Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict

Include Restored Diplomatic Relations In Timeline

The Timeline on the article ends on 2022; since all diplomatic relations have (temporarily) been restored by Chinese and Iraqi brokered talks/deals, it should probably be at least mentioned.

MateoFrayo (talk)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Why is Bosnia and Herzegovina shown as red in the map? Rijekaneretva (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Bosnia and lots of other countries here are coloured red but it doesn't make sense as red here represents "major proxy conflicts" between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Most of these aren't even armed conflicts but political influences, and even then many are not "major".

Bosnia, Morocco, Azerbaijan and Nigeria should all be removed or recoloured under a different banner. Afghanistan and Pakistan as well, are not places of "major proxy" conflicts between the two.

The only countries I think that should remain red are Yemen, Iraq and Syria. The rest do not make any sense, even less now with the recent developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.155.142 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editor putting redundant unreferenced map

An editor named WikiCleanerMan is making edits/reverts that I believe are disruptive. This editor has reverted the map on the article table box to an older version - however there are two problems with that: their map is effectively redundant as it isn't a vector graphic like the one they're removing; more importantly, their map is unreferenced and therefore unreliable.

The map they are removing has 4 clear references that back the map's data up, which in this case is 'major proxy conflicts'. WikiCleanerMan in their latest edit has even removed these 4 references. Because they are removing a referenced map with an unsourced (and redundant non-vector) one, I have challenged and reverted them three times now. I am not attempting to take part in an edit war, but removing sourced info and/or putting unsourced in its place goes against basic site policy, and is clearly disruptive by this point when they keep reverting back. Plumbobar (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't call me disruptive when you don't know that I've done a lot to keep this article clean from disruptive editors who claim to be adding good when they haven't read through the article, you yourself haven't actually stated why that map is accurate. If you read the article itself instead of the edits of the user who added that map in the first place, you would see the lead of the article states "It also extends to disputes or broader competition in other countries globally including in West Africa, North and East Africa,South Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The map includes each country highligted in red which is supported by sections in the article.

Involvement in regional conflicts, Syrian Civil War, Yemeni Civil War, War in Iraq, Bahraini uprising, Lebanese politics, War in Afghanistan, Pakistani sectarian violence, and Nigerian Sectarianism. You haven't read through the article and your editing pattern here makes me think you are one of the disruptive editors who added synth to this article years and months back and not using actual sources to support the inclusion of this map you are defending. The sources you refernce have nothing to do with the map. Those were just general news articles very little in reference to the proxy conflict in its entirety. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Plumbobar, I also monitor articles in this area and WikiCleanerMan is a good Wikipedia editor, so try to engage with an open mind when discussing these edits. WP:SYNTH tends to be a serious problem throughout these topics, and it's often used to push political agendas. When you provide sources, they need to clearly support your edits. Please keep this in mind for any future edits. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

ParadaJulio WikiCleanerMan If the editor in question is a good editor then I apologise. However, there is a fallacy in their argument: the two countries have disputes all over the globe, "It also extends to disputes or broader competition...". But we're not going to create a world map with countries where they have a dispute - the previous map was right in showing the major areas of proxy conflict between them, all of which were also backed up by reliable references. The sources do have to do with the map: they each talk about the proxy zones in question but not the additional ones on your map.

Just because this article has sections about Afghanistan/Pakistan/Nigeria does not mean it qualifies as being a major area in regards to proxy and therefore on the map. Even then you have a fallacy because the article has sections that are not even on the map (e.g. Libya). Countries in the 1st paragraph sources (e.g. Bosnia in the Balkans source) are also not all on the map - a 'Bosnia' section doesn't exist on this article either, yet if I was to create one now with one sentence would that suddenly make it go on the map as a 'major proxy conflict'? That is not consistent.

I rest my case that the previous map should be restored and I welcome more discussions regarding this. --Plumbobar (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Plumbobar, can you please provide the sources you're mentioning, along with page numbers and any relevant quotes? ParadaJulio (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. These four are reliable sources that were removed by WikiCleanerMan.

The Conversation: "The presence of shared religious, ethnic and ideological identities across the region has also prompted others to view conflict across the region through the lens of “proxy wars”. Various groups in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain and elsewhere have been seen as merely doing the bidding of paymasters in Riyadh or Tehran." [1]

The Guardian: "The rivalry between predominantly Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia has dominated Middle East politics in recent years, spreading into Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen." [2]

Reuters in this article has headings once again for the four main countries Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. [3]

U.S. Institute for Peace: "Riyadh needed a new approach to deal with what seemed to be an unstoppable and expanding Iranian regional agenda, which included widening and deepening Iran’s direct and indirect influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and beyond." ... & "Iran and Saudi Arabia represent the region’s two power poles, and have supported opposing sides in conflicts in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria". [4]

Notice how none of these sources even make a mention of Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Nigeria. These sources prove that the countries in question that they are mentioning are the 'major' places of this proxy. --Plumbobar (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these sources. The Guardian and Reuters are the sources we'd consider to be reliable here. The page has a sourced section on Pakistan, Nigeria, and Afghanistan, so that matches with the representation in the current map. The page doesn't mention Bosnia, but I also don't see Bosnia highlighted in the current map. I understand the point you’re making, but I don't see how the sources you've provided contradict what's currently on the page. Yes, perhaps the conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon are more prominent and therefore more widely covered, but that doesn’t discard what sources tell us about conflicts in other regions. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should direct you to the the legend under the map that says major proxy conflicts. With the four conflicts mentioned above being much more prominent, they are the ones that would qualify as major but not necessarily the others. While Bosnia may not have a section, it's just that none has been created yet: in theory, plenty of other sections can be created with all the sources in the first paragraph of the article, right? --Plumbobar (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was helpful. So that I make sure I fully understand your point, are you saying that only Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen should be highlighted in the map in red (as major proxy conflicts) because those are the only countries mentioned in the Guardian and Reuters articles? What would be needed instead is reliable sources saying that the major conflicts are taking place in those countries. Concluding that the major proxy conflicts are taking place in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, only because those are the countries mentioned in those articles, seems like WP:SYNTH. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I'm suggesting. I have two sources to back up those four in question at least as being a major proxy:

"Rising tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia as a result of their major conflicts over Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon caused Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to fear a bloodbath at the Hajj of 2016." [5]

"Iran is currently actively supporting proxies in major conflicts in the following areas: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories."[6]

I think at the very least the other countries should be disqualified from major proxy conflicts from these and the previous sources. --Plumbobar (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think those sources and what they say are strong enough to challenge the information that's on the page right now. ParadaJulio (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel it's getting absurd at this point. Let's not forget the other editor removed four references. I'm going to remove 'Major' from the map legend on the article as at least there is no evidence backing up the other countries as being 'major' (i.e. the reverse of the point I was trying to make). --Plumbobar (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

End of the conflict?

The recently brokered Peace-deal should mark the end of this conflict. 2A02:3030:803:30D3:1:0:A232:54EC (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Not yet as of July 2023, unfortunately. NepgearMahoNickel22H2 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the proxy conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia not essentially ended, at least for the most part? Saudi Arabia has even very recently sought to distance itself entirely from the U.S. and U.K.-led strikes on the Houthis, as of early 2024? Notably, Riyadh has seemingly ended its rapproachment with Israel, and has further called for "restraint" after America and Britain clashed with the Houthi forces. [7][8] Bellabors (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, as of yet, the proxy conflict seems to of ended with Saudi Arabia's rapprochement with Iran, Syria and the ceasefire in Yemen.

Not just Saudi Arabia but Sudan and Egypt as well. RamHez (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving the page/title change

I am not sure if there's a formal way to request a page be moved, but I am proposing the title of this article be changed to what's used in common parlance or is the common description of this dispute. As far as I can tell, the common description for this disagreement is "divide", and I think that should be emphasized, as this is not just a friendly debate between two sides, but a disagreement that has caused conflict and war (direct conflict or proxy-based). So I am proposing the name be changed to either "Sunni-Shia divide" or "Shia-Sunni divide", either or. Completely Random Guy (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sunni-Shia divide" (or the reverse) would imply the wrong thing, though, and would overlap with Shia–Sunni relations. Fundamentally this aritcle isn't about the religious divide, it's about the ongoing cold war between these two nations, which goes beyond religious divisions. — Czello ^(music) 14:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)