Talk:Syria

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)''

Ciil 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 ([1]). 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 ([2]) 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)

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)

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)

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)