Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Syria was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
"2011–2012 Syrian uprising" bias for the opposition.
As suggested, I have created this section seeing as I am the only one it seems willing to edit this article (as pointless as it may be to create this talk section) and trying to move it more to a point of objectivity. Despite good intentions, and willingness to show both sides of the conflict it's claimed I am not giving a neutral point of view, and am combining material to advance a position, unto itself is just hypocritical as I am trying to even out this section of the article.
I contend that the material posted previously is barely verifiable and is heavily biased against the government of Bashar al-Assad, even if only subtle. Since this is my point of view, and other people have the opposite point of view, this just creates a continuous cycle of getting nowhere. Therefore I am trying to be objective and have offered others to tweak my additions so that it is "objective" to their liking, only my request is ignored. Obviously, they have no such interest in bettering this article, one has to ask why they bother to remove content.
For example, there is one small statement, "the Free Syrian Army, composed of defected military personnel". This is nothing but a fabrication. There is no evidence for this, there has been no dialogue between this group and anybody. Please do not quote the "activist" Danny, he is a blatant actor. In my opinion, nobody has talked to them because this group is merely comprised of mercenaries. One cannot have a dialogue with mercenaries. Recently Al-Jazeera staff have argued amongst each other via internal email, one claiming Free Syrian Army is a branch of Al-Qaeda.
Another puzzling paradox, to me, is why would the people of Syria support Bashar al-Assad (yes, the majority do support him, regardless of what crocodile-tear actors say) if he is unilaterally killing them? Well, he isn't killing them, despite what "reliable" sources would have you believe. Why would a man hated by the entirety of his nation go out and speak to his people, without bodyguards, and with his wife and children, to talk to protestors? Doesn't seem like something a man on the run, as the media likes to portray him, would do. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking
The reason for typing all of this out is that many are still so very hard headed in believing Assad is the new Hitler of the modern world, evidently many editors of Misplaced Pages believe this and are enforcing it by refusing to believe anything other than what they have been told. Until others participate in this or a discussion I see no reason for deleting content I and probably others have uploaded. Misplaced Pages is often the first place people go to find out things about the world and providing them with false or at the least unverifiable and very sketchy information is clearly not in Misplaced Pages's best interest.
Seeing as I am new to Misplaced Pages it would be nice for someone to not just delete entirely content uploaded, but to correct it and not barrage me with fancy, bureaucratic rules. The inconsistencies and double standards in this article should surely not be tolerated.
Thanks Nirvana101 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole section is twice or even three times as big as it should be, given that there is a whole article on the topic. Plus all those youtubes in Arabic don't belong there. (I see one in main article, which is one too many unless referred to by an English source.) The Syrian National Council info box also is WP:Undue. Foreign language articles are allowed if there is a link to an English translation, but there should be more than enough English sources. Obviously there is a bias in much of the English speaking media which is not allowed in by the government, but Russia Today and some other sources can provide/show there is another view. Are there any fairly neutral editors who can do that kind of cleanup? I'll think about it. CarolMooreDC22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There are all sorts of problems with that section, but some of your additions dont belong. Yes, it is true that Saudi Arabia is advocating for "freedom" for the Syrians while ensuring that their subjects, and the citizens of other countries in the region, enjoy no such freedom. But this is an encyclopedia article, or it least thats what it says on the front door of the place. I dont have time to rework the section as a whole right now, but at the very least the first two sentences of your addition needs to go. This isnt an editorial page, and that other parts of the article are editorial in nature should not cause you to respond with an opposing editorial slant, it should cause you to try to fix those other parts. nableezy - 00:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it necessary to add an infobox of the so called "Syrian National Council"?? I find this a way of advertisement for that group.--Preacher lad (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This section in the article needs RS references. Its POV right now. Is it also biased? Probably. As per Wiki's guidelines parts will be deleted with RS references --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Syrian Nerve Gas Missiles
The fact that Syria has Medium Range Ballastic Missile with Nerve Gas Warheads ought to be discussed in the article somehow, but I'm not at all clear how to approach it. But if you agree that the Syrian Chemical Weapons effort should be addressed I would be most happy to dig up a lot more citations than just that one web page.
The reason I bring this up is that no one seems to undertand why other nations are not coming to the aid of the Syrian opposition as it did during the insurrection in Libya. I am quite certain that the reason no other country wishes to intervene militarily is that President al-Assad has been quite blunt in stating that if the opposition doesn't cease its resistance, he will escalate the conflict throughout the region While I don't think he has threatened explicitly to launch the Nerve Gas Missiles, it's not hard to see that's what he is referring to.
