Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 51

RfC on infobox
Should Template:Syrian civil war infobox be retained in its present form (the long version) or be substantially trimmed, such as in this example (a short version). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

See existing discussion, for some background. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This infobox is not only way too big but way too busy and complex for it to provide the reader with an "understandable" at a glance summary and therefore fails WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is unsuited to the degree of detail that this infobox is trying to capture. The nature of the belligerents involved (and associated information such as casualties) is complex, nuanced and way too intricate and detailed for an infobox to capture in a simple way that is readily understandable. An infobox is unsuited to capturing such detail, nuance and complexity. The size, complexity and detail of the long version of the infobox fails WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is a matter best left to prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history notified here. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * Short version as nom. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version good grief, that is completely out of control. This is not what infoboxes are for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version but don't use "ongoing". Keith-264 (talk)
 * Short version: Not everything belongs in an IB. GenQuest  "scribble" 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there a middle ground? While I agree that not everything listed in the long version is needed, the short version seems to omit things typically found in infoboxes on similar articles. (jmho) - w o lf  02:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment much of the big infobox can stand moving into the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * CMNT: Came here to type the same thing. This info would be best served in an table inserted into the article body; and, can we dispense with all the totally distracting, cluttering, and unneeded flags?  GenQuest  "scribble" 01:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wanting to fit everything typically found in the Infobox for an war article is how it got so big in the first place in my opinion. Inteloff (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an example on the template page. It makes sense to include at least belligerents because it, actually, describes who is fighting. And the guidance is: When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. In this case it's (arguably) Syrian government, Syrian opposition and the northeastern administration. Oloddin (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In at least one case (WW2) we have just given up on any detail and just included "Allies" and "Axis". And this war is even more complicated in that it doesn't seem right to exclude ISIS and Al-Qaeda due to its worldwide notoriety, so we we would end up with a wide 4 column infobox anyway even if we trimmed the details.
 * Maybe we could use the short infobox proposed that has a size compatible with the current lead section, and then move the rest of the information from the current infobox into new tables "Factions", "Strength/Order of Battle" and "Casualties" spread throughout the article?
 * Inteloff (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably the design changes in Wikipedia is one of the main reasons this discussion take place at all, as the infobox looks "too wide" relative to the text. On the other side, the first words about this war in the lead is that it is a "multi-sided civil war", and the Autonomous Administration has its own goals here. ISIS question is more complicated because 1) the war against them is (almost) finished while the civil war itself is ongoing 2) ISIS at its greatest extent controlled both Syrian and Iraqi territories (with some influence also in Lebanon), so the military action against them "transcends" the Syrian civil war itself. Anyway, if the belligerents section will be preserved, it can be discussed separately. Oloddin (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to exclude ISIS just because it is now tiny. This may be a current event but it is also an history article. We wouldn't remove IS, then wait until the war is over to add it back for its relevancy in the middle of the war. And there's a link to the broader war against IS on top of the infobox. Inteloff (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version per nom. The current infobox is a clear example of the huge bloat that too many of the current event articles seem to attract. Readers aren't looking for a large mass of statistics in an infobox, just a short summary.  The Night Watch     (talk)   03:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version per nom. The long version is completely unreadable, and I always found it ludicrously excessive. The extra detail in the long version can be given in the lede if it's important. A bit unrelated, but perhaps a similar shortening should be applied to the infobox in Russian Civil War, which has many of the same problems as the long version of the infobox in this article. HappyWith (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version This article has for years had one of the most bloated infoboxes on Wikipedia (with Queen Elizabeth II at times being a combatant!), so anything to simplify it is for the good. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version. The current atrocity would be a prime candidate for a new category of boxes, the Giantbox, aka the box that wants to grow and surpass the main text is size. Seriously, this needs to be mercifully put down. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * : while it is ongoing, maybe the short version is indeed better, but in general can we really have something in between? To list main Syrian belligerents and hide under "support" or remove their foreign supporters? To include the total number of strength and casualties/losses of all sides but without much details?--Oloddin (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is similar to my comment. This RfC is basically a dichotomous either/or set-up. Is possible to add something to the lead giving respondents the choice of a third option? An infobox with more than the short, but less than the long? - w o lf  04:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the third option? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, like I just a said: something in between the two current options. An infobox with more content, that makes it a little longer than the short infobox, but less content than the long infobox, making it somewhat shorter. (eg: a 'Goldielocks infobox', an option somewhere in the middle). Cheers - w o lf  07:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When I composed the short version, I didn't just arbitrarily go to point A, randomly pick point B, highlight and delete. I started by looking at the commanders and removing those that were not supported by the body of the article, so the long version has already been significantly reduced by this. I then looked at the Belligerents section of the infobox. It made absolutely no sense, with multiple columns, containing multiple entries that were, in turn, divided horizontally and with a multitude of flags appearing in different places that were not discernably different. The lead deals with this much more simply - a simple summary of the complexity of the issue. One would have to read the Belligerents section of the body of the article for the infobox to start to make any degree of sense - and that is totally arse about, because the infobox is meant to be the at a glance summary, not the body of the article. I appreciate the sentiment that there might be something in between but it assumes that such a creature exists. Unless somebody can actually come up with an example that is sensible and makes sense, it is speculative that a middle-ground actually exists and I tend to doubt that it does. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Fair enough, I had not thought otherwise of your edits or intentions behind them. I, and since then another user, had just wondered if there was any possible middle-ground, but given the way the talley is going here, it would appear that your version is the preferred version. I'm good with that. Cheers - w o lf 19:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC))


 * Short version per The Night Watch The current infobox is a clear example of the huge bloat that too many of the current event articles seem to attract. Readers aren't looking for a large mass of statistics in an infobox, just a short summary. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: No offense, but if the belligerents get removed from the infobox, we might as well remove the entire infobox. There are other parts of the infobox which could be trimmed, for example by removing all the "support" factions or the notes or the detailed casualties. In contrast, a war infobox without belligerents makes no sense at all. Applodion (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Infoboxes are still optional, per MoS. I would support losing them entirely in several war articles that are overly complex with participants and other overlapping conflicts. They often lack nuance, and many are bloated (although few this badly). Not everything needs to be in an IB; not every article should even have an IB.  GenQuest  "scribble" 19:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Parham wiki (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version and thank you for being WP:BOLD in creating this short version and this proposal. These types of conflict/civil war infoboxes are always prone to excessive bloat. I especially like the flag icons being gone, they are so unnecessary and are distracting. Other articles with bloated infoboxes of this sort should take note and follow this example, in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)⋆｡°✩🎃✩°｡⋆
 * For what little worth this might have, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and position expressed above by Isaidnoway. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the short version, but I still think that Main belligerents should be included F.Alexsandr (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Shorten the current infobox, but not that short: The strength and casualty numbers for each side can be combined into one figure each instead of broken down into specific units for example, but as Applodion said it makes absolutely no sense to remove the belligerents altogether. Lightspecs (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Parham wiki (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Short version per Isaidnoway. (I got a smile from Isaidnoway's unintended implication that there is such a thing as inexcessive bloat.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment I see a couple of editors agreeing that the infobox needs to be shorter but not as short as the proposal. The problem with such comments is that there is nothing concrete as to how this might be done or how the main belligerents might be presented in the infobox in a way that is reasonably comprehensible. Without something concrete to consider (even a rough draft), it is more a sentiment than a real alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Roughly like this. The details can be discussed further. Anyway better than nothing.--Oloddin (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again with all the tiny, distracting, awful flags in the "Casualties and Losses" section. Count me out, as they make the thing unreadable and worthless to the average reader.  The flags add nothing—as far as added information goes—to anyone above the age of 10 and beyond the crayon years.  Let's get 's short version implemented immediately per SNOW, and close this RfC; and then discuss any future expansion if necessary.  GenQuest  "scribble" 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I got your point. But flags are actually among the least of my concerns here. Oloddin (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could use just two or three combatant sections? I.e., "Syrian government" on one side, and a generic "Infighting rebel forces" on the other (with a link to the belligerents article for details). Or "Syrian government", "Infighting rebel forces", and "Islamic State", as the latter was (despite being sometimes allied with Islamists) for most of the war a major third-party actor opposed to all other forces involved in the civil war. I have added an example below as "medium version". Applodion (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It is not me that needs to be convince but others that have responded here. My question though, is: how is this an improvement over the statement in the lead? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be misleading as AQ was for the majority of the war's duration allied with the opposition, not with IS. Actually the current infobox is already vastly misleading by placing HTS and al-Nusra on separate columns and this needs to be fixed. Lightspecs (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Were you discussing my or Oloddin's proposal or both? It's not entirely clear... Applodion (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Northeastern region and all its forces are a separate force with separate interests; and they exist and operate within Syria. So if you want three columns, it seems better to exclude IS rather than AANES. Unlike IS, they may have a part in some hypothetical agreement that will someday finish the war. Oloddin (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, the Islamic State was among the parties that had the greatest impact on the overall war, both regarding international attention as well as in deciding the war's overall course (by de facto crippling the opposition and indirectly boosting the SDF's image). Strictly speaking, we could also list various parties under "Infighting rebel factions", including the AANES. However. this might lead to the weird case where AANES and al-Qaeda would be in the same row. At the same time, other infoboxes have also listed mortal enemies in the same row when both fought a third party. Applodion (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

