Misplaced Pages

Talk:US intervention in the Syrian civil war: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:46, 25 December 2019 editIsaidnoway (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,965 edits →Page size← Previous edit Revision as of 08:36, 25 December 2019 edit undoIsaidnoway (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,965 edits →Page sizeNext edit →
Line 210: Line 210:
::::::::I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say that is most appreciated. I have now finalised the split of the timeline section into the timeline article. ] (]) 07:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC) ::::::::I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say that is most appreciated. I have now finalised the split of the timeline section into the timeline article. ] (]) 07:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{ping|AlanM1}} - References have been removed, and are now alphabetized for easier navigation. Re:Onetwothreeip - Also agree with split, but not necessarily how it was initially done.]] 07:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC) *{{ping|AlanM1}} - References have been removed, and are now alphabetized for easier navigation. Re:Onetwothreeip - Also agree with split, but not necessarily how it was initially done.]] 07:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
::Addendum: ''unused'' refs have been removed, remaining refs have been alphabetized.]] 08:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:36, 25 December 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / South Pacific / British / Dutch / European / French / German / Italian / Middle East / Nordic / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
Dutch military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Nordic military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daniel UCSD (article contribs).
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Section sizes
Section size for US intervention in the Syrian civil war (30 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 49,968 49,968
Background 4,373 8,844
Timber Sycamore and Syrian Train and Equip Program 2,165 2,165
July 2014 rescue mission 1,800 1,800
Surveillance flights over Syria 506 506
US-led coalition against ISIL 1,340 8,927
Support for Kurdish-led ground forces 3,959 3,959
Coalition arming and training of the Syrian opposition 3,628 3,628
Multinational air war 444 13,589
Contributing countries 1,938 1,938
US airstrikes 8,299 11,207
Airstrikes on the Khorasan Group 2,908 2,908
Ground operations 601 35,951
2015–16 4,103 4,103
2017–18 2,498 2,498
2019 drawdown of US ground forces 7,182 15,697
Withdrawal from north Syria 8,515 8,515
2019–20: Eastern Syria redeployment 10,771 10,771
2021–present: Continued Iranian—US proxy conflict 2,281 2,281
Turkish involvement 5,513 8,120
Northern Syria Buffer Zone 2,607 2,607
Reports of civilian casualties and war crimes 7,150 7,150
Results 2,371 2,371
Reactions 16 13,412
Domestic US approval 1,605 1,605
Syrian reactions 2,535 2,535
International reactions 9,256 9,256
See also 885 885
References 108,237 108,237
External links 2,480 2,480
Total 259,934 259,934
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the US intervention in the Syrian civil war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Merger proposal discussion happening on another page

ration. This can be seen with the operation title given to it and the fact they set up a new HQ that deals with both states under one command. (See:Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve). I think this reflects the reality of US led operations and would be more informative for the reader. I also think you can drop "2014" as it is not needed and some events predate 2014. You also don't need "military" as there will be other types of intervention.

Who is ISIL? From an American perspective, isn’t the short hand ISIS? Or are they a JV Team? Thanks for clarifying. PS: including “The Levant” in the enemy’s nom de guerre seems a little ambitious at this point FactsFactsFactsNotFantasy (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Contributing countries

A lot of entries come without any **verification** e. g. link to documents or similar that confirm that country xyz is part of the "coalition". For example, Austria is listed. This is absolutely illogical since Austria is a neutral country by the constitution; neither is Austria part of the NATO. I have thus removed the entry. For anyone who wants to re-add the entry, please CITE THE SOURCE for when it is claimed that Austria is part of any US-led intervention in Syria. It is just illogical because of the constitution of Austria. Without citing a source, it just becomes a lie. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see Austria anywhere in the infobox. You're probably mistaking Australia, a country which is contributing to the operation, to Austria. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American-led intervention in Syria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2017

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 American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War – unopposed, WP:CONSISTENT with the category and similar articles. No such user (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


American-led intervention in Syria → American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War – The intervention is logically in the Syrian Civil War, which is also specifically said in the lead section, while "intervention in Syria" is quite ambiguous in terms of timing and location, especially considering that Syria generally means Syrian Arab Republic, which currently controls only half of its former territory, whereas Syrian Civil War takes place all over; it will also match parallel articles Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War and Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. GreyShark (dibra) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Foreign involvement in Syrian Civil War

Hello, there is an RfC on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War which editors are invited to weigh in on. Thanks, GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comments on White Helmets controversy

Hello, there is an RfC on the White Helmets page, and you're invited to participate.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Invasion?

