Talk:Palmyra

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

The existing ruins vs. the ruins of 2010

ISIL destroyed chunks of the ruins during their period of invasion. Should we perhaps be updating the descriptions of the ruins to their current condition? SigiWäldner (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)SigiWaeldner

Merge?

I'm not sure why Palmyra (modern) is a separate article covering the history of Palmyra post-1932 as if it's an entirely separate city (rather than a slight move of residential accommodation). Would probably make sense for the content there to be merged into this article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a whole new city not on the ancient site. This article is about an archaeological site that used to be a city.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential FAR concerns - recent damage

I'm concerned that this article has no information about the destruction wrought in these ruins by the recent civil war and occupation. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• @The ed17: Were these concerns resolved? If not, would you want to post this at FAR to see if it gets more attention, or to determine if the article can keep its status with this information missing? Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Z1720: There's some additional context on the FAC nominator's talk page. Short answer, there's some content in the article now, but I'm guessing it could use more given the scale of the damage. That said, I'm not an expert. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The civil war damage is mentioned in the lead and covered in the section Palmyra#Syrian_civil_war. Furius (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Furius: Per the datestamp, I was looking at this version of the article when I commented. It had almost no details on what had been destroyed (and still doesn't). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@The ed17 the same list of destroyed buildings appears under "site: destruction by IS" section in that version and the current one, along with the link to a specific article with more details. Given the length of this article, I don't really see how it can give much more info within the constraints of summary style, but is there something specific that is missing? Furius (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• The initial complaint ("article has no information about the destruction wrought ...") is clearly not correct now, but the current rather long section gives a very vague picture of the actual damage overall, & some is sourced to 2016 etc refs. I think remains a valid FAR concern. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnbod what is missing from the "destruction by IS section"? It lists a series of destroyed buildings and when reports of destruction first reached the media. Furius (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  It doesn't really, other than "when reports of destruction first reached the media", which is most of the section, and much too detailed for 10 years later. Most of this should be moved to the general ISIS destruction article. And, for example, the Temple of Bel is mentioned as destroyed, but in the section actually listing major buildings above, ISIS damage is not mentioned. Looking at the article on the temple it seems the destruction was serious, but partial. Those sections should be reconciled, and a final summary attempted of both the damage under both occupations, and the state of rebuilding as at 2025. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Johnbod should the section on major buildings give information on the present state of the structures at all? I see it does this a bit ATM (such and such "is largely ruined"), but it's inconsistent even for the situation in 2006, so maybe it would be more straightforward if it didn't? Furius (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I think the current situation for major structures should be covered somewhere, and that seems the simplest place, avoiding repetition. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the comprehensiveness concerns, the article structure is poor, with an overlong table of contents and single-sentence sections that should be merged. DrKay (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Its a shame the state of the article now. As the editor who re-wrote it, and brought to FA, I thought other editors will take the time to discuss their desired edits. I couldnt police this article as no one own Wikipedia articles. The one sentence sections didnt exist. A time ago an editor came and "improved" the history section by creating the one sentence sections based on archaeological periods! It wasnt necessary and wasnt justified. This article was about a city, not about archaeology. Im not sure if I have the energy to fix the article and bring it back to its former level. I therefore support demoting it if that is where we are heading.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bassel-bel-3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)