''
 * Comment I support the infobox being shorter but I'd like input my own thoughts. I believe the World War II article infobox provides a good model for simplification, as does the Russian invasion of Ukraine article to a lesser extent. I think the following would be wise ways to reduce the clutter on the infobox:
 * 1) Reduce the "partof" entry to solely the Arab Spring, with a infobox note describing the overlapping conflicts and its ties also to the "Arab Winter".
 * 2) Noting the above debates, I believe the dynamics of this conflict would be difficult to represent in Wikipedia infobox format without being cluttered. Either simply list Belligerents in the Syrian civil war or an overly simplified format with the aid of an infobox note (such as listing all belligerents outside the Syrian government collectively). Foreign involvement should be reduced to being mentioned, potentially using elements such as combatant1a or combatant3a, as a link to the article Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war.
 * 3) Creating something similar to the format for the leaders of World War I and World War II (see the respective articles to understand what I mean). Create a list page such as List of leaders and commanders of the Syrian civil war and listing it as a single section. I believe it would be to difficult to list rebel leaders on the infobox.
 * 4) Reducing the casualty section to total casualties and civilian casualties, with a link to the articles Casualties of the Syrian civil war, Internally displaced persons in Syria and Refugees of the Syrian civil war.

''
 * I've created two examples on my sandbox. PanNostraticism2 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I really like PanNostraticism2's 2nd proposal. I would only adjust "originating from the Syrian revolution" to "originating from the Syrian revolution and Iraqi conflict", as the Islamic State and several other groups like Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan were originally part of the Iraqi insurgencies and not directly linked to the Syrian revolution. Applodion (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, it would probably be more accurate. PanNostraticism2 (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some things are complicated enough and simply can't be reduced. I don't think we should be scared of some infoboxes being a bit longer (wider) than usual. Regarding your variant, I think it's better to put simply "Syrian opposition" (and allies) with your explanation but without mentioning of Iraqi conflict, IS and AANES. IS and AANES have a completely separate agenda so they need to be mentioned separately. Again, it's not something odd for a conflict that is described as a "multi-sided civil war" from the very beginning. WWII and Russia-Ukraine are not good models because those conflicts have two clear sides.
 * If you want no more than two columns at all costs, then maybe just "Syrian government | Syrian opposition" and then below Other belligerents and Foreign involvement. Oloddin (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Syrian civil war start date
The crisis was not regarded as a civil war until June 2012.

"Syria in civil war, U.N. official says" (Reuters, 12 June 2012)

As late as 23 June 2012, the consensus was to not describe the events in Syria as a "civil war". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That's when U.N. first used the term due to the intensity of clashes at that particular period. Clashes were ongoing since March 2011, just not at the magnitude of a country wide civil war. Nevertheless the consensus is to use 15 March 2011 as the start date. Ecrusized (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Its the same conflict, just evolved over time. I added almost 10 sources citing March 2011 as the start date of the civil war, including the UN itself. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf
 * There was definitely no war in March 2011 though. So its absurd to pretend that a civil war erupted in March 2011.
 * EkoGraf: "Nevertheless the consensus is to use 15 March 2011 as the start date"
 * Where is this "consensus"? There was a consensus established via RfC to not describe the events as civil war as late as June 2012. You havent brought any. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The consensus was mentioned by, not me. As I said in the edit summary, the current start date in the Infobox (March 15, 2011) has been upheld by the editor community for the past decade without any objections. A consensus would be needed to change the date and per WP guidelines the stable version needs to be upheld until a new consensus (if any) is achieved. This article was previously titled "Syrian uprising (2011-present)", with the subject covering all events since March 2011, before a consensus was reached to change the title to "Syrian civil war". In any case, I have provided nine sources, including the UN itself, citing March 2011 as the start date of the civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ideas for writing a new lede of the article
The previous lede which covered the events until 2017 appears to have been removed. I find this reasonable since it was outdated. In this section I would like to discuss what users would prefer placing into a new lede.

Starting with my own thoughts, I think the first paragraph should include something in the margins of "while the war started out as protests against the government, it later on turned into a proxy war involving various state and non state actors." Later on I would suggest dedicating the 2nd paragraph to Government - Rebel conflict, how it began, evolved and its current status. While placing the ISIS, Kurdish, Turkish and Iranian etc. involvements into the subsequent, separate paragraphs. Ecrusized (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The characterization of the whole conflict as a "proxy war" in wikivoice is biased and not suitable for the lede. Furthermore, such a characterization overlooks the agency of various domestic forces in Syria.
 * Pages discussing proxy conflicts like the Cambodian Civil War do not describe these conflicts as "proxy wars" in their ledes.
 * However, I'm ok with the phrasing "various commentators have characterized the war as a proxy conflict between foreign powers involved in the conflict" in the last part of the "Course of events" sub-section of the Overview section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not modify the lede without discussing it myself and user first. I have reverted your changes because they have made it severely unbalanced, adding excessive details into the SDF campaigns and Turkish involvement while completing missing out the rebel/regime conflict which comprises the vast majority of this war. Ecrusized (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * To me the solution here seems to be to just add an equal or greater amount of info on the regime/rebel side of the conflict, I strongly feel my changes should be re-inserted if this is agreeable. Bruhlobob (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for editing the lede without discussing it. Bruhlobob (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Adding every single Turkish operation and major SDF operations to the lede in unbalancing in the context of Syrian civil war. The lede was previously too large as it is. In order to preserve your edits, you might consider adding them to to the ledes of articles such as, Rojava conflict, Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war or Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Ecrusized (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bruhlobob, I think that further expansion of this summarized lede is unnecessary and likely disruptive. The contents of the previous version of the lede (which was very lengthy) were transferred to the overview section by another editor on October 2023. So, it may become repetitive if the lede is expanded alongside an already large overview section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood Bruhlobob (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

So what's up with the infobox?
I understand that the infobox got trimmed down for being too long, but removing ALL of the belligerent factions listed on it seems a bit excessive. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Title should be "Syrian Civil War", not "Syrian civil war"
Saying "Syrian civil war" is grammatically incorrect. NesserWiki (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, capitalisation is a mattwer of orthography, not grammar. Secondly, the title is a descriptive noun phrase (a civil war that occurred in Syria) and consequently not a proper noun phrase. Finaly, on Wiki (per WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and MOS:MILTERMS) capitalisation is determined by usage in sources. The article's title does not meet the theshold set at MOS:CAPS by which we would cap this. See the recent RM here. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the policy of Wikipedia that proper nouns should be capitalized. The Syrian Civil War is a proper noun. Therefore, it should be capitalized. NesserWiki (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect on two counts. The article title is descriptive and therefore not a proper noun. The relevant P&G has been cited. It tells us to follow the example of sources on issues of capitalisation. It is not consistently capitalised in sources; therefore, it is not capitalised/considered a proper noun by Wiki. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This has come up in Requested Move discussions several times. Here's the most recent that I find in the archives:  Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_50.  Result is always no, keep it as a descriptive lowercase title. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Current state of the war is not at all clear
Having just read this article to get an idea of the current state of the war, it is extremely difficult to work out what the current status quo on the ground is, with the number of sub-articles not helping (e.g. the #Timeline section is just a link to articles rather than a summary). As far as I can tell from the map and lede, the war has been primarily a frozen conflict for the last four years with only minor clashes occurring, and that there are currently essentially four governments in Syria- the Syrian Arab Republic of course covering most territory, led by Bashar al-Assad; a Syrian Salvation Government headquartered in Idlib and led by Ali Keda; a Syrian Interim Government headquartered in Azaz and led by Abdurrahman Mustafa which has heavy Turkish backing; and an Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria headquartered in Ayn Issa and led by Îlham Ehmed and Mansur Selum.

There are however a lot of things that don't seem to be explained such as to what extent these four governments function as de facto fully separate governments with border checks (akin to Northern Cyprus), and if so, how it is possible for the Turkish-aligned government to access its exclave in Ariha shown on the map; the amount of autonomy the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria actually has versus how much of a role the Syrian government has in the area (and what the status is in the Syrian government's exclaves shown on the map); what the status of control is in the swathes of desert marked as being under Army of Free Syria and Islamic State control (I would assume that thanks to being desert there aren't actually concrete frontlines as the map implies?). Et cetera.

Essentially, it appears to me that this war has been primarily a frozen conflict for the last four years but the article does not really make an effort to describe what the status quo of said conflict is in terms of government, the level of cooperation between the rival governments, etc. Politics of Syria doesn't do so either, only describing the de jure politics in the area under central government control. The content which does exist in this article about the 2020–24 status quo mostly just seems to describe individual clashes which occurred and individual humanitarian crises.

I'm sure if I'm confused and unable to work out the current state of the conflict from the article then it will be the same for a lot of readers, so I thought I'd give this feedback as an outside perspective for someone who hasn't really followed the war in Syria since 2017. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 13:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that mainstream Western news don't really report on the war doesn't help. Ugly Ketchup (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chessrat, have updated opening sections, to provide that information. Sm8900 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)