Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Anon551055 (talk | contribs)
Line 102: Line 102:
Pages such as the [[Iraq War]] and [[War in Afghanistan]] have much more factions in the infobox then this, and should be used as a guide to this infobox, removing all militas and allied groups and just putting allied groups is too much of a simplification, A few large factions should be added and then having Other allied groups for the smaller ones with a link to a relevant page.[[User:Anon551055|Anon551055]] ([[User talk:Anon551055|talk]]) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Pages such as the [[Iraq War]] and [[War in Afghanistan]] have much more factions in the infobox then this, and should be used as a guide to this infobox, removing all militas and allied groups and just putting allied groups is too much of a simplification, A few large factions should be added and then having Other allied groups for the smaller ones with a link to a relevant page.[[User:Anon551055|Anon551055]] ([[User talk:Anon551055|talk]]) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
:I don't care enough about the Iraq and Afghanistan articles, so I'm under no obligation to justify such inclusions just because [[WP:OSE|other crap exists]]. <small>I am, however, planning on taking this to the [[Libyan Civil War (2014–present)]] infobox (which is a complete mess), so feel free to add it on your watchlist if you're interested in discussing it there when the time comes.</small> And you haven't told me yet what makes those particular factions more significant than others. Until you do, will you kindly revert your recent edits? Because this just feels too arbitrary to me. [[User:Fitzcarmalan|Fitzcarmalan]] ([[User talk:Fitzcarmalan|talk]]) 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
:I don't care enough about the Iraq and Afghanistan articles, so I'm under no obligation to justify such inclusions just because [[WP:OSE|other crap exists]]. <small>I am, however, planning on taking this to the [[Libyan Civil War (2014–present)]] infobox (which is a complete mess), so feel free to add it on your watchlist if you're interested in discussing it there when the time comes.</small> And you haven't told me yet what makes those particular factions more significant than others. Until you do, will you kindly revert your recent edits? Because this just feels too arbitrary to me. [[User:Fitzcarmalan|Fitzcarmalan]] ([[User talk:Fitzcarmalan|talk]]) 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Because they have around 7,000 members each, which is quite large, larger then some factions on the infobox, being they two largest allied militas other then NDF they should be in the infobox, then same should be done for the other sides, a cleanup should be done on the factions, but not to the extent of not even putting one allied milita.[[User:Anon551055|Anon551055]] ([[User talk:Anon551055|talk]]) 23:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


== no year of entry for Iran and Hezbollah in the infobox ==
== no year of entry for Iran and Hezbollah in the infobox ==

Revision as of 23:58, 13 February 2018

Template:Hidden infoboxes

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Archives
Topical archives

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Jump up ^ https://russian.rt.com/article/145541 Jump up ^ http://lifenews.ru/news/182947 Jump up ^ http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1579521/video/


Please sign in and/or use four tildas to mark your posts.104.169.39.45 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many factions in the infobox

There is a |units1/2/3= parameter in Template:Infobox military conflict titled "Units involved" that was specifically designed for armed wings of the involved parties, such as the Syrian Armed Forces, the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, etc. We also have a link to List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War in the belligerents' section header, given that there are too many factions and brigades involved. But, in its current shape, the belligerents' columns have more than enough of those, and we can't keep listing all the factions that come to mind. This would set a bad precedent for new editors. I recently made a series of edits designed to make the box as brief as I could, but was blanket reverted by Anon551055. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, 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. @Anon551055 and AntonSamuel: can we at least agree on not adding local factions with less than 10,000 members in size? We can discuss the exceptions to such rule individually. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would argue that some groups are relevant to include because they represent a significant ethnic/religious group in the ranks of the belligerents, despite them having less than 10,000 members. For example Al-Sanadid forces and Syriac Military council, representing the (arguably) largest and most prominent Arab and Syriac Christian groups and the SDF Military Councils, since they largely control Manbij, Northern Deir Ez Zor and are have than 10,000+ members. However groups like Ba'ath Brigades, Arab Nationalist Guard, Eagles of the Whirlwind, Liwa al-Quds represent less significant and less unique groups and it could be prudent to remove them for simplification purposes. The list of CJTF–OIR participants could also be made into a collapsible list perhaps, and the strength section for the regime side could be made shorter. And yes an order of battle link would be prudent to include. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to list the SDF military councils when the SDF is already mentioned. If we're adding the MFS for the sake of ethnic/religious diversity, then there's no reason for us to exclude Sootoro, for example. I would personally argue that Al-Sanadid didn't receive sufficient coverage in mainstream media outlets to be regarded as a significant faction. I have no clue as to how many fighters the PFLP-GC has on the ground in Syria, but I know for sure that they aren't all that popular among Palestinians, many of whom are fighting on the rebels' side. I also suggest we remove countries that haven't been involved militarily on the rebels' side, like France, Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, while keeping the US due to its limited strikes on government targets. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon551055: regarding this edit, what exactly makes a faction "significant" to you and the other one "not very significant"? I'm honestly interested in knowing your reasons. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pages such as the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan have much more factions in the infobox then this, and should be used as a guide to this infobox, removing all militas and allied groups and just putting allied groups is too much of a simplification, A few large factions should be added and then having Other allied groups for the smaller ones with a link to a relevant page.Anon551055 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care enough about the Iraq and Afghanistan articles, so I'm under no obligation to justify such inclusions just because other crap exists. I am, however, planning on taking this to the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) infobox (which is a complete mess), so feel free to add it on your watchlist if you're interested in discussing it there when the time comes. And you haven't told me yet what makes those particular factions more significant than others. Until you do, will you kindly revert your recent edits? Because this just feels too arbitrary to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have around 7,000 members each, which is quite large, larger then some factions on the infobox, being they two largest allied militas other then NDF they should be in the infobox, then same should be done for the other sides, a cleanup should be done on the factions, but not to the extent of not even putting one allied milita.Anon551055 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no year of entry for Iran and Hezbollah in the infobox

Hezbollah entered the war in 2013. Iran possibly in 2013 or 2014. These should be added to the infobox, where every belligerent except Iran and Hezbollah is shown when they entered the war.

69.166.118.36 (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page to "Syrian War"

The ongoing war in Syria is no longer just a civil war, as it includes numerous foreign fighters (such as Russia and Turkey). Recent news articles about the war also refer to it as "Syria War" (BBC News)[1] or "Syrian War," (The New York Times)[2] likely due to this fact. Therefore, I propose renaming this page as such to the more accurate title of "Syrian War." 98.114.199.183 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it's a civil war, no matter who is supporting the various 'sides.'104.169.16.173 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that you should look through where it says This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move discussions listed below. at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Syria war: Israeli fighter jet crashes under Syria fire, military says". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  2. ^ "Why Is the Syrian War Still Raging?". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 10 February 2018.