Talk:Syria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Deletion

213.42.1.165 deleted the following text from the article, without giving a reason. --Ed Poor 08:16 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

Since 1994, Syria has been on the official U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Islamic Jihad, considered a terrorist group by the U.S. and Israel, has its headquarters in Syria.

Some writers advocate the removal of Syria from the U.N. Security Council, on the grounds that its support for terrorism contradicts the stated mission of the council.

---

Ed, I agree as if there is nothing to say but this.

Also, IMHO we can't report such statement only, without a wider note on the theme and, before, on Syrian politics. A political list, even if credible and of serious origins, is not produced from a NPOV by definition. We can add it as a reference, but it cannot be the main argument. --G

I'm going to put back "Islamic Jimad" and "state sponsors of terrorism", both of which are factual. Q or Jacob or someone else can add all the balancing information they like. --Ed Poor 07:24 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

---

Why isnt it there? Is it fact or not? Surely listing facts is important, and listing reasons is also important. Hiding the truth because noone can explain a fact isnt very open is it? Paul Weaver 15:20 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Could someone verify the info that 210.50.112.97 is adding? (also on Politics of Syria) Evil saltine 17:18, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I removed the second sentence of this article "Syria is often seen to be in support of terrorism and terrorist groups in the Middle East"? Because of NPOV concerns. Yes, this is an issue with Syria --BUTurrent location it gives the impression this is the primary item of interest concerning Syria. Other countries accused of harboring terrorism -- Libya, North Korea, Iran -- do not have a statement in such a prominent position. -- llywrch 17:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

People should note that there are different perceptions of terrorism. In the middle east Hezbollah and Hamas are generally considered fighters who are resisting an occupation that was outlawed by the United Nations.

Copyright

Notice how the text resembles this web site http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sy/Economy

Syria's predominantly statist economy etc. is the very same. Who borrowed from who? Kstailey 14:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Spam?

About the recently added "SYRIA" link pointing to http://www.sptechs.com/ : I don't read Arabic, but I have a strong feeling that it's the home page of a web design company, and - therefore - link-spam. Any Arabic-speaking(+reading) person around? TroelsArvin 13:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's spam. removed it and several more links. --Ayman 12:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External links

I wonder why syriaonline.com ,syriagate.com are still in the External links .while other several usefull links , is considered spam !! .

I'm sick of the fight over external links here, and the number of hosting companies links, to end this, we in more info about Syria. No need for hosting companies links, or local newspapers in Arabic, is everyone happy now? -Ayman 01:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Iskenderun is disputed

I'm restoring the border dispute with Turkey over Iskenderun to the opening paragraph (it was =index&req=viewpage&pageid=834&newlang=eng map] at the official site of the Syrian Ministry of Tourism, which clearly shows Iskenderun as part of Syria. -- uriber 12:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the Hatay Province article you'll see that it states that Syria does no longer lay claim to the province. I don't have any sources and no time right now, so perhaps somebody can verify this?

In any case, I would have to say that the border at Bab al-Hawa looks very permanent.

--Stefan 63.243.163.194 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. I crossed the border at Bab al-Hawa 2x last summer wihout any problem. --83.240.4.195 09:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems the Syrian parliament agrees with the ministry of tourism, but somebody insists on deleting my previous relevant edit. Hmm. --kutukagan 09:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Syria was not always an Arab country.

Syria and Lebanon, just like many other countries in the Middle East, were invaded by the Arab's and Muslims who forced the natives to convert to Islam or suffer. The real native people are not Arabs, they are of mixed Syriac (Aramaic), Greek, Roman, and Crusader blood. CHRISTIANS WHO ARE SYRIANS AND LEBANESE ARE NOT ARABS!

Thank you for your comment: it has been noted. Gareth Hughes 11:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What an ignorant comment. I really take offense when people try to tell me what or who i am or where i belong. Syrians are a mix of all those people, yes, but there is an ARAB component in them too. Check out the Ghassanids, the Nabataeans. Please don't try to tell us what we are, and whether we want tpeople" of a land when so much mixing occurs. And i hope i have proven you wrong that there are christian arabs, yes, RACIAL ARABS. Your bigoted comments about islam are stupid.Yuber 05:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have never made a bad or bigoted statement on Islam. I only said that the Arabs forced the Byzantine Christians to convert to Islam, in addition, the invading Arabs gave the non-Arab Christians another choice to pay a 10% tax which is reffered to as the Jizyah. Syria and other countries in the Levant were under the Byzantine Empire, the Arabs invaded the non-Arab Syrians and Lebanese during the Arab Conquest of the 7th Century. You say that there are Christians that are was just ranting. Before you dispute anybody or anything, check your references and most importantly check your history. Let's not be hostile, call each other names, and accuse one another of being ignorant, bigoted or stupid. Byzantine Empire, and the History of Greece will show you where I'm at.--66.81.173.40 08:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arab culture and history is more than just Islam. The people of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq etc are clearly Arabs (whether they are christians, muslims or do not follow a religion): They use the Arabic language, they share the same history and destiny and they see themselves as Arab etc etc.

This is not to say people may also have other identities. As for your allegations of forced conversion, you (Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols etc). Most likely a complicated picture emerges. The tax referred to is of course a fact, part of history. Many of the leading figures of Arab Nationalism like for instance Michel Aflaq are from 'Christian' families. Aflaq was Syrian by the way. You might want to read some of the books on Arab history: The books by Albert Hourani and Philip Hitti are the introductions most widely read.. Tiller1 11:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

66.81.173.40, i have already shown you that there were arabs in the area that is syria over 800 years before the coming of Islam. The Ghassanids were Yemenis who arrived in southern syria and adopted christianity. The Nabataeans arabic people who moved north to Syria and settled down and built a great civilization. Therefore there were racial Arab christians, and i don't really care about your claim that not one Saudi is christian because that has nothing to do with the topic. Also, to your claim that i was just ranting, it seems that you did the same. At least i provided sources.Yuber 14:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not denying that there were real Arabs who were at the time Christians, but that was many centuries ago. It's kind of interesting to see that the Ghassanids and the Nabataeans settled in Horan. You forgot to mention Busra, which happened to be a great Christian Byzantine city that was out Yuber, but eventually these real Arab Christians converted to Islam and there decendants are no longer Christians.--66.81.173.40 21:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your argument has degenerated from "There are no racial arabs in syria and lebanon", to "There are no racial arab christians in Syria and Lebanon", to "There might have been racial arab christians but all their descendants converted to Islam". And i'm sorry to say that your last claim is in fact false as well. There are still christian communities in southern syria parts of lebanon whose inhabitants are clear racial arabs that speak arabic and wear traditional arab clothing. This argument is moot, trying to group a certain race with a certain religion and divide the middle east never works out, especially when you don't have your facts straight.Yuber 21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, the only false claims around here are the comments you have made. I don't know whether at this point and time if there are still real Arab Christian communities in Syria and Lebanon, if there arewho the real people of Syria and Lebanon are, I'll start to respect your comments. Until then, just check your history correctly from the right sources, then you will discover that you are the one who is false and wrong.

Regards, .--66.81.173.40

Just because you speak Arabic, it does not mean you are an Arab! The people of Brazil speak Portugese, does that mean that they are not Brazilians? The people of Argentine speak Spanish, does this mean they have the same culture as those from Spain? Australians speak English, does this make them American? NO. Therefore, Lebanese people who speak Arabic, are right in believing and claiming that they are Lebanese, with a distinct voice and culture.

I am not sure it is the right way to get my posting on the matter. There are several Arabic tribes that are Christians in Syria and Jordan. Even Koweit has a couple of Christian Koweiti families. One of the family members was actually the Koweiti Ambassador in Japan. HE

This is totally fucked up. Why must it be controversial every time ethnicity is being questioned.--140.144.175.147 20:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As Gareth Hughes has stated in the discussion below, "Syria has been such a historical crossroads for nations of east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial." By the way 140.144.175.147, whoever you are, I would suggest that you don't use any profanity in the talk page. Talk pages here in Wikipedia are for educated discussions, not street talk.--Gramaic 23:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vaccinations?

I was wondering, if I was to travel to Syria (Damascus in particular), do I need any vaccinations. sick. So what kind of vaccinations should I take if I were to travel to Syria?--Gramaic 05:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proof of vaccinations is not required to enter Syria. As a general rule, it is always best to make . Fruit and vegetables sold in Syria, especially those sold in street markets, often are sprayed with a light disinfectant: it's best to wash fruit and veg before eating or cooking. Otherwise, don't worry too much about it: if you get sick, you get sick. -- Gareth Hughes 14:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Make sure your meningococcal booster is up to date as well. Last time i went, all my boosters were up to date, i only drank bottled water, and i still got sick. It's hard to avoid sometimes, but it was only a stomach sickness that lasted about a day.Yuber 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

