Talk:US intervention in the Syrian civil war

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2022 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 17:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to go to me, thanks Tradedia, ~ R.T.G 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support map(s) for the lead - more neutral. Current images go in the body. No to the diplomats image. starship.paint (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support map(s) for the lead I agree, that is more appropriate. Its what is used and other articles for military conflicts. Dream Focus 01:23, 14 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia:AN or Wikipedia: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. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 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)

@AlanM1: Thanks for the ping, but it looks like the split has already been done. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• @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. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: unused refs have been removed, remaining refs have been alphabetized. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2019

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: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

---

American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War → American-led intervention in Syria (2014–present) – This is consistant with the other article title (American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present)) and it says when the intervention began and which civil war. The current article only says Syrian civil war, it doesnt say when the U.S. interfered. SharabSalam (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If title contains (2014-present) then there is an implication that another article contains "American-led intervention in Syria" prior to 2014. If such an article exists (which I can not find) then it would be appropriate to make the move you suggested. Having dates in the title should only occur if they are being used to separate identiacal titles with differnet dates. Otherwise there are millions of Wikipedia pages whose titles would have to change just to add the date range when they occur. I would suggest ensuring the date range is very clear in the lead at the top of the origianal page. Boston1775 (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As for your rational regarding the page titled "American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present)" my same comment from above applies. I could not find a wikipedia page titled "American-led intervention in Iraq" that has an earlier date range. Therefore I woudl recommend that the year be removed from the Iraq page and ensure the date range is once again clear in the lead at the top of the page. This would solve your rational for making the pages consistent. In the future if other pages are created with earleir date ranges then having the dates in teh title would be a good idea. Note If pages on Iraq and Syria in regards to earlier American involment actually exist and I have not been able to find them, please direct me to them. Thank you. Boston1775 (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2020 (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.