Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51

Shouldn't it be Syrian Civil War?

As the title asks like. It's a proper noun as the name of an event. AvalonXD (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a proper name. See the previous conversations regarding this. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:81D8:66F7:A478:2DEE (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess because some publications seem to call it the Syrian War instead? That said like CNN and Britannica use the capitalised name. AvalonXD (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
After stopping two move discussions over formalities, someone invented a rule - just for this article - that only one RM can be held per year. Don't even bother. The powers that be have decided that the results of an RM in January is carved in stone, regardless of the fact that it was virtually unopposed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It was closed after 6 hours, with the vote split down the middle. Don't make clearly refutable claims. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:7CEC:E4BC:42DF:6A7 (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I said 'virtually' unopposed. Not so strange, given the time window within which the name of this article was carved in stone. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The vote was split down the middle. It was not virtually unopposed. Not that it matters either way after that length of time. But don't make up facts. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:7CEC:E4BC:42DF:6A7 (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Pardon me, anyone can read that RM. There were comments and questions, but no hardly any counter-arguments. Virtually unopposed. Not that there's any point arguing over it anymore. The problem is not the discussion itself, but rather the fact that its result was carved in stone through bureaucracy and the invention of new rules on the go. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
There were more arguments against than for. So, if a slight edge means "virtually X", then I guess it was virtually unsupported. Relevant or not, don't make up facts. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:7CEC:E4BC:42DF:6A7 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, anyone can read that discussion. The deciding arguments went unanswered - unsurprising, considering the short duration of the discussion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Making up facts isn't defensible just because people can see it higher on the page. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:F498:298E:43BB:97E3 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi AvalonXD, 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:81D8:66F7:A478:2DEE, and Mikrobølgeovn. I have opened a procedural discussion below. gidonb (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style

In the last move discussion, it was proposed that any further discussion regarding capitalization should take place in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style which would deal with this and all similar articles. Charles Essie (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: That was my suggestion, I just never got around to it. But I do think this should be addressed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
So do I, but I don't know how to get it started. Charles Essie (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: Can you help me? Charles Essie (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know where to start either, and honestly, I don't have the energy to fight this battle right now. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Charles Essie, I have opened a procedural discussion below. gidonb (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Civil" war to Hybrid war

Much like the so-called "Yemeni Civil War (2014–present)" and the "2011 Libyan Civil War", the war in Syria can be said to be nothing short of the clearest textbook case of an Hybrid War. With fulls cale Russian troop deployment, billions of dollars of US aid to "rebel" groups, thousands of NATO airstrikes, Israeli strikes on Irani-aligned local targets, and a complete Turkish invasion of considerable amounts of land, all of which are mentioned in the article as of now, can there be a more clear example ever? Several sources mention the war as a given of hybrid warfare. The mentions include published academic and official government documents. See https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1068694.pdf, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330425587_Superpower_Hybrid_Warfare_in_Syria for the US marine corps, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/25765949.2019.1605570?journalCode=rmei20 in Chinese geopolitical research, and https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2019/11/-russias-geopolitical-campaign-hybrid-warfare-in-the-gray-zone/, https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/hybrid-war-old-concept-new-techniques and https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/counter-hybrid-warfare-winning-gray-zone for other sources. The name of the page should be moved to better reflect the nature of the conflict. --181.26.24.244 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The conflict is very much referred as the Syrian civil war by every source, and every other thing you named are simply events part of the conflict. Just like how the 1982 Lebanon War is part of the Lebanese Civil War (since they're interconnected), events such as the turkish offensive into north syria are part of the syrian civil war. Moving the name based on one’s idea is simply WP:OR Ridax2020 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Update to territorial changes

The info on territorial changes in the Infobox is pushing a year old. We need an update with more recent info on who controls what.--RM (Be my friend) 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you many Turkish posts around Idlib have been evacuated, Tafas and Muzayib now belong to local rebel insurgents, and ISIS has expanded across the syrian desert.--Garmin21 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Egypt supporting Assad?

the Anadolu Agency reported that Egypt sent troops to help Assad[1] but, the SOHR say that they didn't so, who is right.[2]--Garmin21 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Anadolu Agency generally isn't a reliable source when it comes to this. SOHR takes precedence in this case, and mention of Egypt should be removed. 2601:85:C102:1220:2001:5231:1A85:9198 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
ok I'll remove it.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
SOHR is more reliable than the Anadolu Agency. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://archive.vn/92dsi
  2. ^ https://www.syriahr.com/en/177285/

Egypt still hasn't been removed. I can't remove it because I am an IP. 2601:85:C102:1220:F8C8:7972:A182:48A0 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Israel

Israel has admitted to funding 12 rebel groups and has continued to attack Syria Farbne (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Source?--Garmin21 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Israel should have been added to the map a long time ago. It occupies part of Syria and has been involved in the war including support of al Qaida groups and bombings.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/report-israel-treating-al-qaida-fighters-wounded-in-syria-civil-war-393862

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-acknowledges-long-claimed-weapons-supply-to-syrian-rebels/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israel-armed-rebels-in-south-syria-for-years-in-effort-to-block-iran/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/13/deadliest-israeli-air-strikes-on-syria-in-years-kill-57-say-observers

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add Israel then you would have to add Turkey, Iran, and Iraq on to the map because they have had a much more prominent role in the civil war then Israel.--Garmin21 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Turkey is already in the map showing that it is occupying part of Syria. Same with US. Neither Iran or Iraq are occupying parts of Syria. Israel is. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
So you'd want to make it like LiveUAmap with Israel in blue showing to Golan or something like that.--Garmin21 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, that's how it should be.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
If you want to add the Golan go head.--Garmin21 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Israel's control over the Golan Heights is irrelevant to what is going on in Syria today. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources disagree: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. All of these events are directly related to the Syrian war and the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. Wikipedia must follow the reliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Israel most certainly belongs in the infobox as supporting the rebels, but it shouldn't be on the map. Israel armed southern rebels and Islamists, but they never took over physical land during the war. 2601:85:C102:1220:A054:120E:7921:9C4E (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The Syrian government never took over the physical land of Suwayda or the coastal line during the war. Yet the map shows these areas controlled by the Syrian government Same thing should apply to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Supreme Deliciousnes: Are you saying that Syria's coastline is not controlled by the Syrian government? If so, then by whom? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
They are, but they didn't take control of it during the war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Supreme Deliciousnes: I don't understand your argument. The Syrian government controls the coastline, but not thanks to the rebels... Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Syrian civil war 2011 - 2021 (10 years anniversary)

