Talk:Syria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Human Rights

We cited to a leading human rights authority and Doc Tropics has failed to offer a sound basis for removing our contribution. --Noiseidea123 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Border Flare-Ups

Dear community, I have removed the following line for bias and lack of authority:

"According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were caused and started by Israel."

The reference seemed authoritative, it was to a book about the middle east published by a university publisher, but it was not a reference to any actual UN report. Also, how can a UN office make a scholarly claim? If it was in some kind of published and peer-reviewed report or article that happened to be compiled by persons working for the UN then that would be another story. A broad reference to the United Nations is not a substitute for a real scholarly authority.

Secondly, the line contained overly biased language. It is simply not accurate to say that Israel was the "cause" of every border dispute, which implies that it was the sole cause. I have no doubt that Israel was the belligerent actor in some disputes, but they are not the sole cause of troubles in the middle east. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. What's more, though Israel technically attacked first in the 68 conflict, this was subsequent to Arab troop buildups along the border. Given the disputes over these actions, it's not accurate to simply label one side as the cause without further explaination.

Finally, the figure itself is rather difficult to believe. Though I am not an expert in Israel-Syrian relations, it seems rather unbelievable to suggest Israel is the sole "cause" of 90% of all conflicts between the two nations.

Accordingly, this line ought to have been removed and should stay off the page unless it is reworded to be neutral and given a real citation to authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsperla (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: User Supreme Deliciousness has attempted to revert my edits without explanation. I am now watching this page. Please do not attempt to reinsert this bad information without 1) rewording it to be neutral and 2) giving it a real citation to authority (NOT OPINION). Unfortunately, a cursory glance at this user's comments and edits reveals a person not likely to be persuaded by reason. Accordingly, I hope that any admin closely monitor his or her edits on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsperla (talk • contribs) 06:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a source that says what happened. Moshe Dayan also confirmed it. If you find it hard to believe or biased, thats your problem. This is the truth written in this article. Not how you want history to be according to your version. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That wikipedia has inaccurate or biased information is not just my problem, its all our problem. And the only problem with this biased statement is not just that it is difficult to believe, as I previously stated. The real issues are that you say its confirmed by a Syrian military officer, a person obviously self-interested in the matter, and that the statement itself references a "UN Office" without specifying which one or which people in that office make this claim. As I said above, you cannot use a blanket reference to a "UN office" as an alternative for a real citation to authority. Furthermore, the claim itself is inherently subjective. For example, it is widely known that the Roman Empire collapsed for a variety of reasons. To state that there is simply one cause may be true, and indeed this statement about Israel may be true, but it would be a matter of OPINION not FACT. Even if Israeli troops attacked first in any particular skirmish, it would be their belief that the incident was CAUSED (e.g. provoked) by Syrian activity. That the belief is held by Jews does not make it invalid!

If you wish to have this claim remain, you must provide an authoritative reference from a credible source. Even then, multiple sources may be necessary given the inherently subjective nature of the claim. The more sensible approach would be to re-word the statement to reflect the fact that the authority is weak. For instance, you may state that "some sources claim" or "some historian believe..." instead of making a blanket statement of fact. Until this occurs, I will continue to remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsperla (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Moshe Dayan was an Israeli military general and commander. There is already a source for the text. If you say its not true, you are the one that must show a source that its not.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It defies logic to require, before I can remove a biased statement without any credible authority, an actually credible citation disproving a false claim. Besides that though, it is not true that this statement has a source. Again defying logic, it says that the source of the claim is a "UN Office." An office is a physical thing, it cannot make claims. Institutions, think-tanks, universities, etc. may make claims. Without being more specific, the claim itself is illogical. But adding to this, we have a book as a reference. Therefore, we are supposed to accept this claim because an obscure author says that a UN Office makes this claim? A weak authority based on HEARSAY is not sufficient! Either the author of the book has done research and can confirm the claim or there is a UN Report, published and credible, that can support the claim. We cannot simply be content to accept on faith that the claim is accurate, simply because the term "UN" is used or because it is anti-Israel.

Lastly, as I have stated twice before now, the claim is inherently biased. Even if there were a credible source, which there is not, it needs to be re-worded. I would be happy to re-word it if I could actually see the source. Unfortunately, the source is unidentified! For all these reasons, you need to stop reverting my edits. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsperla (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The source is referenced: Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, page 48

No it is not biased, the truth can not be biased. There is only one truth, whether you like it or not. The fact that Israel was behind the vast majority of border incidents with Syria up to the 1967 war has as I have already said been confirmed by an Israeli general and commander Moshe Dayan. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You might as well give up. Circular logic, self-perpetuating nonsense; I wonder why someone who hates Israel would have to resort to that...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.5.150 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Syria started the border flares. If you disagree, go and actually read the Israel article! Here I will even let you be lazy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel Owlfalcon (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

hello! I have a question. why does the map in "Administrative divisions" chapter include the Golan Heights without any separating, while maps in the Israel article do have a separation (in color) between main Israel and the Golan Heights? does it mean that Wikipedia is officially recognize the Golan as Syrian territory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.252.64 (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

The ethnic breakdown of Syria adds up to over 110%, so something is wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.237.75 (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) syria is a lovly country especially when yahya touqan and ibrahim touqan and their family are there.

The Palestine War of 1948

I'm not sure why the long section on "The Palestine War of 1948" is included in Syria's main wikipedia! The history of the Palestinian conflict should be moved to either the Arab-Israeli war section or Palestine section. Instead of this lengthy paragraphs there should be brief summary of the conflict and its outcome...maybe true

There are also facts not correct in regard to the conflict, for example:

"We now know that early military assessments by the Arab League and individual states of their ability to defeat Zionist forces in the impending conflict were unanimous in warning of the superiority of the Zionist military, which outnumbered the Arab forces at every stage of the war. "

I'm not sure based on what credible evidence the Jewish forces outnumbered the Arab forces during the conflict !

While we all agree the 1948 war had profound impact on Syria's future, nevertheless, the type of details included in that section are more related to the Arab-Israeli conflict than the Syrian-Israeli conflict.

It is quite pitiful that a decent Wikipedia article has this unfortunate reference in the history section: "..and Israelis would have lived in a much smaller country" If this is a personal wish of the individual who edited the article I think it should be deleted or rephrased. There is not objectiveness in that paragraph. As I said, a pity for those who endeavour for a neutral, truly informal Free encyclopaedia!

Actually not only does that section look like POV, it looks like it was plagiarized. Dionyseus 20:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Replaced "Syria tasted the first of many bitter fruits of defeat " with "Syria experienced defeat, the first of many, ". Colourful language in a nationalistic context is often hurtful - as this is the sort of thing that leads to revanchism, without providing any more information.

Religion

Can someone add a religion section in the article? I'd do it myself if I knew enough about religion in Syria. Dionyseus 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to lack of citations, I have changed "Christian Syrians are highly educated and mostly belong to a high socio-economic class.[citation needed] Their representation in the academic and economic life of Syria far exceeds the percentage of their population.[citation needed]" to "Many Christian Syrians belong to a high socio-economic class." although I'm still iffy about this. - Anonymous (MM/DD) 10/08/07

Education

How do we establish a link between this article and the (rather undeveloped) article, education in Syria? --And I mean, link within the text, not as a 'See also'? Dogru144 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed: The Israeli War of Independence, 1948

I removed the following section, because of its innumerable biased judgements. I have little knowledge and no opinions on this topic, but it's long-winded original research and contained many heavily biased statements such as "Syria should never have pushed for war", "the Arab people considered the partition plan to be highway robbery", and so on. Let's keep it here until someone can clean it up. Deco 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Israeli War of Independence, 1948

Shukri al-Quwwatli’s war policy during the conflict in Palestine was a disaster both for his presidency and for democracy in Syria. Indeed, the two had become intimately intertwined. In retrospect, one could argue that Syria should never have pushed for war in newly declared state of Israel. Had Syria not acted as the whip in the Arab League driving the others toward war, the United Nation’s partition plan might well have been carried out; and Israelis would have lived in a much smaller country.

Most popular accounts of the conflict give two principle reasons for why the Arabs went to war. First, the Arab people considered the partition plan to be highway robbery; it gave over 50 percent of Palestine to the Jews, although they constituted but a third of the population and owned a mere seven percent of the land. No Arab leader, the argument goes, could have accepted such a deal without being lynched. Second, Arab governments believed they were stronger than the Jews and calculated that they could overwhelm the inconsequential Zionist forces and “push them into the sea.” The Arab leaders all hoped to avoid war, which promised few benefits and many dangers. We now know that early military assessments by the Arab League and individual states of their ability to defeat Zionist forces in the impending conflict were unanimous in warning of the superiority of the Zionist military, which outnumbered the Arab forces at every stage of the war. Certainly, the Syrian leadership was painfully aware of the weakness of the Syrian army and had little or no faith in the ability of the “Arab leaders” to cooperate effectively against the Jews or win the war in Palestine.

This begs the question then of why President Quwwatli and Prime Minister Jamil Mardam were so adamant about opposing partition and pushing for war. Indeed, Syria’s role in shepherding the reluctant Egypt and Saudi Arabia toward war is little appreciated. Of all the Arab states, Syria was the most adamant about the need to go to war. Indeed, it was the first in and the last out of the war. So why would Syria encourage the Arab world to go to war in Palestine even as it prepared for defeat?

In short, President Shukri al-Quwwatli went to war not for pan-Arab notions of unity or brotherhood, but to prevent that very same spirit from undermining Syria’s independence. He hoped to block King Abdullah from carrying out his Greater Syria unity scheme. During the first years of independence, Quwwatli lived in constant fear that King Abdullah would invade Syria to unify the central Syrian lands which had been divided by the European powers at the end of World War One. The instability and general border rearrangements brought about by the UN’s decision to partition Palestine, Quwwatli understood, presented the Jordanian monarch with his best opportunity to realize his dream of Greater Syria, first by expanding his kingdom over the Arab portions of Palestine and then by striking north at Damascus itself. Throughout the conflict, President Quwwatli’s main concern was to halt Hashemite plans to rule the Levant. First and foremost, he had to stop the Jordanian monarch from acquiring the eastern half of Palestine, only then could he concern himself with the emergence of a Jewish state in the western half.

From the outset of the war, the primary concern of the Arab states was the inter-Arab conflict and the balance of power in the region. In this respect it is useful to view the 1948 war primarily as an inter-Arab struggle or an Arab civil war, and only secondarily as a war against Zionism and the Jews. The widespread public desire for Arab unity threatened weaker governments and rulers, such as Syria’s, by de-legitimizing them and pitting them against other Arab rulers in the desperate scramble for leadership of the nationalist movement that all hoped to master.

Arab historians have argued that Syria pushed so adamantly for war because of its special heritage as the birthplace and heart of Arab nationalism and because Arab nationalist sentiment among the Syria public and legislators could not be stifled. This is no doubt true. Parties on both the left and right in Syria organized frequent demonstrations demanding war; a number, such as the Ba`th and Akram al-Hawrani’s Arab Socialist Party, organized squads of young men to go to war in Palestine as volunteers. Public pressure on Quwwatli and his government to commit Syria to the fight in Palestine was strong and Quwwatli could not ignore public opinion; It is easy to forget that Syria was the only working democracy among the principal Arab combatants. Parliament took up the call for war as vociferously as did the people it represented. As Muhsin al-Barazi told an American diplomat in April 1948, the “public's desire for war is irresistible."

On the eve of the parliamentary vote that would commit Syria to war, only one parliamentary deputy, Farzat Mamlouk, spoke out against it. He would later spend years in prison for his pro-Iraqi and British sympathies. In his unpublished memoirs he describes the mood in the parliament on April 27, 1948, when the proposal to go to war was first debated. Outside the parliament crowds of demonstrators had gathered to “chant in favor of war.” Mamlouk writes:

"Their cries and chants had a profound effect on the deliberations of the chamber, particularly as the deputies were divided into three groups. The first group was composed of those deputies whose nationalist feelings were inflamed just as were the voices of the demonstrators we could hear outside. The second group was composed of “the followers,” those who automatically followed whatever the others did in all matters -- and how were they going to vote...? The last group included the experienced and judicious deputies who were unable to oppose the government on such a weighty matter for fear of the voices they could hear resounding outside. Because of this, debate was restricted to the first group. They proclaimed their views in passionate and fiery speeches without any regard for the evil toward which they were driving the country."

"I did not belong to any of these three groups, thank the Lord, because of my conviction that we were completely unprepared to save Palestine. I wanted to save Palestine in deed, not in word — not with slogans, speeches, and demonstrations. This conviction of mine was based on a careful study of the facts which I had collected from my brothers, the volunteers in the Liberation Army and from my friends among the army officers."

Farzat, educated at the American University of Beirut and a friend to many of Syria’s top officers, knew what he was talking about. He reminded the assembly that Syria had no more than 10,000 soldiers, who were, moreover, untried in battle, badly equipped, and without adequate supplies, ammunition, or armor. He argued that Syria must delay the war and accept partition, if only for a few years. Furthermore, Syria’s relations with fellow Arab governments and Great Britain were in shambles. How could the Arabs fight the Jews without unity, he asked. In conclusion he stated:

"We and the other Arab countries should wait for another round and another occasion when we will be prepared to save beloved Palestine. Otherwise our true condition will be exposed; the consequences will be terrible."

"If we must go to war in compliance with the decision of the Arab Political Committee, then I propose that we must come to an understanding with Britain about entering into the war because the most powerful Arab armies on which we must rely in this war — and they are Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan — are subject to British orders and views. In addition we must settle our affairs with our neighbor Turkey in order to exploit its Islamism and benefit from its well known international influence and power. If we fail to do this, the war will bring only disaster and great evil to the Arab people of Palestine and to all the Arab countries."

No sooner had Mamlouk delivered these words than the voices of the tribal shaykhs rang out in unison: "We agree with the words of Farzat." Then a deathly silence descended on the room, broken only when the Vice-President of the chamber, on a sign from the Prime Minister, announced that the meeting was adjourned until the next day. As Mamlouk was exiting the building, Prime Minister Mardam summoned him into an antechamber. He insisted on a unanimous pro-war vote the next day. “My brother,” Mardam said, “If you only knew the incredible lengths to which Shukri Bayk and I have had to go in order to convince the Arab countries to enter this war, you wouldn't oppose my request; the public good demands it.”

The unanimous vote to send Syria’s army into Palestine that was delivered by the Syrian deputies the following day leaves no doubt that public opinion played an important part in convincing Quwwatli to go to war. But Quwwatli, far from trying to moderate or educate the public to the realities of Syria’s weakness and lack of preparation, acted as the principal advocate of war in the League and in Syria’s parliament. As Mardam made clear to Farzat Mamlouk on the eve of the Syrian vote, President Quwwatli needed unanimity in Syria on the question of war in order to ensure that neither Egypt nor Arabia would baulk in the final days. Syria had to lead, instructing the others in the precepts of Arabism and providing the necessary surge in nationalist fervor to carry the Arabs to war and throw caution to the wind.

Begiining of this article - obvious mistake? - Golan once occupied by Israel. Without the Golan ( there are really no "heights" - easy to lie to Americans who don't travel much ) Israel would be in worse water circumstances than they are - Golan equals 30%+- of Israel's water supply. They will never give it back, they want to steal even more - southern Lebanon, Litani River etc not to mention the water in Gaza and the West Bank - did you really think that one piece of desert is that much more desirable than the next ( of course unless it has water on/under it ).

---

What is the source of the statement, "The name Syria comes from the ancient Greek name for the land of Aram..."? The Bible refers to "Syrion" in Hebrew.

News Flash

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23898146.htm

MADRID, July 23 (Reuters) -

Syria will enter the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict if Israeli ground troops enter Lebanon and approach Syria, Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal said in an interview published on Sunday.

"If Israel invades Lebanon over ground and comes near to us, Syria will not sit tight. She will join the conflict," he told newspaper ABC.

Black Mamba 11:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

Can anyone confirm that the Greek name is or is not related to the Assyrians? -- Beland 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

article source?

the history section of this article is word for word identical to U.S. State Dept. at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm just thought it was interesting.

I agree, and furthermore, describing the country using U.S. State Dept references cannot be cosnidered neutral. Or else should we add that 'god considers this country to be evil'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.204.143 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

international relationships

Hi. I am doing research on syria and i was not able to find any information on the international relationships that syria has with other countries. I was able to find out that they have "friends in Iran and Russia but what I was trying to figure out was what do Syria get out of the deal or how they could be influenced. is there any information you can help me out with....Thanks,Worried

What is worrying you? I don't think you need fear anybody invading anytime soon!

If you want more information about Syrian affairs a good starting point would be American professor Joshua Landis' blog [1]. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone took this recommendation of mine a bit too much to heart... Palmiro | Talk 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Signs of war against Iran and Syria

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

total cleanup necessarily

lead doesn't represent anything in the article. Mention of its regime etc should be made. Amoruso 04:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting. relevant material from lead was deleted after I inserted it. Amoruso 22:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

war of Summers 2006

It states in the Warming of relations with the West 2006 section that Israel lost the war of Summers 2006, I take this is a reference as the war Israel just waged against Hezbollah and is it right to say they lost? I think we cant name a victor in this conflict.

I'd say it ended in a stalemate - Alex De Angelis 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning of the syrian regime should be mention.

NPOV problems

I've just deleted the section titled "Warming of relations with the West 2006" mainly because of NPOV problems. The title itself may amount to Original Research, because it concludes the warming, which is not obvious (it's not like Condi has just visited Damascus). It's been only two months since the end of the conflict in Lebanon, and the world was busy with Iran and N. Korea, and this jumping to conclusions is irrelevant here. Moreover, it was added by an anonymous editor who put the same section in the article about the president of Syria along with more biased info. I'm going to re-write the recent events in a neutral way. Orionist 14:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the (few) other contributions of that anon, you'll see they're also unsourced and POV, if not downright lies and meanness (e.g., deleting the Arabs and antisemitism article). It's pretty much Syria apologia, trying to get readers to blame Israelis or Lebanese (rather than Syrians) for the wars and assassinations in the region and paint Syria as "good." Very POV in light of the evidence that's surfaced so far. Calbaer 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The OTHER side of NPOV problems

Following on from the above posting, the 'other' side of the problem is that where different views of the facts are censored, the Syria Wiki is in danger of being used as official propaganda. This is what is happening: lots of hard, cold demographic details which fail to tell the truth about the Syria of today. It is fair enough, in an Encyclopedia context, to report on the internal dissent of the country. Not to say that Bashar al-Assad and the Syria of today are, indeed, widely perceived as totalitarian is a distortion of the realities. Encyclopedias must tell it like it is - not as one side would prefer it to be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futcha1975sam (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Kurds

Template:Kurds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Culture

Under Culture, one can read this: "Syrians are a very social people, very friendly and with very family-oriented values". Does this really belong in a encyclopedia. It seems subjective. Jacobmal 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole Culture section is rife with Unverifiable claims which need to be supported by cites or removed. Ashmoo 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would difently delete this article.

I agree, because in reality, exactly the same can be said about virtually all peoples in the world. Nabuchadnessar (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Western Asia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Western Asia whose scope would include Syria. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Syria Governorate Infobox

I have created an Infobox. Could anyone help expanding it to all Governorates? Here is the usage:

{{Infobox Syria Governorate
|governorate_name =
|muhafazat_name = 
|loc_map = 
|capital = 
|latd = 
|longd =
|area = 
|pop = 
|pop_year = 
|pop_density = 
|num_districts = 
|languages= [[Arabic language|Arabic]]<br/> 
}}

Note:

1. muhafazat_name is the governorate_name in arabic.
2. Longtude and Lattitude are Decimal. °N/°E are appended automatically.
3. Area is in km².
4. Density is in /km².

--Asfandyar 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it should also include the number of sub-districits. and maybe writing the Arabic transliteration and link to their respective articles. (districts = manatiq, sing. mintaqah. and sub-districts = nawahi, sing. nahiya).

-- Orionist 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A useful source

I 've just deleted a section titled "First Democracy in the Arab World" as it drew conclusions that weren't mentioned in its source. Moreover, the info in the source contradicts with another source in this article (the source of the section about the influence and presidency of Shishakli) which is more specialised (as he's a historian, not a journalist).

However, the source of the deleted section is a very interesting article and maybe considered as a source for the recent events in Syrian history. you can find it here. --Orionist 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV needed in this article

This article is plagued with POV claims and allegations, mostly accusations against the government of being a dictatorship, authoritarian, bad human rights ... etc. Unless you have credible sources, please don't add anything you find on the Internet. There are a lot of websites made by individuals and organizations with the sole aim of upsetting the relative stability in Syria and overthrowing the regime without just cause. There is a lot of propoganda online against Syria, I would like to ask Wikipedia authors to use common sense when distinguishing credible sources from those otherwise. Also, since this page is a frequent target of vandalism, I suggest semi-protecting it. Thanks. Asabbagh 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

History section too long

The history section is 38K; that's about as long as the whole article should be. Most of the details should be moved to History of Syria. -- Beland 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Directed at geography

Israel and the Palestinian territories are recognised to be at the south west of syria . Therefore it would be correct if we include both —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.34.63 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Asabbagh 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Israel occupies the Golan Heights, which was formerly Syrian territory. There is presently no recognized Palestinian state, hence it has no borders. I'm open to debate on this topic, however please cite some reliable sources to backup your claims and assertions. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually according to the CIA WORLD FACT BOOK The golan heights is syrian territory so get lost. And there is a recognised palestinian territory. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html

"West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel continues construction of a "seam line" separation barrier along parts of the Green Line and within the West Bank; Israel withdrew its settlers and military from the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in the West Bank in August 2005; Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied (Lebanon claims the Shab'a Farms area of Golan Heights); since 1948, about 350 peacekeepers from the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) headquartered in Jerusalem monitor ceasefires, supervise armistice agreements, prevent isolated incidents from escalating, and assist other UN personnel in the region" Palestinian territories are close enough to syria where it should be mentioned

I reverted your edit because you created a nonsense redlink and spelt 'Palestinian' with a lowercase 'p'. Now, there may be political considerations, but edits must still make sense and be in good English. — Gareth Hughes 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited the word "Israel" and used instead of it "Historical Palestine" as a solution for the debate. Syrians do not recognize Israel so it bothers me to read Israel as a neighbour to Syria. So to solve this confusion we can state Historical Palestine and people can decide whatever they want Historical Palestine to be. By stating "Israel" wikipedia is biasing against Syrians. It's like stating Turkish Cyprus as a neighbour to Cyprus or Chichania as a neighbour to Russia. قومي time 2:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Golan

Recently (in the past weeks), there have been a few edits regarding this sentence:

Israel administers/occupies the Golan Heights...

Specifically, the debate has been about which of these two words (in bold) would be NPOV. Now, for those saying that 'Israel occupies the Golan' is a POV statement, remember that the UN and every country in the world (except Israel of course) regards it as an occupation, and asserts the fact that the Golan is Syrian territory under Israeli military occupation. Israel indeed administers the Golan, but saying that without mentioning that it administers it through an occupation would constitute a POV statement. In other words, it is not POV at all to say that Israel occupies the Golan, but on the contrary it is totally inline with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Asabbagh 08:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the dispute is between Israel and Syria (whether or not what others call it), by saying "occupies" we are taking sides which violates WP:NPOV.

Lovely. And because the "dispute" is between Al Capone and the United States government, calling Al Capone a crime boss would be "taking sides". Quite amazing Zionist "logic", isn't it?

The sentence already says that it is disputed and it includes a link for the general article of the Golan for more information. The other problem with that word is that Israel has revoked its military rule of the Golan Heights, and it is now ruled like Tel Aviv. The term "occupies" typically refers to military administration, which the Golan Heights is not under. It is incorrect when said that it is under military occupation; as I said, the military rule was revoked to civilian rule in 1981. Furthermore, citizenship is available to all residents, and it is de facto no different than any other part of Israel. Certainly there is a dispute, yes indeed, however in the interest of maintaining accuracy (as per the manner it is ruled) and NPOV (as per saying it one's and not the other's), and fact (noting that it is disputed) it would be the most neutral and non-partisan way to word it. --Shamir1 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take note, that to say "occupies" is not taking sides. It is the opinion that the whole world (except Israel) agrees upon. By saying "administers", and not clarifying the fact that the Golan is occupied Syrian land, you are the one taking sides, and thus violating WP:NPOV. To say that it is administered by Israel and that it is disputed territory, is not a lie. But, it is POV. You are expressing the Israeli POV by writing that, since that is exactly what Israel declares. Please stop defending this POV statement. Regarding how this dispute is between Israel and Syria, also note that the points of view expressed in an encyclopedia have to also include a world view, and the international NPOV agrees that it is occupied Syrian land. Asabbagh 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You have just stated it yourself. It is not agreed upon, whether by 1 country, 2 countries or 100 countries, it is not agreed upon as you have just stated.

Jesus Christ! Charles Manson does NOT agree he is evil. Heinrich Himmler did NOT agree there was anything wrong with sending Jews to concentration camps. Herman Goerring did not agree that firebombing civilian cities is wrong. Just what in the world should what they ACCUSED "agrees" with have to do with objective facts? Israel INVADED the Golan and "captured" it. Are you disputing ANY of this?

Israel does administer it, and administration is a general term that simply means it is under their authority (whether military or civilian or other). You say "the Golan is occupied Syrian land". That is, as it is already said, disputed. You have no basis to accuse me of violation WP:NPOV and I urge you to use that wisely. No "Israeli POV" is expressed, it is entirely neutral. It says that Israel administers it and that it is disputed, that is entirely agreed upon including by Syria. I dont know what you mean by it is what Israel "declares", nor do I see why it is relevant. Also, please do not make up Wikipedia rules. I will repeat that the term occupy typically means it is militarily ruled, which the Golan Heights are not. Since it is not agreed upon with Israel, it is stated with neutral and factual terminology. Regarding what should be included, it is already included in this encyclopedia the view of the Golan Heights. Since this about Syria, not the golan, it is shortened (that it is disputed), and a link is provided for further information. --Shamir1 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The term occupy does not necessarily mean to "rule militarily", instead, occupation occurs "...when one nation's military occupies all or part of the territory of another nation...", taken from the article on military occupation. Indeed, Israeli troops are present on the Golan, making it an occupation, even if it is a civilian rule. Now, when did I "make up" wikipedia rules? Furthermore, just because 1 country (Israel) does not agree on what the rest of the world does, does not mean we have to truncate the world consensus and portray a clipped view of things just in order to satisfy the NPOV policy, but it would be in a neutral tone to mention that the world believes this and Israel, on the other hand, believes that. I will agree with you on one thing, however, that the bulk of this discussion is related to the article on Golan Heights, rather than here. Asabbagh 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Israeli troops are present in Tel Aviv as well, in fact Israeli troops are present in Turkey. It does not merely mean that the Israeli troops are present, it means that the Israeli troops rule it. When you say "even if it is a civilian rule", that does not make sense in context. It cannot be both military and civilian rule, in the case of the Golan it is civilian rule. Administration is not what Israel believes, it is what it is. It is a general term, that is not clipped or tilted. And if so-and-so believes it belongs to Syria, Israel, France, China,... that is for the general article of the Golan Heights. For here, we keep it at "disputed", and there we can go on to the history. --Shamir1 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually shamir, you are being very biased. The golan heights are not disputed territories according to the united nations and the united states, the golan heights belong to syria and are under occupation by israel. That being said, and you cannot dispute the facts, Palestinian territories do belong in the south west of syria, and there is already high consensus about this everywhere except in Israel. so for you Shamir the biased,, to try and debate facts would be illogical on your part.. Should I go to the israel webpage and write that there is an apartheid wall, I too would be biased even though many people are in complete agreement with me, even former president Jimmy Carter to name one.

In order to maintain WP:NPOV it's best to say that Israel simply captured the area from Syria. The area is disputed - the fact that the U.N considers it occpuies is nice but the U.N has been heavily criticised for its inherehent bias. It's still in dispute. Anyway, simply saying it captured it is fine. History of Golan Heights has formerly not been in Syria at all but under the British Mandate - we can't say it's part of south west syria obviously. The history is complex and be read in the Golan Heights article. Cheers, Amoruso 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on this chapter... yet the "Golan Heights" is a territorial area and not a "statutory zone" which means that it's history started way before 1949 and before the establishment of the Syrian state. Actually, first documentation for it is in the bible. Wouldn't it worth extending on that too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.179.223.249 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

French Mandate

The somebody that wrote didn't mean prince Zayed of the UAE, but it pointed to someone back then in the 1919 who was a relative of Prince Faysal, but somebody linked up that name with the Zayed of the UAE, and I don't think someone who is just 1 year old will write such things.

Nancy Pelosi's Visit

I think some mention should be made of Nancy Pelosi's historic visit as the first woman political leader from any country ever to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad, its pretty important. Nancy is spreading the message of peace and telling people in Iran and Syria that we love them and we won't discriminate against Muslims and not everyone thinks they are bad, but they are always welcomed with open arms in the US.

Here's a great article on it that talks all about Nancy's great work, and just a brief note of thanks to Wikipedia for all the great things they mention about her in her biography, thank you: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070404/D8O9NNK82.html

The above has little value; neither is it relevant. 67.87.92.56 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very intresting and a bit relivent.--86.29.249.169 (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Golan Heights and the Six Day War

Golan heights are part of Syria and were occupied by Israel in 1967. The UNO recognizes Golan Heights as part of Syria. Then why is the area of Syria shown without that of Golan Heights??I invite discussion on this subject--83.156.243.238 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

BECAUSE, Israel doesn't agrre, and things ONLY exist because Israel acknowledges their existence. There are ZERO maps or phone book entries for East Jerusalem. Wonderful world, beautiful people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the article and was surprised to find that except for the introduction, the Six Day War isn’t even mentioned. Nor is there a discussion about the Golan Heights history (apart from a few out of context references). Whether unintentional or disingenuous, this omission needs to be corrected. Amirig 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Some people want to rehash a history of the Israel-Syria conflict (told from the Syria POV) in the introduction; better to say nothing or simply that it was taken over by Israel in the war (if that). Leave the details — annexation, UN opposition, how "belligerent" Israel is — to the main text. Best would be merely to say, "Historically, 'Syria', 'Greater Syria', or Bilad al-Sham (بلاد الشام) has often included the territories of Lebanon, Historical Palestine, and parts of Jordan, but excluded the Jazira region in the north-east of the modern Syrian state. The Syrian Government officially claims sovereignty over the region of Iskanderun and the Golan Heights, under Turkish and Israeli control, respectively. The dispute over Iskanderun has subsided in recent years." Calbaer 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that would be the better route to a neutral introduction. —Anas ^talk? 11:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also nicer, I think. Right now, aside from information about the head of state, the only post-independence historical fact for Syria mentioned in the introduction is the loss and Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. That's not a pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist bias, but I think it's an Israel-centric bias, especially when you consider the fact that Hatay is mentioned without any historical context or discussion. Also consider all the other wars Syria has been involved with, the 30-year occupation of Lebanon, the assassinations in Lebanon (especially United Nations Security Council Resolution 1595), their alignment with Iran, their role (official and alleged) in the current conflict in Iraq, their 1991 and 2002 support-via-absense for American-led UN actions against Iraq (which in 1991 was a war and in 2002 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483), their past role as the most faithful independent ally of the USSR, and so many other topics that could be in the introduction. Most importantly, what about their union with Egypt, the union that produced the flag Syria still uses, the flag with two stars for Egypt and Syria? Of all this why mention only the loss of the Golan Heights? Calbaer 04:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So true, and so sad. Hopefully, as more members join WP:SY, this article will get the overhaul it deserves. —Anas ^talk? 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[2] I reverted the sock FLWalker of a banned user, the info he removed is valuable, sourced and relevant about the six day war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

History of Syria

did anybody realise that the one who wrote the history section is awful at grammar and summarizing methods, however i just visited the website of the US department of state, actually the words in the history sections are not similar at all.

<Alphaaaaaaa (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

any help needed?

I noticed someone was asking about religion in Syria and another about education. I'm Syrian and I can help out. If you Could make more specific requests it would make my life a lot easier though. Are there any other areas that need more clarification or additional information?

Haxxor23 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Palestine" as a border state

User:Louse and various anon(s) keep editing this article to give "Palestine" as a border state to Syria, a "fact" that is really an anti-Israel fiction, pan-Arab propaganda, and Islamic-Revolutionary fantasy. True, a few states don't recognize Israel and thus view a nonexistent state of "Palestine" as bordering Syria. But Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not anti-Zionist opinion. I addressed this on User talk:Louse, but Louse implied that the anon was not him or her, so I am addressing the topic here.

Even if the PA could be considered a real government and even if its borders extended to the border of Syria, that alone wouldn't be enough. Consider Transnistria and its impact (of lack thereof) on the Ukraine article. Transnistria has a full governmental apparatus, its own coinage, a united military, full autonomy, and other aspects of an independent state which the Palestinian National Authority lacks. Yet the article on Ukraine, accurately, does not list it as bordering Ukraine, since its independence is not recognized the world over. Israel's is, even if some states deny it and insist that the legitimate country is Palestine.

And, of course, Palestinians have no control over the Golan Heights or nearby areas. Again, a relatively small part of the world being in denial about this does not make it a lie. And I have a hard time seeing how the handful of governments that recognize both Israel and Palestine would see both as bordering Syria.

I and others think that mentioning the occupation of the Golan Heights in the introduction is inappropriate to the introduction, but that does not mean we deny the international status of the Golan, the way these edits seem to deny the international status of Palestine. I discussed this above. The UN, in spite of its virulent anti-Israeli pro-Arab bias, views Israel as a state and Palestine as a non-state.

Ukraine doesn't have Transnistria listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. Turkey doesn't have Iraqi Kurdistan listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. Russia doesn't have South Ossetia listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. In fact, these de facto independent states aren't even mentioned in the articles for Ukraine, Turkey, and Russia. Making an exception for Palestine — which is neither de facto independent nor bordering Syria — is fantasy, and, again, has no place on Wikipedia. Yes, the British Mandate of Palestine used to border Syria, back when it included what is now Israel, Jordan, and the territories. But it hasn't for 59 years. Just as "Soviet Union" isn't a valid border state, neither is "Palestine."

This is why reverting edits the contrary is the correct thing to do. It's good to have multiple, diverse viewpoints checking facts on Wikipedia pages. But it's bad when someone replaces a fact with a fiction. Calbaer 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I might also point out that the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the most conservative estimate of what lands an independent Israel could have, has no Jewish lands bordering Syria, unless you accept the further fiction that Lebanon is part of Syria. But that is another fiction for another article.... Calbaer 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been noticing the little edit-war over this issue and would appreciate if it stops. —Anas ^talk? 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of the 'Human rights' section Disputed

I request a "Neutrality Disputed" to be put on the top of the 'Human rights' article since the neutrality of main article 'Human rights in Syria' itself is disputed. I have made a lot of studies on Syria and a lot of the claims are wrong. 76.174.30.75 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.174.30.75 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Please tell us what is wrong; saying "something is wrong here" isn't a real dispute. The claims at Wikipedia:Peer review/Human rights in Syria/archive1 and Talk:Human_rights_in_Syria have few real suggestions, except that a quote from Bush — which isn't is Syria#Human rights — shouldn't be in Human_rights_in_Syria. The generality of these POV criticisms seem to indicate that their purpose is not to improve but to discredit the articles in question. If you have a reliable source for a different POV, add it. If you can illustrate why a certain section violates any aspect of WP:NPOV, do it. Otherwise, you've offered no basis to the claim that the section is disputed or violates NPOV. Calbaer 19:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Proper citation and reference list

This article is in serious need for proper citation. There are so many facts that need to be cited in order to improve the quality of the article. I started off by putting Citation Needed tags where needed. The article also needs a reference list, the whole article has only 3 reference sources. We should try our best to improve this article so we can have it featured soon. Ahmadac 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This article will never be featured if certain editors are allowed to obsess over Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and devote 3/4 of the article to this one subject, bringing in unsourced, POV material, that seems to be lifted from some blog (also uncited). Is there nothing else interesting about Syria??--Gilabrand 08:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Syria is a republic?

Psychomelodic 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, but its under Emergency Law, suspending parts of its constitution.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound kinda snobbish. I thought that Syria had a regime in ruling position. At least that's what my Social Studies textbook said. Can anybody make this clearer?Owlfalcon (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

map of syria

Erjeque 12:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)hello, this map shows Antakya in the borders of Syria but in fact it is not like that. Antakya is a province of Turkey since 1939..

why don't anybody change this map? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erjeque (talk • contribs) 12:30, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Terrorist state

It should be mentioned in the article that Syria is a terrorist nation, even more so than Iran. It is known to have granted amnesty to several Nazis after World War II and in return, the Nazis taught the Syrian government many of their terrorist techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roomsinto (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it seems you are very new to Wikipedia and are not familiar with our neutral-point-of-view policy. WP:NPOV is an unwavering policy on Wikipedia and all articles must maintain a balanced and neutral stance. An edit of yours saying "I hate..." (under the mentioned nations above) also indicates vandalism. Please try not to insert personal commentary when editing these articles and remember to maintain npovs.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Alois Brunner#After the War and escape to Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roomsinto (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Refer to WP:TERRORIST. Labeling a country a "terrorist" nation is not something at all done on Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See also http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1133634374.php --Roomsinto 04:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the neutral tone of your latest article additions, to mention what are mere allegations on the main page for the country is undue weight. I've removed the Nazi harbor material, for now. The Behnam 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proven fact is not mere allegations.--Roomsinto 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case we have "mere allegations." The Behnam 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish nation

Kurds: Indoeuropean migration: Around 7000 years ago the first migration waves( maybe because of population overcrowd) of the biggest language family of the world called indoeuropean language family started.The members of this big family first live together in a region in caucasus(west of caspian sea and today's Georgia and Armenia) or maybe in Anatolia near Van lake(today's turkey). Different branches of this big family were Germanic,Celtic, Baltic Slavic, Albanian, Latin, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and indoaryans. Among these branches there was a big branch named Iranian family. Iranian family had three major subgroups : Medes(today's Kurdish), Persian(today's Farsi,Tajik and Dari) and Parthian(extincted). Iranian people who called themselves as aryans( and iran means the land of aryans) first started their settlement in zagros mountains(west of today's iran)to anatolia (east of today's Van lake in turkey) in around 7000 years ago. They were Medes( ancectors of today's Kurds) first iranians who came to iran. Persians and Parthians came to iran hundreds of years later. The Medes formed the first big civilization of aryans (or maybe all indoeuropeans) in their lands. They preserved their brilliant culture and language against all foreign invasions during thausands of years. The first iranian big empire was founded by these people around 3000 years ago although they had many smaller kingdoms before that.Medes people( Kurds) have had important roles in development and vanishment of different big empires and kingdomes of the region until around 1000 ago when islam came to their region. Many scolars believe that Zoroaster, the great iranian prophet was median. You can find in ancient greek and asyrian documents that they frequently mentioned directly to Median or Kurdish people as a people with a great civilization. Today their land is divided into more than four countries including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. but all of the kurds in those countries still have the same language and culture. Except for Azerbaijan and Armenia and recently Iraq all other three countries are not democratic countries and kurds think they are under oppression in those countries and are fighting against those governments militarily or politicaly for their natural rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyer (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Syrian Turkmens

500.000 to 1.500.000 Syrian Turkmens or Turks are living in Syrian cities of Damascus,Alleppo and Latakia. I added it to article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.247.26 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yezidis

I believe there should be a mention of the Kurdish Yezidi community in Syria. After all they constitute a significant number of the Yezidis in total and have historically been an important part of that religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.3.117 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

new population statistics

Greetings to all. A new population statistic has just been released by the Syrian bureau of statistics and seems to be official. you can check the article about it here: http://www.sana.sy/ara/134/2008/01/14/156322.htm

So, I will be updating the relevant numbers on Syrian articles soon. Please also note that now Aleppo is the biggest city in terms of population size, so will have to rewrite some articles to reflect that change. Thanks to all. Haxxor23 (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics make no sense

How can Arabs make up more than 90%, Kurds nearly 10%, and Turks nearly 10%, Not to mention the 1-3% of Christians. That is 110%. Someone should modify the demographics page to reflect statistical reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E10ddie (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Christians are not an ethnic group. Anyway, let's just use what the CIA factbook says. Religious and ethnic censuses are not done in Syria. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Units used is Syria

These units are reported to be units formerly in use in Syria. Very little cross references are found and they seem far from complete. Please comment. Also information about former currencies and slang names has not been found. Please comment

Units of length before 1931:

pic, pik (varies) 5.82E-1 [m]

Units of area before 1931:

rotl (factor 1) 3.2E-3 [m²]

makuk (factor 250) 8.0E-1 [m²]

garava (factor 450) 1.44 [m²]

Units of area 20th century:

feddan (20th century, Aleppo) varies 2.5E3 [m²]

Units of capacity:

not found???

Units of weight before 1931:

pesi (factor 1/600) 2.98E-3 [kg]

mitcal, metecali, drachme (factor 1/400) 4.46E-3 [kg]

once (factor 1/60) 2.975E-2[kg]

rottolo (factor 1) 1.785 [kg]

zurbo (factor 27 1/2) 49.0875 [kg]

cola (factor 35) 62.475 [kg]

zurlo (Aleppo) 62.692 [kg]

cantar (factor 100) 178.5 [kg]

Currencies:

Syrian pound [SYP], Lira (al-lira as-suriyya), Livre (factor 1)

qirsh (pl:qirsha qirshan, qirush, qirsha), piastre(pl: piastres) (factor 1/100)

86.92.2.111 (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)At2

French Mandate/ WWI

The section regarding the Mandate of Syria (Sykes-Pichot and such) says it needs references. I am finishing my Master of Arts degree in history and specialize in history of the modern Middle East. For the most part this section is on target. If a reference is needed, I haven't figured out how to add one, you can most certainly use: Fromkin, David, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, 1914-1922 (New York: Henry Holt, 1989). Although Fromkin is slightly biased, he is considered THE authority on this period and topic and this work of his is the most comprehensive discussion available. Such a reference technically goes double for all topics related to the carving up of the Ottoman territories by the Allies because that is truthfully how they behaved. It is a solid scholarly reference and will lend credibility to that section as well as others. Dosindave (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Syrian government

I really like te syrian government. It sounds exactly like the american one, but it has a better supreme court. It would be cool to look further in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.76.49 (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What the ...?!

Who wrote the "Ethnic groups" nonsense? It contains strikingly flase claims that most Syrians do NOT tolerate. Syria and the Levant have been inhabited by Arabs since the Nabatean and Ghassanid migrations and even earlier than that. Most modern Levantine people trace their ancestries directly to Arabian tribes, and those who don't are mainly from Turkic, Caucasian, and other origins ... but they are cetainly not "Aramaic" nor "Phoenicians" ... People of these origins probably don't represent more than 20% of the current population.

I am going to change this offensive entry very soon. HD1986 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the entry was meant as a personal insult to you or the Syrian people, if you add more information, please site your sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My sources are the Syrian constitution which states that Syria is an ARAB country and the Syrians are ARABS and part of the larger ARAB nation. The Syrian national anthem says Syria is the "stronghold of Arabism". Until that changes, no body can use pieces from yellow papers to support anything else.HD1986 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your very aggressive... do you realise that wikipedia is not about establishing "truth" and your personal battle. Your suggestion is that we replace all country articles with their anthems...? And to answer your "question", people have the right to site sources that contradict the Syrian anthem, Wikipedia is not censored, but all content added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and based on "reliable sources".--SasiSasi (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What sentences do you have a problem with HD1986? I can't see "Aramaic" nor "Phoenicians" mentioned in the 'Ethnic groups section'. And all information needs sources. Please see WP:CITE. A country's national anthem isn't a suitable source for demographic information. Ashmoo (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While modern-day Syrians are commonly categorized as an Arab people (as are most other now Arabic-speaking people in the Arab World) by virtue of their modern-day language and bonds to Arab culture and history, they are in fact largely a blend of the various groups indigenous to the region who were at that time largely Christian and Aramaic-speaking who became Arabized, and in their large majority, Islamized at the arrival of Arabian Muslims from South Arabia following the Arabian Muslim Conquest. Syrians today, whether Muslim or Christian, are a thoroughly Arabized people in terms of culture and language. Only three villages that escaped Arabization remain today, two of these nonetheless became Islamized (Bakh`a and Jubb`adin) and the other remained Christian (Ma`loula). Syria also hosts non-Arabized ethnic minorities.

The tone of the whole thing represents what Syrians are mostly against. Syrians are not "Arabized" people, because the majority of them have direct blood lineage to Arabian tribes. You can't come from Najd and Yemen and be Arabized.

Sorry about the tone, but I am surprised by this section. I'll work on the sources once I have time. Have a nice day both of you. HD1986 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing images of Assad? AreaControl (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Images; "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." HD1986 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way is this image not relevant? --SasiSasi (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, what do you think? What about me adding this pic [3] to the US article? HD1986 (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that...? I am not sure whats your point. Both are pictures that illustrate how the leader of the country is depicted in that country. I thinks thats directly relevant to an article or section that deals with the country and leader of that specific country.

If you remove a picture you should be prepared to explain why.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This pic should go in one of the following articles:

• Secret police activity in Syria
• Totalitarian propaganda

HD1986 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm Reverting, I suggest you leave the picture as it obviously seems you have maliscious motives. --AreaControl (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Golan heights

Why not include the land area of the Golan heights in the infobox? There's a little tag when you click edit saying "Don't include GH". Why? AreaControl (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Israelis are destroying the article!

user Shirulashem and other israelis have deleted the phrase: "Israeli occupation of Golan Heights" and replaced it with a non-neutral and incorrect "Israel and the Golan Heights"

It must clearly be implanted in the article that Golan is a part of Syria and occupied by Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.151.163 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Guessing that you are referring to me? I'm not Israeli, I just want the article to be written in NPOV.--Terrillja (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt take much to research that the right term under international law is "occupied", so Israeli Occupation is not POV, it's a fact. I am reverting it. Please dont start a revert war, if you have a problem with the phrasing, you can bring it up with an admin. Yazan (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Occupation" is by definition a POV word. "Israel and the Golan Heights" allows editors to show both sides without a bias either way. If you disagree, I would certainly be willing to bring it up with an admin however, just direct me to the talkpage you bring it up on. --Terrillja (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and until then I am keeping the original phrasing. Again, please don't revert it again without reaching a consensus. Yazan (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

actually it's not entirely clear. there's no military occupation of civilian pupulation not entitled to citizenship. it is not occupation under international law and is under section of disputes. it's clearly a dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.2.68 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

All editors are welcome (and implored) to read my comment (and respond) on your section naming issue at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-20 Syria. For your convenience, my posting has been reproduced verbatim below:

Comment I would like to point all interested users to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), a widely accepted Wikipedia policy. This policy states that when discussing an event, the title should tell you where the incident happened and also what happened. Israel and the Golan Heights tells people the where the event happened (Golan Heights), but it fails to mention what happened. On the other hand, Israel occupation of Golan Heights tells the reader both where (Golan Heights) and what (Israel occupation) happened. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 09:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou and happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The case is now closed. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced section

Greetings editors! Just want to point out some referencing problems that will come in the way of a GA pass.

• The third passage of the Politics section. The existence of those parties is not questionable, but there should be a ref to back the part about Kurdish parties unable to participate.  Done
• First passage of Constitution section.  Done
• Second passage of Syria in antiquity section.  Done
• The sentence, "It was during the conquests of Timur that the indigenous Christian population of Syria began to suffer under greater persecutions." needs a source.
• The lower passages of the Early Christian and Islamic history section.  Done
• The first two sections and the last section of the Instability and foreign relations: independence to 1967 section.
• The entire Six-Day War and Aftermath section.  Done
• The third section of 21st century section.  Done
• The entire Geography section.  Done
• The Demographics, Ethnic groups and first passage of the Religions section.
• The entire Culture section. Done

I guarantee Syria won't pass unless all of the above are referenced with a reliable source. Good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Will try to find sources for these ASAP. Thanks. Yazan (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

MAP?

Why is there no map in the info box. Every other country on wikipedia has a map... Ijanderson (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -- Yazan (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cities section

This section needs a lot of revision. First off the "towns" and "villages" should not even be mentioned and as for the cities: Instead of a list format, it should be made into a passage. Briefly describe (one or two sentences) Syria's five largest cities (Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Homs, Latakia). See the "Provinces and Cities" section of Iran (the only Middle Eastern Good article). --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at it please. -- Yazan (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Territorial problems

This last section should be slightly shortened and become a part of a new section on Foreign relations which is in accordance with GA structure of country articles. The new section should be placed after the Politics section. Again, you could take a look at Iran or other GA country articles for examples. Good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Syria have huge territorial problems and the subject deserves its own space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.134.76 (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. syria doesn't have any huge territorial problems at all. these are very small % of the country and not that significant. Anyway, the subtopics should be neutral and just state the the territory because they are complex issues.

Consistency with other Syria articles

Information in the Religion section does not currently match that in the Religion in Syria article, or in the Islam in Syria and Christianity in Syria articles. Eg. overall proportion of Muslims (85% or 90%), and proportion of Sunnis among them (54% or 80-85%). Please can we keep these all aligned, and show references. Earthlyreason (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Syria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Manual of style issues

Please check Images MofS to see how to stagger and use images especially in relation to section headings. Please choose one style of spelling either American or British and be consistent throughout the article. Pleae check the article for Weasel word and avoid using these in the article. Check the article for any redundancies which will effect the style and grammar of the article. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers) for how to add measurement and dates to the article. See if the TAble of contents can be made smaller using Wikipedia:Summary style and checking out guidelines at WP:WIAFA. The heading Education in Syria should just be Education. The article name already says the in Syria part. The infobox should state the type of currency being used.... for example $87.163 billion... for example. The images should state Photo credit .... if the image is CC by 1 or 2 or 3. So if the image is not public domain, give the image author credit. The article has an error template within it that has not been resolved... [dubious – discuss]. This image does not show up Satellite image of Syria (border lines added). This section is super short: Transport. There is an error template [citation needed]. Is there a map for section Turkish-Syrian dispute over Iskandaron (Hatay) Province? In the external links sections there are web site URLs given but no web site titles can this be rectified? Can any prose be added to the table in the section Fairs and festivals? This sentence is awkward to read Syrian soap operas, in a variety of styles (all melodramatic, however), have considerable market penetration throughout the eastern Arab world... In the first paragraph the word southwest at Southwest Asia needs no capitalisation for a direction.

This is already quite a few items to be considered for GA these should be corrected. This is just on a cursory glance without checking the references, and images in detail or going into the various aspects of the GA nomination criteria.

According to W3C link checker there are broken links

• http://www.cbs-bank.com/en_index.php/
• http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/08/wae/ht08wae.htm
• http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=201&a=52460
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union
• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria/29905/Roman-provincial-organization

There were also a number of links sent to redirected places which should be checked if they still verify their facts.

As this is an article on a country and should be of good quality you'se may wish to seek out a peer review and semi-automated peer review before attempting GA the second time to iron out some basic problems. SriMesh | talk 01:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   most of the notes are in this regards, prose or M of S

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Came to GA with fact tags and discussion dispute tag

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article

Biased Golan heights section

The section is very biased. It should reflect like in the actual article that the section is NOT within Syria, but it's disputed. It's actually currently in Israel. It should also not refer to it as occupation, but annexation or something more neutral. very problematic section, i'm surprised it's like this.

Biased Golan heights section

The section is very biased. It should reflect like in the actual article that the section is NOT within Syria, but it's disputed. It's actually currently in Israel. It should also not refer to it as occupation, but annexation or something more neutral. very problematic section, i'm surprised it's like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC) SriMesh | talk 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased Golan heights section

The section is very biased. It should reflect like in the actual article that the section is NOT within Syria, but it's disputed. It's actually currently in Israel. It should also not refer to it as occupation, but annexation or something more neutral. very problematic section, i'm surprised it's like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The section was not biased. It is in southwestern Syria and has never been part of Israel. Its an Israeli occupation of Syrian land. This is neutral and correct. To call it something else is the opposite of neutral, it would be false. Ask any country in the whole world. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Let's go ask Israel what they think, they are a country and they are in the "whole world". 69.111.190.174 (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire world view is that it is Syrian land occupied by Israel, writing anything else is censorship of the truth and undue weight.[4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

President name in the template

Very funny, yet tasteless. I tried to edit it but it is written correctly in the edit box. Can anyone try to fix it? REMcrazy (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Kurdistan?

Why is WikiProject Kurdistan a part of this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Parts of Syria are of interest to WP Kurdistan, there are many Kurds who lived in Syria, and who still live there, what's wrong with that? Yazan (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Reconquest

For the history of Syria, it should be mentioned that the Byzantines reconquered it in the tenth century.

Yes, it should be mentioned that John Tzimiskes took it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

if you have info about it, just ad it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Etyomology

I filled out text in the section "Etymology", text about from where the name "Syria" derives and to which people the term "Syrians" were approved. I also came up with academic sources prooving that the name "Syria" is NOT derived from "Assyria". Earlier, scholarship confirmed that Syria was derived from Assyria, but this has in later time been disproved, confirming that Syria does NOT derive from Assyria. I came up with 15 sources, that was backing up what i wrote. But this does not "fit" for you User:Shmayo, who dont want to believe that the term has been proved wrong about being derived from "Assyria". Wikipedia should stand for the latest information, and this is the latest informarmation. The name "Syria" is synonym with "Aram", "Syrians" with "Arameans" and "Syrian language" with "Aramaic language". In the first translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, 'Aram' were translated into 'Syria', 'Arameans' into 'Syrians' and 'Aramaic' into 'Syrian'. Everything is also backed up with sources. SyrianskaFC (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Both point of views are supported by reliable sources. I changed the paragraph to reflect both opposing point of views. I feel this is more than a decent compromise. Not to mention that the subject is discussed in more details in Name of Syria, you can make your case there. Yazan (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we go more in details then it can be taken in Name of Syria, but the section in this article is good now and both opposing points of views are written. SyrianskaFC (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The source that is in the article is newer. And again, Mr sockpuppet of User:AramaeanSyriac, it doesn't matter if the Arameans were called Syrians. The only things that could be written from those sources is that some mean that the name Syria comes from the name Mount Hermon, Siryon (as the Sidonians called the mountain, read the article to see what it has been called; Mount Hermon). The rest of what you have written is stupid and have been reverted by admins here before. Shmayo (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it matters alot of the Arameans were called Syrians, and Aram translated into Syrian. It disprooves the saga about Syria being derived from Assyria. The septuagint is the strongest source, where Aram where translated into Syria. And also, if a scholar is arguing about syria not being derived from Assyria, then it can be taken in the article. Please read the guidelines before talking. SyrianskaFC (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't disprove anything. If Syria comes from Assyria, that doesn't mean that the Arameans were not called Syrians. I know that the may have been called Syrians, just as the Assyrians. But I'll not insert anything about that the Assyrians were called Syrians. I think that we should remove the parts that says the Arameans were called Syrians. It doesn't not tell us were the name "Syria" comes from, right? But of course, the part about "Siryon" is something that chould be written. Shmayo (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"The name Syria derives from ancient Greek name for Syrians, Σύριοι Syrioi ,which the Greeks applied without distinction to the Assyrians and the Arameans. (Bold text, remove or not?) Modern scholarship confirms that the Greek word were traced back to the cognate Ἀσσυρία, Assyria, ultimately derived from the Akkadian Aššur. But some other scholars says that its derives from the Semitic term "Siryon", a name given to Mount Hermon by the Sidonians." That could be used. Of course with the sources. Shmayo (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your only contradicting yourself, how can it be confirmed then argued against? Please, it's so obvious your only trying to implement your own biasm, so for the sake of the article, leave it, it's fine as it is and more neutral than it will ever be if anyone lets you touch on it. The TriZ (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not good as it is now. Assyrian people was removed and replaced with Arameans. Both should be mentioned there, or the part about which people the Greeks called Syrians could be removed. And about the orgin of Syria; Is there anybody except Daniel Pipes (yes, pleace read and see who he is, and about his BIG knowledge in this) who says that Syria comes from Sirion? That Syria is derived from Assyria is an accepted theory, and you know it. Even people calling themselves Aramean, as Assad Sauma Assad says this. To start do big edits in this section just because one sentence from Daniel Pipes is absurd. And he absolutely doesn't say thats "Syria is often incorrectly connected to Assyria" as the article says. This and the sentence after that totally shows who really is wrinting his own thoughts. And to the last sentence, AGAIN, it has nothing to do with the emythology of Syria. The section is not good at all as it is now. Shmayo (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shmayo, Tritz and SyrianskFC, would you please suggest your version on a compromise for the section? It should not long, and should just summarize the different point of views on the origin of the name. The details can be discussed more in the main article, Name of Syria. Yazan (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

SyrianskaFC is already blocked. His previous user (User:AramaeanSyriac) got blocked because doing edits like this.

I have already suggested my version. It keeps most common theory about Syria coming from Assyria, but also mentioning about Siryon. It should look something like that, or similar. Shmayo (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, your version is absurd and biased. Again, I see no real problem with the current version, if there is anything specific you or someone else wants to discuss, then feel free to take it up for discussion. And for the record, ArameanSyriac was not blocked for "doing edits like this", he was blocked for insisting on creating a deleted fork. The TriZ (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything specific? I wrote what I thought about everything in the post written 17:29, stop ignoring. And stop say that this version is good, it contains alot of unnecessary stuff. AramaeanSyriac did a similar edit in the article Name of Syria, it was reverted by an admin. Shmayo (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading through some of the sources, I'm afraid I find myself agreeing with Shmayo that the fact that "Syria" used to refer to Aram and the Aramaeans does not belong here. The section discusses the origins of the name. I suggest removing that paragraph and focusing on slightly expanding and explaining the other theory that says the name comes from Siryon. Yazan (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've no problem with that. I just don't see it as a big deal. Because unquestionable the name Syrioi did refer to the Arameans, and whether or not it belongs in this article can if course be argued. But what I do have to reject against, is that Shamyo and other Assyrian nationalists is not only implying, but actually literally they are writing that it is "confirmed" that the word Syria ultimately is derived from the word Assyria or Assur. When in fact it is quite arquably not. Do also read the talkpage of the mainpage, Name of Syria. The TriZ (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it might be a contentious subject for both of you. And I'm glad we could reach a consensus on the issue. Do you mind expanding a little on the Siryon paragraph, and removing the others that mention that Arameans were also called Syrians. I think in that way we offer both possible explanations, without needlessly overcrowding the article. A more detailed approach and exploration of the issue should be made at Name of Syria. Regards! Yazan (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we haven't reached a consensus, I thought we agreed not to use Shmayos own pov-version. E.g., "which the Greeks applied without distinction to the Assyrians and the Arameans.", the source says nothing about Greeks applying the term Syrians for the Assyrians, the source only says this: "This people, whom the Greeks call Syrians, are called Assyrians by the barbarians.". So the source says the Syrians were called Assyrians by the barbarians, not the Greeks. The TriZ (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The "comfirms" is gone, which was the main thing you thought was POV. And you still haven't suggested your version Triz. So the source says the Syrians were called Assyrians by the barbarians, not the Greeks The source says that the Assyrians were called Syrians by the Greeks. Shmayo (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reading issues? I quoted the source, have you even looked what it says before you inserted it? My version? My version is the npov version. The TriZ (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't see what's wrong with the source. ...Syrioi, which the Greeks applied without distinction to the Assyrians and the Arameans and that is exactly what the source says. The source needed is a source that says that the Assyrian were called Syrians by the Greeks, not a source that says that the Syrians were called Assyrians, and that is exactly what it is. Shmayo (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with that sentence, it says without distinction to the Assyrians and Arameans. Really, without distinction? Furthermore, to continue with your pov version, "A number of modern scholars argue that the Greek word is traced back to the cognate Ἀσσυρία, Assyria, ultimately derived from the Akkadian Aššur.". May I ask, whom are these scholars? The source being used is an online etymology dictionary written by some guy named Douglas Harper, and it really doesn't even confirm whats being said in the sentence. The TriZ (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss Theodor Nöldeke? Others: John Selden (as early as 1617), Richard Frye, Eduard Schwartz, Payton Helm... Shmayo (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the source to the actual content of where they argue that Syrian is derived from Assur, not just giving some names. The TriZ (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the source to Nöldeke already is in the article, or? Anyway... Shmayo (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have those books and neither access to them, do you know if any of them are available on the Internet? I'm interested in reading them. The TriZ (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, only the last one is available on the internet; 1 Shmayo (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Economy

What is the source of the GPD figures?

The CIA Factbook estimates the GDP-per capita (PPP) for 2008 at $5,000.

Independence

Syria got there independence from France not from United Arab Republic

We "the Syrians" become independent on 17 April 1946

Our union with Egypt was not an occupation, it was the decision of Syrian people by a referendum

and the breaking up was on 28 September 1961

you can check this information from the following websites

Syrian history timeline

Arabic Wikipedia

Damascus online website

History of Syria

Franco-Syrian Treaty of Independence (1936)

Every Syrian believes that the union with Egypt was not an occupation

Therefore please edit that information, it hurts every Syrian man and woman

Azitony (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of tomb of Suleyman Shah

I was wondering whether the image of the tomb of Suleyman Shah is relevant on this page (3rd image under the panorama of Palmyra).

-First of all is the description incorrect (the tomb is not at Qal'at Ja'bar as the heading suggests but has been moved to an entirely different location (in fact, it is questionable whether the tomb has been at Qal'at Ja'bar at all).

-Second the relevance of an image of the tomb of an Ottoman historical person in the description of Syria is questionable, especially if the only known thing about thing person is that he drowned in Syria, and that's not sufficiently memorable to give him an image on this page, I would say. In fact, the historicity of the claim that this tomb belongs to the Ottoman Suleyman Shah is even questioned, see Qal'at Ja'bar#Tomb of Suleyman Shah.

-Third, the ground on which the tomb stands is considered Turkish territory in Syria, so it is not even on Syrian soil.

Given these problems with this image, I would suggest to simply remove it from this page. It is not that this page lacks in images, and this one is certainly one of the less nice ones.

Zoeperkoe (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. Yazan (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted Omie55s edit, [5] removal and tampering of text without explanation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IPs previously removed sourced text and changes to the Golan section without any reason or new source supporting it, reverted it.[6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Syria = Aram

In the third century BC the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek. This translation was called the Septuagint. The terms "Aram", "Arameans", "Aramaic" were translated with the words "Syria", "Syrians", "Syriac".... In 2 Kings 5:1-19 we read about the healing of general Naaman the Aramean. This healing is mentioned by Jesus in Luke 4:27 ... The Greek historian Posidonius (150 BC) said, " The people we (Greeks) call Syrians, were called by the Syrians themselves Arameans. This is repeated by Strabo (Greek historian, (63 BC) and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (first century AD)

The Syrian Church was the first Church, which was established outside the Holy Land by the Apostles of Jesus . The Syrians are the descendants of the Arameans of Aram-Naharaim (greek: Mesopotamia). They are scattered over various countries of the middle-east (Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel). Their language, Aramaic, is used in the ecclesiastical books until the present. The liturgy is completely in Aramaic. Right now the (Syrian) Aramean community living in the South-East of Turkey is only 2000.Tur Abdin, the land of Servants of the Lord has always been inhabited by the (Syrian) Aramean people.

When the Apostles of the Lord were preaching the gospel, many Arameans in Syria at Antioch were converted to Christianity. Because the Arameans were heathens. They wanted nothing to remain from their old way of life, when they were converted to Christianity.so, the converted Arameans named themselves "Syrians" or "Syriacs". Suryoye (Suryoyo) in Aramaic language means Christians to make clear they had accepted Jesus the Christ. There were now two groups of Arameans. One group call themselves "Syrians or Christians" and the other group continued calling themselves Arameans. The best way to present us is that we are Syrian - Arameans, that is the Arameans who were converted to Christianity.

Scroll up and you'll find the discussion about the etymology of Syria. Shmayo (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Akkadian script in etymology section

The akkadian script in the etymology section is not shown correctly. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Invalid Source on Dayan Admitting to Israel Provoking Clashes

I looked up the source currently designed number 28, that being for many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel. It uses a source allegedly from the New York Times. I looked up the article title in the New York Times search, which allows for full text searches back to the 1800's. I was unable to locate the article using the title. I am inclined to remove the quote, but before I provoke an edit war I wanted to get feedback. Westeast (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land." "Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was." http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The text in the article is presented as being from one person - Moshe Dayan. It is therefor presented in perfect proportion to the prominence of that viewpoint. Pantherskins removal of it here claiming "UNDUE", is therefor incorrect as that WP policy has no connection to this text. Also since its from a defense minister its hardly a "fringe claim" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As the same article makes it clear this is what Moshe Dayan in an interview claimed, years after the war. It is not what historian have accepted, and in fact the article says that "Historians took a cautios approach". As such it is a fringe claim with no place in an overview article on Syria. Even worse the presentation - picking one of Moshe Dayans claims and not mentionig that historians are very sceptical of the factual accuracy - is partisan and disingenioung, suggesting that WP:NPOV was not on the mind of the original author. Pantherskin (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. This quote is in plenty of sources. The source says "Historians have already begun to debate whether General Dayan was giving an accurate", not that they do not accept it or reject it or that it is a fringe claim. And a number of other sources have this same quote. nableezy - 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So even you admit that there is zero consensus by historians and that these claims are highly dubious. Pantherskin (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe I said that, and I dont believe that matters. This is a significant POV that must be included per NPOV. Try reading that policy. nableezy - 13:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly significant POV given the dubious and fringe nature of this statement. Has no place in this overview article which should cover only the most basic facts, and not some random quotes of dubious nature. Pantherskin (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but your opinion on what is or is not fringe does not really matter. Provide sources that dispute this and then we can talk, until that time you are simply repeatedly removing well sourced content. That is unacceptable. nableezy - 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskin, whether you like it or not, its a significant pov that has been "authenticated by historians and by General Dayan's daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament" as the source says. And it is presented as from Dayan. And its not "dubious and fringe nature of this statement", that's your own personal pov about this. And your personal view that it "has no place in this overview article" has no consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion obviously goes nowhere, so if you feel that it sould be included start an RFC and get input of uninvolved editors. For the meantime I have removed the content in question as it violates NPOV, which is a non-negotiable policy. Pantherskin (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And the only thing that has been authenticated is that Dayan has made this statement. And as the article makes it clear historians doubt that this statement by Dayan is a representations of the facts. Pantherskin (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Except the material does not violate NPOV. In fact the removal of a significant POV is what violated NPOV. If there is a POV that you feel is not adequetly represented you should add that, with reliable sources of course. nableezy - 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it does because it ignores the super-majority view (using your language) that the border flare-ups where started by Syria OR by both Syria and Israel. Instead only the fringe view that Israel is the culprit is presented. Pantherskin (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claim of what the "super-majority view" is or that it "violates NPOV" is inaccurate and not based on reality and what the sources say. What a defense minister talks about is not a "fringe view". He is a defense minster, that alone is significant, but what Dayan talks about is also mentioned in: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions". You are continuing to remove sourced information from reliable sources while not bringing any source yourself. You have no support for you claim, you have nothing to back up your claims and you are continuing to edit war against the sources --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I brought an academic source that discusses Dayan's statement at length. If you have sources of good quality that express other opinions you are welcome to bring them too. Meanwhile, you have not provided adequate rationale for censoring this very famous interview. Btw, calling Moshe Dayan "fringe" is really silly. Zero^talk 08:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@SD: this quote is deemed 'signifiant' by you since it makes a point in your stand that the poor Syrians were treacherously forced to go to war by these perfid settlers or what ever you want to stress -again victimization in the Arab narrative?- but anyway Dayan was a general not a self declared or a well recognized mind reader (maybe you have RS?), he only projected his own thinking onto the kibbutzim which know what they did and why and they rejected his claim, and it is as good as what anybody else can say (=not good) that's irrelevant to what really happened, your personnal likings cannot be given in wp as historical facts, bring in some historians which will confirm that Dayan was indeed a competent mind reader -and if they say he was a good one that would be even more valuable-, pending that his opinion although attested is just a lone individual's opinion then it is nothing more than a FRINGE opinion and I support it shouldn't be included in any wp article and be given UNDUE WEIGHT, Hope&Act3! (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In the context of an overview article on Syria (not on Moshe Dayan, the Golan Height or Syrian-Israeli relations) the claims by Moshe Dayan (which are not famous by any account as most history books simply ignore this "famous" interview) are fringe and have no place in the article. Furthermore, most history books make it clear that at best both sides initiated border clashes, and not just Israel as this article tries to imply. As NPOV is non-negotiable policy I removed the section, again. If you want to advance the claim that Israel was the main culprit here, initiate an RFC and reach consensus for rewriting history on Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on what NPOV is does not give you the right to continually remove sourced information. If you feel this is a NPOV violation I suggest you try the NPOV noticeboard. You have now reverted three different users on multiple pages attempting to remove this information. nableezy - 06:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Three users with an extensive block history, past topic-bans in the subject area due to their partisan editing. What better proof that there is indeed an NPOV violation. Stop wasting my time. Pantherskin (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

One of those users is an admin, and I have never been blocked or topic-banned for "partisan editing". Edit-warring does not require breaking the 3RR as you may find out shortly. nableezy - 07:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion here shows clearly no consensus to remove the Dayan text. Israels shelling and the text about the UN office is also sourced from a reliable source and was removed without bringing any new sources. Pantherskin is continuing to remove information he doesn't like. I gave him a reply above, and instead of answering me he started a section below with the same pov pushing he posted above, once again without bringing any sources. It is now clear Pantherskin wants to forcibly remove sourced information from the article he personally doesn't like. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't beleive that the whole quote above was ever included here. I am not against including cherry picked quotes per se, but am of the opinion that such quotes be mentioned on pages solely referring to the quote itelf, in this case, the '67 war (as that is what he said the quote in reference to) and possibly Dayan's own page. There is something worrying about reproducing this quote in, how many pages is it, 5? It's quite frankl ridiculous and speaks volumes about those pushing for its inclusion. It is not within the style of the section, as you will see in the whole history section there are no quotes, for doing so breaks the flow. The one from 2008 will in time also be merged into the text. The issue is not so much about whether this view represents a wider held view on part of the Israelis. Including infomation and context about the war here needs to be sourced from third party sources and as it includes controversial points, the text needs to provide both views of what promted the war. There is no way we an leave a one sided quote in the articel without a balancing view. So I am removing it pending an acceptable version to be posted here for approval. There are plenty of sources saying that Syria accused Israel of provocation, so lets use them. Chesdovi (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The entire quote is not in this article, only a small summary, the text has been discussed, and there is no consensus to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus is needed. As it is, that quote violates policy by giving a one-sided view of a controversial subject. Chesdovi (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not a quote, but a summary. Of course consensus is needed, people object to the summary's removal on good arguments. You want to ad the view of the Syrian defense minister to present the other side? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sd, did you actually read my penultimate comment? Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read all your comments here. Have you read mine and the people who object to the summary's removal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not thorougly, can u summerise them here? Chesdovi (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Several people object to its removal because there is no consensus to remove it. Its notable text from a notable person, no good reason has been given for its removal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So you did not read my comment then. Oh, its no use....Lets add every single thing ever said by a notable person about Syria. SD, you're first. Chesdovi (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I did read it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, why did you ad the "needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications." and "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." tags? NYT is a reliable third-party publication, and what exactly in the section do not represent a worldwide view of the subject? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote that is redundant to what is already in the text, see also the previous discussion at the NPOV noticeboard and the comment by the only uninvolved editor who said that this level of detail is not called for in a general overview article. In any case, the substance of the quote - according to how it is seeen by mainstream historians is that the status of the DMZ was seen differently by Syria and Israel, and that is already discussed in the article. With at least three editors opposing the inclusion of the quote it does not appear that there is a consensus for its inclusion anyway. Pantherskin (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the text from an Israeli military main that says that Israel provoked Syria, so its not redundant. There has not been any discussion at the NPOV noticeboard showing that a summary of what Dayan said doesn't belong here. There is no mainstream sources that say that anything Dayan said is false, we have already discussed this before. There are at least three editors opposing the removal of the summary, yet you still removed it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You, yourself participated in this discussion at the NPOV noticeboard.

The source that establishes the quote also says "Historians took a cautious approach, noting that the conversations had not been a formal interview."; "Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, a senior researcher at the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv, said he was troubled that the published conversations could overshadow other factors in the decision to strike Syria.", "He didn't intend to give a full, rounded interview, said Shabtai Teveth, a biographer of Dayan. Here he singles out the kibbutzim, which is not a very balanced picture". See also this interview with the historian Michael Oren, [7]. What means that this quote at best only gives a partial picture, and at worst is misleading. There is nothing inn

Quote from the text, "Israel was accussed by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators" - this is exactly the substance of the quote - there were different interpretations of the terms for the DMZ, and Israeli cultivation of the land of the DMZ was seen as a provocation by the Syrians. That is what we know as a fact. Whether the Israelis provoked the Syrians on purpose we do not know, as is clear from academic sources.

There are at last two, possibly three different editors opposing the inclusion of the quote. What means that there is clearly no consensus. Pantherskin (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything that the conversations had not been a formal interview, it doesn't mean that historians see what he said as false. His biographers view is not what the quote is about, but Moshe Dayans view. The text you added removes Moshe dayan saying that Israel provoked Syria, Syria accusing Israel means absolutely nothing. There are at least three editors opposing the removal of the summary, so there is no consensus to remove it, and consensus is not based on votes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Can you make at least an attempt to answer my conerns? All you are saying is this quote can be verified, thus we should include it whether Moshe Dayan said the truth or not. Pantherskin (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is sourced information about things Syria did then that can also be added to the article, this is not a reason to remove the summary where an Israeli general admits that Israel provoked clashes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He did not admit, he claimed that Israeli provoked clashes. And you are still basically saying the same - because we can source it it should be included, regardless of its merits. Pantherskin (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources that have the Dayan quote: [8][9][10]

Sources talking about that Israel provoked clashes: [11][12][13] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This does not mater how many sources are talking about this. They all used the same original. Many more sources have it exactly the opposite :Syrians harassed and murdered Israeli farmers. NY Times source claims that Dayan's daughter confirmed the interview. How she could have known? Was she present there? IMO it is an absolute absurd. This fact alone casts a shadow of a doubt on the claim. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What source shows that what Dayan said is incorrect? Several of the sources above have nothing to do with the Dayan quote.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, this is a brilliant example for how one should not write an article. Ignoring the fact that most the sources you present a partisan, you seem to look only for sources that discuss Dayan's quote (as the google search words show). But by predeterming that your sources will discuss Dayan you will not be able show whether Dayan's quote has importance or not. Pantherskin (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As I brought up before, the "cautious approach" the NYT article speaks of is his biographer Shabati Tveteh claiming he is singling out kibbutzim. And "Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, a senior researcher at the Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies in Tel Aviv, said he was troubled that the published conversations could overshadow other factors in the decision to strike Syria." You said "zero consensus by historians and that these claims are highly dubious." looking at what these two people above said, there is absolutely nothing that says what you said about the source, and nothing of what they say even comes close to disputing anything of what he said. So if you feel the same as Bruce Maddy-Weitzman and Shabati Tveteh, you can ad the other factors. The fact of the matter that some of Dayans comments was brought up in this source: The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations by Sean F. McMahon (Oct 7, 2009), and there is no "highly dubious" believes there either about what he said. So if it can be published by Routledge, it can be at Wikipedia. This source: How Israel was won: a concise history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, also brings up the Dayan quote, it even says that the security was the "alleged" reason for Israels military action in Syria, and Dayans comments are presented as from him without any dubious claims that it wasn't accurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about Deja Vue. Why I agreed to have part of the Dayan quote at Golan Heights is because it has at least a remote, well not that remote, connection to that subject matter. Why is such a specific quote deserved here? The whole matter can be summed up nicly, (and is already) without the need of Dayan's purported view on the matter. Per QUOTE, I really don't think it is necessary here either (it seems to be being pushed into each possible page, thats why I suggested adding it to the Syrian Air Force - do you get it?!):

• A quote should not be used "where it presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. It can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
• "A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved."
  • The subject of Israeli provocation is already covered.
  • This is not an essay about the subject, the quotes in this section make it look like one. It makes the text not flow well. Take a look at the history section of Aleppo. Any quotes? It just seems out of sink. Quotes can be used, but that does not mean anywhere and everywhere.
  • Adding such a controversial quote, at the least leaving it uncountered, is giving this section non-neutral treatment.
  • If need be, this could always be added to the footnotes.

I don't care so much as to whether using such a quote is valid. What really matters is that it doesn't fit here. It's too specific in a more general synopsis, leaving the whole section wonkey. Leave it in full at Moshe Dayan and be done with it. Chesdovi (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE, is an essay, not a policy. The subject of Israeli provocation is not covered, its presented as a claim from Syria. Its not a controversial quote, there isn't one single source that disputes it. We only have other sources confirming it and sources bringing it up without calling it "dubious" and other things. Leaving it out and presenting the section as you and Pantherskin did is giving the section non neutral treatment. You also did not reply to my above post. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• ”QUOTE, is an essay, not a policy.”

Why do you rely on Zero’s reasoning here saying it’s not policy, while taking me to account at AE for violation WP:TALK, WP:GAME and WP:DISRUPTPOINT which are also a guidelines? You can’t have it both ways.

• ”The subject of Israeli provocation is not covered, its presented as a claim from Syria.”

If its not covered sufficiently, we can expand it, without unnecessary quotes, against guidelines.

• ”Its not a controversial quote.”

I think all discussion about this quote at numerous talk page dispels that.

• ”There isn't one single source that disputes it.”

There doesn’t need to be. I am not claiming its “dubious.”

• ”Leaving it out and presenting the section as you and Pantherskin did is giving the section non neutral treatment.”

I do not understand this. Leaving out a contentious quote is making the section POV? Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Game is not an essay, its a policy, Quote is an essay. As I said, the summary of the quote is not against any guideline and just because some Wikipedia editors makes it controversial at Wikipedia doesn't mean its controversial. The fact of the matter is that the quote of what Dayan said wasn't even present in the article, "many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland." This is not a quote from Dayan, but from the journalist who wrote the NYT article. I have no problem with copy editing this, but leaving out that Israel provoked Syria and adding information from the Israeli ambassador to the US is pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oren is a historian and scholar, a highly reliable source as are the other historians who doubt the historical accuracy of what Dayan said. The sources you have presented so far only show that these authors decide to attribute the claim that Israel delibaterly provoked the Syrians to Dayan, as evidently this is not a historical fact. Pantherskin (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oren is the Israeli ambassador to the US, whatever he says must be attributed to him. This is getting old, you have not shown one single source showing that one single historian doubt the historical accuracy of what Dayan said. Of course sources bring up that it was Dayan that said these words, it makes it even more reliable and an accurate description of what happened. The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations also says on p 43, "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt." - this is not attributed to Dayan or anyone. Also the other sources I brought forward unrelated to the Dayan quote, the UN observer and the article by Sheldon L. Richman shows what happened in the conflict. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out SD, I forgot that QUOTE was an essay, not guidline. Anyhow, by eliminating this quote, we do not, I repeat, do not, leave out the claim that Israeli tractors provoked Syria. Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the historians quoted in the NYT article and Michael Oren in the interview cast doubts about the historical accuracy of what Dayan said. That you come here and say that "[I] have not shown one single source" is really puzzling given that I have mentioned them more than once. They specifically discuss that Dayan might have many motivations for re-inventing history, given that he was toying with ideas for his memoirs, given that there was an election campaign going on, given his opposition to the kibbuzim. That makes him quite unreliable, and it thus no surprise that most overviews of this time period in Syrian-Israeli relations ignore Dayan's quote or put it into context. Of course the fact that you found the sentence "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt" by googling the sentence "israel provoked syria" does not change this.

Maybe you have a suggestion for how to rewrite this section - could I ask you to do this and post it on the talk page for further discussions? Or alternatively, can you propose a set of books that give an overview of this time period and that we can use as sources, and that allows us to establish the relative importance of different events? As you might have noticed the version that I used to replace this quote was a compromise as I included the Syrian claims that these were provocations, despite these claims being ignored by most of the literature. Pantherskin (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already replied above about Shabati Tveteh and Bruce Maddy-Weitzman and what they said. And they do not "cast doubts about the historical accuracy of what Dayan said". I have read what the Israeli ambassador to the United States said and he even said "There is an element of truth to Dayan's claim, but"... and then brings up other things, but non of it contradicts what Dayan said or casts doubts about that what he said isn't accurate. Look, neither of us are gonna change our minds about this. So were at a standstill. I suggested a Dayan sentence below in the section Chesdovi opened, and I also provided texts from different sources about what happened in this conflict. If you don't accept it you can request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"The first three months of 1967 were marked by repeated Syrian artillery bombardments and cross-border raids on the Israeli settlements in the north. Israeli air raids against Syrian positions on the Golan Heights would result in a few weeks' quiet, but then the attacks would begin again. On 7 April 1967 Syrian mortars on the Golan Heights began a barrage of fire on kibbutz Gadot, on the Israeli side of the B'not Yaakov bridge. More than 200 shells were fired before Israeli tanks moved into positions from which they could reach the Syrian mortars." - you can now remove the tag. Pantherskin (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This entire thread is in TLDR territory already so forgive me for repeating something that was said already. Using the Dayan quote from the NYT would be misleading because the Times article itself makes clear that Dayan's version is not the accepted narrative of historians. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why you two (Mbz1, Brewcrewer) are here is because of the enforcement. And now you are here just repeating what Pantherskin is saying, basically cheering him on. Consensus is not based on votes.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

so then what exactly is consensus based on? i always thought it was based on the opinions of editors.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The argument is why are there no quotes attributed to Sami al-Hinnawi, Gamal Abdal Nasser, Shukri al-Quwatli, Adib Shishakli, Abd al-Karim al-Nahlawi, Amin Hafiz, Hafez al-Assad, Rafik Hariri, Kamal Jumblat and Bachir Gemayel? All major Syrian players in the history of Syria. Why are there 5-6 lines of a unoffical quote by an Israeli minister here? This section does not need to delve so deeply or give such prominance to this. Surely this is understandable? There are no quotes in the whole history section, save the last line. As this is to do with the topic of Syria in general, its history should be summerised breifly, and quotes do not generally belong. Save them for more relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not a quote, but a summary of a quote, and I suggested a one sentence summary below. There are also quotes in the article by Philip Hitti, Andrea Parrout, Hanadi Al-Samman, Mohja Kahf and one Ummayad chieftain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Geography section

There was too many pictures in the geography section, so I removed this one [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are the Syrians (ethnic)?

First of all, Aram is equivalent to Syria; Syria is what the Greeks called Aram The Syrians are the Arameans themselves. It was the Arameans who were called Syrians.

Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC), was a Greek Stoic philosopher, politician, astronomer, geographer, historian, and teacher. "The people we Greek call Syriacs, they call themselves Arameans".

(See J.G. Kidd, Posidonius (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp . 955-956)

Strabo (born 63 BC or 64 BC, died ca. 24 AD), a Greek historian, geographer and philosopher is mostly famous for his

"Poseidonius conjectures that the names of these nations also are akin; for, says he, the people whom we call Syriacs are by the Syriacs themselves called Arameans."

(The Geography of Strabo, translated by Horace Leonard Jones and published in Vol. I of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1917, Book I, Chapt. 2, 34)

Flavius Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 AD (or CE)) was a 1st century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and later settled in Rome.

"Aram had the Arameans, which the Greeks called Syriacs."

(Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whiston in 1737, Book I, Chapt. 6)

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275 – May 30, 339), was a bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and is often referred to as the father of

church history because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church.

"and from Aram the Arameans, which are also called Syriacs"

(Sebastian Brock, "Eusebius and Syriac Christianity," in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (Leiden 1992), p. 226)

Patriarch Aphrem Barsaum born on June 15, 1887, in Mossul [Iraq] and passed away on June 23, 1957 in Homs [Syria] devoted much of his time to writing and published many works. "The Syriac community was known from its beginning as the Aramean community"

http://www.aramaic-dem.org/English/History/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin.htm http://www.goodnewsmedia.com/syria.htm http://kukis.org/Doctrines/Aram.htm http://www.historyofthedaughters.com/6.pdf http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-4-2005-76063.asp http://leb.net/~farras/aram.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.203.15 (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually all mentions of Syriac people in this article are consistent with what you've written. And I think the best place for your discussion would the article of Syriac people. -- Orionist ★ talk 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Syrian Turkmen live in Aleppo, Damascus and Latakia and number around 750,000–1,500,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hama bloodbath was legal?

I was looking for quotes about the Hama massacre, but found out that no international outcry was heard after the Syrian massacres. The United Nations did not condemn Syria's actions, no investigations were called for, and no Arab leaders came forward to condemn Assad's actions. Doh! Chesdovi (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hama page notes western leaders reacted, but there are no citations? Chesdovi (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed integration of Dayan quote

Original

Conflicts also arose over different interpretations of the legal status of the Demilitarized Zone. Israel maintained that it had sovereign rights over the zone, allowing the civilian use of farmland. Syria and the UN maintained that no party had sovereign rights over the zone.[31] Israel was accussed by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators.[32]

The New York Times reported in 1997 that "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, a Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan…[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland." When asked if Israeli farmers were only after the land, Dayan said: "I'm not saying that. Of course they wanted the Syrians to get out of their face. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn't like it

Proposed

Conflicts also arose over different interpretations of the legal status of the Demilitarized Zone. Israel maintained that it had sovereign rights over the zone, allowing the civilian use of farmland. Syria and the UN maintained that no party had sovereign rights over the zone. Israel was accussed by Syria of cultivating lands in the Demilitarized Zone, using armored tractors backed by Israel forces, a claim allegedly supported by Moshe Dayan. Syria claimed that the situation was the result of an Israeli aim to increase tension so as to justify large-scale aggression, and to expand its occupation of the Demilitarized Zone by liquidating the rights of Arab cultivators.

It is wholly inappropriate to have this quote in this section or page. Chesdovi (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Worldview must come before the extreme minority view, "The UN and Syria maintained that no party..." must be before that "Israel maintained..."

• I want to see the quote from the book that says: "Syrian artillery repeatedly bombed Israeli civilian communities from positions on the Golan Heights"

• Chesdovi, "a claim allegedly supported by Moshe Dayan.", is not presenting it correctly, firstly its not a "claim" that Moshe Dayan said so, so I don't know where you got that from, and what he said is that Israel provoked Syria, this is not what Dayan "supported" in your suggestion.

• The Dayan text should be, "The Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said in a 1976 interview that Israel provoked more then 80% of the clashes with Syria.", The quote that Mbz1 added: "When asked if Israeli farmers were..." gives undue weight considering what the main part of the text is about unless the entire Dayan quote is added. The quote Mbz1 added is also only part of it, she did not ad the text right after which is a part of the same context: "But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights' land. Listen, I'm a farmer, too. After all, I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land."

• This should also be added: A former UN observer responding to the claim that Syria shelled Israel from the Golan Heights before the Six Day War said: "Frankly I believe this is a case of falsification of history. Last century's largest chapter of falsification of history." "An absolute lie." The former UN observer later recalled how Israel provoked Syria with tractors in the demilitarized zone.

• Information from these two sources should be added: The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations says on p 43, "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt."

Sheldon L. Richman said in 1991[15]:

"Just as one is apt to get a distorted view of a movie plot if one walks in after the show has started, so one is bound to misconstrue events involving the Golan Heights if one looks no further than the standard version of this story. Yes, there was shelling from the Heights. But an important question is, what preceded the shelling? The answer is: much. We have to go back to the aftermath of the 1948 war between the new state of Israel and the Arab countries. In that war, fighting occurred between Israel and Syria along their border. Although the Israeli side of the border was part of the land allocated to the Zionists by the 1947 UN partition resolution, it contained fertile farmland and villages long occupied by Palestinians. Syria occupied a small part of this land during the war, but withdrew under an armistice agreement, which also required the demilitarization of the territory by both sides. Under the agreement, the Jewish and Arab villages were to coexist, protected by police forces drawn from their respective communities. The armistice agreement was to be temporary, pending a peace treaty. Syrian President Hosni Zaim offered a full peace agreement in return for concessions on Palestinian land, but Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion turned him down. Instead of negotiating for peace, Israel declared sovereignty over the demilitarized zone. To carry this out, it violated the prohibitions on having military forces and fortifications in the zone by disguising soldiers as police. It also aggressively developed the area, draining water from Arab farms, leveling Arab villages, driving out residents, building roads and transplanting trees in order to move the frontier eastward to the old Palestine border. Israel refused to let the protests of the UN observers stand in the way. Swedish General Carl von Horn, of the UN peacekeeping forces, observed that "gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking Zion, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property." This policy continued well into the 1950s. Most of the 2,000 Arabs living in the zone had been forced out by 1956. Many moved to the sloping land below the Golan Heights. In response to the expulsion of Arabs from the zone, the otherwise helpless Syrian forces on the Heights began firing on Israelis, particularly when, each year, their tractors plowed further into the demilitarized zone. General von Horn was convinced the instances of firing would not have occurred without the specific Israeli provocations." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should first try to find some reliable, scholarly sources that support the claim that Israel provoked Syria. All you present is one partisan source (the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs), a youtube video, and a source that simply says "In fact, in 1967 Israel provoked a war of choice with Syria, Jordan and Egypt." (by googling Israel provoked Syria - did you also google Syria provoked Israel?). It should also be noted that I presented already a number of books that give an overview of this period, and none of them emphasize or even mention the Dayan quote. It is actually instructive to look at the Britannica article on Syria and the Golan Heights - they only mention Syrian shellings of Israeli settlements, and nothing more. Given that there is no consensus for an inclusion of the quote or the controversial claims that Israeli farming of the zone was intended to be a provocation you could start an RFC. Pantherskin (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found reliable sources: Moshed Dayan, UN observer that was there, Research Fellow Sheldon L. Richman, Post-Doctoral Fellow Sean F. McMahon. Given that there is no consensus for excluding the summary, you cold request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Dayan quote again due to both the consensus here and at that the Golan Heights article. I was also forced to remove it because SD removed the context from the quote.[16]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But there is no consensus to remove the dayan summary either here or at the Golan Heights article, this means that in contradiction to what you just said, your removal of it was incorrect and not based on any consensus here at the talkpage. I explained this edit [17] above: "The quote that Mbz1 added: "When asked if Israeli farmers were..." gives undue weight considering what the main part of the text is about unless the entire Dayan quote is added. The quote Mbz1 added is also only part of it, she did not ad the text right after which is a part of the same context: "But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights' land. Listen, I'm a farmer, too. After all, I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land.", she cherry picked a part of the quote that had little significance to the article, and gave it undue weight compared to the rest of the summary in the article. This means that after reverting me at the Golan heights article without looking at my explanation, you have once again done the same here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There clearly is not a consensus for adding it to the article and the WP:BURDEN has not been met. As a matter of fact it appears that you are the sole editor advocating for its inclusion. More troublesome is that you want that exact quote added, but anything else in the same article that presents Syria in a somewhat bad light gets deleted because of "undue."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on votes and there were several people who objected to the removal of the summary above. And the burden has been met, New York Times is a reliable source. No I do not want the exact quote added, I want a summary of it in the article, and I have also provided a once single sentence summary above as a suggestion, and no one has commented on it. What you are saying is incorrect as I have already explained above. The main part of what the text is about is that Israel provoked Syria, the summary in the NYT article is: "many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland."... so how is it due weight to cherry pick a part of the quote as Mbz1 did: "When asked if Israeli farmers were only after the land, Dayan said: "I'm not saying that. Of course they wanted the Syrians to get out of their face. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn't like it. ", without adding the sentence before and after: "General Dayan said in his conversations with Mr. Tal that the kibbutz leaders who had urgently demanded that Israel take the Golan Heights had done so largely for the land. The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture, he said. And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing." and: "But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights' land. Listen, I'm a farmer, too. After all, I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land.", and considering the NYT summary: "did so less for security than for the farmland." how is it due weight to present it in the say Mbz1 did? As I said above the part of the quote Mbz1 added can be included if the entire quote is added to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

you lost me at "Consensus is not based on votes." What is it based on, in your opinion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Has been replied to above:[18], I have explained in details the undue weight of presenting it as Mbz1 did, you have not shown any consensus for its removal. I have above proposed a once single sentence as suggestion without any comment about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

we really have to clear up one thing before we move on. please explain clearly how you think a consensus is determined if not by the...uh.... consensus of editors?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is based on the weight of the arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be condescending or offensive, but you apparently do not know the dictionary definition of "consensus." I don't understand how you were able to edit Wikipedia until now. Please see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus and then Wikipedia:Consensus. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised.", the arguments.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a second here, let's call a spade a spade over here. I once tried to move the title of an article and I was told by other editors that 16 (in favor of moving) vs 9 is not a consensus; therefore I don't see how 3 vs. 2 is a consensus.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As consensus is based on the weight of the arguments, and as Supreme Delicousness has not addressed the concerns expressed here about the factuality of the quote, and more important about the importance of the quote in this general overview article (given the fact that most sources simply ignore this quote, and emphasize the Syrian shellings) consensus is to exclude it. Would be good if these concerns can be addressed by those who think that the quote is important and that they will discuss them here on the talk page. Pantherskin (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have addressed your concerns here about the factuality of the quote, read my comments above. You say there is consensus to remove it, four other people say there isn't, as I told you, request mediation if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"I have addressed your concerns here about the factuality of the quote", thanks, what means that you have not addressed any concerns, because no one was claiming that Moshe Dayan did not say this. And why do you suddely decide consensus on a headcount, just a bit more above you claimed that consensus is based on the strength of arguments. Pantherskin (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No I mean the factualty of what he said has been addressed. I never said consensus is on headcount, but since you edit war to remove sourced information when you have no consensus on the arguments, then you maybe thought consensus was based on votes, so I just wanted to make you aware that if one would count votes, you couldn't remove it either. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Above I suggested a sentence summary of the Dayan quote, as no one commented on it, I have added it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you have not addressed any concerns, as the opposition to the inclusion of the quote here shows. That you continue to ignore this consensus and edit-war over the inclusion of your quote, only shows that a block of your account is the only viable solution. Pantherskin (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because there are peoples that want to exclude a quote doesn't mean that that is what the consensus is, Shuki and Jijutsuguy for example both had opposition to the legality sentence on the Israeli settlement articles, this doesn't mean that there wasn't consensus for its inclusion. All there concerns were addressed and they still kept saying "no consensus" .. as I said, if that's what you believe why haven't you asked for mediation? And I haven't added the quote, I suggested a summary of it above, no one replied, so I added it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add another source for Dayan quote, from Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict book by Norman G. Finkelstein, which describes it as "staged provocation" that sparked April 1967 aerial battle:

I know how at least 80 percents of the incident there started. In my opinion more than 80 percent, but let's speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow ... in the demilitarized area. And we would know ahead of time that Syrians would start shooting.

— Moshe Dayan, In an interview

Mark A. Tessler adds in his A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict book:

The final act of the prewar drama opened on April 7. Another conflict over the cultivation of disputed lands in the Israeli-Syrian demilitarized zone led to a major engagement between Jerusalem and Damascus. Following an exchange of fire between forces on the ground, Israel and Syria both sent planes into the air...

— Mark A. Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, page 382

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, concerning your latest edits, there are several problems with them, 1. The quote you added is only part of it and does not correctly show the provocation. I suggested a one sentence above that summarized it without adding long quotes, and you just removed it without any discussion. 2. You added information about Syria supporting Palestinian attacks, but there is already a sentence about that, so its just a repeat. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that direct quote is more appropriate, SD. Provocation though is also easily sourced, and could be attributed to Norman G. Finkelstein, see above. I was glad that Mark A. Tessler agrees with NGF on April 7 incident interpretation, cross-referenced data is valuable, that's why I have added it, as a matter of fact. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't directly quote what Dayan said correctly, there are things missing. And you didn't address the Palestinian attacks sentence you added.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh? I feel the quote demonstrates the core intention to spark shootings, the words are talking for themselves. What do you think is missing? Feel free to use NGF ref to expand, though we have to keep in mind that this section is not only about Dayan. Could you publish the diff you're referring to (Palestinian attacks), for clarity? I'd be glad to discuss it mañana, I am afraid I'm going to fall asleep really soon. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And still the concern that the vast majority of sources completely ignore this alleged Israeli provocations has not been adressed. This is a general overview article, what means that we have to follow the sources and give prominence to opinions and facts according to their prominence in the sources. The problem that the motivations of Dayan and the factual accuracy of what he said are disputed by reputable historians also needs to be addressed, we cannot include quotes if we know that there are problems with them. Pantherskin (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything you said has already been responded to above. I have not added a quote but a one single sentence summary of it as suggested above where I received no reply. If you have further problems with this, request mediation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)