Talk:Syria

List government as disputed

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/11/syrian-opposition-deal/1697693/ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121111141834268537.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/11/us-syria-crisis-doha-idUSBRE8AA0H320121111

All major political opposition groups unified and elected a new president.

The FSA has 50-60% of Syrian territory. During the Libyan civil war we put "disputed" in the libya info-box when the NTC only had 20% territory. I7laseral (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the vast majority of countries in the international community recognize Assad's government as the legitimate government of Syria. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As the number of foreign nations that recognize the newly formed opposition umbrella ogranization the legitimate representitave increases, it shall be edited as disputed. Which is something seems like about to happen soon... AndyMcKandless (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A "legitimate government" is much more of a political tool than it is a legal term or situation, so any such additions would seem one-sided. The opposition flag and symbols should be added when/if the opposition gains full control of the country. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Syrian Opposition controls more territory than the Assad Government, so the "control" isn´t a valid parameter--80.39.199.127 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounded pretty contradicting. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounded fine to me. Full Arab League and EU recognition of the SNC opposition would be enough to have to make clear that the government is disputed; it's only a matter of time until that happens now anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.137 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think once the Arab League and/or European Union and/or the United States recognizes the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the government/sole legitimate representative of Syria or something along those lines, then the government should be listed as disputed.--Wikien2009 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why ? What does "legitimate representative" mean and according to which international laws can it be qualified as "legitimate" ? It has no legally defined institutions, no political framework other than simply being in opposition, it does not control the nation's capital and therefore it cannot, technically or otherwise, be considered a "government". Unless Syria's seat at the UN, as was the Libya case, is taken by its representatives, there's no reason to consider the SNC a government at all. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

when full recognition is granted (as it had been already by France) "[sole] legitimate representative" be upgrade to a title more significant. We are approaching a situation where the Assad regime is fast losing control of Aleppo, and the country's largest city will be opposition controlled; add to that the fact that the SNC will likely soon hold the Arab league's chair for Syria and the Ba'athist regime has little case for legitimacy going into the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.51 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As of 20 11 2012, the Arab League and the EU have formally recognized the SNC as a "legitimate representative" of Syria and the number of countries recognizing them as the lone legitimate government of Syria is growing by the day. [1] [2] [3] 68.37.161.91 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't answer the question - what is a "legitimate government" and how can it be considered a government at all when it doesn't even have a capital, a legal framework or institutions ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 05:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. Countries have declared that it is the sole representative, therefore that helps form consensus. Etymological or philosophical questions such as the one you just raised are, quite frankly, above your pay grade buddy.

Nobody recognised the Coalition as a government, but as a representative... this is a huge difference, let's not rush. --Wüstenfuchs 00:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem I'm trying to underline - people equate "legitimate representative" to "legitimate government" exactly because neither of those terms has any real meaning beyond a sign of diplomatic support for the rebel forces. There's no "disputed government" at all, and any proposals to list the current one as such are simply wishful thinking. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Once there is a real government, one that has control over rebel areas and has some form of a functioning institution, then we can start talking about a disputed government. Not yet, not by a far cry. Yazan (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above editor. Also, we should not list of government as disputed when it is not recognized under international law (most notably, the benchmark of such enactment of international law would be a binding resolution in both the UN Security Council and General Assembly. The Al-Halqi government (under Bashar al-Assad) still exercise power of the apparatus of state (civil/military powers) as legitimized under confidence of the Peoples Council. I have reverted previous disputed edits as a result of this talk page.

Faction	Control of the territory	Support and recognition
Bath Government	40-50%	Russia ; Axis of Resistance ; Some socialist countries
Rebels	50%-60	European Union  ; USA ; Arab League, Gulf countries

I think both of them should be added, or at least, point out that Mr Assad government is not the only recognized government--79.151.215.184 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Now 130 countries recognize the opposition. They are more than a half of the countries of the World. I think it´s time to point out that the government is disputed.--80.26.243.18 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the flag may be neutral at this point. It might have to be demoted to the section "Politics" and have the Coalition flag alongside it.--Marianian^(talk) 17:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Assad doesn´t control the territory and is no longer recognized as the only legitimate government.--83.35.235.40 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Really disappointing article. Excuse me, but to say that there is no dispute when it comes who who governs Syria = POV. The govt. of Syria is very much in question. This whole page is discredited if there is no reference to the dispute that some here prefer to ignore. For the sake of credibility, you must include the point that two as of now equal entities control vast parts of Syria and claim to be the government of that country. This is not a question of law but only of control and power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.72.208 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: The Obama Administration has recognized the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian People." It will be interesting to see how much longer you hawks can perpetuate the lie that there is no dispute to the Assad regime being the legitimate government. 69.148.204.232 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/exclusive-president-obama-recognizes-syrian-opposition-group/story?id=17936599