I think we need to be more specific about the demographics section in the article. When people read that Syria's people are a mix of Semitic and Indo-European peoples, I think we should include what kind of Semitic and Indo-European people. For example, the Semites would be the Arabs, Aramaic , we should say that we have Greeks, Romans, etc. Just a thought.--Gramaic 09:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As evidenced in the discussion above, ethnicity is a tough political question in the Syrian Arab Republic. Being Souri is considered being Arab, at least by the powers that be. I think it would be better to make the section on Syrian demography a little less specific. Syrian citizenry is east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial. --Gareth Hughes 13:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time I see anyone refer to ethnicity in Syria as 'tough', it is an Arab country. May I ask why you have this focus? Is there a political point you are trying to make? 'At least by the 22:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much that ethnicity is "tough", almost all Syrians identify as Arabs (except for obviously Kurds, Armenians, and Circassians). The discussion above was heated because of a Palmyra (featured on some Syrian currency) is referred to as an "Arab Queen" in Syria. However, it is obvious to anyone who has read the history of Palmyra, that she was a Roman woman who had nothing to do with Arabs.Yuber 23:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Syrians are a mix of a variety of diffent people, nobody is pure blooded. Most people in Syria, identify as Arabs (even a quite number of Kurds, Armenians, and Circassians identify as Arabs). Yuber, the anon you had the heated debate with, I'm afraid there are many more people who think the exact same way as the person you argued with. I found a webstite called "We Are Not Arabs" which is ahttp://www.petitiononline.com/NotArab/petition.html if any of you wish].--Gramaic 00:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there aren't people (especially the Maronites, though they are in Lebanon) who deny the Arab label. However, these people are a minority among residents of Arab countries. Also, the person I had the debate with didn't sound like a Syrian at all, and they made ridiculous claims about there being no Arabs in the region that is Syria today. Are you Syrian, by the way?Yuber 00:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, many Syrians and Lebanese, don't identify themselves as Arabs. Many of them say that they're Neo-Byzantine, and refer to themselves as non-Arabs who are Arabic speaking White people.66.81.185.13 03:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of Syrians and Lebanese do identify themselves as Arab (regardless of religion), the term 'Neo-Byzantine' is not even widely known. Tiller1 19:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most Syrians do identify themselves as Arab; however, there are many Syrians who don't. Demographic terminology is influenced by the politics of the day, and being or not being Arab is as much a political statement as an ethnic one. Kurds, Aramaic-speaking Christians, Armenians and Druze are thus often in a difficult political situation: if they emphasize non-Arabic character, they can be seen as being non-patriotic. --Gareth Hughes 19:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've got a point Gareth, but Druze? If I'm not mistaken, are'nt the Druze ethnically Arabs, I mean did'nt their ancestors come from the Arabian Peninsula?--Gramaic 22:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a Syrian, and I'm 100% non-Arab (but I don't hate Muslims or Arabs). I also describe myself as Neo-Byzantine. The person who was declaring in the discussion above that the Syrians and Lebanese are non-Arabs is very correct. So the users who disputed this person, the only thing I have to say is don't let your hatred towards Christians blind you. Isn't enough Christians have suffered in the Middle East by the hands of Muslims!?

How do you say "Neo-Byzantine" in Arabic ;)?Yuber 12:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is quite sad. It is incredibly low for a person to deny their culture, and adopt another... Arabic speaking white people? Why are people so keen to label themselves White/European and escape their Middle Eastern ethnicity? Syrians and Lebanese are NOT Arabic, they are SYRIAN and LEBANESE. Quite different from Arabic people, as they are a mixture of MANY other groups. Labeling them as Arabic would be a mistake, rather, Arabic speaking. And Neo-Byzantine?? WTF???? Why do you identify with the Byzantines? There were people living there LONG BEFORE the Byzantines and many more after, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And P.S., I have yet to meet a Kurd/Armenian who identifid themself as Arabic.

People identify their ethnicity in different ways, and this can change over time. We should respect that, and that there are Syrians who do not wish to be seen as Arabs, even though they are a small minority. How the Wikipedia page on 'Syria' can accomodate this, I'm not sure. We certainly cannot re-write it to say that Syrians are in no way arab, because a small group of people beleive that (very genuinely, I'm sure), when the majority - excluding the established ethnic minorities like the Kurds - appear to identify themselve as Arab quite freely. The only thing that the 'Syria' page can do is to continue to stress the diversity of origins of Syria's population, as it does. Perhaps some of the commontators here would like to write a page for Wikipedia explaining the 'Neo-Byzantine' idea. That way, Wikipdeia could cover it. - Indisciplined

Homs

"Major cities include the capital Damascus in the southwest, Aleppo in the north, and Homs."

As everyone can see, we all know that Damascus is located in the southwest of Syria, and Aleppo is in the north. Yet, this statement does not say were the city of Homs is located. I used to think that Homs was located in central Syria, after looking at the Syrian map, it seems that Homs is near the Lebanese border. So does anyone know how to classify the region of where Homs is located?--Gramaic 06:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think central Syria is best avoided; I know what you mean by it, but it equally mean the middle of the Syrian Desert. It is about halfway between Damascus and Halab, at the foot of the northern end of the Anti-Lebanon mountains. Perhaps it would be POV to say "This is the least interesting city in Syria". --Gareth Hughes 11:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Souria.com

I added the English version home page for Souria.com in the External links section. There is an Arabic version for this website, but my reading in Arabic is not that good. Since this is an English encyclopedia, I think it's best just to have the English version. Anyway, if any of you fluent Arabic readers want to see the Arabic version of Souria.com, go ahead.--Gramaic 06:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good site. However, the discussion forums tend to get pretty heated, right now on the english forums there's a lebanese invasion and topics full of profanity.Yuber 06:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Politics of Syria

Hi,

I just came wandering through looking for information on the politics of Syria today. The section here is very good (better than the Encyclopedia Britannica, in fact) but when I followed the link to Politics of Syria I discovered that it's basically identical; in fact it's probably a bit rotted version, with a few CIA Worldbook facts stuck on the end.

This isn't necessarily a problem, but it does mean people's edits are going to get divided between the two pages (and probably most will edit this page).

Something similar happened at Nuclear weapon and Nuclear explosion, and the solution taken there (still in progress) is to strip down the section in Nuclear weapon until it's really a summary, so that it's obvious one should go to the effects page to make improvements.

The other possibility is to get rid of Politics of Syria by folding its information in here.

Anyway, the pieces I've read of the article are great. --Andrew 15:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) Oops, fixed links

Hmm, I really have no idea what to do with that article. Perhaps a summary can just be included here.Yuber^(talk) 16:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

That seems to be the right solution (well, I suppose that article could go away and this article could be the only one); Montreal and History of Montreal had the same problem and it has been more or less fixed by drastically summarizing the section in Montreal (and making sure that any facts removed from Montreal were in History of Montreal). It would be easier if Politics of Syria were longer. I could try to write a sumary, but I don't know very much about the current political situation (just about what's in the article now), so any summary I wrote would necessarily be extremely brief and probably not fair or neutral. --Andrew 20:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Economy of Syria and History of Syriahave the same problem - they have sen almost no edits this year, while Syria has seen far more. I would be tempted to drastically summarize those sections of Syria; the laborious part is merging the current texts of Syria and its subarticles. --Andrew 21:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that those articles were created when this article was being expanded and people were trying to bring this article up to the standards of other countries. I think a summary would be good, I'll see what I can do. I disagree about the History of Syria article, however, as there is much more information in that than in this. I also intend to add a lot more about Syria's history in the future.Yuber^(talk) 23:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have summarized the section on politics after looking at the two separate versions. There's still some work to be done on wiki'ing both versions and adding more info.Yuber^(talk) 03:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's great - a big improvement. I think the key idea is to make the section here obviously only a summary so that people who want to add information add it to the full article. I think your changes do that very well.

I think that country articles are usually divided up into subarticles according to some Wikiproject, and perhaps based on the CIA world factbook, so the people who did it may not have put the care and attention that we would like. In any case, I think this article is good and getting better. My only concern is to avoid duplicated effort (improving this version and the full articles). --Andrew 21:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Links

In the "External links" section, we have some sites that are linked to Looksmart, and Yahoo. Those sites are search engines, which means that anybody can go to these sites and search for articles that's related to Syria. I personally think, that we need to eliminate the Yahoo and Looksmart sites. What does everyone think?--Gramaic 04:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Syrian ethnicity

This line doesn't make sense: "Ethnic Syrians are a mix of Semitic and Indo-European peoples that have occupied the region over time." Semitic and Indo-European aren't ethnicities but language groups, so what does it have to do with anything?

"Ethnic Syrians" are just Arabised Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and so on, not non-existing Semitic and Indo-European ethnicities.

- Habibo

I agree, I've said the same in Lebanese demograpy article. Fist of all there's no 'ethnic Syrian'. You have a big Arab group, and smaller Armenian/Kurdish/Jewish/Syriac group. Syrian identity is not/racial it's an ethnic§ one, it's a cultural one. This is typically an American bias to try to classify group according to 'ethnic difference'. In middle East, identity is related to other things: language, and/or religion.

--equitor 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Given;

• Hafez al-Assad had been grooming his son, Basil al-Assad to be the country's next president
• Basil al-Assad died in an accident
• Bashar al-Assad, his younger son, (with no previous political experience) then became the heir apparent & ultimately the President,

is it true to say that the office is a Presidency? Isn't a hereditary presidency, a monarchy? Avalon 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, no. It's a corrupted Presidency, an institution subjected to the one-man (or one-family) dictatorship which presently rules Syria. I think this is clear from the article. In theory, and constitutionally, and in official Syrian propaganda especially, no bloodline is necessary to become President, whereas this is the basis of Monarchy. It is also not clear that Bishar would be followed by a family member (especially since he has no grown-up son :-), in the event of his death, although that is of course a possibility. Arre 23:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate that the system claims to be a republic, but so did the Roman Empire for some time. Bishar al-Assad is still young. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ...... Avalon 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the system has been hijacked by the Assads, but there is an important difference between a monarchy and a republic, technically and also in how the regime presents itself (there's kind of a conflict line between "progressive" republics and monarchies in the Arab world, for example). Also, the Assads didn't create this institution. They inherited it from previous governments and constitutions, and Syria once had a very different way of filling the presidential post (mainly by military coup :-). It'll change again.

Arre 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Syrian workers

I hope the compromise I've suggested is acceptable. However: I don't think there was ever 1,5 million Syrians in Lebanon. More probably somewhere around half a million, rising to 1 million during the summer season. Although there has of course been at least a couple of millions in Lebanon over the years, but I guess the text refers to a given point in time. Is it okay to change this? Arre 02:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed a few things on your version. First off, there is no single Syrian or Lebanese view. Second, it is not a "view" that Syrian workers helped with reconstruction, because they DID help with reconstruction. Yuber^(talk) 02:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the Syrian presence was supported by the US and the Arab League. It was briefly accepted and supported by both of them at various points in time, but since then, and before that, there was controversy within the AL and outright opposition by the US. I assume you are referring to the Arab Deterrent Force and US acceptance of the ousting of Aoun, and I do agree these things must be mentioned. But when it's written like this, it gives a faulty impression of continuous support for the Syrian presence, and that was certainly not the case.
• True about Syrian/Lebanese views; not so about the motivation for the Syrian workers going there. They went there simply to get a job, not as part of a humanitarian crusade (I don't blame them, I would have too). Now, the Syrian government claims it accepted/encouraged this to help Lebanon's reconstruction, and this should be pointed out (as should the opposite view). But the workers themselves didn't go there "to help Lebanon", just as Mexicans don't cross the border "to help USA", even though their hard work for crap wages has been very beneficial to America. Do you see my point, and would you agree to a change here? Salaam, Arre 04:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what I had meant to say was they went to get jobs in the reconstruction of the country, not that they went into the country solely to reconstruct it because they felt pity for the Lebanese. Hopefully my latest change emphasizes this.

This is fine with me, the part about the workers is very well formulated. Thank you. I still think the US/Arab support for Syria in Lebanon is - well, not wrong, but overemphasized. However, since there's so little on the subject, I'll just leave it until we can add more overall on Lebanon, instead of deleting what little we have. Arre 05:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

while you guys guess about what exactly happened in Lebanon and how many workers are there, Yuber keeps deleting sourced information and the link it comes from! now hes got a buddy Parmilo! read this information, it all comes from this source: Lebanese scholar Habib C. Malik has called the influx of Syrian workers into Lebanon "nothing short of a movement toward Syrian colonization of Lebanon." (Between Damascus and Jerusalem: Lebanon and Middle East Peace (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1997), p. 42). In 1994, under pressure from Syria, the Lebanese government granted citizenship to over 200,000 Syrians resident in the country. Syrian nationals make up at least one-third of Lebanon's resident population. http://www.meib.org/articles/0102_l1.htm

Quotes from right-wing authors are not needed in a general history section. And your POV terms such as "flooded" are not needed either. That source is wrong, by the way. There is no way 30 % of Lebanon's population is Syrian. Please find a better source. Yuber^(talk) 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Or you could just continue reverting on 5 different articles. Please do mind the 3RR. Yuber^(talk) 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

why do you get to decide which authors are "right-wing" and which sources are "wrong"? the article doesn't say "flooded" any more, if that was your real reason you could have changed that word. I'm not the reverter, I brought properly sourced information, all you do is revert. John McW 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at any good wikipedia article about a country. Take the USA one for example. There are no quotes let alone POV quotes in the general history section of the article. Yuber^(talk) 01:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

oh, now a new excuse. is it really true that Wikipedia does not allow quotes in history articles with links and references, instead it only allows whatever you have made up and decide fits? I don't believe that, prove it, show me where Wikipedia says that. John McW 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything. As long as there are 3 editors who are in agreement about this on this page, your protests don't mean anything. Please try to accept the compromise instead of pushing your version. Yuber^(talk) 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

you have to prove you didn't lie about that. who agrees with you? have them name themselves. John McW 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Quote & numbers

• I agree about the quote, it doesn't fit the article. I do think, however, that the viewpoint that the influx of workers had political implications (and motives) should be better represented. Now the article says that their presence in Lebanon is "controversial", but it doesn't say why or to whom.

• Regardless of that, I have changed the "1,5 million workers" into "about one million workers", which is what the CIA factbook and some other sources say. I still think that is on the high side. Arre 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

i gave a link to someone who says it, but yuber keeps reverting it. how can you guys take out information that comes directly from a source, and just make up other stuff and put it in instead? does Wikipedia really allow this? John McW 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

John McW, consensus has been reached. Please respect it. Yuber^(talk) 11:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

you don't know what "consensus" means. "consensus" is not whatever Yuber says. John McW 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

JohnMcW has asked me to take a look at this. I don't know the issues, but his edit is well-referenced, and seems relevant. Yuber, could you say what you object to about it? Also, I'd say many, not some, people call the Syrian presence an "occupation," though I don't know what the legal status was. Here's the material Yuber deleted:

About one million Syrian workers came into Lebanon after the war ended to find jobs in the reconstruction of the country. Lebanese scholar Habib C. Malik has called the influx of Syrian workers into Lebanon "nothing short of a movement toward Syrian colonization of Lebanon." (Between Damascus and Jerusalem: Lebanon and Middle East Peace (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1997), p. 42). In 1994, under pressure from Syria, the Lebanese government granted citizenship to over 200,000 Syrians resident in the country. Syrian nationals make up at least one-third of Lebanon's resident population. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

John, so you know for the future, there's some information about how to format your citations at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

POV quotes don't belong in a general history section, and after being here for so long you should know this SV. Yuber^(talk) 11:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

where is the wikipedia policy that says that? are you going to stick to this excuse for deleting the information, or will you find a new excuse when this one is shown to be a lie? John McW 13:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Quote: I do believe that the colonization-aspect should be covered in the text, and John McW:s quote could be used as a source for that. Putting the quote itself in the text is not preferable, for two reasons: it is very long (when the full source identification is included) and, also, I've never heard of this Habib guy. A quick google shows that he is apparently very controversial ("right wing", "zionist", "neocon" etc), but to use him as a source of opinion -- as an example of people who label the workers' presence "colonization" -- is of course unproblematic.
• Number of workers: 1,5 million workers is one of the highest numbers I've heard, and it seems quite unrealistic (though not impossible). I believe the 0,5-1 million workers depending on which season of the year you measure is more accurate; the CIA factbook, which I think is pretty reliable, says 1 million. Whichever way, I think "about one million" gives more room for the different opinions. Another possibility could be that their number is "estimated at between 0,5-1,5 million" or something like that.
• Occupation: I don't think that the Syrian presence in Lebanon was widely referred to as "occupation" before 2005, and it was definitely not internationally recognized as such (by the UN or a large number of governments). I happen to think that it was an occupation, though -- in every way, shape and form. So I'm pretty much neutral to this, but a claim of "many" should probably be given a mainstream source.

That said, please, everybody calm down a little. Arre 08:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

who says Habib is "very controversial"? he is a well respected Arab Phd who works at the American university in lebanon. the only people calling him "zionist" etc. are anonymous bloggers. John McW 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, anonymous bloggers say so :-) And anyone who is respected by anyone in Lebanon, is bound to be detested by twice as many, that's the first law of Lebanese politics. Anyway... as you can read above, I don't think he should be excluded as a source of opinion. But perhaps we should not use him as a source of fact, for example on the number of workers. I noticed you changed that again, to "at least one million". I have not seen anything to make me think that a figure below one million is impossible, rather to the contrary. Wouldn't "about one million" be okay with you?

Also, you deleted the sentence on how the workers are paid low wages, why? That is how they got the jobs in the first place, and I don't think anyone questions that. I mean, they're basically gastarbeiters, paid crap wages and treated like filth, just like the Palestinians were before them. Many of them in fact live in the refugee camps, having nowhere else to stay. Arre 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

i left in the stuff about them being paid low wages, I don't think i ever deleted that. lots of people say there are well over 1 million syrian workers in lebanon, or were. here's another link. http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2005/10/will_syrias_pla.php John McW 05:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of workers. I could find zillions of quotes backing 0,5 or one million workers if I wanted to do that. Also, an obvious difference so far, between your sources and my CIA factbook (which says one million), is that your sources are all Lebanese nationalist pages, which would probably have an interest/tendency to inflate the numbers of workers. I'm not saying it is NOT 1,5 million, I'm just saying that I personally don't think it is very likely. And that a lower estimate should at least be represented, if 1,5 million is to be mentioned. So I feel that "about one million" would be very appropriate, since it gives room for both my guess and your guess. Your 1,5 million is certainly within the margin of error, but I don't think you'd deny that it is in the high end of the spectrum? Why not a less controversial mid-range figure, or at least all the figures ("estimated at 0,5 to 1,5 million")? Arre 20:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The Lebanese government has never recognized it as an occupation, not even this latest "opposition" one. Yuber^(talk) 11:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Lebanese government was a puppet of the syrian occupation and is still under its thumb. John McW 13:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but then that just means they are not one of the "some" or the "many". But, sure, that should of course be pointed out somehow. I think there's an article specifically on the occupation of/Syr presence in Lebanon, and maybe that's a better place for all this linguistic fighting. Haven't looked at it, though, so I can't say for sure. Arre 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arre, I can't comment on the substantive issue in case I have to protect the page, but just talking about the source, I checked him out last night, and he's a regular academic in a university. His views could only be excluded under NPOV policy if they're tiny-minority views. If it's a majority or significant-minority view, it can't be excluded. Perhaps instead of deleting it, you could add a quote from another academic with an opposing view.

See answer to JmW above. An opposing view is already represented, I think, and I am not trying to delete the viewpoint. It is certainly not tiny-minority, I bet that a solid majority of Lebanese feel this way. But I do think it is too long, and, since it presents a viewpoint, it would be better to summarize it in a "some people say"-sentence with Habib as a clickable reference. Arre 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As for presence/occupation, "Syrian presence in Lebanon" gets 20,800 Google hits, Syrian occupation of Lebanon gets 22,200, and "Occupation of Lebanon" 104,000. I tried to argue elsewhere a few weeks ago that we should get rid of the word "occupation" entirely when discussing any that are disputed, particularly from titles, but the majority disagreed, arguing that the word is legitimately used in Wikipedia if commonly used elsewhere in relation to the particular situation. So the task here is to find out whether the word "occupied" was commonly used of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, and if it was, it shouldn't be deleted. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware that "Occupation of Lebanon" can also refer to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Yuber^(talk) 01:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

what a joke - google give's me well under a 1000 hits for "israeli occupation of lebanon" and they're mostly from syrian apologists like you. John McW 05:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are debating. The article now says something like "what has been referred to as a 'de facto'-occupation". Just link that to Syrian occupation of Lebanon and everybody should be happy. Although, when I take a closer look... that page doesn't really seem to be about the occupation at all. It's just a more poorly written version of the excellent Cedar Revolution article.Arre 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I linked it back to the sryian occupation of lebanon article but I'm sure yuber will revert me in a few seconds, it's all he seems to do. John McW 05:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I also linked it to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon article, but I removed the POV quote that doesn't belong in a general history section. I hope this will end the revert war. Yuber^(talk) 05:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

oh what a surprise, you reverted me in seconds - that's all you know how to do. look above, arre thinks the quote belongs too, and now you're using a different excuse, its always some new excuse, anything to make sure syria doesn't look bad. you're syrian, aren't you? John McW 05:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, arre said the quote shouldn't be put in, but instead just linked to in the sentence about the presence being controversial. Yuber^(talk) 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the latest version before reverting. Enough concessions have been made, and the part about one scholar calling it a colonization has also been included. More reverting will be taken as a sign of bad faith and unwillingness to compromise on articles. Yuber^(talk) 05:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

i looked at it and it is the same deletion of sourced information as before. you use any excuse to revert the information out. it is you who is reverting in "bad faith" and "unwillingness to compromise", because you cant stand to have anything negative about syria in an article. you are syrian, aren't you? John McW 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The quote doesn't belong in a general history section, so I don't see what's so hard to understand about it. The fact that a scholar calls it a colonization has been mentioned. You really need to learn how to compromise because you haven't changed one thing on your version since you started this edit war last week. I and other editors, on the other hand, have incorporated much of your version into the article, but you still revert to your own version.Yuber^(talk) 05:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

just because you say it doesn't belong doesn't mean it doesn't belong, and i have continually made changes to the version, of the paragraph, but the only thing you do is revert the two sourced quotes. you can pretend all you like yuber, but youre really obvious. go apologize for syria's actions on your own personal website. John McW 05:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please show me a wikipedia article about a country that has quotes in the history section. Yuber^(talk) 05:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

first you show me the rule that says articles can't have quotes with sources in their history section. show me the rule that says you can revert everything I do. i dont think syrians should be allowed to edit articles about syria if they can't be honest about what syria has done. John McW 15:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't reverted everything you've done. There were at least 5 articles I disagreed with you on and now there's only one and you can't accept the compromise. Do you want me to change the other articles as well?Yuber^(talk) 21:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"compromise" does not mean putting in your unsourced defense of syria. are you threatening to start reverting all other articles too? I'm not surprised thats what you do best. John McW 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Among other things, I just made some changes to the "workers" part, including restoring the "at least 1 million" to "about 1 million", since there has been no source forthcoming to prove that the estimates below 1 million are false. I also added a reference to the Demographics of Lebanon article, which I've just made a big overhaul of, to include among other things the Syrian workers. Finally, I removed the part about the end of Syrian occupation from the paragraph about the workers, since that is better covered in the "Events after 2005" chapter. I don't think you'll have any problems with this, but considering the heated debate above, I just wanted to let everybody know my motives. Arre 06:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

and now i did some more, after someone removed the disputed quote. i agree that it should go (since it is more source and publishing company information than actual quote), but kept the spirit of it, and also added some more both on the syrian involvement in lebanon and on the worker issue. if this is not okay, let me know. but i can't see how it wouldn't be. Arre 05:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

author

how the heck do u find out who made this page i got a project due and i need that information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hariri assassination

The article claims that the UN Security Council took the view that Syria was responsible for this. I don't believe that this is the case, and the link pointed to certainly doesn't confirm it. Would someone care to either fix this or provide a source? Palmiro | Talk 18:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you're right. I fixed it. Arre 22:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oldest city

About a recent edit: I don't think there's any consensus on which city is older, Damascus or Aleppo. Also, Jericho and possibly some other still-existing cities in the area claim the title. Arre 01:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

• I've cut down on external links in line with WP:EL. Most were spam in any case. Astrotrain 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge economy section with 'Economy of Syria'

I propose merging the economy section of this article with Economy of Syria.

I don't have any opinion regarding in which direction this should take place. At this time, the Economy section of Syria is better fleshed out than Economy of Syria, although the latter is an older article.

Ideally, either the entire material should be under Syria, or there should just be a very short introduction to the economy under Syria and the bulk of material should be under Economy of Syria.

Please discuss as to how this should be handled. --Splitpeasoup 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These articles should definitely not be completely merged - every other country as far as I know (I have reviewed over 100 of these) has a short Economy section in the country article, linked to a main article called "Economy of XXXX". What needs to be done is to move most of the content from the Syria page onto the more specialised page, and rewrite a summary of this in about three paragraphs for section on the Syria page. Walkerma 03:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto

The english Syria article states, that Syria has no (national) motto. However, one of the user on Slovak Wikipedia, who claims to by Syrian, also claims that Syria has a national motto, quoting: "Umatun Arabijatun Wahida Zatu Risalatin Chalida". Could anyone confirm (and please write it out in Arabic) or deny this information, please? --AtonX 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The above motto is true and it's not "Umatun Arabijatun Wahida Zatu Risalatin Chalida", it's "Umatun Arabiyatun Wahida Zatu Risalatin Khalida" in Arabic "أُمَّةٌ عربيَّةٌ واحِدَة ذاتُ رِاسالةٍ خالِدَة" ! --Hasan.Z 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a Baath Party slogan. I don't know whether it is also an official slogan of the Syrian state; mostly it's to be seen on party buildings and other official edifices. It means "one Arab nation, with an eternal mission". Palmiro | Talk 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know well if it's really a motto for Baath Party coz it's not mentioned here Baath_party and the Baath Party motto is "wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya"! BTW: who's messing here? I see alot of changes and deletion!

I Asked today someone who knows well, and I've been told it's the Baath_Party's motto and we can consider it as a local motto as it's the leading party in Syria.

Vandalism

Someone has inserted huge spaces and stuck in a bunch of "his, but I have no idea how to set it back to the original. ByrdMeln 01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese and Syrian Christians are Aramaeans/Assyrians aka Syriacs not Arabs.

Just a clarification. Yes some may have some Arab anscestory yet most are just Arabized and not actually ethnic Arabs just as with everyone else outside of Sa`oudiya that has been Arabized. You actually think that Arabs just whiped everyone else out? سرجون يوخنا סרגון יוחנא

> I beg to differ on many facts released here, Bedouin in the Syrian desert, Jordan, Palestine are mostly Arabs from Arabic origins. While it is true there are number of Christian Syrians whose background is not Arabic, yes that has been already discussed in the history of Syria and its name.

Comment on ethnicity.

What practical difference does it make if someone is rather Arabized than 100 % genetically originating from the Arabian peninsula ? What matters is what the individual feels affiliated with.

What is this stupid, ignorant obsession with a people's ethnic origins ? This is pure and simple 19th-century, Blut und Bodem racist ideology ... Zionism and the state of Israel is wholly based on it.

GA Reassessment

Syria

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearly meets criteria as it contains adequate and current information and is neutral. It contains present information such as the population and has many citations with none that I saw that had original research. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure this ever was a real GA article .... looking at Talk:Syria/GA1 this clearly wouldn't fly today and I'm not sure how it passed in this manner years ago. Moxy🍁 00:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not, that GAN failed. Feedoxm, I believe you meant to nominate at GAN, but I would suggest against it. This is a quickfail due to large chunks of uncited text. CMD (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2025

Please change the word "fal" to "fall" at the end of the 4th paragraph. It reads as "the fal of Assad's regime." when it should read as "the fall of Assad's regime." 2601:249:9580:3EB6:BC3B:9837:9DAB:3AA (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Already done M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2025 (2)

The anthem for Syria is outdated. 2403:580A:2E39:0:B55D:B5A1:F031:28A4 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 28 January 2025 New coat of arms

Description of suggested change: The current coat of arms shown in the syrian wikipedia seems to be wrong, currently the new government uses a different but similar coat of flag seen below.

• 
  Syria ministry of education with the new coat of arms
• 
  What it should be

Srouces: sana.sy, syrian government websites

 Not done: Please sign a signature with four tildes. I'm also very confused as you said that the hawk on the left needs to flipped right, but when I went to the source it shows a left head. You may request again on a new section once everything is settled. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

This is already fixed. Thanks. This talk can now be closed AbdullahAlhariri0 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

well the new coat of arms had a changed font and a less golden color, but the image is low in quality Invisious (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Syria_(2024%E2%80%93present)_variation_media.svg#file Invisious (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Coat of arms

This is the new Official coat of arms of Syria, as it is displayed in every post and update.

The New Syrian Coat Of Arms

Invisious (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove the claim on Hatay province from the top of the page as the new government doesn't support it

Syrian Interior Ministry has published a map of Syria without a claim on Hatay. That’s clearly the new policy of the government. It shows that the old administration’s claim has been dropped. I don't believe that we should wait for some kind of a declaration to make it known because obviously this is a topic that they won't even take serious enough to make a statement. So I think that there is no meaning to put it on the top of the page. Until they make a statement on contrary (if ever), Wikipedia should reflect current realities rather than outdated historical positions. Without clear confirmation from the current leadership, maintaining the claim introduces bias and contradicts Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. There is no recent declaration or policy statement from Syria’s leadership supporting the Hatay claim, making it inaccurate to present it as an active territorial dispute. Therefore, I repeat my proposal for removing this claim unless there is verifiable, up-to-date evidence to support its inclusion. The existing mention in the international disputes section provides sufficient context, making further emphasis unnecessary. And we should also change the map according to that new reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E3.akpinar (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

https://x.com/aleamaliaat_ale/status/1889332421079757304?t=kHQaX9IazCCNNDNX2J9Hiw&s=19

proof that the new syrian government doesn't recognize hatay as their land Invisious (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@E3.akpinar I removed this despite the hidden comment saying not to do so until the current government has denounced it because:

1) that light green area is too small to see on that map anyway

2) the map is just to show the location of the country not its extent Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh I don’t need new glasses - I could not see it because it has already been removed from the map! Chidgk1 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Change the COA

Hi wikis, please change the Coats of Arms of Syria to this (File:Coat of arms of Syria (2024–present).svg) the coats of arms appears on the Syrian prime minister's website (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

On the anthem

Change "Anthem: Homat ad-Diyar" to "Anthem: Fī Sabīli al-Majd (de facto)", citing sources such as online materials published by the Syrian Football Association (Posts on Instagram) Littau Eric (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

National Anthem Inquiry

Hi Wikis, I would like to thank the person who added the temporary national anthem. However, there are 2 things I would like to mention:

1. There is a misspelling in the temporary national anthem, the word الاخرى does not exist in the anthem, please change it to والاوطان.

2. The Former national anthem, Guardians of the homeland, is not used anymore and it is related to the previous regime, therefore it should be removed.

Thanks :) Invisious (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone has completed the request. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

Remove a single word from the title of Syria's secondary and temporary anthem as added in this revision. The title should be changed from:

فِي سَبِيلِ المجدالأخرى

to:

فِي سَبِيلِ المجد

The word الأخرى means "the other" and is not part of the actual anthem. It seems to have been copied into the title by accident. I welcome letting an arabic speaking extended-confirmed editor review this request to ensure than no other mistake is made during the change. DE1012 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, is it possible if you can add the audio for the temporary national anthem? That would be great Invisious (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2025 (2)

For the languages section, if you want to add Arabic dialects, then please consider adding the Mesopotamian dialect as well, which is spoken in the Syrian Jazeera, i.e. the governorates of Deirezzor, Raqqa, and Hasaka. Meaninglesscharacter (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 28 February 2025

Hi, please change this coat of arms in this article to (File:Coat of arms of Syria (2024–present).svg) ,in the website of the prime minister is the same coat of arms of Syria.AbchyZa22 22:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the footnote? M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:Ah yes i see ,so close my request please i withdrawn (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Since this isn't a proper edit request, there is no need to close it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@AbchyZa22: FYI That is the Council of Ministers seal, not the unofficial Coa. The one in the article (the current one) is widely used when compared to the Council or Ministers seal. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 23:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

population estimate

Update population estimate for 2025 in the country infobox Source: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/syria-population/ Hasancelikbilek35 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2025

There are instances where the Wikipedia article describes the civil war as "Ongoing" when in reality the civil war has ended. I want to edit those changes and make this page up to date Yymmrt (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 12 March 2025

Description of suggested change:

Correcting a typo in "Rise and fall of Isamic State,"

Diff:

−

==== Rise and fall of Isamic State, intervention of foreign countries and creation of several rebel factions ====

+

==== Rise and fall of Islamic State, intervention of foreign countries and creation of several rebel factions ====

Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've fixed the typo. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Np! Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC over on Talk:Syrian Civil War

Just advertising a request-for-comment over at Talk:Syrian Civil War#Syrian Civil War’s End? If you want, you can add your opinion. GN22 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2025

With the constitutional declaration, the flag is now de jure.

“ Article 6 • The national flag shall be as follows: • A rectangular flag with a length two-thirds its width. • It consists of three equal horizontal stripes: green at the top, white in the middle, and black at the bottom. • The middle white stripe contains three red stars at its center.”

Please remove the “de jure” classification and adjust the ratio of the flag. Thank you. Meaninglesscharacter (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Article 5 of this draft of the constitution says that the proportions are 1:2. Something must be wrong here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

as based on the official draft it should be 2:3 Invisious (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

where is this official draft? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done - thank you for your request! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen The official draft was first published on the official Syrian Presidency X account, and has since been republished by many publications such as Aljazeera, where article 6 states that:

“ The Syrian flag is as follows:

The flag extends in the shape of a rectangle where its length is two-thirds of its width.

It consists of three equal horizontal stripes: green at the top, white in the middle, and black at the bottom.

In the center of the flag, within the white stripe, there are three red stars.

”

92.119.63.212 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, this constitution is not just a draft; it has been officially in effect since March 13. @Freedoxm, please review this matter and revert any edits related to the "relinquishing" of the 2:3 variant. – 92.119.63.212 (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do not ping me if I am not relevant with the discussion. Article 5 of the constitutional declaration states that the 1:2 version is the primary version. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, i'm going ahead and going to revert all 1:2s to 2:3s. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 18:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Where's your source? 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Syria#Ba'athist Syria (1963–2024)

Do we really need that section here in this article? shouldn't it be moved to Ba'athist Syria if it isn't there already? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2025

can i edit thisthing? 2025is2050 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aintabli (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

No, the article is protected. You can edit it when your account becomes extended-confirmed. Meanwhile, you can post edit requests here with clear instructions, citing a reliable source if needed. Aintabli (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Prime minister

@HurricaneEdgar the source you cited says "The new government will not have a prime minister, as Syria will adopt a presidential system" (emphasis mine); That's nothing official yet, Bashir is still pm and there is no news about him being suspended. It's all theoretical stuff 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Syria has already adopted the Interim Constitution, which I read in the translated English version. Since then, Syria has adopted a presidential system, similar to the Philippines and the United States. This has allowed Ahmed al-Sharaa to form a new government. Additionally, the position of vice president is mentioned in the Interim Constitution, although the president does not appoint it. HurricaneEdgar 17:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That's cool and all but that doesn't represent what's happening on the ground right now. A prime minister is still there, even tho its unconstitutional or sum 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Why does the Interim Constitution not mention the Prime Minister, even though it states that the President can appoint ministers? If the President has the power to appoint ministers, it becomes a presidential system. HurricaneEdgar 18:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @FCBWanderer, who was also involved in disrupting the Prime Minister. HurricaneEdgar 18:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Article 35.1. of the new Constitution: "The President of the Republic appoints ministers, dismisses them from their posts, and accepts their resignations." There is not Prime Minister anymore. Al-Bashir government mandate was meant to end anyway on 1 March 2025, it was extended until the drafting of the Constitution. FCBWanderer (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

That's all de jure stuff. There is not a single headline talking about Bashir no longer being in govt 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

So, should the headline be about Al-Bashir needing to be in the news because of this? Hello, the president now holds authority. If we need to change the government to include a prime minister, Syria should become a parliamentary system. HurricaneEdgar 23:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Apart from you doing nothing to verify your claim, saying that "If we need to change the government to include a prime minister, Syria should become a parliamentary system." is complete bs. Yemen has both a President and a PM but it is not a parliamentary republic 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 23:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@FCBWanderer:See , Mohammad al-Bashir was still referred to as Prime Minister after 13 March.

@Mike Rohsopht: Thank you for providing the link. Since I was clear, I will revert all the edits I made. HurricaneEdgar 08:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@FCBWanderer: @Mike Rohsopht: The second transitional cabinet has shown that al-Bashir was moved to the post of Minister of Energy, not Prime Minister anymore...

Edit request 24 March 2025

Description of suggested change: Fix link on top

Diff:

−

<div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">"Syrian Arab Republic" redirects here. For other uses, see [[:Syrian Republic]] and [[:Syria (disambiguation)]].</div>

+

<div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">"Syrian Arab Republic" redirects here. For other uses, see [[:Syrian Republics]] and [[:Syria (disambiguation)]].</div>

Hassan697 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: not a typo, you shouldn't have done the undiscussed move 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2025

§ Government and politics > Post-Ba'athist Syria Change "led by Mohammed al-Bashir has been formed to govern the country." to "led by Ahmed al-Sharaa has been formed to govern the country." Al-Bashir was Prime Minister in the first transitional government, whereas he was named Minister of Energy in the second. The second transitional government was established under the interim constitution, that sets a presidential system with the executive power at the hands of the president who appoints the ministers, without the position of prime minister. DJB008 (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - Bashir was still at some point, the last PM of Syria. Other than that, I don't see why it should be changed. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 17:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph is in the present tense. The sentence starts with "Syria is currently undergoing...". The current Syrian government (led by al-Sharaa) does not have a prime minister, making the sentence inaccurate / anachronic. Up to you... DJB008 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2025

Change the English translation of "Fi sabil al majd" to, "For the sake of glory", as that is the correct translation. 83.248.254.133 (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Its basically he said, she said, etc. Please provide a source. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2025

The article states that Syria is still affected by USA's and EU's embargoes. 178.173.219.77 (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Extremely incorrect mistake in the infobox

The info box counts Alawites as apart of the shias, and yet they are completely distinct beliefs that have little to nothing to do with each other.

