Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Referendum on how to handle the info box

The infobox doesn't look to be fixed any time soon, and meanwhile the article is illegible, so which remedial action should we take until it is? Here are some suggestions, but feel free to add others.

1. Leave it a mess until the box is fixed
2. Collapse the info box, but leave it at the top of the page so it's out of the way but the reader can expand it
3. Move the lead paragraph above the info box, and place {{clear}} after it
4. Place {{clear}} after the info box, but leave it at the top of the page

• Something of the lead should be visible when a reader loads the article, so I'd vote for (2) or (3). — kwami (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd vote for 1 or 4. Whatever gets the map back on the page and clearly visible fastest. It is a very useful map!

As I mentioned to kwami, I personally go to this page for the map to see how the war is going. Took me 5 minutes see where the map had gone. I now see I can expand it, so I personally am good. But want to help other people be able to see the info, which as far as I'm aware is the best, most updated, map on the internet.MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I added the wording (expand to see map) to the collapsed box, so that should now be more obvious. Also, if it's just the lead para, then (3) should also leave the map visible. You have something specific in mind, but for new readers it's a problem to come to an article and to not be able to see anything of the article. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What about (5) move the map out of the box (either in the article proper or as a separate template)? This would allow the map to be immediately visible regardless of which of the various options is chosen to deal with the box itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I vote for not collapsing the box. It's a bad design decision that doesn't match the infobox on any other war on wikipedia, as far as I know. Why would this one page break with the rest of the site? - GamblinMonkey (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The sheer size of the infobox already breaks with the rest of Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I almost think the present infobox should be in a separate article - its sheer size/all of its information - overshadows the article text, but it does contain referenced information and there seems to be a consensus among contributing editors to have all that information presented to the reader. Thinking along the lines of what Nikkimaria mentioned above...Is it possible to have a small infobox - maybe even just the map - that could then open onto the full infobox (via a hide/show), or even link to a separate page? Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hate to interrupt as an IP, but the infobox as it is now (collapsible and at the top) is totally disorienting. The prior infobox was actually legible and roughly the same length as the Iraq War infobox and the Military Intervention against ISIL infobox. It would be easier to navigate if the infobox was reverted to its prior setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to vote for (1). The infobox may be extraordinarily large, but the lede is still perfectly readable, at least to me. The infobox should just stay as it was until its size is altered accordingly by someone who is able. Sisuvia (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Every other option seems weird based on article standards, (1) is best of all those proposed solutions. However, I'd like to make my own proposals to fix the infobox that I can demonstrate in my sandboxes if needed.

1. Remove notes from the infobox to their own section at the bottom of the article titled "Notes" or such, using <"sup"> to link between them and the infobox.
2. Remove mentions of "sub-factions" such as TFSA, Syrian Armed Forces, SDF and only list factions.
3. Do something similar to World War I and World War II infoboxes for leaders.
4. Potentially remove all mentions of belligrents all together from the infobox and have something similar to the infobox on the article Afghanistan conflict (1978–present).
   1. Based on this suggestion, make the article Belligerents in the Syrian Civil War a comprehensive page about information regarding belligrents including leaders, strength, notes, etc.

Thoughts? FPSTurkey (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• • For those interested in a quick draft of my proposed infobox: see here. FPSTurkey (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, much better. The info box is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an article itself. The long lists of belligerents can be made a table within the article text. All the info and refs should be kept, but without making the lead illegible. Could you tabulate the info you removed from the box? Maybe it could be placed after the lead para of the 'belligerents' section. BTW, I don't like my temp solution of a collapsed box either, it was just better than the lead being illegible. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented it. That works much, much better. The lead is legible, and appears at the top of the page as it's supposed to, but the map is still right there, and the box is short enough that someone skimming the article can get some sense out of it. An info box doesn't need more info than this, it's just easier to add details to the box rather than working them into the text. I know -- for a lot of stubs I write, the info box is far longer than the rest of the text. But it really shouldn't be, and it becomes a problem when the article is as fleshed out as this one is. — kwami (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hey kwami, thanks for implementing it. I'll try help to work on the belligerent box on Belligerents_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War. FPSTurkey (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Someone added a summary of the belligerents to the info box, and it looks good on my browser. The only oddity is that 'Casualties and losses' is confined to the right half of the box, with the left half of that section blank. That makes the box a little longer than it would be otherwise. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Follow the lead of World War II (that infobox is even better than World War I). The infobox is for a summary; this one is far too detailed. It should look more like World War II. – Levivich 22:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 Academy Awards

As an addition to the main article: For Sama and The Cave were both nominated for the Documentary Feature Academy Award in 2020 [1] Cips916 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Support map is wrong.

Since 2018 KSA, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan support Assad. Qatar, Turkey support rebels. 162.221.124.122 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing Iran's date of entry to war

Should including 2013 to present as Iran's date of entry to war in the infobox. 162.221.124.122 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, I am slightly confused as to how the Syrian Arab Republic aka. 'Syria' can be listed as a belligerent in the Syrian civil war. surely it should be 'Government Forces' or 'The Assad Government'.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:B48B:22CC:9E88:A4BD (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

In that logic, should the United States be listed under the Donald Trump flag? Wakari07 (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Al-Qaida on support list and same side as the USA

This is the most stupidest whitewashing attempt I have ever seen. Al Qaida is secretly and hidden named as an "ally" of the USA during the Syrian war? Al Qaida is a terrorist organization. The USA shots and kills terrorists on sight. The USA bombards and terminates any Al Qaida bases.

This is definitive the work of someone who wants to bring Islamic terror organizations on the same side as the United States of America. When reflecting all the terror from editors on Wikipedia and their "rollback" evidence removal of postings etc. will they have Al Qaida affiliation, editing on Wikipedia and living in the USA.

Can someone please tell me what is in the mind of someone, and please don't quote that in the past the USA supplied terror cells with weapons, this is pure propaganda. If the USA would have supplied terror cells with weapons would this have come from terrorist agents that subverted and infiltrated the USA.

I mean that I need someone to tell me what is in the mind of, the state of mind of, someone who wants to bring the USA, especially after the 11 September attacks, on the same side than Al Qaida, one of earth major terror cells after the Al-Dar terror cell of Mekka, those behind the 11 September attacks.

Is this Christian - Islamic hybrid terror psychology creating and fusing fractal parts of the believes where Christianity means forgiveness, holly defeated up looking after having been a terror victim, to associate brainwave replacement by the "superior" the terrorist, where the Islamic faith triggers in as the "supreme", "stronger" faith due to violence and terror forcing others for their brainwaves?

Every member of Islam has a natural squinting eye stance, as this is a natural genetic presence due to the genetic errors and conflicts among Arab, African, Persian and Turkish race. This means they don't have a stable or a brainwave frequency associated as such, why the above explanation of projecting brainwave frequencies does not work.

Is this part of the Syrian government or Al Qaida operation itself to present such insane constellations on Wikipedia?

If so then we have to search for Al Quaida sleepers on Wikipedia and within the US government, most likely related to past famous names like Condoleezza Rice and Barack Hussein Obama, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.21.217 (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:NOTFORUM, this is not a forum. Also, as per WP:Civility, please scrap the slurs. If you have a point left, as per WP:SOURCE, kindly do provide reliable sources. Wakari07 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox - total dead form

As seen from this edit [2] editor Akb20 would like to change the current format of the overall death toll from "Total killed: 384,000–586,100 (per SOHR)" to breaking them down into two rows to emphasis which figure is documented and which is estimated deaths (first figure being documented, second estimated). Due to the current format being there for years and the fact this would enlarge a bit the already bloated infobox, I am opening the discussion to see if a solution can be found. One is I think this format in one row "384,000 documented & 586,100 estimated total killed (per SOHR)". Although maybe it can be shortened yet still. Or maybe people most people think there is no need to change from the current form... Suggestions? EkoGraf (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

undo this edit per the consensus above. 176.249.152.203 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I saw no consensus above for the lede's capitalization, but I changed it to be the same as the title per norms. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing the title to "Syrian proxy war"

I suggest we change the title to "Syrian proxy war" since in Syria's case, Syrians aren't fighting each other. Foreign troops and Jihadists from all over have flooded into Syria each with their own backers fighting each other. Therefore it does not qualify as a "civil war". Pro translator (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you start by proving that "Syrian proxy war" is the most common name of this conflict (if a common name at all). Also, WP:NOTFORUM. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need proving if the current name does not apply anymore. Like how coronavirus was changed from outbreak to pandemic. Syria is now a proxy war. Pro translator (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A proxy war can also be a civil war, and vice versa. If you feel that a name change "doesn't need proving", setting it apart from literally everything else on this website, I'm honestly not sure what you're hoping to achieve with this. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said "nothing needs proving." I said "if it doesn't apply anymore, then it does not need proving." In Syria, civilians are not fighting each other. Countries are fighting terrorist groups and each other. Do you know what I mean? Pro translator (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The change is inappropriate. It is known as the Syrian civil war. Syrians are fighting and they are not proxies of anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In Syria, there are the Syrian Army, Iranian Quds Forces, the Russians, the Americans, the Turks, Hezbollah, the Kurds and ISIS, all supported by foreign backers fighting. Syrian people are not fighting each other. I believe the same way we changed Coronavirus from outbreak to pandemic, this is worth a good consideration. Pro translator (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Which civil wars in history have not had foreign interference? FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Which pandemic in history was not an outbreak first? My viewpoint is explained here. Regardless of the source, it does make sense. Pro translator (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But then again, most other civil wars could be called proxy wars. But what we have to do is follow what the majority of reliable sources do. Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, most civil wars are also proxy wars and the Syrian Civil War is no different. By the way, I also think, if anything, the name of this article should be moved back to Syrian Civil War. Charles Essie (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name, so no. Could someone please create a redirect from Syrian proxy war to this article (since it's a legitimate AKA)? 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:B011:259F:8B06:DAE2 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"Syrian Civil War" works in case of a work of art like a documentary, video game, a movie or a book. A redirect is a good idea. Pro translator (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you click the red link above, you can create the redirect. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:B4FA:A438:7BD:C402 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to say that we should refer to WP:CRITERIA on naming criteria. Although there may be an argument for name change based on Precision (although I would disagree with that argument), the criteria of Recognizability, Naturalness, Conciseness and Consistency all clearly point to maintaining the current name. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Pro translator (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2020

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: procedural close. See Wikipedia:Move review for instructions on contesting the outcome of the previous discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War – There had been a long-standing consensus that the article name ought to be capitalized. As the previous move proposal illustrates, nothing is carved in stone, and changes can be implemented before anyone who may oppose them notice that there is a discussion. This is fine. However, one should not expect these changes to go unchallenged after they have become a fact.

I propose, for the following reason, that this article be moved back to its previous, capitalized title:

• In the previous discussion, it was argued that "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name, as google search results type it without capital letters more often than not. There are three problems with this logic:
  • Other sources not using capital letters does not mean that "Syrian Civil War" is not commonly considered the "name" of this conflict.
  • Every source, capital letters or none, refers to the conflict as the Syrian civil war. The current title, "Syrian civil war", does not imply that this article is about a specific historic event, but rather about the general state of civil war among Syrians (which has occurred more than once throughout history). If we absolutely must keep the article name decapitalized, it is necessary to either name the article "The Syrian civil war" or "Syrian civil war (2013-present".
  • It is not grammatically impossible to refer to a proper name, particularly the name of a historical event, without capitalizing every word. Plenty of sources write "the Vietnam war", "the world war", etc., and there is nothing wrong with that.
• If we are to decapitalize names based on google search results, it sets a precedent that will, in practice, create arbitrary dividing lines and confuse readers. There is no logic behind some "civil wars" being capitalized, while others are not. (No, this is not a slippery slope argument, but a fact.)

I hope we can have a proper discussion, and I apologize for initial incivility on my part.

Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Not even sure why this discussion is required. I don't recall the name of any other conflict not being capitalised, nor can I find any source that uses the phrase "Syrian Civil War" without all three words being capitalised. 131.227.23.35 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close per the overwhelming evidence in the discussion above that took place just last week. It's not a proper name. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:21DE:1B7B:C1FF:B94F (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)— 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:21DE:1B7B:C1FF:B94F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support as the decapitalization because despite google, this conflict is treated in context as a proper noun the same way World War II or Vietnam is. Also Google should not be used as an arbiter for whether a noun is proper or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8930:11F8:4760:451A:2B31 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — 2601:CB:8000:8930:11F8:4760:451A:2B31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support per the "consistency" criterion of article titling. I recommend a speedy move as the current name goes against established naming conventions. - 212.130.152.24 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per every argument that has been listed in every previous conversation that has dealt with this capitalization. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support-Clearly fits with proper naming convention and Wikipedia practice. Display name 99 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Keep it WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles associated with the subject. (e.g. Refugees of the Syrian Civil War, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War, Belligerents in the Syrian Civil War, Casualties of the Syrian Civil War, Spillover of the Syrian Civil War, White Helmets (Syrian Civil War), & Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War.) Jerm (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – We just had a consensus to downcase it in the RM discussion a week ago. Sources don't mostly cap this, so per MOS:CAPS, we should not either. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—suspicious pile-on here, given the sudden interest by those who were unseen during the recent decision to downcase. I'm unsure whether this is a vexatious move. Dicklyon has presented copious evidence of why WP downcases this type of item. Do we need to rehash it all a week later? Tony (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, and speedily close as an out-of-process rehash of a just-closed RM. Nothing whatsoever has changed since the previous RM, and upper-casing this would not be WP:CONSISTENT with the large number of similar previous RMs. This is really, really simple: If the reliable independent sources do not almost all capitalize this consistently, then Wikipedia will not either. First rule of MOS:CAPS, and reiterated at WP:NCCAPS. There is nothing magically special about military or political topics. I have no idea what someone above citing CONSISTENT in the same breath as support is thinking, unless it's just plain old confusion that "Foo Civil War" being capitalized in a case where reliable sources almost uniformly treat it as a proper name means, somehow that every single other instance of "Bar civil war" must be capitalized regardless of soruce usage. That is obviously not what CONSISTENT means, never has, never will. The policy means to be consistent in how we title directly comparable things with similar names; it does not and could not possibly mean to screw around with text to make it just superficially look similar when the underlying facts are not similar, the sources do not follow suit, and it misrepresents the term and the topic to our readers. See also WP:NOR policy, which is obviously applicable here. FFS.

  PS: I'm not going to reiterate my entire previous-RM rationale, but every word of it still applies, and I incorporate it by reference.
  PPS: Whether a phrase starts with "the" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is a proper name (a proper-noun phrase). South Carolina is a proper name but is not the South Carolina; when I take my pizza out of the oven, I put the pizza on the counter to cut it; it has not mystically transmogrified into The Pizza. Mikrobølgeovn should strongly consider not making any further transparently invalid arguments about English usage and grammar at RM. Time-wastes like this are a useless drain on editorial productivity.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The evidence was discussed a week ago and the article moved based on consensus and WP:MOS. It's a civil war, and it's a Syrian one. The capitalisation of "Syrian civil war" is correct as it stands. The result of this discussion should be that Refugees of the Syrian Civil War, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War, Belligerents in the Syrian Civil War, Casualties of the Syrian Civil War, Spillover of the Syrian Civil War, White Helmets (Syrian Civil War), & Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War all get moved to the correct (lower case) form. Shem (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The argument of the opposing side is, basically, that the majority of google search results not using capital letters = the name of this conflict not being a proper name. That is a very far-fetched conclusion to draw from search results, especially since "civil war" is also grammatically fine. This creates arbitrary dividing lines within Wikipedia, and achieves nothing apart from confusing our readers.
  • (Regarding the two requests for a speedy close: The previous debate over this resulted in a consensus for capitalization. The latest move discussion was open for a week, and it was the sheerest coinscidence that no one who would have opposed the move noticed the discussion until after the article title had suddenly been changed. How would you react if the same thing happened in a few years, this time resulting in capitalization? Would you accept a fait accompli because you happened to not stop by the talk page at the right time?)
  • @SMcCandlish: While I thank you for the lecture in grammar (The Pizza actually made me laugh IRL; well done, that was a good one), I think you understood I was referring to the proper name of a historical event, not proper names in general. "Syrian civil war" is about as specific as "south Carolina". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

    Please stop playing WP:IDHT games. There is absolutely not an "arbitrary dividing line" here, and the very not-arbitrary line has been explained to you over and over and over by multiple participants in both RMs: if virtually all independent reliable sources use Foo Civil War, with capitals, for a particular conflict, then WP will also do so, but will not do so otherwise. All RMs are open for a week, unless there's a reason to extend one. "I missesd it" is not ever a reason to immediately open up a duplicate RM request. And no, "the" isn't dispositive of anything no matter what the subject is; if you write "The death of Harold II at Hastings" (significant military event, the effective end of English resistance to the Norman invasion) you have not manufactured a proper name "the Death of Harold II". That's just not how language works. I can't stress enough to you that your linguistic understanding is simply wrong. Please avail yourself of some basic manuals in the field before making linguistic arguments again, because you are killing other editors' time for no reason. Finally, you have WP:FAITACCOMPLI backwards, too. RM is a big site-wide process, the entire point of which is to prevent fait accompli move patterns, but putting all rename proposals up for total-community examination, rather than let them be held in near-secrecy on article-talk backwaters only populated by people from a single wikiproject. (If you want to see actual fait accompli move-warring, see the "anti-RM" set up at WT:BIRDS during a disruptive period to enforce the wikiproject's preferences [on behalf of an external organization, no less]: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], and so on, for years, despite policy-based objections being raised at least as far back as 2012 [20], plus resistance from the project's own participants [21]. This was finally shut down in the WP:BIRDCON RfC and its out-of-process moves were eventually undone; none of the involved admins were de-sysopped, though they certainly should have been. It went on so long specifically because it was hidden from RM.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

    • People seem to love citing guidelines. Here's one that evidently applies here: WP:BURO. As far as I can see, beyond satisfying a rigid interpretation of the style manual, a decapitalized article name achieves nothing but confusing our readers. There's no reason why a rigid, literal reading of the style manual should automatically supersede years of common practice, especially considering the arbitrary, Google-knows-it dividing lines that will leave readers wondering why there was a "Spanish Civil War" but only a "Syrian civil war". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support I would prefer a status quo ante right now then start a discussion involving all articles with "civil war/Civil War" words in their titles, including the American Civil War etc. The previous move was closed by counting the votes and not relying on the arguments. Consistency is needed and the move request should have included all similar articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Post-RM comments

It is unfortunate that the move discussion was closed over a procedural technicality. The previous RM was concluded without any opposition, while this RM clearly demonstrated that this issue (like the previous few times it has been discussed) is quite contentious. I opened the RM responding directly to arguments that went unanswered in the previous RM, yet accusations of rehash seem to have done the trick. A proper course of action by an uninvolved administrator would have been to simply alter the template and let the discussion go on, with the alternative of opening a new RM in the future if found appropriate. This move only serves to carve in stone a conclusion that accidently went unanswered, and effectively silences a discussion midway. It is a damn shame. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Why not follow the usual review process as the closer suggested? Dicklyon (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: After sleeping on it, I am starting to think that this is part of a wider issue that ought to be addressed by the community. There should be a specific guideline on this matter in particular, and that guideline should be applied all across the board. I am thinking of initiating such a debate, though I might not have enough time on my hands these days to participate as much as I would have liked to. Either way, I am not sure if I feel like continuing this discussion in particular, as any form of consensus will only last until the next time someone opens an RM anyway. I might change my mind, but don't expect anything anytime soon. Best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what change of guidelines you're thinking to propose. MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS seem to be pretty stable and mostly well accepted and well applied. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A guideline that named entities (proper names) should be capitalised? Common grammar includes this "guideline", and not only English. Wakari07 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: What I meant is that there should be a guideline specifically for names of military conflicts. Regardless of what the outcome of such a discussion might be, I think it is preferable over deciding such things locally. All those who pushed for moving this article achieved was making it stand out in a confusing way. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

But if we capped this one, we'd be asserting that "Syrian Civil War" is the accepted proper name of this conflict. If you look at sources, you can see that it's not. That's the sense in which we want to stay consistent. Caps tell our readers "this is a proper name"; abusing that adds confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica uses the capitalized name. If its good enough for them, it should be good enough for Wikipedia over the likes of Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8930:9080:6CE4:AA94:70C7 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn, we don't need more rules. If usage in reliable sources indicates a particular military conflict has a proper name, then that's what we use. We can't have a blanket rule for all military conflicts because they're not all treated the same by reliable sources; so, neither should we. That said, I see a lot of title case references to this topic in the sources I checked. While I don't see grounds to question the previous RM, I do see grounds for a new one, like the one that was started which I agree was unfortunately procedurally closed. Accordingly, I see grounds to revert that procedural close. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll consider making such a request, though as of right now I'm too annoyed by the bureaucracy to be arsed. Shutting down an ongoing discussion because of a technicality does not exactly encourage a free discussion. It was a dirty move, and those involved know it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree and I think the discussion should be reopened. Charles Essie (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It should definitely be reopened. The move was without redirect. That means there are lots of red links.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds to me like there's clear consensus to reopen this discussion. I have no idea why it hasn't happened yet. Charles Essie (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The only clear consensus I can see above is that the current capitalization is correct. 176.249.152.203 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe consensus was the wrong word to use. I meant that this discussion was closed prematurely and obviously still highly disputed. @Mikrobølgeovn: Do you still feel the same? Charles Essie (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing was closed prematurely. The discussion ran for 9 days (2 days longer than the standard 7 days) with very clear consensus to move to away from the false notion that it's a proper name. Obviously an immediate RM to move back is quite pointless. 94.10.62.226 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As explained a number of times already, the fact that a majority of google searches (including blogs and whatnot) do not capitalize Civil War, does not mean that "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name. The only thing we're achieving right now is confusing our readers. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: I certainly do. Moreover, I think we need a Wikipedia-wide policy on this, as article names are treated inconsistently all across the board. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's quite consistent, really. Proper names are capitalized. 94.10.62.226 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

East African campaign (World War II), Persian Campaign, Sierra Leone Civil War, Syrian civil war... If I cared to, I could go on like this for hours. Furthermore, have you personally verified the majority of thoose google searches that are being used to justify treating "Syrian civil war" any differently than "American Civil War"? Google results will always be inconsistent, because it is gramatically permissible both to capitalize and not to capitalize. Furthermore, as someone mentioned above, Encyclopedia Britannica uses the proper "Syrian Civil War". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Do think it's time to start a new move discussion? Charles Essie (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I also think it's time to revise the wiki-wide policy on naming issues like this one. Results of naming discussions like this one can vary locally, and you end up with inconsistent capitalization. With a clear policy, debates like this one wouldn't be reopened every few years. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Shall we being? Charles Essie (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I will certainly support such a move. Perhaps it is not a great idea that I am the one to open a new discussion here, given that I started the previous one. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, Dicklyon, George Ho, Tony1, Cthomas3, See the new Request move below, folks. Here we go again. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:5CBC:C977:CA10:31EA (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2020

The following discussion 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.

---

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 - You had consensus in January to move this however we are not having an RM every 4 months on whether it should be moved back and fourth. No objections to this done next year if someone really wants to but from now til then any further RMs will be speedily closed. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War – Per the arguments of the previous discussion which was closed prematurely. Charles Essie (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per arguments in the previous discussion, which was subjected to a procedural close that many editors (myself included) thought was uncalled-for. Not only is the current article name needlessly inconsistent; the "proof" that "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name (google search results) is dubious at best. Someone also mentioned that Encyclopaedia Britannica capitalizes the name, which in my opinion strengthens the argument. As per now, readers are left wondering why there is a "Chadian Civil War", "Rwandan Civil War", etc., but only a "Syrian civil war". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS simply because a series of other articles may or may not have titles that are capitalised differently, that doesn't mean this one has to be wrong. I see nothing in sources to suggest it's a proper noun; and shouldn't be capitalised. Maybe other articles are proper nouns. What other encylopedias do is beyond what we care about, Wikipedia simply summarises from reliable sources, no more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}`

• Support as per WP:CONSISTENT ~Amkgp ✉ 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT and all the arguments given in January. I can't believe we're already revisiting this. It is simply not a proper name. Many publications do not capitalize it because of this, and if we capitalize it, we're giving the false impression that it's a proper name. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:5CBC:C977:CA10:31EA (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedily close again, per both of the previous RMs. No new argument, information, or sourcing have been raised, so this is simply forum-shopping / "slow-movewarring".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's very clearly not a proper noun. Also we can't simply WP:FORUMSHOP and repeatedly open the same RM because the result doesn't suit. Snacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 19 May 2020 (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.

It's just lovely to observe how certain editors are gaming the system to avoid having to respond to arguments that were not brought up in the January move discussion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: What rule states that an article can only be moved once a year? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no rule atleast as far as I know however in the "RM world" if multiple RMs are done within months of each other and it's seen as disruptive then those with knowledge can impose rules such as this to prevent further disruption, Given the above 2nd RM was procedurally closed there really was no alternative here,

People were told in February if they were unhappy with the move then they can go to WP:Move review but obviously no one did and without sounding harsh that's not my problem,

If you object to the move review than I would suggest either going to move review (not sure if it still applies) or failing that wait till January 2021 and start a new RM, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is well-established that such names should not be capped. Tony (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Disruptive"? That's a new one. The previous one was closed over a formality, and there was much support for reopening it. The January discussion was practically one-sided, and new arguments have since been raised. If there's such a solid case for keeping the current article name, why abuse the bureaucracy to avoid a discussion that directly addresses arguments that went unanswered the first time?

What new arguments? What went unanswered the first time? 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:9D00:C980:976F:8E7C (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tony1: See List of wars by date. If such a rule is "well-established", we have a lot of work ahead of us. (Honestly, I'd prefer a consistent policy either way over the current case-by-case mess, even if we decided against capitalization all across the board. Not that I think the latter would be great, but it's definitely a lesser evil as far as I'm concerned.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a case-by-case mess. Proper names are capitalized. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:9D00:C980:976F:8E7C (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already established that this is applied inconsistently, and I don't see a need to go back there. Regarding unanswered arguments, I disputed the conclusion that "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name based on random google search results (many of which do capitalize the name). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, there is no new argument at all, since that was covered in the original RM, and a high percentage of reliable sources do not capitalize it. Peace out. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:9D00:C980:976F:8E7C (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to make a transparently wrong claim after the discussion has been effectively silenced. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2020 (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.

RM/RFC

Closing as consensus here seems to be that seeking a worldwide consensus is still FORUMSHOPPING and there's clear consensus no further RM/RFC should be implemented, If anyone does start one it will now be speedy closed, Sorry to cut this so short but there's no point dragging this on, Come back in January 2021 if you really have too. –Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)}} @Amkgp, Born2cycle, Cthomas3, Dicklyon, Display name 99, George Ho, Jerm, Lee Vilenski, MarcusTraianus, Mikrobølgeovn, Nice4What, Ortizesp, Rebestalic, SharabSalam, Shem1805, SMcCandlish, Surachit, Tony1, and Wakari07: What do you think of Davey2010's suggestion of "one huge RM/RFC as oppose to back and fourth RMs/moving"? I's start it myself but I don't know how. Charles Essie (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, The RFC/RM should probably happen on a Wikiproject Talkpage and would need to list a whole ton of articles all with the same problem, As I said above if it's done that I have no objections to it being moved that way, Many thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, RfCs should not happen on wikiprojects' talk pages, because that has a vote-stacking effect. They should be at high-traffic pages that are not specific to a particular topic; for a matter like this, WT:MOS is an obvious choice. However, this isn't an RfC matter, this is an RM matter. That is, we have a process specifically for titles-related questions, and RfC is not that process. And one thing we know from previous attempts to RfC questions like this is that the community, relying on WP:CRITERIA, comes back to the same resolution: article titles are, by their nature, a page-by-page matter, and "one size does not fit all". While WP:CONSISTENT is one of those criteria, it is not the only one nor the most important among them (WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE are the two most important, and neither of them are implicated in this case, coming down as it does to the stylistic trivia of capital letters).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A well-advertised group move discussion is the right course of action In my opinion. Let’s get this right for all relevant articles. CThomas³ (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You would have to show that there is a widespread naming issue in place for an RfC to be warranted, and a series of suitable topics that are effected. If this isn't a widespread issue, then it would just be RM v4 which I would be beyond against. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep. And this is sort of "inverse-circular reasoning". It goes: we should have a new RM to settle this, after we've already had RMs that settled it, and after two more re-RM attempts to settle it were speedily closed. I would expect such a new RM or new RfC to be speedily closed as yet another WP:WINNING / WP:FORUMSHOP exercise. The last closer put a moratorium on this until Jan., and I would even then expect speedy closure if the pro-capitalization proponents do not present an all-new argument, a lot of new evidence/sources, or otherwise make it not more rehash. WP:Consensus can change, but it does so in response to such factors, not to tendentious brow-beating.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that we don't need RM#4 for this. However, a group RM discussion would at least eliminate the irrelevant CONSISTENCY and OSE arguments. However, I'm perfectly fine with leaving things at the status quo ante also. CThomas³ (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the proposal. What's the scope of "deal with all names"? Is this even a naming issue? Looks to me like a styling issue, and the guidance of WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS seems to be well accepted, but needs some case-by-case inspection, the results of which are sometimes going to need to be discussed. What kind of question would a big RFC pose to help refine the guidance? Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To the extent that this comes down to "I want to capitalize all appellations of all military conflicts, whether the sources consistently do so or not", we already know that the community will answer that suggestion with "no".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Styling issue, naming issue .... either way it's still an issue, If peeps want to go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style then I have no objections with that either. –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the fallacy of equivocation. I obviously mean "a styling/naming subject", but you are meaning "issue" to imply "unresolved problem". There is no unresolved problem, since we already had an RM that settled it, and two speedily closed RMs that attempted to rehash it without any new argument or information. WP:Consensus does not require unanimity, and no consensus is in doubt just because a few people refuse to drop the stick after a decision is made; otherwise, WP could never resolve anything. I now have to wonder why you stepped up to re-close this only to suggest re-re-re-re-opening it in a way that is even more against process than the original rehash-RM you closed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Because someone in one the of the RMs above suggested having one big consensus for all articles,

I still stand by my closure as well as maintain any RFCs/RMs here being speedy closed ... however I'm not going to stop people who feel the naming/styling issue should be reflected inall articles,

If this article is the sole one at any talkpage then that too will be speedy closed .... As long as there is a discussion on ALL articles and as long as all related or non-related articles are too put forward than I have no problems with an RFC/RM being started there, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Charles Essie, congrats on your hard work pinging so many users!

I'd be massively supportive of a final move that is immune from further moves, for this page. I personally find back-and-forths quite annoying and often a chance to form editing cliques, which isn't the point of Wikipedia (I don't think). Indeed, in extreme cases, such formation of cliques could develop into a form of partisanism (which is even worse). But anyway, I honestly don't mind whether this page is renamed irrevocably to 'Syrian Civil War' or 'Syrian civil war'; it doesn't really concern me. I personally care more about the content of the article; but if you wanted a definite answer from me, I'd go for 'Syrian Civil War' with all the capitals.

