Talk:Syrian civil war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Date, Process ...
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 20, 2011, March 26, 2011, March 31, 2011, April 9, 2011, April 21, 2011, April 23, 2011, April 26, 2011, November 13, 2011, July 16, 2012, May 6, 2013, and July 25, 2018.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 15, 2016, March 15, 2019, and December 8, 2025.
Close
More information Project Israel To Do:, This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: ...
Close
More information Copied pages: ...
Close
More information Remedy instructions and exemptions ...
Close
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War, Not moved, 17 July 2023, Discussion

|oldlist=

  • RM, Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War, Not moved, 9 June 2012, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War, Not moved, 2 July 2012 Discussion
  • RM, Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War, Moved to Syrian Civil War (2011–present), 15 July 2012, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian Civil War (2011–present) → Syrian civil war, Moved to Syrian Civil War, 23 July 2012, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war, Moved, 6 August 2012, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Arab Spring war, Not moved, 7 September 2013, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War, Moved, 24 November 2013, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian Civil War → War in Syria, Not moved, 5 November 2015, Discussion
  • RM, Technical request, Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war, Moved, 14 May 2016, technical move with no discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War, Moved, 24 May 2016, Discussion
    • MRV of 24 May 2016 RM, Relisted, 1 June 2016, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war, Moved, 22 June 2016, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War, No consensus, 18 August 2016, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Turco-Syrian war, Not moved, 27 August 2016, Discussion
    • MRV of 22 June 2016 RM, Overturned, 27 August 2016, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war, Moved, 15 January 2020, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War, Procedural close, 30 January 2020, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War, Procedural close, 19 May 2020, Discussion
  • RM, Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil War, Not moved, 11 February 2021, Discussion

}}

Belligerents?