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/us-syria-opposition/index.html

• I wish to reiterate that I would support showing both governments, as per my "Major edit proposal" below, yet not label both of them as disputed. This would be the best option for the current situation. --Marianian^(talk) 23:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree assad's government is contested government Abdo45 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The opposition has appointed an interim Prime Minister to govern rebel-held areas. Should the government be displayed as disputed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacharyGeorge (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

With the formation of a rival government as opposed to a "coalition", per the example of Libya circa mid-2011, I think it's time to list the Syrian government as disputed and include infoboxes for both factions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Major edit proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Disagree Even though they recognise the rebel faction as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people, nearly all countries that oppose Assad still consider his government the one that rules Syria. One example is that despite having a office in Brussels, the rebels may not call this an "embassy" since this title is reserved to the Official pro-Assad representative.[4][5]--Rafy talk 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluative word; Syntax

" Between 1958 and 1961, Syria entered a brief union with Egypt, which was terminated by a military coup." Why "brief"? 1) Let the reader decide if 1958-1961 us brief or not. 2) They entered for the entire time? I doubt it. Try something like "were in a union." 202.179.19.14 (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Qatar handing embassy over to opposition

Add this to the Syrian embassy in Libya [6] :Qatar handing embassy over to opposition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.144 (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Demographics - 1.8-2.0 million Turkmen

according to the source wikipedia ueses, the number of turkmens in syria is not 0.5-1 million. are people checking the sources? the source states the number of turkmens at 1,8-2,0 million. i have changed this figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.126.202 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I was thinking of adding the following templates to the article. A.h. king • Talk to me! 22:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Arab Republic الجمهورية العربية السورية Al-Jumhūrīyah Al-ʻArabīyah As-Sūrīyah
Flag Coat of arms
Anthem: Homat el Diyar Guardians of the Land
Capital	Damascus
Official languages	Arabic
Government	Dominant-party unitary semi-presidential state
• President	Bashar al-Assad
• Prime Minister	Wael Nader al-Halqi
• Speaker of the People's Council	Mohammad Jihad al-Laham
Legislature	People's Council
ISO 3166 code	SY

Syria سوريا‎ Sūrīyah
Flag
Anthem: Homat el Diyar Guardians of the Land
Capital	Damascus
Official languages	Arabic
Government	Transitional government
• Prime Minister	Ghassan Hitto
• President of the Syrian National Coalition	Moaz al-Khatib
• Secretary General of the Syrian National Coalition	Mustafa Sabbagh
ISO 3166 code	SY

As per my edit proposal these could go in the Politics and government section. As for the ordering I was thinking about flipping a coin to decide that. Thoughts? --Marianian^(talk) 00:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the order as I presented is best as I arranged according to date of formation. A.h. king • Talk to me! 10:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that some editor has taken the proposals literally and messed up the leading infobox. What it should be is that leading infobox be "neutral", then the two government infoboxes in the Politics and government section. --Marianian^(talk) 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fellas, this is incredibly biased. Assad's government, for better or for worse - is still the legal government of Syria. One may support the SNC government, half the world may support it, but until it wins the war and overthrows Assad - it is in no way a legal government of Syria per international law. Placing the SNC somehow on par with the Syrian government is plain political promotion.

Now, I anticipate a storm of explanations on how Assad is being denounced by this country and that, or that the SNC is recognized by all these countries, etc. Let me say right now: its a war on. Some countries support Assad, many the SNC - but in all fairness Assad "was there first". Until its dissolved, his government is the one of the two that has legality. -- Director (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Just saw it was Sopher99 who pulled that off - shocking :). You know, Sopher, I only came here for a quick link to the Syrian flag. Now I'll have to ask you to achieve a proper consensus for your highly controversial edit. -- Director (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought that a neutral leading infobox would be a middle ground given the situation, but I think we need to open an formal RFC over this. Events are changing quite quickly: recently the SNC took up the Arab League seat, so now I am at a loss on how we should proceed without risking further problems. --Marianian^(talk) 12:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be the middle ground if the two sides in the civil war were somehow equal in standing. That is not the case here, though. The SNC government, while being far more likable, has very little or no legality. They're the rebels, plain and simple. Granting them equal status here on Wiki can very easily be perceived as favorable representation. According to international law, the Syrian government is the Syrian government :). It is the one sitting in the UN (Bashar Jaafari), and probably will be until its dissolved and replaced. At such a point we can switch to the new one. Remember that this article's infobox isn't intended to illustrate a conflict. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

