Talk:Syria/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Attribution

I re added the attribution to Michael Oren. As its removal is both unagreed and undiscussed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if you would actually stop your disruptive and pointy editing. Pantherskin (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What disruptive and pointy editing? I added an appropriate attribution and you removed it without any discussion or agreement calling it "disruptive" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because you "appropriate attribution" is disruptive and dishonest? Or do you really want to tell us that we attribute historical facts that can be found in countless sources, are not even denied by Syria or anyone, are sourced to an acclaimed study written by an accomplished scholar. And you come here and attribute this claim to Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador, leaving out that Michael Oren is a historian, and that the book was written in his capacity as a historian, long before he became Israeli ambassador. Given these facts your edit is only one thing, disruptive and dishonest. Pantherskin (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other source that say that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks in those years. I have no problem with also describing him as a historian, but that he also became the Israeli ambassador to the United States is notable information so peoples can see where its coming from. The same way I attributed that Israel provoked Syria was from the Israeli defense minister Moshe Dyan, so peoples can see where its coming from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with PS. Attributing an accepted fact to the "Israeli Ambassador" is misleading if not disruptive.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have other sources saying that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks in those years? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit brought this source that goes through what happened and what Oren says: [1] see for example p 186, 187, 133, 134.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein publishing with the largest "radical publisher in the English-language world". Why are all sources you present borderline? Maybe this hints already at that these controversial claims are not accepted by mainstream scholars? And yes, they are other sources for that Syria sponsored Palestinian attacks in those years (Hint: Even Syria did not deny that these attacks originated from their country). But I am not going to play your game and look them up for you, because they are already sourced and because it would be a good practice for you to actually find source for claims that you do not like. That is called NPOV editing, and it is time that you learn how to do it. Pantherskin (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not borderline, I have shown you several scholars, researchers, UN personal, Israeli defense minister, UN observer, and with this new book, a political scientist, professor, and head of the Israeli military intelligence Aharon Yariv, and a chief of UN staff. It seems as you are saying "no" to everything not in accordance with a specific pov. If you have problems with all these sources request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Syrian support for the Palestinian attacks were also reported elsewhere, but it was cherry picked, it didn't say why Syria supported the Palestinian attacks, which is important to note. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not important as this article is not the place to give an overview of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It's an article about Syria, and it only needs to give an overview of the Syrian history. Giving weight to different events in the same way reliable, high-quality sources give weight to different events. What - with the instructive example of Britannica I referenced above - means that the only worth mentioning are the Syrian shellings of Israeli communities. We probably don't need to be as brief as Britannica, but that is a useful benchmark when it comes to implementing NPOV. Digging out obscure events, that are mentioned only in one or a handful of sources is not really helpful - it rather indicates that we should not indicate these kinds of events that most sources do not mention. Pantherskin (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why were the dayan quotes removed? You mention pov sources stating that Syria began the aggression towards Israel, however a propely sourced quote that debunks that myth is not considered relevant to the Syria article. My goodness!!, wow. Pantherskin I don't believe you are capable of contributing neutrally to this article or other Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles; I suggest you stick to editing articles on synagogues and other non-political articles. Finkelstein, is radical?; my friend that is your opinion. Finkelstein has been publishing since the mid 1980's, where as Micheal oren is the current, American born and raised, Israeli ambassador to the US; the majority of sensible people would say the former is way more scholarly than the latter ambassador to Israel. If you plan to keep the oren sources, than you have no legitimacy in removing properly sourced passages, from both Israelis and non-Israelis, which debunk your excessive pov.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we still talking about attribution? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not really know we are still talking about, but given these accusations and attacks I do not feel compelled to discuss the content. In particular as I have explained the problems associated with the Dayan quote several times, and all I hear are a) attacks and b) the mantra that because we can reliably source the quote we need to include it. Pantherskin (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

I have added info per Ghada Hashem Talhami book, available online, pages 64-65. See diff for clarity. Current version of article does not include this info for some reason. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This has already been explained, Syrian support for Palestinians are already noted in the section. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Where, could you bring a section quote? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Before I removed the cherry picking and added background info: "Syria sponsored Palestinian raids into Israel" after: "Palestinian refugees were denied the right of return or compensation, and because of this they started raids on Israel. The Syrian government supported the Palestinian attacks, because of Israel taking over more land in the DMZ" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see now that you mean. Oren and Talhami might cover the similar content, though Talhami does not say "sponsored", on the contrary. The ref expand about events of 1963, focusing on leaders roles, please read pages 64-66 of the ref, this info is missing now. If you feel that those two refs might need colliding/summarizing please do so, in this case probably attribution is not needed. Alternatively we could attribute info provided by Talhami. However please do not remove what you define as relevant ref, that might be used by other editors later. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agada, the majority of it has nothing to do with the six day war and the sentence that has something to do with the six day war is obsolete. The info about: "Hafez al-Assad without knowledge if his military superiors, apparently, was involved in smuggling weapons for El-Fatah" has nothing to do with the Six day war, it doesn't belong here, maybe the Hafez al Assad article. This: "Yaser Arafat said that Syria was very supportive of El-Fatah, his relationship with ruling party was strong." has nothing to do with the Six day war, and the last sentence about: "Syria was the only Arab country to tolerate attacks from its territory." does not explain that it was Palestinian attacks and that is already covered in the texts after. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghada Hashem Talhami put the content in context of the war. Please read the book. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section: spelling

Why is the Hebrew spelling of Syria the first item within the parentheses in the first sentence?  Cs32en Talk to me  20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess this 'y'/'ū' duality is interesting and reliable, and might involve ancient Greeks, that would not make this information significant for an item within the parentheses in the first sentence in this article though. On the side note, without missing an opportunity to be pedantic, unlike many other articles, this one is relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of various sources

Please review RSN discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So basically we have couple of options for (1, 2 & 3) mentioned in the discussion

1. Use mainstream reliable sources instead
2. Attribute neutrally
3. Remove the rest as WP:UNDUE

Hope we could implement this consensus without sky falling down on us. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This section should be very short. This country has a history of several thousands years, and in this context all what happened on and around the Golan in the second half of the 20th century is minor. There is no space in this article for any in-depth discussion of events. What means that we should report only on what is important, according to reliable mainstream sources. As I said, Britannica deems only important the Syrian shellings of Israeli settlements. Several travel guides (the Bradt), in their history chapter also mention only the shelling. Dito for Syria - A Country Study ([2]). That gives an indication of what is important.

There is another issue. It is easy to report facts. There is no doubt that Syria shelled Israeli settlements, or that raids were supported by Syria, or that the Israelis were farming the DMZ. But how can we possibly report on motivations (i.e. the Israeli meant their farming activities to be provocations, the Syrian supported raids because of their concerns for the Palestinian right of return)? They are almost by definition controversial, as there is no way for historians to establish that actors in this conflict were motivated by X or by Y. What means that we would need several paragraphs to discuss all the viewpoints of different historians. Pantherskin (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agada, maybe you could propose a compromise text on this talk page. From my point of view it is important to avoid any WP:UNDUE issues, what basically means favoring mainstream sources over contrarian viewpoints. And to avoid any lengthy discussions, as this an overview article. But to avoid any lengthy discussions one has to keep only to what are established facts in order to conform to NPOV. Easier of course if there is a concrete text that one could discuss. So if you are unhappy with the current version please propose an alternative here. Pantherskin (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Definition of Tolerance

From the article: "There was great toleration of Christians in this era." Can the Islamic convention of dhimmitude be rightly associated with the concept of tolerance? Christians under the control of Muslims were second class citizens at best. Perhaps the writer of this article means the Christans in Syria were not exterminated. Fine, thanks for that. But don't describe that as "tolerance." If Christians of that era rose to positions of power in Muslim held areas, it was because they were accomplished individuals and the ruling class needed their expertise. (This is not to mention the taxes they paid, where those of the Muslim faith went untaxed.) Thanks for reading my opinion. Cutugno (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that back up these assertions?  Cs32en Talk to me  03:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Six day war section

Brewcrewer, could you explain what you mean by: "different variables" ? I don't understand your reasoning for your revert. Furthermore this is a section to summarize the SDW, the section already contains text about Syria being anti Israel - "Syria sponsored Palestinian raids into Israel[29] and Syrian artillery repeatedly bombed Israeli civilian communities from positions on the Golan Heights". This quote you re added is also about Syria being anti Israel, it therefore doesn't ad anything really new, and only makes the section even more unbalanced than it already is, and should therefor not be in this section which is about to summarize the SDW.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The mindset of the leader of country at that time is relevant.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the quote he wasn't a leader when he said it, but a defense minister, you have not addressed the issue that this is a section to summarize the SDW and Syria being anti Israel is already in the text, so the quote doesn't ad anything new that is appropriate for the summary. And you did not reply to what you meant by "different variables". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a problem with moving it to the SDW section, but I would wait though for the input of the editor who added it to the article. "Different variables" was a response to your prior edit summary comparing this quote to the Dayan quote.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For clarity I have added following quote, supported by Martin Gilbert book

We shall never call for nor accept peace. We shall only accept war. We have resolved to drench this land with your blood. To oust you aggressors, to throw you into the sea.

— Hafez al-Assad, then Syrian Defence Minister, 24 May 1966

I'm not sure what is the policy based objection for this addition, which is found notable by neutral secondary reliable source. I do not see how it covers the same content as one quoted by Supreme Deliciousness above. Both being "anti-Israeli"? What does it mean? Martin Gilbert book, see ref above, does not use this term. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many thousands of things that happened in the SDW that is found notable by neutral secondary reliable sources. This doesn't mean that all of them should be added to what is supposed to be a summary section in this article which is about Syria. If there was no information about Syria being against Israel in the SDW section, then it could be added, but there already is, so it doesn't belong there. It should be moved to the main Six Day War article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not object quoting Hafez al-Assad in SDW, see no harm in it. I personally don't edit that article and for overall clarity I'd suggest to discuss it on the relevant talk page. Hafez al-Assad quote is short and concise and if we agree that it is notable for SDW it appears even more notable in the context of this article, considering the leader's role in this country history. I guess SDW section in this article should be about Syria role in the war and not overall summarizing of the war. Please review the relevant portions of the book, Martin Gilbert concentrates on Syria. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur that the Assad quote doesn't serve this article and actually the entire section needs to be shortened and merged with the preceding section: Instability and foreign relations (this merged section would be slightly renamed of course). Take a look at the articles on Israel (a Featured article) and Egypt. The articles dedicate a few lines to the Six-Day War. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article content can quickly devolve into an unreadable mess, especially by overuse of the usual patchwork of the partisan crap favored by so many editors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the quote is highly appropriate in that it identifies Syrian

• We shall never call for nor accept peace. - diplomatic strategy
• We shall only accept war. - determination to engage in war
• We have resolved to drench this land with your blood. - intended form of the conflict
• To oust you aggressors, to throw you into the sea. - ultimate strategic objectives

Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Damascus vs. Aleppo: which one is the largest city?

Throughout the article, there seems to be no consensus on what is the largest city in Syria; Damascus or Aleppo. Could someone, who has some understanding of the topic, look into that, please? Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 09:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

According to CBS Syria in 2009 Aleppo Governorate (Mohafazat) was bigger (4,624,000) than the Damascus one (1,711,000). It is worth mentioning that Damascus Governorate does not include Damascus rural areas with population of 2,656,000. According to UN source largest urban agglomeration in 2007 Syria is Aleppo with population 2,738,000. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian protests

Require a part that will deal with the demonstrations against the regime as added during the recent demonstrations in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, and also there should be a link to the wikipedia section about the demonstrations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Syrian_protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megashock (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing quotation mark

In the Politics section, this article states Article 8 of the Syrian constitution states that "the Arab Socialist Ba'th Party leads the state and society. The party itself is run by Assad's family and is the major party in the governing coalition called National Progressive Front.. However, there is no corresponding quotation mark marking the end of the statement, making it unclear whether the second sentence belongs to the statement or not. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Communist Party of Syria is mentioned twice.Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Solved both. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 12:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

History section way to large

The history section takes up nearly half of the article any information not in the main History article should be moved there and the current section here should be trimmed to an equal size compared to the other sections. AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I added audio of Arabic pronunciation

I hope it's alright. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That isnt a correct pronunciation. nableezy - 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take it off. Just for reference, which part of it was wrong? TFighterPilot (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You stressed the initial ج a bit too much. And while the ر can sometimes sound like a rolled Spanish rr, that was way too much. Besides the rolling r you had السورية‎ all right. nableezy - 18:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Could you please look at the bahrain article as well and tell me what you think of my recording there? TFighterPilot (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

البحرين sounds fine, but مملكة is wrong. If you are going to pronounce the the ة as a t (and you should here) you need to roll into the next word with more, i dont know how to explain it, more something. But good work nonetheless, your Arabic is light years ahead of my Hebrew. nableezy - 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm trying to study Arabic because I live in the middle east. Not with much success so far. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how does this sound? TFighterPilot (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The first word is fine, the rest is still a bit off. I think you are still rolling your r too much in arabiyya and suriya. Also, suriya sounds incorrect, you arent stressing the و enough. There is a song called "سوريا يا حبيبتي" that I would link a youtube video that just happens to be the number 1 google video search result for that search phrase, if only it werent a copyright violation, in quotes where you can hear سوريا said correctly. nableezy - 01:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

New version. I'm made sure there is no more than a single tap in the ر of each word and placed emphasis the و TFighterPilot (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not bad, or at least close enough. nableezy - 16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this article protected?

It makes no sense that an article which is under 1RR can be edited by any anonymous IP. Most of the IP edits are vandalism anyway. TFighterPilot (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be protected considering the fact that a large percentage of ip edits are vandalism.George Al-Shami (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's on TFighterPilot (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

MAPS : Lebanon is NOT a part of Syria

Can someone explain how the map on the article ended up including Lebanon as a part of Syria ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.53.204.123 (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see that? Are you talking about the map that shows French colonial designs on the former Syria.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Syrian-Turkish dispute over İskenderun (Hatay)

I've flagged this section as incoherent, as it's very poorly written and unclear what the implications or motivations are. It's all very nice saying things like "For the referendum, Turkey crossed tens of thousands of Turks into Alexandretta to vote", but you first need to:

• Explain WHAT referendum you're referring to
• Explain the purpose of the referendum
• Explain the consequences of additional Turkish votes

The entire section is in the same vein, and basically needs a complete rewrite. I'd do it myself if I knew what the section is trying to say, but I have no knowledge of Syrian-Turkish history, and would only be making educated guesses as to what the authors were originally trying to convey.

84.114.214.144 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

wrong and distortive paragraph "requires editing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria#Ethnic_groups (Wise human being (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

wrong and distortive paragraph :

" modern-day Syrians are commonly described as Arabs by virtue of their modern language and bonds to Arab culture and history, they are in fact largely a blend of the various Aramaic speaking Syriac groups indigenous to the region along with groups of ethnic Greeks from the Byzantine era who were Arabized when Muslim Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula arrived and settled following the Arab expansion."

Facts:

The Levantine Population (wish includes Syrians) were Historically an Afro-asiatic speaking population, the Levantine Population witnessed major linguistics shifts through its history (like most of the world) Canaanite-Phoenician-Hebrew was replaced by the Assyrian language (Assyrianzation) , Assyrian was replaced by Arabic.

The Arab Muslims Levantine Population are Genetically closer to each other (including a sizeable portion of Saudis although they are not part of the Levantine), while the Assyrians are closer to Armenians.

The terms " Arabized " and "Islamisation" are indeed politically motivated in this section it states : ((they (Syrians) are in fact largely a blend of the various Aramaic speaking Syriac groups indigenous to the region along with groups of ethnic Greeks from the Byzantine era who were Arabized )) thus the distortive paragraph tries to clime that the Arab Syrians are mainly of Aramaic & Greeks & Byzantine stock wish is false and in contradiction with both history & science . on the other hand it totally ignores the Arab factor & history in Syria . Although the Arabs are the mine population entity today , it also should be noted that the percentage of the Greeks and the Byzantine are insignificant and tiny . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wise human being (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree on this one with the previous user. This paragraph seems to be politically motivated and needs to be removed. I'll be quite surprised if someone finds any serious academic article denying the "arabness" of the Syrian population today ~~ghita.rachdi

National Council of Syria

National Council of Syria has been formed; when should we split the info box in two like in the Libya article? I suppose when it is recognized by another country. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And fittingly enough, that has happened; Libya has become the first (and only) state to recognize the SNC, according to an NTC official: [3] -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Golan evacuation.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Golan evacuation.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Single-party state?

Um... if Syria is a single-party state (as stated under "Government" in the infobox, then how come the ruling/governing party does NOT occupy ALL the seats in the Syrian Legislature (Syrian Parliament) ? That makes no sense.... they DO have elections... people vote for the Communist Party, Socialist Party, Democratic Socialist Party, Unionist Party, National Vow Party....etc (this can be verified right here on Wikipedia on the page about the Syrian Parliament). Either it is a single-party state or not... it can't be both... I suggest someone looks into this and corrects it right away.. we don't want to be spreading false information... 99.245.253.101 (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that Syria is not a single-party state. It is however a dominant-party state, The Ba'ath Party dominates Syrian politics as the leader of the National Progressive Front (a coalition with like-minded parties with the Ba'ath).--R-41 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

need a good map

The article needs a map, such as the ones in Geography of Syria, that clearly shows the geography of Syria including its borders with its neighbors.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

frustrations with peopke destabalizing syria with propaganda

this junk has been moved to talk it is far to recent to be adding to an encyclopedia and is more appripriate in a news po,itics section than an enclopedia, it is total propaganda and you sensationalists shoukd be ashamed of yourself you are killing people and their blood is on your hands

The Syrian government as of 2011 is facing massive protests as part of the Arab Spring, and is suspended from the Arab League. Furthermore, the governments of France, Spain, Bulgaria, and Libya have recognised the opposition Syrian National Council, with Libya referring to it as the sole legitimate authority of the state.

These somstated massive protests are a small mi ority of the population, and are entirely media sensationakisms. The free syrian army is a fraction the size of the real syrian miitary

Nope, not working for me. I'd love to take your word for it - matter of fact I'd love for the Syrian government to not be machine-gunning unarmed protesters for calling for free elections - but that's not what reliable sources indicate. Syria is suspended from the Arab League. There are large protests that have left parts of the country out of the government's day-to-day control. I'm restoring the content; please don't delete sourced material without discussing it first on the Talk page. And in this case, you don't have consensus for the edit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope Kudzul, your words aren't working for me. There is also a large media coverage indicating that terrorist groups are killing innocent people randomly and trying to blame the Syrian government for the casualties and that these terrorist are armed by the countries who are shouting the death march of Bashar Al-Assad. Despite the number of people that participates in the pro-government rallies and the despite the last referendum, Nato and allies of Nato members are celebrating the preparation of a genocide (of Alawites) which is going to be performed by Muslim Brotherhood and some extremist Islamic groups in Syria; just like they celebrated extremist and racist al-Qaeda's killing black people in southern Libya and the restriction the rights of women "for the sake of democracy".
Wikipedia is really a dangerous source which claims to be objective an encyclopedic although you can see nothing but what is imposed by hegemon governments and media, the media which tried to legitimate the hiring of assassins in Libya and Syria quoting anonymous "human rights activists" or anonymous "witnesses" without sending any journalist to find out what happened, and majority of Wikipedia users keep quoting them (All of the citation links about the protest leads to newspapers that cite from "human rights activists" and "witnesses" and do not show any evidence. See citations no: 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103... Sorry, I didn't and won't read all of them. Read all of the 167 citations and delete the related parts if you really care). So, most of the materials here are not "sourced" materials but will be restored any way when they are deleted, by the members of the stronghold of popular culture (i.e., Wikipedia).

Evidence has emerged of US backing for regime change in Syria.[104] Russia, by contrast, has urged the opposition to renounce violence and open negotiations with the Syrian authorities.[105] It has been hypothesized that Russia's leniency toward Syria is primarily due to the fact that Russia maintains a strategic naval base in Syria, its only one in the region.[106]

So if this paragraph is encyclopedic and is not pure propaganda, I really do not know what an encyclopedia is or what propaganda is. (Ah, before you ask, no, I'm not contributing to the articles because it is so apparent to me that Wikipedia, which is not accepted as a resource for quoting by many universities, is not an encyclopedia.)188.3.202.25 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

A user recently did these changes: [4], claiming "improve grammar. better wording". In this edit he removes the extremely important information that Syria and Egypt attacked Israeli forces occupying their own territory by removing "Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula". An israeli-centric pov is also made by that he puts southwestern Syria that Israel occupys as being a separate entity from Syria by changing "invaded into Syrian territory beyond the 1967 border." to "They then continued their counter-offensive pursuing the retreating Syrian army into Syria proper." , basically separating southwestern Syria from Syria, according to a pure Israeli pov. Thus clearly violating Wikipedia policy npov. This is neither "improve grammar." or "better wording". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You continuously wikihound me on every edit I make. You followed me to articles you never edited before plucking out my edits, in the midst of voluminous text, for reversion. You've been stalking me for some time but I ignored it. Please stop. the edits that I made were a vast improvement over the previous version, gramatically and substantively. There is nothing erroneous in that edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jiujitsuguy in that "Syrian Golan Heights" and "Egyptian Sinai Peninsula" seem like POV to me. It should remain Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula, the extra possessive adjectives are not necessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is per my argument above that Syria and Egypt attacked Israeli occupation forces within their own country, thats why its needed, by removing this its presented as if Syria and Egypt attacked someone else outside of their country's. And saying Syrian and Egyptian is as much "POV" as saying Galilee is in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But claiming that Israel pushed in to Syria proper when they were already in Syria proper is likewise POV. nableezy - 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. The country possessive is unnecessary and the distinction between the Golan Heights and "Syria proper" is unnecessary. If Israel is said to have pushed beyond the boundaries of the occupied Golan Heights into Syrian-controlled or Syrian-administered territory, that would be acceptable wording in my eyes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Dramas

Someone should add a section about Syrian dramas (under the culture section), which have risen to prominence in recent years and are among the most popular in the Arab world.

see http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/sanctions-threaten-syrian-television-drama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.126.163 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Independence?

Considering Syria was virtually annexed to Egypt under the United Arab Republic, shouldn't the date of its independence from that lopsided union be given in the infobox under its independence from France? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree. This is such a ridiculously absurd proposition. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great point, thanks for your contribution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no other answer for a random guy who wants to change the independance date of a country to please himself. It's complete delusion.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputed ?

Why is Bashar al-Assad position as the president been disputed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.246 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria Government :Multi-Party Presidential Republic as 27/2/2012

According to new constitution the 8th article is abolished — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.194.153 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

'Disputability' of Assad's presidency

For the third time, I have removed from the infobox the notion that Assad's presidency is "disputable". It isn't. Disputed leadership means that there must be a rival leader claiming to be the legitimate leader of the country, such as during the Second Ivorian Civil War. In Syria, there isn't someone other than Assad claiming to be the rightful president. Furthermore, one could argue that this rival leader needs facts on the ground to support his leadership claim, for instance military control of part of the country or having a majority of government ministers on his side. This latter argument is the reason that the presidency isn't shown as 'disputed' in the Democratic Republic of the Congo article: while Étienne Tshisekedi claims to be the rightful president of that country, he doesn't actually hold any power. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is a quotation from you. "Despite the uprising, Assad's leadership is not under dispute. Even his most outspoken critics (Saudi Arabia, USA) still recognize him as the president of Syria.". Therefore, as per your quotation, Assad's leadership is a disputable subject. Ahmad2099 (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, did you read what you quoted? That says that even his most critics acknowledge that he is president of Syria. A president or king saying that another president has lost his "legitimacy" does not mean that the office of the president of Syria is not held by Bashar al-Assad, nor does it mean that the topic is under dispute. Stop making this change. nableezy - 20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I provided reliable sources saying that Bashar has lost his legitimacy,while it doesn't match with TaalVerbeteraar's sayings. Therefore, its a disputed subject. Ahmad2099 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Uhh sorry, but the sources you provided do not say that the office of president of Syria is under dispute. Everybody, and I mean everybody, recognizes that Bashar al-Assad is the president of Syria. Nobody disputes this fact. Many may say that he should not be, that his regime lacks the legitimacy to represent the Syrian people, but nobody says that he is not the president of Syria. Finally, you cannot keep making the same edit over and over. And if you continue doing so you may well be blocked from editing. Gain consensus for a change, do not try to edit-war it in. nableezy - 20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you don't understand English, then it’s your issue, my sources clearly say that he is not the actual president for Syria any more. And that is why I inserted the note that it’s a disputable subject. Ahmad2099 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny. The first source says nothing about the status of his presidency and the second source calls him president in the first sentence. I reverted. If you find a source that says that someone else claims to be president or someone else is being treated by the international community etc as president you can add that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In both links, it was clearly mentioned that Bashar has lost his legitimacy. Ahmad2099 (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is different from Bashar has lost his presidency. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

He. Is. Still. President. You don't have to like it. I don't like it either. But he's still president, and it's not "disputable" just because a few foreign government officials say he's lost his legitimacy to rule. No one is saying he's not president anymore. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be more realistic. Moreover, I never said I don't like it. Its not a personal preference for me wither to like him or not, its a fact happening that his presidency is a disputed subject. Ahmad2099 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop. Seriously. Bashar al-Assad is the president of Syria and no one disputes it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, sources and facts doesn't says so. Therefore, you are the one need to stop removing reliable sources. Ahmad2099 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit-warring and violating WP:1RR. You have not acted in good faith, you have not presented sources disputing the presidency of Bashar al-Assad, you have not attempted to seek consensus before forcing through your edit, and you have repeatedly reverted back to a version of the page supported by no editor but yourself despite your change being undone by multiple well-established Wikipedians. If half a dozen editors on this page who have been active for much longer than you can't talk you out of this ridiculous time-wasting pursuit, maybe an administrator can. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

SNC as "the sole legitimate representative of the state"

There are a few states that have given such a recognition, but not, as far as I can tell, the US, the EU, or Egypt. The EU recently said that they recognize the SNC as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people, not the representative and not representing the state. The source for the US says that SoS Clinton said that the SNC a "leading and legitimate representative of Syrians seeking a peaceful transition", not the representative and again not of the state. None of the cited sources say anything about Egypt. I propose replacing that last sentence with The Friends of Syria Group, a collection of Arab and Western governments opposed to the Assad regime, recognized the [{Syrian National Council]] as "a legitimate representative" of Syrians protesting against the government. The source for that would be this. Any thoughts? nableezy - 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree per your reasoning. The US doesn't recognize the SNC as a government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. nableezy - 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What sparked the six-day war?

I am shocked to see the fantastic debate in this section and I must say that this article's claim that "Israel launched a preemptive strike on Egypt to begin the June 1967 war" gives a false impression that Israel started the six-day war. We know what happened, there has been release of information since then and there have been competent accounts by NON-Israelis and NON-Arabs. As the wikipedia article on the six-day war shows: the Soviet Union sparked war in 1967 between Israel and the Arab states by falsely informing Syria and Egypt that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border. This happened during the cold war when the Arab countries were "proxies" of the Soviet Union and Israel could be viewed as a "proxy" of the United States (though some like myself will deny that to be the case at that time - the six-day was actually a "hinge" in the relationship between the USA and Israel). In this game of proxy war, the Soviets wanted to inflict a defeat of the United States but they underestimated the Israelis and the whole plan backfired. Sorry but claiming the Israelis started the six-day war goes against the facts and known history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.181.179 (talk • contribs) 02:10:20, 8 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Amal al-Atrash caption

The caption under the picture of Amal al-Atrash should probably state that she "emigrated to Egypt" rather than "immigrated" because the statement is being made from the perspective of Syria (especially since it references the town of her birth by name).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroglider (talk • contribs) 19:31:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Turks

Idlib Latakia, Aleppo, Syrian Turkish hummus and live in the Golan region.

population of 1.5 - 2 million are thought to be between.

• Syrian Turks Report

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.56.52 (talk • contribs) 20:23:44, 18 Feb 2012 (UTC)

single party state

The new constitution is apparently now in force, and with it Syria is no longer, officially at least, a single party state. Personally I dont think there is much of a difference in the state structure today as opposed to months ago, but I dont know that the infobox should still be saying Syria is governed under a single-party system. nableezy - 20:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia convention is that the infobox reflects the constitutional or official form of government in the state. I don't expect the dominance of the Ba'ath Party to change in the slightest unless the government is overthrown, but if the constitution no longer describes Syria as a single-party state or contains language to that effect, the infobox should be revised accordingly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to find details of the new constitution here, but it doesn't look like it's even mentioned. With any critiques of course. Added later: It is mentioned at Constitution of Syria but with only govt links. I added recent WP:RS news links to that talk page. In case anyone wants to beef up both articles. CarolMooreDC 17:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference Link portrayed in the wrong format.

I updated the Population statistic in the Demographics section to 21.9 in 2009. But I'm afraid that the link was displayed in the wrong format.

Here's both versions of the link that work.

http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Syrian%20Arab%20Republic

http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Syrian Arab Republic

As you can see in the last link, the words "Arab" and "Republic" get excluded out from the link automatically.

It's reference number 119. I do hope someone can make it work.

--HannibalBarcaXXI (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"2011–2012 Syrian uprising" bias for the opposition.

As suggested, I have created this section seeing as I am the only one it seems willing to edit this article (as pointless as it may be to create this talk section) and trying to move it more to a point of objectivity. Despite good intentions, and willingness to show both sides of the conflict it's claimed I am not giving a neutral point of view, and am combining material to advance a position, unto itself is just hypocritical as I am trying to even out this section of the article.

I contend that the material posted previously is barely verifiable and is heavily biased against the government of Bashar al-Assad, even if only subtle. Since this is my point of view, and other people have the opposite point of view, this just creates a continuous cycle of getting nowhere. Therefore I am trying to be objective and have offered others to tweak my additions so that it is "objective" to their liking, only my request is ignored. Obviously, they have no such interest in bettering this article, one has to ask why they bother to remove content.

For example, there is one small statement, "the Free Syrian Army, composed of defected military personnel". This is nothing but a fabrication. There is no evidence for this, there has been no dialogue between this group and anybody. Please do not quote the "activist" Danny, he is a blatant actor. In my opinion, nobody has talked to them because this group is merely comprised of mercenaries. One cannot have a dialogue with mercenaries. Recently Al-Jazeera staff have argued amongst each other via internal email, one claiming Free Syrian Army is a branch of Al-Qaeda.

Another puzzling paradox, to me, is why would the people of Syria support Bashar al-Assad (yes, the majority do support him, regardless of what crocodile-tear actors say) if he is unilaterally killing them? Well, he isn't killing them, despite what "reliable" sources would have you believe. Why would a man hated by the entirety of his nation go out and speak to his people, without bodyguards, and with his wife and children, to talk to protestors? Doesn't seem like something a man on the run, as the media likes to portray him, would do. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

The reason for typing all of this out is that many are still so very hard headed in believing Assad is the new Hitler of the modern world, evidently many editors of Wikipedia believe this and are enforcing it by refusing to believe anything other than what they have been told. Until others participate in this or a discussion I see no reason for deleting content I and probably others have uploaded. Wikipedia is often the first place people go to find out things about the world and providing them with false or at the least unverifiable and very sketchy information is clearly not in Wikipedia's best interest.

Seeing as I am new to Wikipedia it would be nice for someone to not just delete entirely content uploaded, but to correct it and not barrage me with fancy, bureaucratic rules. The inconsistencies and double standards in this article should surely not be tolerated. Thanks Nirvana101 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole section is twice or even three times as big as it should be, given that there is a whole article on the topic. Plus all those youtubes in Arabic don't belong there. (I see one in main article, which is one too many unless referred to by an English source.) The Syrian National Council info box also is WP:Undue. Foreign language articles are allowed if there is a link to an English translation, but there should be more than enough English sources. Obviously there is a bias in much of the English speaking media which is not allowed in by the government, but Russia Today and some other sources can provide/show there is another view. Are there any fairly neutral editors who can do that kind of cleanup? I'll think about it. CarolMooreDC 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There are all sorts of problems with that section, but some of your additions dont belong. Yes, it is true that Saudi Arabia is advocating for "freedom" for the Syrians while ensuring that their subjects, and the citizens of other countries in the region, enjoy no such freedom. But this is an encyclopedia article, or it least thats what it says on the front door of the place. I dont have time to rework the section as a whole right now, but at the very least the first two sentences of your addition needs to go. This isnt an editorial page, and that other parts of the article are editorial in nature should not cause you to respond with an opposing editorial slant, it should cause you to try to fix those other parts. nableezy - 00:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary to add an infobox of the so called "Syrian National Council"?? I find this a way of advertisement for that group.--Preacher lad (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This section in the article needs RS references. Its POV right now. Is it also biased? Probably. As per Wiki's guidelines parts will be deleted with RS references --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Nerve Gas Missiles

The fact that Syria has Medium Range Ballastic Missile with Nerve Gas Warheads ought to be discussed in the article somehow, but I'm not at all clear how to approach it. But if you agree that the Syrian Chemical Weapons effort should be addressed I would be most happy to dig up a lot more citations than just that one web page.

The reason I bring this up is that no one seems to undertand why other nations are not coming to the aid of the Syrian opposition as it did during the insurrection in Libya. I am quite certain that the reason no other country wishes to intervene militarily is that President al-Assad has been quite blunt in stating that if the opposition doesn't cease its resistance, he will escalate the conflict throughout the region While I don't think he has threatened explicitly to launch the Nerve Gas Missiles, it's not hard to see that's what he is referring to.

Syria has a whole bunch of missiles that can strike anywhere in Israel. They have possessed Sarin nerve gas for decades. It is less clear that they have VX but it is suspected they do. The tiniest little droplet of either would kill you if it touched your skin, or if you inhaled the faintest whisp of vapor.

VX is not actually a gas but a liquid with the viscosity of motor oil. It is considered an "Area Denial Weapon" because once a geographic area has been coated with the very thinnest film of it, no human - and I expect no animals either - can survive in that area.

Syria and Israel have been sworn enemies ever since Israel took the Golan heights but have for the most part lived at peace with each other, through a system of "Mutual Assured Destruction" this is now much like the way the United States and Soviet Union once stoof off each other.

I have been working for YEARS to spread the word around the Internet that the Syrians have nerve gas as well as the means to deliver it. That fact has been well-documented since long before I stumbled across the bad news. But the Syrian missiles and nerve gas are simply not spoken of in any public way by the government, by the military or by the press. Just not discussing a serious problem does not make that problem go away. MichaelCrawford 50.131.200.103 (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's Syria and weapons of mass destruction. I agree; the chemical weapons seems of Syria are a concern for foreign parties.--Oneiros (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

if you have spent YEARS documenting the fictional aspect that Syria has nerve gas missiles, then we suggest that you go somewhere, publish it in a reputed journal or magazine and then quote it here on Wikipedia. And, no... International Fiction Weekly does not count. Sonarclawz (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war

I just created Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war to help us in the future in having a supporting reference about the geography of the conflict and maybe even allow us to create a map for the conflict. I thought it would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it seems helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. In the future, this list will make the creation of a map easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on a template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…) Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion and receiving delete votes from editors who are not involved in editing Syria articles. Take a look at the article (List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition) and see if you find it could be useful and if you would like to vote in the deletion discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_areas_currently_held_by_Syrian_opposition Tradedia (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Updated Tradedia (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Skelton - Guardian article

I wonder whether someone can reference this recent Guardian article in the main page. A little bit of truth may go a long way! http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking? The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look … — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.77.195 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox, Flag, etc.

As this Al Jazeera article ([5]) makes clear, the Syrian regime no longer has control of the country's borders. Fighting has also divided the capital city of Damascus. I believe it is time to display the Syrian National Council's flag and seal along side that of the regime, in a manner similar to that of the Libya article during the Libyan revolution. Sans culottes 09:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this idea. The difference is that the Syrian rebels do not actually have a government structure of any kind. By the time the Libyan rebels were added in the Libya article as a rivalling government, they actually had something resembling a state (centred on Benghazi) with a transitional council to govern it. The Syrian rebels, on the contrary, are a rag-tag bunch of militant groups with no apparent government structure. The SNC doesn't have enough popular and (para)military support to call itself a government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent editing consensus seems to suggest a more balanced approach; the looming battle for Aleppo will decide the future political status of Syria, and I think we should represent both sides until that matter is resolved irl. Sans culottes 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Although clearly the government is losing control all over the place, the rebellion is still mostly described as a variety of groups, rather than a united rival government. If the rebels do coalesce, then the idea of placing an opposition box has merit. Right now it would seem to give too much weight to the SNC. CMD (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I further oppose the idea. The SNC cannot be yet seen as a viable alternative to the SAR. Unlike Libya's NTC, Syrias SNC does not have control of the many factions that make up Syrias rebel forces. Furthermore, the SNC has not even established a government in exile (although requested to do so numerous of times by Qatar). Media sources indicate (BBC and CNN) that the SAR will take back Aleepo (and its outlining territories). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.62.7 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that the current state of the article with the infobox ain't a stable one - AFAICT because too much weight is given to SNC. My first edit was exactly an attempt to alleviate this perceived weight as it was described in my edit summary "reordered infoboxes of SNC and SAR since Syrian Arab Republic flag was flown at Olympic Games ceremony - per WP:BRD and per real life argument on talk page IMO this deserves some precedence for SAR". My edit was reverted with one of the explanations "Syrian rebels do not all recongise SNC" - and this is actually an argument for my version of the article: having infoboxes of SAR and SNC in that order of precedence. AS per the statement that WP:BRD does not apply, also mentioned in the revert explanation, I think that apart that it was meaningless in the first place (since I was making the first edit and then was reverted), surely there is no point mentioning this WP:BRD argument now since the discussion is already here. I'll revert to the version with SAR infobox before SNC as per arguments given here that SNC still is not seen as a viable alternative to SAR and that Syria is still represented mostly by SAR. --biblbroks (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, the very presence of an SNC infobox is probably giving them far too much weight. They in no way have the support of the various Syrian rebel groups, and aren't even based in Syria. The revert to reinsert the box was even done without an edit summary. CMD (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of removing the SAR from the info box. How can you possibly call the SNC a govt in exile? The SNC's command over fighters is virtually non-existent. Furthermore, the government of the SAR controls the apparatus of the state (economy, armed forces, education, healthcare, executive). The rebels are merely moving from city to city inside Syria until the SAR supplants them. Until we are able to get enough verified references confirming rebel unification with a singular governing power (i.e. SNC) and the rebels can successfully (therefore permanently/securely) hold any kind of strategically important territory within Syria, the SAR should remain the governing force within Syria's borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 12:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to explain my recent edits. First of all, I am not that knowledgeable of the situation to have a clear position. Now about my edits. When I first saw the "neutral" region-infobox with the two (SNC and SAR) infoboxes below it, I just thought the order was not right - as explained above and in the first edit summary - and so I reordered them. Actually I had no preference about having other two in the first place especially since I realized a few days before that the article about the uprising changed the name to Syrian Civil War. What happened is that when watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics on TV I saw that the Syrian team made it to London and that with the SAR flag, I went and checked this article and just then is when I saw the order was not "presenting the real life" appropriately. I mingled about the recent history of the article and of the talk page. I checked it just a bit. And then made my first edit with the reordering. At the time when taking into account the change of the title of the Syrian Civil War article it indeed seemed somehow logical to me not to have a SAR country infobox anymore as the first one in the line, and I also thought of addressing the concerns which I believed other editors expressed when exchanging between the combined infobox (with two flags intersected) and a region infobox. Obviously my attempts weren't the fortunate ones. The second edit of mine was admittedly a disaster on a small scale. What I wrote here and what I've done was contradictory in a way. I apologize for that. --biblbroks (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it odd that there are some editors who continue to change this article without consultation with other editors. This site has been built upon the understanding and the co-operation of many. It is built on consensus and a coming together of ideas. Something that I truly believe in. Certain editors continue to unilaterally make substantive changes to an article without the consensus or co-operation of others. To the users who want to remove the SAR, show us your evidence that the SNC has any rightful place in the info box (based on the requirements described above) and refer to this process. Once we have a consensus then by all means change it. Until then, I will continue to remove ANY [indeterminate] changes every 24 hours. So it may pay to be more productive with your time (sorry if I sound so condescending). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Must Change 'Philippus Araps' by 'Philippus Arabs'

All is in the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.105.7 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Country infobox in civil war

With the uprising now officially being declared as civil war, it's no longer appropriate to have the 'Syrian Arab Republic' with the red, white and black flag as the country's sole means of identification on this page. The main infobox should only show facts about the country (position, population, etc.), and there should be another two infoboxes for the two Governments fighting for control of Syria (i.e. the Syrian Arab Republic with the 'red flag' under al-Assad, and the Syrian National Council with the 'green flag' under Abdulbaset Sieda). I'd do this myself, but 1. I'm in a hurry, and 2. I imagine it'd just be changed back without people looking at this discussion first. Please discuss. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion above. In summary, the SNC is not fighting for control of Syria. Individual militia are. CMD (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In summary, you are actually incorrect Chipmunkdavis. While The Syrian opposition is composed of many elements, this is not an excuse to ignore them. This is just a straw man argument that strongly relies upon the Kurdish position (the Kurds in question don't even consider themselves Syrian), and using this as 'evidence' that the opposition is divided. Sans culottes 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Also at least two countries recognize the SNC specifically as the legitimate Syrain government (Libya and Tunisia). Until such time that this changes, it is not appropriate to only put a regime which several countries don't even recognize. Sans culottes 09:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No-ones ignoring them. There's just no central command. We don't show the Burmese opposition on the Burma page, despite many countries recognising the Junta as illegitimate. If the SNC does gain the support of the opposition, then fine. As it is, one opposition group shouldn't be given undue precedence over the others. (Kurdish position? What's the Kurdish position?) CMD (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A significant Kurdish position is the creation of Kurdistan. The SNC is the major faction of the opposition. There is no other significant Syrian opposition that backs the Free Syrian Army and Militants fighting (or vice-versa). Can you prove over wise? Or cite major examples that show this not to be the case? Sans culottes 10:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a major faction, but it's not the opposition. "Syria's fractured opposition is to meet for what is set to be a bitter internal debate over forming a transitional government", so clearly an opposing government hasn't yet been established. From the same source, the SNC is "the biggest single coalition of anti-Assad groups", not all the anti-Assad groups. Further reinforcing this, "Tlass called on Tuesday for the opposition to unite", so clearly they're not yet united under the SNC. In addition, "Forming a unity government is a contentious issue for the SNC", so again, no government yet. To highlight the opposition to the SNC by other rebels, "the SNC faces serious credibility problems...and at odds with other groups, such as the Damascus-based National Co-ordination Bureau (NCB), which opposes armed opposition. Several key figures have walked out." Even more interesting, "On the ground, where events are driven by the largely autonomous Local Co-ordination Committees (LCCs) – the tansiqiyat – and the FSA, there is deep scepticism. "Everything is now down to the revolutionaries in Syria, including the FSA," argues the activist and blogger Razan Ghazzawi. Another opposition figure said: "The SNC is somewhat discredited inside Syria and will remain so unless it gets its act together and does something substantial for the people.""

That's all from one source. Another, "the opposition remains fractious and deeply divided", "The Syrian National Council (SNC) is a coalition of seven opposition groups" (therefore not all), "the FSA, the main armed opposition group in Syria, responded by saying it would not co-operate with the new bureau", "The council's primacy has also been challenged by the National Co-ordination Committee", "The SNC, which is trying to keep the uprising peaceful, has also found it difficult to work with the Free Syrian Army", "Western diplomats say the SNC is far from achieving the recognition given to Libya's NTC at an early stage of the revolt against Gaddafi, and many are encouraging the group to merge with the rival NCC", "The National Co-ordination Committee (NCC), formed in September, is made up of 13 left-leaning political parties, three Kurdish political parties, and independent political and youth activists", "The NCC differs from the Syrian National Council (SNC) on the questions of dialogue with the government and foreign intervention", "The NCC has also been reluctant to affiliate itself with the SNC and challenged its primacy". About.com has a list of different groups.

The SNC is definitely important, and is shown as such. It is not however, a rival government. CMD (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And no response to this at all? CMD (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

KEEP THE SAR! The split info box is not accurate. Reasons: 1/ The SNC has not setup a government in exile - no cabinet, no ministers, no voting structure of policies by SNC non-board members. Refer to comments made recently by Qatar urging the SNC to do just this. 2/ Abdulbaset Sieda is a voice that western governments like to hear. Little evidence of consolation of governing power within the rebel factions. 3/ A portion of the main opposition factions cannot be considered combatants under the Third Geneva Convention. This again is enforced by the absence of a singular governing authority. SUMMARY: No singular opposing government (in exile). Syria, (even though in a state of brutal civil war) has only one signaler governing authority, which is the SAR. No one is ignoring the SNC, but its important the info box serves its purpose by ensuring correct information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with CMD and Zombiecapper. While the role of the SNC in the uprising obviously cannot be ignored, it is not a rival government. Only the Syrian Arab Republic should have an infobox in this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Split headline/info box

I have been trying to revert the article to the version that shows the reality of the situation on the ground, where the info box on the top right is neutral and shows the divide in government between Assad regime and opposition, but every time I make that edit, someone reverts to the version that only recognizes Assad regime's authority over Syria, citing that "the SNC doesn't represent the opposition", well if that's true then WHO represents the opposition? It is clear that that is a cheap excuse to prevent the creation of a split info box. Listen people, the fact of the matter is that large swathes of the country's populated land is in opposition control. So although Assad controls from Damascus, almost half the country is in opposition hands of FSA which to some degree is associated with the political oppositional branch of the SNC. If we want to disagree over whether or not the SNC represents ALL the opposition, that will always be a no-no. But the SNC DOES represent MOST opposition blocks including but not limited to: Local Coordination Committees, Supreme Council of Syrian Revolution, General Association of the Syrian Revolution, and the Free Syrian Army. Not to mention, almost all of the countries who recognize Syria's opposition only recognize SNC, therefore making it de-facto leader of opposition abroad, while it's component LCC and FSA lead from inside Syria.

Too Long, Didn't Read Version: A split infobox is necessary because the opposition has control over numerous cities while government control has been largely reduced to urban areas. So get over yourselves and get used to the split infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moester101 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"get over yourselves and get used to the split infobox"

I have a feeling most of the editors opposing acknowledging the Syrian opposition still haven't gotten over the Soviet Union collapsing, let alone the fact that the Ba'athist regime in Syria is collapsing. Also, if we can get an exact Arabic translation, I think "Free Syrian Republic" might be preferable to "Syrian National Cuncil" for the info box. Sans culottes 09:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

recognition is earned not given shows a clear lack of understanding as to what recognition is. CMD (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the positions of several countries and the situation on the ground shows a clear lack of understanding of reality. Sans culottes 10:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

An amusing accusation, considering the SNC has no concrete presence on "the ground". CMD (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Sans Culottes. *hint* I'm the one who originally came-up with the idea of the "Free Syrian Republic" when I created the new coat of arms for Syria. To read more on how the new coat was created, go to the article for coat of arms of Syria where there's a big paragraph explaining it. Anyways, I will proceed to change the split info box from SNC to Free Syrian Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moester101 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Moester101, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It aims to describe actual facts, not things made up by its editors. By your own admittance, it was you who invented the name 'Free Syrian Republic' and created its coat of arms. While that kind of thing might be encouraged at sites such as http://microwiki.org.uk/, it is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Please refrain from adding things like that to Wikipedia articles. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Support for reasons already explained above. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While the SNC is rebelling against the government, it has not set up a rival government. There is no SNC ministerial team, no SNC head of state, etc. It would make no sense at all to include the SNC in the infobox. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

TaalVerbeteraar, these statments are not true. The SNC has both an Executive Committee ([6]) and a Secretariate General ([7]). Further more, both Libya and Tunisia recognize the SNC as the government and sole representative of Syria. The point editors like you come back to is the name that should be given to the Syrian opposition. Just because you disagree upon a name is not an excuse to ignore the majority of the Syrian people who have control of their country, and are ensuring that what is at this point clearly the terminal decline of the Ba'athist regime. Sans culottes 09:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These committees are merely the internal governing bodies of the SNC. They are not ministerial teams. That's not my opinion, it is fact. The SNC does not promote itself as a rival government and it has not appointed a rival president or rival ministers. And it's not the name which is the point of contention, it is the claim that there is such a thing as a rival government in Syria, regardless of its name. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Libya recognizes the SNC, hence making it for all intents and purposes a government. Do you really think we live in a binary world of either a one party dictatorship where a leader runs for president unopposed, or there is anarchy—just one or the other. Surely you are being facetious. It's as if you are treating normal democratic disagreements among allies as fatal flaws. Sans culottes 10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Outside recognition doesn't magically make something a government. If there's no head of state, nor a ministerial team, there's no government. Foreign recognition does not change that. The SNC has not appointed a rival president or rival ministers. It doesn't call itself a government, either. We can't put a government infobox in the article for something which isn't a government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They are a de facto government, not de jure (except in the case of Libya et al.). This is just not a significant distinction. If they wern't seen as a government the SNC would not be in a position to bargain for a unity government; see Syrian National Council denies accepting unity government led by regime Sans culottes 10:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

De facto or de jure has nothing to do with it. And rebel sides in civil wars (or even opposition parties in democratic countries during political crises) frequently negotiate about forming unity governments, without them being governments in their own right. By definition, a government is a collective of people who are in power, or at least claim to be. The SNC, however, has not formed such a collective of people (in the form of a president and ministers), nor does it claim to be a rival government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

De facto or de jure has everything to do with it. That seems to be the crux of your argument whether you realize it or not. It doesn't matter what the members of the SNC call themselves. All that matters is the Ba'athist regime has lost control of Syria, and the SNC is the only recognized entity in the world to replace them. Free Syrian army members that control vast tracts of Syria have the SNC's seal on their flak jackets. The SNC and its personification in the Syrian Free Army are the government in a large percentage of Syria, by your own definition. Sans culottes 11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Say, a handful of countries would suddenly recognize the world as being flat. Would that make the world flat? Of course not. Outside recognition does not magically change facts. The SNC has appointed neither a rival head of state nor rival ministers, and does not regard itself as a government. Therefore, it isn't a government. Libya's recognition doesn't change that. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How on earth are the SNC a de facto government? They have no base on the ground of the country, no administration over any people in the country, and in fact have not set themselves up as a government. CMD (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Putting the SNC as a parallel governement or saying that the governement is "disputed" is unacceptable. Legally, the only country and state is the Syrian Arab republic and it has only one governement. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Legally, the only country and state is the Syrian Arab republic" uhhhh de-jure govt over Syria no longer applies to the majority of Syrians. Local councils elected by Syrians inside those cities which are in opposition control are just as legally defined if not more legitimate than what happens in Damascus. De-facto rule goes to the opposition. That's why it's important to have the split box to show how the power inside Syria is being divided on the local level. As for the coat of arms of the liberated areas being "my own creation" I can tell you that it is merely provisional and symbolic, and was created simply for the lack of a different credible seal. I will return the previous edit with it present. If those who disagree (such as TaalVerbeteraar) are absolutely not going to accept it as a temporary symbol which is popular amongst those who've seen it, then I will settle for a compromise where we keep the split infobox but WITHOUT the seal of the Free Syrian Republic. Anyways, for now I'll return it, if I see persistent resistance to it then I'll take it out while keeping the split infobox intact. I will not accept anything less than a split infobox! Moester101 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Having 'de facto rule' over certain areas is not the same as being a government. To be a government, the SNC must at least:

1) Say themselves that they have in fact formed an alternative government;

2) Appoint members to this alternative government.

None of these has happened, so there is no second government in Syria. This is not about political preference, about 'hiding the truth' or anything. It's simply about not putting fictional things in a factual article. Moester101 has now for the second time admitted that the 'Free Syrian Republic' and its coat of arms are his very own inventions, so they're certainly not going to be added to the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This must stop, Wikipedia must not be used as a political weapon for ideological warfare, there can't be two Syria's, or two states recognized. That's an argument against international law, that clearly shows that only one state has the jurisdiction over one land, there are exceptions like international treatments were two recognized states (by UN) accept to share international seas or in the cases of dilemmas in the frontier. So in the article of Morocco should we put the flag of Western Sahara or in the article of the Taiwan should we get the flag of China? Or should we accept the existence of independent areas in the Guajira of Colombia and Venezuela were the indigenous people have their own local councils, and they don't accept neither government and in some cases they don't even accept the local currency, or should we put two flags in Spain in the areas of ETA predominance. Or in fact should we accept that some areas of Mexico are De facto of the EZLN, because they're control by an armed guerrilla that has independent councils? There are tons of cases like this, some exactly like the one of Syria, were other States accept only the rebel groups that have effective control of lots of areas in the country--Tercerista (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I will request full protection of the page. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The arguments employed by regime apologists here are beyond bizarre. Tercerista, none of the examples you give are valid due to the fact that the situations in question don't constitute a war. And I would encourage you to look up how the UN defines a war if you don't know, which I'm assuming you don't.

DanielUmel, if you are going to claim legality, I advise you to actually have a clue about the law. Which laws are you even referring to?

As for comparisons to flat earth theory, that is incoherent nonsense worthy of Assad himself. Sans culottes 14:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing your message, it's one more reason to not let you edit this page. You can't be neutral. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel, who are you even talking to? Sans culottes 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about war, but if you want to, lets talk about Colombian war and the guerrilla named FARC, who have the actual control of lots of areas in the country, they are recognized by lots of countries the Foro de São Paulo, and other international actors as the legitimate actor for representing Colombians, should the article of Colombia have two flags? Thats pure non sense, the recognition doesn't make you a country. According to political theory only one state could be an actor in one territory if other actor exercises the State functions then that actor it's the State if it doesn't exersice State functions then every other argument is nonsense. Why the Wester Sahara case isn't a war? Should we put two flags in every civil war in the world, that's absolute nonsense.--Tercerista (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with you. Another problem in this article is the infbox in the Syrian uprising section. User obviously made up a country and named it "Free Syrian Republic" and created its coat of arms. This is outrageous. --Wustenfuchs 20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Republic infobox ("Syrian uprising (2011-2012)" subesction of the "History" section

I ask administrators to remove this infobox with the flag and the coat of arms of the "Free Syrian Republic". Such republic doesn't even exist and neither the flag and the coat of arms are being used by the Syrian National Council. In order to save the credibility of Wikipedia, I request removal of the infobox. It is embarrassing to Wikipedia and to me as an user of it. --Wustenfuchs 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You could do with dialling down the rhetoric so users don't just dismiss you as a troll. But what you suggested isn't going to happen, although I intend to removed the coat of arms and change the name back to "Syrian National Council" at the earliest opportunity. The problem with you, throughout your edits on this subject, is that you are making biased and highly unhelpful edits and trying to make a hollow argument from authority while doing so. You keep insisting that the green, white and black flag of the opposition isn't valid, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. The SNC even incorporates the flag's colors in its emblem. You have even sought the remove the statement that Syria is in a state of civil war from the beginning of the article. 150px|thumb Sans culottes 22:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This page has been temporaly protected against San culottes vandalism. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

DanielUmel, this is not why the page was protected, as you well know. Refrain from attacking other editors or I shall have the report you to an admin. Sans culottes 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why the page has been protected, as I requested it. --DanielUmel (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are a liar. Prove it. Where is the statement to that effect? Sans culottes 23:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations and insults will be reported (calling someone a liar and troll). Another thing - images aren't sources! How did you made a conclusion, on which premises, that they have a flag that looks to the flag you're adding? Maybe it looks like Itlian one, vertical? In their image it is vertical isn't it? See a problem now? You constantly add ridiculous images as sources and draw conclusion out of them. That is not desirable here. --Wustenfuchs 00:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are acting like a troll. You are attempting to only present one side of an issue, and you are doing it in a concerted effort across several wikipedia articles. Also save your threats, they are pointless. Sans culottes 00:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Threats? After several warrning to you to not make edit warring without reliable sources? No. And your insults to me and to Daniel Umel are not a good way to discuss. Calling someone a liar or acting like a troll is really not very nice. I really don't act like a troll, but it is clear that there is no reliable source. --Wustenfuchs 00:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel made a totally unture and malicious accusation, saying this article was protected due to my edits. This is a lie, and there is zero evidence to support that claim. Sans culottes 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't needed to insult him. There are other ways to say he is or not wrong. Maybe he knows the best who asked the protection of the article and why. --Wustenfuchs 00:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked the protection of the page and my arguments were based on San culottes edits. No mystery. --DanielUmel (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Wustenfuchs. No Free Syrian Republic exists (within the definition of the word). I propose the requirement of this term EVER being associated with this article would be as follows: A second government established with defined government ministers and set constitutional parameters of executive and other military/political powers. Establishment of occupied territory within the international borders of the Syrian Arab Republic Within the said occupied territory, the proposed [second] government must be willing/able to exercise/regulate not only military and defense measures, but societal measures such as: economic policy and social ability. The inclusion of regulation to create the apparatus of the new state is also required: health policy, internal policy, foreign policy. Lastly, the notification of succession from the Syrian Arab Republic to external powers (i.e. UN or other such foreign sovereign state i.e. UN Security Council member) with ability to secure the title and gain support if the international community. Until such requirements are meet (which doesn't look likely for the foreseeable future) such talk of a Free Syrian Republic is not relevant in anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We'll note the establishment of a rival government when outside sources note the establishment of one, and treat it as a Benghazi-like actual rival government when outside sources treat it as such. WP:V. CMD (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian National Council (SNC) is not the official government-in-exile, its not even the official government. The neo-Ba'athist regime of Bashar al-Assad is still recognised as the official government of Syria even if its killing its own people. Someone please remove that infobox. --TIAYN (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Government forming in Cairo

This looks like an important development, and might be the future leadership of the opposition: Syria opposition figure says to lead government in exile. Sans culottes 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly a random guy from a random group claim to form an interim governement. Except the SNC is excluded from that. So with your "bright" ideas, we would get three different states and governement. Ridiculous. --DanielUmel (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian National Council (SNC) infobox

The SNC is not the official government-in-exile, its not even the official government. The neo-Ba'athist regime of Bashar al-Assad is still recognised as the official government even if its killing its own people. Someone please remove that infobox. --TIAYN (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I requested the same. Even the SNC didn't proclaim itself a government. Also, this "Free Syrian Republic" is a made-up country by certain user who added the infobox. There is no such thing as Free Republic, this sort of country isn't mentioned even by the SNC. It's silly and infantile. --Wustenfuchs 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New Prime Minister

Omar Ibrahim Ghalawanji is the new prime minister following Riyad Farid Hijab's defection. [8] Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done Looks like it's already been done. --CapitalR (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 August 2012

|leader_title2 = Acting Prime Minister |leader_name2 = Omar Ibrahim Ghalawanji

Zombiecapper (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done Well, not already done, but already requested. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 17:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Civil War split infoboxes

I think it's time we reconsider doing the split infoboxes. As I recall, we did the same for Libya when the defections started. Two embassies have defected I believe, and with the news today that the Prime Minister has defected (a very high-profile position), I would say we are nearing the same conditions we met when we did the split for Libya. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the Split headline/info box subsection of this talk page. Let's keep the discussion centralized there. Thank you. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I deliberately made a new section because that one's getting out of hand and off-topic. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We did the same for Libya when an opposition government was established in Benghazi. No opposition government has been established for Syria. Did the Prime Minister defect to the SNC? I haven't read anything more specific than defecting from the government, rather than to any other body. CMD (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"No opposition government has been established for Syria"?? Then what's the Syrian National Council? And why do you make it a qualifier that if the PM had defected to it, that would count? Don't contradict yourself. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The SNC has in the past firmly denied being a government. As far as I know, they maintain that stance. The PM bit wasn't a qualifier, it was merely a point of curiosity. CMD (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Fry1989 "then what's the Syrian National Council", take a look at this:
A broad Syrian opposition group wants to be recognized internationally as representative of those ranged against President Bashar al-Assad, but has no plan to be an alternative government. (...) Sieda told reporters that the council did not see itself as a government-in-waiting. Source: Reuters
- TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sieda's view is not that of the SNC, but the view of that individual—the view of the SNC depends on the member that is being asked usually. But at the rate the conflict is going, the regime will collapse shortly and the relevant details can just be changed then. The biggest challenge with the infobox is not just changing it to reflect the demise of the current regime (which at this point is inevitable), but the fact that Syria will not even exist in its present state by the time the civil war ends what with various factions of Sunnis/Alawites/Kurds most likely pushing for respective successor states. This is the reason the opposition is so divided. حرية 10:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR, user Freedom. SNC isn't a government and waste majority of countries didn't even ecognized them. --Wustenfuchs 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not WP:OR User Fennec Fox, but the prevailing view among leaders such as King Abdullah II ([9]). Have a nice day. حرية 19:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And King Abdullah is eternal leader of the UN and he is not involved in the conflict I suppose. However, the "infobox" is highly unsourced and full of disputed claims. What we need is a simple flag, the article isn't a toy. How the article would look like if every user would add flags and infoboxes etc. This is not neccessary. This sectio gives basic informations on this part of Syrian history. For more infos, one can always check the Syrian Civil War article. This is not article about the SNC, so we won't add infobox about them, as they alredy have one where it needs to be. --Wustenfuchs 19:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The flag is fine for now (as long as it stays). When the regime collapses financially at some point in the next 6 months, it is better to simply make changes across the board then rather than piecemeal and having to debate every minutia. حرية (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The flag doesn't stay and leave because any editor wants it to. It stays or leaves based on the encyclopaedic value it adds to this article. CMD (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually intimating that the symbol of the opposition which controls most of a country in a civil war doesn't 'contribute to an article'? What a ridiculous statement that would be. حرية (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Imitating? Anyway, I never said it did or didn't provide value, I was just noting your fait accompli "as long as it stays" will not hold any weight in discussions. CMD (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know, Freedom (I don't have Arabic keyboard), I left the flag just to avoid edit warring of the pro-rebel users. This sort of users make articles unstable, cause edit warrings and always push their POV into the article. Flag will remain only only to avoid any edit warring. Wikipedia isn't a battlefield and I'm getting tired of sticking flags here and there, like some people are conquering something. --Wustenfuchs 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

CMD... are you like... alright? Because your last post was a little incoherent (by the way, see the 2nd definition of intimate here). To address what I was actually talking about; you clearly have a bias, your last edit of this article ([10]) deliberately excluded this symbol of the civil war. As for your contention that The presence of the flag is not dictated, you are wrong, it is actually dictated by WP:CON—there is no consensus to remove the syrian opposition's presence from this article. حرية (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, as you well know, edit warring is not just on one side of this issue. But I see you have actually got something out of your little time out, and your voluntary re-adding of the flag is a positive and constructive step. حرية (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the Merriam link. Anyway, I am, like alright, and stuff; my last post is perfectly coherent. As my many posts above will tell you, my reverting of the infobox, not just the flag, had absolutely nothing to do with my support towards either side. As for your other assertion, I suggest you focus on my actual talk page post rather than the character-limited text summary, where I clearly stated it was a reference to your individual statement, which is not consensus. In addition, per WP:BURDEN, the onus to achieve consensus is on those trying to make the change from the status quo ante, which in the case of this article is a version without the flag in that section. There has never been a clear consensus for addition, and twisting it around and demanding consensus to remove is again a case creating a fait accompli. If you read what I actually say, instead of reading what you think I'm saying through my apparent bias, you'll see I've never suggested removing the syrian opposition's presence from the article, or suggested removing the three-starred flag from the history section. I've said nothing remotely close to that. CMD (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Basing the reasons for the split infobox on precedent is inherently wrong. Libya is not the same as Syria. Some high ranking officials defecting don't make it so. There is no disputed government in Syria. There is no unifying rebel force. Wikipedia articles should be pursuant to International Law (i.e. one country, one state). The split info box should only become an option when another ([UN/or other power] recognized and military asset based) government forms. That government must hold SECURED territory within the Syrian borders to back up its disputed claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 07:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Stolen ethnic map of Syria

Some one has openly stolen the detailed ethnic map of Syria from the Gulf 2000 Project at Columbia University, developed by Dr. Izady and having redrawn it in Photoshop, has posted it on this web page. No credit has been given by the thief to the source and the thief has brazenly dropped the name of the author of this map. Here is the link to the original:

http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Syria_Ethnic_Detailed_lg.jpg

Instead a link to that original map could have been provided instead of open theft of copyrighted material. Wiki should do something about this.

This is probably the best chance for me to jump in to say that I have made another ethnoreligious map of Syria a while back called File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png which is a great version that has multiple sources and is NOT in any way shape or form illegal or stolen. I've been trying to post it on the article but a certain user prevented me in the past from doing so. I think now is a good time to start reconsidering my file considering how credible and well sourced it is (without breaking copyright laws). Post it on the article? Moester101 (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Economy

There is a heavy bias about the Economy in 2011 and 2012. It is as if, whoever wrote it, wanted to focus primilary on the currently ongoing conflict, rather than present a more general overview - at least as introduction. Should Wikipedia not instead focus on facts first, and present an overview _first_, and then after this is done, focus on more current events and details pertaining to it? Right now the article r immediately starts with 2011 and 2012. 194.166.236.134 (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an introduction that generalizes Syria's economy over the last 2-3 decades, but I don't think we can ignore how the economy has gone down the drain since 2011, especially considering how important the present-day is compared to the past. If you rewrite that section please make sure you don't delete stuff pertaining to post-uprising economy. Thanks! Moester101 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Flag

The current flag posted on the article is the FSA flag and not the real Syrian National flag of the country, I would like to request for the mods to change it back. and keep an eye on this article since there are alot of FSA sympathisers on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.40.198 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Map of Syria

Currently the map shows the Golan Heights as a part of Syria. Whereas the Syrian civil war page shows it in dispute. Why is Wikipedia contradicting itself? Which is it? Syrian? Or in dispute? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Syria name

I was wondering why the Kurdish and Syriac translations of 'Syria' have been removed from the summary at the beginning? They were present before the Arab spring and since then have come back but disappeared again. Is there any way to bring those back and to add the Greek, Assyrian, Armenian, Turkoman, and Circassian names given to Syria? These are communities that make up a part of the Syrian population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab.citizen (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Fisk - Independent article 29/07/2012

"Syrian war of lies and hypocrisy" - The West's real target here is not Assad's brutal regime but his ally, Iran, and its nuclear weapons. Has there ever been a Middle Eastern war of such hypocrisy? A war of such cowardice and such mean morality, of such false rhetoric and such public humiliation? I'm not talking about the physical victims of the Syrian tragedy. I'm referring to the utter lies and mendacity of our masters and our own public opinion – eastern as well as western – in response to the slaughter, a vicious pantomime more worthy of Swiftian satire than Tolstoy or Shakespeare. Before it goes into the "memory Hole"... http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-syrian-war-of-lies-and-hypocrisy-7985012.html

??? The West's real target here is not Assad's brutal regime but his ally, Iran, and its nuclear weapons. Has there ever been a Middle Eastern war of such hypocrisy?""

Hypocrisy yes, but Iran is not the focal point although they might continue to make it appear so because it makes a war with Iran more palatable to those who actually have to put their boots on. The real target is Syria's lack of privatisation. The last countries who had refused to privatise were Iraq and Libya. That's what the West is after, although from the Syrian point of view it is another of those ethnic/tribal/religious wars for which the region has been famous or infamous for millenia. 144.136.192.18 (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)''

Syria in Armenian and Circassian

Thank you for whoever added the Syriac and Kurdish names in the description. Is there any way to add the Armenian and Circassian names as well? These languages and their communities are recognized by the Syrian constitution and are listed by Wikipedia as spoken languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab.citizen (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

False Citation (128)

The linked article does not exist! In fact the website linked to says "the page does not exist or never did exist"! I suggest changing the citation to include an actual citation and the body of text using it (Military, second paragraph) be removed unless proven.

TheBSPolice (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

FALSE QUOTE End of introduction:

and as "a legitimate representative of the Syrian people" by the United States.[24]

THIS IS VERY VERY FALSE. It's by FRANCE. The United States has NOT recognized the Coalition. In fact the source cited by the article confirms that it's France. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20319787 CORRECT THIS IMMEDIATELY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.248.76 (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the quote from the BBC source which confirms what wikipedia states:

In Washington, state department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said the US regarded the National Coalition as "a legitimate representative" of the Syrian people. Guest2625 (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User Latristelagrima additions

Latristelagrima (talk · contribs) has been re-adding two problematic bits to the article after being reverted by three different editors (he's well past the WP:3RR).

1. A separate disambiguation hat link to Syria TV, which is WP:UNDUE and simply not needed since it's already mentioned in the Syria (disambiguation) page.
2. POV-language with regards to the flag of the Syrian Republic (1930–1958), this is a bigger concern, because it replaces the neutral language that says it was the "flag of Syria between 1924-1958" rather than either partisan labels "mandate flag" or "independence flag". Even after several exchanges and explanations on his talk page, he still doesn't seem to grasp how Wikipedia's NPOV policy applies in this case.

I find both additions problematic, but would like to hear more from other editors. Yazan (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I would like to inform users about the flag, because we all (as Syrians) know very well the flag of French mandate and It's important to tell readers that It's used under French mandate, and as it's truth I don't find any problem with adding it, and I onlt add "French mandate flag" not "Independence flag", thank you...User:latristelagrima —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It was also used by the independent republic from 1946 to 1958. So your language is historical cherry-picking. Your edit lacks consensus and it's a waste of your time to keep making it, because it will be reverted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been reverted again by a fourth (uninvolved) editor, along with this ridiculous edit replacing Asmahan by "Avraam Russo the most popular Syrian singer in the world, and who introduced the Syrian music to the world". I appreciate that you are a new editor, and you might still not have gotten a hold on how Wikipedia works, and the appropriate language and information for an encyclopedia, but you will be reported if you keep edit-warring over this. Yazan (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think Avraam Russo edit is ridiculous because everything can't be conservative in any encyclopedia, and this artist has importance, he selled millions of albums over the world, sings in 15 languages, speaks 7 languages... can i know your comment on this article too please ? thanks user:latristelagrima 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this edit is that while Asmahan is a well established and widely acclaimed artist with over 3,900 books discussing her life and her work, Avraam Russo is hardly well-known (certainly not in Syria), with barely any mentions in academic sources. Now, it seems that you like him, which is just as well, but you can't just add him to a high profile article like this one without due weight (and discussion), and you certainly shouldn't be making claims like "the most popular Syrian singer in the world, and who introduced the Syrian music to the world" without citing reliable sources for them. Your edit is like replacing Fairuz with Ramy Ayach. I'm sorry, but ridiculous is exactly the word. Yazan (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing Latristelagrima is 1) young, 2) not fully conversant in English (fluent, but clearly not picking up on nuance), and 3) inexperienced with Wikipedia. I'm inclined to think he's editing in good faith. That being said, this behavior is disruptive and it's been communicated to him that he can't keep making these changes without obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. An admin has already left a warning on his talk page. Let's hope it stops. Yazan (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

well I like and respect Asmahan a lot, and I liked many of her books, in time I like Avraam Russo too, and he is popular internationally and made many concerts in Syria, and my edit is never like replacing Fairuz with Ramy Ayach, because both Asmahan and Avraam are important, but I think Avraam is a Modern artist. so it's like replacing Fairuz with Elissa. and Don't use bad words because you were mad when I used "honey" in a modern way.

and I might be young, but I have TOEFL degree in english and I'm speaking many languages too, well you're right I'm not experienced with Wikipedia, It's not a shame to confess. but I hope that you help to improve new editors instead, Thanks.. Latristelagrima (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Latristelagrima (talk · contribs) has re-invented himself as DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) to try to reinstate his biased edits with regards to the flag used by the opposition, I hope this new guy DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) realizes that the neutral wording of the article is a red-line. Moester101 (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message at DIREKTOR (talk · contribs). But looking at their contributions, it's obvious they're a very experienced editor (from 2007), so your subtle accusation of being a sockpuppet of Latristelagrima is way out of line, and I think you should strike that comment (because it can be construed as a personal attack). DIREKTOR's edits nonetheless violate NPOV, and consensus, but I think they can be taken in good faith as an editor who's not as knowledgable about the subject. Yazan (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that DIREKTOR done anything wrong, and why do you think his edits were NPOV? It's historical fact, recenty you Yazan edited the Flag of Syria article, so you know what's involved. In short, it was Ponsot who issued a decree where the Syrian flag was described. And there was no consensus about the flag's definition as I recall. --Wüstenfuchs 03:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why leaving it as Flag of Syria (1932-1958) is the neutral language. Saying "introduced by the colonial French" is POV and inaccurate (because it was drafted by the nationalists, and simply decreed by the French after popular pressure), saying it was the flag of "Syria under the mandate" is also POV because it ignores that it was the flag of Syria after independence as well, and likewise saying that it is the "Independence flag of Syria" is also POV because it ignores that it was also the flag under the French mandate. I think this is the most neutral language we can have. For a detailed account of the flag's history, the reader only needs to go to that page. What is it you disagree with Wüstenfuchs? Yazan (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When you put it this why, I agree with everything you said above... You made a good point. --Wüstenfuchs 03:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I need to come-out and say sorry to DIREKTOR b/c I accused him without looking at his profile, and now I see that he is an older and experienced editor, thus I have retracted my earlier comment on him. I guess I just got tired and angry with different people making the same POV edit that made me work daily to revert them. Anyways, I hope we can just move on with this issue and just keep the article nice and clean. Moester101 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

tiny grammar mistake to be corrected

In reading the Syria article, I noticed a grammar mistake, but could not correct it since the article is locked. Can the person/group who has the authority to alter the article consider this revision? In the last paragraph before the table of contents a sentence reads: This body has been recognised as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people" member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council and by France, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The word "by" should be inserted between "people" and "member states" to read: This body has been recognised as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people" by member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council and by France, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Joconnell7 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)joconnell7, 22 November 2012

Thanks for spotting the error. The correction was made. Guest2625 (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Internet blackout?

Cnet reports that Syria has completely shut down its internet (youtube BU9lpFg084g). I think this is worth noting, does anyone else have some sauce for this? — Supuhstar * — 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've written a section with quite a bit of sauce. Is that enough? — Supuhstar * — 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're confusing this article with Syrian civil war. I'll move it there, if it's not already mentioned. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this has anything to do with their civil war — Supuhstar * — 13:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in the context of the civil war. It's inappropriate for this article. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

— Supuhstar * — 00:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

[uncategorized by poster]

This articl need too be editad the history 21st century section is totaly based on one bbc news report that is under refute by many other news gathering agencys.there are very few hard facts in that section of the article and it is clear too see it is somones opinionated comintary on the syrian situation today. this is not supposed to be a propaganda machine. 67.174.136.171 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

evaluative word; Syntax

" Between 1958 and 1961, Syria entered a brief union with Egypt, which was terminated by a military coup." Why "brief"? 1) Let the reader decide if 1958-1961 us brief or not. 2) They entered for the entire time? I doubt it. Try something like "were in a union." 202.179.19.14 (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Qatar handing embassy over to opposition

Add this to the Syrian embassy in Libya [11] :Qatar handing embassy over to opposition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.144 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

List government as disputed

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/11/syrian-opposition-deal/1697693/ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121111141834268537.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/11/us-syria-crisis-doha-idUSBRE8AA0H320121111

All major political opposition groups unified and elected a new president.

The FSA has 50-60% of Syrian territory. During the Libyan civil war we put "disputed" in the libya info-box when the NTC only had 20% territory. I7laseral (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the vast majority of countries in the international community recognize Assad's government as the legitimate government of Syria. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As the number of foreign nations that recognize the newly formed opposition umbrella ogranization the legitimate representitave increases, it shall be edited as disputed. Which is something seems like about to happen soon... AndyMcKandless (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A "legitimate government" is much more of a political tool than it is a legal term or situation, so any such additions would seem one-sided. The opposition flag and symbols should be added when/if the opposition gains full control of the country. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Syrian Opposition controls more territory than the Assad Government, so the "control" isn´t a valid parameter--80.39.199.127 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounded pretty contradicting. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounded fine to me. Full Arab League and EU recognition of the SNC opposition would be enough to have to make clear that the government is disputed; it's only a matter of time until that happens now anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.137 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think once the Arab League and/or European Union and/or the United States recognizes the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the government/sole legitimate representative of Syria or something along those lines, then the government should be listed as disputed.--Wikien2009 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why ? What does "legitimate representative" mean and according to which international laws can it be qualified as "legitimate" ? It has no legally defined institutions, no political framework other than simply being in opposition, it does not control the nation's capital and therefore it cannot, technically or otherwise, be considered a "government". Unless Syria's seat at the UN, as was the Libya case, is taken by its representatives, there's no reason to consider the SNC a government at all. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

when full recognition is granted (as it had been already by France) "[sole] legitimate representative" be upgrade to a title more significant. We are approaching a situation where the Assad regime is fast losing control of Aleppo, and the country's largest city will be opposition controlled; add to that the fact that the SNC will likely soon hold the Arab league's chair for Syria and the Ba'athist regime has little case for legitimacy going into the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.51 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As of 20 11 2012, the Arab League and the EU have formally recognized the SNC as a "legitimate representative" of Syria and the number of countries recognizing them as the lone legitimate government of Syria is growing by the day. [12] [13] [14] 68.37.161.91 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't answer the question - what is a "legitimate government" and how can it be considered a government at all when it doesn't even have a capital, a legal framework or institutions ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 05:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. Countries have declared that it is the sole representative, therefore that helps form consensus. Etymological or philosophical questions such as the one you just raised are, quite frankly, above your pay grade buddy.

Nobody recognised the Coalition as a government, but as a representative... this is a huge difference, let's not rush. --Wüstenfuchs 00:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem I'm trying to underline - people equate "legitimate representative" to "legitimate government" exactly because neither of those terms has any real meaning beyond a sign of diplomatic support for the rebel forces. There's no "disputed government" at all, and any proposals to list the current one as such are simply wishful thinking. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Once there is a real government, one that has control over rebel areas and has some form of a functioning institution, then we can start talking about a disputed government. Not yet, not by a far cry. Yazan (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above editor. Also, we should not list of government as disputed when it is not recognized under international law (most notably, the benchmark of such enactment of international law would be a binding resolution in both the UN Security Council and General Assembly. The Al-Halqi government (under Bashar al-Assad) still exercise power of the apparatus of state (civil/military powers) as legitimized under confidence of the Peoples Council. I have reverted previous disputed edits as a result of this talk page.

Faction	Control of the territory	Support and recognition
Bath Government	40-50%	Russia ; Axis of Resistance ; Some socialist countries
Rebels	50%-60	European Union  ; USA ; Arab League, Gulf countries

I think both of them should be added, or at least, point out that Mr Assad government is not the only recognized government--79.151.215.184 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Now 130 countries recognize the opposition. They are more than a half of the countries of the World. I think it´s time to point out that the government is disputed.--80.26.243.18 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the flag may be neutral at this point. It might have to be demoted to the section "Politics" and have the Coalition flag alongside it.--Marianian^(talk) 17:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Assad doesn´t control the territory and is no longer recognized as the only legitimate government.--83.35.235.40 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Really disappointing article. Excuse me, but to say that there is no dispute when it comes who who governs Syria = POV. The govt. of Syria is very much in question. This whole page is discredited if there is no reference to the dispute that some here prefer to ignore. For the sake of credibility, you must include the point that two as of now equal entities control vast parts of Syria and claim to be the government of that country. This is not a question of law but only of control and power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.72.208 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: The Obama Administration has recognized the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian People." It will be interesting to see how much longer you hawks can perpetuate the lie that there is no dispute to the Assad regime being the legitimate government. 69.148.204.232 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/exclusive-president-obama-recognizes-syrian-opposition-group/story?id=17936599

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/us-syria-opposition/index.html

• I wish to reiterate that I would support showing both governments, as per my "Major edit proposal" below, yet not label both of them as disputed. This would be the best option for the current situation. --Marianian^(talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree assad's government is contested government Abdo45 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The opposition has appointed an interim Prime Minister to govern rebel-held areas. Should the government be displayed as disputed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacharyGeorge (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

With the formation of a rival government as opposed to a "coalition", per the example of Libya circa mid-2011, I think it's time to list the Syrian government as disputed and include infoboxes for both factions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Demographics - 1.8-2.0 million Turkmen

according to the source wikipedia ueses, the number of turkmens in syria is not 0.5-1 million. are people checking the sources? the source states the number of turkmens at 1,8-2,0 million. i have changed this figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.126.202 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I was thinking of adding the following templates to the article. A.h. king • Talk to me! 22:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Arab Republic الجمهورية العربية السورية Al-Jumhūrīyah Al-ʻArabīyah As-Sūrīyah
Flag Coat of arms
Anthem: Homat el Diyar Guardians of the Land
Capital	Damascus
Official languages	Arabic
Government	Dominant-party unitary semi-presidential state
• President	Bashar al-Assad
• Prime Minister	Wael Nader al-Halqi
• Speaker of the People's Council	Mohammad Jihad al-Laham
Legislature	People's Council
ISO 3166 code	SY

Syria سوريا‎ Sūrīyah
Flag
Anthem: Homat el Diyar Guardians of the Land
Capital	Damascus
Official languages	Arabic
Government	Transitional government
• Prime Minister	Ghassan Hitto
• President of the Syrian National Coalition	Moaz al-Khatib
• Secretary General of the Syrian National Coalition	Mustafa Sabbagh
ISO 3166 code	SY

As per my edit proposal these could go in the Politics and government section. As for the ordering I was thinking about flipping a coin to decide that. Thoughts? --Marianian^(talk) 00:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the order as I presented is best as I arranged according to date of formation. A.h. king • Talk to me! 10:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that some editor has taken the proposals literally and messed up the leading infobox. What it should be is that leading infobox be "neutral", then the two government infoboxes in the Politics and government section. --Marianian^(talk) 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fellas, this is incredibly biased. Assad's government, for better or for worse - is still the legal government of Syria. One may support the SNC government, half the world may support it, but until it wins the war and overthrows Assad - it is in no way a legal government of Syria per international law. Placing the SNC somehow on par with the Syrian government is plain political promotion.

Now, I anticipate a storm of explanations on how Assad is being denounced by this country and that, or that the SNC is recognized by all these countries, etc. Let me say right now: its a war on. Some countries support Assad, many the SNC - but in all fairness Assad "was there first". Until its dissolved, his government is the one of the two that has legality. -- Director (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just saw it was Sopher99 who pulled that off - shocking :). You know, Sopher, I only came here for a quick link to the Syrian flag. Now I'll have to ask you to achieve a proper consensus for your highly controversial edit. -- Director (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought that a neutral leading infobox would be a middle ground given the situation, but I think we need to open an formal RFC over this. Events are changing quite quickly: recently the SNC took up the Arab League seat, so now I am at a loss on how we should proceed without risking further problems. --Marianian^(talk) 12:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be the middle ground if the two sides in the civil war were somehow equal in standing. That is not the case here, though. The SNC government, while being far more likable, has very little or no legality. They're the rebels, plain and simple. Granting them equal status here on Wiki can very easily be perceived as favorable representation. According to international law, the Syrian government is the Syrian government :). It is the one sitting in the UN (Bashar Jaafari), and probably will be until its dissolved and replaced. At such a point we can switch to the new one. Remember that this article's infobox isn't intended to illustrate a conflict. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

UN representation was not the only factor that I considered in my attempt to strike a balance. I had to take into account Arab League representation, OIC representation, political recognition from more than 193 countries and extent of territory held. In my opinion I felt that it was best to leave it at neutral because the SNC has legitimate and informal recognition from at least 100 countries (see National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces#International recognition, plus Arab League membership. I am well aware of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF: the rationale for choosing a neutral lead infobox also connects to the hope that an element of dispute over recognition would be settled for now before it gets out of control. I can only do as much to address this. --Marianian^(talk) 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

First, the informal recognition of over 100 countries is a bit dubious, even if sourced in that page. Nowhere is it explicitly stated which states have recognised the SNC - there's just a number with a couple of highlights, and recognition by supranational entities, not individual countries. Second, even in countries where the opposition is recognised, embassies still operate under the Arab Republic flag, with the notable exception of Qatar. Third, as stated above, we don't really have two governments here. We have one government and a loose coalition of armed groups with a political cap that claims to be a government, yet has no capital, no cabinet, and is largely self-appointed (in stark contrast to the Libyan situation). In this case, removing the insignia of the functioning and (more or less) legitimate government is in favour of the SNC, therefore not neutral nor a middle ground solution. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said, those are rebels: "when they win, put them in". UN representation is not the point, I mentioned it merely to illustrate that the SNC is not the legal government of Syria according to international law. As custodian of said law, the UN does not replace de iure representatives unless there really is an overwhelming de facto defeat on the ground. A big example would be China, which came entirely under communist control as early as 1949, but in the UN the People's Republic of China only replaced the Republic of China (Taiwan) 22 years later. And on this project, until very recently, the PRC was still not included in the "China" article (but rather the PRC and Taiwan each had their own separate ones).

Legality matters, and the SNC is not the legal government (if it can be called a "government" to begin with). When/if it establishes de facto control over the vast majority of Syrian territory, there might me an argument for amendments. But with the civil war in full swing, I can see no reasonable argument for such favorable representation on equal terms with the actual government.

But that won't stop rebel supporters like Sayerslle to try and push such controversial, non-consensus changes through a 1RR-edit-war :). -- Director (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I completely agree with you. Infobox should remain as it was until now. Rebels (better to say, terrorists) and their so-called "government" are not legal government of Syria, nor they have control over the vast majority of Syrian territory. Also, they don't have massive support of countries (except the Western ones) and international organizations (except the Arab League). Recognition from countries all over the world and from the UN is precondition to have any form of legality. Furthermore, my personal thoughts on this issue - these terrorists and their so-called "government" are absolutely dependent on help and support from their Western allies and Gulf states. Without it, they wouldn't last for more than a week in this war. I sincerely hope they'll eventually be defeated. To end with your words, DIREKTOR: When they win, put them in (and I hope they'll never win). --Sundostund (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In regard to your snide comments first of all they are not terrorists, only al nusra (10,000 people) are considered terrorists, but keep in mind the United States also blacklisted the shabiha as terrorists. Second the FSA army was formed in July 2011, and didn't receive any aid from abroad into May 2012. (Alot more then 1 week without aid). Second of all Assad is relying fully on iranian and russian arms from abroad, "and wouldn't last 1 week" without them. Sopher99 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Sopher99, you admit that not all of them are terrorists, just some (Al Nusra)! So, there is a group of 10,000 people who are officially considered terrorists, but others are "poor freedom fighters"? Yeah, right. All of them are terrorists, supported by Western countries and neo-colonialists who want to create another client state with puppet government in the Middle East (as they, unfortunately, succeeded in Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011). I hope they'll not be successful this time. As for the FSA, they are not just terrorists, but traitors too who were members of the Syrian Armed Forces before they accepted money from USA, Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc to betray their country and to serve foreign interests. As for foreign aid, only naive person can believe that FSA didn't receive foreign aid from July 2011 to May 2012! They are even formed on Turkish soil, not in Syria! They wouldn't even exist on the battlefield until May 2012 without massive help from their creators and masters - Western countries. Help which President al-Assad's government receive from Russia, Iran, China etc is ridiculously small when compared to help which terrorists receive. --Sundostund (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Sopher99, accept my "sincere condolences" for this - On 25 March 2013, the FSA commander Riad al-Asaad was victim of a car bomb explosion near Mayadin, east of Syria. He was taken to Turkey for a treatment, and in hospital he shouted "I want to die." Part of his right leg was amputated. :) As the French would say - C'est la guerre! --Sundostund (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sundostund, you may be interested to participate in the weird never-ending discussion over at the Syrian civil war article. We're always looking for fresh victims :).

@Sopher. How do you know they didn't receive aid from abroad until May 2012? Be that as it may, they are receiving it now - by the truckload, and from all-time allies of the Arabs - the Turks. Not to start about the strong possibility of Libya-like NATO assistance. The US.. another big ally of the Arabs :). In my personal opinion, the blocks are pretty clear: US/NATO/Israel for the one side, Iran/Russia for the other (Turkey is a member of NATO in case we've forgotten; just like my country, Croatia for that matter). These folks hate each-other and would send arms to prevent the other side gain regional influence even if there were no other interests at stake. But can you imagine Israel just standing by while Iran gains influence through an Assad victory? Certainly not, they can and do intervene with neighbors at the drop of a hat. Sure, the rebels talk a lot, but its all just words. If you're looking for who's against the US and Israel - see whom Iran is supporting. -- Director (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. The Syrian goverment is only anti-Israel in rhetoric. Israel is not in favor of Syrian government being overthrown, believing that such an event would ignite a safehaven for the muslim brotherhood, who they believe would team up with the Egyptian muslim brotherhood and repeat the failled 1973 scenario. Instead Israel is on board with the "political solution" idea (which so Iran and Russia also claim to support). It is not uncommon for countries to send weapons to any side of a war, but the argument that one side is illegitimate because they can "be defeated so easily without foreign help" is invalid. That would mean that Palestine doesn't deserve a state, or half of all countries on earth for that matter. Sopher99 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, thank you very much for your polite invitation, but I'm really not a fan of weird, never-ending discussions :) Sopher99, Syrian government is anti-Israel not just in rhetoric, but in essence and with good reason: Israel hold under its occupation a part of the sovereign territory of Syria, the Golan Heights, since 1967. Israelis hate President al-Assad and his government, because they know Syria is the only country with which Israel borders which can still be a major threat to Israel in any future regional war (together with Iran). Muslim Brotherhood rulers of Egypt are those who are anti-Israel in rhetoric only, that same apply to Syrian terrorists who would never act against their Western masters' wishes and endanger Israel in any way if they succeed in taking over Syria (I hope they never would!). Only Syria and Iran remain essentially anti-Israel countries in the Middle East today, Israelis knows that, so they send covert support for terrorists in Syria. In the end, DIREKTOR is absolutely right: The blocks in this conflict are crystal clear: US/NATO/Israel for the one side (terrorists), Iran/Russia for the other (President al-Assad's government). And, DIRECTOR: Maybe your country (Croatia) is a member of NATO, but I'm really happy to see that YOU aren't a member of it :) --Sundostund (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

P. S. Ne znam kakvo je tvoje misljenje o tome, ali ja i dalje verujem u proslo (i, nadam se, buduce) jedinstvo nasih naroda. Svu mrznju na ovim prostorima je posejao Zapad, zarad svojih interesa. Zato su i razbili Jugoslaviju koja ce, nadam se, jednog dana opet zaziveti! --Sundostund (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I myself do entertain that theory (it seems Germany at least certainly had a vested interest). But, I also hold that it started with Milosevich. F. William Engdahl seems to think Slobo was something of an IMF man. I mean we had our little "spring" in '71, we were happy with the '74 constitution.. If I had to put it in a sentence, it was probably-IMF-supported Slobo taking advantage of siptar atrocities that started it. Anyway, even though I certainly think it would be a good idea, I wouldn't hold any high hopes for any future unions.. we're all going to the EU. Possibly something will happen in that context.. While we're digressing, here's another interesting link (old Farage is certainly right about the "enormously wealthy part" :)). -- Director (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)