Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Request revert to the version before user user:Nice4What broke 1RR rule and removed sourced and agreed upon content and subsequently led to the locking of the template. Basically revert to this version: [1] Jim7049 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have reviewed the discussion below. 3-2 is not a consensus on which I can change the template. But let the discussion continue and maybe some more editors will voice their opinion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 January 2019

Revert template to stable version [2]. Also move iraq under support section per the new discussion. Jim7049 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm laughing. You were involved in both the edit wars that led to the template being protected, as well as other edit wars that ended without an intervention. If you had changed your conduct and respected consensus, both protections would have been completely unneccessary. The irony here is that the implementation of your proposal would hinder your behavior. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Go away troll. Jim7049 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Jim7049 please behave. Asking people to go away or calling people anything with negative intent is against wikipedia policy! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done please discuss changes, once a consensus for the change emerges feel free to reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

Change Al Nusra/HTS front support. HTS is still actively supported by Qatar and Turkey as they are known to cooperate and HTS received most of its money (and still does) from Qatar as well as get military support from Turkey AramA2122 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

discussions about the choice of colours / colors in the map

Please also check any issues about mapping and cartography in Commons : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg#Why_the_choice_of_the_white_color_for_HTS_/_Hayat_Tahrir_al-Cham_/_HTC_?

--Wisdood (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Splitting "Belligerents" and merging it with "List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War"

Support with rename: Seems this got lost in the shuffle. This article is eye-wateringly large. I think merging the Belligerents section with List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War as proposed by @Charles Essie: and agreed upon by @GreyShark:. There was no objections but as this is a controversial article I figured I'd open discussion to make sure there's no objections. Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War seems like a good title. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion: Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_46#"Article_too_long_to_read_and_mavigate_comfortably"

Oops @Greyshark09: not "GreyShark" - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No objections. Charles Essie (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: do you remember where the original split discussion is? I'm trying to find it but there's a lot to sort through. Apparently there was a previous similar discussion in 2014 here: Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_35#Belligerents_article with @Fitzcarmalan:, @FunkMonk:, and @Blaylockjam10:

Sounds good. Bulbajer (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If anyone knows of any other similar discussions please link/tag people. It's a bit hard to navigate... - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The split/merge is complete. Waiting on the move request to be fulfilled. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The infobox

we should not go out of my way to make articles impossible to read

Not sure what happened here but the infobox is sandwiching the whole lead making it unreadable. Tagged it!!--Moxy (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to try to shave it down to a more manageable size... Shearonink (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I reduced the width. Looks more manageable in relation to the article-text now. Shearonink (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The text in the columns is now turning out too sandwiched. EkoGraf (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The community needs to decide if the text is the point of the article or if the infobox is the point. Presently on my laptop the infobox takes up half the width of the page and stretches down the page for most of the Background section. And if the article is brought up on a mobile device (which is the way much of WP is consumed these days), the infobox - in its mobile form - takes several passes of scrolling to get to the article's second paragraph.

I am not aware of any other Wikipedia article that has such a large infobox but if the local editorial consensus is to retain it in its present overall size?... Ok. Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Good on you for trying.... let's see if others have any suggestions. It's been an odd week for accessibility problems.--Moxy (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you that the infobox needs to be downsized somehow (too much info). But, the current form of the infobox is the result of years of discussions and consensuses. Also, this war is specific in its complexity that it may need this much info so readers can know what is actually happening over there. EkoGraf (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The strong feelings people have about this war - any war - is one reason why I initially hesitated to do any editing on the infobox...I knew that the infobox had been edited to a fare-thee-well. Infoboxes, however, are supposed to be a summary of the important major points of the article - in the article's present iteration it appears that the article is serving the infobox.

I think that the Wikipedia guideline on an infobox's purpose is a useful read in this circumstance

"...keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

Agree with Moxy re: mobile device issues. Anyone who wants to weigh-in on this article's infobox should really take a look at what the article+infobox looks like on a cellphone... It's not pretty. Shearonink (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

should be fixed as soon as possible....as lead almost impossible to read on mobile devices....we're going out of our way to lose readers for a box simply Jam full of little text it's almost impossible to see.--Moxy (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to open an RFC on the issue. There are only three editors who have commented about the size or who have edited the infobox's size - Moxy, myself, and EkoGraf. I understand that the subject of the article is a hot-button issue and that there are editing restrictions but I still think the infobox - in its present iteration - is simply too big. I think we need other editors' thoughts. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi Refugees in Syria: Causing a Spillover of the Iraqi Conflict?

This is the title by an article written by Reinoud Leenders.

This text is from the Refugees of Iraq Wikipedia page:

"Numbering over 1.2 million, Iraqi refugees comprise a large portion of Syria's population of 18 million.[20] This has caused an increase in the cost of living and caused a strain on infrastructure.[1][20] Sources like oil, heat, water and electricity were said to be becoming more scarce as demand had gone up.[23] Syrian's deputy foreign minister has stated that the price of food has increased by 30%, property prices by 40%, and rentals by 150%.[1][20] Water consumption rose by 21%, costing the Syrian government about 6.8 million US dollars in 2006.[20] The Iraqi population also strained the labor market: Syrian unemployment was 18% in 2006.[20] Refugees put a strain on health services (which are free in Syria), and Syria experienced public school overcrowding.[20] In 2005 and 2006, Syria used $162 million to offer aid to Iraqi refugees in the country.[20]"

This paragraph tells us more about the origin of the Syrian Civil War than the entire Wikipedia entry.

I know we are supposed to hate the Syrians and only write bad things about them. But this is the Wikipedia. You don't have to toe the line of US policy. Wikipedia should be about the truth. The truth is that Syria did more to help the Iraqi people than any other government in the world. And paid the highest price for it. This is both sad and ironic, because the Syrian government warned the world that an invasion in Iraq would lead to anarchy. Which, when you think about it, was kind of expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Move Weapons section below Belligerents

"Advanced weaponry and tactics" seems a bit out of place. I'd like to move it below "Belligerents and foreign involvement" as Timeline/Belligerents/Weapons seems to flow better. Thoughts? - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

17 Turkish killed

@Jim7049: it's 17 Turkish civilians? It was a part of the total "100 other foreign soldiers killed" count. That's why I moved it to the Turkish casualties list. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks confusing up there. It should stay down there. Jim7049 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

My recent edit to infobox

[Almost] every editor who responded to the Request for comment on size of infobox said the infobox needed to be pruned. Other editors have directly edited the Template:Syrian Civil War infobox, without using its Template:Syrian Civil War infobox/sandbox (which is fine with me per WP:BOLD etc.). I decided that removing one line at a time wasn't getting the infobox to an acceptable size - the infobox still dominates the article especially when accessed on a mobile device. My edits - which I first experimented on in the Template's sandbox - were reverted with the edit summary "Looks like he mistook it for the sandbox article"... No "he" did not. I knew what I was doing and I think more still needs to be done. The infobox still takes over at least 50% of the article in width from side to side & even *more* on some mobile devices. Think the infobox's size is just fine the way it is?...then make your case in the RFC further up the page. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't believe it is better this way, however if you have other users consent you can revert my edit. I didn't know there was a discussion about this. My main concern is casualties and commanders being removed, which I have not seen in any battle's infobox before; not even in World War 1 and 2. Jim7049 (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On size alone it is more manageable, on readability it is easier to navigate. I am unaware of any other article's infobox that dominates the text like this one. The casualties - in terms of the numbers of people killed - are still there, but they are summarized. Which is what an infobox is supposed to do...summarize. The infobox is now so crammed full of figures and statistics and people's names and allegiances that it overwhelms the text - its sheer size makes the article almost unreadable on a cellphone or other mobile devices. Something has to be done...maybe not my particular something, but the infobox really really needs to be edited down. Shearonink (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

it was edited? Sill making the text in the lead non legible.--Moxy (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I edited it down and my changes were reverted back to the previous version. You can see my edited version within the article here. If you'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of what I came up with in the sandbox and compare that to the present reverted/much-larger version, take a look at the testcases page. Shearonink (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Iranian losses

Why does this article continue to use the outdated and unofficial estimated 561 figure? The Iranian government has repeatedly announced that over 2,000 Iranians have died in the conflict. Here's a video of IRGC officer and political strategist Hassan Abbasi stating that over 2,300 Iranians were killed (March 2019). Here's Syrian state news quoting the head of Iran’s veterans’ affairs office, Mohammad Ali Shahidi, as saying 2,100 Iranians were killed (March 2017).--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus1: The source of almasdarnews says "more than 2,000 Iranians fighting terrorists in Syria and Iraq have been killed." This article however is only about the Syrian civil war (only the Syrian, not Iraqi) and the Twitter source seems to be from MEMRI whhich I personally dont trust and I dont think it is a RS see Middle East Media Research Institute#Reception. I wouldnt even click on that link since I would be supporting them with one view which they dont deserve. I would suggest you bring better sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ali Alfoneh, cited for the 561 number, also only confirms 43 Iranians killed in Iraq. Iranian deaths in Iraq are not a major number that would impact the 2,100 figure. Either way it clearly shows that Iranian official figures are several times higher than what Alonfeh can confirm: he gives 605 killed between Syria and Iraq, officials in the Iranian government give 2,100+ in both (March 2017) to 2,300 in Syria alone (March 2019). MEMRI's translations (which is all this is, the video is up for anyone to see) have never been invalid on this website. Another thing: six months before Shahidi said that 2,100 Iranian soldiers were killed in Syria and Iraq, he said that more than 1,000 had been killed in just Syria.--Nihlus1 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus1: Sorry for replying late but who is Ali Alfoneh? Could you bring the source here so I can check it? I am trying to help and its too late here. So firstly you cant figure a number for example lets call it Y. You tried to get Y by getting X from a source that cite the number X and from another source the number A and because A = X+Y we can get Y but that would be WP:SYNTH. Also you added an unreliable source which is Asharq Al-Awsat owned by Saudi Arabia to that article of the Iranian involvement so I would suggest you self-revert that edit and search for better source. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at the over 1000 claim in reuters and I find it reliable and could be mentioned in the article other than that I dont think is true even if the over 1000 claim is 6 months old that does not matter since its more reliable and accurate. thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ali Alfoneh is the guy currently cited for Iran's casualties in the infobox; his article says he can confirm 561 Iranian soldiers killed in Syria and 43 in Iraq. Note that he did not say that ONLY that many had died, but that this was the minimum number he could confirm. This implied total of 604 is revealed to be much too small by the Iranian government officials I cited, including in one statement referring only to Syria which stated that over 1,000 Iranian soldiers had been killed by 2016. As for Al-Awsat, I added that because the article was said to be repeating an official Iranian statement in regards to the casualty numbers, and I don't speak Farsi so I can't exactly go look for the original, nor can I find any other article in English reporting this number (and English Wikipedia, per the rules, gives priority to English-language citations). I don't think there's any indication they'd just fabricate an official, publicly-released number where there isn't one, especially one as specific as 418?--Nihlus1 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Only saw this discussion now so joining in. First, the 2,300 and 2,100 figures are closely consistent with one another yes. HOWEVER, as previously confirmed, the 2,100 "martyrs" Mohammad Ali Shahidi mentioned to IRNA News in March 2017 doesn't refer to Iranians only. It refers to all so-called "defenders of the shrine", which includes Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis. The Afghans and Pakistanis belonging to the IRGC-trained brigades. Furthermore, most of the dead have been confirmed as Afghans [3]. The Reuters report you cited (about 1,000 deaths) itself states that the Iran-deployed soldiers that were killed don't include Iranian nationals only, but Afghans and Pakistanis as well and that half of those killed (at the time) were Afghans. The miss-conception seems to be that when the Afghans and Pakistanis are killed, subsequently, Iran gives them posthumously Iranian citizenship. Still, a distinction needs to be made. So to sum it up, the source for the 2,300 dead is a good one in my opinion, but for an overall number of dead among Iranian "defenders of the shrine", which by all accounts includes Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis, and not just Iranian nationals. EkoGraf (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea in the IRGC official statements that Liwa Fatemiyoun members are considered Iranians? Your own source kills that idea, as 2,000+ Liwa Fatemiyoun members were announced to have died at about the same time that 2,100 "Iranians" were announced to have died. Yet obviously the non-Afghan, purely Iranian death toll at that point was quite a bit larger than 100 people (listing INDIVIDUAL NAMES of Iranian troops reported dead in state media in the first few years of the war makes that clear).--Nihlus1 (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would again refer you back to what I said. I did not say that Liwa Fatemiyoun members are considered Iranians. I said that Iran posthumously grants the dead Afghans and Pakistanis Iranian citizenship since they are fighting as part of Iranian-led forces. Further, the 2,100 figure is not for Iranians only. Masdar made a mistake in its reporting that 2,100 Iranians died. As quoted, Shahidi stated “Some 2,100 martyrs have been martyred so far in Iraq or other places defending the holy mausoleums.” Shadidi didn't say "Iranian martyrs". Instead, Shadidi was referring to the so-called "defenders of the shrine". I would again refer you back to the Reuters report which clearly states that the fatality figures presented by Iran also includes Afghans and Pakistanis fighting in Iranian-led units. I would further ask that you read this report [4] which further clears up that Shadidi said “At present, we have 2,100 defender of shrine martyrs and the path for martyrdom is still open,”. The source also adds that Shadadi at no point mentioned the nationalities of those killed, but that the term “defenders of shrines” refers to both Iranian, Afghan and Pakistani Shiite militants fighting under Iranian command. EkoGraf (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Further sources confirming that 2,100 does not refer to Iranians only [5][6]. EkoGraf (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Where is it actually confirmed by the Iranians themselves that the 2,100/2,300 figures include Lebanese, Pakistani, and Afghan fighters? Rather than the journalists saying so? My problem with this is that given the announced figures from Liwa Fatemiyoun (2,000+ killed) them being including in that total is mathematically literally impossible.--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We edit based on sources, and the sources state that the figures for the fatalities among the so-called "defenders of the shrine" include both the Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis... Any further speculation on our part would be considered unsourced original research. Also, I would add that confirmation of which nationalities are included among the dead by reliable third-party sources such as Reuters goes in line with Wikipedia's policy of not relying on primary sources and instead on secondary ones. One more source [7] confirming the figures by Shahidi include foreigners and not just Iranians. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at compromise in the infobox. I have included the latest figure of 2,300 (as a minimum) and presented another maximum figure which takes into account the maximum number of confirmed fatalities among the dead of IRGC-led units. If we did a nationality-by-nationality breakdown for the pro-government fatalities, we should then include the dozens of nationalities among the rebel dead, which would simply overinflate the infobox further. Years ago it was agreed to only include the Iranian figure due to their notable involvement in the war. Now, the figure presents all of the Iranian-deployed fighters that have been killed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Armenia