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 21:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what Davey means by all. As fas as I know, we have title and style guidelines for all articles already, and we have RM discussions to see how they apply to particular articles. Is he talking about all civil war articles, all Syria articles, all military-conflict-related articles, or literally all article titles? I can't make any sense of what he's saying. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a single rule can apply to all articles about military conflicts. What we should do is to come up with a guideline so that readers don't have to wonder why there's a "Libyan Civil War (2014–present) but only a "Syrian civil war", etc. Anyone doubting that this is a real, wiki-wide issue should simply have a look. There is a guideline about proper names being capitalized, but as we've observed, this is open to interpretation (in this case, lack of capitalization in most google searches have been presented as proof that "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name). As I've said before, I'd rather not get my way but have consistency. Deciding this locally on a case-by-case basis means, in practice, that we'll have inconsistencies, as there will be different discussion outcomes on different talk pages. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't clarify at all what he means by all. Are you suggesting that every conflict, or everything called a civil war, get the same capitalization treatment, even though some are clearly treated by sources as proper names and some are clearly not? Or are you just observing that there are others discrepancies to fix, such as Libyan Civil War (2014–present)? Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be wiki-wide clarity on how we determine what's a proper name of a military conflict and what's not. If capitalization in tens of thousands of unfiltered google searches (including blogs and whatnot) are accepted as proof, this needs to be implemented all across the board, not just locally. (As I've pointed out before, it is grammatically permissible to write it either way, which further complicates the issue. Plenty of sources write "Vietnam war", "Korean war", etc.) Anyone who argues that consistency is not a problem really needs to have a look around. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is wiki-wide clarity on how we determine titles for articles about military conflicts. It’s spelled out at WP:AT; no different than for any other article title. If anyone thinks there is lack of clarity there, take it up at WT:AT, not here. —В²C ☎ 07:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed. I'm unclear why any further action is proposed here. The article was not titled according to our guidelines for many years (in particular WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:CAPS, which are very clear that we follow outside sourcing, and favour sentence case over title case if it's unclear which is favoured in sources) despite a contentious 2016 RM discussion, while now the article is finally titled correctly. And I don't expect it ever to go back to "Syrian Civil War" unless there's a sitewide change in naming conventions. As a general rule, once particular articles get moved so that they conform with guidelines, there won't ever be consensus to undo that move. This mirrors similar previous cases such as Hillary Clinton (vs Hillary Rodham Clinton), New York (state) (previously titled as New York), Yogurt (not Yoghurt) etc. Conducting an RFC because an RM didn't go your way is WP:FORUMSHOPPING and is firmly discouraged. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am done here. I'll leave this as a parting comment, in case there's any confusion: The first move was virtually without opposition, and the following ones (which introduced new arguments) were procedurally shut down. This did not end because a consensus was reached, as that would have taken a free, uninterupted discussion. Anyone who revisits this in the future (later than January 2021, according to a made-up rule) may wish to keep this in mind. Peace out. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There were no new arguments. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C5BA:58D3:A5A2:9BDF (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

---

I removed the archive tags, mostly for technical reasons (were malformed), but I also don't see why this discussion needs to be archived necessarily. I can accept that there may be consensus, but I'm not sure it needs to be codified by archiving the discussion. That said, if archiving this discussion is that important to some contributors, please make sure to restore it correctly, without it spilling over to all the other sections below it. El_C 22:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Please revert this edit. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:60BC:AB0B:933A:4E83 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El_C. Please revert this edit too. Cheers. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:60BC:AB0B:933A:4E83 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

IP, there is a dissonance here, because the article is titled Syrian civil war (lower case), while the infobox template is titled Syrian Civil War (uppercase). They should both be at parity. The article does dictate the template, though, I think, and not the other way around. I'm going to move the template to align with the article, for now. So a move request would be recommended to settle this with any degree of finality, unless there is a move moratorium (not caught up), in which case, that can happen later on. El_C 22:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Now  Done. El_C 23:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I now see that move moratorium is, in fact, in effect. Once it lapses —January 2021(?), correct me if I'm wrong— then the move request can settle that question about upper/lowercase, hopefully, once and for all. El_C 23:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Yes, I suppose there's always a chance that it becomes a proper name in the next few months. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C9D8:498A:CF1A:FCB6 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Com a dupla classificação terrorista dada ao pkk sírio podemos equivaler os curdos ao HTS rebelde? 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:EC79:F71B:DED9:D602 (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Why the map keep getting vandalized?

Some users are adding Northern SNA/Turkey controlled regions as part of Turkey state.

Homaymem base is under Russia control so you gonna add the base as part of Russia’s territories?

And Tanf is under US control so it’s part of the US?

The picture needs to be reverted according to international borders. Alaadino99 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I looked into the contribution histories of the users who feel licensed to alter international borders. RobertPaulshon and ConflictMapper are both newly registered on Commons, and went straight to POV pushing. Won't surprise me if they're both permanently blocked in no time. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Both users ended up getting blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully this spells an end to this nonsense. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

FSA

Their size need be updated. FSA is not same as 2013 Peacetowikied (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

Please capitalize "civil war" in the title of this page as well as subsequent mentions of this name. 203.189.118.112 (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:RM for requests to move pages, but in this case, don't bother. Just look all over the talk page for previous discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Re-starting the discussion about that large infobox

Nothing appears to have happened since the discussion last year about the humongous infobox. This infobox is still more of an infodump than a summary, and makes the article unreadable on smaller screens.

I'm not seeing it from the archives, was anyone against the shortened sandbox version? Having four belligerents listed side by side doesn't seem to be working, how about converting it into a vertical list?

– Thjarkur (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I gave up. Too much grief. How about the Infobox being converted into its own standalone entity, almost an article but not quite? It is too massive and basically unreadable but too many people seemed to want to somehow keep it in its present state so yeah, I gave up. Sorry. Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

POV pushing by Konli17

Konli17, your recent edit here is POV pushing by changing faction names arbitrarily to "Islamist faction", removing the "Kurdish" description of SDF, and inserting what you call "rojava conflict". Please refrain from these controversial edits and reverts and use Talk page first. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I replaced jihadist with Islamist, what's the problem? The first sentence on the SDF page says it "is an alliance in the Syrian Civil War composed primarily of Kurdish, Arab, and Assyrian/Syriac militias, as well as some smaller Armenian, Turkmen and Chechen forces." Why would you choose just one of these groups to describe it? Rojava conflict has its own article, check it out. There's nothing controversial about these edits. Konli17 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You removed specific "jihadi Hayat Tahrir al-Sham" and added "Islamists" instead. You removed "Kurdish-dominated" which is a universal understanding (see WP story here and Reuters here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your first sentence just repeats what I said. If you don't like how the SDF is described, go edit that page. Konli17 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lowercase letters

Okay what is the deal with Wikipedia articles being put in lower case??? First it was the Mexican, Bangladesh, Philippines and Miami drug wars, now it's civil wars like Syria, what is going on with putting everything in lowercase? Isn't there a Wiki law against this? We do say the Irish Civil War right? And the American Civil War? So why is the title the Syrian civil war in lowercase???