This isn’t any sort of political statement, it’s true. Google it, neither sides claim to be as apart of each other. 88.238.37.182 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Religion in Syria

It says in this page that the Christianity in Syria is 2.52-3.84% of population, and that is literally impossible because Christians in Syria constituted at least 12% of the population before the war and then during the war, most people who immigrated and were displayed were Muslims and Suunis specifically, so the Christian population must still be around the same like before the war. It is misleading to say that an ancient community in Syria, who built this country is that small and outnumbered. I definitely recommend changing this information considering another resource. Even the Muslim percentage is way too high. There is a lot of atheists and agnostics in the country. In addition to shia and Ismailis and Alawites. Check the Religion in Syria page and sources used there. Sami.vahit (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 emblem has not been adopted yet

The emblem revelaed tonight has not yet been made official and is not in public use besides that one single instance at the presentation by the president. It is jumping the gun to immediately include it as the de facto or official emblem of Syria. Avenflight (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

it is the official emblem, all govermental institutions have adopted it as well as that it had an official ceremony so i don't see why you wouldn't think that it is the official emblem and if they do change it then we can change it again. 31.9.154.92 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The IP was correct — even the newly established official Twitter account has already been updated, and some sources have confirmed that this is the new emblem. So, there's no need for further discussion unless another update is made. HurricaneEdgar 07:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, put simply, it isnt passed into law. It was only revealed. I'm not sure a twitter account updating a profile image constitutes a full transition of government symbolism. I'm all for including the emblem as the likely new one in the article but until we have concrete information on the final form (whether they'll be using the 2D logo or the 3D image for instance) as well as seeing wider use, it might be more responsible of us to keep the current de facto emblem. But like i said, it feels like we're jumping the gun in our excitement at the prospect of a new emblem. Avenflight (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I would also add that Wikipedia often puts much greater demands on use before it makes changes. Take the "Czechia debate". The name has been official for nearly a decade now but Wikipedia wants it to be majority used before it adopts it. I'd say waiting for the emblem here to at least be enshrined in law before changing the official image isn't that much of an ask in this comparison. Avenflight (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

emblem or coat of arms?

whats the difference? Invisious (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

A read of the respective articles would explain it to you + Why did you change it if you don't know what the difference is in the first place? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The emblem of Syria does not meet any criteria for being a COA. Aside from that, consensus agreed on "emblem", not "coat of arms". Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2025

Audio file was added to the defacto anthem page. It should probably be added to the main syria page. Ebedit (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: You'll need to fix the licensing first 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2025

President in Table should be “Interim President” given Ahmad Al Sharaa was not elected by the people under current Syrian Constitution. 2001:4479:2B02:3500:DCA8:94BC:FB3A:A634 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Ahmed al-Sharaa's article does not describe him as an interim president. Skitash (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2025

In the section entitled 'Rebel offensive and fall of the Ba'athist regime', second paragraph:

Change "Brigader General Hossam Louka" to "Brigadier General Hossam Louka".

This is a simple typo- the source cited confirms he was a Brigadier. Saiga Antelope (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've fixed the typo. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2025

In the section on the autonomous administration in the northeast, the name should be updated from the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) to the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) following its official name change. Antimatte (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The polity goes by many names, particularly by the YPG[1], which may be where the confusion comes from, but the name on the emblem[2] and in the Social Contract[3] is the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. From all documents I can find, bar a few government websites which don't appear to have been updated past 2023, DAANES is the de jure and de facto the name of the administration.

[1]

https://www.clingendael.org/pub/2021/the-ypgpyd-during-the-syrian-conflict/2-strategies-of-dominance-and-governance/

[2] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_the_Democratic_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria.svg#mw-jump-to-license

[3]

https://rojavainformationcenter.org/2023/12/aanes-social-contract-2023-edition/ Antimatte (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2025

add {{confuse}}, which produces

Not to be confused with Assyria.

AquilatorG10   Talk   Contribs  14:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2025

We need to change the spelling of this article to a more uniform dialect spelling, as this article uses inconsistent British and American spellings. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:4CF0:420F:FEE1:461A (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: It's unclear what specific changes the IP is requesting. Please pinpoint exactly what changes you're seeking. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 5 October 2025

Description of suggested change: In the infobox under the "Official languages" entry, change the title of citation 3 from "Archived copy" to "Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic". Also, add the parameter | site=Constitutionnet to the same citation.

Diff:

−

<ref>{{Cite web | title=Archived copy | url=https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025.03.13%20-%20Constitutional%20declaration%20%28English%29.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250318030710/https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025.03.13%20-%20Constitutional%20declaration%20%28English%29.pdf | archive-date=2025-03-18}} {{Title missing|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}</ref>

+

<ref>{{Cite web | title=Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic | url=https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025.03.13%20-%20Constitutional%20declaration%20%28English%29.pdf | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250318030710/https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025.03.13%20-%20Constitutional%20declaration%20%28English%29.pdf | archive-date=2025-03-18 | site=Constitutionnet}}</ref>

The Hurdy Gurdy Man (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 00:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

date format, but not calendar

it’s great that the date format is shown; but do they use the Gregorian calendar, or the Arabic / Hijri calendar? 90.251.77.69 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

National Anthem

Do we have further information on which national anthem(s) were used over the past year? While the de facto usage of Fī Sabīli al-Majd is attested to in the January source, is there any evidence that it has seen continued de facto usage? If not, the de facto status of the anthem may no longer be relevant. Platttenbau (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vladimir Putin and Ahmed al-Sharaa (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2025

Dear Editor,

The new Syrian Government had declared the new Syrian anthem. Please update the article content to point to the new anthem.

Please find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM2OO5Lpa4Q

Thanks.

Kind regards, Ahmedeissa2 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a reliable source to support this change. YouTube is not a reliable source outside of some specific circumstances. An article from a reputable news source or a press release from the Syrian government would be sufficient. Aston305 (complain/compliment) 16:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2025 (2)

Change percentage of Christianity from 3.84% to 10% which reflects the percentage before the war… most displaced Syrian people and refugees of the war were Muslims therefore its not logical that percentage of Christians declined and its misleading to say they are at only 3.84%. They are potentially higher in percentage compared to pre-war era! ~2025-39918-39 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aston305 (complain/compliment) 01:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2025

My request is to change the president because there's information wrong about the current Syrian president Wika900 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. IsCat (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed:

Add Kurdish as an official language

• Why it should be changed:

A new presidential decree recognized Kurdish as a national language.

(sorry if the formatting is off I'm new to this) Kaislash (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Already done Already added to the infobox as a recognized national language. Day Creature (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2026

Change the "Official languages" from "Arabic" to "Arabic and Kurdish", based on the Decree no. 13 issued by The President Ahmad Al-Sharaa on Jan 16, 2026. ~2026-34739-1 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Already done Already added to the infobox as a recognized national language. Day Creature (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Kurdish on the infobox?

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

---

Should Kurdish remain displayed on the infobox, since it is a national language now? Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 15:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

IMO, yes—under recognised languages, but not at the top of the infobox. The reference to Komara Erebî ya Sûriyê (Kurdish) should not be included there because the Constitutional Declaration clearly states that Arabic is the official language. Kurdish is only a recognised national language, not an official one. This may change once President al-Sharaa’s government drafts a new constitution to revise the current Constitutional Declaration, which is expected to be in force four years before the election. Also, the decree that al-Sharaa signed himself was in Arabic, and the state itself operates in Arabic. See, e.g, the Philippines and Vietnam, where only the official language is shown at the top of the infobox. HurricaneEdgar 15:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar See Portugal and Israel, which non-official languages (Mirandanese and Arabic) are on the top of the infobox. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

It should discuss the use of non-official languages, because the argument is really an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While comparisons are not necessarily bad, I think this issue needs a deeper discussion. HurricaneEdgar 23:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of other examples of countries having other national languages than the sole official one, but not being put in the infobox. I don't know why we're discussing Portugal and Israel only. For instance, the only official language of Angola is Portuguese, although the country has other national languages, the infobox is only in Portuguese, and that's just one example. Indiana3877 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The question is not clear, it should be “should the Kurdish name of the country remain on the top of the infobox?”