Should Armenia be listed as supporting the Syrian government in a non-combat role? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.6.245 (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC) Their forces have been documented on the ground, so yes. 2A02:C7F:C641:5A00:5E6:FED2:653C:C86A (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on size of infobox

There is a clear consensus that Template:Syrian Civil War infobox should be reduced in size. In the discussion section, editors considered the proposal about:

limiting the "Commanders and leaders" section to only two names. In other words to the head of state (or leading council) and the top military leader.

There is no consensus to implement this change owing to lack of participation. There is no prejudice against boldly making the change and if the change is disputed then opening a new RfC to discuss the change.

Cunard (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

Should the infobox of this article - Template:Syrian Civil War infobox - be reduced in size? Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

this is how bad it could be for some viewers.

• Yes as per MOS:ACCIM... even though the MoS is talking about sandwich between two images or the like.... clearly this is a case of sandwiching because something's too big..... resulting in the same outcome of sandwiching... the spirit of the MoS should be applied.--Moxy (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Insanely large, and highly liable to mislead because it tries to give a snapshot view of a lengthy and still unfinished war. It's bigger than the article! The current version will come in useful in future as an example of how not to do infoboxes. Several sections should be moved off to text or tables - the leaders one for a start. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes At least 80% of it needs to go. 90% would be better. Is there an editor who actually thinks that it is fine how it is? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and no It should be reduced most definitely, but not at the expense of the remaining text in the infobox being sandwiched like in this attempt [8]. Cutting down on the commanders listed, or to be more precise their titles (which take up space), would be a good start. EkoGraf (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The World War II infobox covers the largest and most complex war in history in a way which I think is quite useful for readers. This infobox is way too complex, and fails to summarise the topic sufficiently. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• No World War II was more straightforward, with belligerents openly declaring war for the most part. Syria, however, is complicated by it being a proxy war with extensive covert fighting, and an insurgency with constant factional splits.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Could use some reduction in size. I'm going to reduce the size of the territorial paragraph as it seems wordy - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)a
• Yes. Way too big. Good luck on deciding what to cut out on this RECENTish conflict though..... As complex as the situation in Syria is/was - World War II was certainly more complex (and has a decent infobox) - the issue here is cutting out the fluff and leaving what is important. Not every single group / proxy / supporter needs to be in the infobox (footnote it). Not every strength or casualty estimate (combine + range it). Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion

• Comment - Since it looks like editorial consensus is leaning towards reducing the infobox, interested parties can take a look at Template:Syrian Civil War infobox/sandbox (to see some possible changes) and then to compare the present infobox with the present sandbox version look at Template:Syrian Civil War infobox/testcases. Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The major problem with the present infobox is that the military conflict infobox (as seen in the WWII one) is set up really to only have 2 main belligerents/opposing factions. The Template:Syrian Civil War infobox has 4 so we will always be stuck with those 4 columns going across. I've reduced the length of the infobox in the sandbox but the major problem of that basically-intolerable width remains. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. But tables in text can handle 4 columns easily, & much of the content should be moved to these, with very brief lists of the real keys facts left in the box. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I see your point but I'm not sure moving the info into tables will solve the issue since the infobox is supposed to be a summary of content that appears within the article elsewhere... Shouldn't all that possible table-info already be somewhere else in the article? I just don't know how to get around the 4 column/4 factions problem and the resulting width they bring to the infobox. If anyone else can figure that out, have at it in the sandbox at Template:Syrian Civil War infobox/sandbox. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion: What about limiting the "Commanders and leaders" section to only two names. In other words to the head of state (or leading council) and the top military leader. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Limiting any of the various parameters would very much be a Good Thing. Your suggestion would limit the length of the article but the main visual issue for me is how wide the infobox is from side to side...just take a look at the article on a cellphone/mobile device, the infobox practically takes over all the initial space. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm what about making the lists horizontal instead? In other words rotate them all 90 degrees. It's a bit unconventional vs other war infoboxes but I think considering how many sides it might be warranted. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

MTWEmperor - Is there a reason you didn't use Template:Syrian Civil War infobox/sandbox before you edited Template:Syrian Civil War infobox? Shearonink (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And the RFC is still ongoing and hasn't been closed... Shearonink (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it a requirement to use the sandbox? It's not like I'm removing info, merely condensing into a more efficient form. WP:Bold - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Also another method could be two rows with two columns. Would make its width inline with other infoboxes. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a requirement I suppose - it's just that the article and the infobox are both sources of contention and are under community sanctions. I like to be careful when handling articles that can be tinderboxes. The RFC does look like it's a WP:SNOW and - taking a close look at the RFC instructions - a closure to the RFC isn't strictly necessary. But lol the sandbox is there for a reason... Have fun, Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether the issue being discussed is the template taking up too much horizontal space or too much vertical space, but if it's just the former... I hope people here are aware that it's possible to make a template appear differently depending on the viewer's screen size? See WP:TemplateStyles. --Yair rand (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2019 (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.

https://syriancivilwarmap.com/ redirects to possible phishing scam?

I clicked to view the live interactive map and it redirected me to an official looking google chrome update page on the https://syriancivilwarmap.com/ domain. Probably a phishing scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:D5F:F093:ECBD:DA86:867D:1D4A (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just removed this link (without clicking on it first, for obvious reasons!) - AGF that this report is legit, as I can't see any reason it wouldn't be. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The site works perfectly. There are ads but ads also exists in most news websites also chrome confirms the security of this site.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ETA:After doing some explorations in that site. It seems very informative and useful. I suggest we readded it.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) about the size of the infobox

Trying to get some more ideas about if the infobox can or should be adjusted/reduced in size and how to accomplish that...see the discussion at 'Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Is there any kind of policy or guideline that governs the size of infoboxes? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think reducing the number of commanders in the infobox could be a good first step. EkoGraf (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Are leader/commander labels necessary?

Template:Syrian Civil War infobox

Are the leader/commander labels necessary? They already have the titles in their respective Wikipedia pages and there are examples where the titles aren't there Battle of France Western Front (World War II) Iraq War War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Two options either:

• Remove the repetitive/repeated faction names from the titles (unless very specific, Southern Front for example)
• Remove the titles altogether as they're already on their Wikipedia pages

Either would reduce the size of the infobox - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Done/completed on some consensus with User:EkoGraf and consensus on the general size reduction of the infobox. All linked name already have the titles in their articles so it is unnecessary to have them in the infobox - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ISIL central desert pocket

Greek Hades, despite your edit [9] based on syriancivilwarmap.com which ignores the existence of an IS pocket in the central desert, a multitude of sources confirm its existence and this needs to be rectified both in the infobox and on our Wikipedia map. Syrialiveumap, SOHR, ISWN and Polgeonow all show through maps [10][11][12][13] IS territory in the central desert which has yet to be taken by the Syrian military, as well as some others [14]. SOHR, which confirms the pocket is 4,000 square kilometers in size, especially has been extensively used by Wikipedia for territorial changes throughout the years. Pro-government Masdar media outlet and Reuters also reaffirm the existence of an IS pocket in the Syrian desert [15][16], which is entirely surrounded by Syrian government forces (not controlled) as per both Masdar and Reuters [17][18]. Last attempt by the SAA to clear the pocket was way back in September [19]. Multiple sources (which confirm it) trump one source which, for some reason, has decided to ignore the pocket in the central desert. EkoGraf (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am pinging several editors who have been involved on maintaining the Syrian map over the years and are familiar with the subject Mehmedsons TheNavigatrr Kami888 LightandDark2000 Paolowalter Applodion so we could get their input. EkoGraf (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Further confirmation of the existence of the enclave [20]. Presented now both sources' statistics in the infobox as an attempt at compromise for now. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Unfortunately, yes, there is a rather sizeable ISIL pocket in the northern Syria Badiya region, lying between the Homs–Deir ez-Zor Governorates boundaries. This is the conclusion I've reached after consulting multiple sources, mainly pro-Syrian Army sources. The pocket is actually not as large as some people might think, but it is significant enough to warrant more attention. In the combined Levantine conflicts map, I've done my best to illustrate the extent of the ISIL Syrian Desert pocket, based on the various sources I've referenced, which you can see in this link. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000:, thanks for the reply. The Syria-Iraq-Lebanon map looks good. Like I said, the same illustration (of the pocket) should be put into the Syrian map as well (Kami888 could possibly help there) and taking into account the confirmed existence of the pocket its percentage (as per SOHR) should be presented in the infobox. Our detailed Syria map already properly shows ISIL held locations in that area, specifically the Doubayat gas field [21]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Newest source for the pocket [22]. EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Under Main belligerents, when showing the CJTF–OIR section, instead of the denmark flag there is the nazi germany flag

Under Main belligerents, when showing the CJTF–OIR section, instead of the denmark flag there is the nazi germany flag............. please fix that, i can't edit the box-thingy (don't know how it called in english) with visual editing. if it's a bug and only i see it for some reason, feel free to delete this talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by רם אבני (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the Nazi Germany flag. Are you sure?. Check the source of the infobox here Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox--SharabSalam (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It was vandalism on commons where the flag comes from. See [23] [24]. Because of caching, the file may be seen by some after it was fixed (not that I'm saying the above was after), and likewise it may not be seen by all. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Map needs updating

Now several months out of date. Sdrawkcab (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Syrian Civil War

Portal:Syrian Civil War has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Syrian Civil War and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Syrian Civil War during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 07:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice about creation of related article

I just came across Astana Platform in the new page queue and noticed that it's not well-integrated with other Syrian Civil War articles. It's also heavily reliant on Sputnik and other dubious sources and thus could probably use some attention from editors active in this subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Timeline section navigation

Hi there. I can't help but feel that the whole timeline area is somewhat difficult to navigate currently. The Afghanistan war article has a layout which could apply here: War in Afghanistan (2001-present)#History. That is, a table with dates down the left, and a one-line description of what happened on the right with a link to the relevant articles. The war is of course an incredibly complex topic- but something like this:

Period	Main event(s)
March–July 2011	Protests, civil uprising, and defections
July 2011–April 2012	Initial armed insurgency
...	...

--ERAGON (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Child victims

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "The addition of biased images was discussed against at the talk page, as well as not to include the ages of the civilian casualties of both sides. See: Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria/Archive 1#5 children among 7 civilians killed yesterday, Talk:2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria/Archive 1#Turkish civilian deaths. The children picture related to chemical attack which is notable & not just some random victim picture. Also, update section on "Belligerents". I think it is relevant and should be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Size of the infobox

Yeah, it's as massive as ever...
Ran the page-size tool on it and here are the results

• File size: 256 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 1 B
• References (including all HTML code): 0 B
• Wiki text: 53 kB
• Prose size (text only): 1 B (1 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 0 B

And another thing - according to the Manual of Style guideline of MOS:INFOBOX, infoboxes are supposed to provide a summary of the article, an overview of the article. This infobox has people in it who are not listed in the article at all like Riad Darar & Qasem Soleimani, it has multiple hide-show components that link elsewhere - like Units Involved/Opposing forces which leads to Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War#Opposing forces which is massive in and of itself, meaning the infobox is even bigger than you think it is at first glance. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

The size of the infobox has been mentioned on the talk page before - sometimes by me, sometimes by others, here are a few examples:

Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 48#My recent edit to infobox

RfC (Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 48#Request for comment on size of infobox)

Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 48#I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) about the size of the infobox

Village pumps (miscellaneous) - Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 61#The infobox at Syrian Civil War...

I gave up on my earlier efforts to reduce the size of the infobox a while ago and at this time don't intend to even try to reduce the size myself (though consensus at the RfC was for the size of the infobox being reduced) so perhaps this was all just a bit of a rant but looking at how big the infobox has gotten, I do think we need to ask ourselves - does the infobox serve the article or does the article serve the infobox... Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think I've brought it up before but does the infobox really need all the extra bullet points and additional subleaders? Like can't we just have the political and military leader for example or just the "Syrian Republic" and "Interim Government" People can click on those links and read more about the various divisions right? In order to measurably reduce the size some actual cuts are needed. Would need some consensus on this though as people are going to try to revert it. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shearonink: @MTWEmperor: I've tried placing {{clear}} after the box and a paragraph of lead before it, so at least part of the lead is visible when you load the article, but ppl keep reverting it to visual garbage. Is there an option to collapse the info box, the way we do nav boxes? That would be at least a temporary fix until we work out a permanent solution. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

We should not go out of my way to make articles impossible to read

Needs to be fix as per previous talks. One of the worst accessibility problems we have seen on Wikipedia for a major article.--Moxy 🍁 00:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:, you're going to have to cite some consensus or something like that. Although I wonder if there's Wiki rules on the intro coming before infoboxes. You have my support on putting the intro first @Shearonink:@Moxy: - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Concensus? How about common sense, or blocking the editors who are repeatedly vandalizing the article. This issue is just something I stumbled across, not s.t. I care much about, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who think "hey, let's make the article illegible!" is a good idea. BTW, on my browser the lead is not *nearly* as legible as it is in the screenshot at right -- I wouldn't bother trying to fix it if it were merely that bad. Meanwhile, I collapsed the infobox, though I don't expect the proponents of illegibility to like that. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well if there's something you can cite then it's harder to for someone to justify reverting your change @Kwamikagami:. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Added a section

Added a section to update some events. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible update to article lead

I would like to add the following paragraph to the article lead. thanks.

In October 2019, in response to the Turkish offensive, Russia arranged for negotiations between the Syrian government in Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces.  Mazloum Abdi, the Syrian Kurdish commander-in-chief, announced that they are ready to partner with Vladimir Putin (Russia) and Bashar al-Assad (Syria), stating that "We know that we would have to make painful compromises with Moscow and Bashar al-Assad if we go down the road of working with them. But if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely choose life for our people."The agreement specified some regions where the SDF has agreed to the deployment of Syrian Army troops, and also areas of northeastern Syria that will be managed by the Syrian government in Damascus.    According to Syrian Kurdish officials, the deal allows Syrian government forces to take over security in some border areas, but the Kurds' own administration would maintain control of local institutions.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

added Rojava information

added information on Rojava to section on Constitution Committee. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Major dispute at UN over help for Syrian refugees

I have added the following text to the article. Please feel free to add this information to any articles which pertain to the current plight of refugees in Syria!!