~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good to read what's already on the talk page before starting a new thread. This has been covered in explicit detail. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:3CD7:E2A1:93C4:C47E (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous that we're using lower-case here. I've been arguing about this for years. Charles Essie (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a proper name, so lower case is correct. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:1083:637B:3092:5495 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

How is it not a proper name if we are talking about a specific conflict. We're not talking about a Syrian civil war as if there were multiple Syrian civil wars, we are talking about the Syrian Civil War, a specific conflict and the only civil war that Syria has ever had. Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs consensus about the lead , which diffs should we accept regarding the early demonstrations , causes and the slogan of "Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut"

The Old lead is Accepted by Eik Corell While The New Lead is Accepted by AleviQizilbash here check the Diffs Please . Which one should we accept , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

From start to finish: Western propaganda against Assad causing the uprising is a fringe opinion, and an opinion piece is NOT a sufficient source for such a big claim. Again, this is an opinion piece, and opinion pieces often do not reflect official opinion or stance of the outlet it's published in, so such an article is not "The Guardian" saying these things, but rather Jonathan Steele. Next, claims about chants being commonplace is not proof protesters demanding the genocide of Christians and Alawites, and this is disregarding the issue of whether the source (agos.com.tr) is a reputable outlet or not, or whether its contributor at least is a recognized expert or not. This applies to the other sources that are being cited as well, which seem to be dealing with the same chant and issues of intimidation. The best source in your edit by far is Genocide Watch, and specific claims of the report could be added to the relevant section in the Syrian Civil War article, or better yet, the entire separate article it in turn links to: Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War. In the end, almost nobody is denying that the civil war had, or evolved to have, a sectarian element, indeed the Genocide Watch report documents such cases, but that report paints a picture much more nuanced than the protest's stated goals being genocide against Christians and Alawites. Lastly, I can demonstrate all of this further: The proposed change is this: Change "protests, grew out of discontent with the Syrian government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for Assad's removal were violently suppressed." to "protests, grew out of discontent with the Syrian government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for genocide against Alawites and the expulsion of Christians from Syria to Lebanon". To support this change, this report is cited, among others. But here's what this report actually says: "Syria is currently in the third year of a conflict that began with peaceful anti-government protests in March 2011, protests which were immediately and repeatedly met with deadly violence from the Syrian state.", and this source is the most reputable of the ones cited, and it is being grossly misrepresented in the proposed edit. Eik Corell (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

We can only understand the goals of the protests through their chants , they chanted " Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut " so their goal was genocide against Alawites and expulsion of Christians , if some other protests chanted for Assad's removal , then their goal is also Assad's removal , if some others chanted for Kurdish separatism , then their goals are Kurdish separatism and so on . Jonathan Steele is an award winning Birttish Journalist and columnist for the Guardian , his name is enough and reputable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Steele#Prizes_and_awards https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jonathansteele Agos.com.tr also is a reputable source in Turkey , it's not the only source to mention these chants and slogans , all the sources that I mentioned are reputable and respected , including the Spectator Magazine which is the oldest magazine in the world . the Christian Post , Genocidewatch and so on all the sources are respected none of them preach conspiracy theories , they simply published facts and all of them has reported this slogan of the protests during the early stages of the uprising : "Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut" . You just read a short part of the report not the whole report , the report clearly says that " Alawites to the garve and Christians to Beirut " was the early chant during the revolution . download the report here http://genocidewatch.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Syria-Genocide-Alert-May-2013.pdf , I'm quoting the exact sentence : "Calls for genocide against religious minorities from rebel leaders in Syria are numerous and frequent , the chant "Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut" has been reported at anti government demonstrations since the earliest days of the revolution." Thank You . AleviQizilbash (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Between the Spectator and Guardian pieces, Jonathan Steele seems to be by far the most notable and established expert in this field with this experience as a war correspondent. But you are misrepresenting this one. The claim is that the civil uprising against the Assad regime was caused by "Western Media Propaganda against Assad". That article deals with several things: A poll that says that 55% of Syrians want the president to stay, and it touches on the Arab League's involvement and how Western propaganda could be distorting perceptions. What it does not say is that the Syrian protests were caused by propaganda against

Assad by the West, which is the claim that it's being used to support. Touching on the Genocide Watch report again, I'm not denying the sectarianism aspect, what I'm disputing is that this sectarianism was the cause of the protests. The prevailing narrative is still that this all started in response to the killing of students in Daraa for writing anti-government graffiti, as well as the then-ongoing Arab Spring and that the protests were aimed against the government and its actions, which is all reflected in article. Nowhere else in that article is the view of Western propaganda being a contributing factor supported, which makes adding this claim that more inappropriate. Eik Corell (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway to me , All what you said are logical fallacies and distortions , you too have the same view against my case , so we can wait now till other users join and make consensus about it , I never said that media propaganda against Assad is the "ONLY" cause , it's just one of the causes as mentioned by the Guardian's Jonathan Steele and I didn't remove the other causes mentioned . I believe that we can add and document the different chants of the early protestors which reflects their own demands , whether it's freedom , genocide against Alawites , expulsion of Christians , Assad's removal or Kurdish separatism and so on . Unfortunately , minimizing the whole early protests across Syria in the so called " students grafitti in DARAA " is misleading at best , moreover they weren't killed , they were just arrested and investigated and may be tortured according to some anti Assad outlets just like how USA , UK , Brazil , Qatar , Saudi Arabia , France Erdoğan and Germany torture and sometimes Kill their detainees and carry brutal crackdowns against protestors as well but anyway this isn't our subject of discussion , so , back to our dıscussıon , here is my case with the exact quotes :

• International Christian Concern 4 May 2011 here , I'm quoting : "Last week in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, Salafis chanted, Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut . Christians in Syria are concerned that the agenda of many hard-line Islamists in Syria, including the Salafis, is to take over the government and kick Christians out of the country. “ In a Christian village outside of DARAA, in southern Syria, eye witnesses reported that twenty masked men on motorcycles opened fire on a Christian home while shouting malicious remarks against Christians in the street In Karak, a village near DARAA, Salafis forced villagers to join anti-government protests and remove photos of President Assad from their homes. Witnesses reported that a young Muslim man who refused to remove a photo was found hanged on his front porch the next morning ."
• The Christian Post 5 May 2011 here , I'm quoting : "Christian communities across Syria have been attacked by anti-government protesters in recent weeks.protesters in Duma, a suburb of Damascus, were last week heard shouting: Alawites to the Grave and Christians to Beirut "
• The Spectator 27 October 2012 here ," I'm quoting : First up is Boutros (not his real name), a 26-year-old from the nearby Syrian town of Qusayr where once Christians and Sunnis lived side by side. So how did the fighting start ? ‘At first the Sunni rebels offered us a choice: join us or leave. When we refused, they turned on us. Our neighbours!’ says Boutros in outrage. Then the Sunnis began to threaten us. They would shout: “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave”.’ This chant is so often repeated and reported, it’s become almost the official jingle of the civil war."
• Gregory_Stanton#Genocide_Watch of Gregory Stanton the former Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the George Mason University 1 May 2013 report here , I'm quoting : "Calls for genocide against religious minorities from rebel leaders in Syria are numerous and frequent , the chant Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut" has been reported at anti government demonstrations since the earliest days of the revolution"
• Agos 17 October 2016 here , I'm quoting : "Alevis to the grave, Christians to Beirut' is still a common slogan" This article is an interview with Harout Ekmanian who is Working in various international human rights associations, he says : "Alevis to the grave, Christians to Beirut' was a slogan invented during the first days of the rebellion and it is still commonly used" Harout Ekmanian is a Harvard school Lawyer and a fellow of the Institute For The Study of Human Rights here and a speaker at the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute here, the Institutes Mission is to To educate students in public policy and human rights, to support faculty research, and to foster creative dialogue here

