Talk:Flag of Syria

Split

Let's simply split Flag of the Syrian opposition into a separate article - this is already 6 years and neither the opposition nor the Ba'athist Syrian Republic are not going anywhere. We should be realistic and stop pretending like both Koreas are the same country with same flag or that Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Cyprus can unite - all have distinct flags.GreyShark (dibra) 17:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Korea has been hostile but stable since 1953, while Cyprus has been hostile but stable since 1974. Syria is still very volatile and unpredictable... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - in light of recent discussions I would like to reinstall the split proposal - this would reduce edit-warring. Remarks welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose its not up to us to be realistic. Both Koreas have international recognition but only one Syria have such a thing. The flag of the Syrian opposition is the flag of Syria until 1958; just because the opposition used it doesnt make it a new flag that deserves an article named the flag of the Syrian opposition.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose For now. Civil wars may drag on for years (eg. 15 years in Lebanon...). To put it cynically, some problems may solve themselves - with enough time... and firepower. Pavlor (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, But... Civil war is civil war. No matter how long the conflict goes on and no matter our opinions, until the Syrian people and government make a decision we should show both sides of the flag. But I do agree that this information should also appear on a page discussing the Syrian opposition. (Dnmppolitico (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

Time to reassess "consensus."

I've skimmed through the discussion above, and there's a lot of talk, by defenders of the article's status-quo, of a "consensus" - one which was apparently reached several years ago, around the beginning of the war.

To what extent this "consensus" was valid even back then is debatable, but, in any case, the situation was completely different back then...

This was right on the heels of the successful regime-change war against Libya, and at the time the various rebel factions were advancing rapidly and it looked as if Damascus might fall at any time.

Over the past several years though, the Syrian government has recaptured more and more territory. The cities of Homs and Aleppo are fully under government control. The Eastern Qalamon pocket has been evacuated. The last pocket in the greater Damascus area is about to be cleared, and the Rastan pocket on the border of Homs Hama governates will likely soon follow suit. The rebels have even been pushed out of eastern Idlib, and in the rest of Idlib they're busy fighting among themselves.

It's clear that, barring unforseen circumstances, the government in Damascus, currently headed by Assad, is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even mainstream Western media outlets are now routinely referring to the Syrian government as the "Syrian government." A few examples from the past month:

https://www.rferl.org/a/syrian-rebels-accept-russian-brokered-surrender-deal-homs-enclave-/29205593.html

https://www.ft.com/content/651d4d56-4e15-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab

http://time.com/5240613/syria-news-strike-attack-missiles/

http://www.france24.com/en/20180412-syria-russian-military-police-deployed-douma-eastern-ghouta

Furthermore, the so-called "Syrian National Coalition" in Istanbul exercises little actual control over any of the major armed rebel groups fighting against the Syrian government. So its claim to be a defacto government of parts of Syria is rather dubious. Within rebel-held territory, a bunch of different flags are used, including the ISIS and Jihad flags, and then there are the Kurds/SDF who have their own set of flags.

In any case, it's clear that there's one primary SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, which in control of the Syrian capital and most of the other major population centers, and will be for the foreseeable future. Various other armed groups control some other territory, sometimes in concert with foreign governments like the US and Turkey, but they don't in any way have an equal claim to being the government of Syria, whether de facto or de jure.

So I think whatever may have been the "consensus" five or six years ago, when the situation on the ground was completely different than today, needs to be thrown out the window, and we need to start over from scratch.

My proposal is that we get rid of any mentions of the "Assad government," and instead talk about the "Syrian government."

The article of course can also mention flags used by (various factions of) the FSA, the Kurds/SDF, al-Nusra, ISIS, and whatever other group currently controls parts of Syria's territory, but the flag of the actual Syrian government should be primary. -2003:CA:83D0:7900:3C13:73DE:B4C5:3FD8 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't believe we reached this situation. Should Flag of China and Flag of Israel give equal weight to the Taiwanese and Palestinian flags, because they also claim de jure sovereignty over those countries? Obviously not. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: Sadly, some wikipedia editors allowed themselves to decide the legal position of a nation based on their ideologies or bias. As long as the UN accept passports issued by the government in Damascus Only, and as long as the only representitive of Syria in the UN and the CS is appointed by Damascus, then this flag is the official flag of Syria.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: This article, which pretends that the FSA flag said to represent alternative "governments" that have no democratic legitimacy and that no-one within Syria or without has ever heard of, is somehow on a par with the internationally recognised flag of Syria, is a nonsense. Bougatsa42 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: As another editor said, when a similar proposal was made last month (just up the page), the flag of the Syrian opposition was the flag of Syria until 1958. It was used even by the current regime at events right up to the civil war commemorating the break with the UAR. It is not simply the flag of the Syrian National Coalition or any one particular organisation, but widely used by the entire opposition, and very widely in the Syrian diaspora. Nothing has changed that should affect the consensus that has been repeatedly re-affirmed here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the civil war is still going on and until the rival government the Syrian Interim Government is defeated militarily completely,then we can talk about removing the rival government,the syrian interim government still has Daraa and Idlib,and SDF controls northeast Syria,as long as an inch of syria is still not under Assad's control,then we can't say that he is the government,and If SDF remains in control of Northeast Syria,then we might have to rename this article the Flag of West Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Support These groups that are trying to control Syria are being funded by foreign countries & regimes anyway and do not count as "part of Syria", however they claim. Bashar has won this fight and it would be stupid to turn a blind eye to it otherwise Crowtow849 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley -

1. Regarding the alleged use by the Syrian government of the old flag at some historic events, I don't see the relevance (assuming this is true) to the current discussion here...The United States, the UK, and various other countries have older versions of their flags as well, which will sometimes be displayed at various commemorations, historic sites, museums, etc. But this doesn't mean that they are the actual current flags of their respective countries.

Naturally, the article should include a discussion of this flag (along with other historic flags of Syria) and note its use by some opposition activists and armed rebel groups. But this doesn't mean that it in any way has equal status as the current flag of Syria.

2. Regarding "consensus," you write that: "Nothing has changed that should affect the consensus that has been repeatedly re-affirmed here."

So first, I'm rather baffled that you would say that nothing has changed since 2012 or 2013, or whenever it was that this "consensus" was first established. The course of the war has changed dramatically since then, and just about everyone who was previously insistent on regime-change has now (explicitly or implicitly) admitted that the Syrian government (currently led by Assad) isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Moreover, when you say that a "consensus" has been "repeatedly re-affirmed," I'm honestly curious as to how exactly you are defining "consensus" and how you're defining "re-affirmation" of said (alleged) "consensus."

In my perusal of the discussion above, it appears to me that there are at least as many people expressing disagreement with the supposed "consensus" as there are those supporting it. And here so far, in this section, of the four of us who have spoken, three are speaking against the alleged "consensus," so there certainly doesn't seem to be any real consensus for it!