UN representation was not the only factor that I considered in my attempt to strike a balance. I had to take into account Arab League representation, OIC representation, political recognition from more than 193 countries and extent of territory held. In my opinion I felt that it was best to leave it at neutral because the SNC has legitimate and informal recognition from at least 100 countries (see National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces#International recognition, plus Arab League membership. I am well aware of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF: the rationale for choosing a neutral lead infobox also connects to the hope that an element of dispute over recognition would be settled for now before it gets out of control. I can only do as much to address this. --Marianian^(talk) 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

First, the informal recognition of over 100 countries is a bit dubious, even if sourced in that page. Nowhere is it explicitly stated which states have recognised the SNC - there's just a number with a couple of highlights, and recognition by supranational entities, not individual countries. Second, even in countries where the opposition is recognised, embassies still operate under the Arab Republic flag, with the notable exception of Qatar. Third, as stated above, we don't really have two governments here. We have one government and a loose coalition of armed groups with a political cap that claims to be a government, yet has no capital, no cabinet, and is largely self-appointed (in stark contrast to the Libyan situation). In this case, removing the insignia of the functioning and (more or less) legitimate government is in favour of the SNC, therefore not neutral nor a middle ground solution. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said, those are rebels: "when they win, put them in". UN representation is not the point, I mentioned it merely to illustrate that the SNC is not the legal government of Syria according to international law. As custodian of said law, the UN does not replace de iure representatives unless there really is an overwhelming de facto defeat on the ground. A big example would be China, which came entirely under communist control as early as 1949, but in the UN the People's Republic of China only replaced the Republic of China (Taiwan) 22 years later. And on this project, until very recently, the PRC was still not included in the "China" article (but rather the PRC and Taiwan each had their own separate ones).

Legality matters, and the SNC is not the legal government (if it can be called a "government" to begin with). When/if it establishes de facto control over the vast majority of Syrian territory, there might me an argument for amendments. But with the civil war in full swing, I can see no reasonable argument for such favorable representation on equal terms with the actual government.

But that won't stop rebel supporters like Sayerslle to try and push such controversial, non-consensus changes through a 1RR-edit-war :). -- Director (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I completely agree with you. Infobox should remain as it was until now. Rebels (better to say, terrorists) and their so-called "government" are not legal government of Syria, nor they have control over the vast majority of Syrian territory. Also, they don't have massive support of countries (except the Western ones) and international organizations (except the Arab League). Recognition from countries all over the world and from the UN is precondition to have any form of legality. Furthermore, my personal thoughts on this issue - these terrorists and their so-called "government" are absolutely dependent on help and support from their Western allies and Gulf states. Without it, they wouldn't last for more than a week in this war. I sincerely hope they'll eventually be defeated. To end with your words, DIREKTOR: When they win, put them in (and I hope they'll never win). --Sundostund (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In regard to your snide comments first of all they are not terrorists, only al nusra (10,000 people) are considered terrorists, but keep in mind the United States also blacklisted the shabiha as terrorists. Second the FSA army was formed in July 2011, and didn't receive any aid from abroad into May 2012. (Alot more then 1 week without aid). Second of all Assad is relying fully on iranian and russian arms from abroad, "and wouldn't last 1 week" without them. Sopher99 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Sopher99, you admit that not all of them are terrorists, just some (Al Nusra)! So, there is a group of 10,000 people who are officially considered terrorists, but others are "poor freedom fighters"? Yeah, right. All of them are terrorists, supported by Western countries and neo-colonialists who want to create another client state with puppet government in the Middle East (as they, unfortunately, succeeded in Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011). I hope they'll not be successful this time. As for the FSA, they are not just terrorists, but traitors too who were members of the Syrian Armed Forces before they accepted money from USA, Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc to betray their country and to serve foreign interests. As for foreign aid, only naive person can believe that FSA didn't receive foreign aid from July 2011 to May 2012! They are even formed on Turkish soil, not in Syria! They wouldn't even exist on the battlefield until May 2012 without massive help from their creators and masters - Western countries. Help which President al-Assad's government receive from Russia, Iran, China etc is ridiculously small when compared to help which terrorists receive. --Sundostund (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Sopher99, accept my "sincere condolences" for this - On 25 March 2013, the FSA commander Riad al-Asaad was victim of a car bomb explosion near Mayadin, east of Syria. He was taken to Turkey for a treatment, and in hospital he shouted "I want to die." Part of his right leg was amputated. :) As the French would say - C'est la guerre! --Sundostund (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sundostund, you may be interested to participate in the weird never-ending discussion over at the Syrian civil war article. We're always looking for fresh victims :).

@Sopher. How do you know they didn't receive aid from abroad until May 2012? Be that as it may, they are receiving it now - by the truckload, and from all-time allies of the Arabs - the Turks. Not to start about the strong possibility of Libya-like NATO assistance. The US.. another big ally of the Arabs :). In my personal opinion, the blocks are pretty clear: US/NATO/Israel for the one side, Iran/Russia for the other (Turkey is a member of NATO in case we've forgotten; just like my country, Croatia for that matter). These folks hate each-other and would send arms to prevent the other side gain regional influence even if there were no other interests at stake. But can you imagine Israel just standing by while Iran gains influence through an Assad victory? Certainly not, they can and do intervene with neighbors at the drop of a hat. Sure, the rebels talk a lot, but its all just words. If you're looking for who's against the US and Israel - see whom Iran is supporting. -- Director (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. The Syrian goverment is only anti-Israel in rhetoric. Israel is not in favor of Syrian government being overthrown, believing that such an event would ignite a safehaven for the muslim brotherhood, who they believe would team up with the Egyptian muslim brotherhood and repeat the failled 1973 scenario. Instead Israel is on board with the "political solution" idea (which so Iran and Russia also claim to support). It is not uncommon for countries to send weapons to any side of a war, but the argument that one side is illegitimate because they can "be defeated so easily without foreign help" is invalid. That would mean that Palestine doesn't deserve a state, or half of all countries on earth for that matter. Sopher99 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, thank you very much for your polite invitation, but I'm really not a fan of weird, never-ending discussions :) Sopher99, Syrian government is anti-Israel not just in rhetoric, but in essence and with good reason: Israel hold under its occupation a part of the sovereign territory of Syria, the Golan Heights, since 1967. Israelis hate President al-Assad and his government, because they know Syria is the only country with which Israel borders which can still be a major threat to Israel in any future regional war (together with Iran). Muslim Brotherhood rulers of Egypt are those who are anti-Israel in rhetoric only, that same apply to Syrian terrorists who would never act against their Western masters' wishes and endanger Israel in any way if they succeed in taking over Syria (I hope they never would!). Only Syria and Iran remain essentially anti-Israel countries in the Middle East today, Israelis knows that, so they send covert support for terrorists in Syria. In the end, DIREKTOR is absolutely right: The blocks in this conflict are crystal clear: US/NATO/Israel for the one side (terrorists), Iran/Russia for the other (President al-Assad's government). And, DIRECTOR: Maybe your country (Croatia) is a member of NATO, but I'm really happy to see that YOU aren't a member of it :) --Sundostund (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

P. S. Ne znam kakvo je tvoje misljenje o tome, ali ja i dalje verujem u proslo (i, nadam se, buduce) jedinstvo nasih naroda. Svu mrznju na ovim prostorima je posejao Zapad, zarad svojih interesa. Zato su i razbili Jugoslaviju koja ce, nadam se, jednog dana opet zaziveti! --Sundostund (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I myself do entertain that theory (it seems Germany at least certainly had a vested interest). But, I also hold that it started with Milosevich. F. William Engdahl seems to think Slobo was something of an IMF man. I mean we had our little "spring" in '71, we were happy with the '74 constitution.. If I had to put it in a sentence, it was probably-IMF-supported Slobo taking advantage of siptar atrocities that started it. Anyway, even though I certainly think it would be a good idea, I wouldn't hold any high hopes for any future unions.. we're all going to the EU. Possibly something will happen in that context.. While we're digressing, here's another interesting link (old Farage is certainly right about the "enormously wealthy part" :)). -- Director (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Presentation of the Syrian country infobox

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

Survey

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

Retain "red-white-black" symbols?

• My arguments have been explained above:
  • The government still retains its seat at the United Nations;
  • The SNC is not functioning as a government as it has no designated capital, ministers or institutions;
  • The Free Syrian Army is the institution that controls rebel-held areas; the SNC is fractured and has little to no control over these terriories;
  • Despite sources claiming recognition of the SNC by more than 100 countries, there are no individual statements by country; these are measured simply through the recognition by organisations in which these countries participate;
  • The SNC is recognised as a "legitimate representative of the Syrian people, not a legitimate government.

A non-neutral situation would be to replace the functioning government of Assad with this obviously dysfunctional political organisation that holds no authority over rebel territories in Syria. Certain users can rant about Putinist conspiracies, but it won't change the fact that the opposition holds no large cities in their entirety and is basically an army without a government. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • -Is the regime still functioning over all syria btw -it hasnt become compromised anywhere - but again RS say different, - if who is at the U.N is the only consideration I didnt know that. "We'll oppose it very strongly," Churkin said in response to a question about a likely Syrian opposition move in New York to follow its success in gaining Arab League recognition." - thats just what the representative said, pointing things like that out are not 'rants' - its kind of like pointing outthat Russia and east eurpopeans are more pro the Assad regime than others and this affects what they say and like to insist see appearing everywhere. Sayerslle (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please use : before your comment to move it rightwards. Removing the current flag, coat of arms and government from the infobox in favour of a loose and powerless political body (and this is not my statement) would represent a biased act itself. It would mean the community here is not neutral and is expressing support for a side in the conflict - a side not universally recognised. Retaining the current symbols does not mean the same, since the regime is a functioning political body fighting against the Free Syrian Army, which is not a government. While the FSA undoubtedly controls some large areas, it is weakly affiliated with the SNC. As far as I've noticed, it is exactly the SNC - and not the FSA - that some users here are trying to give credit to.

Finally, you mentioned that the de jure situation stands opposite to the de facto one, which is false. The de facto situation is against the proposal as well. Of the 10 largest Syrian cities, the opposition has full control of only one (ar-Raqqah). The regime is in firm or near-firm control of six (Damascus, Hama, Homs, Tartus, Latakia, Hasakah). Even the majority of the smaller towns in the northeast are controlled not by the FSA/Nusra, but by the Kurdish PYD, not part of opposition government.

The final generalisation about "east europeans" is one that you could keep to yourself. I am certain that you wouldn't feel pleasant if I said that Americans are generally pro-Contras and pro-Wahhabis, and if you would like to comment on other users, this is not the place. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Removing the current flag, coat of arms and government from the infobox in favour of a loose and powerless political body " - is not what anyone did is it. what is the bloody point if you invent stuff to oppose. the use of the word 'rant' to caricature the words of others is one that you could keep to yourself Sayerslle (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Use "neutral" infobox?

To avoid conflict no flags in the info box would be most neutral. I prefer the solution with two info-boxes under politics. Renetus (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Current territory status.

Syrian National Coalition recognition, including members of Friends of Syria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly, DIREKTOR! I totally agree with: When the UN changes its position, or the rebels take over the vast majority of Syria, then we might have something to discuss. And, I especially agree with: The de iure situation is Assad is king, etc :) --Sundostund (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I should add a few charts to explain why I am not confident that the status quo should remain. It is my intention only to ensure that the infobox keeps up with the current situation with solid facts - in the case of Libya in 2011, the NTC only got its UN seat a month after the fall of Tripoli and about a month before the demise of Gaddafi. [7]. --Marianian^(talk) 18:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the points above. The UN seat is probably the least significant argument of those so far presented. The most significant argument is that the SNC is not a functioning government. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

and do you continue to ignore that it is not a functioning assad rgeime government in swathes of the country. Sayerslle (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

May I reiterate that I considered the current status of UN membership, but the state of recognition by individual nations contradicts this. It is just that they have not called for a vote over the credentials, yet. They usually do this in September-ish, when the General Assembly convenes. --Marianian^(talk) 00:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You just basically said that your assumptions on what might happen at a certain point in time should be regarded as an argument to include a double infobox. Ever read WP:CRYSTAL ? Are you aware that the "rebel government" practically has almost no authority over rebel-held territories ? What you are promoting here is the idea that a powerless political coalition should be represented on an equal footing with a fully-fledged regime that has obviously dug in itself deep and has a long way to go before falling. This is just wishful thinking. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am not even predicting the future - the state today is that there is neither side is fully recognised, even though Assad has the UN seat and the SNC has the Arab League seat. It should be noted that as part of a compromise I would support the Assad infobox going first because it still has the UN seat but I personally cannot see why it should be on the main infobox because of the state of recognition by individual nations. I am not supporting either side at all, but I am only considering the extremely raw facts, that there are lots of countries that accept the SNC as a legitimate government, solely or jointly, as well as countries that accept Assad's government as such, solely or jointly. Therefore my recommendation would be a neutral lead infobox, followed by Assad then the SNC in Government and Politics section, like what happened with Libya in 2011. I've tried my best to forge a compromise and bring some stability, but I am very disappointed that my attempt at settling the dispute has changed little other than back-and-forth editing of the infoboxes. --Marianian^(talk) 22:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet you're still ignoring another extremely raw fact - that the SNC continues to be simply an internationally recognised group, not a government. You can't just compare this to Libya, because back then the TNC had a capital (Benghazi) and a streamlined political and military organisation. The SNC is the exact opposite. It has no capital, is yet to form an administrative structure, and does not control rebel-held areas in Syria:

• "...Syria's main opposition coalition is holding talks to form an interim government..." (mid-March 2013);
• "...the new government faces huge challenges, starting with its ability to gain recognition from rebel factions on the ground." (mid-March 2013)
• "...a US-based Islamist, was elected by the opposition to be prime minister of an alternative administration that could govern rebel-held areas from inside Syria." (late March 2013)

This is what comes after a quick news search about a Syrian opposition government. Sure, it's recognised as a legitimate representative by over 100 countries (of which we never saw a full list), but it's not recognised by the Syrian rebels and has no authority over rebel-held areas. Any infobox that involves the SNC is destined to be biased, non-neutral and an exaggeration of what the SNC is. Your attempt at a compromise is simply this - to equalise a functioning regime and a dysfunctional political coalition. That's simply a non-neutral proposal. The most adequate solution is to retain regime symbols and cabinet in the infobox. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• has obviously dug in itself deep - in parts of the country - not everywhere - north and eastern areas etc - the border with Turkey for eg- do you ever watch the news? read [papers? the idea that the opposition is just a monstrosity, which you argue, is a regime pov, not the opinion of those that have recognised its legitimacy etc etc.the reason for the latest revert i can hardly make out at all - is it understandable. the user doesnt have an opposition flag on his page so maybe thats all there is to understand. the regime has obviously dug itself in very deep in some areas though - you are certainly 100% correct there. well done. Sayerslle (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Until and unless the current government has been defeated, I would consider it the government. If the rebels were to sever part of the country, establish a government and obtain recognition, then I would treat it as two countries. To use an earlier example, we date the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia from the date Lon Nol's forces were defeated in the capital, even though the Khmer Rouge had long controlled many parts of the country. TFD (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so.

This war could even conceivably last for decades at a lower intensity. It doesn't appear likely Assad will ever be able to shift the rebels from their strongholds next to the Turkish border, but neither can the rebels decisively defeat Assad, it seems, as long as he controls the mainstay of the army... Like I keep saying - the war is still very much on. -- Director (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Having taken a break and thought about this again I am willing to declare no consensus and stick with the current infobox, but review again if the opposition takes all of Aleppo and/or Damascus, or gain UN credentials. Would this, or siimlar, be agreeable? Thanks. --Marianian^(talk) 23:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just asking but can't Russia block that move unilaterally at the U.N ? they love Assad - [8] , they are often spoken of in RS as . along with hierocrat Iran , Assads greatest supporters. Sayerslle (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    • In the GA, the change of UN credentials for Libya were done by a majority vote, invulnerable to veto unlike the SC. --Marianian^(talk) 01:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • oh, thanks. I read an article where some Russian apparatchik called churkin said -"You do not simply seat opposition groups who have gone through no proper process of legitimization," he said - and wondered if they could block anything at all they didnt like at the U.N. Sayerslle (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair to do it when/if Damascus falls and if the SNC gets recognised by the Free Syrian Army as its government. As I pointed out earlier, there's quite a rift between the two. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sayerslle, I'm sorry to inform you, but some people (like myself) don't have a habit to let CNN and BBC to think instead of their brain. Also, there are many people (like myself) who don't support "liberal democracy", "multi-party system", "market economy" etc and I certainly don't want to see another country, Syria, occupied by those who cherish those "values". We had many opportunities (especially in Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011) so far to see how it looks when US/NATO "liberate" a country from an "evil dictator" and his "murderous regime", so I (and many more people) choose to stick with Russia and China. --Sundostund (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

just trying to be neutral mate. i honestly believe de facto/de jure issues etc are divided. i dont see how much clearer you can make your pov issues and what your motivation is here. Sayerslle (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the thing--an encyclopedic article may report, if that is necessary, relevant, supported, etc. about a de facto situation; after all, we seem to think that we need to update constantly. But stuff like an infobox and the main information of a lead, including statements about official heads of state and such, need to deal with the de jure situation, especially if such a situation is still recognized by major bodies, the UN being the majorest. Whether the situation in the real world as such is good or bad is clearly up to some dispute, but that's not the issue here. Eventually one of the two sides (if the calculus is that easy) will win out, and at that point the article will reflect that. But this is not the place to argue for the legitimacy of one side over the other, and this is not the place to refer to one side as terrorists and/or the other as oppressive tyrants. The article, if it uses such words at all, must do so in a way that identifies that terminology as used by reliable and notable sources, to make it clear that it's not us (or you) editors who are using it and thus giving their opinion. I'm not sure if there is a problem with the current dispute, but we need you all to realize that you need to work together to keep the article within policy and guidelines. If you don't, there will be edit wars and blocks, and no one wants that, I hope. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed the opposition box. The SNC has no legitimacy and is not a unified, functioning government, and the Arab League seat cannot be compared to a UN representation at all. Please discuss before making changes. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, Tourbillon! If terrorists want legitimacy, they must take the UN seat! Very simple, isn't it? But, I bet it will be very hard for them to do! --Sundostund (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

unless wikipedia has to be a parodic mirror of Russian/east European views of the world I think the 'no legitimacy' statement is not in RS. the arab eague, france, Britain, the U.S. administration see things different to Putin and epigones - the de facto situation has changed too - parts of northern Syria for example are in KUrdish and FSA control etc - your pov is interfering with the need for wp to be neutral imo Sayerslle (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There can be no real legitimacy without the seat in the UN. There's no other recognition, by any country or international organization, which can replace that kind of legitimacy. As for the situation in northern Syria, etc - that's not an argument, the war is in progress. One side now controls some parts of Syria, but easily can lost that control. --Sundostund (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone realise that there is an RfC for the infobox dispute? I'm afraid we are not going to have a proper consensus unless we make use of the RfC. Also, calling either side terrorists or whatever isn't likely to make your case look professional. Thanks. --Marianian^(talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Marianian, my parents told me long time ago to always call everything by its real name. If someone gets offended, well, truth can hurt, doesn't it? --Sundostund (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to argue about which government is better as per WP:NPOV. --Marianian^(talk) 00:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This page is going to be the worst

Hello, may peace be upon all, I would like to start with greeting my struggling country throughout the history and then I would like to tell you guys if we as editors will keep contributing and reversing, is going to be a long-term conflict, and will lead to more apartheid, we are all brothers, and we are all Syrians and adore this country, and this is a free article which all people have the right to edit and contribute on this, so I invite you all to search for a solution solving the boxes and the information away from our opinions, we have a lot of amazing places to share in this encyclopedia, and a lot more places and information to write about, and show all people who wants to know about Syria the best of it, Not the worst, and Thanks so much seeking for your acceding. Mustafa Otbah (talk • contribs) 4 April 2013 17:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done all within my power to try to reach a balance between the two conflicting sides: using just raw facts regarding recognition by individual countries I proposed a neutral lead infobox with the governments listed in Politics and Government section (Assad first due to the UN seat, then SNC). I am not siding with any side because that goes against the ethos of Wikipedia (the New World Order doesn't even exist even though every country has its own issues): I thought that a neutral infobox solution would be the best compromise for the current situation. If it changes then we would review it in a due course. --Marianian^(talk) 22:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you marianian Alhanuty (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that is good to try to regain the balance to the page, but I think we can do it with sections, I mean instead of two boxes, why not make a section for the opposition, and they will write down what ever they want about true things happened in Arab League i.e. and so we can solve it, and istead of three country boxes, and the flag of Syria now doesn't represent Assad's government, it represents Syria now, so I think it's better to let the new flag with that section, and let only one box, and section talking about the new government, and remove the pictures that show the hopeless in Syria, and show pictures about our civilization and our reality, I think there are a lot about that, so do you agree ?, P.S. I'm Neutral with this conflict, and I just want to improve this article. and thanks. Mustafa Otbah (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No. "Seeking the middle ground" is a method dependent entirely on the positions of the debating parties - not on the sources/facts on the ground. It sounds pretty, but its dead wrong. For example, if one were to demand that all mention of the Syrian National Coalition be stricken from this article, one could present the current state of affairs as the "middle ground". That's a wrong way to think about solving factual disputes. And indeed, this a typical case where the "middle ground" or "compromise" leads to bias and POV. The Assad government is the legal government of Syria, and there is no state entity representing the rebels (the SNC does not control any territory in Syria, and has no organized cabinet). Of the 193 members of the UN 90% recognize Assad's government as the government of Syria, and of the remaining 10%, many are participants in this conflict. Assad still controls well over 50% of the territory of Syria as well [9] - the war is still very much on. The rebels, as yet, can only be viewed as rebels - and this project cannot take sides and introduce political bias by giving them representation indicative of official recognition. I also point to the many other valid arguments brought forth in the thread above.

I have restored the status quo, and will report further pro-rebel political POV-pushing introducing controversial changes without consensus and against strong talkpage opposition. Probably on AE or ANI. -- Director (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

'ive had it with this sayerslle' is a kind of thuggish way of writing an edit summary - what about CIVIL? - the dismissal of all views not adhering to your own - and did you express sympthy for a view that it was not freedom fighters but all Al Qaeda? - - is stifling. it is highly disagreable to discuss anything with you. Sayerslle (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No what's "thuggish" is POV-pushing and edit-warring. Its you, not I, who's dismissing all the folks on the talkpage and RfC discussing this issue. You instigated this edit war, are pushing disputed edits against consensus, and are hardly even participating on the talkpage. Obviously you will get reported (unless you stop promptly), if not by me then someone else who find the time. No offense, but the rest of your post is unintelligible to me I'm afraid. I have no idea what you're talking about. -- Director (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

so you decide what soundss thuggish now as well as everything else ? - it sounded thuggish, I'm telling you, it was a thuggish way to express yourself -the rest of my post was about your aside in this comment on the civil war page -

Pro Al Qaeda terrorists article, labeling them as freedom fighters If you're looking for non biased information, look the other way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.117.168 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

thats kind of pov-ish, no?- you can report me wherever you like, you already have havent you. Sayerslle (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Emotions and personal convictions of what's just or fair and who's a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" should be set aside when editing Wikipedia. Regardless of whose side you're on (or if you oppose both), the official government in Syria is that of the Syrian Arab Republic under President Bashar al-Assad. If or when the various rebel factions overthrow Assad's government, form an actual government of their own on the ground, gain recognition as sovereigns by the UN, etc. then we could discuss changes in the infobox. Until then, we must make it clear in the article that the Assad government is still in power, although large parts of Syria are in the hands of different factions of anti-government rebels or are being contested by the opposing parties. The opposition council and the recognition it has received should also be mentioned, but the infobox should largely remain the way it currently is for the time being. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Sayerslle. When I said "I tend to agree" I was obviously referring to "If you're looking for non-biased information, look the other way". Is that clear to you? As for the rest, if you do want me to report you, all you have to do is continue with the edit-war you instigated. -- Director (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is WHAT WAS DONE IN THE LIBYAN BETWEEN GADDAFI AND THE REBEL,AND NOTICE THE NTC DIDN'T GOT LIBYA CHAIR IN THE UN UNTIL SEPT 2011 AFTER THE CAPITAL FELL

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libya&oldid=442707693 Alhanuty (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So one mistake should cause another? I could not care less what was done on Libya: WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Director (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

what other stuff and what mistakes,this what done in libya when there was the slow rebel advance, and i think the same should be done in this article Alhanuty (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We have now ended the case , this is what must happen , you are not the leader of us to say what should be done in the articles , Firstly : The name of the country , Syrian Arab republic must be wrote , second , the national anthem also must e wrote , now for the tittle of flag and coat of arms , i just want to tell , what is the official flag and coat that are used in un passport and syria ? , red and the gold eagle ? , right ? , so you stay away from vandilism the article , and do a good edits .GhiathArodaki (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing really to be discussed, it was ultimately agreed that it is far too early to remove the flag and coat of arms of the current government from the box. Just scroll up and read. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)