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 2a02:c7f:6e64:1c00:7951:e807:4928:819f (talk) at 23:32, 15 January 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Hidden infoboxes

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Template:Friendly search suggestions


Archives
Topical archives

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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

Issues

This template must be substituted. 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]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Added a section

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

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.[1] [2] 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."[3]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.  [4]  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.[5]

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

References

  1. ^ Russia calls Turkey’s invasion of north Syria ‘unacceptable.’ Strongest words yet from Assad-supporting Moscow heaps pressure on Ankara. Tue, Oct 15, 2019,Henry Foy, Laura Pitel, Chloe Cornish
  2. ^ Kottasová, Ivana; Ilyushina, Mary (15 October 2019). "Russians fill the void left by US troops in Syria". CNN.
  3. ^ Abdi, Mazloum (13 October 2019). "If We Have to Choose Between Compromise and Genocide, We Will Choose Our People. The Kurds' commander in chief explains why his forces are finally ready to partner with Assad and Putin". Foreign Policy.
  4. ^ Sanchez, Raf (14 October 2019). "Assad troops enter north-east Syria after Russia-backed deal with Kurds". The Telegraph.
  5. ^ Fahim, Kareem; Dadouch, Sarah; Englund, Will (15 October 2019). "Russia patrolling between Turkish and Syrian forces after U.S. troops withdraw". Washington Post.

added Rojava information

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

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. [1]

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. [1] 

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. [2]

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

References

  1. ^ a b https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/191219064903066.html Clash at UN Security Council over cross-border aid for Syria. Russia, China oppose draft resolution to add new crossing point in Turkey, extend cross-border operations for year. December 19, 2019.
  2. ^ UN: Ability to Get Lifesaving Aid to 4 Million Syrians at Risk By Margaret Besheer, December 18, 2019.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. [1] Russia also negotiated a renewal of a cease-fire between Kurds and Turkey that was about to expire. [2]
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. [3] [4] 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.[5] The SDF officially announced their support for the deal on October 27. [6][7]
The agreement reportedly included the following terms:[8][9][3][10][11][12]
  • A buffer zone would be established in Northern Syria. The zone would be around 30 kilometres (19 mi) deep,[a] 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.[b]
  • 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)[reply]


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

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

Sm8900, looks fine. Thanks for your great work in this article.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
glad to hear that. thanks! appreciate it. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

references

References

  1. ^ Russia calls Turkey’s invasion of north Syria ‘unacceptable.’ Strongest words yet from Assad-supporting Moscow heaps pressure on Ankara. Tue, Oct 15, 2019,Henry Foy, Laura Pitel, Chloe Cornish
  2. ^ [https://www.newsweek.com/new-mideast-us-russia-china-1465846 THE NEW MIDDLE EAST: U.S. MILITARY, RUSSIA'S DIPLOMACY AND CHINA'S MONEY, BY TOM O'CONNOR ON 10/22/19.
  3. ^ a b "Russia deploys troops to Turkey-Syria border". 2019-10-23. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
  4. ^ Turkey and Russia agree on deal over buffer zone in northern Syria. Erdoğan hails agreement with Putin in which Kurdish fighters will be moved from border area. guardian.com.
  5. ^ "Kurdish Reaction To Turkey-Russia Deal To Patrol Northern Syria". NPR.org. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
  6. ^ "SDF Agrees to Sochi Deal for Northern Syria". The Syrian Observer. 2019-10-28. Retrieved 2019-10-28.
  7. ^ Staff, Editorial (2019-10-28). "Syrian Kurds say pulling out from entire length of Turkey border". Kurd Net - Ekurd.net Daily News. Retrieved 2019-10-28.
  8. ^ Fahim, Kareem; DeYoung. "Russia and Turkey reach deal to push Kurdish forces out of zone in northern Syria". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-10-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ Fraser, Suzan; AP, Vladimir Isachenkov |. "Russia, Turkey seal power in northeast Syria with new accord". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
  10. ^ EDT, Tom O'Connor On 10/23/19 at 11:49 AM (2019-10-23). "Russia shows off new Syria map, sends troops to border after its deal with Turkey". Newsweek. Retrieved 2019-10-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Soylu, Ragıp (2019-10-22). "LATEST — Here is the complete text of Turkish, Russian agreement on Northern Syria, that pushed YPG 30km from Turkish, Syria borderpic.twitter.com/jwiOurbfa3". @ragipsoylu. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
  12. ^ The Sochi Agreement And Its Implications OCTOBER 25, 2019.

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)[reply]

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

added section on us sanctions

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

Requested move 15 January 2020

Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war – "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper noun, 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 noun. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:7951:E807:4928:819F (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war&oldid=935979583"