With the war over, the total list of belligerents is over. Should the process of having the actual table now be started? I don't think every single battalion needs to be included, especially (as is often the case) if they're under the command of a larger group (for example, in the table shown on the List of armed factions during the Syrian civl war, "Western leftist/anarchist YPG volunteers" are presented even though they were a part of YPG International which itself is just a part of the YPG). I think articles of reference would be the Lebanese Civil War, the Second Libyan Civil War, and Russian Civil War. Remikipedia (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Support table Makes sense to me, and you make some good points 😄 You seem to have a vision in mind on how to do this, so I recommend being BOLD and implementing it yourself, and if there's any significant problems, we can start a more in-depth discussion on the talk page. Cheers! Johnson524 08:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Where do you propose placing this list of factions? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
If I'm understanding the question correctly, list of factions are placed over causalities and strengths in the war infobox. Currently, the current infobox only links to another page that has a highly-detailed table of the belligerents. Remikipedia (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Then I suggest you read this RfC as to why this is not a good idea. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I read it now and I think that decision made sense back then but doesn't fit anymore. It should first be mentioned that the Syrian Civil War isn't a entire new case as there has been multi-sided civil wars before. They had as many factions and groups as it. I've mentioned them (Lebanon, Libya, Russia). So it shouldn't at all be impossible for a table to be found that isn't ridiculously huge while still summarizing the article/being informative. Alternatives, shorten ones, were also presented though no one discussed them so it was dead in the water (at least it seems like that from the discussion post). I think the two best springboards would be the Lebanese and Libyan civil wars since both had large factional counts and foreign interventions. It helps that the Libyan case was recent too. So, it would be best if we start figuring out how to formulate this. I tried to look back at older, previously beligerated, infoboxes of the Syrian Civil War but it seems like the template name has been changed recently so now it's gone.
There are, I think, two ways the belligerents could be divided: one could be umbrella factions and the other is individual. The first is something like the Russian Civil War, with 6 umbrella factions: Bolsheviks, White movement, Independence movements, anti-bolshevik left, allied powers, central powers. Each umbrella faction then presents members such as Bolshevik SSRs, independent states, allied states, etc, and then in the strength section you have the actual armies (red army, black army, white armies, etc). Then there's the is the individual division. Instead of an umbrella faction being named, it just presents the group followed by their affiliates. This is what the Lebanese and Libyan pages do. There are pros and cons to each, the umbrella one is cleaner while the individual one is more detailed. The one issue with the umbrella one for this case would be, what would be the name of the umbrella factions? Ba'athists/Government, Opposition, Islamists and Kurds ? Well the Islamists are also opposed to the Ba'athist government but there's a difference between ISIS and the early Free Syrian Army. Maybe "Secular opposition" but many of those that weren't fundamentalists also weren't secularists. Which one would HST be? Also "Kurds" is a whole can of worms. So I'd be for the individual variation.
The only question to be asked with the individual variation, who gets included? For example, for the not-fundamentalist-not-kurds-opposition would it be: Syrian National Council, Syrian National Coalition, Syrian Interim Government and then Southern Front (who whatever was the official name of the governing body if there was one). In the strneght section, the Free Syrian Army can be marked as decentralized after 2015(?) and show prominent military groups connected to it (such as the Syrian National Army, National Front for Liberation, Revolutionary Commando Army. I'd put the salvation government and HTS (in the strength section) in the column of islamists, though with a horizontal separation from ISIS.
I'll mock up a template here later when I have the time, I'm just laying out ideas. It doesn't have to be complicated at all, and looking at the preliminary ideas that Oloddin presented, it's not anymore huge than Libya or Lebanon. Remikipedia (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support: I was BOLD and restored the table of factions. It was reverted despite the current talk page consensus to list the belligerents now the war is over. It looks like we will get updated belligerents sooner or later, but it could still use a bit more streamlining. The Lebanese Civil War infobox could be a good example to follow. --Plumber (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I hardly think that this discussion is sufficient to overturn the RfC by which this information was removed from the infobox or the broader community consensus expressed in the guidance at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - that the information is too detailed and too nuanced and unreasonably bloats the infobox. The infobox at Lebanese Civil War suffers the same problems. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
There is currently the talk page consensus to add the list of belligerents. Additionally, a RfC discussion from 2023 (when Syria was regarded as a frozen conflict) is hardly relevant since the Fall of the Assad regime in 2024. --Plumber (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Please see WP:CONLEVEL and consensus is not a vote. Agreement between a small number of editors at an article TP carries nowhere near the weight of an RfC that draws comments from the wider community. The arguments made then in respect to bloat, nuance and detail (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) are no less valid now that they were when the RfC was closed. It is also inappropriate for an involved editor to declare a consensus in their favour and act upon it. Subsequently, Moxy has tagged the article with {{Infobox too large}}. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Was unaware there was an ongoing dispute..... my only concern is accessibility as outlined at Wikipedia:Infobox too large. Whatever the outcome there's simply no reason to sandwich all the text in the lead... figure out a better format I guess. I've seen this fix before. Moxy🍁 02:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
I suggest using the infobox for "Iranian intervention in the Syrian civil war" as a template Inspiring Philosophy (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
This is a good suggestion. If there are concerns about the infobox making the page too long, the page Template:Syrian civil war infobox should be recreated. --Plumber (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

War Ended In 2026

The integration of the Kurds and their Syrian territories after a final brief, but intense, period of fighting occurred in early 2026. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

See Syrian conflict (2024–present), cheers! Johnson524 02:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. There was far longer lulls in fighting before Assad fell, sometimes several years. The period between the Fall of Assad and the conquest and integration of Kurdish controlled regions was only around 11 months or so. And there were actually brief periods of intense fighting throughout 2025 between the Syrian State and Druze and Kurds and others as they solidified control.
So it wasn’t even a full 11 months without war. Ultimately all Syrian territory wasn’t unified under a single party again until early 2026. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
I hate to link a long discussion, but please read the points brought up (and consensus made in) Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 58#End of war & collage. Johnson524 02:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I did, it’s wrong. ~2026-87094-9 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Is the Syrian civil war, there is still the Syrian conflict (2024–present), which sees conflicts between the Syrian government and Kurds, Alawites, Druze, and Israel? Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2026