Syria has a whole bunch of missiles that can strike anywhere in Israel. They have possessed Sarin nerve gas for decades. It is less clear that they have VX but it is suspected they do. The tiniest little droplet of either would kill you if it touched your skin, or if you inhaled the faintest whisp of vapor.
VX is not actually a gas but a liquid with the viscosity of motor oil. It is considered an "Area Denial Weapon" because once a geographic area has been coated with the very thinnest film of it, no human - and I expect no animals either - can survive in that area.
Syria and Israel have been sworn enemies ever since Israel took the Golan heights but have for the most part lived at peace with each other, through a system of "Mutual Assured Destruction" this is now much like the way the United States and Soviet Union once stoof off each other.
I have been working for YEARS to spread the word around the Internet that the Syrians have nerve gas as well as the means to deliver it. That fact has been well-documented since long before I stumbled across the bad news. But the Syrian missiles and nerve gas are simply not spoken of in any public way by the government, by the military or by the press. Just not discussing a serious problem does not make that problem go away. MichaelCrawford50.131.200.103 (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
if you have spent YEARS documenting the fictional aspect that Syria has nerve gas missiles, then we suggest that you go somewhere, publish it in a reputed journal or magazine and then quote it here on Misplaced Pages. And, no... International Fiction Weekly does not count. Sonarclawz (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I just created List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition to help us in the future in having a supporting reference about the geography of the conflict and maybe even allow us to create a map for the conflict. I thought it would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it seems helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. In the future, this list will make the creation of a map easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on a template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…) Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion and receiving delete votes from editors who are not involved in editing Syria articles. Take a look at the article (List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition) and see if you find it could be useful and if you would like to vote in the deletion discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_areas_currently_held_by_Syrian_oppositionTradedia (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"Syrian war of lies and hypocrisy" - The West's real target here is not Assad's brutal regime but his ally, Iran, and its nuclear weapons. Has there ever been a Middle Eastern war of such hypocrisy? A war of such cowardice and such mean morality, of such false rhetoric and such public humiliation? I'm not talking about the physical victims of the Syrian tragedy. I'm referring to the utter lies and mendacity of our masters and our own public opinion – eastern as well as western – in response to the slaughter, a vicious pantomime more worthy of Swiftian satire than Tolstoy or Shakespeare.Before it goes into the "memory Hole"...http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-syrian-war-of-lies-and-hypocrisy-7985012.html
Infobox, Flag, etc.
As this Al Jazeera article () makes clear, the Syrian regime no longer has control of the country's borders. Fighting has also divided the capital city of Damascus. I believe it is time to display the Syrian National Council's flag and seal along side that of the regime, in a manner similar to that of the Libya article during the Libyan revolution. Sans culottes09:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I oppose this idea. The difference is that the Syrian rebels do not actually have a government structure of any kind. By the time the Libyan rebels were added in the Libya article as a rivalling government, they actually had something resembling a state (centred on Benghazi) with a transitional council to govern it. The Syrian rebels, on the contrary, are a rag-tag bunch of militant groups with no apparent government structure. The SNC doesn't have enough popular and (para)military support to call itself a government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Recent editing consensus seems to suggest a more balanced approach; the looming battle for Aleppo will decide the future political status of Syria, and I think we should represent both sides until that matter is resolved irl. Sans culottes19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Although clearly the government is losing control all over the place, the rebellion is still mostly described as a variety of groups, rather than a united rival government. If the rebels do coalesce, then the idea of placing an opposition box has merit. Right now it would seem to give too much weight to the SNC. CMD (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I further oppose the idea. The SNC cannot be yet seen as a viable alternative to the SAR. Unlike Libya's NTC, Syrias SNC does not have control of the many factions that make up Syrias rebel forces. Furthermore, the SNC has not even established a government in exile (although requested to do so numerous of times by Qatar). Media sources indicate (BBC and CNN) that the SAR will take back Aleepo (and its outlining territories). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.62.7 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that the current state of the article with the infobox ain't a stable one - AFAICT because too much weight is given to SNC. My first edit was exactly an attempt to alleviate this perceived weight as it was described in my edit summary "reordered infoboxes of SNC and SAR since Syrian Arab Republic flag was flown at Olympic Games ceremony - per WP:BRD and per real life argument on talk page IMO this deserves some precedence for SAR". My edit was reverted with one of the explanations "Syrian rebels do not all recongise SNC" - and this is actually an argument for my version of the article: having infoboxes of SAR and SNC in that order of precedence. AS per the statement that WP:BRD does not apply, also mentioned in the revert explanation, I think that apart that it was meaningless in the first place (since I was making the first edit and then was reverted), surely there is no point mentioning this WP:BRD argument now since the discussion is already here. I'll revert to the version with SAR infobox before SNC as per arguments given here that SNC still is not seen as a viable alternative to SAR and that Syria is still represented mostly by SAR. --biblbroks (talk)08:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
As I noted above, the very presence of an SNC infobox is probably giving them far too much weight. They in no way have the support of the various Syrian rebel groups, and aren't even based in Syria. The revert to reinsert the box was even done without an edit summary. CMD (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the idea of removing the SAR from the info box. How can you possibly call the SNC a govt in exile? The SNC's command over fighters is virtually non-existent. Furthermore, the government of the SAR controls the apparatus of the state (economy, armed forces, education, healthcare, executive). The rebels are merely moving from city to city inside Syria until the SAR supplants them. Until we are able to get enough verified references confirming rebel unification with a singular governing power (i.e. SNC) and the rebels can successfully (therefore permanently/securely) hold any kind of strategically important territory within Syria, the SAR should remain the governing force within Syria's borders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 12:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to explain my recent edits. First of all, I am not that knowledgeable of the situation to have a clear position. Now about my edits. When I first saw the "neutral" region-infobox with the two (SNC and SAR) infoboxes below it, I just thought the order was not right - as explained above and in the first edit summary - and so I reordered them. Actually I had no preference about having other two in the first place especially since I realized a few days before that the article about the uprising changed the name to Syrian Civil War. What happened is that when watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics on TV I saw that the Syrian team made it to London and that with the SAR flag, I went and checked this article and just then is when I saw the order was not "presenting the real life" appropriately. I mingled about the recent history of the article and of the talk page. I checked it just a bit. And then made my first edit with the reordering. At the time when taking into account the change of the title of the Syrian Civil War article it indeed seemed somehow logical to me not to have a SAR country infobox anymore as the first one in the line, and I also thought of addressing the concerns which I believed other editors expressed when exchanging between the combined infobox (with two flags intersected) and a region infobox. Obviously my attempts weren't the fortunate ones. The second edit of mine was admittedly a disaster on a small scale. What I wrote here and what I've done was contradictory in a way. I apologize for that. --biblbroks (talk)21:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I find it odd that there are some editors who continue to change this article without consultation with other editors. This site has been built upon the understanding and the co-operation of many. It is built on consensus and a coming together of ideas. Something that I truly believe in. Certain editors continue to unilaterally make substantive changes to an article without the consensus or co-operation of others. To the users who want to remove the SAR, show us your evidence that the SNC has any rightful place in the info box (based on the requirements described above) and refer to this process. Once we have a consensus then by all means change it. Until then, I will continue to remove ANY changes every 24 hours. So it may pay to be more productive with your time (sorry if I sound so condescending). Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Must Change 'Philippus Araps' by 'Philippus Arabs'
With the uprising now officially being declared as civil war, it's no longer appropriate to have the 'Syrian Arab Republic' with the red, white and black flag as the country's sole means of identification on this page. The main infobox should only show facts about the country (position, population, etc.), and there should be another two infoboxes for the two Governments fighting for control of Syria (i.e. the Syrian Arab Republic with the 'red flag' under al-Assad, and the Syrian National Council with the 'green flag' under Abdulbaset Sieda). I'd do this myself, but 1. I'm in a hurry, and 2. I imagine it'd just be changed back without people looking at this discussion first. Please discuss. SnoopingAsUsual (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion above. In summary, the SNC is not fighting for control of Syria. Individual militia are. CMD (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In summary, you are actually incorrect Chipmunkdavis. While The Syrian opposition is composed of many elements, this is not an excuse to ignore them. This is just a straw man argument that strongly relies upon the Kurdish position (the Kurds in question don't even consider themselves Syrian), and using this as 'evidence' that the opposition is divided. Sans culottes09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Also at least two countries recognize the SNC specifically as the legitimate Syrain government (Libya and Tunisia). Until such time that this changes, it is not appropriate to only put a regime which several countries don't even recognize. Sans culottes09:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No-ones ignoring them. There's just no central command. We don't show the Burmese opposition on the Burma page, despite many countries recognising the Junta as illegitimate. If the SNC does gain the support of the opposition, then fine. As it is, one opposition group shouldn't be given undue precedence over the others. (Kurdish position? What's the Kurdish position?) CMD (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
A significant Kurdish position is the creation of Kurdistan. The SNC is the major faction of the opposition. There is no other significant Syrian opposition that backs the Free Syrian Army and Militants fighting (or vice-versa). Can you prove over wise? Or cite major examples that show this not to be the case? Sans culottes10:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a major faction, but it's not the opposition. "Syria's fractured opposition is to meet for what is set to be a bitter internal debate over forming a transitional government", so clearly an opposing government hasn't yet been established. From the same source, the SNC is "the biggest single coalition of anti-Assad groups", not all the anti-Assad groups. Further reinforcing this, "Tlass called on Tuesday for the opposition to unite", so clearly they're not yet united under the SNC. In addition, "Forming a unity government is a contentious issue for the SNC", so again, no government yet. To highlight the opposition to the SNC by other rebels, "the SNC faces serious credibility problems...and at odds with other groups, such as the Damascus-based National Co-ordination Bureau (NCB), which opposes armed opposition. Several key figures have walked out." Even more interesting, "On the ground, where events are driven by the largely autonomous Local Co-ordination Committees (LCCs) – the tansiqiyat – and the FSA, there is deep scepticism. "Everything is now down to the revolutionaries in Syria, including the FSA," argues the activist and blogger Razan Ghazzawi. Another opposition figure said: "The SNC is somewhat discredited inside Syria and will remain so unless it gets its act together and does something substantial for the people.""
That's all from one source. Another, "the opposition remains fractious and deeply divided", "The Syrian National Council (SNC) is a coalition of seven opposition groups" (therefore not all), "the FSA, the main armed opposition group in Syria, responded by saying it would not co-operate with the new bureau", "The council's primacy has also been challenged by the National Co-ordination Committee", "The SNC, which is trying to keep the uprising peaceful, has also found it difficult to work with the Free Syrian Army", "Western diplomats say the SNC is far from achieving the recognition given to Libya's NTC at an early stage of the revolt against Gaddafi, and many are encouraging the group to merge with the rival NCC", "The National Co-ordination Committee (NCC), formed in September, is made up of 13 left-leaning political parties, three Kurdish political parties, and independent political and youth activists", "The NCC differs from the Syrian National Council (SNC) on the questions of dialogue with the government and foreign intervention", "The NCC has also been reluctant to affiliate itself with the SNC and challenged its primacy". About.com has a list of different groups.
The SNC is definitely important, and is shown as such. It is not however, a rival government. CMD (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
KEEP THE SAR! The split info box is not accurate. Reasons:
1/ The SNC has not setup a government in exile - no cabinet, no ministers, no voting structure of policies by SNC non-board members. Refer to comments made recently by Qatar urging the SNC to do just this.
2/ Abdulbaset Sieda is a voice that western governments like to hear. Little evidence of consolation of governing power within the rebel factions.
3/ A portion of the main opposition factions cannot be considered combatants under the Third Geneva Convention. This again is enforced by the absence of a singular governing authority.
SUMMARY: No singular opposing government (in exile). Syria, (even though in a state of brutal civil war) has only one signaler governing authority, which is the SAR.
No one is ignoring the SNC, but its important the info box serves its purpose by ensuring correct information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with CMD and Zombiecapper. While the role of the SNC in the uprising obviously cannot be ignored, it is not a rival government. Only the Syrian Arab Republic should have an infobox in this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Split headline/info box
I have been trying to revert the article to the version that shows the reality of the situation on the ground, where the info box on the top right is neutral and shows the divide in government between Assad regime and opposition, but every time I make that edit, someone reverts to the version that only recognizes Assad regime's authority over Syria, citing that "the SNC doesn't represent the opposition", well if that's true then WHO represents the opposition? It is clear that that is a cheap excuse to prevent the creation of a split info box. Listen people, the fact of the matter is that large swathes of the country's populated land is in opposition control. So although Assad controls from Damascus, almost half the country is in opposition hands of FSA which to some degree is associated with the political oppositional branch of the SNC. If we want to disagree over whether or not the SNC represents ALL the opposition, that will always be a no-no. But the SNC DOES represent MOST opposition blocks including but not limited to: Local Coordination Committees, Supreme Council of Syrian Revolution, General Association of the Syrian Revolution, and the Free Syrian Army. Not to mention, almost all of the countries who recognize Syria's opposition only recognize SNC, therefore making it de-facto leader of opposition abroad, while it's component LCC and FSA lead from inside Syria.
Too Long, Didn't Read Version: A split infobox is necessary because the opposition has control over numerous cities while government control has been largely reduced to urban areas. So get over yourselves and get used to the split infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moester101 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"get over yourselves and get used to the split infobox"
I have a feeling most of the editors opposing acknowledging the Syrian opposition still haven't gotten over the Soviet Union collapsing, let alone the fact that the Ba'athist regime in Syria is collapsing. Also, if we can get an exact Arabic translation, I think "Free Syrian Republic" might be preferable to "Syrian National Cuncil" for the info box. Sans culottes09:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring the positions of several countries and the situation on the ground shows a clear lack of understanding of reality. Sans culottes10:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Sans Culottes. *hint* I'm the one who originally came-up with the idea of the "Free Syrian Republic" when I created the new coat of arms for Syria. To read more on how the new coat was created, go to the article for coat of arms of Syria where there's a big paragraph explaining it. Anyways, I will proceed to change the split info box from SNC to Free Syrian Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moester101 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Moester101, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It aims to describe actual facts, not things made up by its editors. By your own admittance, it was you who invented the name 'Free Syrian Republic' and created its coat of arms. While that kind of thing might be encouraged at sites such as http://microwiki.org.uk/, it is strictly forbidden on Misplaced Pages. Please refrain from adding things like that to Misplaced Pages articles. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
While the SNC is rebelling against the government, it has not set up a rival government. There is no SNC ministerial team, no SNC head of state, etc. It would make no sense at all to include the SNC in the infobox. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
TaalVerbeteraar, these statments are not true. The SNC has both an Executive Committee () and a Secretariate General (). Further more, both Libya and Tunisia recognize the SNC as the government and sole representative of Syria. The point editors like you come back to is the name that should be given to the Syrian opposition. Just because you disagree upon a name is not an excuse to ignore the majority of the Syrian people who have control of their country, and are ensuring that what is at this point clearly the terminal decline of the Ba'athist regime. Sans culottes09:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
These committees are merely the internal governing bodies of the SNC. They are not ministerial teams. That's not my opinion, it is fact. The SNC does not promote itself as a rival government and it has not appointed a rival president or rival ministers. And it's not the name which is the point of contention, it is the claim that there is such a thing as a rival government in Syria, regardless of its name. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Libya recognizes the SNC, hence making it for all intents and purposes a government. Do you really think we live in a binary world of either a one party dictatorship where a leader runs for president unopposed, or there is anarchy—just one or the other. Surely you are being facetious. It's as if you are treating normal democratic disagreements among allies as fatal flaws. Sans culottes10:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Outside recognition doesn't magically make something a government. If there's no head of state, nor a ministerial team, there's no government. Foreign recognition does not change that. The SNC has not appointed a rival president or rival ministers. It doesn't call itself a government, either. We can't put a government infobox in the article for something which isn't a government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
De facto or de jure has nothing to do with it. And rebel sides in civil wars (or even opposition parties in democratic countries during political crises) frequently negotiate about forming unity governments, without them being governments in their own right. By definition, a government is a collective of people who are in power, or at least claim to be. The SNC, however, has not formed such a collective of people (in the form of a president and ministers), nor does it claim to be a rival government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
De facto or de jure has everything to do with it. That seems to be the crux of your argument whether you realize it or not. It doesn't matter what the members of the SNC call themselves. All that matters is the Ba'athist regime has lost control of Syria, and the SNC is the only recognized entity in the world to replace them. Free Syrian army members that control vast tracts of Syria have the SNC's seal on their flak jackets. The SNC and its personification in the Syrian Free Army are the government in a large percentage of Syria, by your own definition. Sans culottes11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Say, a handful of countries would suddenly recognize the world as being flat. Would that make the world flat? Of course not. Outside recognition does not magically change facts. The SNC has appointed neither a rival head of state nor rival ministers, and does not regard itself as a government. Therefore, it isn't a government. Libya's recognition doesn't change that. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
How on earth are the SNC a de facto government? They have no base on the ground of the country, no administration over any people in the country, and in fact have not set themselves up as a government. CMD (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Putting the SNC as a parallel governement or saying that the governement is "disputed" is unacceptable. Legally, the only country and state is the Syrian Arab republic and it has only one governement. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Legally, the only country and state is the Syrian Arab republic" uhhhh de-jure govt over Syria no longer applies to the majority of Syrians. Local councils elected by Syrians inside those cities which are in opposition control are just as legally defined if not more legitimate than what happens in Damascus. De-facto rule goes to the opposition. That's why it's important to have the split box to show how the power inside Syria is being divided on the local level. As for the coat of arms of the liberated areas being "my own creation" I can tell you that it is merely provisional and symbolic, and was created simply for the lack of a different credible seal. I will return the previous edit with it present. If those who disagree (such as TaalVerbeteraar) are absolutely not going to accept it as a temporary symbol which is popular amongst those who've seen it, then I will settle for a compromise where we keep the split infobox but WITHOUT the seal of the Free Syrian Republic. Anyways, for now I'll return it, if I see persistent resistance to it then I'll take it out while keeping the split infobox intact. I will not accept anything less than a split infobox! Moester101 (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Having 'de facto rule' over certain areas is not the same as being a government. To be a government, the SNC must at least:
1) Say themselves that they have in fact formed an alternative government;
2) Appoint members to this alternative government.