As for the Western Media propaganda part as one of the causes of this war , uprising , protests or whatever you want to call:

• The Washington Post 17 April 2011 here , I'm quoting : "U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show .The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria. The channel is named after the Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital."
• The Guardian 17 January 2012 here , I'm quoting : "Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media , Assad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war . When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad – the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene – so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll." . Now I've presented the whole case , if the wikipedia consensus believe that all of the above facts shouldn't be published on wikipedia and remains hidden forever to assist the CIA , MI6 , BND , DGSE and Mossad sponsored rebels , protestors and separatists then Fine , do whatever you want , I just did what I believe is right and true . Thank you AleviQizilbash (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You won't get any disagreement from me about there being a sectarian element to at least parts of the protest and undoubtedly the later civil war. There is an entire article dedicated to such dynamics and incidents. However, the claim you're making is this: "protests, grew out of discontent with the Syrian government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for genocide against Alawites and the expulsion of Christians from Syria to Lebanon". That is not a widely held view among reputable sources, it is in fact a fringe view, which means that you need much more than reports of individual incidents to make such a claim. As I've said, the Genocide Watch article is the best source, and it could be valuable in the article I linked above, but it too does not directly support the assertion that that the protests are about genocide and expulsion of minorities. The closest this one gets is this: "Syria is currently in the third year of a conflict that began with peaceful anti-government protests in March 2011, protests which were immediately and repeatedly met with deadly violence from the Syrian state.". It goes on to talk about sectarianism in the civil war, but that's again not the issue here. About the propaganda stations and American backing of opposition groups: It's common knowledge, or at least I hope it is, that the U.S has supported Syrian rebels, this is not in dispute, but that's not relevant to whether American propaganda was a factor in the civic part of the uprising, i.e the protests. Same goes with funding of opposition parties. This is again loosely related info that does not directly support the conclusion; Without reliable sources actually making the claim that these things were relevant and had a significant impact, they're not relevant to supporting that claim. I gave some examples of how WP:SYNTH applies a few times already, but as it's the central problem with these edits I feel I have to give another example that synthesizes a conclusion in the same way it's being done here: I can say Person A has always been a violent person and give some examples: I saw him once punch someone, and on another occasion he looked very angry at someone. This of course doesn't prove anything, but it looks like it does if you list enough things. And even if he is violent, that doesn't mean he always was. Again, this is the kind of reasoning that WP:SYNTH seeks to prevent; Supporting big claims with related, but not directly supporting sources. Lastly, on the piece in the Guardian, it does not support the claim either, the closest it gets is talking about the poll showing 55% support for the president, and about how the Arab League and observers could be fooled into intervention by propaganda. It does not support the claim that discontent with the Syrian government led to protests calling for genocide and expulsion of minorities - It does not mention genocide or expulsion of neither Christians nor Alawites. Individual information can be used from at least some of these sources, for example the Genocide Watch report could be used to support a variety of claims, for example that Christian Solidarity International issued a genocide warning, or the role of sectarianism in the Syrian Civil War. It supports both of these claims directly, and that's the issue -- It's not being used to directly support statements in the report itself, but a broader extrapolated conclusion. Eik Corell (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quoting the Guardian to prove that "Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut " was the demand of the protestors , again most of your comment are logical fallacies and distortions , you just refuse to include any of the sources or the statements in the sources , that's it , and I want to , that's it , so let us seek consensus with other users instead of engaging in an endless fruitless dialogue , Thank You AleviQizilbash (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Israeli support for opposition, attacks on Syrian allies

As this Haaretz article (with a same-context Middle East Monitor article referring to this paywalled The Times article) makes clear, it's no longer a secret that Israel provided arms to rebel factions in Syria, more specifically in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Besides, several notable people said that the Israeli government made an error with the "recent break in ambiguity" on Israel's involvement in the Syrian Civil War after the admission that it carried out "hundreds of airstrikes" against allies of the Syrian government. I think we should accordingly update the [[File:SyrianCivilWarMap.png]] (map of countries surrounding Syria with military involvement) and the list of opposition-supporting belligerents in the infobox. Wakari07 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Israel have helped anti Assad rebels in many episodes during the war, especially in Golan. I already added a source to Israeli Suport for Syrian "Moderate" rebels. A promient Israeli official have just recognised in Israeli Media.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, enough sources are supporting it, Israel should be added to the list of countries supporting the moderate rebel forces. EkoGraf (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please bring such source.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You added Israel as supporter of Turkey and Syrian Interim Government, which is completely a synthesis - there is absolutely no connection between Syrian Interim Government and Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's just a lie. Notice this article is under "opinions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:188:6FE0:F1BF:9584:32F7:434B (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is in the blog opinion section of Haaretz, not WP:RS but an opinion piece by private person.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are sources provided above. The primary sources are Gadi Eizenkot interviewed by the Sunday Times and the fighters interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. The opinion provided in the tertiary Haaretz source is that it was wrong, but the educated Israeli journalist acknowledges the obvious fact: Israel is involved in Syria on the side against Assad. Maybe in a fifth column, a side of its own? Wakari07 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Then you should also add Lebanon in the sixth column - which fought Syrian rebel factions and ISIL during 2012-17. It becomes complicated.GreyShark (dibra) 11:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, because Israel supported Syrian rebels and attacked the government inside Syria, the fighting with Lebanese soldiers happened inside Lebanon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Israel support??

Other than humanitarian aid to wounded, Israel doesn't get involved in the civil war. There is a "resource" for Israeli involvement (link "d"), but there is no link d. Israel should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:188:6FE0:F1BF:9584:32F7:434B (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not involved in the civil war... only the perpetual war. Wakari07 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Israel has given weapons to the rebels, or does that count as "humanitarian"? FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not sourced by WP:RS however.GreyShark (dibra) 05:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

United States

How the hell is a country that trained and armed the "rebel" terrorists, launched airstrikes on at least 17,000 locations, targeted government and allied forces, deployed ground troops to occupy the strategic locations such as the oil fields - not listed as a direct participant, and shyly hidden as a "supporter" under a spoiler? And why does preamble in the part about foreign involvement start with Iran and Russia, when the USA were the first ones to do that. Why doesn't it mention that their involvement started in 2012 not in 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runoke (talk • contribs) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)