Jump to content

Talk:International reactions to the Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously outdated

[edit]

The tag doesn't quite capture it... we really need to work on this, it barely even mentions anything of the last month and before I added Russia's entry, there was pretty much no mention of the proceedings in the UN (the two proposals, vetoed, and the report, vetoed, plus the thing about Syria's nuclear stuffs...)... come on, guys!--Yalens (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At 6 February 2012 it's a train wreck. I'll work on the dates, at least, this evening. JemimaWales (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know what to do about those dates. I'll leave it to a higher intellect to fix ... :) JemimaWales (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India

[edit]

It seems the Indian section here is dealing more with the UN stance that an Indian happened to read to the assembly, than India's own stance... --Yalens (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian representative would not have read out the statement if India did not support the text. The Syrian government unsuccessfully lobbied New Delhi to refuse to accept it: [1] -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major powers

[edit]

For the purposes of a country located smack-dab in the Middle East, my definition of "major powers" are Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (regional) plus Russia and the US (global). If the EU weren't a supranational organization, I'd probably include it too. Please discuss if you disagree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I might put India and China in if necessary, but it sounds good.--Yalens (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think India has much pull in the Levant. As for the PRC, I would be amenable to that, but they have been very tight-lipped on Syria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is true (both). --Yalens (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit confusing mixing regional and global players under a "major powers" banner. I would suggest retitling as 'Major powers of/in the region' or separating to traditional 'major powers' and 'regional powers' sections. Otherwise it's odd not to include other permanent UN SC seat holding members on one hand or arguably Israel and Egypt on the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

[edit]

The way the page currently is, there is no differentiation between the statement of the Gaddafite government in May (which is erroneously marked by the anti-Gaddafi Libyan flag) supporting Assad and the support of the anti-Gaddafite elements in October for the Syrian opposition.--Yalens (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting subsections

[edit]

Please do not delete subsections and leave the states listed under them completely unordered. You're just making it more confusing and leaving the mess to others! If you do not have the inclination to finish the job, don't start it. The hierarchy seems to be working fine for everyone else. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just can't leave well enough alone. Lihaas has struck again with absolutely no care to consult anyone about his global reordering leaving the states section looking like a dogs breakfast! I'm done, I'm not gonna touch it anymore, he'll be back and fuck it up again in another 4 months without a care as to the mess he makes. To say this is upsetting and leaves me disgusted is an understatement. I'm sorry but I do not have the patience to reorganize it again now he's done this twice. I brought this to his attention rather pointedly and suggested he at the very least alphabetize the shamble he left the 'states' section and fix it and was basically told where to get off... Goodbye, good luck, and I hope someone steps in and has more patience than me because this article is worth far better care given it's gravity. Having my say I now wash my hands of it and walk away. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chile

[edit]

I'm not a english user, so, ¿can any one can put Chile official possition in the page? You may find it here:

Rakela (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

summary

[edit]

It will be nice if someone can manage to add to this very long list of reaction over a very long period of time some kind of summary to reflect the attitudes in relation to key events.--Mor2 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There are too many links that are irrelevant such as common knowledge entity. We should also check out the validty of some of the links as the information on the link it self are outdated or not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kong9105 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major Powers?

[edit]

I think we should separate major powers into new headings rather than bunch them into a whole pile of groups. I do not believe that some powers are now major powers in the multilateral system Kong9105 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that's a pov interperetation of "major". There is not standardized definition.Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

[2][3][4][5](Lihaas (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Non-state political organisations

[edit]

As I said earlier, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is terrörist organization by

There are many issues with this page right now, it seems to be fully idle since about August 2012 as well. I am trying to put the relevant information though. Justicejayant (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen or Saudi Arabia?

[edit]

[12] says that it's Saudi Arabia who condemned attacks on Embassy, but [13] says it's Yemen. Which one is correct? Justicejayant (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on International reactions to the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International reactions to the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on International reactions to the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_reactions_to_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=1207727298"