Hello everyone! It is now 10 years, since the Syrian civil war did not ended. President Assad is not defeated yet, but he is got the Covid-19, and he is survived. The Syrian civil war is 10 years old now, becuase it's started in March 15, 2011, and it's now March 15, 2021. We need to fix the Syrian civil war's page, today, it is 10 years old now, and it's 10 years Anniversary, Assad would be 56 years old, and he is not stopped, and not defeated yet. The syrian people are coming in Europe, and the other countries, because of the civil war. That's all, have nice day everyone! --TomFZ67 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to discuss a move

I understand and support the need for stability at Wikipedia. No intrinsic problem here. Yet the current name of this high-visibility article does hurt Wikipedia. The name implies that there were many civil wars in Syria and our article is not about the Syrian Civil War but about civil war in general in Syria. The article, however, is about a specific civil war, the Syrian Civil War. Getting such a basic convention wrong hurts our reputation among the information platforms. I would like to share my argument in a FUTURE discussion and do not need agrees and disagrees with it now. I'm sure others will make excellent points as well. My CURRENT PROPOSAL is 100% procedural.

Please put support below if you believe that, for any reason, the Wikipedia community should immediately hold a consensual Requested Move discussion for this article. Put oppose if you oppose. This is a PROCEDURAL discussion. It's absolutely fine to support a discussion if you oppose a move and vice versa. Please focus any arguments on holding a discussion, NOT on the correct name. With sufficient support, the next discussion would be on everyone's name preferences. gidonb (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beshogur. We're not discussing a name right now, just if we should hold a discussion right after about the article's name. Can you confirm (or change) your preference in light of this question? gidonb (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gidonb: I didn't understand the purpose of the discussion at all, can you elaborate more what we are going to discuss? Seems like a waste of time. Beshogur (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Beshogur, there is a large group of people here who want to have the opportunity to discuss the name. It is currently blocked by governance (i.e. not policy) considerations. Are you supportive of holding a new discussion to reach a wider consensus? gidonb (talk)
Hi 217.32.179.153. We're not discussing a name right now, just if we should hold a discussion right after about the article's name. Can you confirm (or change) your preference in light of this question? gidonb (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's absurd that a procedural discussion should require the consent of those who oppose a move. Of course they'll refuse to go along with that, especially in light of the fact that the previous move discussions were procedurally closed over formalities rather than consensus. There is no Wikipedia policy to prevent a new discussion, even if those who support the current title will fiercely resist it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
There was clear consensus, and nothing has changed in regards to the media's usage, so no new discussion is needed. Most reliable sources recognize that it isn't a proper name. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Mikrobølgeovn, for the most part, I agree but there will be those who will wish you "a day in court" even while disagreeing with you. Never discount the ability of Wikipedians to come up with (even more) original reasoning! It will not be everyone. This anon is not able to make a procedural claim without tying it to a position on content matter, but did get a procedural claim organized. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Nothing has changed in the past 11 months. It didn't become a proper name in that time, so a new discussion is not warranted. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I rest my case. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This case was already settled three years before that. Syrian Civil War was the consensus until someone brought it again and closed the discussion because a the technicality. This is a reasonable request. Charles Essie (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Please WITHOUT possible outcomes for now! Charles Essie, your argument in favor of a discussion is that the naming question was settled long ago and was overturned by an incidental forum? 217.32.179.153, your argument against another discussion is that the naming question has just been settled and should be left alone for now? Please confirm! gidonb (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. If usage had remotely changed in the past 11 months, a new discussion would be warranted. But it hasn't. So. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that's part of my argument. Charles Essie (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I originally had in mind a much bigger name discussion that could settle this and any future discussions of this nature for other articles. Charles Essie (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Sladnick. This discussion, however, is about holding a new discussion, which is currently not possible without it getting shut down. Do you support allowing a new discussion? If so, what are the procedural reasons for this support? gidonb (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The last discussion reached a conclusion incompatible with the basic conventions of the English language. Some extraorindary debate would have been necessary to take such a step, but this was not done, only a limited discussion. Sladnick (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support Never understood why this article is titled “civil war” in lower caps, while other articles have civil war capitalized. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ridax2020. This discussion, however, is about holding a new discussion, which is currently not possible without it getting shut down. Do you support allowing a new discussion? If so, what are the procedural reasons for this support? gidonb (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Royal Autumn Crest. This discussion, however, is about holding a new discussion, which is currently not possible without it getting shut down. Do you support allowing a new discussion? If so, what are the procedural reasons for this support? gidonb (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I support allowing a new discussion and I think the procedural reason has been mentioned above repeatedly and that is standardization. It doesn't make sense for civil war to not be capitalized in the title here and civil war to be capitalized in comparable civil wars. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment gidonb What is going on with this? In just 8 days it will be a year since the last move, which occurred after a rushed discussion — only six people supported a move at the time! This was far too few to invent a whole new standard for naming wars, which is what that discussion effectively did even though it falsely claimed to be implementing an established norm. Sladnick (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sladnick, this is a request to hold a new community discussion, which is currently blocked. Any admin can close this as successful. I'm not an admin. gidonb (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
gidonb How long does that ban on new discussion last? What do they need to see here to allow it? I asked you because you seemed to be trying to guide this discussion. Sladnick (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I guide the discussion only when people talk about the correct name. This discussion is about the right to have a new RM. I cannot speak for admins. We will wait patiently until a lot of people ask for a new RM and hopefully such a request will be respected. gidonb (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
A lot of people have asked for a new RM. It is time to scrap a made-up rule, have a new discussion (this time an uninterrupted one), achieve an actual consensus and - hopefully - end the silliness and restore basic conventions of the English language. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The last discussion was closed far too quickly, and the continued debates on the talk page showcase that issues remain unadressed. Applodion (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The entire push to make the Syrian Civil War into Syrian civil war was farcical. If there were a plethora of Syrian civil wars, then perhaps decapitalization would make sense, but there's only been one large civil war. Honestly, should we demote other wars: Russian civil war, American civil war, Spanish civil war, etc? Absurdity. We need another move discussion. 2601:85:C102:1220:2883:171C:E459:1206 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there going to be a move discussion or is it going to stall forever? The uncapitalized title appears very silly, and this warrants a discussion.2601:85:C102:1220:2001:5231:1A85:9198 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'd start it myself but I want assurances that we have consensus for a new discussion before I do so. I don't want it to be immediately shut down. Charles Essie (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
With the exception of Jimmy Wales, no one has the right to shut down a discussion that is clearly warranted (and overdue). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Applodion, AvalonXD, Beshogur, Gidonb, Mikrobølgeovn, Ridax2020, Royal Autumn Crest, Shrek 5 the divorce, and Sladnick: I've started it. Charles Essie (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry on the discussion above