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There are a numerical majority of editors favoring a move, but, per WP:NOTAVOTE, adherence to policy is a more important factor. Though supporters point out that the term is used by reliable sources and emphasize consistency, relying on WP:COMMON NAME, opposers correctly invoke WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, showing that lowercase usage remains prevalent enough (even in the recent years following the conflict's active phase) to prevent the requisite conditions from being reached. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Syrian civil war → Syrian Civil WarSyrian Civil War – As the war has concluded, it is time to talk again about moving the article page. Many sources already describe it in its capital form and as it being a major event, having influenced Syria by a lot, should it be moved to keep consistency with other civil war articles such as the Lebanese Civil War? Prior discussions were held before the fall of the Assad Regime and should be settled indefinitely now. TheDeredzh (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 21:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 00:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Oppose - most other pages on Wikipedia have the pages called "civil war" rather than "Civil War" so I rather keep it as "Syrian civil war" Cityboiiiiii (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Lebanese Civil War, Greek Civil War, Algerian Civil War, Nepalese Civil War, Ethiopian Civil War, Finnish Civil War, First Sudanese Civil War, etc... is the common trend, only Yemen, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar don't follow this structure in their recent civil wars due to unclear nomenclature (Libya, with many names for the wars) and the others still going on, making set names diffcult. Most of the rest are capitilzed. So, no, it is wrong to say that most articles say it is lowercase while the opposite is true. If a civil war lies in the past and the name has become engrained with no amiguity, then that generally becomes capitilized as would be the case here. TheDeredzh (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support: Similar to what I commented above, capitalization does appear to be the COMMONNAME among other tertiary sources 1, 2, 3, and the trend on Wikipedia. Looking other at articles with "civil war" in the title in Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Asia, the ratio is 13:5 (72%), meaning capitalization is established enough in my opinion. Cheers! Johnson524 21:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONAME and the past consensus for the last 3/4 of the past votes on this talk page over the same move. --Plumber (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support without a doubt. Obvious reason is WP:COMMONNAME and the lack of capitalization is completely unwarranted and unexplained regardless. It is a significant world event (and likely will be viewed a big historical event) so similar to the examples you gave, the first letter of each word should be capitalized. HarvardJock (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sitewide guidelines at MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are clear that we only render things in title case if they are consistently rendered as a proper name in a substantial majority of sources. This one clearly isn't, as evidenced by NGRAMs and in myriad reliable sources such as the BBC, the Guardian, World Food Program, New York Times (these three refer to it as Syria's civil war), UK parliament etc. While nobody would dispute that some sites render Syrian Civil War as a proper name, it would require a substantial majority of sources for us to follow suit, and that doesn't appear to be the case. The rationale here doesn't seem to address any of the points made in the previous RMs, no evidence is provided that sources overwhelmingly capitalise this, and arguments such as "the war has ended" and "it is a significant world event" do not play a part in capitalisation discussions. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Syria's civil war and the Syrian civil war constitute different things. The former deliberatly avoids this name entirely, using a generic name. TheDeredzh (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    Also, the NGRAMS are stuck in 2022, 4 years ago and 2 years prior the end of the war. And most of the usage is derived, ironically, from the Wikipedia site ending in a loop. TheDeredzh (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    You say the ngrams are "stuck in 2022" but there's nothing to suggest that they would have significantly changed in the years since then, and the onus is on you as the move proposer to provide evidence that something has changed significantly. I'm also not convinced by the argument that Wikipedia had anything to do with it... between 2013 and 2016 the article title was Syrian Civil War, but ngrams still showed a clear lead for Syrian civil war in those and every other years. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Amakuru. CAPS is the relevant guideline here; COMMONNAME does not dictate capitalization over CAPS. Wallnot (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Names of wars are capitalized. The common name of this war is Syrian Civil War. Some sources uses the general term of civil war by saying "the civil war in Syria", "Syria's civil war", etc, but that doesn't negate the common name of the war. Even other wars such as the English Civil War and Greek Civil War are sometimes spelt uncapitalized in some sources. Dash9Z (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per above discussion and MOS:MILTERMS. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Per above and especially per WP:COMMONNAME. —~2026-25139-94 (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. MarcusTraianus (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation) ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Support per MOS:MILTERMS. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per the status quo, and also because either way this existing version of the title will probably become a redirect. and also WP:COMMONNAME.
KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose I realized that just because there's a majority of articles with "Civil War" does not mean that it should automatically follow that pattern too. Also WP:COMMONNAME isn't really a reason here. And I skimmed through a fraction of article source titles and there's less capitalization than more.
KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment – this page was closed as "moved" earlier today, but has now been reopened following a query I made at User talk:GearsDatapacks#Syrian civil war. Although there are a number of "Support" !votes in this discussion, it is important to remember that RM is WP:NOTAVOTE: the outcome is determined by policy and evidence, not by headcount. I provided evidence above, including ngrams and examples from major reliable sources, showing that the conditions for MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS are not clearly met here. Likewise, the conditions for capitalising under MOS:MILTERMS are not satisfied, as that guideline states "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized" (emphasis mine). Unless evidence is provided showing that these guidelines support a move, I do not think the move should proceed solely on the basis of a numerical majority. This is also a contentious topic, so ensuring that any close is clearly grounded in policy rather than numerical !votes is particularly important. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    So is this discussion still open or will there be removal of various comments that just have a singular policy as their evidence? KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
    Hi, previous closer here. The discussion will remain open until someone else decides to close it (I won't intervene again). No comments will be removed, but whoever does close it will take into account the actual arguments of each side, so a comment simply saying "Support" will likely be disregarded, as it doesn't make a convincing argument. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 14:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
In light of this I have relisted the discussion again as I think a WP:NOTAVOTE close against the majority vote without warning is less than ideal considering the topic area. Instead, I think the best option is to make it perfectly clear to support !voters what they have to do and to give them a chance to do so, that of course being to provide evidence for why Amakuru's refutation of their arguments. As for the above question about removal of comments; no, !votes are not removed or stricken simply for having weak arguments, but if no evidence is provided after this relisting those !votes are likely to simply be disregarded by the closer. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
To be clear this is just what I think personally and if an uninvolved editor deems that there is a consensus against the move based on strength of arguments and they disagree with me that it's best to give an opportunity to the !support voters here they can close the discussion right away as relistings do not have to elapse before a close can be done. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Skitash (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Support-Per Common Name, per Wikipedia convention on other articles (English Civil War, American Civil War, plus many articles listed above in a response to the opening vote) and how the English language generally works. I honestly have no idea why this article is different. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
    The above two !votes state "COMMONNAME" as if that's a silver bullet here, but as with other comments above, it simply doesn't match the facts on the ground. Firstly, the common name is the lower case form, the ngrams have established that. And secondly, COMMONNAME doesn't govern capitalisation discussions anyway. WP:NCCAPS is what we follow, and the very high bar demanded by that guideline is not by any stretch of the imagination met. It can hardly be substantial majority of sources if it's actually capitalised in a minority of sources. These arguments can be entirely disregard. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: I'm genuinely not sure how the string of COMMONNAME !votes came about: the argument is very weak if stated alone as you point out, and I feel takes away from the more valid !supports. That being said, I believe NCCAPS is actually met through the use of the capitalized title by several prominent tertiary sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, Global Conflict Tracker, Statista, Air University Library, Lumen Learning. It's actually quite hard to find a tertiary source that uses the current lowercase title, which is why I believe this article should be capitalized to reflect that; ngrams shouldn't be the only thing taken into consideration for NCCAPS. I'd love to hear what you think though, cheers! Johnson524 20:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    The guideline does not make a distinction between "tertiary" sources and others, everything is co-equal in this regard. The point is to highlight cases where all sources capitalise, and it is universally treated as a proper name (cases like World War II and American Civil War come to mind) versus those that are a mixed bag. Where it's a mixed bag, out guidelines say we don't treat it as a proper name. It's really very simple. There are inevitably some borderline cases that you could call either way where most sources capitalise but those that don't are also a significant minority. But this isn't such a case. The dial for Syrian civil war is firmly on the 50/50 or even majority uncapitalised part of the spectrum; and as such, this is really an open and shut case. Short of changing the guidelines in some way (which would require a lot of consultation and an RfC) or a proven and unambiguous change of usage across all sources, there is no prospect of this article being moved. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Amakuru. The capitalisation is inconsistent in present day still: , , , . – robertsky (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say present day: all but the first source you listed are two or three years old, and are from when the war was still ongoing. The more-timeless tertiary sources (including Encyclopedia Britannica, which I mentioned in an earlier !vote) have stuck with the capitalized spelling FWIW. Johnson524 18:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Feeglgeef: Me and Amakuru were in an active discussion literally one hour ago... I didn't even get a chance to respond. What was the rush to close? :/ Johnson524 23:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The RM is 29 days old, well beyond the point at which it should be closed (so not a "rush"). I hadn't actually looked at the timestamps, and I can reopen it for you if you really want, but I don't think it has any chance of changing consensus. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Should we mark the Syrian Civil War as still ongoing?

