Talk:Syrian peace process

Requested move 28 February 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Syrian Civil War peace process, this seems to be the title with most support from reading the comments here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Syrian conflict peace proposals → Syrian peace process – For consistency with existing articles, such as Israeli–Palestinian peace process and Western Sahara peace process. Charles Essie (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current and proposed names are highly ambiguous. This isn't about the Syrian-Israeli peace process (or ceasefire/armistice/etc), or anything in Lebanon to do with Syria. Suggest Syrian Civil War peace process instead, per main article Syrian Civil War -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a move from peace proposals, either to peace process or peace efforts. I am neutral to the Syrian conflict vs. Syrian vs. Syrian Civil War part of the name. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2015 (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.

Naming
Analyzing the preceding move proposal it seems that the actual consensus was "Syrian peace process", rather than "Syrian Civil War peace process". The second title is in my opinion slightly awkward and not following the " peace process" standard, so per WP:GF i'm moving to the actual proposed title by Charles Essie. In case there is opposition to my move - i shall issue a structured rename/move proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree that there was a consensus for "Syrian peace process" above. Rather, there was one support for that (without an opinion on the longer version), one that was opposed to it, but supporting the more precise "Syrian Civil War peace process", and one neutral on either. Having said that though, I don't really see a problem with the title you've moved, so unless there are further objections then I don't have a problem with this. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right - i haven't noticed that the oppose vote for in favor of "Syrian civil war peace process" title. Nevertheless, there is an even support for both. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 12:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

September 2016?
There was a peace agreement reached on Sept 9 2016 (Geneva peace talks on Syria (2016),etc). Should that be included in this article? 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) ES 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not peace, but cease-fire and i've just added it.GreyShark (dibra) 06:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice about creation of a 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 20:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Numbering of the Geneva talks
Dear all,

I would like to propose changing the numbering of the Geneva rounds of peace negotiations, which are currently numbered on this page from Geneva I to Geneva IV.

Thereby, you find Geneva III - January 2016 Geneva IV - February - March 2017

There are two reasons why I suggest so:

1) There were two further rounds of Geneva negotiations in between. These were

14-24 March 2016 (source: UN statement https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/near-verbatim-transcript-press-conference-un-special-envoy-syria-staffan ), and UN overview page https://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpPages%29/A45B5560F87E2336C1257F4700646029?OpenDocument ) and 13-27 April 2016 (source: UN statement https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/mediators-summary-13-27-april-round-un-facilitated-intra-syrian-talks-28, and also UN the same overview page)

These rounds also took place in Geneva under UN mediation and with various delegations. This would suggest to number these as Geneva IV and V, and rename the current Geneva IV into Geneva VI.

2) However, the related issue is that UN themselves do not use this numbering. They speak of Geneva I, and subsequently of eight rounds of intra-Syrian talks in Geneva, and one more in Vienna (you can also see this here: https://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpPages%29/A45B5560F87E2336C1257F4700646029?OpenDocument ). In this sense, the roman numbering is well intended, but it is not correct. Unfortunately it appears that in some cases, the media have long ago picked up on the numbering on this wikipedia page, which explains why you find it also in some articles online. To be historically accurate though, I hence propose to change it.

My suggestion is to keep Geneva I as such, and then to rename the further Geneva rounds as intra-Syrian talks 1-9 in line with the UN naming. I am happy to do so, and to add the dates.

EMeininghaus (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)