I see a lot of IPs putting the same argument above, this shouldn't be tolerated. One IP even reverted my edit twice because I tagged someone with SPA. Beshogur (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That was me who reverted you, I am a dynamic IP as I have shown above, but I have only made two edits to the above discussion, and I don't plan on adding anymore. The text that starts with:"Many users here..." and "As per the guidelines..." are mine. I have no relation to the other IPs. But so as to clear any confusion, I reverted your edit because you were claiming an IP was a sockpuppet without any proof (they had never before edited any topic on this war). Nevertheless, there may now be sockpuppets joining the conversation. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C433:1C0:9B8:9A33 (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2021

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. This discussion is not a vote. Those favoring capitalization have not provided evidence that the name of the war is "consistently" (or "usually") capitalized in reliable sources, as required by MOS:CAPS and WP:MILMOS. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War – Per above discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong support. The current name implies that there were many civil wars in Syria and our article is not about the Syrian Civil War but about civil war in general in Syria. The article, however, is about a specific civil war, the Syrian Civil War. Getting such a basic convention wrong badly hurts our reputation among the information platforms. gidonb (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Basic conventions of the English language trump unfiltered google searches (which include blogs and whatnot). The current title was the result of a six-hour discussion, later carved in stone for a year after subsequent discussions were closed over formalities. It makes no sense to have a Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Sierra Leone Civil War, etc., but only a "Syrian civil war". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: Most articles of civil wars are capitalized (eg: Somali Civil War, Second Libyan Civil War, Iraqi Civil War (2006–2008)) yet this article isn’t. Ridax2020 (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Although the claim that "Syrian civil war" is currently more common in media has some merit, a growing number of reliable sources (especially books and academics) use "Syrian Civil War" or "Syrian War". Some examples: Syrian Civil War: The Essential Reference Guide, Violent Non-state Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases, Syria in Ruins: The Dynamics of the Syrian Civil War, Syrian Civil War and Europe, Historical Dictionary of the Syrian Uprising and Civil War, Inside Syria: The Backstory of Their Civil War and What the World Can Expect, Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness. In addition, as others said, "Syrian civil war" might casuse confusion in regards to other conflicts, despite this war being regarded as the civil war (although there were, strictly speaking, other civil wars in Syria: For example the Seleucid Dynastic Wars, various Islamic civil wars, and the 1860 Mount Lebanon civil war). Applodion (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    Applo, what you are saying is false. Look in Violent Non-state Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases and Syria in Ruins: The Dynamics of the Syrian Civil War: they both use "Syrian civil war" without caps throughout. I only looked into your first three -- did you look in any of them? Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose @Applodion: it's because books generally use caps on begin of every word (except the, and, etc..) If you look at news agencies independent, reuters, france24, they all refer it to as "Syrian civil war" indicating it's not a proper name. Also to other people, "strong" doesn't give you double vote. Plus remember this is not a voting. Beshogur (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, said books use caps in the regular text as well. IMO, the writing of academics should be given more weight in this case, as the journalism in regards to Syria has proven to be... often subpar, to say the least. Most academics at least try to be a bit more objective. Applodion (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    It seems you didn't actually look into the text of many of those. Which ones cap it in the text? Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not this again! We finally moved this from the capitalised version a year ago, after years of people ignoring guidelines to oppose it. Did you actually read the previous RM before starting this one, as suggested by the note at the top of this talk page? Nothing has changed since then. Per MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. That is plainly not the case here. I've run a Google search for "Syrian civil war is",[8] (to show cases where the phrase is used in a sentence rather than a title) and the results show a pretty even split between caps and non-caps, with I think a slight predominance for non-caps. But anyway definitely not the "substantial majority" required.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    As argued before, I don't think that unfiltered Google search results take precedence over basic English language conventions. Furthermore, it is grammatically possible not to use capital letters; you'll find plenty of search results for "Vietnam war", "Gulf war" and so on. And what happens when a majority of (unfiltered) Google search results no longer capitalize "Vietnam War"? Will it have ceased to be a proper name? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    What are these "basic English language conventions" you speak of? If something is so basic, why are high quality sources such as the BBC, the New York Times, as well as academic papers,[9][10] getting it so wrong? I haven't seen any evidence presented that there's something gramatically wrong with putting this in lower case. And we have the guideline telling us to follow the sources and how to interpret them, precisely to avoid pointless discussions like this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see the contradiction. Just as it is possible to write "the Syrian civil war" in a sentence, it is also possible to write "the second world war", "the Vietnam war", and so on. "Syrian Civil War" is the most commonly accepted name of this war, hence it should be a capitalized title in line with what is the practice with literally all other articles about wars except this one. It's pointless to leave our readers wondering why there is a Spanish Civil War but only a Syrian civil war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    The capitalized version simply isn't the most commonly accepted name though. Nor is it "more correct English". You may prefer that form, but the evidence shows that lowercase is more common in sources, and per our guidelines that's what we should follow. That was the whole point of the last RM, and why the support votes here seemingly have little merit. You need to show that it is capitalized in a *substantial majority* of reliable sources, as is the case for Vietnam War and Second World War. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:CAPS. Based on the Google Ngrams, the lowercase version is the most common spelling. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Rreagan007: According to this argument, "Kosovo War" became a proper name only in 2010, when the capitalized variant overtook the decapitalized variant. Similarly, "Vietnam War" only became a proper name in 1976, "Korean War" in 1957, "Iran-Iraq War" in 1996, "Eritrean War of Independence" in 2007, the "Second Intifada" in 2010, Sino-Indian War in 2005 (43 years after its conclusion!)... Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    If that's what the reliable sources use then so be it. Personally, I don't like the lowercase spelling any more than you do, but this isn't supposed to be about our personal preferences, it's about our article naming policies and guidelines. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The Syrian Civil War is a specific conflict and ends up being used as a proper noun to refer to the conflict anyway capitalised or no. In addition to the other support reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalonXD (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. This is not a Syrian civil war, it's the Syrian Civil War. Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    That's a completely fallacious argument, and you clearly have not actually read WP:NCCAPS or MOS:CAPS. See about 1,000 previous discussions in Wikipedia about proper names and capitalization, and WP:PNPN in particular, which was written to assemble all of that into a simple primer. "It only has one referent" or "It's only happened once" is not what "proper name" means. As this time, for example, there has only been one spike in Bitcoin value to the US$48,900 mark, but "the $48.9K Bitcoin spike" is not a proper name and is not written "the $48.9K Bitcoin Spike". I have only one cat, but "SMcCandlish's cat" is not a proper name and we do not write it "SMcCandlish's Cat". Capitalization on Wikipedia is determined by one thing only: Whether nearly all reliable sources are doing it for that particular term; if the capitalization is not near-universal in RS material, then WP does not do it. We do not make exceptions on an article-by-article basis. If you do not understand how proper naming and capitalization work on Wikipedia, please read the guidelines before responding to RMs like this. You just add more heat than light, otherwise. That goes for most all of you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Per above. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongest support - "Syrian Civil War" is a proper noun, and the media capitalizes "Civil War" 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 13:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Really? Tony (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Capitalizing the "Civil War" is the common norm in English language. MarcusTraianus (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above, it’s correct to capitalize “Civil War” in the English language. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
    That's stark-obviously false. That string is capitalized only in the context of specific conflicts, such as the American Civil War and the English Civil War, in which it has become near-universally conventionalized to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely oppose: The real world is mostly not capitalizing this, and what's more, the capitalization rate is going down not up. Clear proof of that here, where n-grams show the V between "the Syrian Civil War" and "the Syrian civil war" is widening, even as coverage of the subject is increasing. This RM basically cannot close with a result of capitalization no matter how many (WP:NOTAVOTE) over-capitalization fanbois choose to !vote in favor of that without any actual source or WP:P&G basis to do so. WP:ILIKEIT is not a rationale, and neither is blatant falsification of usage facts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: MOS:MILTERMS says Accepted names of wars... are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources. I don't know if the use of usually was specifically meant to be a lower bar than MOS:CAPS's requirement for a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources, but I doubt that "Syrian Civil War" could meet even that weakened standard. Among major English-language news outlets it appears that The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times and The Guardian all consistently use the lower-cased version. On the first page of Google Scholar results I don't see any uses of "Syrian Civil War" besides a book title that is overall in title case. I take Google Ngrams comparisons with a grain of salt as there are no guarantees about the quality of the source or the context of the usage, but the gap between "Syrian civil war" and "Syrian Civil War" (see comment above) is significant, persistent and widening. I personally dislike the inconsistency with comparable articles, but in the absence of serious new evidence I don't see a policy-based argument in favor of capitalization. Rublov (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Has the proposer checked ngrams for outside usage? Seems to me that lowercase for this item is on the increase. And MOSCAPS says it's only where caps are the overwhelming majority choice should we follow suit. Lowercase does not suggest there were other Syrian civil wars; you could argue the opposite—that lowercase is used because it's the only Syrian civil war. All of the major style guides say to minimise unnecessary capping. Here, it is unnecessary and against en.WP's style guidelines. Tony (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong (since everyone is using such a term) oppose–I don't see at all how the current title implies this article is on the history of a summary of civil wars in Syria; completely escapes my mind. Sorry, but no reader will look into the capitalization that hard and find any such meaning out of it. The supporters are giving our readers way too much credit to be confused or mislead by such a minute detail. Also not buying the "other articles do it this way so we should do" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)—while a sympathetic cause, Wikipedia is not meant to be a uniform place. We follow, first and foremost, what reliable sources say, and I am yet to see evidence that reliable sources are uppercasing more often than lowercasing. Aza24 (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – the rationale to cap it is not based in our guidelines, nor in typical external usage. It is not our place to lead in anointing proper names for things. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
That is if you accept the idea that unfiltered search results determine whether something is or isn't a proper name. According to that logic, a well-established proper name can cease to be a proper name if enough journalists begin decapping it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not just "unfiltered search results", it has been shown above that those results lead to high-quality reliable sources such as the BBC, NY Times and Washington Post. And yes, perhaps proper names do cease to be proper names after a while, but luckily we don't need to worry about that because we have a guideline that tells us to simply to with what the world-at-large is going with. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
What's "unfiltered" is Applodian's list of 6 books with "Syrian Civil War" in their titles. Looking into them, I find one caps it, four use lower case, and one book isn't out yet! Does he think that appearing in a book title makes a phrase a proper name? Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Many users here are arguing that "Syrian civil war" is the dominant (or growing) title for the conflict, but there are many more alternatives than simply that. Other titles I've found with various usage are "Syria war," "Syrian war," "Syrian crisis," "Syria Crisis," "Syria civil war," "Syria's civil war," "civil war in Syria," etc. In addition, it is simple convention to capitalize the title of articles, as user Ridax2020 pointed out above; it is the norm for titles. But most importantly, the fully capitalized title "Syrian Civil War" is what is used by the majority of sources for their titles and this discussion is about what the title should be, not how the subject is mentioned throughout the article. This article should be titled "Syrian Civil War" because most titles on the majority of sources use that format, but how it is referred to in the article can be changed. For example, with a capitalized title, we could still say under the casualties section: "The war in Syria has killed..." or "Syria's civil war has killed..." or "The Syrian Civil War has killed..." or "The Syrian war has killed..." Not to repeat myself, but users should keep in mind that the discussion is about the title of the article, and most sources use the capitalized version in their titles (usage of "Syrian civil war" is mostly found not in the titles of articles, which is relevant to this discussion, but in the main text of said articles, which is not relevant to this discussion about titles). As a simple example, I give Britannica as a source that uses the capitalized version as its title: https://www.britannica.com/event/Syrian-Civil-War 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)— 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
And before Beshogur or someone else claims that I am a single-issue account, I would like to declare that I am a dynamic IP who has made many edits to Wikipedia. I have personal reasons for not having an account. I have made edits to other issues. Proof: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:85:C102:1220:640F:35E1:C872:594A and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:85:C101:C9D0:19C2:AED2:7F0D:4A76. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
That's wrong wrong wrong! You claim "it is simple convention to capitalize the title of articles, as user Ridax2020 pointed out above; it is the norm for titles" – but WP:NCCAPS says otherwise; we use sentence case for article titles, as most who participate in naming discussions usually at least know. It doesn't matter that some sources have a different style for title capitalization; what's at issue here is whether it should be capped in WP style. Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
As per the guidelines, you have a point, although I am genuinely curious as to your opinion about other titles on this encyclopedia. From what I could tell, the guidelines, at least what concerns this discussion, boil down to whether the war is a proper name (Article titles should be in sentence case, not title case. Only the first word is capitalized, except for proper names). What exactly determines whether the war is a proper name or not? Is it simply an ngrams check? Both the Lebanese Civil War and Guatemalan Civil War are capitalized, but a quick check on ngrams shows both to be uncapitalized. Should they be changed? There seems to be inconsistency in the way this (arbitrary) guideline is applied. Looking at List of civil wars, virtually every war is capitalized. As should probably be expected, Wikipedia has a lot of grey areas, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this, and there doesn't seem to be an ironclad no-cap rule applying to this Syrian war. Unless someone here is willing to go on a grammatical crusade and instill the no-cap orthodoxy on every page, or update the guidelines with more specific instructions, there really is no problem to capitalizing Syrian Civil War like the other articles. Cheers. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, per the guidelines. See in particular MOS:CAPS, where the lead paragraph explains our empirical, as opposed to theoretical, approach to deciding what's a proper name. Some editors also bring a more theoretical approach, but they're usually consistent with this idea that if it's not consistently capped in sources, it's not capped in WP. Please strike your support if you now understand the guidelines and the evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if it was the sole argument for capping the title, consistency with other wars would have been a strong one. As far as I can see, all we achieve through decapping is proving some obscure academic point while leaving our readers wondering why "American Civil War" is capitalized but not this one. Even if the guidelines were clear-cut (which they're not), this would have been a clear canditate for WP:IGNORE. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Good point and additionally, your correct assertion that there are numerous different names for this conflict (Syria's war etc.) is additional evidence that this is in fact a descriptive title, and not a proper noun title. If it were the latter, then everyone would call it that, as they do with Vietnam War or similar.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
It is quite common for wars to be referred to by multiple names, and "Syria's war" can easily be attributed to the fact that this is an ongoing war, hence readers can be assumed to know which of Syria's many wars the work is referring to. Furthermore, universal usage is not a requirement; the Yom Kippur War is known in the Arab world as the October War, but the Wikipedia article stuck with the name that is more common in the English-speaking world. "Syrian Civil War" is well-established as the most common name of this war, and once it has ended, you bet descriptive titles will decline (especially if, God forbid, subsequent wars are fought). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I think it should be done as in other encyclopedias for any other conflict. I know given my lack of handle I may not be listened to like some of the others here, but I've followed this article, and this debate (I've commented in previous debates on this then too, also as a guest, for what its worth), since the beginning of the conflict, and had always found it silly when it was put in lower case simply because Google said so. If this is an encyclopedia, it should follow the norms of an encyclopedia.
Also, why are some people putting oppose down twice. If they already opposed it, doing it again doesn't seem to be arguing the point in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:D200:4C60:D96E:A6D1:6A86:6D90 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Two things: if we have the American Civil War, then why not the Syrian Civil War? Also, though not the most logical reasoning, it visually looks nicer with the capitalization. 128.172.245.88 (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
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.

