Talk:Syrian peace process

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Syrian peace process, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Syria Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Politics and law Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Military history: Middle East / Russian & Soviet C‑class

This 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 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

International relations Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 "<party/ies> 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)[reply]

@Greyshark09: 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 — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not peace, but cease-fire and i've just added it.GreyShark (dibra) 06:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/near-verbatim-transcript-press-conference-un-special-envoy-syria-staffanCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).), and UN overview page Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpPages%29/A45B5560F87E2336C1257F4700646029?OpenDocumentCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).) and 13-27 April 2016 (source: UN statement Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/mediators-summary-13-27-april-round-un-facilitated-intra-syrian-talks-28Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)., 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: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpPages%29/A45B5560F87E2336C1257F4700646029?OpenDocumentCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).). 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)[reply]