Talk:Syrian revolution#Requested move 19 July 2023

: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. When assessing requested move (and other) discussions on Wikipedia, it is important to note that our view of WP:CONSENSUS is not arrived at by counting heads. Rather, the closer must view the !votes cast by viewing the strength of arguments in those votes in light of policy and guideline. In this case, we're being asked to consider a move from the sentence-case title Syrian revolution to the title-case Syrian Revolution, with the nominator appealing to WP:NCCAPS as a rationale. But the wording of WP:NCCAPS says that titles are only capitalized if they are proper names, and that proper names are determined as those {{xt|"that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence"}}. This is the crux of the detailed oppose given by Cinderella and others below, which provide solid evidence in the form of ngrams, Google Scholar, Google news and others, that there are numerous and wide-ranging sources that don't capitalise this term. Indeed, the ngram shows the two variants neck-and-neck. This fundamental appeal to evidence and our sitewide guidelines is not effectively refuted by any of the support !votes. Most of these seem to simply assert that the title is a proper name simply because they believe it to be so. There are some which cite WP:CONSISTENCY, but again this doesn't seem to be backed-up by actual facts on the ground - :Category:21st-century revolutions is a completely mixed bag for example. So, in summary, although the supports appear to outnumber the opposes by around 12:5, the consensus when viewed through the lens of policy and guideline is against the move. If those in support don't like this, then they should seek consensus to amend WP:NCCAPS or MOS:CAPS in such a way that the proposed title would be compliant.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

----

:Syrian revolution → {{no redirect|Syrian Revolution}} – Per WP:NCCAPS and WP:COMMONAME. There is also the precedent of every other revolution page capitalizing the word Revolution because it is a proper name (WP:NCCAPS). Plumber (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

— Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support although not for the specified reason. Sources use the capped version ([https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/syrian-revolution-story-politics-not-climate-change] [https://www.npr.org/2025/02/14/1231335543/the-iconic-singer-of-the-syrian-revolution]) so we should use it too. The whole "lowercase everything" crusade is getting tiresome. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Also per consistency, as most other revolution articles use uppercase. Consistency is one of the five criteria – a policy, outranking NCCAPS, which is only a guideline. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose See consensus at #Requested move 19 July 2023 leading to lowercase. The pertinent issues for lowercase remain the same. WP:COMMONNAME identifies the name (words) to be used but not the capitalisation. WP:LOWERCASE addresses the capitalisation of those words: {{tq|words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text}}. It invokes WP:NCCAPS which states not to capitalise {{tq|unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence}} [emphasis added]. It also tells us not to use capitalisation when used for other reasons (emphasis or significance falling to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Syrian+revolution&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 This] ngram clearly shows that Syrian Revolution is a long way from being always capped. The ngram evidence is confirmed against a search of Google books [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Syrian+revolution%22&sca_esv=27309af22ed8fbd1&udm=36&ei=jBGwZ7rJOvmfseMPk5uC0Qw&start=0&sa=N&sstk=Af40H4Ubl86HQ1oRCW3GL3XIUyZQTWW8vLKXnNw4c0sOxiiljjbnIcILpRchPycnT0O0Tse7xvE_IplwLLhsDtPsHSHg8mvGLw1xdwJ3VNBr_gGGCf-OBiud2aRv2J8cBcWteqAnKGdIWF2PIAprviGG9AISEZYrDvQ&ved=2ahUKEwi6v7S-5cSLAxX5T2wGHZONIMo4FBDy0wN6BAgDEAQ&biw=2172&bih=1077&dpr=0.88 here]. Looking for prose usage rather than expected titlecase usage (titles of sources and headings etc), on the first page it is lowercase five times, uppercase three times and two sources could not be previewed. A review of Google scholar[https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2022&q=%22Syrian+Revolution%22&btnG=] and Google news[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Syrian+revolution%22&sca_esv=27309af22ed8fbd1&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiehozG5cSLAxUhV2wGHXAmM-4Q0pQJegQIAhAJ&biw=2172&bih=1077&dpr=0.88] clearly shows inconsistent capitalisation. While well known historical revolutions are often capitalised (eg French Revolution see ngram [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=French+revolution&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 here]), it is false to say there is a {{tq|precedent of every other revolution page capitalizing the word Revolution}}. Just for a sample: Colour revolution, German revolution of 1918–1919, Iranian revolution, Tunisian revolution, Romanian revolution and 1919 Egyptian revolution. Furthermore, an argument of WP:OTHERCONTENT being made by the OP would assume that those which are capitalised are correctly capitalised. Ngram evidence would indicate we should not be capping Ethiopian Revolution,[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ethiopian+Revolution&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3] Belgian Revolution,[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=+Belgian+Revolution&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3] Mongolian Revolution of 1911,[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Mongolian+Revolution&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3] or Rwandan Revolution[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Rwandan+Revolution&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3] - as a small sample. Of those lowercase examples I give, Iranian revolution, Tunisian revolution and 1919 Egyptian revolution have been the subject of RM discussions that have affirmed lowercasing. The proposal is inconsistent with the prevailing P&G and evidence of usage across multiple samples of sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose per Cinderella—and I know that consistency is, for some reason, a standard sometimes applied in titling, but this RM is a great example of why that principle makes no sense. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCCAPS and User:Cinderella157 (sic). WP:NCCAPS reads "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." The Syrian Revolution is proper name as it refers to a specific revolution in Syria and not a general phenomenon of revolution in Syria. Clicking through from User:Cinderella157's Google results to the actual sources reveals a large majority of references to this conflict are capitalised. For example, the first result in the list of [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2022&q=%22Syrian+Revolution%22&btnG= Google Scholar results] shows a lowercase r, but the source itself uses a capital R. All of the other sources on that page save one use the capital. —  AjaxSmack  06:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Your quote of WP:NCCAPS is a misrepresentation by omission. More fully, WP:NCCAPS tells us that we capitalise proper nouns and they are always capitalised in prose ergo, if the words are not always capitalised in sources, they cannot be proper nouns. Syrian Recolution is not even close to being always capitalised. I suggest you relook at the Google scholar [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2022&q=%22Syrian+Revolution%22&btnG= results]. The first result links [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-86468-2_27 here]: Akhmedov, V.M. (2022). The Syrian Revolution. In: Goldstone, J.A., Grinin, L., Korotayev, A. (eds) Handbook of Revolutions in the 21st Century. Societies and Political Orders in Transition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86468-2_27. The chapter can be accessed through [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ The Wikipedia Library]] and the first sentence of that chapter reads: {{tq|The Syrian revolution, which began in March 2011, degenerated into a bloody civil war that pushed the country into both a secessionist upheaval and the breakdown of the population’s national identity.}} If one looks through the first page of the Google scholar search, I see Syrian revolution (lowercase) in snippets/titles for articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9. Some, such as 2 show both upper and lowercase, which is either mixed capitalisation or uppercase in things like references. In the case of 2, the link to the full article[http://centerprode.com/ojsh/ojsh0701/coas.ojsh.0701.01001m.pdf] shows mixed capitalisation in prose: {{tq|The Syrian revolution has had a profound impact on US foreign policy ...}}; {{tq|The Syrian revolution broke out in March 2011...}}; {{tq|The Syrian revolution began as a peaceful protest movement in March 2011 ...}}; {{tq|Considering these developments, this article seeks to examine how the Syrian revolution has impacted US foreign policy}} and, {{tq|The impact of the Syrian revolution on US foreign policy illustrates the complexity ...}}. If you think the sources indicate a large majority of capitalisation, then I will have some of what your smoking. Furthermore, a large majority of references to this conflict are capitalised is not the standard WP:NCCAPS tells us to use. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS in light of the source statistics (linked above) that indicate it's capped in sources less than half the time. Dicklyon (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, this is a proper name (per AjaxSmack). Proper names are uppercased on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support - proper names are to be capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. When there is mixed capitalization in sources, as there is in this case (see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Syrian+Revolution&year_start=2010&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=0&case_insensitive=true ngrams]), I think that the WP:TITLE criteria of consistency gains importance. I am unconvinced by arguments that Wikipedia itself made the capitalized form prominent, since it seems clear that over time the capitalized version of "[X] Revolution" gains in usage over the uncapitalized form, as the event becomes more established in historical memory. I consider the ngrams for [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Hungarian+Revolution&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true Hungarian Revolution] and [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Cuban+Revolution&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true Cuban Revolution] as good evidence for how the ngrams for "Syrian Revolution" vs "Syrian revolution" will likely look farther in the future. There is also of course the criteria of recognizability, i.e. this article isn't about the idea of a revolution which is also Syrian (like socialist revolution), but a real event that happened in 2011{{ndash}}2024. — Goszei (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks for your contribution. Taking them all together, WP:TITLE, WP:NCCAPS, and WP:COMMONNAME all strongly support a capitalized Syrian Revolution. --Plumber (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The support argument is not based on a sound understanding of policy. If it's not consistently capitalized in RS, we shouldn't either—regardless of whether it's considered a proper noun. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per User:Chicdat ManU9827 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Skitash (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:*Support. Syrian Revolution is a proper noun, just like American Revolution, French Revolution, and Russian Revolution.

:Mast303 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. All other "Revolution" is capitalised: French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, July Revolution etc. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support moving the page title to "Syrian Revolution". Capitalisation of 'R' will make this page's title consistent with the titles of other similar articles.

: Additionally, the term "Syrian Revolution" has become more popular, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Syrian+revolution%2CSyrian+Revolution&year_start=2011&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false according to Ngram results]. This means that the proposed title is also a common name. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

::Per the ngram you listed, both capitalizations are about the same level of popularity. According to policy wp only capitalizes if it's "consistently capitalized in reliable sources". The very source you cite here proves that's not the case. Hope that the closer looks at the arguments and evidence rather than doing a vote count. (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. (TL;DR: MOS:CAPS's general standard has "{{tq|exceptions for specific cases}}", including a specific standard in {{section link|MOS:CAPS|Military terms}} for use of "Revolution": whether it is "{{tq|usually capitalized in sources}}".) {{pb}}Title policy at WP:LOWERCASE incorporates the standard for capitalization "{{tq|in running text}}", which is primarily MOS:CAPS. Meanwhile, WP:NCCAPS's "{{tq|that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence}}" does not mean "always" in the sense that nobody has ever written the phrase in lowercase, contrary to Cinderella157's argument, but instead means in all parts of the article (whether "mid-sentence" or in the title or heading or some other context). NCCAPS itself incorporates MOS:CAPS, saying "{{tq|For details on when to capitalize on Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style sections on capital letters}}". {{pb}}Now, while that would normally mean this should be lowercase when there is mixed use in sources, MOS:CAPS has "{{tq|exceptions for specific cases discussed below}}", including at {{section link|MOS:CAPS|Military terms}}, where it says "{{tq|Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources}}". That is the standard we should apply. I'm not sure which one is more usual, but the [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Syrian+Revolution&year_start=2010&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=0 Google Ngrams] data (as of 2022, rather than the 2019 data linked by Goszei) suggests "revolution" is more common, so I'll oppose. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 08:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:NCCAPS and WP:COMMONAME. The capitalized version is more common and used throughout the article. Similar to the articles of other revolutions. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The capitalized version is more common in sources. Thirurang Cherusskutty (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)