Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 30 March 2013

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

	Syria was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 27, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kurdistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Assyria High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 17, 2011 and April 17, 2012.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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 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 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 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

when full recognition is granted (as it had been already by France) " 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. 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 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 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.

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 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 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)

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 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 18:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Major edit proposal

Due to a possible massive impact on the layout I have decided to ask for consensus over my proposal to demote references to the government from the lead country infobox into separate country infoboxes in the Politics and government. The mockups can be seen at User:Marianian/Syria Sandbox. I anticipate that a fair use rationale will be required to include the Coalition's logo. --Marianian 21:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your proposal --Wiki erudito (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose, as there is no sound opposition government yet, and the current one remains in power in its nominal capital city. The opposition remains fractured, and the outcome of the war is still nowhere in sight. - ☣Tourbillon 10:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree We should definitely represent these somewhere, and this seems the most unbiased way to document them all.

Bias is to present a fragmented paramilitary force capped by non-elected political leaders with no institutions as "government", just because certain geopolitical actors have made a protocol statement. - ☣Tourbillon 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages needs to recognize governments that aren't necessarily in the UN. Plus, these are extraordinarily prominent parts of Syria, as far as I cna tell, and are worth noting. — Supuhstar * — 18:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Worth noting, yes. Contesting the official state apparatus because of something that isn't even a government ? Not quite. - ☣Tourbillon 00:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Where, then, would you note them completely? — Supuhstar * — 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Politics section; the most adequate solution would be to state in two paragraphs that the central authority in power is disputed by the political wing of the rebel force. List known figures, structure and capital (if any), areas of control, supporters (domestic and international) of this quasi-government and link to appropriate articles. Probably the most neutral solution IMO, the rebel political body is far too disorganised to merit anything more than this. - ☣Tourbillon 22:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Disagree Even though they recognise the rebel faction as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people, nearly all countries that oppose Assad still consider his government the one that rules Syria. One example is that despite having a office in Brussels, the rebels may not call this an "embassy" since this title is reserved to the Official pro-Assad representative.--Rafy talk 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with you 3bdulelah (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Observations I take note that the Politics and government section looks biased towards the People's Council as it does not acknowledge the Syrian National Coalition yet. Paragraphs about the SNC may have to be added first - I am not an expert on Syria, but definitely someone that can try to settle the dispute over the presentation of the government at times like this. --Marianian 02:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree The statements of users like Tourbillion are just plain false. The NTC is elected, and is a functioning government in exile. And the point about being elected is highly ironic; Assad was not 'elected' in a manner in which anyone, in any part or region of the world, would consider fair, democratic or legitimate, so this asspect is obviously not a real concern for these editors. With the end game apparently nearing in Damascus, it's high time this info box edit was done as it was previously done on the Arabic wiki.

 Disagree To the user above: Exactly who were these politicians within the national coalition elected by? Did any Syrians choose these representatives? I do not believe they were, please broaden your perspective on the matter beyond your own personal opinions and beliefs.

The SNC is made up only of Syrians, so yes Syrians elected them. And personal views have nothing to do with this issue. The actions of soverign states do however, some of who now recognize the SNC over the dictatorship of Assad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.93 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact still stands that the Syrian majority had no say in who was the leader of this coalition, there is no true representative of the Syrian people within this exiled group, one cannot assume that the Syrians would just accept al-Khatib or whoever, as it's leader. It's like saying members of the republican party voted in who they would like to represent them, btw, the SNC is now obsolete, NATO has shifted it's support to the National Coalition.

SNC is an abbreviation for Syrian National Council. And they aren't just backed by NATO (Brazil and India are not in NATO). Also please don't skew consensus by adding extra 'disagree' markers.

You really don't think i knew what the acronym stood for? The SNC is no longer the primary group within the opposition, many of it's members merged with the National Coalition. I will also throw up a marker when i find it is necessary, as was with my latter edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.96.205 (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

SNC stands for both the former Syrian National Council AND Syrian National Coalition. It's the same acroynm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.134 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Observations I take note that the leading infobox is now subject of a possible edit dispute. I am inclined to add my personal recommendation that if the Infobox is to be neutralised then the Politics and Government section must have infoboxes of rival governments (see User:Marianian/Syria Sandbox for mockups. Thanks. --Marianian 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Implemented: Considering the scale of international recognition for quite sometime I shall implement the proposal. Hopefully this should settle the dispute for the short-term. --Marianian 00:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I strongly recommend this implementation to be reverted. The rebel entity is not even a quasi-government, and its recognition is actually very limited. This is not the Libyan case, where two clearly distinguished governments existed, and I see no reason to implement the same practice here. Tourbillon, not logged in. 94.26.48.133 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Disagree with this as well, and N reverted to the status quo as I can see no real consensus (5 for, 4 against), especially now. This isn't really about international recognition at all - both sides enjoy it aplenty, that's just a red herring. The SNC government is completely illegal according to international law. The government of Syria is, well - the government of Syria. The legal status quo must be maintained at least until Assad's government is de facto dissolved. Gentlemen, there's a war very much on - lets curb our enthusiasm. -- Director (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Disagree as well. The opposition 'government' has no control on the ground, does not operate from within Syria and cannot even agree among itself as to who its leading members are. 12 members of the SNC resigned last week over Hitto's election to PM and even Khatib tried to resign before being convinced to stay. The opposition being given the Arab League seat means very little as that event occurred in Qatar, a country which is not exactly unbiased in the conflict. There are few to no real trappings of government amongst the opposition and it makes no sense to suddenly act as if they have jurisdiction over large swathes of Syria. 68.149.163.72 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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  :Qatar handing embassy over to opposition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.144 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 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 Republicالجمهورية 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

Syriaسوريا‎ 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 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 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 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 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 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 received foreign aid from July 2011 to May 2012! 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)

RfC: Presentation of the Syrian country infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should Syria's country infobox be presented, considering an ongoing civil war and the current state of international recognition for the two competing sides? Marianian 06:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Sign within preferred options below with --~~~~. It is like a yes/no vote but with multiple options.

Retain "red-white-black" symbols?

Switch to "green-white-black" symbols?

Use "neutral" infobox?

Better options?

Threaded discussion

• My personal opinion is that the state of international recognition for the two competing sides is too close to call, and therefore I felt that a neutral country infobox would be an appropriate solution (see Talk:Syria#Major edit proposal for my original proposal). Noting the importance of WP:NPOV, I could not see how a neutral infobox could imply that Wikpedia supported any of the competing sides. Sadly, this has not resolved the dispute and therefore I have to blow the whistle and ask for further opinion and a consensus before it gets out of hand - I could not find the right RfC that would be appropriate for this (This RFC was about Israel's role, and not international recognition). --Marianian 06:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep the infobox of the legitimate power INSIDE Syria not out of the borders of Syria. Keep infos of the sovereign Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and not the externally-appointed one of the opposition which is not in power yet. The representation at the Arab League does not make any sense, as the Syrian flag of Red-White-Black with two green stars is still rising at the UN headquarters.--Preacher lad (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The three stars flag does represent only some oppositionists outside Syria. That flag is not even used by many opposition groups inside Syria. At the end, The two stars flag is still the de-facto and the de-jure flag both in Syria and the United Nations.--Preacher lad (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I support the first option, to retain "red-white-black" symbols, and I totally agree with Preacher lad's words. Furthermore, I think there's no valid reason to remove the infos of the Syrian government of President al-Assad and to replace them with symbols of externally-supported terrorists and their so-called "interim government". Individual support and recognition, which some countries and organizations give to those terrorists, certainly can't be a reason to replace infobox about Syria here and other data elsewhere. Most countries, especially the largest ones, like Russia, China, India, Brazil etc continue to recognize President al-Assad's government. Its especially important to underline that the UN still recognize the legitimate Syrian government, and display its symbols at its headquarters. --Sundostund (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• As per my two or three essays above - retain the legal, UN-flown flag of Syria with two stars. International recognition is a red herring, we do not make "calls" like that on Wiki. There is no basis whatsoever for removing the legal insignia while its representative of Syria by international law. Gentlemen, the war is very much in full swing - lets curb our enthusiasm. -- Director (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • are you a lawyer? in december 2012 the U>s recognised the opposition to a degree did it not? i looked up international law on merriam webseter - "The term was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Important elements of international law include sovereignty, recognition (which allows a country to honour the claims of another), consent (which allows for modifications in international agreements to fit the customs of a country), freedom of the high seas" - if recognition is important to merriem webster why is it a red herring to you-why are you ignoring the U.S ,arab league, france, Britain ? - i thought you studied medicine or summat, not law anyhow. this is a load of pov bluster and bs on your part i reckon. let alone the de facto situation. this is like the green flag on the libya page which stayed long after reality had made a moot point what was de facto/de jure realities. like the gadaffi-ites , the assad ists want to insist that nothing has changed. in your minds maybe not. but things have changed in reality.Sayerslle (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is opposed and has no consensus. I am not interested in your original research, your POV is opposed so please revert it until you have consensus. These sort of matters are essentially ruled by the position of the community alone and thus far all I'm seeing is opposition. The de iure situation is Assad is king, that's what international law has to say - just ask the freaking UN. The de facto situation is there's a war on. When the UN changes its position, or the rebels take over the vast majority of Syria, then we might have something to discuss. Right now, there is no cause whatsoever to scrap the Syrian flag. And never you mind what I study. -- Director (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, DIREKTOR! Assad is king! And terrorists and their Western mentors need to fight in a long, bloody struggle if they want to change that! Much bloodier and longer than up to now. You said: When the UN changes its position, or the rebels take over the vast majority of Syria, then we might have something to discuss. Hopefully, neither of that will ever happen! --Sundostund (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian government

At this point in Syria is the current government and the Official emblem and flag of the United Nations and which are recognized as long as it is not necessary to change or anything! And current president Bashar al-Assad http://en.wikipedia.org/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations http://www.un.int/syria/ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html95.133.223.95 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I Agree with you , The Flag and Emblem , also the national theme must be included , What now ? , The national theme doen't represent Syria ? , Is it put by Ba'ath ? 178.61.35.103 (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

95.133.223.95, I obviously agree with you (especially with the part when you stress that President al-Assad's government is recognized by the UN, which continue to display the flag and the coat of arms of the legitimate Syrian government). But, you should improve your understanding and working knowledge of English language before you start editing here, this is English Misplaced Pages after all. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Some editors went beyond limits, removed everything related with the legitimate government in Syria which is still in POWER and RECOGNIZED by the supreme global international organization; the UN. Nobody cares about the opposition representation at the Arab League. As long as the Baath government controls over Syria and the two stars flag is still rising over the headquarters of the UN and the Syrian embassies abroad, the 1958 Union flag should be maintained (for the time being -at least- the 1932 French-mandate flag should not be included in the article as a flag of the current Syrian state.--Preacher lad (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I completely agree. -- Director (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, Preacher lad! --Sundostund (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! - news report yesterday -"Meanwhile, Russia vowed to oppose an expected push by the Syrian opposition to take over Syria's seat at the UN.

It criticised the Arab League for giving Syria's seat to the opposition at a league summit." I suppose everything in life has its comic parallel, so its only fitting that even here we should find comedic parodic versions of a Putin-China veto and the Russophiles who like to see the POWERful lock up people for miming in a church - I think preacher lads rather speechified "the legitimate government in Syria which is still in POWER and RECOGNIZED by the supreme global international organization; the UN. Nobody cares about the opposition representation at the Arab League. As long as the Baath government controls over Syria and the two stars flag is still rising over the headquarters of the UN and the Syrian embassies abroad," - is a bit pov possibly? , - does the Assad regime control over all Syria defacto? im sure the news last night showed areas near the Turkish border in Kurd, and FSA control. But no, Preacher lad wouldnt be guilty of the least hyperbole.maybe the news you see is controlled?censored? preacher lad and direktoo know everything. or do they just talk like they do.- - still, its good to see how factions argue and think - even in parody versions - imagine what the real things are like. Sayerslle (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

1. "Constitution of Syria 2012". Scribd.com. 2012-02-15. Retrieved 2013-01-25.
2. "'I want to die': Free Syria Army chief cries out after losing his leg". Al Arabiya. 26 March 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
3. "Syrie: le fondateur de l'ASL blessé". Le Figaro. 25 March 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
4. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-26/free-syrian-army-leader-wounded-in-bomb-attack/4593956

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Top-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• Top-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• C-Class Kurdistan articles
• Top-importance Kurdistan articles
• WikiProject Kurdistan articles
• C-Class Assyrian articles
• High-importance Assyrian articles
• WikiProject Assyria articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• C-Class Asia articles
• Top-importance Asia articles
• WikiProject Asia articles
• C-Class Western Asia articles
• Top-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• Selected anniversaries (April 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (April 2012)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment