Talk:Flag of Syria

This is getting ridiculous

Based on this worthless page, Google is now showing the FSA banner when you search "Syrian flag". Make like a banana, and split. 70.48.113.232 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What you call the "FSA banner" was in fact the flag of Syria from at least 1946-1958 and 1961-1963, so it's not lying as such (though the text snippet Google displays from the article doesn't match the image). It's a little strange, but on my browser, the Assad/green-star flag is displayed in the little summary box (detached from the search results) at the right of the page, while the old/rebel/red-star flag is displayed under the first result at left, so anybody who was paying a little bit of attention would not be misinformed. Certainly anybody who clicked on the Wikipedia article itself would not be misinformed... AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I've read this entire page, and you've rehashed that point ad nauseum. Whatever you say (repeatedly), that rag is not the flag of the Syrian Arab Republic. Enough!

P.S. "Banner" is not a pejorative in vexillological terms. I merely wanted to avoid using the word "flag" twice in one sentence.70.48.113.232 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It was the flag of the الجمهورية السورية as you can read for yourself at image File:Coat of arms of Syria-1957.svg. Some consider it the last flag untainted by Nasser's rule, Ba`thism, and the Assad dynasty, and respect it for that reason, while others dislike it for similar reasons. However, mere personal opinions should not affect the Wikipedia article, nor should quirks of Google search displays... AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The page is nonsense and should be deleted, so that someone can start again. There is only one internationally recognised government of Syria. The alternatives, whatever they are called this week, are not even based in Syria. As for the FSA flag, it is associated first and foremost with Western-backed marauding terrorists, who certainly do not represent the Syrian people. Bougatsa42 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We've had this discussion above; see National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces#International_recognition etc. Your use of the word "terrorists" is unfortunately laughable, since the Assad dynasty has notoriously loved, coddled, and protected terrorists when they could use them against their enemies... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

So who exactly is this "government's" envoy to the United Nations, to Astana, to Geneva? Bougatsa42 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Only one Syrian flag at the Soccer World Club 2017

The official Syrian flag flown at the Soccer World Cup is ... the Syrian flag. Not the ISIS flag, not that of the French Mandate. To continue to pretend there are two internationally recognised Syrian flags of equal weight is ridiculous. Bougatsa42 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not necessarily something to boast about, since FIFA is a notoriously corrupt organization, which has a cozy relationship with several despotic tyrants. See also http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/19343630/how-syrian-government-brought-soccer-campaign-oppression . In any case, FIFA is not in charge of state recognition and legitimation. AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

UN recognized flag

There is only one UN and internationally recognized flag, Just because the Syrian National Coalition "claims" itself to be the government does not make it so, it is not recognized by the UN to be the government. This article needs to be updated and fixed to reflect this, and to stop spreading false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon551055 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly above (and in sections which have been moved to the archives of this talk page). In 2013, over 20 countries extended some form of recognition to the Syrian opposition, and it took Syria's seat in the Arab League.[1] United Nations membership can be important, but is not decisive in itself. During 1979 and most of the 1980's, the Pol Pot government or Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea held the United Nations seat for Cambodia, though very few people in the world thought that it was the legitimate government of Cambodia... AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you can see on the talk archives page, that before 2013, I was opposed to presenting the two flags as equal, but then things changed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Your maneuverings at File:Flag of Syria 2011, observed.svg on Commons were counterproductive, and have been repeatedly rejected... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So when do you think this article should be updated to have a single infobox? Anon551055 (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know right now -- but not just because the Iran-Hezbollah-Russia trio started propping up the Assad regime. AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I find discussion on this talk page interesting. Sure, the Assad regime doesn´t control significant parts of Syria and is not recognised by many countries, but what about the 1980 flag? My brief look at Syria country profile on foreign ministry webpages of several countries shows many governments continue to use the 1980 flag for Syria: US [2], France [3], Germany [4], Italy [5], Spain [6] and even Turkey [7]. I wonder who is using the 1961 flag? Pavlor (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried to look on the Arab League website http://www.lasportal.org/ , but it's down now (which is nothing new -- the Arab League didn't even have a website for most of the decade of the 2000s!). Anyway, governments don't usually directly recognize flags -- they recognize governments, and the flag follows from the government... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious that even countries not on friendly term with the Assad regime use the 1980 flag as flag of Syria on their webpages. That is why I asked, if there is similar level of support for the 1961 flag. I understand your point is both flags should have equal place in the article, but can you back this opinion by reliable sources? Article history shows steady edit war about this issue, but arguments I see on the talkpage are of the pov-like kind. As of government recognition, only few countries recognise Syrian Interim Government as sole government of Syria (17 if I count this right, other recognition are more "vague") and judging by its success in the field, this will be not better in the future. If we don´t find enough RS for equal status of both flags, I propose to change section "Flag used by the Assad government" to "Description". Rewording of introduction would be also preferable (looks like pov of one side...), but such change would need even stronger consensus - better leave it as it is for now. Sure, opinion of other editors is welcomed. Pavlor (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Syria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113021805/http://flagspot.net/flags/arabcol.html to http://flagspot.net/flags/arabcol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral language

As per requested by user EDIT:Sro23, I'm opening a discussion to help make the article more accurate by neutralising the slightly biased language.

There is no question that there has been a clear agenda by the Syrian opposition to attribute the government and its supporters specifically to the President over the course of the war in an effort to demonize him. There's nothing particularly wrong with this type of propaganda in reality, it can be very effective.

The issue lies within maintaining the integrity of an informative article on an informative website. Continuing to use the phrase "Assad government" and related terms violates the Wikipedia content rule demanding a 'Neutral point of view'. As such, it is detrimental to the integrity of the article and the site overall.

While technically the government of Assad, it would be more neutral & accurate (and therefore in-line with Wiki policies) to label it as the Syrian government, as it is just that in it's simplest form. It is the current & official government of Syria, which just so happens to be led by a man named Bashar al-Assad.

I'd also like to note that the sections pertaining to the opposition have no such attributive language, and are neutral yet official-looking. I've not made any edits to that part of the article, yet prominent user AlAboud83/AlHanuty has been hawking over the government section of the article and edit warring.

I put it to you all that should the current agreed consensus truly be to call it the "Assad government", it would be better to agree upon calling it the "Syrian government" in the interest of accuracy, neutrality, and integrity.

Holy Logician (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed solution (see my reasons in the "UN recognized flag" thread above). Pavlor (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think "official government" is less neutral than "incumbent government", and think the "Assad government" phrase makes it clearer for readers who would otherwise be confused.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Here I agree, that is why I proposed simple "Description" for the section name. However, "Syrian government" name proposed by Holy Logician is also not bad (in line with "Syrian Interim Government" used for the other flag). Pavlor (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Official and incumbent mean virtually the exact same thing. Incumbent stands as the more obtuse option of the two. Please explain why you think "Assad government" is in any way clearer to readers (especially new ones) than "Syrian government", whilst remembering that neutrality is one of the five pillars. Thanks. Holy Logician (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My English language skills are probably weak, my statement was in support of your proposal, "Syrian government". Note terms "official" and "incumbent" are POV, because some countries recognize the other government - hence my agreement with Bobfrombrockley in this point. Pavlor (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my reply was meant to be for Bobfrombrockley. I appreciate the support. I don't think "official" can be viewed as POV in this case. It is still internationally recognised as the government of a sovereign state (by the UN no less), thus making it inarguably official. The SNC is also recognised as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people, hence why there have been no alterations to the language in their section of the article. We should avoid double standards here and give equal weight. Holy Logician (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The agreed concensus that we reached in 2013 regarding the flag of Syria is the best solution we have for now,this is the same language that we used in Libya,when we put the "Flag used by the Gaddafi Government" so we have a precedent to follow,the current language the "Flag used by the Assad Government" sounds fine to me.Alhanuty (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC) And it doesn't violate Wikipedia rules.Alhanuty (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears then that this "agreed consensus" was based upon a 5-year-old false precedent. Just because you've done something incorrectly before, doesn't mean it's okay to do it again. The phrase "Assad government" is very clearly attributive and falls directly in line with the longest-running propaganda tactic used by the opposition. This automatically invalidates its eligibility to be called neutral language, therefore it violates one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that upholds neutrality. I think it's quite clear what needs to be done. I'm genuinely surprised this is even up for debate. Holy Logician (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

this was agreed by multiple editors in the past,and i doubt that anything will change,and no,this is not a tactic by the opposition,and it doesn't violate wikipedia's rules.Wikipedia editors in deciding this issue have used certain measurement to do this,Assad is technically a government that has a rival government opposing it,plus the Assad government is a neutral term that describes a government that is being ran by one man.also assuming that editors of the past are opposition supporters is an insult to the intellect of those editors.Alhanuty (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand that it was agreed upon, unfortunately that doesn't make it any less incorrect and unsuitable for the article. I'm not implying that the opposition is using this tactic on Wikipedia, I'm merely pointing out that the terms in use are the product of their 7-year-long propaganda schemes. To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of being an opposition supporter deliberately using the phrase "Assad government"; rather I'm pointing out that the phrase itself is tainted by bias and is therefore not neutral. The Syrian government is a republic with a democratically elected president & multiple parties, it's not "run by one man". Assad himself is not a government, nor does he own, operate, and control it all himself. As such, it is not only devoid of neutrality to call it an "Assad government", it's also factually inaccurate. Nowhere in any of my statements did I make the assumption that past editors were opposition supporters. Again, I'm merely trying to make this article neutral and accurate as per Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Holy Logician (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If I read loooooong archived discussion from that time, I see this "consensus" is far from unquestioned. Looks more like one POV forced over another... Situation changed since 2013 and only small fraction of the opposition now uses the 1961 flag - forces under SDF umbrella have their own flag, not even counting more extreme actors in the area. My brief search above (UN recognized flag section) shows the 1980 flag is still used even by governments not in friendly terms with the Assad regime. No-one requests removal of the 1961 flag, purpose of this discussion is only to find more suitable name for the 1980 flag section and (hopefully...) stop edit warring over this topic. Pavlor (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Opposition government in Turkey and even the salvation government in Idlib uses the independence flag,we did this in Libya,where we described Gaddafi's government as "Flag used by the Gaddafi Government" because he lost legitimacy by the international community and because there was a rival government to it,and so has the Assad Government,plus i find it soo funny that someone would describe the Assad Government as democratic,when all international organizations deem the government of Assad as Undemocratic.Alhanuty (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Editors who i have seen who objects to the word "Flag used by the Assad Government" are supporters of that government,and used unreasonable reasons to justify their position.Alhanuty (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Which group uses what flag is completely irrelevant here, no one is debating about flags. We're talking about the language used. It also doesn't matter if Gaddafi or Assad lost legitimacy internationally, they're still the official government of their sovereign country and should be labelled as such in the interest of neutrality. You keep sinking into bias and then denying that you're violating the Wikipedia neutrality rule. The Syrian government is a republic with a democratically elected President, this doesn't necessarily mean that the government itself is democratic. Furthermore, 30 independent international observers deemed the 2014 Syrian elections as "free, fair, and transparent" (to quote another Wiki article). This information invalidates your claims. I have only given logical & reasonable arguments, completely free of bias, to justify the use of more neutral terms in my endeavour to make this article accurate and truly informative. In this case, it seems to be only you taking the unreasonable position on the matter. "Assad government" is not neutral and not accurate. Nothing you say can change that. If no one has anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, I will be reverting the article to the version with neutral terms and notifying Wikipedia authorities should someone insist on undoing it. Thanks. Holy Logician (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Although "Assad government" certainly is not neutral, your POV is clear. It will be really hard to find RS calling 2014 elections "democratic". With this in mind, "Flag used by the Syrian government" may be too unpalatable for many editors to reach new consensus. What about my original proposal - using "Description" as simple name for the section of the 1980 flag? Pavlor (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no POV here, I'm merely restating verified information that can be found within Wikipedia itself. The 2014 elections were deemed democratic by many independent observers, this is fact and has nothing to do with me or my opinion. Furthermore, the notion that ~10 million people were somehow forced or coerced into voting for Assad is quite far-fetched, to put it mildly. I don't think what other editors find palatable matters at all if it doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines, especially those who attempt to disguise their bias under consensus. Why should the official government section be reduced to "description", while the interim government who at this point are no longer prevalent in Syria retain their full title on the page? As I said, we should adhere strictly to neutrality & accuracy, and avoid these weird double-standards. Holy Logician (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious other users don´t share your opinion and only way how to get better section title is to try to reach a compromise. Pavlor (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be fine if either side were attempting to reach a compromise. There's a clear inaccuracy here that users are refusing to accept. Holy Logician (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit hard to untangle all the claims being made here, and this really isn't a place to discuss whether the 2014 elections were democratic or not, but to clarify what I said before. I think "incumbent", though not perfect, is better than "official", as the former is more neutral, makes no comment on legitimacy and refers to the de facto situation. I think "Syrian government" is a bad term for the Damascus government firstly because it only rules part of Syria, while the opposition rules another part, hence there are de facto two "Syrian governments", which is why we need a term to distinguish it, and I don't think there is a more neutral term than "incumbent". Other suggestions before included "Ba'athist government", but that seems to raise more objections, so I think the arguments for departing from the earlier consensus and the Libya precedent don't seem very strong.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to concede the term incumbent. I haven't strayed from the main point of contention, only using the elections as evidence for my original claim. The Syrian government now rules most of Syria, including the majority of its cities. This undoubtedly increases its legitimacy, despite the largely irrelevant viewpoint of the international community. Further, the current government can't be accurately described as de facto, their rule was challenged but ultimately never defeated. They are still the official government by law. I'd like to point out that reaching the outdated consensus was a process riddled with ad hominem, inaccuracies, and heavy bias on either side. Its foundations were shaky from the beginning. Departing from a weak consensus is what we should be striving for, and I'm loathe to do it, but I must reiterate that we need to uphold neutrality and accuracy here. It's not an "Assad government", it's a people's republic. He doesn't control every facet, feature, and function. The flag represents the country and the government. Holy Logician (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing the status of the "Flag used by the Assad Government" to "Flag used by the Syrian Government is a bias by itself, it is assuming that Assad is a fully legitimate government,which isn't the case,I don't know what is bothering you,by using the word "Flag used by the Assad Government",the precedent used in Libya is a perfect one,it describes the form of government that rules over Assad Government-held areas in Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Using the regular wording that the average, reasonable person would use to describe a government is absolutely not a bias... The Syrian government is fully legitimate on account of still being the government of Syria by law, with majority support of the population. The precedent used in Libya is as incorrect as the day you came up with it. Holy Logician (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Precedent used in Libya is a perfect one? Right. Libyan rebels at least controlled one major city (Benghazi), you can´t say the same about SNC/SIG (they don´t even rule in Idlib...). "Flag used by the Assad Government" section name is POV pushed by one side - as documented by never ending edit-warring about this topic. I thought neutral title "Description" would solve this problem, but this is not enough for the other side, because such name doesn´t give legitimacy to the Assad regime. Pavlor (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. The label of "Syrian government" is not requested here to give legitimacy to the Syrian government. It's already legitimate. My purpose from the outset was to correct the inaccuracies and biases of this article. Naming their section "Description" is unsatisfactory because it does not apply to the entire article. Description of what? Why does one section get a full title and the other doesn't? Hardly seems fair or neutral. Violates the Wikipedia rules. Simple as that. Holy Logician (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the editors who are causing the edit-warring are either IPs,or editors who have a bias towards the Assad Government,and call the opposition terrorist.the thing is that Alot of countries recognize the Syrian National Coalition and that can't be ignored,Idlib and partially Daraa are under De-Jure SNC control.Using the word the Syrian Government,gives the Assad Government fully legitimacy that it doesn't have,the government doesn't control all of Syria and has a serious rival to its power.by agreement of all editors,the Libya precedent was perfect,there is other methods to compare the situation in Libya with Syria,just because the Opposition lost East Aleppo,doesn't mean automatically that it immediately gives legitimacy to the Assad Government,we can't change the word Flag used by the Assad Government just because of the military events.Alhanuty (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Plus there is no statistic about the Assad Government having the support of the majority of the population.Alhanuty (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not a one-sided equation, there are other IPs and editors with a pro-opposition bias who participated as well. Either way, that's an irrelevant piece of information. You're here with me, I'm not edit-warring and I'm discussing it with everyone. I haven't called anyone a terrorist. No one is challenging the legitimacy of the SNC either, they have nothing to do with the main point and no one is trying to edit their section of the article with biased language like you're doing here. There's no such thing as an "Assad government" which is the entire point of this discussion. There's a Syrian government, which is what it would be called with anyone else as its President, but it just so happens to be lead by a guy named Assad. We're not giving legitimacy to a non-existent, mythological being who is a government in and of himself, we're just calling the official/incumbent government of Syria exactly what it is, the Syrian government.

Further, I realise now that you don't understand the situation on the ground enough to make these judgement calls, it seems. The Syrian government controls the vast majority of the country; factions under the umbrella of the interim government are almost extinct now and have either dispersed into other non-related groups, or hold small pockets that aren't substantial enough to consider them a challenge to the Syrian government's legitimacy. The SNC is essentially a government-in-exile now with close to no grassroots supporters. The opposition lost a lot more than East Aleppo these past 3 years, I think you have some catching up to do. On top of that, the only "serious" rival to the Syrian government's power is actually Rojava in the north, and not any group related to the SNC. Even saying that, they are primarily a military operation seeking autonomy within Syria without contesting the official government for overall rule. Again, the Libya precedent was inaccurate and contested. No one suggested we change the language because of military events, in fact this point was only brought up recently. I've already stated all the other reasons which you're conveniently ignoring or circumventing. The statistic about the Syrian government* enjoying popular support is very evident in that 10 million people voted for it to remain as it was, ex-patriates included. Additionally, it has been 7 years and they have not been ousted, not by civilians, politicians, or military. You can dart about the reality on the ground and argue semantics all you want, but you're not offering a neutral position here. You're pushing very hard to attribute an entire country and its government to the name of one guy, I'm merely suggesting we call a government a government, because that's what it is. A government.

Truly, I think you have a very obvious pro-opposition bias and you're letting it cloud your rational thinking. If you step back and look at what you're saying, you will find that you're placing the legitimacy of a small de jure government which now only holds one city in Syria, over the legitimacy of the still-functional Syrian government which holds most of the country. Please focus on the Wikipedia rule about neutrality and then reconsider your argument. Holy Logician (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "de jure" here. If the SNC is the de jure government (e.g. because 31 countries, the EU and the Arab League recognise it as such) then the use of "Syrian government" to refer to Assad is absurd. So, as you say, focus on neutrality. What is non-neutral about the term "Assad government"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I had meant to say de facto. There are many EU countries who remain in support of the Syrian government. The other 31 countries and the Arab League don't really have a say in what the actual government of Syria is. They can recognise as much as they want, the reality on the ground is much different. Parties in allegiance to the SNC, a foreign-backed government-in-exile based in Turkey, (Syria's enemy) with a miniscule minority support in Syria, essentially only control Idlib, parts of Daraa, and some desert. The incumbent Syrian government holds the majority of land, cities, and popular support. The SNC hasn't the power to make legitimate, effectual administrative decisions in Syria, the incumbent government is still functioning and continuing to operate as normal. The use of the phrase "Syrian government" is factual and accurate. I've explained what is not neutral about the phrase "Assad government" multiple times, the onus has been on you to explain otherwise. So far, I've received no explanation, only shoddy counterarguments to my own statements. Holy Logician (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Note EU doesn´t recognise SNC as government of Syria, there are even member states maintaining full diplomatic relations with Damascus. Recognition by other member states is "vague" at best. Pavlor (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

With De-Jure,i mean that the Free Syrian Army factions in the area recognize the SNC,and SNC does some governmental work,like opening offices in rebel-held areas,you misunderstood,what i meant with de-jureAlhanuty (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Assad's Syria is undemocratic and these elections according to experts are nothing but a farce,due that it is the security apparatus that controls election results,and also a very good portion of the syrian population didn't participate in this elections,13 million.Alhanuty (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC) I will fully explain why,when i have time.probably in a few hours.Alhanuty (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

With that, you have just proved that you have a pro-opposition bias and are unable to put it aside for the purposes of adhering to Wikipedia's rules. 30 independent observers declared the elections fair and transparent, the so-called experts didn't even set foot in Syria during this time and thus have no real evidence behind their claims. The elections were also denounced by the US and UK who aren't fans of the Syrian government and wouldn't be expected to say otherwise, and thus their claims are illegitimate. Whatever amount of Syrians able to vote did just so, and the outcome was majority support for the current Syrian government. As such, the evidence stands against you. Let's just change the article to say Syrian government as it should and move on. I'm not going to budge from this undoubtedly neutral and factual position, and clearly no one has anything substantial to offer in opposition. Holy Logician (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War is very contentious topic, it would be next to impossible to find anyone without bias. Your post above speaks volumes about POV of one side ("democratic elections" in country without free press/media? Amusing...). This discussion is going nowhere, maybe opening formal RfC could invite more editors and settle this content dispute once and for all (or until the next edit-war). Pavlor (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely understand that everyone has bias, which is why I specifically pointed out that he couldn't put his own aside for the purposes of Wikipedia. You keep saying POV when it really isn't, I'm only repeating verified information found on this very website. Again. 30 independent observers. It may not have been the shining example of democracy, but at the end of the day there was absolutely a vote, and a result that followed, and no evidence proving otherwise save for the usual talking points, one of which you have used. That anyone here places their formulaic, propaganda-influenced viewpoint over the analysis of a large international delegation is the epitome of POV. I invite anyone here to sift through my comments and find anything particularly biased. I am admittedly pro-government, but have not let it sway my desire to neutralise the language. If that were the case, I'd be lobbying for the removal of all the opposition flags, or renaming the section to "Flag of the rightful government of Syria" or renaming the opposition sections to "Terrorist flags" or some such other nonsense. However, I'm not. I'd ask once more that you all see reason and logic. American government, not Trump government. Turkish government, not Erdogan government. Russian government, not Putin government. Syrian government, not Assad government. Simple stuff. Any further resistance I will genuinely have to regard as ignorance. Holy Logician (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Syrian government" implies there is one, uncontested Syrian government, which is not the case. The discussion on whether Assad is undemocratic/democratic, whether rebels control any major cities, whether Assad-led government is legitimate and whether SNC rules in Idlib are quite irrelevant. There's another government which claims to represent Syria and is supported by a part of the country and a sizeable part of the international community. I would like to remind you that recognition by the international community is an important variable in determining statehood. Syria is in a grey area, where Assad-led government is recognised by the international community all while a significant fraction of it supports the opposition and participates in talks which discuss the possibility of transition away from Assad. With all due respect, I don't see why we have to bring in pro-Assad/pro-opposition biases when this is all really about whether there's an uncontested Syrian government (which simply isn't true). I support keeping "Assad government" or "incumbent government" or any alternative to "Syrian government". Ignostic199 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It actually doesn't imply that at all. It implies that there is a Syrian government that is still functioning and uses the two green star flag. Scrolling down once on the same page will immediately tell any reader that there is indeed not only one uncontested government. It's a bit of an insult to readers, as well as editors of the article to suggest that the page isn't clear enough to get that message across. International community is certainly a considerable factor, but ultimately the only people that decide statehood and government legitimacy in a country are the people of that country. In this case, the Syrian government has been chosen. I haven't brought any such bias into the discussion, in fact I've done the utmost to keep this focused on the simple use of attributive language that is largely inaccurate in real terms. [Nationality] government is the standard mode of labelling any government anywhere, during war-times or otherwise. Assad is not the government himself, nor does he operate every single part of it, therefore it is inaccurate to attribute its entirety to him. It also falls directly in line with propaganda tactics that the opposition have been using since the beginning of the war, thereby tainting whatever neutrality it may ever have had. This was never about whether or not there was an uncontested government, literally no part of this discussion was about that. I've repeatedly acknowledged the SNC and its power, territory, and support, it's just factual that it holds less of each than the Syrian government. Holy Logician (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Assad Government is the best term to use,it implies that his government is contested and also that is the real status.Alhanuty (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I've already disproven the usage of the phrase "Assad government". It's factually incorrect, and the terms are non-neutral. It's a phrase tainted by opposition bias. No one called it the "Assad government" before the war, so it's pretty damn obvious where it came from. The agreed consensus is outdated and incorrect as well. Holy Logician (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Majority of users here don't agree with you,Assad Government is the best term to use,it is a government that has a rival government,a government that is effectively run by Assad,what you call opposition bias is what neutral observer would call the Assad Government,A government that has lost legitimacy,and lacks legitimacy until now,and plus don't take unilateral steps.Alhanuty (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many users disagree, they've all failed to explain how "Assad government" is neutral. Your low-effort explanation that you keep recycling has been debunked over and over again. Your posts reek of opposition bias. Every government is lead by its respective leader, not every government is labelled after them. As I said above, it's Russian government, not Putin government. Turkish government, not Erdogan government. I've also already factually proven how the Syrian government actually holds the most legitimacy out of any party currently engaged in the war. No one has been able to successfully refute that, especially not you. I waited 2 days for anyone to rebut me, and when no one did I re-edited the article. Until someone is able to succinctly and accurately explain to me how "Assad government" is neutral in any way, shape of form, I will continue to edit it back to neutral terms. Don't violate Wikipedia content rules. 120.148.171.173 (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)