Is the Syrian civil war, there is still the Syrian conflict (2024–present), which sees conflicts between the Syrian government and Kurds, Alawites, Druze, and Israel?

What criteria defines the Syrian Civil War as being a separate conflict form the Syrian conflict (2024–present)? Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138 I hate to link long discussions, but I recommend reading the various points brought up in Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 58#End of war & collage, which unanimously agreed the ongoing Syrian conflict (2024–present) is separate from the civil war. Johnson524 18:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Don't hate it I appreciate it. I can see both sides. It seems that to quote Cinderella157
" If the civil war is narrowly construed as a war to oust the Assad regime, then the war is over. However, the scope of the article tells us that the war was not just various factions fighting to remove the Assad regime but there has also been warring between factions "
She goes into how some sources say it is over and others it is ongoing, but that some believe it is on a sort of hiatus/ lull in the storm.
In any case I think I lean more towards the consensus view, however I see Cinderella's point, though we are not a crystal ball so we cannot 100% verify how this conflict or conflicts (take your pick), will evolve.
That being said follow up question for you. If the majority of news/ history soruces later majority claim or change their mind that the the Syrian conflict (2024–present) was actually still going, would be reopen this dicussion and consider the post assad reletive peace and the Syrian conflict (2024–present) as a new phase in the war? Historyguy1138 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
I just made a ce to the lead that clarifies the status. It was also a key part of the consensus building in regarding the discussion in the RfC. We are calling it over because the sources are saying it is, not withstanding recentism etc that I raised in the discussion. Again, what was part of the discussion consensus building was that we may have to revisit this if the consensus in sources starts telling us that the civil war is sill ongoing and that everybody got it wrong - my recollection is that that was also part of the consensus building. However, this is not something to be done lightly. It is not something to be done simply on the basis that fighting still continues. There needs to be a strong source based case for revisiting this. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Ah very good. Thank you very much. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Cinderella157 Johnson524 On a related note what are your thoughts on the United States intervention in Syria?
Is the war involving the United States over and did it end in April or February? The infobox says it ended 16 April 2026.
The 2025–2026 United States airstrikes in Syria ended on February 12, but I see no where that the conflict ended in April 16. Am I missing something?
Thanks (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Actually wait I see the United States evacuated the The Qasrak base, located in northeast Syria, on April 2026. Question though if the United States shot at ISIS again in the near future from another base in the Middle East, would this be considered a continuation of the conflict, or a new conflict? Or is this conflict dependent on a U.S. base presence in Syria? Thanks. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
It would probably be a different event but ultimately, it depends on what the sources say. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Ah very good thanks. I am working on another article that covers it, so I want to make sure the matter is closed before I update it. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Demographics section is very inaccurate

The demographics section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Demographics) has some serious problems.

To quote said section : "By ethnic groups, Syria was approximately Arab 50%, Alawite 15%, Kurd 10%, Levantine 10% and 15% of other ethnic groups (includes Druze, Ismaili, Imami, Assyrian, Turkmen and Armenian)."

It makes no sense to say "50% Arab" and then "15% Alawite". Alawites are arab, in the sense that they speak arabic and are considered as such. "Alawite" or "Druze" is a religious designation. Yes you can say it's ethnoreligious, but that doesn't mean they're not arab. Same goes for "Levantine", what does it even mean? The hyperlink links to the page about the Levantine arab dialect, which furthers the confusion. Same for the "arab" hyperlink which links to the page "Syrians".

The issue seems to come directly from the source.

Maybe what is meant by "Arab" and "Levantine" is the distinction between Bedouin arabs and Levantine arabs respectively, maybe someone can enlighten me on that. GioGio (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI