Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53

WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:DUE in Background/Impact of natural gas section

The subsection "Impact of natural gas" contains what, in my view, are potential violations of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, most prominently WP:DUE. The idea that the Syrian Civil War was caused by the desire of the United States and associated countries to build a natural gas pipeline is, I assume, generally considered to be a relatively fringe or minority viewpoint. The section in question fails to clarify that this is the case and furthermore does not include any (more mainstream) viewpoints that suggest the contrary.


With regards to specific sourcing issues, it also appears that the section contains extensive use of sources of questionable reliability.


The first source, "Syria: Another Dirty Pipeline War" (I've linked a non-depreciated version of the article) is, I think, fairly reliable in that it is published scholarship, from the professional journal of the Hungarian military. I know very little about the state of peer review of general reliability of that journal, but have no particular reason to question it. That said, I think the article would meet the definition of an isolated study which is contrary to most scholarly opinion on the topic, while the section presents the viewpoint as a fact.


The second source, "Syria: Another Pipeline War" is from EcoWatch. Again, I don't know much if anything at all about the overall reliability of EcoWatch, but the specific article appears to be an anonymous opinion article which doesn't adhere to the standards of academic scholarship or even reliable journalism. The section in the page, again, presents the opinions contained in this anonymous article as fact.


The Washington Post article "U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show" is very much a reliable source, but I take objection to it's use in the section:

"Syrian president Bashar al-Assad declined Qatar's proposal in 2000 to build a $10 billion Qatar–Turkey pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, allegedly prompting covert CIA operations to spark a Syrian civil war to pressure Bashar al-Assad to resign and allow a pro-American president to step in and sign off on the deal. Leaked documents have shown that in 2009, the CIA began funding and supporting opposition groups in Syria to foment a civil war."


The Washington Post article does not make any connection between the backing of opposition groups and any pipelines. Furthermore, it also does not suggest that it was the intent of the CIA to spark/foment a civil war. While this is not an unreasonable inference from the CIA's known activities, it is not something which is actually mentioned in the Washington Post article. The sourcing for this particular claim is from EcoWatch, whose problems I have already addressed.


The next paragraph begins with the sentence "Harvard Professor Mitchell A. Orenstein and George Romer stated that the pipeline feud is the true motivation behind Russia entering the war in support of Bashar al-Assad, supporting his rejection of the Qatar–Turkey pipeline and hoping to pave the way for the Iran–Iraq–Syria pipeline which would bolster Russia's allies and stimulate Iran's economy."


I don't have any issue with this sentence aside from the first source for it — the News.com.au article "Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world's bloodiest conflict?". News.com.au is essentially a tabloid, and the specific article seems to be of a tabloid level of quality. In particular, while its background assertions about the geopolitical importance of Russian natural gas supplies to Europe are backed by links to more reputable publications, its statements about the role of natural gas in the Syrian Civil War appear to be purely the result of the author's own speculations.


The author does mention the Foreign Policy article "Putin's Gas Attack", which is a reliable source, but it's not very clear what in the article is actually from this source versus the author's own opinion. In fact, "Putin's Gas Attack" is also directly cited immediately afterwards. Given that the sentence in the paragraph directly refers to this article and represents it quite accurately, I'm not even sure why the News.com.au article is needed.


Finally, "The U.S. military has set up bases near gas pipelines in Syria, purportedly to fight ISIS but perhaps also to defend their own natural gas assets, which have been allegedly targeted by Iranian militias. The Conoco gas fields have been a point of contention for United States since falling in the hands of ISIS, which were captured by American-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in 2017."


The first source is the VOA article "Iran-Backed Groups Blow Up Gas Pipeline in Syria, Monitor Says". While the neutrality of VOA may be questionable in areas relating to US foreign policy, this article in particular seems to be of a purely factual nature. In fact, it does not make any mention of the idea that the US military is in Syria to defend US natural gas assets — what it states is that "U.S.-led coalition forces, which entered Syria in 2014 to fight the Islamic State group, have set up several bases in Syria including in the Al-Omar oil field, the country's largest. They are also deployed at the Conoco gas field, and both are in Kurdish-controlled territory." In other words, there is no mention of any potential economic motivation behind the deployments, which are officially for anti-ISIS purposes.


The second source is "U.S.-backed forces capture big gas field in Syria's Deir al-Zor: senior commander", corresponding to the sentence: "The Conoco gas fields have been a point of contention for United States since falling in the hands of ISIS, which were captured by American-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in 2017." First of all, this sentence suffers from poor grammatical structure. Second of all, it doesn't appear to mean anything — what contention? The Reuters article does actually give an idea of what the contention is about — in one sentence, it states that: "While both oppose Islamic State, they [The United States and Russia] are engaged, via proxies, in a race for strategic influence and potential resources in the form of oilfields in Deir al-Zor province."


In conclusion, I think the section in question could stand to be rewritten, preferably with better sources. The role of natural gas in the Syrian Civil War, while not particularly well-discussed, is definitely something which has been the subject of serious scholarship (e.g. the Foreign Policy article) and deserves a mention, but the current state of the section is fairly poor, and quite frankly it appears to have been written by a person seeking to promote their own viewpoint on the topic.

Relatedly, the article Qatar–Turkey pipeline contains similar issues — it states that "Political scientists and journalists have postulated that the Syrian Civil War was an undercover CIA operation due to Ba'athist Syria's rejection of the pipeline proposal and its turning to an Iran–Iraq–Syria pipeline instead." with the same questionable citations to News.com.au and EcoWatch. That particular section of the article appears to have been written by the author of the problematic section in this article, and a prior version of that page espousing the same viewpoint was previously reverted for violations of WP:DUE.

StSeanSpicer (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

After doing some additional research on the matter, it appears that the basis of this entire idea, namely the existence of a Qatar-Turkey pipeline proposal and the supposed 2009 Syrian rejection thereof, is factually dubious at best. Reliable sources can at best confirm that in 2009 and 2010, there were discussions involving Qatar and Turkey about the possibility of such a pipeline. No solid evidence exists for any supposed Syrian rejection of this plan.
See: Talk:Qatar Turkey Pipeline#Factual Accuracy StSeanSpicer (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor taken over by rebels

Someone might want to change the map to reflect the rebel takeover of Deir ez-Zor from PYD terrorists. 31.223.75.128 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

They are not terrorists, but yes, unfortunately they did. Greek Rebel (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Really? Let's see, the PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, the EU, and many other countries (You can look it up). The YPG/PYD are the Syrian arm of the PKK and make up the backbone of the SDF. It follows that the SDF is a terrorist organization. Feel free to come back with a sound logical explanation for the contrary. 46.31.112.221 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Russian military bases

The term "Russian military bases" will suffice, It's not an occupation at the moment. Zyxrq (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually because the other countries use “occupation” I do think it’s appropriate. Zyxrq (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't an occupation under Assad since they were there with the government's approval. Whether it's an occupation or not in the future will depend on whether whatever future government agrees to Russian bases or not. If it was called an "occupation" when Assad was in power, I agree that it was wrong wording. Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The blue circle on the map/unclaimed land

What is the reason for having the blue circle on the map, should it not be controlled by dark green faction like it was in older map? Also, why is there still unclaimed land on the map wasn’t all of that taken over by rebels? 2600:1702:5870:5930:187F:3142:B66B:712C (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's the American presence around the Al-Tanf Base KeysofDreams (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
That sounds about right according to the key since that’s the case it should be colored dark green. 2600:1702:5870:5930:F12F:3AE6:41BA:5D72 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2024

There is a grammar error in the title "Syrian civil war". The first letters of the words "civil war" need to be capitalized because it is the title. For example, the title should be "Syrian Civil War". 63.225.192.8 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Per MOS:CAPS capitalisation is determined by consistent use in sources. It is not consistently capitalised in sources.

Collage instead of map

After the fall of Damascus, a map is not as immediately informative or relevant as a collage. Therefore, I would support readdition of the collage with which @Chessrat replaced the map in the infobox of this article. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that the specific images in the collage should probably be changed (specifically the one of celebrations of the fall of the regime was the only one available on Commons, but better alternatives would be good). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
A collage of what? How exactly would this work? Because if you can’t determine who controls what at a glance, then it can’t really replace a map. Besides, how does the fall of Damascus make the map less informative/relevant than it was before?
(Also apologies if there’s a glitch or something on my end because I don’t see the replacement that you’re talking about.) LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Permalink to version being discussed, for reference: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASyrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=1262517152&oldid=1262457970
Compare to the infobox of Iraq War. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 22:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this is absolutely not the right way forward: we need to be able to know who controls what given that Syria is still controlled by many different groups. LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Support collage - The answer to the map not being reliably sourced is to use photos of the conflict, which are anyway way more illustrative than a map with a bunch of totally illegible symbols and text on it. FOARP (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not reliably sourced? The Wikipedia community has been working on this map for years with sources and a consensus that make sure that each change is accurate. There were even talks to verify claims made by the map whilst Assad’s regime was falling, and if you still feel like there’s an inaccuracy, then just make a talk page on it and the map can be changed.
    The map may have issues, but those issues don’t outweigh the information that the map provides, which is very legible and I don’t see any reason why it is not. Besides, what information does a photo provide other than tiny tidbits of obvious information? “Wow, the war is deadly.” “Wow, soldiers fought in the war.” “Wow, the rebels won: I totally needed a photo for that.” The map shows us what faction controls what, and there’s no way a photo collage can replace that. Besides, don’t the same issues with the map apply to the photos? How can you tell if a photo is mislabeled or fabricated?
    Sorry if this is a bit long and/or condescending. I just really dislike this idea and I don’t think solves anything at all. LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    It definitely solves the problem of having a map generated entirely out of original research. WP:EFFORT isn't a good argument for keeping something. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    By just getting rid of the information entirely instead of improving it, finding another source to verify the map, or just putting an “original research” disclaimer? Even if this map isn’t very reliable, it still provides more useful information than just a collage of photos that barely say anything about the reality of the conflict. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    1) The information will still be hosted on Commons. It just won't be carried by EN Wikipedia.
    2) English Wikipedia is not original research. That's one of our most basic rules. If you have to label it "original research", then it's something we shouldn't have. FOARP (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not saying that we should use English Wikipedia as a source, and if this map is based on original research, we can still disclaim it in the same way we do for weasel words or lack of citations. LordOfWalruses (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    When you talk about "... community has been working on this map for years with sources and a consensus that make sure that each change is accurate", you are talking about the past. Back when the map was based on the template map (which has strict rules concerning reliable sources). Today on the other hand, the map is based on liveuamap, which is an unreliable source (and that is when the map is not just updated without any source). Tradediatalk 14:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Dude we already voted on this on both sides and unanimously voted to keep the current style of map. The issue RN is no one has actually updated it 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D835:80B7:4E9C:7C07 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
who participated in this vote?
Sanad real (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
They probably mean the Wikipedia community on this article. I think they’re right since there already has been many discussions about ditching the map and the map hasn’t been ditched (as of now). LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The Afghanistan map was ditched for the exact reason this one should be ditched: it’s original research. WP:Effort isn’t an argument for keeping something. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Just because one map was ditched doesn’t mean this one should be as well, and that still doesn’t change the fact that we already had a vote about changing the map and we said no. Maybe we can do another map in a month or two if there’s a significant change in opinions or if there’s significant updates and/or unsolved problems, but trying to do another vote just to get what you want is not fair. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, when these discussions about ditching the map took place, the map was based on the template map and not on liveuamap. Tradediatalk 14:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D835:80B7:4E9C:7C07: That vote is no longer unanimous in this section or in this one. –Gluonz talk contribs 13:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Nevertheless, a vote has already happened, there’s still significant opposition, and doing another vote to nullify the results of the previous vote so quickly is unfair. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@LordOfWalruses: This vote does not nullify the results of those ones. Those votes are about whether factions in the images should be displayed as unified or as separated. This section discusses whether the image should be displayed in the infobox of this article. –Gluonz talk contribs 14:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COLLAGE: Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. It is also inconsistent with WP:LEADIMAGE. What amounts to a photo essay is inconsistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - we don't try to write the article in the infobox. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    So you support the present map? I'm not exactly sure how a map cobbled together by editors apparently out of Twitter reports matches the requirement for high-quality sourcing in the Infobox that we've discussed elsewhere. FOARP (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Did I say that?. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a question. You're opposing the use of collages which is an odd position, since nearly every war article on Wikipedia has such a collage (see World War I, World War II, Gulf War, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Yom Kippur War, Iran-Iraq War, Falklands War, etc. etc. etc.) based on a interpretation of a single word in WP:COLLAGE, so I have to ask what exactly it is you prefer? The present map, which is literally based on random Twitter accounts? FOARP (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    The options are not binary - map or collage. My opposition to a collage is not just based on a single word but that word is very compelling and WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments have little weight by themself. It is a matter of whether such other content represents best practice. I am seeing a growing awareness that it probably doesn't. What I prefer is a single representative image per WP:LEADIMAGE. A map is going to be the best option IMO but it doesn't have to be. There are reasonable concerns regarding sourcing for a map. Other concerns regarding currency fall to WP:NOTNEWS. I perceive some unreasonable expectations as to the degree of detail to be expected. As to whether the current map is acceptable (current as of when - it keeps changing) - I'm basically staying out of this particular shit fight (at least for now). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    When the WP:OTHERCONTENT includes probably the highest-consensus article we have, I'm pretty happy relying on WP:OTHERCONTENT. That said I'm perfectly OK with a single image as well: what needs to be gone is the map generated through WP:OR, and I agree also a WP:NOTNEWS violation. FOARP (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    yeah and that's the problem maps are much more useful than random images Sanad real (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Legend in infobox

A recent edit (since amended) has changed the format of the legend in an attempt to group together the various groups. It is trying to capture a degree of detail for which the infobox is unsuited and which is not supported by the body of the article nor by sources cited - ie it groups Tahrir al-Sham and Southern Operations Room under Syrian transitional government. Indications are that the Syrian transitional government is an extension of the Syrian Salvation Government. While and Tahrir al-Sham and Southern Operations Room may be/have been allies in recent events It does not follow that they are part of/support the transitional government. Such a claim is not supported by the body of the article. We need to go back to the simpler representation of the legend and write detail in prose in the body of the article - not the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

THIS MAP IS A MESS. OUTDATED

PLEASE CHANGE THIS MAP FAST. 2409:40D0:1019:31DC:BD6B:4255:19C8:4A0 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you kidding us?! Just follow the live news of reliable sources like the BBC. What a lame excuse. 46.31.118.94 (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Is it possible to construct a map covering the whole of Syria based on individual reports typically sourced to videos/official statements/etc., one that's accurate for the time it's published, by collating different reports at different times from different sources according to different standards? No. The massive debate that's occurring on this page demonstrates why. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
We werent sure before either. We can see different sources imply bigger changes, for instance see bbc: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ex7ek9pyeo.
What we do know:
  • Israel incursions at leadt into UN buffer zone
  • Opposition forces have taken Deir ez zor, pushing SDF over the Euphrates at least in that directorate.
  • Manbij has fallen to SNA, pushing SDF east of Euphrates.
Also, i motion to merge Southern Operations Room, HTS and Syrian Free Army into the Military Operations Department (as is used by Syriahr.com etc.)
leaving SNA as a separate force, alongside the SDF, USA, Russia, Israel. 2A02:A460:301E:1:92F1:6370:F48F:2859 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete the map - per FOARP. Most of the talk page is about this issue, and it would help to remove the map until things have settled down a little and we have a clearer understanding of who controls which territory. Lenovya (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Make the map reliable again The map should be deleted if it is not based on reliable sources, however, it is better to make it reliable as it was for many years in the past (see my comment at the section above "Military Situation Map is Inaccurate"). In any case, the map file is now protected and cannot be edited for 2 days. In the meantime, I propose we all work on the template map and make it what we want based on discussions, consensus, and reliable sources. After we are done with this and we are satisfied with it, someone will create a picture map based on copy-paste-edit the template map. That created picture map will then be posted on this article. This is how we did it for years without any problems.
We cannot keep creating maps each on his own, and then edit war to push his own map onto this article. Map creation (like everything else on Wikipedia) is a team project. The "template" framework was created to facilitate collaboration on creating a map. Tradediatalk 19:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The "template framework" is a recipe for creating a WP:SYNTH based on unreliable sources. FOARP (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_53&oldid=1265803245"