Tahrir al-Sham as a supporter of Interim Government on infobox

Des Vallee has added Tahrir al-Sham as a supporter of the Syrian Interim Government and I reverted it when I saw. It was reverted again by Des Vallee and I wanted to bring it into a discussion to prevent an WP:EDITWAR. The Interim (Turkey) and Salvation (Tahrir al-Sham) are two different governments which both claim the governance of Idlib. --Dijkstra (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes but they both support each other, they often are at odds but are almost always allies. Governments can support multiple governments which Turkey does, HTS control almost all of Idlib and Turkey operates with them all the time. The citations proves this claim.
There can often be overlapping support as an example the Russia simultaneously now supports both the SDF and the SAA. The US also has overlapping support with as an example supporting the FSA in the south and the SDF. Des Vallee (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is designated as a terrorist group by Turkey, and Interim Government has never been supported by the HTS. The cooperations took place before the disintegration of Army of Conquest, which Turkey gave support and HTS was a part of it. --Dijkstra (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes they do, the Turkish government does constantly cooperate with the HTS, nearly the entirety of the M4 highway was controlled by the HTS, nearly all of Idlib is controlled by the HTS. It impossible for Turkey not to operate with the HTS. Turkey operates in the HTS area and openly fights alongside them. Evidence of this is utterly constant, and the sources, are endless like here, here, here, or here. Seriously, this isn't unknown information it's widely circulated and is all over the place, the most famous video of the SNA and Turkish occupation is with them in cooperation with the HTS. Des Vallee (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources, I would appreciate it if you can add these sources to the article as well. It seems Turkey used HTS time to time despite the reactions of the rebels, but we still can't include HTS as a supporter of the Interim Government. As I've said before, HTS has its own government in Idlib and they've always been enemies with the Interim Government which also claims Idlib. Here are some sources about relations between the two governments: [11] [12] [13] --Dijkstra (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Egypt in the infobox

@Mausebru: Again: Anonymous/Turkish/Syrian opposition claims do not prove that Egypt has deployed troops to Syria. Unless there is hard evidence, Egypt should be removed as a belligerent. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Yes, but Syrian/Iranian and even the U.S. alleges Egypt has joined, and Egypt deployed some 150 soldiers.Mausebru (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mausebru: Since you just spelled out that this is just an allegation so far, I assume you agree that Egypt should not be listed as a belligerent in this war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: Only the U.S. alleges. Egypt officially sent troops. Look at the references I put there. Mausebru (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mausebru: I already looked at the sources. The first one cites Anadolu, a Turkish government-owned propaganda machine. The IranWire source cites Anadolu and the Syrian opposition, and actually spells out that the claims could not be verified (quote: "IranWire has not been able not confirm the authenticity of the information"). The Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera articles mention nothing about troop deployment, and were written four years before the supposed "deployment" that only Anadolu knows about. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: Then ill add it to the support collapsible list. Mausebru (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mausebru: That's more than fine. Cheers! :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: Excuse me, but when I put the collapsible list, it's not appearing. Could you help me?Mausebru (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mausebru: No biggie, just fixed it. I'll leave it to you to pick which sources to add (we really should toss Anadolu). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

Change non-working link in citation [109] from

"(UNHCR), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response"."

to

"(3RP), Regional Refugee & Resilience Plan. "3RP Regional Strategic Overview 2018-2019"." Lerminator3 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Updated link to newer information from UNHCR. I couldn't find the 7,600,000 and 5,116,097 figures in the new link you provided. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Situation Map in the infobox

Following on from the Afghanistan war situation map discussion where there was a strong consensus against using this kind of map due to original research and unreliable sourcing, we should use either a more reliably-sourced map (i.e., not one sourced in large part to an anonymous and unreliable Twitter feed) or images of the war similar to those used on other conflict history pages. For this reason I've deleted the situation map from the infobox as it fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR as a WP:BOLD edit. It would also be good, if a situation map is necessary (I'm not sure it is in such a static conflict as the war is at present) to have one that is more up-to-date. I've used an image of Raqqa as a place-holder, but a collage/montage similar to the one used for the war in Iraq (e.g., this) would be better. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As I did not see consensus on that discussion for removing the maps from other article infoboxes other than the Afghanistan article, I have boldly reverted the removal. Please start a discussion here first before making those changes. For the record, I feel that the sources used on the Syrian Civil War map are generally reliable enough to warrant its usage, particularly the edits that comprise the most recent version. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

Change the casualty of total dead at the end of the infobox to include a new UN estimation of 350,000 dead. So something like 350,000-606,000 dead.

Here is the source:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1101162

The UN estimate can be the lower bound while the SOHR (pro-rebel source) can remain as the upper bound. The UN estimate is worth mentioning, as they haven't released one in years. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5CDE:6E25:EAEC:A888 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC) 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5CDE:6E25:EAEC:A888 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:182C:8F22:E5A4:E9C7 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Considering the sheer number of warning templates on this page, it's safe to say that this is a very contentious topic. I don't think altering the total death toll in any capacity is going to go unnoticed. While if what you say is true (as they haven't released one in years) I would agree on a personal level that it may be worthy of mention, any alteration to the statistics in the infobox that aren't corrections of blatant errors is probably going to need consensus. Especially if 2 or more reliable sources are purporting different tolls, as then the community needs to decide how they wish to handle that. After a consensus for this change has been made, either an editor with sufficient permissions can perform it, or this request can be re-opened. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Oh thanks for replying! There are a lot of RS reporting the UN's new estimation (low-end, if I might add), so I am confident that a consensus can be reached regarding its inclusion in the infobox. In order to reach a consensus, should I start another discussion on this page? Thanks in advance. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:4C9A:43F9:E415:ADCE (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

Request to add List of documentary films about the Syrian civil war as Template:Main under the section Syrian civil war#Documentaries 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Reference 144?

There is no way given to find reference 144: " Kelley, C. P., Mohtadi, S., Cane, M. A., Seager, R., & Kushnir, Y. (2015). Syria had also received in the same period around 1.5 million refugees from Iraq. By 2011, Syria was facing steep rises in the prices of commodities and a clear deterioration in the national standard of living." Where is this written?peter (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Googling the names and date gives this article, but I haven't checked it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Reference 176

Reference 176 has absolutely nothing to do with what is supposed to be citing beyond explaining what sarin gas does. Would it not meant to be proving that UN inspectors did confirm the use of sarin gas? 1.43.75.25 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

""Bottom: Military situation in September 2021:""

please make an update. there have been +5 months. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dates, rather than units of time ago.

Under the sub-heading of Casualties, the sentence beginning "Over 380,000 people were killed since the war in Syria started nine years ago..." is no longer valid. And will need to be updated every year since time keeps marching on.

Should read "Over 380,000 people were killed since the war in Syria started in 2011..." Livepsycle (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Neglects to mention Saudi Arabia and Qatar's support of ISIS

My suggestion is to remedy that bias. 2600:1014:B121:75BD:7E7E:F4ED:45D3:C02D (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence for Saudi and Qatari support for ISIL. Saudi Arabia was alleged by Iran, Iraq, and Qatar to support ISIL, which they denied. Qatri support for ISIL is alleged by Saudi Arabia and their allies, and the Houthis, and has been denied.MausebruTheYeeter (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Outdated map

I think the map needs to be updated to reflect the recent changes in control of certain territories in Syria by HTS. As of the 13/10/2022, they currently control the city of Afrin [14] . Fnaf guy123 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

They captured Afrin and the surrounding countryside, apparently also 26 other villages. Reports are also are saying that they are heading to Azaz. [15] [16] Gehirnstein (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Israel in the infobox

Israel is confirmed to be involved and sources are these:[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] some of these say non-military, while others confirm Israeli military involvement in Syria to support some 12 rebel groups. Israel should be added as a supporter of the rebels or a separate column.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 18:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

And [25] another one. Israel should be in the infobox ASAP. (Im not adding just not to anger everyone)Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 20:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree. If Egypt is in there with little support given, so should Israel (which to my knowledge still has connections with Syrian insurgents in Daraa area). 2601:85:C101:C9D0:2C01:9B35:1C0F:1180 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I support adding Israel to the infobox, although i dont know where it should be added, as the sources, at least on my view, dont say what rebel group they are supporting. SnoopyBird (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Many of those 'sources' are biased bloggers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:1A0:F4FD:A106:28BD:FD70:2995 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Haaretz, Times of Israel and Reuters arent "biased bloggers".... SnoopyBird (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Guardians of Religion Organization

I have removed this group from main belligerents at the infobox, its inclusion doesn't appear to have been discussed and there are no sources reporting it as a main belligerent to the conflict alongside SAA, FSA, ISIS and SDF. Ecrusized (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ecrusized, I have modified the infobox with Al-Qaeda in Syria and its defunct branches. Although Hurras al-Din isnt powerful as its former iterations, it is appropriate to include it seperately under Al-Qaeda; which was a key actor in the conflict Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Shadowwarrior8: Your changes are inappropriate as they do not cite any sources. Al Qaeda central command was never involved in Syria, you have added Al Qaeda to the infobox without citation. Al Nusra front which is the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda changed its name Jabhat Fatah al-Sham in 2016, and then to Tahrir al Sham in 2017. This information is already included by notes at the bottom of the infobox. Hurras Ad Din is a minor organization and it is not the direct descendent of Al Nusra. Ecrusized (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ecrusized
I hope you actually dont believe what you are suggesting, but it is obvious that Al Qaeda central command is involved in Syria. Central command is one thing, organisation is another. Al-Qaeda's syrian branches are part of Al-Qaeda and what is your rationale for seperating it from "Al-Qaeda"?? Provide sources for your assertion. Furthermore, core leaders in the central command were active partcipants in Al Nusra. [26].
Also, Tahrir al Sham is not an affiliate of Al-Qaeda. It was formed as a merger between Jabhat Fath al Sham and 3 other Islamist militias in 2017. It bans Al-Qaeda activities in its area of control. 2 Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
You are adding WP:SYNTH material. Al Qaeda leaders did not declare the towns in Syria they occupied to be under the flag of Al Qaeda central command, instead they declared Al Nusra. Even if you believe they did it doesn't matter as you cannot add your opinions to Wikipedia, you need to cite sources which explicitly state the argument. Ecrusized (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ecrusized
Dont engage in strawman arguments (see WP:TPG), because I already provided the source for Al-Nusra being loyal to AQC. You are promoting Fringe Theories. Every regional branch of Al-Qaeda is Al-Qaeda and is described as such in any article. Be it Somali Civil War, Mali War, Yemeni civil war, etc.
Also you claimed Tahrir al-Sham is part of Al-Qaeda without sources; while I provided clear sources for them banning Al-Qaeda activities and arresting AQ leadership. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok well, I really don't care that much. You have been warned by half a dozen users about adding original research before and some other user will probably revert your changes. Ecrusized (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with @Ecrusized:. Currently the infobox is a misleading mess and the revision prior to the recent round of edit warring more accurately reflected the main belligerents of the war. The biggest issue is that Jabhat al-Nusra and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham are the previous names of the organization now known as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. This is even part of a note. Placing them and their commanders on separate columns is completely illogical.

While Hurras al-Din is notable enough to include, putting it in the same column as the Islamic State also doesn't make sense given that al-Qaeda continues to oppose IS. HaD has come into conflict with HTS several times, but the conflict isn't a major, continuous one; HaD and HTS are currently co-belligerents against the Syrian government. It would be more accurate to place them on the same column, but with a divider line between them to show that they're not necessarily allies, while still on the same broad side. Lightspecs (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Syrian Civil war starts March 15 2011

Syrian Civil war starts March 15 2011 Jonathan555568 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Name of Article

I think "Syrian civil war" should not be used as long as the war is ongoing and independent verifications are more or less impossible. Only historians can decide whether this truly is a civil war or rather a proxy war against Syria or something even wider. I don't necessarily want to suggest an alternative. This could be found in a discussion of the issue.

Using such names - other examples would be "terrorist attack" or "suicide" for respective events even before any meaningful and independent investigation - is significant because they shape the perception of things and events before the issue is really settled. It is like calling somebody a criminal before the conclusion of a trial. Mregelsberger (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

While you make good points, most civil wars, especially due to the political context of the last century, have seen substantial foreign support for belligerents. Probably, by my own count, most recent civil wars have been exploited as proxy wars by stronger powers in order to further their geopolitical aims. Thus, civil war is an apt descriptor for this conflict. 2601:85:C100:46C0:C51A:2566:AF10:9013 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2011 Syrian Revolution which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2023

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. No new evidence to suggest that things have changed since the last RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War – The war has been going about for 12 years. Now we can capitalize the C and the W because it can be used for historical context. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose As SMcC says, the rationale given by the OP is meaningless word salad. That it is Syria's only civil war and/or it has been going on for 12 years are not substantive reasons. If anything, they fall to WP:SIGCAPS and we don't do that. We capitalise American Civil War because it is near universally capitalised in sources per here. This is no where near the case for Syrian civil war. Per the evidence of F4U and as observed by Amakuru, there is zero policy based argument to change the casing of the title. Per WP:NHC: those [arguments] that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue carry no weight and should be discarded. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Even in a search for articles post-2021, fifty percent of the first thirty results use the uncapitalized form.
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 29 July 2023

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 withdrawn at noms request (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War – Basically, my reasons on the previous request, plus, even modern civil wars like Second Libyan Civil War have capitalization in their titles. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment. Per MOS:MILTERMS: Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources. I think for this RM to succeed, it will need to be demonstrated that this war is usually capitalized in reliable sources. I will just note that Britannica does capitalize it in their article title.[31] Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
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.

Should these new Arab Tribesmen clashes/Dier Ez Zour clashes be a new Wikipedia page?

Basically just title. I think it has escalated to a point where it might be needed. Brojiden69 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

What happened to the belligerents section??? Napalm Guy (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox size

The infobox of this article is way too large compared to the prose. The new default skin Vector 2022 limits text width, which exacerbates the issue. My suggestion is to have it collapsible so that readers can stop looking at needle-like paragraphs. Carpimaps (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and tagged. I have altered the formatting of the template to reduce the width a bit, but the main problem is that it has far too much information in it, contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. (Hohum @) 20:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. One thing that would cut it down a ton would be to simplify the casualty and strength counts of every single involved party. We could summarize the Syrian govt/Russia/Iran/Hezbollah casualties in one line called "Government-aligned countries", for instance. HappyWith (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This infobox is not only way too big but way too busy and complex for it to provide the reader with an "understandable" at a glance summary and therefore fails WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is unsuited to the degree of detail that this infobox is trying to capture - detail which is best suited to an explanation by way of prose. Accordingly, I have removed much of the information to the bare bones - key points that can be readily understood. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

XavierGreen, you have reinstated the infobox to a version prior to the edit I made whereby it was substantially trimmed with your edit summary: There was no consesnus to remove all the belligerents from the infobox. While there may not be a clear consensus for the edit I made, in the light of WP:P&G there is a clear consensus to reduce the size of the infobox. Simply reinstating the long version of the infobox goes against this consensus. As I indicated above, the nature of the belligerents involved (and associated information such as casualties) is complex, nuanced and way too detailed for an infobox to capture in a simple way that is readily understandable. An infobox is unsuited to capturing such detail, nuance and complexity. The size, complexity and detail of the long version of the infobox fails WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is a matter best left to prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

there was utterly no consensus to remove all the belligerent parameters. There is no military conflict page with an infobox that does not list the belligerents. You are blatantly wrong.XavierGreen (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
If including all the belligerent makes the infobox bigger than the lead itself, I don't think it is helpful to add it. Ca talk to me! 15:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I would add, that if the contents of the infobox are essentially incomprehensible, there is definitely no reason to add it. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

Sorry if this was already mentioned in an older thread, I wasn't able to find one in the archives. Why does the "timeline" section on this article have no timeline, instead containing dozens upon dozens of links to pages that basically just give day-by-day updates? An ordinary reader, coming to this page and wanting to see what recent major developments are, wouldn't be able to find them without following a bunch of links outside. This also leads to the lead containing tons of info that isn't in the article body. I feel like there should at least be a summary of general events in the article body. HappyWith (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This article needs lots of improvement. I think we just need someone to be BOLD enough to take on the task. From my perspective, go ahead. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
You are 100% right. Splitting into a million sub sections with no information, only links, is pretty much pointless. I'm not gonna even try because this is nowhere in my wheelhouse. But surely somebody could at the very least summarize major events. There's always the "main article: timeline" link, and obviously no need for it to be reiterated a million times to links to different sections. Honestly this is an extremely hard article because the conflict is just so complicated. Even just 1-2 sentences per major event (initial revolution and rebellion, ISIS vs coalition, rojava vs turkey) would do for the timeline section. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@MarkiPoli agree, this is difficult to read. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comments related to this article

There is an ongoing Request for Comments related to this article. If you wish to watch participate in the discussion, you can hear: Talk:List of wars involving the United States#Request for comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of belligerents in the infobox

I accept that a conclusion was reached for a shorter and more concise infobox in the above RfC, but the version proposed by @Cinderella157 and eventually accepted leaves out which factions are involved in the fighting, crucial information a reader should be able to get from the infobox. I am partial to the edit made by @Ialwayscomeback2020, which could be further simplified by removing the year of involvement for various countries and organisations as well as modifying the Islamist column to just "Al-Qaeda and allies" and "Islamic State", in addition to using "AANES" or "Autonomous Administration" in lieu of Rojava. Sisuvia (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8 and Cinderella157: As the uninvolved editor who closed the previous RfC in favour of the shorter version, there is no consensus against adding further detail into the infobox, so long as it does not become as large as the version before the RfC. The proposal to add the belligerents would not be against consensus, and any editor can add such details. Any editor can also revert them, but such revert should be based on opposing the additions, and not to enforce consensus. I am impartial as to whether this should be included or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_50&oldid=1190851204"