorrect here, I believe, to 'correct' that choice of words of that opposition spokesman, by writing:'...that the leaders... now call for the government to be replaced'. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Organizations[edit]

Some recent editing, in section→May 2011, commenced with the misattribution of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which had working premises in Coventry, UK, for the National Organization for Human Rights in Syria, founder Ammar al-Qurabi.--Laurencebeck (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues[edit]

Is it me or are the images in this article all wonky? They all end up at the very bottom of the article, no matter what I do to fix it. If anyone else is receiving this issue and knows how to fix it, please do. ProjectHorizons (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs consensus about the lead , which Diff should we accept , the one that mentioned the slogan of Alawites to the grave Christians to Beirut or the current one[edit]

The Old lead is Accepted by Eik Corell While The New Lead is Accepted by AleviQizilbash Here check the Diffs Please . Which one should we accept , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From start to finish: Western propaganda against Assad causing the uprising is a fringe opinion, and an opinion piece is NOT a sufficient source for such a big claim. Again, this is an opinion piece, and opinion pieces often do not reflect official opinion or stance of the outlet it's published in, so such an article is not "The Guardian" saying these things, but rather Jonathan Steele. Next, claims about chants being commonplace is not proof protesters demanding the genocide of Christians and Alawites, and this is disregarding the issue of whether the source (agos.com.tr) is a reputable outlet or not, or whether its contributor at least is a recognized expert or not. This applies to the other sources that are being cited as well, which seem to be dealing with the same chant and issues of intimidation. The best source in your edit by far is Genocide Watch, and specific claims of the report could be added to the relevant section in the Syrian Civil War article, or better yet, the entire separate article it in turn links to: Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War. In the end, almost nobody is denying that the civil war had, or evolved to have, a sectarian element, indeed the Genocide Watch report documents such cases, but that report paints a picture much more nuanced than the protest's stated goals being genocide against Christians and Alawites. Eik Corell (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is about virtually the same information being added to two articles, it would be better to keep it to the discussion entry on the more active article, Syrian Civil War's talk page entry [here]. Eik Corell (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem , copy your comment over there and I will comment under it , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defections up until September 2011[edit]

"Until September 2011, about two senior military or security officers defected to the opposition." This number (two) seems off, so I wanted to see if it was a typo. However, the link now gives a 404 error. Anyone have the right number or an archived source? -KaJunl (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debka.com[edit]

An anon IP or two has been inserting Israeli website Debkafile into this article. I don't know anything about it, but it does not look like a good source to me. I have asked the Reliable Source Noticeboard if it is a reliable source. I also think the claims being supported by it might constitute WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, and including this content in the lead or infobox would not be WP:DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ba'athist dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad[edit]

User:Bobfrombrockley Ba'athist dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, is a claim without any citation. Having reliable sources so vaguely does not mean anything. If there is a Ba'athist dictatorship it must be documented. I will put the sign for needing citations.

Not to mention the fact that as it is written violates the NPOV. Wikipedia needs only facts and not adjectives. ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will add sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no policy base given for the requested move. I don't see any chance that a consensus to move will develop, especially considering a potential violation of WP:NPOV. Hence, this. is a snow close. (non-admin closure) Estar8806 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian Revolution → Syrian Revolution of Dignity – This is the common name most respectful of the Syrian people and their struggle. LichCake (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and rapid close per WP:SNOWBALL. Not only have you failed to demonstrate that this is the common name, you are openly calling for violation of WP:NPOV. You have repeated this behavior here and on the Tunisian Revolution article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

Change the date[edit]

