Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cinderella157 (talk | contribs) at 11:10, 14 June 2024 (→romanization: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 20, 2011, March 26, 2011, March 31, 2011, April 9, 2011, April 21, 2011, April 23, 2011, April 26, 2011, November 13, 2011, July 16, 2012, May 6, 2013, and July 25, 2018.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 15, 2016, and March 15, 2019.


Issues

The whole article needs a rewrite, it for example lists allied forces as bellingerents. And it's locked so that nobody can actually do anything to deal with its problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.207.102 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that just as consensus can change, so can allies change. Feel free to use {{Edit semi-protected}} here to suggest specific edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, needs to be re-written. Starting with the title that reads "CIVIL" war. When foreign forces unlawfully invade and annihilate your country, it is not a civil war. It is a hostile and aggressive attack we call today terror. Calling it a "civil" war is a misleading political statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite common for foreign forces to intervene in a civil war. That doesn't (necessarily) change the internal aspect of the war. — kwami (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the notion that this was not a civil war but a proxy war. Mercenaries, foreign or national, fighting a proxy war for foreign powers, paid, armed and guided by those foreign powers, among which the CIA, do not qualify as a local uprising and part of a civil war. Mregelsberger (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the people who are defending USA and NATO, USA with the help of turkey, they posioned syrian civillians by dropping posion gas from airplanes. If that is not a war crime then I do not know what is. 155.4.141.62 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that even the title - Syrian Civil War - is misleading and should be changed. This is corroborated by people here and by information, that is increasingly available, not least the continuation of the proxy war between the USA and Russia in Ukraine. A proxy war opposing armed gangs managed by foreign powers and a national army is not a civil war, even though it apparently is among national parties. The "conflict in Ukraine" as it is called by the OHCHR[1] is quite similar and is named on Wikipedia as "War in Donbas" described, without further proof as follows: "The war in Donbas, or Donbas war was a phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War in the Donbas region of Ukraine." This could also be said of the war in Syria, which could be named the "War in Syria", a "phase of the proxy war of the USA and Russia, opposing US mercenary groups assisted by US and US ally troupes and the Syrian army with Syrian allies (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah)". The war in Syria actually is not over, with the USA illegally occupying the north-eastern part of the country, i.e. the oil fields of Syria, producing oil on its own account without permission from the national government. Nothing is "civil" there. Wikipedia shouldn't get involved in politics and have only one standard, in this case applied to all conflicts alike, without distinction of who is waging them. Mregelsberger (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine" (PDF). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 27 January 2022. Retrieved 22 November 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Infobox map

The map in the infobox is sourced to Suriyakmaps, which is basically some X account. This fails WP:SPS, and the map should probably be removed. Firestar464 (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this sourcing stated? Yes, it is a concern. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Commons page. Firestar464 (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the map from the infobox as its source fails WP:RS. If there is any debate over this, I suggest it be resolved by an RfC at WP:RSN. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map is supposed to be derived from Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map, which is backed up with numerous reliable sources. We should definitely have a map here. Not sure how to derive one from that template though. As for the current removal, is there actually a dispute over the accuracy of the map here? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should also ping Ecrusized who is responsible for the current map. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli: Thanks for pinging me. I totally agree with @Firestar464 and Cinderella157: that Suriyakmaps is an unreliable and possible pro-Russian propaganda channel. I have changed the map from the original work of user @Rr016: to cite Al Jazeera English, external link. So it should be reliable now. Best regards. Ecrusized (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized: Several elements of this image do not appear to correspond with the map published by Al Jazeera, namely the Assad-held areas in al-Qamishli, the division of control of the Idlib region, and the Islamic State areas in the Syrian desert. The ways the latter two regions are depicted on the map you added also do not appear to correspond with Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Is there any documentation of what sources were used to determine the delination of the areas in question? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SaintPaulOfTarsus: First of all, the template map does not cite any sources and Wikipedia is not a source. If you ask me, I would say all template maps on Wikipedia should be deleted as they are completely original research. The division control map of Idlib has been represented that way on multiple source for some time, BBC News. Qamishli region seems not to correspond due to the text placed there, shown in Stratfor.
If you have any questions regarding unreliability or non-matching data please convey them to me. These issues are easy to fix and deleting the entire file is not the appropriate solution. Ecrusized (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that the Syrian template map does not cite any sources is untrue. Furthermore, template maps do not copy from maps made by mainstream media, as such maps are approximate and do not show who controls specific small towns (see the rules for the template map).
I'm also a little confused about Qamishli; the Stratfor article you linked makes no mention of the region, nor is it up to date. Firestar464 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stratfor map is out of date indeed but there hasn't been a frontline change in that region ever since. Also the template only cites who controls major cities. It is impossible for it to cite over 50,000 villages located in Syria hence it is mostly synthesis. Ecrusized (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized: The division of Idlib in the Commons map seems to significantly differ from the 2019 article you've shared, even when one accounts for the 2020 frontline changes. Seeing, for example, Ariha in green and, say, Salqin in grey, but not being able to immediately discern through accompanying reliable sources why each appears that way, in my view, seriously goes against the spirit of wp:VERIFIABILITY, and I can't really imagine a counterargument to this.
Regarding Syria's 50,000 villages, please see Module:Syrian Civil War map, which governs thousands of the small settlements in question. The attribution generally accompanies the edit summary, though it does seem to heavily rely on questionable Twitter sources, including the one discussed in this thread. Going back far enough, I even found a Twitter account I personally ran being cited a few times, which is both remarkable and troubling. I think that, in theory, if the entire module map satisfied wp:RS, it would be appropriate to use a template map derived from it, though your argument regarding synthesis definitely holds some weight and I'd be interested in discussing it further.
Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I have no personal preference on this. If you would like a change, such as coloring HTS run Idlib in fully white or another color. I can make this change based on Al Jazeera map.
I fully agree with your overall view that the vast majority of Syria and other conflict articles on Wikipedia need to go through a wide verifiability check. The infoboxes in particular of these conflict articles are generally a huge mess of synthesis and OR. Maps usually follow suit in this regard. Ecrusized (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a possible revision with Idlib and ISIS territory changed according to AJ map. Let me know if there are further changes needed. Ecrusized (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good start, though Idlib needs to be further hashed out. At this point I'm not firm on what the right answer to that is as I don't know anything about that Firestar464 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized, we have previously corresponded about the Gaza war map. If memory serves, the policy agreed upon for that file was that it had to follow ISW exactly and could not incorporate data from other sources, because this would be considered synthesis. You said this on the talk page:

ISW still shows these areas as under Israeli control, citing two separate sources would possibly create SYNTH issues. Before switching to ISW, some editors were calling for the removal of the map for using synthesis so I have to stick with a single source.

Does this situation differ? Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each article has its own context. Just because I said something on another topic doesn't mean that that's my overall opinion. But yes, generally if there is a single source showing the entire frontline, it would be preferable, and such is the case here. Ecrusized (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but in this case the Commons map doesn't use the frontlines from the Al Jazeera map, it uses the frontlines as portrayed by the Twitter account. For example, in the AJ map the frontline between the SAA and the SDF south of Manbij is largely a straight line, while the Commons map has a more nuanced frontline in this region. The same is true of the Tanf area, which resembles more of a true "semicircle" in AJ as opposed to Commons, where it follows the Homs-Damascus governorate borders exactly. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the current map is citing, previous editors have made changes on it in a span of years and those mostly remain unchanged. For a detailed summary of who controls each village, syria.liveuamap.com is a good source that's been mapping the conflict for several years. Ecrusized (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of clarity, I was referring to your work dated 24 November 2023. The attribution was changed from Suriyak Maps to Al Jazeera, but no changes were made to the map itself since it bore the earlier description, so in effect it is still derived from that source.
The AJ map indeed claims to be derived from LiveUAMap per its bottom left corner. I am not sure what Wikipedia consensus is with respect to LiveUA being reliable. If it is RS, a detailed map which credits LiveUA could be a reasonable solution here. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
liveuamap.com first came into existence when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 (ua derives from the country code of Ukraine). For the longest period, it was the only source mapping the anti ISIS campaign and Syrian civil war, as well as Ukraine war. Seeing how its being cited by news like, AJ, BBC and CNN nowadays, I think it would be considered reliable when used to draw conflict maps. Ecrusized (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further discussion, you could try Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Ecrusized (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Liveuamap. Please feel free to add anything I may have missed – in particular, BBC and CNN's use of Liveuamap would be helpful to have there. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to get into the details of the AJ map since its low resolution. I wouldn't be surprised if it was citing liveuamap after all. Ecrusized (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way specifically is Suriyak pro-Russian "propaganda"? They use open-source geolocated videos for their maps; if he makes a mistake, he corrects it and posts about the correction. You don't need to use him, but he's not pro-Russian. He posted on the day that Russia invaded Ukraine that he opposed the Russian invasion. He might have different opinions than you, but that hardly makes him "pro-Russian propaganda." 2601:85:C100:46C0:21CC:7E23:2B11:18B7 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Regardless they fail WP:SPS. That was my issue when I started the thread; I hardly considered their bias in any way. Firestar464 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all the Syrian Civil War maps being removed from their articles, I see the issue with Suriyak, but Suriyak is not the only one who covered these events, you have other users like Syriancivilwarmap, Deir Ez Zor 24, and so forth who covered these events, re-referencing the maps is the solution here, not removing them.Alhanuty (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: an RSN discussion on the reliability of SuriyakMaps as a source for Wikipedia maps has been opened at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SuriyakMaps on Twitter. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Í feel like the belligerents should be added back to the article. Í know there is a seperate article, but í feel like a war article needs a list of belligerents. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it just feels strange and wrong to not have at least the major factions listed in the infobox. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the RfC leading to the present version of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

Background > United States-Russia gas rivalry > Paragraph 1 > Capitalize 1st letter of the last sentence of the paragraph Nickson256 (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

romanization

The arabic version of "Syrian civil war" in the beginning and its romanization is kind of redundant, no? It quite literally is "Syrian civil war" in Arabic, so I don't really see the point of it. Shouldn't it be removed?

Just a suggestion :P Pingy/Pongy 22:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, when this is the same name. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war&oldid=1229015267"