And No, it shouldn’t since it’s only a recognized language not an official one, the name shall only be in Arabic since it’s the official language

the decree is clear and a recognized language name is never shown in the infobox, in case of Iraq, Kurdish was made an official language it’s even displayed on the passport, this isn’t the case for Syria Prosnu (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Prosnu: it’s only a recognized language not an official one, the name shall only be in Arabic since it’s the official language It's a national language, not just a recognized language. recognized language name is never shown in the infobox See Portugal, one recognized language is on top of the infobox. I'm going to ask you to revert your edit due to the WP:1RR restriction. Until then, Kurdish should be displayed (as there isn't a unanimous disagreement yet). Lastly, why did you remove the hidden notes? Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

i disagree its a recognised national language, Israel's name is listed in arabic, montenegro lists its recognised languages, Gorgonopsi (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gorgonopsi: See here, article 3. "The Kurdish language is considered a national language and is permitted to be taught in public and private schools in areas where Kurds constitute a significant percentage of the population, as part of the elective curriculum or as a cultural and educational activity." You cannot "disagree" a consideration that has been made by such governments. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The constitution is paramount, and clearly states that Arabic, and it alone, is the official language of the state. The decree does not supersede it. Quetstar (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

and clearly states that Arabic, and it alone, is the official language of the state. Have I ever said that Kurdish was official? I've also never said that decree 13 supersedes it, but it absolutely overlaps it. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

If the discussion is not archived, you can start a WP:RFC. However, before doing so, please read WP:RFCBEFORE. HurricaneEdgar 01:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @FossilDS, @Quetstar, @Thegunkid due to involvement. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2026

Remove "has" in "Ba'ath Party rule has brought about renewed censorship." as it implies Ba'ath rule still remains. Beach telescope sand gazer (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done: I've removed "had". Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2026

Change the end of the info box events too:

established_event7     = Beginning of Ba'athist rule
established_date7      = 8 March 1963
established_event8     = Syrian Civil war
established_date8      = 15 March 2011 – 8 December 2024
established_event9     = Ba'athist regime overthrown
established_date9      = 8 December 2024

The current infobox gives undue weight to recent events. ManU9827 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done - There's little to no reason to remove information related to the founding of the current government, and I don't find the infobox to be too slanted towards recent events. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There are 2 very similar entries about the current government and both are describing interim instituions, it is obviously slanted towards recent events. ManU9827 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

in that case, Partially  Done, but I'm retaining one of them because there's no reason to dispose of all recent events. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

These requested edits feel unnecessarily long. Do we really need the civil war in the info box,for example? IMO it should be a bit more compact and we could condense into Ba’athist Syria (whether the Neo-Ba’athists need distinguishing, I’m not sure) then the date of the new provisional government. Yr Enw (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @NeoSyria and others potentially watching this thread. The present section in the infobox seems excessively long. Does anyone object to my removing the civil war dates and potentially also the date of Ba'athist overthrow? The latter is implied by the transitional government date after it. Yr Enw (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Yr Enw I don't object to it as I believe it's fine. Feel free to do the change. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Turkish on the infobox

. North Yemen (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done - Turkish isn't recognized by the government of Syria. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2026

Remove the kurdish name of the counrty when not selected. ~2026-13668-96 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request.

I can’t really tell what you are asking for, but either way it seems like something that can’t be considered uncontroversial. Happy editing. Slomo666 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done - see RfC above. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Kurdish on the Infobox (RfC)

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

Having inspected all comments and !votes, including non-XC and collapsed content, and set aside non-XC contributions per WP:ECR, I find that there is consensus against B and C. There is no consensus in re A and D; the !vote-count is 6-5, but the D arguments are stronger. I recommend a more focused RfC between A and D wherein non-XC editor contributions are struck to better abide by WP:ECR. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

---

I'm starting an RFC due to a suggestion from a fellow editor.

Which one should be implemented?

1. Kurdish is displayed on both the top and the recognized national languages section of the infobox (initial status quo)
2. Kurdish is not displayed on any part of the infobox.
3. Kurdish is displayed on the top of the infobox, but is not displayed on the recognized national languages section of the infobox.
4. Kurdish is displayed on the recognized national languages section of the infobox, but is not displayed on the top of the infobox.

This is separate from the efn(s) at the lede of the article, which displays Kurdish alongside Arabic. Any result will not affect the efns.

Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended content

Kurdish is not an official language in the Syrian Arab Republic; therefore, it cannot be placed in the same category as Arabic.

Kurdish is not an official language; therefore, It cannot be used as the native name. SyrianConan (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Arabic and Kurdish clearly don't have the same status in Syria, both legally and demographically, they shouldn't be in the same category, especially since Syria does not issue documents with both languages on them. If there are questions regarding the status of Arabic and Kurdish in Syria, would should take a look at the new series of banknotes of the Syrian pound, Kurdish is not on them, and this is just one example. Indiana3877 (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The presidential decree clearly states that Kurdish is recognized as a national language, but not as an official one. Therefore, option D is the only correct option. This is a factual matter, not a matter of subjective opinions. Chekh77 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It obviously should be B, why don't we see this in turkiye's page? ~2026-13668-96 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Because Turkey hasn't recognized the Kurdish language, and Syria already did. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

A, maybe D, per other comments regarding explicit government recognition. JGHFunRun (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• 
  A (initial status quo)
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

---

Relevant comments

• (summoned by SodiumBot). What do independent secondary sources have to say about this? What I usually say in infobox RfCs is that infoboxes are for simple facts that can be consumed at-a-glance, and are not the place to put anything that requires a lot of context, nuance or explanation, because there isn't room for it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• I'd say keep the kurdish, I think the kurds deserve recognition and Israel still has arabic listed, so I would say A Gorgonopsi (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• Do we have any sources either way?Moxy🍁 22:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Moxy: here Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20260116-syria-sharaa-declares-kurdish-national-language-following-clashes

  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/17/syria-decree-grants-kurds-new-rights-formally-recognising-kurdish-language

  https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/syrias-sharaa-grants-kurdish-syrians-citizenship-language-rights-first-time-sana-2026-01-16/

  https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/01/syrias-sharaa-declares-kurdish-national-language-recognizes-nowruz

  ANADOLU AGENCY 3801841 (see WP:AAPOLITICS; non-reliable; link removed)

  TRT WORLD ae758c825086 (see WP:TRT; non-reliable for interests of the Turkish government; link removed)

  https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/887764/kurdish-language-to-be-added-to-syrian-public-school-curriculum Gorgonopsi (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260116-syrian-president-declares-kurdish-a-national-language

  https://www.khaama.com/syria-recognises-kurdish-rights-and-approves-kurdish-as-national-language/ Gorgonopsi (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Please cross out TRT world per WP:TRT, it is flagged as pro-Syrian government and is not a WP:RS. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• I would go with D (Kurdish not displayed on the top of the infobox) but not at all with A or C, it's not a national or official language just a recognized language for a minority Prosnu (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  it's not a national or official language just a recognized language for a minority It is a national language according to SANA (Syria's official news broadcasting network) and Al Jazeera Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think A is the best. MarketFruit (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• for me D is better Hruu99 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• i think A should be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-63092-6 (talk)
• I fully support A—the word "official" is not used but Decree No. 13 does formally recognize Kurdish as a national language and affirms the Kurdish people as an essential part of the Syrian nation. Seems official enough at the moment, we will find the true answer in likely about five years when Syria transitions to a permanent constitution (which I hope will include Kurdish as official and will recognize other minority languages as well). Ihavetoentermyusername (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

B ~2025-35158-80 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-35158-80: Do you have a logical explanation against displaying the Kurdish language? ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• I support adding Kurdish into the infobox, because it is the reality. A PLMandarynka (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option A because as a national language the name of the country should be written in it Chidgk1 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• I'd personally go with option A. It seems a lot more fitting to put both the Kurdish language's status as a recognized language and the official name's Kurdish translation into the page rather than putting only one out of the two. Caltine (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• For now, until the status of the Kurdish language (and other minority languages) in the constitution is clarified, the best option to display is option B. Even if the constitution recognizes Kurdish and other minority languages ​​as national languages, it would still be better to only include the official/state language at the top of the information box, as in Angola. Atsuner (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Recognized" and "Official" languages are not the same. Kurdish is explicitly recognized by the Syrian constitution, and that is what is being stated. JGHFunRun (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  @JGHFunRun: I don't see your point here- It was recognized by Decree 13 of 2026, not by the Constitutional Declaration. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  My bad, I misspoke, I still feel the point stands, that it is explicitly "recognized" regardless of officiality. Thanks for the correction. JGHFunRun (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• option B option D. In Armenia, several languages ​​are also recognized as minority languages ​​by the government, including Russian, Assyrian, Greek, and Kurdish/Yezidi, but in the Armenia information box at the top of the box, the country's name is written only in Armenian.--Mtnze (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Mtnze but in the Armenia information box at the top of the box, the country's name is written only in Armenian I don't see how you would pick B, which removes any regard for Kurdish on the infobox, even on the recognized national languages section (per image B), considering that Armenia does list its recognized languages via a collapsible list. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 14:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right. I corrected it and chose option D. Mtnze (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• I support option A; Kurdish is the second most spoken language in Syria, and officially a national language. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option D. If we look at the Syrian presidential decree, according to the same decree, the Kurdish language has been introduced as one of the national languages ​​of Syria. In the future, other languages ​​such as Turkish, Assyrian and Armenian may also be added to the recognized national languages. But the status of these languages ​​is not the same as the Arabic language. The Arabic language is the official and comprehensive language. Kgb2122 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• I support option D. It is in accordance with long term Wikipedia style used in infobox style. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option D. 1) It is more consistent with the general usage on Wikipedia. 2) There are many other languages ​​and dialects spoken in Syria, and many more languages ​​may be added to the list of recognized languages ​​in the future. A recognized language and an official language are two different concepts. A recognized language does not have the same status as an official language. Vuzorg (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  A recognized language does not have the same status as an official language. See this article published by the state; It clearly says that Kurdish is under a "recognized national status"; its status is definitely higher than a "recognized language", and it's not just at a recognized status. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  In Syria, Arabic is the only language defined by the constitution as the official language of the state. “Recognized national status” is not the same thing as “official language.”