Is there support for this edit? The body of our article says there are a small number of US ground troops in Syria, mainly training Kurdish forces, and that the US has a garrison on the Jordanian border at al-Tanf and possibly an unpaved runway in Raqqa governorate. Does that constitute an "invasion" and "occupation"? Seems like pretty non-neutral language to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they have more troops in Syria than the Russians have in Ukraine.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Not totally sure how that's relevant, but our Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), which does use the word "invasion" in the hatnote but not in the lead, and doesn't use "occupation" in the lead, says that Russia deployed between 60,000 and 90,000 troops in Ukraine - does US really have more than that in Syria? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, that page really could use some fact-checking. Most of the sources on the issue come exclusively from the Ukrainian Defense Dept. US sources can't confirm the number of Russians inside Ukraine.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, does anyone besides the two of us have any views about the words "invasion" and "occupation" in the lede of this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC) I note since I ask GPRamirez has added two sources for the claim in the lede: an opinion piece in the neocon The National Interest claiming that it is an occupation, written in a contrarian tone indicating this is a minority position, and a WaPo article which says that US troop numbers are higher than often thought but doesn't speak about an occupation except to quote a tailor who things there's an occupation; neither article uses the word "invasion". This seem tendentious to me. The National Interest opinion piece say the US occupies "a third" of Syria, which is I think what Misplaced Pages calls an extraordinary claim, so I really don't think that's a good source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

From neocon National Interest to neolib Washington Post seems like an impressive range of mainstream judgement. I'm really not feeling the classism implicit in dismissing an eyewitness because he happens to be a tailor. And how would one have an occupation without a prior invasion? GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
My point about the neocon magazine is that it's not an RS for a factual claim; it's an opinion, and a contrarian opinion. The WaPo tailor is not wrong because he's a tailor; it's just his opinion being reported in the article, so again not a source for a factual claim. Do reliable sources themselves describe this as an occupation or invasion? Misplaced Pages has an article on invasion: the lead talks about aggressively entering territory controlled by a rival entity, which didn't happen with the US in Syria who have only deployed ground troops in areas controlled by their Kurdish allies, and it talks about scale, which is not the case here where the scale has been limited. I think a word like "incursion" would be more NPOV. We also have an article Military occupation, whose lead talks about control over territory, but what territory does the US control, apart from a couple of airbases? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is why the Ukraine is relevant, as the Russians would claim to be there at the invitation of their "allies" in Donbass and elsewhere. The US has engaged in repeated raids and bombing against other entities both unrecognized like ISIS, and recognized, like the Syrian government.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I changed the body to its former with some changes as I feel the apparent "invasion" and "Occupation" is biased and inaccurate as no Coalition personal have operated in land controlled by the Syrian Government. Ian peay (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

The largest part of this article is the "timeline". This is within the section on the multi-national airwar. however, it seems to include a few things that are not to do with the air war, but rather to do with ground support for Kurds/SDF, or with US presence more generally. Can I propose that we EITHER change the heading hierarchy to make it a timeline of the whole American-led intervention OR move out the non-airwar related items to the relevant sections? I think either of those is simple enough and have no preference, but think it is a bit confusing in its current form. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline for ground operations and air operations should be one, in order to stop confusion and to make article somewhat shorter. Ianp18 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree its confusing. The timeline makes up a large portion of the article and should be either: A. Merge the "Ground Operations" section into the timeline as neat as possible. B. Take out all ground operations related info in the timeline and put it in the correct section C. Change the heading hierarchy or (my personal preference) D. Give the timeline its own article. Thelovelyconch (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think A and C could be the same option, as changing the heading hierarchy to take the timeline out of the airwar section would require it to properly include ground stuff properly. I'm happy with any option apart from (B) as there's no reason to separate air and ground.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see you've already acted Thelovelyconch to do (C). Looks much better. I guess now we can also either merge some ground material in here, or take the timeline out into its own article, which might be a good idea as it is pretty long. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Glamorous imagery

These images in the lead section are bland in terms of defining this event (a smiling solider and a missile in the dark, how unique are these to this event?), and are otherwise chosen to give a glossy, or glamorous appearance to this article. This is against the manual of style. This is a sensitive and controversial subject. It must be completely neutral. ~ R.T.G 21:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agree. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. This article is about the U.S.'s military operations and presence in Syria since the Syrian Civil War and it's Anti-ISIL coalition. It began as a military operation and still is largely so and should be represented as such. The previous pictures had nothing to do with "bias" or "glossy imagery" of war as you bizarrely seem to be concerned about all of a sudden. Having United States soldiers in the lead of a UNITED STATES-led military operation is not only fitting, but important for readers to distinguish the notability of the U.S.'s role.

