Talk:Spillover of the Syrian civil war

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spillover of the Syrian civil war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Spillover of the Syrian civil war, 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 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.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

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!

Syria High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East

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 articles

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

North Korea

I remember reading about the DPRK sending 15 military advisors to Syria to help Assad. Can anyone confirm this and if it's factual, add North Korea to the pro-Assad alignment with Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.105.91 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's a claim that the facts are wrong

Why says this and why? Also the article is "neutral, as"
1) ISIS IS a terrorist army, and
2) So is Hizbullah.
Also, the mainstream media has published lots of proofs that the Iranian AL Quds division is fighting alongside Shiite militias, even though the Iranian Government denies this. They also deny they have anything to do with Hizbullah too.Ericl (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to edit on Wikipedia you'll need to conform to its neutrality standards. You can say that so and so thinks this group is a terrorist, however when writing about it otherwise try to use more neutral terms, like fighters, militia, group, organization, etc. We can't condone claims that they are either terrorist or freedom fighters, or try to promote any one position. -- Technophant (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a Civil war or insurgency

This is a full-scale regional war and has been since ISIS took over the western part of Iraq earlier in the year. The problem here is, is that neither we nor anyone else has a clue exactly WHAT to call it.Ericl (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double civil war alliance? - Technophant (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War in Mesopotamia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.84.69 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem indeed, it should be something like 2011-present Mideast conflict, or maybe even 2011-present Sunni-Shia war. Sources would help to set a naming.GreyShark (dibra) 21:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing GreyShark, nobody is calling it that and I think nobody will, despite it perhaps being true. Without sources any work we would do would be original research. EkoGraf (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why i said "something like". A good choice could have been Arab Winter, but it also includes the Egyptian Crisis and the Libyan post-civil war violence, so it's not specific to Syria-Iraq-Lebanon sectarian conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, thats the problem. EkoGraf (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move Reversed

What do you think about the current heading "Conlict in the Fertile Crescent"? I made the change this morning (not main header, but the one in the info-box on he right). I know that the Crescent technically includes more countries but so does, for examble, the term "Levant". "Fertile Crescent" is the only term I know of that definately includes all of the three countries where there is fighting atm (correct me if I'm wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.171.180 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone actually moved the article title to Conflict in the Fertile Crescent today which is not a good name because there has been conflict in the FC for 1000's of years. I reverted the move manually as it was done with no discussion and NO reliable source uses the proposed title to describe the ISIL action or anything around this topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Spillover from the Syrian Civil War

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Spillover from the Syrian Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYT Topic: Syria":

From 2012 Syrian–Turkish border clashes: "Syria News". New York Times. Retrieved 2 August 2012.
From Syrian Civil War: Barnard, Anne; Hubbard, Ben. "Syria News". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 August 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECT: CONFLICT NAME AND RE-ARRANGEMENT

I suggest Wikipedians to change the name of the page from "Spillover of the Syrian civil war" to "Conflict in the Levant), and creating several ub-voices for the Syrian civil war and the Northern Iraq offensive (should we call it Iraqi civil war?).

Second: I suggest, at the voice "sides of the conflict" to list four sides, not just two. Side1: Syrian government, iraqi government and their allies (Hezbollah, Iran,and the Iraqi Shia militias like the Mahdi army). Side two: Syrian opposition, non ISIL. Side 3: ISIL and Baathist militias in Iraq (ISIL is not the only sunni insurgent group in Iraq). Side4: Iraqi Kurds, Syrian Kurds, Assyrian and minorities militias both in Syria and Iraq (like the Sutoro in Syria and the Karakosh front in Iraq)

Second second: I agree.Ericl (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, bad idea as it will mess things up on a bunch of articles. Syria and Iraq (US supported central government) are not allies, or fighting each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.41.231 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Spillover of the Syrian Civil War

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Spillover of the Syrian Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "thelocal.se":

From 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: "Sweden rejects calls for military support to Iraq". The Local. SE. 18 August 2014. Retrieved 18 August 2014.
From 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq: "Sweden rejects calls for military support to Iraq". The Local. SE. Aug 18, 2014. Retrieved 2014-08-18.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015: Something to think about

According to dozens of news sources, Turkey is preparing a full-scale invasion and the imposition of a no-fly zone for early next month. Also, there are reports of battles in Lebanon between NUSRA and ISIL on the one side and Hezbullah on the other. While the meetings in Turkey haven't led to anything yet, and the reports in Lebanon are sketchy (our official map now includes Lebanon and shows ISIS/Nusra occupation zones), we should start thinking about a major overhaul of this page should it all go "boom!"Ericl (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why I did what I did, and why those charges are false

First, the situation in Turkey has changed incredibly much in the last week, second, how is changing a link to a small paragraph to a link to a major article disruptive? The stuff in the article Spillover of the Syrian Civil War (most of which I WROTE thankyouverymuch) was unnecessary once the link to an article which already has the same information in greater detail and better presented is added. It is the duty of Wikipedians to improve articles, your reversion is the opposite of that. Ericl (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The date under the map doesn't work

I don't know why, but it seems to be stuck on july 1 for some reason. Can someone fix the code or should I just turn it into text?

--84.41.86.38 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the map gone?

I mean, I personally found it very informative and I think it added a lot to the article. Is there any reason it has been removed? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArchPope Sextus VI: Someone repeatedly removed it from the article, but it's been restored now. PanchoS (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]