None of these has happened, so there is no second government in Syria. This is not about political preference, about 'hiding the truth' or anything. It's simply about not putting fictional things in a factual article. Moester101 has now for the second time admitted that the 'Free Syrian Republic' and its coat of arms are his very own inventions, so they're certainly not going to be added to the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This must stop, Misplaced Pages must not be used as a political weapon for ideological warfare, there can't be two Syria's, or two states recognized. That's an argument against international law, that clearly shows that only one state has the jurisdiction over one land, there are exceptions like international treatments were two recognized states (by UN) accept to share international seas or in the cases of dilemmas in the frontier. So in the article of Morocco should we put the flag of Western Sahara or in the article of the Taiwan should we get the flag of China? Or should we accept the existence of independent areas in the Guajira of Colombia and Venezuela were the indigenous people have their own local councils, and they don't accept neither government and in some cases they don't even accept the local currency, or should we put two flags in Spain in the areas of ETA predominance. Or in fact should we accept that some areas of Mexico are De facto of the EZLN, because they're control by an armed guerrilla that has independent councils? There are tons of cases like this, some exactly like the one of Syria, were other States accept only the rebel groups that have effective control of lots of areas in the country--Tercerista (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The arguments employed by regime apologists here are beyond bizarre. Tercerista, none of the examples you give are valid due to the fact that the situations in question don't constitute a war. And I would encourage you to look up how the UN defines a war if you don't know, which I'm assuming you don't.
DanielUmel, if you are going to claim legality, I advise you to actually have a clue about the law. Which laws are you even referring to?
I'm not talking about war, but if you want to, lets talk about Colombian war and the guerrilla named FARC, who have the actual control of lots of areas in the country, they are recognized by lots of countries the Foro de São Paulo, and other international actors as the legitimate actor for representing Colombians, should the article of Colombia have two flags? Thats pure non sense, the recognition doesn't make you a country. According to political theory only one state could be an actor in one territory if other actor exercises the State functions then that actor it's the State if it doesn't exersice State functions then every other argument is nonsense. Why the Wester Sahara case isn't a war? Should we put two flags in every civil war in the world, that's absolute nonsense.--Tercerista (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with you. Another problem in this article is the infbox in the Syrian uprising section. User obviously made up a country and named it "Free Syrian Republic" and created its coat of arms. This is outrageous. --Wustenfuchs20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Free Syrian Republic infobox ("Syrian uprising (2011-2012)" subesction of the "History" section
I ask administrators to remove this infobox with the flag and the coat of arms of the "Free Syrian Republic". Such republic doesn't even exist and neither the flag and the coat of arms are being used by the Syrian National Council. In order to save the credibility of Misplaced Pages, I request removal of the infobox. It is embarrassing to Misplaced Pages and to me as an user of it. --Wustenfuchs19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You could do with dialling down the rhetoric so users don't just dismiss you as a troll. But what you suggested isn't going to happen, although I intend to removed the coat of arms and change the name back to "Syrian National Council" at the earliest opportunity. The problem with you, throughout your edits on this subject, is that you are making biased and highly unhelpful edits and trying to make a hollow argument from authority while doing so. You keep insisting that the green, white and black flag of the opposition isn't valid, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. The SNC even incorporates the flag's colors in its emblem. You have even sought the remove the statement that Syria is in a state of civil war from the beginning of the article. Sans culottes22:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
DanielUmel, this is not why the page was protected, as you well know. Refrain from attacking other editors or I shall have the report you to an admin. Sans culottes23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