Furthermore, when I look at the main Syria article here on Wikipedia, it shows only one flag in its intro, and it refers to the Syrian government as simply the "Syrian government," not as the "Assad government," or "Assad regime," or anything along those lines. So it would seem that the status-quo on this page, which you're referring to as the "consensus," is actually an outlier from the broader consensus on this issue here on Wikipedia.

I believe an RFC (or some such process) here would be in order so that a broader cross-section of Wikipedia editors can become involved in this discussion. -2003:CA:83CC:CA00:1D88:91DD:6041:F1F7 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC: One primary flag, Syrian government to be known as "Syrian government."

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Counting the preceding discussion (which is on the same subject), there is a total of 3 oppose !voters and 7 different support !voters (the different IPs seem to be only one person). Taking strength of arguments into account, there appears to be policy-based consensus in support of the proposal. The use of WP:RS is particularly persuasive. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Detailed close rationale

Ok, here is a longer explanation. Regarding the number of editors: For "support", I see (clear !votes only): Attar-Aram syria, Claíomh Solais, the 2003:... IP (those 3 are from the RfC), Onceinawhile, Bougatsa42, Crowtow849 (those 3 from the previous discussion) - if my math is right (it is), that's 6. The oppose !voters are the same in both. Now counting the two extra unclear participants doesn't change the result. AnonMoos explicitly said that this shouldn't be voting and he didn't provide a vote anyway - he countered the IPs arguments, but he himself didn't provide any new policy or source-based arguments as to the RfC question - of course, I duly disregarded the IP's red herring arguments for inclusion of other flags, but that didn't affect the result. Counting Pavlor, which is more clearly "support" and whose arguments do provide some policy-based reasoning seems reasonable. Counting both nevertheless brings the final tally to 7-3 - doesn't change the result in any way. Now, of course strength of arguments needs to be taken into account. The oppose argument that "as long as the rival government controls at least an inch of Syrian soil" is not persuasive - it is a Wikipedian's opinion (at best, it's WP:SYNTH). The other oppose argument offers a valid point that the flag was used historically (a fact which is not disputed by anybody), but the crux of the dispute here seems to be whether the "official" Syrian government can be called the "Syrian government", and whether the flag it uses is the legitimate flag of Syria. Having been personally involved in previous NPOV disputes, the only way for this to move forward either way is by the use of reliable sources. The support !voters provided recent WP:RS which show that the name used in Western media for the "official" Syrian government is just "Syrian government", while the oppose !voters provided a lot of words, but little sources. Yet, again, sources are what is required to meet WP:NPOV / WP:BALANCE. Thus, and taking into account the clear majority (in any case) !voter count, consensus seems rather straightforward (even if, yes, the discussion is rather convoluted, as are all NPOV disputes) for the issue of whether to call the government "Syrian" or "Assad". For the flag, the reliable sources (UN, CIA factbook, etc...) are overwhelmingly in favour of the "Assad" flag (which has been used since much before the civil war). This doesn't preclude discussing the historical variant - with due weight - in the lead (and mentioning it is used by the opposition forces), per MOS:LEADREL. Feel free to take this up with somebody else if you feel my interpretation of the consensus or of policy is wrong. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I started a discussion already in the section immediately above, but starting a separate RFC section here in order to bring in more participation from a broader cross-section of Wikipedia community.

In brief, my proposal here has two components which, as noted above, would bring this article into line with the conventions already well established at other Syria-related articles, such as the main Syria article:

1. The Syrian government should be referred to as the "Syrian government" (or "government of Syria," or similar), not as the "Assad government," the "Assad regime," or anything along those lines. Again, this is not only NPOV, but also would bring it in line with conventions elsewhere on Wikipedia.

2. The lede section should focus exclusively on the current primary flag of the government of Syria - i.e. the one with horizontal red, white, and black stripes and two green stars.

Naturally, historic flags of Syria should also be mentioned in the article, and the flags used by any group occupying parts of Syrian territory, whether a rebel group like the FSA, ISIS, or al-Nusra, or a foreign power like Israel or Turkey, could also be mentioned. But the article should not suggest that any of these groups or their flags are somehow on equal footing with the actual government of Syria and its current flag.

As noted in the section above, the current status-quo for this article apparently emerged a number of years ago, towards the beginning of the war, when various rebel groups were rapidly advancing, and it looked like the government of Syria might fall at anytime and be replaced. But this is no longer the case at all today. -2003:CA:83C1:3500:DD19:E151:C1C3:7FC5 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: It is POV to call the UN recognized government "Assad regime". The flag of Syria (red one) is the one raised in the UN. The flag of the opposition is a historical Syrian flag that belongs in the historic flags section but should not be presented as a competitor for the the UN recognized one. We, Wiki editors, should not decide the legitimacy of a certain govenrment, this is an encyclopedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the civil war is still going on and until the rival government the Syrian Interim Government is defeated militarily completely,then we can talk about removing the rival government,the syrian interim government still has Daraa and Idlib,and SDF controls northeast Syria,as long as an inch of syria is still not under Assad's control,then we can't say that he is the government,and If SDF remains in control of Northeast Syria,then we might have to rename this article the Flag of West Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alhanuty - You write above that "the syrian interim government still has Daraa and Idlib," but in actuality, much of Darra governate, and part of Idlib government, are already under Syrian government control. And within the portions of Idlib and Darra that are under anti-government insurgent control, most is controlled by groups other than those branded as the "Free Syrian Army." Groups like the Al-Nusra Front (the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, uses various other names), Jaysh al-Islam, and the Islamic Front, all uses flags other than the FSA/"Syrian Interim Government" flag, and these are the principle non-ISIS rebel groups in Syria, who control the most territory. Idlib city, and most of the rest of the governate is under al-Nusra control.

...Should EACH of these rebel groups (and others), and the "governments" which they claim to be, be given equal status with the actual government of Syria?...And if not, then why not, what makes this "Syrian Interim Government" and its "Free Syrian Army" special and more deserving of arbitrary recognition from Wikipedia than all of the other armed groups occupying Syrian territory and setting up their own pseudo-governments?

Also, you write that: "as long as an inch of syria is still not under Assad's control,then we can't say that he is the government," but this is actually a STRAW MAN. Neither I, nor anybody else arguing for these changes is saying that Assad is the government. We're saying that the SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, which is currently led by Assad, is the government of Syria. It is the others here who are wanting to call it the "Assad government" and identify it with him personally. The fact is though that Assad could die tomorrow and the Syrian government, with all of its institutions, would continue to exist.

Finally, regarding this "an inch of syria" rhetoric, there are numerous countries around the world that, currently or in the past, have had armed rebel groups controlling parts of their territory. In 1994, for example, the EZLN briefly occupied parts of Mexico's territory. Does this mean that Wikipedia (had it existed back then) should have given them equal status with the actual government of Mexico, and referred to the Mexican government as "the de Gortari government"???

The Assad Government doesn't control all of syrian territory and there is a rival government represented by the Syrian Interim government,plus your information is wrong,the Free Syrian Army controls 70% of Daraa,as long as the opposition controls a important territory such as Daraa,near Damascus,the Flag of Syria remains contested,until something happens to the syrian interim government.Alhanuty (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that consensus on Wikipedia isn't simply about the number of votes - it's about policies, and I'm seeing a real lack of coherent policy-based arguments from those arguing for the status-quo in this article. -2003:CA:83CB:8100:AD6C:7400:E6F5:B509 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: As another editor said, when a similar proposal was made last month (just up the page), the flag of the Syrian opposition was the flag of Syria until 1958. It was used even by the current regime at events right up to the civil war commemorating the break with the UAR. It is not simply the flag of the Syrian National Coalition or any one particular organisation, but widely used by the entire opposition, and very widely in the Syrian diaspora. Nothing has changed that should affect the consensus that has been repeatedly re-affirmed here.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Is SDF using this flag? If not, then it is used only by a minor part of the opposition, not by the entire opposition. We shouldn´t give undue weight to insignificant faction. However, as both sides of this discussion will not back down, I fear this never-ending edit war will end only with complete military victory of one faction (and I wouldn´t bet on the one using the disputed flag). Pavlor (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the SDF using it? Well, yes it is. For example, here is the SDF announcing the battle of Raqqa in 2017, with the historic flag prominently displayed. Several SDF components use the the flag as part of their own, e.g. Northern Sun Battalion, Manbij Revolutionaries Battalion, Army of Revolutionaries, Jabhat al-Akrad, Northern Democratic Brigade and Jabhat Thuwar al-Raqqa as well as members of the Syrian Democratic Council, the political arm of the SDF, e.g. Syria's Tomorrow Movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that supports my point... SDF is not using it, only some sub-groups and individuals. Pavlor (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Except the first link was the SDF, and the sub-groups are a very wide spread of them. Do you think SDF use the 1980 flag? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@BobFromBrockley - You made much the same comment in the section above, and I responded to all of your points then, but now you simply repeat the same stuff here without even addressing any of the points that I've made. In the interests of good faith communication, I would request that you actually address what I've said.

For example, I wrote:

"Regarding the alleged use by the Syrian government of the old flag at some historic events, I don't see the relevance (assuming this is true) to the current discussion here...The United States, the UK, and various other countries have older versions of their flags as well, which will sometimes be displayed at various commemorations, historic sites, museums, etc. But this doesn't mean that they are the actual current flags of their respective countries.

Naturally, the article should include a discussion of this flag (along with other historic flags of Syria) and note its use by some opposition activists and armed rebel groups. But this doesn't mean that it in any way has equal status as the current flag of Syria."

What is your response to this???

Like I've stated repeatedly, the idea that nothing has changed is patently absurd. Back in 2012/2013 it looked like Damascus might fall any day and its government be replaced, but that's clearly not the case now!

The core of Syria and most of its major population centers have now been secured, and to the extent that the war drags on it will be a low-intensity regional conflict - not the sort of thing that Wikipedia considers multiple national governments with multiple flags.

And once again, regarding "re-affirmation" of an alleged "consensus," above I wrote: "Moreover, when you say that a "consensus" has been "repeatedly re-affirmed," I'm honestly curious as to how exactly you are defining "consensus" and how you're defining "re-affirmation" of said (alleged) "consensus."

In my perusal of the discussion above, it appears to me that there are at least as many people expressing disagreement with the supposed "consensus" as there are those supporting it."

What is your response to this???

Finally, as Pavlor pointed out above, the idea that the FSA flag (the one with green on top and three red stars) is "widely used by the entire opposition" is patently false...

It's not used by the Kurds/SDF. It's not used by ISIS. It's not used by the Al-Nusra Front (the largest and most powerful non-Kurd and non-ISIS rebel group). And if it's used at all by Jaysh al-Islam and the Islamic Front (the two other primary non-ISIS and non-Kurd rebel groups), it's certainly not the primary flag that they use.

So again, like I asked in response to user:Alhanuty above, why should the FSA flag be given special treatment in the Flag of Syria article different from that of the Al-Nusra flag, the Kurdish/SDF flags, the ISIS flag, the Jaysh al-Islam flag, etc.? -2003:CA:83D2:9C00:2DF7:892C:5728:EBFC (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

PS - The proposal a month ago was not a similar proposal, not at all, and in fact one of the users who opposed that proposal is supporting mine here. -2003:CA:83D2:9C00:2DF7:892C:5728:EBFC (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I made the same comment above, as you have opened the same topic of conversation twice, first as normal talk and now as a formal RfC. I didn't have time to respond to your comments then, but wanted to make sure my view was registered in the RfC. (And I don't see it as a substantively different proposal from the previous one: splitting out the historical/opposition flag into a different article so it is an article about the regime flag is not substantively different from making it an article about the regime flag, which would anyway lead to the creation of an article for the historical/opposition flag. I'll try to reply to your comments later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley - 1. There is no "regime flag." There's a flag that's used by the government of Syria, a government which, throughout other Wikipedia articles on Syria, including the main Syria article, is referred to simply as the "Syrian government," or "government of Syria," not as the "Assad government," "Assad regime," or anything POV along those lines. This article is an outlier from the broader consensus/convention here on Wikipedia. 2. As I've repeatedly made clear, the older flag, with the green on top and three red stars, SHOULD be discussed here in this article, just as the Flag of Canada article discusses older versions with a Union Jack that were used before the current Maple Leaf design was adopted, and the Flag of Germany article discusses historical flags like the Nazi flag and the red, white, and black tricolor. National flag articles ALWAYS discuss flags previously used by that nation, and there's no reason that the Flag of Syria article should be an exception in this regard. And this article SHOULD ALSO NOTE THE USE OF THIS HISTORIC FLAG BY CERTAIN ARMED GROUPS AND ACTIVISTS, just as the Flag of Iran article notes the continued use of the "Lion and Sun" flag by some anti-government activists and expatriate communities. The point though is that a historic flag used by some activists and armed non-state-actors SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN EQUAL WEIGHT TO THE ACTUAL CURRENT FLAG OF THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT OF SYRIA. There is only one Syrian government, with one primary flag that it currently uses. 3. There's no need for a separate article on the "opposition flag," as the flag you're referring to would already still be discussed here, and there's also not one single "opposition" flag, as the various armed non-state-actors in Syria use a variety of different flags, including the Kurdish/JPG/SDF flags, the ISIS and al-Nusra banners, and the flags of the various other Jihadist groups like the Islamic Front and Jaysh al-Islam. The so-called "Syrian National Coalition" is simply a collection of folks who sit around in hotels in Istanbul and have little actual impact on events on the ground in Syria. They're certainly in no way of equal status with the actual government of Syria, and that's the whole point! -2003:CA:83D1:3900:3C92:3E78:8CF:8BB3 (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

2003:CA:83C1:3500:DD19:E151:C1C3:7FC5 -- When you equated the 1946-1958 & 1961-1963 two-red-star flag of Syria with the Israeli flag above, you were engaging in a rather disingenuous rhetorical maneuver. (The obvious riposte would to point out that many people feel that the two-green-star flag has a lot more connections to Nasser and the Ba`th party than it does to Syria as a nation.) However, all this doesn't change the fact that the official Syrian opposition achieved a degree of external diplomatic recognition by the Arab League and other nations, while individual fighting groups by themselves have not gained such recognition. Furthermore ISIS never claimed to be a government of Syria, but rather a pan-Islamic caliphate, so that the flag of ISIS is not an alternative flag of Syria as a nation-state, and was never claimed to be such. And the military banners of other fighting factions represent the individual groups involved, rather than claimed alternative governments of Syria as a whole.

P.S. I wonder why you didn't also propose that the flags of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah be shown? AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos - There's a lot to break down in your comment above....

Regarding: "the 1946-1958 & 1961-1963 two-red-star flag of Syria" - there is no such flag. The historical flag now used by some opposition groups has THREE red stars. Yes, just a technicality, but it calls in to question how familiar you are with the topic.

Regarding Israel - I didn't just make a comparison with Israel, but also with Turkey, since they are both foreign states which occupy Syrian territory at the present time. Regarding Russia and Iran and Hezbollah, they do all have military presence in Syria, but they aren't occupying territory and keeping the Syrian army out of said territory, and their presence is at the invitation of the government of Syria - so it's in no way comparable to Israel's occupation of the Golan.

Now you talk above about the "official Syrian opposition," presumably referring to the Syrian national coalition, but this isn't a government which actually controls any of the forces on the ground. There are all sorts of rebel groups who run various Sharia law courts and other pseudo-governmental institutions, but there's no real authority being exercised by the SNC in Istanbul. It is true that the Arab League and some others have given some recognition to the SNC, but that's in no way comparable to the actual government of Syria, which is recognized by the UN, controls the entire capital of Syria and the lion's share of its major population centers, and is regularly referred to in mainstream media as the Syrian government.

And that's what this ultimately boils down to. There's only one actual government of Syria, and some rebel groups or foreign powers occupying parts of Syria's territory doesn't change this fact.

A good analogy would be Colombia a few years ago, when the FARC was occupying some territory in the mountains and jungles, but the actual Colombian government controlled the lion's share of the country's major population centers and its entire capital, and of course was the UN-recognized government of the country. The FARC did aspire to overthrow the government, but their claim didn't mean a whole lot....And even if, say Cuba and North Korea and some other countries set up diplomatic relations with FARC, this still wouldn't change the fact.

Again, Syria has ONE GOVERNMENT, which uses ONE PRIMARY FLAG. The flag with the green top and three red stars should of course be discussed in the article as a historic flag, and its use by some opposition groups and militias should also be noted, but it's in no way on equal footing with the actual current flag of Syria, and it goes against NPOV for Wikipedia to suggest that it is. -2003:CA:83D1:5200:E04D:B5CB:AF80:C4B8 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I made the star-number mistake, but I was the one who uploaded the first version of image File:Flag of Syria (1932-1958; 1961-1963).svg in 2006, so I'm familiar with that flag. If you look at File:Syria-flag-changes.svg (which I also uploaded in 2006), you can see that the flag of Syria has changed from 2 stars to 3 or vice versa several times, which was why I was briefly confused. I also started the "Flag of Syria" article on Arabic Wikipedia (though admittedly it wasn't much to boast about at that time): علم سوريا.

Israel's occupation of the Golan is a 1967 and 1973 issue, which has no real connection to the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011 (44 years later!) so I really don't know why its flag should be included in the flags of the Syrian civil war on that basis. I thought you wanted the Israeli flag to be included as that of a part-time combattant, but if it's just because of the Golan, then that's really an irrelevant red herring.

And FARC in Colombia wasn't diplomatically recognized by anybody, as far as I'm aware (it often had difficulty just being recognized as a "belligerent force"). If the FARC had been placed in Colombia's seat at meetings of the OAS, that would be a good analogy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Main issue of the current "consensus" is not that some government is recognised or not, but that this article gives undue weight to one rather minor faction. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces doesn't have any fighters directly under its command (as far as I'm aware), so it's not even on the radar in that sense. However, it had significant diplomatic weight in 2013 (since when things have been somewhat in stasis on the diplomatic front)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos - First, regarding the number of stars, I take back that comment, which wasn't really that relevant to the overall point being discussed here, and it's honestly a mistake anybody can make when they're typing and a bit distracted or whatever, so no worries :-)

Now, regarding: "Israel's occupation of the Golan is a 1967 and 1973 issue, which has no real connection to the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011 (44 years later!) so I really don't know why its flag should be included in the flags of the Syrian civil war on that basis."

There's a couple points to clarify here: 1. This article isn't "flags of the Syrian civil war," but "Flag of Syria." If it were the former though then Israel should arguably be included as well, as it has actively participated in the Syrian civil war throughout the conflict, but I digress. 2. My point here was NOT that the Israeli flag should be included in the Flag of Syria article. Rather, I was arguing that another entity, whether an insurgent group or a foreign government, controlling part of Syria's territory did not make it a government of Syria, and did not mean that its flag should be listed as a primary flag of the country...

What my contention ultimately comes down to is the articles opening paragraph and the tone which it sets: "As a result of the ongoing Syrian civil war, there are currently two governments claiming to be the de jure government of Syria,[dubious – discuss] using different flags to represent the state. The incumbent government, led by Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'ath Party, is using the red-white-black United Arab Republic flag in use since 1980; while the Syrian Interim Government, led by the Syrian National Coalition – seeking to overthrow the Assad government – readopted the green-white-black Independence flag in 2012."

...This puts the SIG/SNC, and its flag, on equal footing with the actual government of Syria and the primary flag which it's represented by. This is uncalled for, and breaks with the broader consensus/conventions of Syria-related articles throughout Wikipedia, including the main Syria article.

As I've stated above, I think a good model to follow for this article would be the Flag of Iran article, which leads with a discussion of the current flag used by the current actual government of Iran.....But then, in its discussion of historic flags, includes a relatively substantial discussion of the "Lion and Sun" flag and its continued use by some opposition groups and expatriate communities. It does this though without putting the "Lion and Sun" flag on an equal footing with the flag of the actual current government of Iran. -2003:CA:83CC:F800:B5A1:AC77:E3D6:A452 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Israeli flag discussion is a distraction. Nobody arguing for the inclusion of the 1932 flag is arguing simply that some of Syria is controlled by people who fly the 1932 flag. The arguments are, instead, (a) that there is an on-going civil war, so there is not simply one government, but an alternative entity that has come to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of a significant part of the international community (a far better analogy here would be the American Civil War: if there had been a Wikipedia then, you'd expect the Flag of America article to include two flags, that of the Union and that of the Confederacy), and, perhaps more importantly, (b) a significant number of Syrians, in the rebel zones of Syria and in the diaspora (well over a fifth of the 2011 Syrian population are now registered as refugees outside the country) identify the 1932 flag as their flag, as the Syrian flag, and see the 1980 flag as illegitimate. The 1932 flag is not the flag of "a minor faction", but used across the whole swathe of the opposition, including the civil opposition and rebel groups, as well as across the diaspora. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Confederacy did not claim to be government of the US... quite opposite. If Wikipedia existed back then and somebody did such propaganda work for the Confederacy, the US government would probably use emergency war powers to shut down this entire site. Pavlor (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

2003:CA:83C1:3500:DD19:E151:C1C3:7FC5 -- In your original comments of "19:16, 6 May 2018" above, it sure seemed like you wanted to include various and diverse flags of the Syrian civil war in this article. In any case, the 3-red-star flag is not the military banner of a faction which has occupied some territory, and has not been included in this article on that basis. AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment What about available reliable sources? What these say about topic of this article? This, not POV arguments I see from all sides, should be basis for our discussion. I must repeat my point in the "UN recognized flag" section above: even governments not in friendly terms with the Assad regime use the 1980 flag for Syria on their webpages. Current state of the article gives equal weight to both flags, but so far no one provided sources supporting this (so often) disputed claim. Pavlor (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The American/Israeli backed insurgents have at this point lost the Syrian Civil War and the Syrian Arab Republic controls the vast majority of the territory, not only that but it is the government recognised at the UN. All other Wikipedia language articles on this topic have the government flag as the flag of Syria. The Syrian Arab Republic is the status quo.... an insurgency attempted to overthrow it and has failed. Until it is successful (not likely at this stage) then the flag should not be changed. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

we can't change the compromise,there is still a rival government,which its militias still controlling wide parts of Daraa and Parts of Idlib.Alhanuty (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

nobody should be changing the agreed consensus,even as we are having these debates.Alhanuty (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, this "consensus" seems to be unpalatable for many editors... However, you may ask an admin for page protection, so IPs and new accounts will be not able to edit there (an admin will probably protect the article anyway sooner or later, if the edit-warring continues). Pavlor (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever consensus you had years ago is gone now. Calling the opposition a Syrian interm government while calling the only internationally recognized government "assad gove" is POV. Wiki editors should stop acting as international law judges. Tawian claimed the whole of china but we wont see its flag as the flag of china because it has no UN recognition. Same goes for those opposition governments.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Don´t compare SNC/SIG to the "Republic of China". Taiwan has full sovereignty over part of claimed territory and armed forces with full chain of command. Speaking about law... our only binding authority should be reliable sources. So far no one presented strong sources supporting current "consensus". Pavlor (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No one can decide what is a right comparison. I see the taiwan example suitable when it is aimed to compare the claim of taiwan over the mainland. Anyway, the CIA factbook is a relaible source. The flag in it is the red flag. We dont need reliable sources to prove that the flag shown in the UN headquarters is the official flag. Even then, we can use the CIA factbook to at leaat rename the section from assad government to the syrian government or I will rename the other section: flag used by rebles' governments.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Will [this reliable source bring some logic to this article and end the POV consensus?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Good start. Now it is up to the other side of the dispute to provide at least as good source to support its "consensus". Pavlor (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

We used this model as a solution for the Flag of Libya and it worked out well,so why need to change the consensus.Alhanuty (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The terrorists were successful in Libya, they won there so now we show their flag. In Syria, they have lost. You are comparing apples and oranges. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Because you dont have a consensus anymore. Because your consensus is POV. And because the UN have other things to say.. just go to Newyork and see which flag represents Syria there. For god sake at least call it the Syrian government like you call the rebles governments with the names they chose for themselves if you have an ounce of NPOV.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, BobFromBrockley, Alhanuty and Anoos are with the POV consenus that doesnt exist anymore. While Me, Claíomh Solais, the IP who started this discussion, and I think Pavlor are against your "Consensus". Seems that we have a new consensus, so can you at least not use the word consensus in every comment of yours ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

who are you to decide what is a consensus,plus you are launching a personal attack against me,accusing me of sockpuppetry,plus we go with past precedents.Alhanuty (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

plus Attar-Aram syria you have reverted once again,self-revert yourself.Alhanuty (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously you are under the impression that you have a consensus, but you dont, count the votes up till now. As for reverting, I made a new edit to a different section, so No, I did not revert again. And no, you dont go with precedents, you go with reliable sources which I provided showing that Syria have one official flag used by the republic of Syria not Assad government--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no "voting" as such in settling these types of issues at Wikipedia. Overwhelming numbers of people being on one side of a dispute can have an effect, but it's not decided by vote-counting as such (see WP:VOTE)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes darling, im not new here, i dont need the vote link. But since alhanuty shoves the word consensus every two sentences, it felt suitabl to show that no such a thing exist anymore since consensus means that all parties have reached an agrrement while obviously this isnt the case now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If you knew that voting settles very few issues at Wikipedia, then I wonder why you invoked it in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

my prebious reply answer this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The fortunes of war have shifted, but the diplomatic gains of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces have not been formally reversed, and the three-red-star flag is still commonly used as a common anti-Assad-regime symbol by a number of different factions and individuals. The fact that the rebellion is militarily on the ropes (without having been decisively and finally defeated) due to outside interventions, does not necessarily mean that the rebellion has "lost" (despite what Claíomh Solais says), and shouldn't by itself automatically result in changing the article page (yet)... AnonMoos (talk)

Okay, so do you agree that Assad government is POV and it is NPOV to write the Syrian Government just like you adress other governments with their self-designation ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you then provide RS supporting your version of the article (two equal governments - one of them called the "Assad government" - and the 1961 flag as the flag of Syria)? If you have strong source, you may have my voice on your side. However, so far only the "pro-regime" side provided any sources to support their claims. Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You're giving me undue credit when you call it my version of the article, when I did very little of the editing involved.

No country recognizes two equal governments (that would be a Two-Syria policy, parallel to the Two-China policy), but a significant number recognize the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, and flags follow behind such government recognition, as I said in my comment of "10:15, 30 November 2017" above.

It may be that the rebellion will soon collapse and no longer be a credible government contender. but that hasn't happened yet (despite Claíomh Solais's claims), and I don't see the need for this article to anticipate or predict future events... AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you only argument is recognition by few states. Quite weak. As I see it there are three main statements requiring strong RS:

1. There are two Syrian governments with comparable international recognition.

2. The "old" government is called the "Assad government".

3. The 1961 flag is widely recognized as the current flag of Syria.

I must repeat my previous request, can anybody provide reliable sources supporting these statements? Pavlor (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Those three arguments are not the arguments on which the case for leaving the article roughly in the form it has had for the last few years. (1) No-one is arguing there are two governments with comparable recognition; the argument is that the recognition given to the Assad government is far from universal, their territorial control is far from total, and a significant part of the Syrian population (and even bigger part of the Syrian diaspora population, which is 20% of the 2011 population) does not recognise the Assad government or its flag; (2) the terms "old" and "Assad" are irrelevant to this case; (3) the 1961 (1932) flag is not "the" current flag, but "a" current flag, which is why both flags should be included in the article, with the government one first and the opposition one second.

If you look at other articles on Wikipedia on the current conflict, you will note the main article is called Syrian Civil War, and all of the articles referring to it are categorised in relation to a civil war. A civil war, by definition, is between two sides claiming the country. While the war is on-going, even if one side currently has the upper hand, it is right that the article reflects this rather than takes a side.

In articles relating to the war, the belligerents are given flag icons in the infobox. The Assad government is given an icon with the 1980 flag, the opposition an icon with the 1932 one. This is appropriate, and shows there are two flags, and this article should follow that convention used across the whole of Syria-related Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I will put it bluntly, disputed claims must be referenced. The "Consensus" state of the article lacks support in RS (at least nobody provided these so far) and is disputed for years. Arguments based purely on POV (like you presented above), not reliable sources, are directly in contradiction to the WP:V policy. If you can´t support your POV by reliable sources, it is original research - in direct contradiction to the WP:OR policy. If you give undue weight not supported by reliable sources to one minor faction, it is in direct contradiction to the WP:NPOV policy. It is obvious, the "consensus" is not based on Wikipedia's three core content policies. Pavlor (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pavlor -- the facts about the diplomatic recognition of the "National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces" should be suitably sourced in the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces article -- I don't really see what would be gained by copying such references from that article to this one. In any case, as I've said before (more than once), foreign states don't really recognize flags directly -- they recognize governments, and the flag follows from the government. That's standard diplomatic practice (not "original research")... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Subject of this article is flag of Syria, not diplomatic recognition of some government. Sure there are RS about diplomatic recognition of SNC/SIG, but we need sources concerning the flag. You can´t simply reason that when some countries recognize government A, then its flag is a flag of the country. You need RS to back up this claim, else it is OR. As of flag recognition, the "pro-regime" side presented The World Factbook published by no one other than the CIA (I don´t think these people work for Assad...). If you have similar (or better) source supporting your POV, it would be much stronger argument than unreferenced statements. Pavlor (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your demand for sources of one particular narrow hypothetical type is unproductive and unconstructive in this context -- since a statement saying that "Country A recognizes the three-red-star flag of the Syrian opposition forces" is not how things are done, so that such statements almost certainly do not exist. Rather, the statements which do exist are of the type "Country A recognizes the Syrian opposition forces as the government of Syria", and therefore should be used on the Syrian opposition forces article page. The status of the flag of the Syrian opposition forces (as far as country A is concerned) follows from the country A's recognition of the Syrian opposition forces as the government of Syria. I really don't know why you're having difficulty understanding this point... AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What you wrote is the very definition of OR. If there are no RS, there can´t be verifiable content. Pavlor (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever -- the particular type of source which you seem to be demanding almost certainly does not exist, because the work of diplomacy is simply not done in the way that you apparently think it should be done (you're far more "original" than I am in such a demand). Therefore maybe you should accomodate your sourcing demands to the types of sources which actually do exist in the real world? Just a suggestion... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a joke? Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources (and even more so disputed content). If there are no RS supporting such content, it has no place in this encyclopedia. Pavlor (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're demanding sources which by their nature don't exist (or are very unlikely to exist), then you're clearly the "Original" one. AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is not my idea, but core policy of Wikipedia (WP:V). Pavlor (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It would move things along if you could express your demands for verifiability in terms of things which exist in the real world (as opposed to what might exist in some parallel fantasy universe). AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The other side of the dispute was able to provide exactly this kind of sources I requested (The World Factbook by CIA may be not strong RS, but better than nothing). The ball is in your court now. Pavlor (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pavlor, by your logic, you need to provide a RS for governments recognising the two star flag. The CIA factbook shows the flag, but by your logic it is OR (SYNTH) to jump from that to claim the flag is officially recognised. And this is especially incumbent on you as the burden of proof to change something where there is no consensus for change rests with those arguing for change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don´t request "official recognition" of the 1961 flag, I only want to see coverage of this flag as current flag of Syria in reliable sources. Source we both mentioned (CIA World Factbook) plainly states the 1980 flag is the flag of Syria (even with simple flag description under the Government section). Can you post similar source for the 1961 flag? Only RS backing is currently provided by ft.com article (behind pay-wall) from 2011 (adpotion by the opposition), which is too old to be useable today. Such coverage would merit a mere mention, not status equal to the 1980 flag. "Consensus" was born few years ago from wishful thinking, quality of sources apparently was not that important back then. Even after the change proposed by this RfC, the flag adopted by SNC/SIG will have prominent place in the article far above its level of coverage in reliable sources. Pavlor (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pavlor -- Every country which recognizes the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate government of Syria thereby automatically and correspondingly boosts the international significance of the flag of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, because that's the way that diplomatic recognition works under the system of diplomacy that we have in the world today. I really don't understand why you're tying yourself in a knot about this, or demanding as sources diplomatic documents of a type which don't generally exist under the current way of doing things... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assad government

This article have a disgusting POV tone in it. Fine, you say that the country is disputed by different governments, but why do you call the cartoonish opposition governments with their chosen designations, while you call the Syrian government: Assad government? Either be POV to both, or be NPOV to both. If those fake governments are going to be called by their official designations, then the Syrian government will be named Syrian government not Assad government. This article is a playground for political activists trying to force their opinions. We really need interventions by an admin. And no User:Bobfrombrockley, I dont need to start a discussion about changing a POV wording. It is against the rules to shove your POV like this. Anyways, its either the Syrian government and the National Coalition and Syrian Interim Government, or the rebels and Assad governments.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase "Assad government" has a blatantly John McCain-esque stench to it. This phrase is clearly used to delegitimise the legal and internationally recognised Syrian government, by suggesting that it is all about Assad personally, or to somehow suggest that it is a dictatorship. This is textbook Anglo-American imperialist delegitimisation and dirty politics in action, that in no way falls within the bounds of the NPOV policy which we as a collaborative project are bound to uphold. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is the phrase "Assad government" a stinky term, when it reflects the basic fact of dynastic succession from the father's lifetime presidency to the son's? -- completely inappropriate for a claimed "republic" (as opposed to a monarchy), by the way... However, if you don't like that phrase, there are also "Ba`th Party government" and "Alawite government".... AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

George W. Bush and his father George H. W. Bush have both been presidents of the United States. The Anglo-American establishment tried every desperate trick in the book to try and shoehorn Hillary Clinton into the presidential seat after her husband Bill Clinton ran the US in the 1990s. There is nothing to say a republic cannot have people from the same family serving as its head. This is besides the point. Unless you want to call the US flag "the Bush government flag", then it does not make sense to claim that the flag of the Syria Arab Republic is just the "Assad government flag". The symbolism of the flag is Pan-Arabist in nature, the Assad family are not referenced in it at all. The Ba'ath Party has its own flag. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Anoon, and for the opposition there are terrorists governments, rebels governments, gangs governments....etc But we dont use those designations because we have something called NPOV. So dont shove your opinion into this. Stop analayzing and arguying and stick to the NPOV policy. As I said, if you will insist on treating the Syrian government (as it designate itself) with your gross POV, I will continue naming the cartoonish opposition governments as Rebels governments. Either POV or NPOV--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Claíomh Solais -- I don't want to get into political debate here, or throw around random insults, and I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I was trying to convey that "Assad government" is in fact relatively neutral compared to most of the likely alternatives. (By the way, some would say that the fact that the symbolism of the two-green-star flag has nothing to do with Syria specifically is exactly the problem with it...) AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Brief Google count shows nearly 1:8 ratio of "Assad government" (or variants) vs "Syrian government" on bbc.com and cnn.com (sure, there are false positives, but most results cover the same government with most news from the civil war era). This ratio is lower (1:3 to 1:4) for foxnews.com, nbcnews.com, msnbc.com, aljazeera.com, france24.com, reuters.com or news.sky.com, but English language news sources seem to prefer the "Syrian government" term (by a wide margin). Only exception I found was abc.net.au (nearly 1:1 ratio). Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Syrian government is good, Syrian Arab Republic is better.185.62.87.16 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

problematic RFC closure

I don't really know who RfCs are meant to be closed, but the one above (RFC: One primary flag, Syrian government to be known as "Syrian government.") looks a bit wrong to me. First, it was closed by an anonymous IP - is that standard? Second, the anonymous IP says Counting the preceding discussion (which is on the same subject), there is a total of 2 oppose !voters and 6 different support !voters (the different IPs seem to be only one person). Thus, there appears to be policy-based consensus in support of the proposal. It is really hard to work out as it's so convoluted, but this seems to be inaccurate, as only four actual votes were made, two each way. I can only see 7 contributors to the discussion, so I don't know how the 8 votes are counted. On the support side there are the anon IP that made the proposal, @Attar-Aram syria: (who voted support), @Pavlor: (who didn't vote but broadly supports), and @Claíomh Solais: (who voted support). Opposing the proposal are @AlAboud83: (Alhanuty, who voted oppose), myself (voted oppose) and @AnonMoos: (didn't vote but clearly opposed), so 4-3 rather than 6-2, so not actually "policy-based consensus". I also feel that a large amount of the discussion was not policy-based, but that's less relevant. Can this be revisited before action is taken? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Although the closing IP seems to be more experienced than regular IPs (judging by his/her talk page), RfC about such contested question requires more "heavy-weight" closing editor. To prevent any future disputes about proper procedure, I propose to ask some uninvolved admin to look at this closure and - if really needed - reopen the RfC (or close it at his own discretion). Myself, I will not change the article until this question is resolved. Pavlor (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition: WP:CLOSE (common practice, not policy or guideline) requires discussing the close with the closing editor and then going to AN, so my idea above may not work (however, I still think an admin has enough discretion to overturn erroneous close). Pavlor (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, here is a longer explanation. Regarding the number of editors: For "support", I see (clear !votes only): Attar-Aram syria, Claíomh Solais, the 2003:... IP (those 3 are from the RfC), Onceinawhile, Bougatsa42, Crowtow849 (those 3 from the previous discussion) - if my math is right (it is), that's 6. The oppose !voters are the same in both. Now counting the two extra unclear participants doesn't change the result. AnonMoos explicitly said that this shouldn't be voting and he didn't provide a vote anyway - he countered the IPs arguments, but he himself didn't provide any new policy or source-based arguments as to the RfC question - of course, I duly disregarded the IP's red herring arguments for inclusion of other flags, but that didn't affect the result. Counting Pavlor, which is more clearly "support" and whose arguments do provide some policy-based reasoning seems reasonable. Counting both nevertheless brings the final tally to 7-3 - doesn't change the result in any way.

Now, of course strength of arguments needs to be taken into account. The oppose argument that "as long as the rival government controls at least an inch of Syrian soil" is not persuasive - it is a Wikipedian's opinion (at best, it's WP:SYNTH). The other oppose argument offers a valid point that the flag was used historically (a fact which is not disputed by anybody), but the crux of the dispute here seems to be whether the "official" Syrian government can be called the "Syrian government", and whether the flag it uses is the legitimate flag of Syria.

Having been personally involved in previous NPOV disputes, the only way for this to move forward either way is by the use of reliable sources. The support !voters provided recent WP:RS which show that the name used in Western media for the "official" Syrian government is just "Syrian government", while the oppose !voters provided a lot of words, but little sources. Yet, again, sources are what is required to meet WP:NPOV / WP:BALANCE. Thus, and taking into account the clear majority (in any case) !voter count, consensus seems rather straightforward (even if, yes, the discussion is rather convoluted, as are all NPOV disputes) for the issue of whether to call the government "Syrian" or "Assad".

For the flag, the reliable sources (UN, CIA factbook, etc...) are overwhelmingly in favour of the "Assad" flag (which has been used since much before the civil war). This doesn't preclude discussing the historical variant (and mentioning it is used by the opposition forces).

Feel free to take this up with somebody else if you feel my interpretation of the consensus or of policy is wrong. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The Libyan Precedent provides an excellent way,about how to solve the dispute,by presenting both flags without discrimination,the reason why news outlets use the word Government is to stay neutral.Alhanuty (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"the reason why news outlets use the word Government is to stay neutral." - quoting myself, "[the use of reliable] sources is what is required to meet WP:NPOV". If sources use "government", we should do likewise. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation, sounds reasonable enough. Pavlor (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Anon- So, you are counting votes in a previous RfC as votes in this RfC? Is that normal? The 3 additional votes you have thereby counted (2 of which are policy-based) were supporting the idea that consensus needed to be revisited, not the particular radical solution proposed by the anonymous initiator of this RfC so should absolutely not be counted, leaving us with votes at 3-2, which is a weak basis for radical change. As you say, closure should not be based on votes alone, but on policy and on strength of arguments and your point about sources is a strong one. But I think you misrepresent the arguments presented here. The oppose argument has not been based on whether it is proper to call the Assad government the "official" government or not; the oppose argument has been that there is not simply one flag universally acknowledged as "the" flag of Syria. The legitimacy of the flag is widely contested. The fact that the Assad flag needs a prefix like "the government flag" or "the Baathist flag" or "the regime flag" shows that using the term "the Syrian flag" for it is problematic. As you say, "If sources use "government", we should do likewise" - sources typically call one flag the government flag and the other the opposition flag, and we should do likewise, not make a ruling that only one is legitimate. I don't think the UN and CIA are good sources for the fact that the government flag is the only flag regarded as having legitimacy. Those are primary sources and it would be our WP:SYN if we interpreted them as meaning only the government flag is recognised as legitimate. I will provide reliable secondary sources that say the government flag and its legitimacy are widely contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem is, the "pro-regime" side presented some RS (CIA factbook is at least useable in this regard), the other side of the dispute has no support in RS so far (I repatedly asked for some, none delivered - except the one from 2011, which is next to useless now). In any case, my brief search (see "Assad government" section above) shows much higher usage of "Syrian government" in comparison to "Assad government" by various news sites, so current ("old consensus") wording is a minority POV anyway. However, I´m not willing to change the article right now. Although I agree with closing IP´s explanation, there is still a possibility this close will be reverted (eg. action by an admin, as I outlined above). If new consensus has to stand, its very birth must be not disputed on procedural grounds. As the closing IP has not changed his/her mind, you may take this to AN. Pavlor (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree the oppose people (including me) didn't put forward RSs to make the case - it's been on my to-do list for ages. I'll try to do that now. I don't think, though, that the wording "Assad government" v "Syrian government" is that relevant to the issue of whether the article should feature both flags or not. I'm not too concerned about what words are used for the regime, so long as it clear there is a government flag and an opposition flag and that the relative legitimacy of each flag is contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I fear wording is crucial for this dispute - years long edit war centers on "Assad" vs "Syrian" government usage. As of both flags in the article, I would oppose removal of the 1961 flag. Renaming the "Flag used by the Assad government" section should be sufficient. The lead can be reworded later (I wouldn´t rather touch this one...). Pavlor (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree wording is crucial, and don't feel strongly about the outcome of the edit war over section titles, but simply meant the outcome of that is a different question to the outcome of the RfC that was prematurely closed. If you are also against removal of the 1932/61 flag, that means 3 editors (including the anon who opened the IP) supported the radical change and 4 opposed it, so clearly no consensus behind the radical change at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the 1961 flag is not part of this RfC: 1. "Assad government" section wording 2. The lead. If I wanted to "vote", I would support both proposals of this RfC (the second one with caveat that other flags must be at least mentioned), because current state of the article is untenable (POV, lack of RS support, ...). Pavlor (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I just checked the policy and it seems to me clear that non-registered users cannot close discussions. See WP:NOTBADNAC. In addition, it seems to close a discussion an editor needs to be experienced - WP:NACEXP - which I assume means more than six months of anon editing. I think this needs to be re-opened. See also WP:NACRFC, which asks to question whether the RfC should even be closed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NAC is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Pavlor (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Pavlor. I'm finding it hard getting my head around all these guidelines. I am hoping an experienced admin can look at this... BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but for th emost part IPs are not supposed to close discussions, but because of WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO an admin might not reclose it. While it does appear the IP just counted votes (which isn't so bad as the !vote people make it out to be), I would agree with the closure, there is no other way to do it except No Consensus, which would be useless to us. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Would patrolling admins semi the talk page next time an RFC is in effect please? Not because of the closure, but because of the unconstructive drive by comments. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is they didn't count actual votes in the RfC, but included votes from the previous discussion, which was not about a specific radical change whereas the second one was. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE - anyway, after correcting for the 2 "missed" votes, the result isn't changed. I still stand by my earlier assessment that the arguments provided by both sides weren't equally grounded in policy or in sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about WP:NOTVOTE. I was wrong about one of the missed votes, as Pavlor has explicitly said s/he thinks the 1962 flag should remain. What you haven't corrected though is the inclusion of votes in a totally different RfC. Clearly, there is no consensus, so as you say policy/arguments need to hold sway, but as I said I don't think you represent them accurately. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The previous RfC is indeed on the same topic - i.e.

My proposal is that we get rid of any mentions of the "Assad government," and instead talk about the "Syrian government.

The article of course can also mention flags used by (various factions of) the FSA, the Kurds/SDF, al-Nusra, ISIS, and whatever other group currently controls parts of Syria's territory, but the flag of the actual Syrian government should be primary.

compare with

1. The Syrian government should be referred to as the "Syrian government" (or "government of Syria," or similar), not as the "Assad government," the "Assad regime," or anything along those lines. Again, this is not only NPOV, but also would bring it in line with conventions elsewhere on Wikipedia.

2. The lede section should focus exclusively on the current primary flag of the government of Syria - i.e. the one with horizontal red, white, and black stripes and two green stars.

As such, I have taken discretion to count both discussion (might I note that you also gave the exact same !vote (word for word) in both discussions). Also, I don't know if you've possibly misunderstood the RfC question, but nowhere is it mentioned that the older flag should be altogether removed from the article - and my close doesn't mention that either, saying simply "This doesn't preclude discussing the historical variant (and mentioning it is used by the opposition forces)." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I've been focused on proposal (2) of the 2nd RfC (the part emphasised in the section title) and underplayed proposal (1). It's proposal (2) I object to strongly, focusing the lede entirely on the government flag. I think there is consensus to make the proposal (1) change, i.e. to use a phrase like "government flag" or "flag used by the government", rather than "Assad flag". But I don't think there is consensus for proposal (2). BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Focusing the lead on the government flag (or, using the wording from the previous discussion, "the flag of the actual Syrian government should be primary") goes in line with MOS:LEADREL. The lead can discuss the historical flag, with due weight (which is what I implied, albeit lacking clarity, with my closing rationale, above). Note that support editors in the second RfC seem to agree that the historical flag did deserve at least some kind of mention. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Its so nice to see biased people talking about neutrality. Some of them are only editing this article and patrolling it just to keep "Assad government" in place while calling the opposition with a neutral term. Anyways, one thing is for sure, the claims of old consensus are destroyed by the admins. NeilN stated clearly that there was no old consensus to begin with.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a reliable Source,using the term,Assad Government https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/assad-government-forces-entire-eastern-ghouta-180412134000341.html.Alhanuty (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Brief Google search shows ratio 3:1 for "Syrian government" vs "Assad government" on site:.aljazeera.com. Pavlor (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Guys, the question of the term "Assad government" is a totally different question to the question of whether the article should only be about one flag only, or the question of how the RFC should be closed. Please argue about the terminology in the relevant talk page section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Of Course both Flags must presented without discrimination,the way RFC was closed is problematic,definitely.Alhanuty (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, as a step towards bringing in some RSs, I've started this sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/Syrian_independence_flag I'll work on it over next days.BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)