Jump to content

Talk:Syria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wiki erudito (talk | contribs) at 11:33, 30 December 2012 (→Major edit proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeSyria 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
DateProcessResult
March 27, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage


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)''[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That sounded pretty contradicting. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [1] [2] [3] 68.37.161.91 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I've written a section with quite a bit of sauce. Is that enough? — Supuhstar * — 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's no evidence that this has anything to do with their civil war — Supuhstar * — 13:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the context of the civil war. It's inappropriate for this article. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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(talk) 21:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syria&oldid=530437269"