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 arbitration enforcement noticeboard or 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. 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!

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Politics and law Low‑importance 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 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 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 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

I am wondering about the "reconciliation flag" that is used to illustrate the page. Was it used by anyone on an official basis or was it just created on Wikipedia ? Psychloppos (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should we start including information about efforts to end the new phase of the war? Charles Essie (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It might be useful to include the negotiations to merge the armed factions under the new ministry of defense. Psychloppos (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like the al-Sharaa vs SDF POVs on how to do the "integration" are quite far from converging as of late August 2025, and that that will only happen together with political unification of some sort. I'm trying to keep the section on this page vs Federalization of Syria#Post-Assad to be complementary: this page makes sense to be about negotiations, while the nitty-gritty (if we can find the sources) of the proposed structures can go on the Federalization page for the AANES/Suwayda/West-Central regions. Details of continuing with al-Sharaa's unitary state proposal could go into 2025 Interim Constitution of Syria and a future followup article on a new post-Assad Syrian constitution (although that might end up being decentralised anyway). Boud (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply