Talk:Flag of Syria/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Neutral language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with your proposed solution (see my reasons in the "UN recognized flag" thread above). Pavlor (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I think "official government" is less neutral than "incumbent government", and think the "Assad government" phrase makes it clearer for readers who would otherwise be confused.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Here I agree, that is why I proposed simple "Description" for the section name. However, "Syrian government" name proposed by Holy Logician is also not bad (in line with "Syrian Interim Government" used for the other flag). Pavlor (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Official and incumbent mean virtually the exact same thing. Incumbent stands as the more obtuse option of the two. Please explain why you think "Assad government" is in any way clearer to readers (especially new ones) than "Syrian government", whilst remembering that neutrality is one of the five pillars. Thanks. Holy Logician (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
My English language skills are probably weak, my statement was in support of your proposal, "Syrian government". Note terms "official" and "incumbent" are POV, because some countries recognize the other government - hence my agreement with Bobfrombrockley in this point. Pavlor (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my reply was meant to be for Bobfrombrockley. I appreciate the support. I don't think "official" can be viewed as POV in this case. It is still internationally recognised as the government of a sovereign state (by the UN no less), thus making it inarguably official. The SNC is also recognised as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people, hence why there have been no alterations to the language in their section of the article. We should avoid double standards here and give equal weight. Holy Logician (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I understand that it was agreed upon, unfortunately that doesn't make it any less incorrect and unsuitable for the article. I'm not implying that the opposition is using this tactic on Wikipedia, I'm merely pointing out that the terms in use are the product of their 7-year-long propaganda schemes. To be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of being an opposition supporter deliberately using the phrase "Assad government"; rather I'm pointing out that the phrase itself is tainted by bias and is therefore not neutral. The Syrian government is a republic with a democratically elected president & multiple parties, it's not "run by one man". Assad himself is not a government, nor does he own, operate, and control it all himself. As such, it is not only devoid of neutrality to call it an "Assad government", it's also factually inaccurate. Nowhere in any of my statements did I make the assumption that past editors were opposition supporters. Again, I'm merely trying to make this article neutral and accurate as per Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Holy Logician (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
If I read loooooong archived discussion from that time, I see this "consensus" is far from unquestioned. Looks more like one POV forced over another... Situation changed since 2013 and only small fraction of the opposition now uses the 1961 flag - forces under SDF umbrella have their own flag, not even counting more extreme actors in the area. My brief search above (UN recognized flag section) shows the 1980 flag is still used even by governments not in friendly terms with the Assad regime. No-one requests removal of the 1961 flag, purpose of this discussion is only to find more suitable name for the 1980 flag section and (hopefully...) stop edit warring over this topic. Pavlor (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Which group uses what flag is completely irrelevant here, no one is debating about flags. We're talking about the language used. It also doesn't matter if Gaddafi or Assad lost legitimacy internationally, they're still the official government of their sovereign country and should be labelled as such in the interest of neutrality. You keep sinking into bias and then denying that you're violating the Wikipedia neutrality rule. The Syrian government is a republic with a democratically elected President, this doesn't necessarily mean that the government itself is democratic. Furthermore, 30 independent international observers deemed the 2014 Syrian elections as "free, fair, and transparent" (to quote another Wiki article). This information invalidates your claims. I have only given logical & reasonable arguments, completely free of bias, to justify the use of more neutral terms in my endeavour to make this article accurate and truly informative. In this case, it seems to be only you taking the unreasonable position on the matter. "Assad government" is not neutral and not accurate. Nothing you say can change that. If no one has anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, I will be reverting the article to the version with neutral terms and notifying Wikipedia authorities should someone insist on undoing it. Thanks. Holy Logician (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Although "Assad government" certainly is not neutral, your POV is clear. It will be really hard to find RS calling 2014 elections "democratic". With this in mind, "Flag used by the Syrian government" may be too unpalatable for many editors to reach new consensus. What about my original proposal - using "Description" as simple name for the section of the 1980 flag? Pavlor (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no POV here, I'm merely restating verified information that can be found within Wikipedia itself. The 2014 elections were deemed democratic by many independent observers, this is fact and has nothing to do with me or my opinion. Furthermore, the notion that ~10 million people were somehow forced or coerced into voting for Assad is quite far-fetched, to put it mildly. I don't think what other editors find palatable matters at all if it doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines, especially those who attempt to disguise their bias under consensus. Why should the official government section be reduced to "description", while the interim government who at this point are no longer prevalent in Syria retain their full title on the page? As I said, we should adhere strictly to neutrality & accuracy, and avoid these weird double-standards. Holy Logician (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is obvious other users don´t share your opinion and only way how to get better section title is to try to reach a compromise. Pavlor (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
That would be fine if either side were attempting to reach a compromise. There's a clear inaccuracy here that users are refusing to accept. Holy Logician (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Using the regular wording that the average, reasonable person would use to describe a government is absolutely not a bias... The Syrian government is fully legitimate on account of still being the government of Syria by law, with majority support of the population. The precedent used in Libya is as incorrect as the day you came up with it. Holy Logician (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Precedent used in Libya is a perfect one? Right. Libyan rebels at least controlled one major city (Benghazi), you can´t say the same about SNC/SIG (they don´t even rule in Idlib...). "Flag used by the Assad Government" section name is POV pushed by one side - as documented by never ending edit-warring about this topic. I thought neutral title "Description" would solve this problem, but this is not enough for the other side, because such name doesn´t give legitimacy to the Assad regime. Pavlor (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect. The label of "Syrian government" is not requested here to give legitimacy to the Syrian government. It's already legitimate. My purpose from the outset was to correct the inaccuracies and biases of this article. Naming their section "Description" is unsatisfactory because it does not apply to the entire article. Description of what? Why does one section get a full title and the other doesn't? Hardly seems fair or neutral. Violates the Wikipedia rules. Simple as that. Holy Logician (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring is not a one-sided equation, there are other IPs and editors with a pro-opposition bias who participated as well. Either way, that's an irrelevant piece of information. You're here with me, I'm not edit-warring and I'm discussing it with everyone. I haven't called anyone a terrorist. No one is challenging the legitimacy of the SNC either, they have nothing to do with the main point and no one is trying to edit their section of the article with biased language like you're doing here. There's no such thing as an "Assad government" which is the entire point of this discussion. There's a Syrian government, which is what it would be called with anyone else as its President, but it just so happens to be lead by a guy named Assad. We're not giving legitimacy to a non-existent, mythological being who is a government in and of himself, we're just calling the official/incumbent government of Syria exactly what it is, the Syrian government.
Further, I realise now that you don't understand the situation on the ground enough to make these judgement calls, it seems. The Syrian government controls the vast majority of the country; factions under the umbrella of the interim government are almost extinct now and have either dispersed into other non-related groups, or hold small pockets that aren't substantial enough to consider them a challenge to the Syrian government's legitimacy. The SNC is essentially a government-in-exile now with close to no grassroots supporters. The opposition lost a lot more than East Aleppo these past 3 years, I think you have some catching up to do. On top of that, the only "serious" rival to the Syrian government's power is actually Rojava in the north, and not any group related to the SNC. Even saying that, they are primarily a military operation seeking autonomy within Syria without contesting the official government for overall rule. Again, the Libya precedent was inaccurate and contested. No one suggested we change the language because of military events, in fact this point was only brought up recently. I've already stated all the other reasons which you're conveniently ignoring or circumventing. The statistic about the Syrian government* enjoying popular support is very evident in that 10 million people voted for it to remain as it was, ex-patriates included. Additionally, it has been 7 years and they have not been ousted, not by civilians, politicians, or military. You can dart about the reality on the ground and argue semantics all you want, but you're not offering a neutral position here. You're pushing very hard to attribute an entire country and its government to the name of one guy, I'm merely suggesting we call a government a government, because that's what it is. A government.
Truly, I think you have a very obvious pro-opposition bias and you're letting it cloud your rational thinking. If you step back and look at what you're saying, you will find that you're placing the legitimacy of a small de jure government which now only holds one city in Syria, over the legitimacy of the still-functional Syrian government which holds most of the country. Please focus on the Wikipedia rule about neutrality and then reconsider your argument. Holy Logician (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "de jure" here. If the SNC is the de jure government (e.g. because 31 countries, the EU and the Arab League recognise it as such) then the use of "Syrian government" to refer to Assad is absurd. So, as you say, focus on neutrality. What is non-neutral about the term "Assad government"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I had meant to say de facto. There are many EU countries who remain in support of the Syrian government. The other 31 countries and the Arab League don't really have a say in what the actual government of Syria is. They can recognise as much as they want, the reality on the ground is much different. Parties in allegiance to the SNC, a foreign-backed government-in-exile based in Turkey, (Syria's enemy) with a miniscule minority support in Syria, essentially only control Idlib, parts of Daraa, and some desert. The incumbent Syrian government holds the majority of land, cities, and popular support. The SNC hasn't the power to make legitimate, effectual administrative decisions in Syria, the incumbent government is still functioning and continuing to operate as normal. The use of the phrase "Syrian government" is factual and accurate. I've explained what is not neutral about the phrase "Assad government" multiple times, the onus has been on you to explain otherwise. So far, I've received no explanation, only shoddy counterarguments to my own statements. Holy Logician (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Note EU doesn´t recognise SNC as government of Syria, there are even member states maintaining full diplomatic relations with Damascus. Recognition by other member states is "vague" at best. Pavlor (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

With that, you have just proved that you have a pro-opposition bias and are unable to put it aside for the purposes of adhering to Wikipedia's rules. 30 independent observers declared the elections fair and transparent, the so-called experts didn't even set foot in Syria during this time and thus have no real evidence behind their claims. The elections were also denounced by the US and UK who aren't fans of the Syrian government and wouldn't be expected to say otherwise, and thus their claims are illegitimate. Whatever amount of Syrians able to vote did just so, and the outcome was majority support for the current Syrian government. As such, the evidence stands against you. Let's just change the article to say Syrian government as it should and move on. I'm not going to budge from this undoubtedly neutral and factual position, and clearly no one has anything substantial to offer in opposition. Holy Logician (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War is very contentious topic, it would be next to impossible to find anyone without bias. Your post above speaks volumes about POV of one side ("democratic elections" in country without free press/media? Amusing...). This discussion is going nowhere, maybe opening formal RfC could invite more editors and settle this content dispute once and for all (or until the next edit-war). Pavlor (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I completely understand that everyone has bias, which is why I specifically pointed out that he couldn't put his own aside for the purposes of Wikipedia. You keep saying POV when it really isn't, I'm only repeating verified information found on this very website. Again. 30 independent observers. It may not have been the shining example of democracy, but at the end of the day there was absolutely a vote, and a result that followed, and no evidence proving otherwise save for the usual talking points, one of which you have used. That anyone here places their formulaic, propaganda-influenced viewpoint over the analysis of a large international delegation is the epitome of POV. I invite anyone here to sift through my comments and find anything particularly biased. I am admittedly pro-government, but have not let it sway my desire to neutralise the language. If that were the case, I'd be lobbying for the removal of all the opposition flags, or renaming the section to "Flag of the rightful government of Syria" or renaming the opposition sections to "Terrorist flags" or some such other nonsense. However, I'm not. I'd ask once more that you all see reason and logic. American government, not Trump government. Turkish government, not Erdogan government. Russian government, not Putin government. Syrian government, not Assad government. Simple stuff. Any further resistance I will genuinely have to regard as ignorance. Holy Logician (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't matter how many users disagree, they've all failed to explain how "Assad government" is neutral. Your low-effort explanation that you keep recycling has been debunked over and over again. Your posts reek of opposition bias. Every government is lead by its respective leader, not every government is labelled after them. As I said above, it's Russian government, not Putin government. Turkish government, not Erdogan government. I've also already factually proven how the Syrian government actually holds the most legitimacy out of any party currently engaged in the war. No one has been able to successfully refute that, especially not you. I waited 2 days for anyone to rebut me, and when no one did I re-edited the article. Until someone is able to succinctly and accurately explain to me how "Assad government" is neutral in any way, shape of form, I will continue to edit it back to neutral terms. Don't violate Wikipedia content rules. Holy Logician (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Erdogan and Putin fully control their countries,they don't have rival government,their countries are not embroiled in civil wars,and all the people of their countries agree with their respective flags,the same can't be said about Assad.Alhanuty (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Going by your flawed logic, the SNC should really be named the Turkish Coalition for Syria, or the EDIT:Seif Interim Government. They are not in full control of Syria, they are embroiled in the war, and the majority of Syrians don't agree on the opposition flag at all. That begs the question; why should a government-in-exile with a virtually non-existent presence in Syria get an official "Syrian" title, while the still fully-functional, official/incumbent government of Syria that holds majority control over the country be reduced to the name of the President? The answer is that it shouldn't, unless we're happy to sit here and let the Wiki page be filled with blatant bias which appears to be your ultimate goal. As I said before, you haven't been able to provide any unbiased, logical arguments. Your previous consensus is invalid not only because it is outdated and devoid of fact, but also because it violates Wikipedia content policy. The consensus you're trying to reach here is much the same. I will be reverting the article soon. If you undo it again, I'll be taking the case higher up. Thanks. Holy Logician (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you read what Neil just said.Alhanuty (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Plus,the Syrian Opposition is not run by one person,they are run by several of people,and also the opposition has popular support inside of Syria,explain how 70% of the country went to opposition control in 2013,explain the protest inside of Damascus and Aleppo in 2011-2013.Alhanuty (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Syrian government isn't run by one person only. It's an entire government. The opposition very clearly does not have popular support in Syria. 70% of the country went to their control because they militantly captured it. Have you actually even been following this war at all? Holy Logician (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

What a blatant taking of sides - what type of garbage is this? If the entire crux of this service is as an information repository and as to be as unbiased and objective as possible, why are you making a BLATANT AND CLEAR indication of political leaning/support? The United Nations and the international community and their perceptions on the global state of affairs is what takes precedence here - and, in that case, the Assad-led ruling government is the sole legitimate governing force of the country. No opposition is recognized on a large scale by the international community - I'm honestly incredibly disappointed by the suggestion there is some debate to be had here, there is not. Why is there entertaining here of opinion? 'Some Syrians support blah blah' Except not only do they NOT, but, regardless of whether or not they do, it does NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE. No room for debate about Palestine and Israel but there is here? This is laughably embarrassing - settle on a set of policies by which to classify global politics as objective or not; do not adjust policy on a per-basis to accommodate personal viewpoints. There's no other way to spin it, if you have to claw through search engines to find a source about percentages of the Syrian population that support the (quote-on-quote) "alternative government," that's not fitting your content to the system, that's adjusting the system to fit your content. SnowKid32 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC) (talk)

Current "consensus" (two equal governments) is evidently disputed by never ending edit-warring, yet the side supporting it is not willing to discuss any new real consensus. It seems this flag problem is as complicated as the war itself... Pavlor (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
It is irrelevant whether the opposition or its flag is recognised by the international community (although it is clear from the talk page above that a significant part of the international community does recognise the opposition as the legitimate government) to the question of whether there is more than one Syrian flag. Syria is experiencing a civil war, and the two sides use different flags, and so de facto there are two flags, and this article should be the place people can come to to find out about the two flags. I don't see why that's controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

UN recognized flag

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

This has been discussed repeatedly above (and in sections which have been moved to the archives of this talk page). In 2013, over 20 countries extended some form of recognition to the Syrian opposition, and it took Syria's seat in the Arab League.[1] United Nations membership can be important, but is not decisive in itself. During 1979 and most of the 1980's, the Pol Pot government or Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea held the United Nations seat for Cambodia, though very few people in the world thought that it was the legitimate government of Cambodia... AnonMoos (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you can see on the talk archives page, that before 2013, I was opposed to presenting the two flags as equal, but then things changed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Your maneuverings at File:Flag of Syria 2011, observed.svg on Commons were counterproductive, and have been repeatedly rejected... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So when do you think this article should be updated to have a single infobox? Anon551055 (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know right now -- but not just because the Iran-Hezbollah-Russia trio started propping up the Assad regime. AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I find discussion on this talk page interesting. Sure, the Assad regime doesn´t control significant parts of Syria and is not recognised by many countries, but what about the 1980 flag? My brief look at Syria country profile on foreign ministry webpages of several countries shows many governments continue to use the 1980 flag for Syria: US [2], France [3], Germany [4], Italy [5], Spain [6] and even Turkey [7]. I wonder who is using the 1961 flag? Pavlor (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried to look on the Arab League website http://www.lasportal.org/ , but it's down now (which is nothing new -- the Arab League didn't even have a website for most of the decade of the 2000s!). Anyway, governments don't usually directly recognize flags -- they recognize governments, and the flag follows from the government... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious that even countries not on friendly term with the Assad regime use the 1980 flag as flag of Syria on their webpages. That is why I asked, if there is similar level of support for the 1961 flag. I understand your point is both flags should have equal place in the article, but can you back this opinion by reliable sources? Article history shows steady edit war about this issue, but arguments I see on the talkpage are of the pov-like kind. As of government recognition, only few countries recognise Syrian Interim Government as sole government of Syria (17 if I count this right, other recognition are more "vague") and judging by its success in the field, this will be not better in the future. If we don´t find enough RS for equal status of both flags, I propose to change section "Flag used by the Assad government" to "Description". Rewording of introduction would be also preferable (looks like pov of one side...), but such change would need even stronger consensus - better leave it as it is for now. Sure, opinion of other editors is welcomed. Pavlor (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are multiple non-UN member countries, this doesn't make them less real. I do agree however that Syria article is about Ba'ath-ruled Syrian Arab Republic and only their flag should be used.GreyShark (dibra) 16:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead: two governments?

Clearly the lead is mistaken - there are at least three governments claiming to be legitimate rulers in Syrian territories: Ba'athist Government, Turkey-backed Syrian Opposition Government and Syrian Opposition Government in Idlib. And we are still not counting the ruling executive committee of the North Syria Federation, which can be well counted as well.GreyShark (dibra) 16:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Where do you get those ideas from! anyone can claim, this doesnt give it legetimacy. There is only one legitimate ruler in Syria, the one that have a seat in the UN and who still issues passports that are recognized by the diplomatice circles. You dont give credit to any militia claiming itself to be a government !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You are confusing self-legitimacy with legitimacy; Syrian Interim Government issues passports since 2015 [8].GreyShark (dibra) 19:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
And who accepts those passports? You will be arrested for forgery if u try to use them. Again, there is only one internationally recognized Syria.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Time to reassess "consensus."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. I can't believe we reached this situation. Should Flag of China and Flag of Israel give equal weight to the Taiwanese and Palestinian flags, because they also claim de jure sovereignty over those countries? Obviously not. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Support: Sadly, some wikipedia editors allowed themselves to decide the legal position of a nation based on their ideologies or bias. As long as the UN accept passports issued by the government in Damascus Only, and as long as the only representitive of Syria in the UN and the CS is appointed by Damascus, then this flag is the official flag of Syria.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Support: This article, which pretends that the FSA flag said to represent alternative "governments" that have no democratic legitimacy and that no-one within Syria or without has ever heard of, is somehow on a par with the internationally recognised flag of Syria, is a nonsense. Bougatsa42 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: As another editor said, when a similar proposal was made last month (just up the page), the flag of the Syrian opposition was the flag of Syria until 1958. It was used even by the current regime at events right up to the civil war commemorating the break with the UAR. It is not simply the flag of the Syrian National Coalition or any one particular organisation, but widely used by the entire opposition, and very widely in the Syrian diaspora. Nothing has changed that should affect the consensus that has been repeatedly re-affirmed here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose the civil war is still going on and until the rival government the Syrian Interim Government is defeated militarily completely,then we can talk about removing the rival government,the syrian interim government still has Daraa and Idlib,and SDF controls northeast Syria,as long as an inch of syria is still not under Assad's control,then we can't say that he is the government,and If SDF remains in control of Northeast Syria,then we might have to rename this article the Flag of West Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Support These groups that are trying to control Syria are being funded by foreign countries & regimes anyway and do not count as "part of Syria", however they claim. Bashar has won this fight and it would be stupid to turn a blind eye to it otherwise Crowtow849 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


@Bobfrombrockley -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problematic RFC closure

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

Although the closing IP seems to be more experienced than regular IPs (judging by his/her talk page), RfC about such contested question requires more "heavy-weight" closing editor. To prevent any future disputes about proper procedure, I propose to ask some uninvolved admin to look at this closure and - if really needed - reopen the RfC (or close it at his own discretion). Myself, I will not change the article until this question is resolved. Pavlor (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Addition: WP:CLOSE (common practice, not policy or guideline) requires discussing the close with the closing editor and then going to AN, so my idea above may not work (however, I still think an admin has enough discretion to overturn erroneous close). Pavlor (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Libyan Precedent provides an excellent way,about how to solve the dispute,by presenting both flags without discrimination,the reason why news outlets use the word Government is to stay neutral.Alhanuty (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
"the reason why news outlets use the word Government is to stay neutral." - quoting myself, "[the use of reliable] sources is what is required to meet WP:NPOV". If sources use "government", we should do likewise. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation, sounds reasonable enough. Pavlor (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Anon- So, you are counting votes in a previous RfC as votes in this RfC? Is that normal? The 3 additional votes you have thereby counted (2 of which are policy-based) were supporting the idea that consensus needed to be revisited, not the particular radical solution proposed by the anonymous initiator of this RfC so should absolutely not be counted, leaving us with votes at 3-2, which is a weak basis for radical change. As you say, closure should not be based on votes alone, but on policy and on strength of arguments and your point about sources is a strong one. But I think you misrepresent the arguments presented here. The oppose argument has not been based on whether it is proper to call the Assad government the "official" government or not; the oppose argument has been that there is not simply one flag universally acknowledged as "the" flag of Syria. The legitimacy of the flag is widely contested. The fact that the Assad flag needs a prefix like "the government flag" or "the Baathist flag" or "the regime flag" shows that using the term "the Syrian flag" for it is problematic. As you say, "If sources use "government", we should do likewise" - sources typically call one flag the government flag and the other the opposition flag, and we should do likewise, not make a ruling that only one is legitimate. I don't think the UN and CIA are good sources for the fact that the government flag is the only flag regarded as having legitimacy. Those are primary sources and it would be our WP:SYN if we interpreted them as meaning only the government flag is recognised as legitimate. I will provide reliable secondary sources that say the government flag and its legitimacy are widely contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Problem is, the "pro-regime" side presented some RS (CIA factbook is at least useable in this regard), the other side of the dispute has no support in RS so far (I repatedly asked for some, none delivered - except the one from 2011, which is next to useless now). In any case, my brief search (see "Assad government" section above) shows much higher usage of "Syrian government" in comparison to "Assad government" by various news sites, so current ("old consensus") wording is a minority POV anyway. However, I´m not willing to change the article right now. Although I agree with closing IP´s explanation, there is still a possibility this close will be reverted (eg. action by an admin, as I outlined above). If new consensus has to stand, its very birth must be not disputed on procedural grounds. As the closing IP has not changed his/her mind, you may take this to AN. Pavlor (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree the oppose people (including me) didn't put forward RSs to make the case - it's been on my to-do list for ages. I'll try to do that now. I don't think, though, that the wording "Assad government" v "Syrian government" is that relevant to the issue of whether the article should feature both flags or not. I'm not too concerned about what words are used for the regime, so long as it clear there is a government flag and an opposition flag and that the relative legitimacy of each flag is contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I fear wording is crucial for this dispute - years long edit war centers on "Assad" vs "Syrian" government usage. As of both flags in the article, I would oppose removal of the 1961 flag. Renaming the "Flag used by the Assad government" section should be sufficient. The lead can be reworded later (I wouldn´t rather touch this one...). Pavlor (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree wording is crucial, and don't feel strongly about the outcome of the edit war over section titles, but simply meant the outcome of that is a different question to the outcome of the RfC that was prematurely closed. If you are also against removal of the 1932/61 flag, that means 3 editors (including the anon who opened the IP) supported the radical change and 4 opposed it, so clearly no consensus behind the radical change at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Removal of the 1961 flag is not part of this RfC: 1. "Assad government" section wording 2. The lead. If I wanted to "vote", I would support both proposals of this RfC (the second one with caveat that other flags must be at least mentioned), because current state of the article is untenable (POV, lack of RS support, ...). Pavlor (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I just checked the policy and it seems to me clear that non-registered users cannot close discussions. See WP:NOTBADNAC. In addition, it seems to close a discussion an editor needs to be experienced - WP:NACEXP - which I assume means more than six months of anon editing. I think this needs to be re-opened. See also WP:NACRFC, which asks to question whether the RfC should even be closed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NAC is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Pavlor (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Pavlor. I'm finding it hard getting my head around all these guidelines. I am hoping an experienced admin can look at this... BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, but for th emost part IPs are not supposed to close discussions, but because of WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO an admin might not reclose it. While it does appear the IP just counted votes (which isn't so bad as the !vote people make it out to be), I would agree with the closure, there is no other way to do it except No Consensus, which would be useless to us. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Would patrolling admins semi the talk page next time an RFC is in effect please? Not because of the closure, but because of the unconstructive drive by comments. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Part of the problem is they didn't count actual votes in the RfC, but included votes from the previous discussion, which was not about a specific radical change whereas the second one was. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTVOTE - anyway, after correcting for the 2 "missed" votes, the result isn't changed. I still stand by my earlier assessment that the arguments provided by both sides weren't equally grounded in policy or in sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're right about WP:NOTVOTE. I was wrong about one of the missed votes, as Pavlor has explicitly said s/he thinks the 1962 flag should remain. What you haven't corrected though is the inclusion of votes in a totally different RfC. Clearly, there is no consensus, so as you say policy/arguments need to hold sway, but as I said I don't think you represent them accurately. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The previous RfC is indeed on the same topic - i.e.

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

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

compare with

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

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

As such, I have taken discretion to count both discussion (might I note that you also gave the exact same !vote (word for word) in both discussions). Also, I don't know if you've possibly misunderstood the RfC question, but nowhere is it mentioned that the older flag should be altogether removed from the article - and my close doesn't mention that either, saying simply "This doesn't preclude discussing the historical variant (and mentioning it is used by the opposition forces)." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess I've been focused on proposal (2) of the 2nd RfC (the part emphasised in the section title) and underplayed proposal (1). It's proposal (2) I object to strongly, focusing the lede entirely on the government flag. I think there is consensus to make the proposal (1) change, i.e. to use a phrase like "government flag" or "flag used by the government", rather than "Assad flag". But I don't think there is consensus for proposal (2). BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Focusing the lead on the government flag (or, using the wording from the previous discussion, "the flag of the actual Syrian government should be primary") goes in line with MOS:LEADREL. The lead can discuss the historical flag, with due weight (which is what I implied, albeit lacking clarity, with my closing rationale, above). Note that support editors in the second RfC seem to agree that the historical flag did deserve at least some kind of mention. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Brief Google search shows ratio 3:1 for "Syrian government" vs "Assad government" on site:.aljazeera.com. Pavlor (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Guys, the question of the term "Assad government" is a totally different question to the question of whether the article should only be about one flag only, or the question of how the RFC should be closed. Please argue about the terminology in the relevant talk page section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Of Course both Flags must presented without discrimination,the way RFC was closed is problematic,definitely.Alhanuty (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good start, note current refs are too old (2012, one from 2014). As the RfC is reopened, I hope new sources will be presented to balance the discussion. Pavlor (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Pavlor. Totally agree. I'm really busy at work, but I have a bunch of tabs open and will get to this soon. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NACIP:

    Per the results of this request for comment, unregistered editors may not close formal discussion anonymously. However, those who wish to be more involved with the Wikipedia community are encouraged to register an account, and unregistered users may participate in formal discussions, so long as they do so in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's policies on abusing multiple accounts.

    Given this policy, I am undoing the close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I contest your undoing per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures which says that the proper way to challenge a close is via WP:AN. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Assad government

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

Yes, the phrase "Assad government" has a blatantly John McCain-esque stench to it. This phrase is clearly used to delegitimise the legal and internationally recognised Syrian government, by suggesting that it is all about Assad personally, or to somehow suggest that it is a dictatorship. This is textbook Anglo-American imperialist delegitimisation and dirty politics in action, that in no way falls within the bounds of the NPOV policy which we as a collaborative project are bound to uphold. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is the phrase "Assad government" a stinky term, when it reflects the basic fact of dynastic succession from the father's lifetime presidency to the son's? -- completely inappropriate for a claimed "republic" (as opposed to a monarchy), by the way... However, if you don't like that phrase, there are also "Ba`th Party government" and "Alawite government".... AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
George W. Bush and his father George H. W. Bush have both been presidents of the United States. The Anglo-American establishment tried every desperate trick in the book to try and shoehorn Hillary Clinton into the presidential seat after her husband Bill Clinton ran the US in the 1990s. There is nothing to say a republic cannot have people from the same family serving as its head. This is besides the point. Unless you want to call the US flag "the Bush government flag", then it does not make sense to claim that the flag of the Syria Arab Republic is just the "Assad government flag". The symbolism of the flag is Pan-Arabist in nature, the Assad family are not referenced in it at all. The Ba'ath Party has its own flag. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes Anoon, and for the opposition there are terrorists governments, rebels governments, gangs governments....etc But we dont use those designations because we have something called NPOV. So dont shove your opinion into this. Stop analayzing and arguying and stick to the NPOV policy. As I said, if you will insist on treating the Syrian government (as it designate itself) with your gross POV, I will continue naming the cartoonish opposition governments as Rebels governments. Either POV or NPOV--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Claíomh Solais -- I don't want to get into political debate here, or throw around random insults, and I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I was trying to convey that "Assad government" is in fact relatively neutral compared to most of the likely alternatives. (By the way, some would say that the fact that the symbolism of the two-green-star flag has nothing to do with Syria specifically is exactly the problem with it...) AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Brief Google count shows nearly 1:8 ratio of "Assad government" (or variants) vs "Syrian government" on bbc.com and cnn.com (sure, there are false positives, but most results cover the same government with most news from the civil war era). This ratio is lower (1:3 to 1:4) for foxnews.com, nbcnews.com, msnbc.com, aljazeera.com, france24.com, reuters.com or news.sky.com, but English language news sources seem to prefer the "Syrian government" term (by a wide margin). Only exception I found was abc.net.au (nearly 1:1 ratio). Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Both the Assad government and the Syrian opposition name the country Syrian Arab Republic 3bdulelah (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Irrespective of what some sources say – you can find almost any wording mentioned somewhere in the public media these days – it is factually incorrect to call the incumbent government, "the Assad government", for the single reason that according to the legislation in force (the Constution of Syria), the head of government is the prime minister, not the president. See Syria#Government. This differs from countries like the US for example where the president heads the executive and resembles UK instead where nobody sane would write about "Queen Elizabeth's government". — kashmīrī TALK 20:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Syria/Archive_2&oldid=885753849"