Talk:Jordanian intervention in the Syrian civil war

Merger Request

I propose that this page be merged into the American-led intervention in Syria article. These recent actions by Jordan are part of that intervention just like their previous actions in the intervention and also are not an intervention in the Syrian Civil War because they are only targeting ISIL. - SantiLak (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

No. The Syrian Civil War, such as it is, has become part of a larger, multinational war. ISIS is a group that holds large swaths of territory inside Syria. Jordan is bombing Syrian Territory. Bombing one side in a civil war is an intervention. The Iraqi Insurgency, such as it is, is part of that war. A merger is saying that Jordan's participation isn't particularly important, even though they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars and killed, or so they claim, seven thousand people. ISIL has attacked, Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. This is the Middle East's "World War" and each national participant should have an article. After all, the French, Canadians, Australians and British have their own articles, why not Jordan?Ericl (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't bombing one side to help the other, they are bombing with totally different motives than the Assad government bombs ISIL and I was simply making the point that they are intervening in Syria and not necessarily the whole civil war on one side as a small point. That 7,000 figure by the way, refers to the estimate that the general gave that the anti-ISIL coalition, including Jordan, had killed so far. There is no denying that Jordan is an important participant in the coalition but they are still operating at least partially under the command and control of US forces as part of their intervention in Syria. Each national participant shouldn't necessarily as some aren't independently operating, many of them are just part of the coalition. Their operations aren't distinct and it would make more sense for that information to just be included in the larger articles. A merger also wouldn't be saying that their participation isn't important, the information would be included in the American-led intervention in Syria article and the increase in Jordanian strikes would be described. The point is that there is no real need to have a separate article on something that is already mostly covered by the American-led intervention in Syria. Any other info that is missing there can just be added, something that I am working on right now as part of a restructuring of that article. - SantiLak (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The article, American-led intervention in Syria, has less than two paragraphs on Jordan.Ericl (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ofcourse these Jordanian actions are part of that larger intervention, but that’s not enough reason for merging. (Perhaps though, mr/mrs SantiLak might have a point about the title ‘intervention in the SCW’: if this article is about war of Jordan against ISIL, then name it so...). I have today and yesterday placed a number of wikilinks, back and forth, in several of those article concerning the war(s) gainst ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Jordan is also intervening in Iraq now. Also, Jordan did take the lead in airstrikes in February this year, and their intervention does have a few differences from that of America's, so they should have their own separate article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jordan's strategy...? Etc.

Today, I started a section 'Motivation'. We seem to not have much info yet on Jordanian (political) motivations, considerations, strategies, etc., as we do have them in countries like U.S., France, U.K., Canada, etc..
Are there colleagues who can fill in this gap? Preferably from sources using the Latin alphabet, I mean, I can't read any Arabic--and we can't presume the readers of the English Wikipedia to read Arabic. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War → Jordanian intervention in Syria – They made its intervention in Syria, but not in the civil war. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - "intervention is Syria" is much less focused on the topic of the article; also one can ask what is exactly Syria now? If it means Syria (region) then no problem, but many refer so to the Syrian Arab Republic, which is a failed state, currently controlling only 30% of Syria (region). Some recognize Syrian Opposition as genuine Syria - the Arab League for instance. Finally, Syrian Civil War is interlinked with conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon; intervention is Syria unnecessarily limits the article's scope (Jordan is clearly fighting ISIL, which is also present in Iraq).GreyShark (dibra) 10:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.