Section: Syrian_Civil_War#United_Nations_dispute

As of December 18, 2019, a diplomatic dispute is occurring at the UN over re-authorization of cross-border aid for refugees. China and Russia are opposing the current draft resolution that seeks to re-authorize crossing points in Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan; China and Russia, as allies of Assad, seek to close the two crossing points in Iraq and Jordan, and to leave only the two crossing points in Turkey active. 

All of the ten individuals representing the non-permanent members of the Security Council stood in the corridor outside of the chamber speaking to the press to state that all four crossing points are crucial and must be renewed.  

United Nations official Mark Lowcock is asking the UN to re-authorize cross-border aid to enable aid to continue to reach refugees in Syria. He says there is no other way to deliver the aid that is needed. He noted that four million refugees out of the over eleven million refugees who need assistance are being reached through four specific international crossing points.  Lowcock serves as the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 

I appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Recent changes

Sm8900, this is WAY too much detail for the lead. MOS:LEADLENGTH says that the lead section of an article should generally not be more than three or four paragraphs long. You've made it 10, with the majority of those being devoted to a series of events happening over just a few months' time in an 8.5-year war. What the hell were you thinking? The lead does need to be adjusted, with less emphasis on all the various nations involved and more on which sides are winning or losing. Maybe say something about the causes as well, which seem to be largely overlooked. There's probably a little bit more about Lebanon than is necessary. But adding 6 paragraphs to the lead about one campaign out of many is absurd. Display name 99 (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The lede is now back to a sensible 4 paras, but there are very large sections at the end of the article, from section 11 through to 14, which deal exclusively with the last couple of months. These appear to be reproduced wholesale in the [Timeline] article, which is where they belong. It should be checked that everything here is also there, then these sections deleted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The Turkish intervention is not as notable as the U.S. led invasion or the Russian intervention. This needs to be removed and replaced either by a 3-5 lines of summary or just a tag at the top that links to the main article.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Display name 99:, I appreciate your note, your input and your insights. thanks!!! it is always helpful to get opinions from others here in our community at Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in writing here.

as far as the length of the lead, I gratefully accept your helpful insights, as well as the helpful insights from @Bobfrombrockley:, and as well as the helpful insights from @SharabSalam:. I appreciate all of you offering your insights in this discussion, and I appreciate all of the recent edits and group effort here to make this article better.

as far as my reasoning for adding so much to the lead, and to the sections of the article on the Turkish intervention, my reasons for doing so were simply as follows; this latest invasion has led to a massive and structural change in the whole nature of the conflict. as you know, the Turkish invasion and associated US withdrawal has caused Russia to step in as a mediator, and to mediate various understandings between all of the parties to the conflict. so that was my reasoning for adding such detail on the nature of the recent events.

So therefore, my goal was not to use this article to document all events from the last few months, but rather to document the chain of events for this major change in the shape of the conflict itself. Based on that, I feel these sections should not be completely deleted, but I will condense them.

I hope that helps to provide some valid context for those edits that are referred to. I do truly appreciate your helpful insights and input above. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there's still way too much from the last few months. A lot of the information seems to be copied verbatim from the timeline article. We have no summaries of campaigns in this article prior to Peace Spring. I say we delete almost everything from Peace Spring from this article and let people find out about it from the timeline article just like we do all of the other campaigns in the war. But even in the timeline article there's a lot of trivial information that needs to be removed. Even on that article, Peace Spring is covered disproportionately to other events. Display name 99 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally disagree. based on my recent edits to condense these sections, I believe that I have met these concerns. based on that, I am restoring the deleted text. I am surprised that you would not continue our discussion here, to seek some positive resolution. I am open to compromise on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sm8900. That is too much vital information being removed. I'm not necessarily opposed to further trimming, but with a modicum of proportion. Certainly not removing entire sections wholesale. And regardless of any of this, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante should remain in place while the matter is being discussed. El_C 03:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Section break

Sm8900, I'm not sure how you thought that any edits to these sections short of nearly all of the material being removed would meet talk page consensus, as both myself and Bobfrombrockley called for the sections to be removed wholsesale while SharabSalam} said that they should consist at most of a 3-5 line summary. What you left was certainly far more than that. El_C, three editors voiced support for removing the entire section, while none opposed. At the time, consensus was clear and I think that I acted appropriately in choosing to remove the content. Can either you or Sm8900 explain why we should have entire sections narrating the timeline of the last three months while the timeline for the last 8.5 years receives absolutely no coverage? Does that not seem out of proportion to you?

My interpretation is that consensus currently stands at 3-2 against the inclusion of material. That isn't particularly strong, and so I think that an RfC may be the best way to resolve this. Display name 99 (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99 I appreciate your thoughtful reply. You asked if I could explain why these last few months need such coverage. my answer would be quite simple; the last few months mark the first time we have seen any level of accordance between the SDF and the Syrian government. also, the Turkish desire for massive refugee resettlement is a major international issue which deserves coverage as well. and the diplomatic process by neighboring nations is significant in providing context for current international perceptions of the conflict as a whole. I do appreciate your reply above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, Sm8900 already condensed those section considerably. Sure, an RfC sounds like a plan. But, note that if the sections represent longstanding text (I'm not sure), then it should be about gaining consensus for removal rather than for inclusion (and the RfC question constructed accordingly). El_C 04:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

El C, this is not the long-standing version Special:MobileDiff/930188387 it was added 12 days ago. The number of details for the three months old Turkish intervention definitely undue weight in a civil war that has been ongoing for 9 years now. The reason why this is given too many details doesn't sound convincing. I am removing it and if an RFC took place, it should be for inclusion. Sm8900 please don't view my removal as provocative. I know you have worked so hard for this work and I assure you that I will listen to what you are saying and that your work will be transferred to another article where it is due weight. I also want to say that this content about the Turkish intervention that was removed and was in the lead shows that Sm8900 wasnt aware that this article is about the Syrian civil war not the 3 months old Turkish intervension. Also notice that the Israeli airstrikes are not mentioned in the lead although they are so much covered in the media.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Not longstanding text — understood. El_C 09:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam I appreciate your tactful and thoughtful reply. this is what Wikipedia is all about. I don't quite agree with you, but I appreciate your views. I have some text that I would like to add to the article, and I will also post it here for comment here on this talk page. perhaps we can find a new compromise. Anyway, I do appreciate your time and effort in replying to me here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Some new text added

Display name 99,SharabSalam, El C, I have added some text to the following EXISTING section, Syrian_Civil_War#Peace_process_and_de-escalation_zones. I felt this was more in keeping with the valid concerns that you have expresssed above, regarding WP:UNDUE and other points. I hope this is okay. I am pleased to be able to discuss this here, in view of your obvious interest in and commitment to improving the encyclopedia entry.

I sought to keep the text below brief and to the point. I think it also fits in with the existing section where I added it. I hope this seems okay and valid for this entry. thanks.

I also added text to some other existing sections as well. You can see them in the article history. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

TEXT:

===New agreements===

In October 2019, in response to the Turkish offensive, Russia arranged for negotiations between the Syrian government in Damascus and the Kurdish-led forces. Russia also negotiated a renewal of a cease-fire between Kurds and Turkey that was about to expire.

Russia and Turkey made an agreement via the Sochi Agreement of 2019 to set up a Second Northern Syria Buffer Zone. Syrian President Assad expressed full support for the deal, as various terms of the agreement also applied to the Syrian government. The SDF stated that they consider themselves as "Syrian and a part of Syria", adding that they will agree to work with the Syrian Government. The SDF officially announced their support for the deal on October 27.

The agreement reportedly included the following terms:

• A buffer zone would be established in Northern Syria. The zone would be around 30 kilometres (19 mi) deep, stretching from Euphrates River to Tall Abyad and from Ras al-Ayn to the Iraq-Syria border, but excluding the town of Qamishli, the Kurds' de facto capital.

• The buffer zone would be controlled jointly by the Syrian Army and Russian Military Police.

• All YPG forces, which constitute the majority of the SDF, must withdraw from the buffer zone entirely, along with their weapons, within 150 hours from the announcement of the deal. Their withdrawal would be overseen by Russian Military Police and the Syrian Border Guards, which would then enter the zone.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sm8900, I suppose that's fine. It's okay to present some information about negotiations between the SDF and Syrian Government as part of the general peace process, as long as it isn't part of the timeline, as this article is not the place for that. Display name 99 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks! I appreciate your reply. glad we could reach some understanding on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, any thoughts? thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Sm8900, looks fine. Thanks for your great work in this article.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

glad to hear that. thanks! appreciate it. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

references

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

In the demographics section change

approximately Arab 50%, Alawite 15%, Kurd 10%, Levantine 10%, other 15% (includes Druze, Ismaili, Imami, Nusairi, Assyrian, Turkmen, Armenian);

To

approximately Arab 50%, Alawite 15%, Kurd 10%, Levantine 10%, other 15% (includes Druze, Ismaili, Imami, Assyrian, Turkmen, Armenian);

Removed Nusairi because it is another, pejorative, name for Alawites which are already mention as the second largest demographic.

The percentages were put Congo spank (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Congo:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

added section on us sanctions

added section that discusses the US sanctions. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"See order" the infobox

Are there any objections to utilizing a similar method as the "Units involved" section See order on the "Commanders and leaders" and "Strength" sections of the infobox

Basically I am proposing we create a similar link for those two sections and using combined strength total for each country and a short list of let's say current leaders for each country (or something else if anyone has any other ideas). Because it may look ok on desktop but mobile doesn't have the hide option and EVERY SINGLE commander/leader is displayed on the mobile version including the hidden "Killed" section ones.

We all agree it's too big so let's actually shorten it and consolidate it. @EkoGraf: @Sopher99: @Greyshark09: @Editor abcdef: @DylanLacey: @Mikrobølgeovn: @Hanibal911: @Mr.User200: @LightandDark2000: @FutureTrillionaire: @Mehmedsons: @Avaya1: @Fitzcarmalan: @NuclearWizard: @North Atlanticist Usonian: @Kwamikagami: @Shearonink: @Moxy:

Consensus

• Support: would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the size of the infobox which practically everyone agrees is too large. - - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 05:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• I’m in agreement with this consensus. Sm8900 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support almost anything to reduce the size. Just move stuff into text tables Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Change $6.5 billon to $6.5 billion Tokuju (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war – "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name, and many major publications do not capitalize each word. I believe this was discussed a few years ago without any consensus. It's even more telling that in 2020 it's still not a proper name. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:7951:E807:4928:819F (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT. The overwhelming majority of civil war articles use the title case, see List of civil wars. Surachit (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  The ones with capitals are proper names. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:F453:A9CA:EFA9:F3B6 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yep. That's a completely invalid application of CONSISTENT, or 90-odd percent of our capitalization-related RMs would go for capitalization instead of lower-case, which is the exact opposite of practice. For any kind of construction you can virtually always find structurally similar strings that are proper names, even though most of them in the same pattern are not. This is not and cannot possibly be a rationale to capitalize them all willy-nilly just to be "consistent" with the proper-name ones. This idea is applying a trivial, senseless notion of "consistency", at the cost of the real, intended meaning of WP:CONSISTENT, which is about consistent application of article titling principles, not faking the facts to get a superficially similar appearance at the cost of applying actual naming criteria, reliable sourcing, and other principles sensibly much less consistently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support to be actually WP:CONSISTENT with a zillion prior RMs moving common-noun phases to lower case instead of mis-capitalizing them as if they are proper names. There's no evidence this conflict is consistently called by this exact appellation, in capital letters, in an overwhelming majority of sources, which is the MOS:CAPS and thus derived WP:NCCAPS standard. Having it as some version of "Syrian [c|C]ivil [w|W]ar", however styled, appears to satisfy the more general WP:COMMONNAME policy (I checked, and that word order is more common that alternatives like "civil war in Syria" "war in Syria", "Syrian conflict", etc., in sources within the pertinent timeframe), but that has nothing to do with capitalization; COMMONNAME is not a style policy). We can see in just a few seconds of bothering to look that over-capitalized "Syrian Civil War" is nowhere near the most common style anyway, so any bogus COMMONNAME argument anyone would make is already deflated. Only a tiny minority of major news publishers [25][26] or academic publications [27] capitalize the phrase except in title-case headlines. The first rule of MOS:CAPS is to not capitalize something unless sources do so with remarkable consistency, and the exact opposite is the case here. It is basically impossible under the applicable WP:P&G pages to keep this at the over-capitalized name. PS: Fix also the over-capitalization in the article text here and in related articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Let's compare that to the Russian Civil War article. It might by grammatically right, but we need to bring that question to another level. Because Civil War capitalization affects many articles, not just Syrian one. MarcusTraianus (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – This one does not seem to have reached proper name status. The fights in Syria are described various ways. E.g. see lots of lowercase civil war in current news stories. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Recently, User: Wow changed all mentions of 'War on Terror' in the War on terror article to 'war on terror'. I see a similar problem on this page. I think the problem here is whether the current civil disobedience happening in Syria should be regarded as a situation meriting the usage of a name (which would of course be 'Syrian Civil War') or whether the words 'Syrian civil war' regardless of capitalization simply refers to it Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 01:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. Fact is, it's not a proper name. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:183F:C33C:C3E1:1153 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment "Syrian Civil War" is a proper noun. Should be capitalized.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC) edited:00:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not. If it was, it would be consistently capitalized by all major publications. The evidence is overwhelming. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:BD19:A8CB:39F9:C1FE (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you bring the sources and the context where "Syrian civil war" is mentioned? I am not a native speaker of English but I am almost sure that it is a proper noun and should be "Syrian Civil War" but I can imagine a context where it would not become a proper noun I also think that grammar is not something that newspapers usually care about. I think the confusion comes from the fact that "war" could be a noun or a verb. I have this source, for example, from Harvardpolitics that says ...between the Syrian Army and rebel forces throughout the Syrian Civil War. The same reason "the Syrian Army" was capitalized is used to capitalize the "Syrian Civil War.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Check the links provided by SMcCandlish. It's pretty conclusive. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:6C38:336C:355:5846 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support - Recent books and news articles give "civil war" the lowercase treatment. The current title I would have favored more especially per consistency with other titles, but then I don't see reliable sources treating the name as proper name or official name for the horrendous, tragic event. Nor do I see sources treat the proposed name as a stop gap name, though I ought to treat the proposed name as indefinitely such until majority of sources will give different names for this ongoing event. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support—WP's MOS, Chicago MOS, and the Oxford style guide all say to minimise unnecessary capping. Someone please tell me why this is necessary. Plus I agree with the need for consistency with other similar RMs. Tony (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – if others need to be moved, let's move them. CThomas³ (talk) 01:24, 24 January 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 discussion

Saw this a few days too late. First thought: "Jesus, not this again". Well, done is done. Looking forward to abominations such as "Vietnam war", "World war II", "Six-day war", "Napoleonic wars", and so on. Cheers, everybody. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Vietnam War is a proper name. Have a good one. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:F020:107C:4D2C:6594 (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It being a proper name does not render it gramatically impermissible to stylize it otherwise, hence the tendency that was used as an argument for moving this article. The real question is whether or not the name of this conflict is a noun (or a "proper name"). If it is not, then I wonder what is. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And the answer to that question - as detailed above - is no, it is not a proper name. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:F020:107C:4D2C:6594 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy it. While not as frequent, it's not hard to find "Vietnam war" using the same search criteria as User:SMcCandlish applied. It's quite possible to refer to a proper name without capital letters. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Only if your style is not using capitals for anything. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:F020:107C:4D2C:6594 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn's "Looking forward to abominations such as "Vietnam war", "World war II" ..." is argument to emotion, reductio ad absurdum, straw man, and slippery slope all at once (going for a "most fallacies packed into one sentence" world record?). This stuff verges on trolling for a WP:GREATWRONGS battle along military-overcapitalization lines (WP:SSF). It's not only linguistically confused, the entire screed generally amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and makes it abundantly clear the person's mind was made up (and explicitly seeking a "Jesus, not this again" battleground to duke it out on) before even seeing any evidence or hearing any policy arguments. So, it would not have had an effect on the close anyway (absent an incompetent closer).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This was neither a straw man nor a slippery slope. Deciding whether or not something is a proper name based solely on capitalization in google search results sets a precedent, and doing so creates arbitrary dividing lines within Wikipedia itself. How do we decide that "Vietnam War" is a proper name, while "Syrian Civil War" is not? Does google decide? What about sources that do not appear online? How do we determine what a "majority" of sources day? Does this go for all search results, or do we work our way through all of them to determine which ones qualify? Actually, who am I fooling - judging from the debate above, the prospect of complications aplenty will hardly deter anyone from hammering through a change of a long-standing interpretation of the style manual. After all, why make things simple when complicated also works. All the best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Missed this moved discussion. Really, again? Is it so difficult to just keep the article title at the proper "Syrian Civil War"? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Are the endnotes broken?

When I hover over [a], the pop up says "a". When I click on it, it does move me to the note, but the pop up should read the text, too.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: Working for me (Chrome, macOS). When I hover over the [a] note, I see the full text of it ("Starting from the Syrian-Turkish border and going south into Syria") in a mouse-over tooltip. Similar results when I hover over [1] or another reference citation. It's been my experience that when interface elements like this are "acting up", it can be a symptom of browser memory corruption. I would try closing the page and re-opening in a new window, restarting the browser (making sure all of its processes are actually stopped), and restarting the computer or at least logging out then back in again (in that order, of course).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)