Your misleading replacement pictures of smiling ambassadors and a random Kurdish fighter as the lead imagery of an article about a years-long US-led operations is not an improvement and is not the status quo of military intervention articles such as this. See American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Shader, and Opération Chammal.

Your bizarre mission to change this article's longstanding lead imagery and replace them without prior consensus of other common editors from the get-go is disruptive editing and does not improve the article at all. Please do not use Misplaced Pages articles to push personal agendas.

Also, for the record, I am open to changing the lead images, but I do not agree with the choice in pictures and the aggressive way you have chosen to do so without prior consensus from other editors. There are better options. RopeTricks (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The previous images should remain until a clear consensus with multiple editors has been achieved on the path forward. RopeTricks (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the status quo in general is to put a map in the lead, often with a flag, and put the gloss and gore farther down the page. Personal agenda? That's a bit of an assumption isn't it? And it's irrelevant. I'm pushing for neutrality. Bizarre? Please explain... ~ R.T.G 02:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, see the examples I linked. Either they all should change or they should be left alone. If you have a properly licensed map that accurately showcases and represents the U.S.'s intervention in Syria, please put it forward.

"Gloss and gore" What? There is no "gloss and gore" or "glamour" in any of the images you replaced. The Tomahawk missile picture represents the opening phase of the Anti-ISIL coalitions airstrikes, which included cruise missile attacks on the opening night. The "smiling soldiers" are U.S. Special Forces soldiers in Northern Syria wearing Kurdish YPJ patches. The photo is candid (as SOF are usually not privy to having pictures taken of them), it is not staged, it is not gory, and it does not glorify or "glamorize" the war at all in any biased way. Its significance is in the fact that it represents the U.S.'s ground presence in Syria and the role US troops have played in the intervention. This should be obvious, and is why they were in the lead in the first place, as the article is about a US-led effort, which requires US troops.

"Personal agenda? That's a bit of an assumption isn't it?" I call it how I see it. Citing WP:BOLD when editing the long-established top images on an article without at the very least seeking consensus from other regular editors on the article (and your justification for doing so) is, from what i've seen, an attempt at WP:COATRACK or something similar while claiming "neutrality".

While, I'm assuming you're doing these edits in good faith, I would've preferred if we did not fall into the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle but here we are. And, again, I dont mind discussing about changing the lead pictures, but at least pick good ones that equally represent the nature of the article, and not pictures with a smiling Russian ambassador and a random Kurd on an article that far extends beyond that scope: The US's ground and air intervention in Syria. RopeTricks (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

These photos lack any sort of originality characterising this particular war, so COATRACK is on that. Your words about the candid nature are misleading and irrelevant. Your words about the Russian ambassador suggest he is just a random face from a crowd, but in fact it is a very specific relevant image, whereas that suggestion can go back on the current pictures, not individually relevant. You deflect the random face about the Kurd, and suggest that it fails to be wide enough for the scope, because it is just a random soldier and a random missile. But that's a boomerang again. Hasn't my bold edit been spot on in this case? Because that is what the current selection are also. The fact you are supporting one over the other, though your words would disqualify them, proves a bias (that is not necessarily a bad thing if we admit it and take the steps to prevent its guiding us, you'll still have your bias when neutrality is secure, I promise you).
Why should this armed conflict not be represented by a map as other conflicts are?
A growing number of attractively posed articles, such as listed in the farther up comment (I assume they are attractively posed, I'll look later), will set a new precedent we do not need. It's not informative content in that position, where a map should be. Take these pictures out, or() place them further down the page, until such time as we have a map and accept the fact, pictures chosen for their attractive appearance in the lead position will glamorise the article, because that's what glamour means. It's not an attack, I promise you (though I am against war generally, but what is weighing me here is anything which incentivises the Turks on this day, rather than some pursuit of Americanism or any of that). This is a sensitive and controversial topic, greater care should be taken in choosing pictures for the lead, just like the words.
I asked Jimbo Wales to comment on this before coming here. He said he would comment without looking at the pictures, he said "it is all the more important to be extremely careful and conservative about the use of potentially emotionally charged images" given that they cannot simply be tinkered around with many times as text can. (it's on his talk page under a similar section heading if you want to read the full text).
I don't want to hide these not-particularly-shocking pictures from the article, but I want to move them off the lead and, given your words that you believe SOP are rarely even privy when photos are taken, show these soldiers a bit of respect and move their faces off the lead section here. The missile picture is certainly dramatic and non shocking, why don't you make it larger than the other pictures, but in the appropriate place which you can probably find exactly from the date on the photo. No I am not against the information here but I am as sure about the impression as I am about the impression on the ones I put (which I really would like to see, but would an equally opposite bias be any more neutral). I'm sorry for the length. It's 5:30am, I don't think it's repetitive or off topic. I'm totally assuming good faith, any sort of emotion is just anxiousness at the current event and lightly reviewed emphasis, goodnight. ~ R.T.G 04:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
"...Because that is what the current selection are also. The fact you are supporting one over the other, though your words would disqualify them, proves a bias". False. My whole point is very simple: The current images of the Tomahawk missile and the US SOF soldiers better represent the majority of the content of this article than the pictures you replaced them with so far. I do not agree that, from the perspective of a neutral reader that just found this article, a picture of US and Russian ambassadors smiling and shaking hands in a photo op represents the totality of the article well (in fact, THAT's the actual "glamourising" you're so worried about) nor is a picture of a lone Kurdish soldier with no given context a better representative of a US-led military intervention than an image of ACTUAL U.S. forces. It's not even about my "bias", it's about which image accurately and objectively represents the content of the lead and the article's content, as a neutral reader would expect. I do not think the images you've chosen so far satisfy that demand, objectively.
I also disagree with your given reasoning for why you want to replace the lead images with your alternatives. The current selection are not shocking, NSFW, or insensitive and they sufficiently represent the article's main content: The U.S.-led Coalition's operations in Syria. It's not about an arbitrary "attractiveness" to "glamorise" the article or the war, it's about which images adequately represent the lead content and the article's content. The images are adequately neutral for representing the nature of the article in the fact that they simply illustrate events and do not argue for a certain perspective, outlook, or side to choose. The informative value comes in the descriptions of the images and what each image represents: The so-called "dramatic" "blurry" Tomahawk image represents the opening phase of the main focus of the article's content. The Second image represents a candid look at the state and nature of actual U.S. ground troops in the war: SOF guys representing US interests on the ground, on patrols, assisting Kurds, etc. US soldiers played a large and significant role on the ground during the duration of the intervention, the article's main subject, from beginning to present and very likely the end. Again, its indeed already neutral due to their sheer significance for the article and role throughout it.
As I've said, if you can find or create your own properly licensed map that represent's the U.S.'s multi-year intervention in Syria, I am for it and welcome it. Otherwise, I contend, the current images should remain, or at the very least, be replace with images that actually represent the intervention itself.
Your mentioning of the Turks in light of the recent Turkish offensive seems to explain the timing of your edit and the root of your motivations for a "neutral" lead image. This sounds like a WP:RECENTISM-motivated action and, if that's the case, I do not agree that it is a sufficient reason to change the images. Goodnight. RopeTricks (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Choosing one over the other is bias, is bias, is bias. That's what bias means. It just means you have a preference. The Kurds are who they were leading. I do not want the Kurd and the Kerry on it, I told you. One does not represent the content any better than the other. That is why a map is best, or nothing. I said nothing, nothing, you were told. There is no need to glamorise this topic in the manner we do proudly for other articles. I didn't attack your pride, I rejected its relevance. They are insensitive both to the subjects and the targets. That missile was not carrying sugar flumps if it just inoffensively happened to hit a primary school. You do not get a free and unusual reign in the absence of a map. What you get is, a map absent. This is an extremely sensitive topic. "The Second image represents a candid look at the state"? I don't want to insult your intelligence. You are reaching beyond the stars now. I am telling you, my motivation is precisely having read the news about this situation on the front page of Misplaced Pages. The fact that I mentioned Turkey or, went to some length, to make any bias I may have obvious, has no bearing to this discussion until it can be shown I am acting on such a bias, not just that I am acting and have a bias.
There is an old adage, You fight fire with fire, but most people do not understand it. You do not simply walk up to a fire and overheat it saying, "My fire is bigger than your fire!" and it goes back the way it came. No, you figure out which way the fire is going. You go there before the fire can reach that point, and you burn a line. You burn all of the fuel out of that line, and when the fire reaches the line, it stops, because it has no fuel to burn. No picture required. Weapons fire and soldiers toting guns are not an image of neutrality. Neither are politicians. Sorry about that. No tricky stuff in this one small area please. ~ R.T.G 08:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I favor a map, much like we have in many similar articles. Does anyone here agree with RopeTricks? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
As a completely uninvolved editor..... I see American soldiers, and without the image caption this could be anywhere. Where is the relation to the article, and especially its lede? A map would do nicely imho. The other pic shows misssiles, which could have been fired anywhere too....again I don't see the relation to the article. Lectonar (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, your harangue about insulting someone's intelligence and fighting fire with fire is irrelevant. I favor a map if any of you can scrounge up one. Until then, the pictures should stay or at the very least, if we absolutely NEED to replace them for some obscure reason, replace them with better pictures with actual U.S. soldiers in Syria, as that is what much of the article's content is about. That's not too hard to comprehend is it?
For the others saying "Those pictures could be anywhere", the exact same argument can be made about RTG's replacement photos of two smiling ambassadors shaking hands and the Kurd in front of a launcher. Where is the russian ambassador's relation to the article, especially its lede? The photo could've been taken anywhere at any time. How do we know its in Syria or about Syria without the image caption? The Kurd could be Iraqi for all a neutral reader would know. Where is the launcher aiming at? Is it firing at ISIS or Turks? This "could be anywhere" argument goes both ways. So, at the very least, be consistent with the critiques. RopeTricks (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Well as RopeTricks seems to agree a map is more relevant and picture selection is arbitrary, I'm going drop the argument and post what maps are available as a separate pointed comment below. ~ R.T.G 22:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support map(s) for the lead as well. Not sure which map exactly–maybe one showing the situation at the start of US intervention, or maybe two maps, one at the start of intervention, and one current. – Levivich 15:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is a map of the war at the time the USA got directly involved (September 2014) File:Syrian civil war september 2014.png and a gif of the war from 2011 to 2019 File:SyrianWarAnimation2011-2019.gif, (there are more than a hundred maps of this war on commons:Category:Maps of the Syrian Civil War but most of them represent the advances of specific belligerents). The gif is pretty simple if it is to be checked for accuracy, and is on use in the article for the timeline of the war. The static map has maybe a couple of hundred or more details and is not currently used on this wiki. I imagine the static map is a better version but I am not sure where to start checking the details as there is no key, and if it is not checked already or from a well trusted contributor, it probably should be checked well... Given that all contributors seem to agree a map would be more informative. As far as I am aware, the map workshops are quite abuzz both on Misplaced Pages and Commons, so if the parameters of a more suitable alternative can be detailed, it may be possible to have that drawn up with a bit of patience... ~ R.T.G 22:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I am the developer of War Map Templates/Modules, including Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. I want to confirm that the map you mention (File:Syrian civil war september 2014.png) is correct. As you can see, it is similar to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/88/20141004202144%21Syrian_civil_war.png which is the version from 22 September 2014 of File:Syrian Civil War map.svg which is the “official” map of the main article (Syrian Civil War). This File:Syrian Civil War map.svg can also be used as a most recent map. Also, I looked at the other one you mention (gif of the war from 2011 to 2019 File:SyrianWarAnimation2011-2019.gif) and could not see any obvious errors. Hope this helps. Tradedia 17:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to go to me, thanks Tradedia, ~ R.T.G 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm going to be bold and assume that this is a consensus and add two maps, the present updated one and the state of the war in September 2014, when this intervention began. The areas of the article the current pictures are dated for already have pictures in them so I better leave those until there is more space there. ~ R.T.G 00:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Page size

This page currently has 421,815 bytes of markup; it's far too big (the references section alone is longer than any artcile should be). What's the best way to divide it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a discussion that RopeTricks and UniSail2 should be involved in. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
My solution is similar to what I said previously in the Timeline discussion section. The Timeline is the heftiest part of this article and will likely continue to expand until the intervention ends. Therefore, fastest way to de-bloat is to give the timeline its own article and just link to it from here. RopeTricks (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Or, of course, we go with WP:NOTNEWS, and we accept that recentism does not make for good article writing. And that we should be writing an encyclopedia with articles--not lists of every individual thing that happened in the world. I just looked at the infobox: it's more ridiculous than a walled garden of K-pop articles. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree the infobox is hard to look at and no one is stopping you from sprucing it up. Andy specifically asked how to divide up the article, and I still contend the immediate solution is to create a separate article for the timeline, in the same vein the Syrian Civil War timeline was subdivided from its parent article; it will also drastically reduce the ridiculous reference section (two birds, one stone). As for recentism and quality editing, I (and hopefully you and every other concerned editor) will comb through the article to remove redundant information, trim unnecessary quotes from officials and other junk. RopeTricks (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
We can certainly do all of the things that have been suggested here. Unfortunately this is all made harder by a bad system of referencing being used for this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
OnetwothreeIP, did you notice that your recent edits turned approximately half of this article's references into citation errors? It shouldn't have to be everyone else's job to clean up after you, but you seem to be causing problems like this on almost every article you edit.
@BullRangifer: @Corker1: @AndewNguyen: @JalenFolf: In the past few days all of you have recently commented on similar problems this user has caused, on four other unrelated articles, so your comments might be valuable here as well. 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I left a message on their talk page about the hundreds of cite errors created here in this article. I first came upon this article from - Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting from the first batch of cite errors they created from trimming the infobox, they reverted my edit and have now split off the timeline into another article and created a mess here. I was unaware of the similar problems this user has caused on four other unrelated articles, but they should certainly clean up one mess before creating any other messes. I don't want to edit war with this user, but this is ridiculous. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@BullRangifer:@AndewNguyen: @JalenFolf: @Isaidnoway:Please review all of the comments on Onetwothreeip's user page. You will find that Onetwothreeip splits articles without seeking or acheiving consensus or notifying previous editors, creates orphan articles, removes links to references in a manner that makes it impossible for others to access original sources and refuses to cooperate with other editors to correct the damage that Onetwothreeip has done to Misplaced Pages.
Please also read the recent history of Onetwothreeip's user page. Onetwothreeip has recently removed comments that I have made on that page without notifying me or performing an "undo" action, which would automatically notify me of these actions. Onetwothreeip may have previously performed such actions earlier in response to other critical comments that editors have placed on Onetwothreeip's user page.
Because of this repeated pattern of non-cooperativeness and deception, Onetwothreeip's actions need to be reported to Misplaced Pages's administrators for appropriate corrective action. If you wish to report Onetwothreeip's actions to the administrators, please proceed.
It would be best if more than one editor reports Onetwothreeip's misuse of Misplaced Pages. Please therefore inform me of any action that you may take. I will follow-up with a similar action.
Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868: Please see above. If you concur, you can initiate the process by informing Misplaced Pages's administrators of Onetwothreeip's actions.
Thank you. Corker1 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The correct place to make such a report would be Misplaced Pages:AN or Misplaced Pages:ANI, with diffs showing his pattern of behavior. I agree that this needs to be done, but I'm the wrong person to do it. It should be done by an experienced Wikipedian, not by an unregistered user. 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I don't want the apparent errors in the references list either, and I totally agree that those error messages should be removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of the hullaballoo over reference errors and copy-pasted personal grievances, are there any objections to the timeline being split into a new article? This seems like the most straightforward way to split the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Support splitting the article as long as the orphaned reference issue is handled smoothly. RopeTricks (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely. Do we have any volunteers for fixing up the reference errors? Hopefully editors will understand that any errors that do appear will be temporary, and that a split is necessary on this article. I have already created the split article, and another editor has removed the redundant references there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the reference errors at the Timeline article and am willing to fix them here. We definitely shouldn't leave the situation as it is, with the Timeline present both in this article and separately, as they will quickly become different. I support the split, as this page is unreasonably long and this is a sensible way to fix it. Pinging @MrX, Onetwothreeip, Corker1, and BullRangifer. —— 05:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say that is most appreciated. I have now finalised the split of the timeline section into the timeline article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: unused refs have been removed, remaining refs have been alphabetized. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:US intervention in the Syrian civil war: Difference between revisions Add topic