Um, the protests actually started on the 26th of January 2011. TankDude2000 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: WP:DENY, sockpuppet of a well-known disruptive user in this topic area. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello (music) 07:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian Revolution → Syrian Revolution of 2011 – This is the style mostly used for revolution pages and it’s generally a more natural-sounding title. WikiManUser21 (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that this request was made by a  Confirmed sock.-- Ponyobons mots 22:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 July 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by the proposer below. See #Requested move 19 July 2023 (I abandoned the “2011 Syrian uprising” thing.). (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian Revolution → 2011 Syrian uprising – The situation was more of an uprising than a revolution. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Revolution is 2x as common in scholar results [1][2] estar8806 (talk) ★ 11:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 July 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Syrian revolution. Removing 2011 from this article's title had a clear consensus, both in terms of level and support and in terms of strength of argument. The consensus to change "Revolution" to "revolution" was less clear, but still existed. However, there is no consensus on whether Syrian Revolution should be moved to Syrian Revolution (disambiguation) and Syrian Revolution made into a redirect to this page. Further discussion on this topic may be beneficial. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The only real revolution they had, so no point of adding year. And yes, I abandoned the “2011 Syrian uprising” thing. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 10:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Syrian Revolution is currently a disambiguation page, I have added a disposition for it to comply with WP:EXPLICIT. SilverLocust 💬 19:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no advantage in removing year. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we keep the title shorter. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - removing year reduces WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and increases ambiguity in violation of WP:PRECISE. Plus WP:NCWWW implies a "When, Where, What" format to maintain WP:CONSISTENT.
    Also, this is the fourth move request in just a few months. I wouldn't be opposed to a WP:MORATORIUM for a few months. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why the Romanian Revolution doesn’t have 1989 in title? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the Yemeni Revolution? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Parham wiki (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONCISE.
    The 2011-12 protests were a popular revolutionary movement of unprecedented magnitude during the era of Arab Spring and saw millions taking to streets in all corners of Syria. It involved not just peaceful demonstrations, but also violence in part of the regime and armed resistance from the people. Thus, this movement was the most revolutionary of all the Arab Spring protests, going by general criteria of a "revolution".
    There has been two other revolutionary movements in Syria during the 20th century. However, 2011-12 protest movement is widely designated as "Syrian Revolution" in academic works and media reports. So its a common name. In addition, the movement is ongoing since all armed opposition groups continue to appropriate its legacy.
    Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like it or not, there are other 20th Century events referred to "revolution" in Syria. Disambiguation is useful. Walrasiad (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only one reffered as such. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative Syrian revolution Per WP:TITLEDAB, disambiguation is only required when there is an actual conflict in article titles; otherwise, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision. There is no actual conflict in titles. This ngram and a review of book sources (see here) indicates that the 2011 revolution is the primary topic. The ngram evidence also shows that capitalisation of revolution is unnecessary per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The same ngram shows that more book sources have capitalized “R” in “revolution”. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On visual inspection, capitalisation of R|revolution are more or less equal and, without doing an actual statistical calculation, not significantly different. MOS:CAPS states: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The ngram evidence clearly shows that the threshold for capitalisation (a substantial majority) has not been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Syrian revolution Without capitalization per above reasoning. Fanatizka (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, Syrian revolution, per above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2023 Syrian protests[edit]

The Institute for the Study of War reports ongoing protests in southern Syria: At least 21 anti-regime protests occurred in the southern Syrian province of Suwayda on August 22. ... These protests initially erupted on August 16 ...

Is there already a 2023 Syrian protests Wikipedia article? Boud (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of 26 Aug, yes. Boud (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 September 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian revolution → 2011 Syrian uprising – The revolution is still ongoing, at least in the form of a civil war, since Assad hasn’t been overthrown yet. However, this article reffers only to the 2011 civil uprising. UkraineFella (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet. SilverLocust 01:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Already discussed and closed down before. The proposed title is original research and not common name. (Ngram results).
Today's situation is different from the 2011 revolutionary wave. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure sources of the Syrian revolution do not refer to the civil war as well? UkraineFella (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 01:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to describe the whole civil war as the "Syrian revolution", that request should be proposed at the Syrian civil war page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname there have been several revolutions in Syria, the ongoing one, the one that created the Hashemite Kingdom, the one that overthrew the democratic government and established the first military rule, etc.. "Syrian revolution" should be a disambiguation page -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong oppose RM started by a blocked sockpuppet Shadow4dark (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_revolution&oldid=1210606299"