  An official language has a specific legal meaning. It is the language used in legislation, government institutions, courts, and national administration. A recognized language may be protected, promoted, or acknowledged culturally, but that does not automatically give it equal constitutional standing. Chekh77 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've never said that Kurdish shares equal status with Arabic; If you think I think they're in equal status, then I would've listed Kurdish as official, even if the decree didn't say it was. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  The issue isn’t whether you personally think Kurdish is equal to Arabic. The issue is how Wikipedia categorizes languages at the state level.

  In Syria, Arabic is the only constitutionally defined official language. If Kurdish is not legally defined as an official language, then it shouldn’t appear in the infobox section reserved for official languages, regardless of whether it has “recognized national status.”

  Recognition and official status are different legal categories. The infobox reflects constitutional status, not degrees of recognition. Chekh77 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Still insufficient @NeoSyria. The Article 3 states nothing related to being higher than a recognized language. It does not refer to anything nationwide, it does not refer to any official language, it does not refer to a mandatory use of the language. It refers to the optional use of the language in educational activities. So it refers to something entirely different from being an official language or being higher than a national language. Vuzorg (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• D per Vuzorg's and other relevant comments above. It's not on the same level as Arabic, and so A is WP:UNDUE. Moreover, the country's official self-designation and its spelling etc. in a recognized language needs to be properly sourced; unless a reliable and relevant (preferably governmental) source uses such an official self-designation for the country, I don't think it can be kept per WP:VERIFY. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

   Done - for now; removed Kurdish on top of the infobox until final verdict per WP:UNDUE. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  SANA, Syrian State Media, now has a Kurdish edition, which they started publishing in August of 2025 using the Hawar alphabet, and writes the full name of Syria in Kurdish as Komara Erebî ya Sûrîyê. Thegunkid (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  The constitution states that Arabic is the official language. However, nothing in the constitution states that the use of the Kurdish language in Syrian documents, such as a presidential decree. As the decree states, “Kurdish is also recognized as a national language and is permitted to be taught in public and private schools in areas where Kurds constitute a significant percentage of the population.” This means that the use of that language is optional. HurricaneEdgar 17:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  The same site has English, Turkish, French, and Spanish editions. Aintabli (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  You specifically requested a Syrian government source for the official spelling of the full name of the country in Kurdish, SANA is operated by the Syrian Ministry of Infomation therefore I would assume that's authorative on the matter, with the Kurdish edition of SANA being specifically launched for domestic consumption. Thegunkid (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  My comment wasn't just about verifying that the name is used by the government. That link shows it is the conventional spelling per a source associated with the government, but it doesn't demonstrate anything else. Aintabli (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• D My position still stands. The Constitutional Declaration clearly states that Arabic is the official language. This may change once President al-Sharaa’s government drafts a new constitution to revise it, as the current declaration is expected to remain in force for four years before the election. The decree signed by al-Sharaa was in Arabic, and the state operates in Arabic. HurricaneEdgar 14:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Other comments

Can you please explain to me how exactly a presidential decree can override the Constitution? I'd like more insight on your perception of the hierarchy of normative legal acts, cheers! Indiana3877 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Indiana3877: See the discussion at Kurdish on the Infobox?. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Comment It’s a bit vague what a “recognised national language” is if it is not at the same time “official”. Arabic for Israel constitutes a “special status” (again, quite vague), but Portugal feels instructive here. The other commentator commenting on the precedence of a decree over the constitution is making an irrelevant point. We’re not constitutional lawyers here. Yr Enw (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The phrasing "national language" is indeed quite vague, I am personally inclined to think that it would be more sensible to wait for further clarification from the relevant Syrian authorities in whatever form that clarification may manifest itself (I.E. issuing bilingual documents and what not as a basic example, drawing a parallel to Israel here) before making an edit to the info box. Indiana3877 (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should we wait for anything from Syrian authorities. This goes against numerous policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, starting with Pillar 2, as Syria is obviously not a neutral party in what constitutes national languages in Syria, and has every reason to dissimulate about the question. Waiting for their statement would be the equivalent of asking the CEO of a company or the board of directors what they would like us to put in the biography of their CEO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a press release posting service. In this article, as for all articles at Wikipedia, we decide on appropriate content based on what the majority of independent, secondary, reliable sources say about a topic. Syrian authorities are neither independent, secondary, or reliable on this question. To be clear, you can use Syrian statements for what the official policy of the Syrian government is about official languages per WP:ABOUTSELF, but not for national language(s) beyond official designation. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Except this is not a subjective case, where input from several sources can change the dynamic of the topic at hand, it is about presenting the objective status quo to Wikipedia readers. Allow me to disagree with your CEO analogy, because only the internationally recognized Syrian state can define what status languages have within the borders of Syria, and as far as that's concerned, it's already been defined constitutionally and by a relevant presidential decree that complements the Constitution that Arabic is the sole official language of the Syrian Arab Republic, and Kurdish is recognized as a national language. Secondary sources cannot change the law, no matter how independent they may be. Syria is not a company, it is a sovereign state with an internationally recognized government. The Syrian state does not have to be a "neutral party" in what constitutes national languages in Syria, because it is the only body with the authority to define what status languages have. Indiana3877 (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not; but this is not the place to decide a question based on authority from a sovereign state, as it would affect every country. That kind of question should be decided at a broader venue, likely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, or possibly WP:VPP, otherwise you could end up with individual country Rfc's deciding it every which way, leading to an inconsistent mess. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It already is an inconsistent mess, and this change to Syria's infobox only adds to the inconsistency. If you want to compare this article to other Wikipedia articles, then you'll find that some countries, like Angola have only one official language, but other national languages, and their infobox contains only the name of the country in it's sole official language. Other countries, like Algeria are missing one of their official languages in their infobox. My suggestion was waiting for further clarification, clarification that we might see through official documents, passport covers for example etc. The new Syrian Pound banknotes, for example, contain only Arabic and English text. Indiana3877 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

See Portugal; Syria is absolutely not the only country-related article with a second language that is a recognized or national language. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, but there are other examples that display the contrary, such as Angola Indiana3877 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so that's why I started the RfC; This issue is contested in its whole. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, and as much as the phrasing "national language" leaves room for interpretation, I think the problem mainly lies in Wikipedia not having an adopted standard for the infoboxes of country-related articles. I'm personally in favour of the Angola approach, which is just my opinion. Indiana3877 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Consistency counts for something in article titling arguments, but for little or nothing in article content. What editors at Portugal do matters for Portugal, unless there is a guideline that covers them both. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, since what editors do should matter for each respective country, in that case, as I said, we should see how the situation in Syria evolves and to what degree Kurdish is used before making a change to the article. Indiana3877 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe you. I've seen this before in spades at Algeria, with editors clearly arguing their own, personal point of view over guideline and policy. It only quiesced when the main editor involved in pushing their own POV got indeffed. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC) (For something unrelated, I should hasten to add, lest I leave the wrong impression.) Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Freedoxm Comment: Since the status of the language is vague as of now, place Kurdish under a "Other languages" section, and then add an efn explaining the decree and national language situation. Seems to be a pretty good compromise, what do you think? TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I absolutely think it is a a good compromise, though I will keep Kurdish on the top of the infobox and on the lede efns for now, as the RfC and consensus is to determine the overall layout in the future. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  TeddyRoosevelt1912, if the status is vague, what do you think about just listing it under 'Other' in the Infobox, and *not* offering an efn and just letting it be vague there? Recall the lead sentence of the purpose of WP:Infobox:

  An infobox is a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject.

  By its nature, the infobox is not the place to explain subtle details. Listing it as 'Other' is enough for starters, and for people who come to the article to get the gist of the topic, and who read only the lead sentence or two and scan the Infobox, that may be all they need; they aren't going to follow an efn anyway. For the more serious reader who wants to know all about the language situation, they are going to delve deeper, and read the § Languages section, where the details are given, along with several citations. I see no particular reason to have to duplicate or augment this with efn's in the infobox. If it's vague, then let it be vague. That's just fine for an Infobox. Let them read on, if they really want to know. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Though I highly agree with your point; the most important part isn't about full information right now, it's rather about reaching consensus on the RfC. The "other languages" section is temporary and interim, and it will be discontinued (or replaced if applicable) after this RfC is closed. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  @TeddyRoosevelt1912: I've reverted your suggestion as it seems like there is a small dispute on whether it should be placed or called. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note to closer: the topic Kurds and Kurdistan is under ARBCOM Extended confirmed restriction, and imho !votes by non-ECR accounts on this Rfc must be disregarded. Just my opinion; please consult WP:ARBCOM for any needed clarification about this before closure. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note to closer: I believe this Rfc is tainted by multiple good-faith TPO violations by the OP, namely moving comments or votes by other users from one section to another, e.g., from 'Relevant comments' to 'Other comments'. I recently rolled back one instance of this, but the history is now too entangled to attempt to undo anything older. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  from 'Relevant comments' to 'Other comments'. I recently rolled back one instance of this, but the history is now too entangled to attempt to undo anything older They are sorted according to relevance, sources, and surveying (eg. a comment that isn't surveyed would have been moved back). I won't be attempting to do this more again (except for one case if they don't respond in a certain time). In contrast to what you believe, I highly disagree that this was WP:TPO, as I've refrained from editing even a single word from other's comments, but I did move them. Furthermore, I disagree that this was WP:BLUDGEONING as so were my previous comments. I will also refrain from commenting further on this RfC. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

And once more, in this collapse at 7:13, 4 Feb., of what might be intended as two votes by other editors. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe I am close to WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion, so I'll cease replying further. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

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