Syria was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
The article Syria, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Given the rapid fall of the Assad regime due to the recent offensives by the Syrian opposition, I think the Syrian Arab Republic should no longer be viewed as the nominal "official government" of Syria in spite of any international recognition. This would be in step with the developments on the page for Afghanistan circa 15 August 2021 and the resurgence of the Taliban. Ezpler12345 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it's probably worth changing the infobox to note the lack of government, and the argument for doing so is steadily increasing hour by hour. On a related topic I think it would be worth splitting off an article on the 1963–2024 Assad-led period of Syrian history (something like Ba'athist Syria)– as a follow-up to the existing Second Syrian Republic. Chessrat(talk, contributions)23:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm mainly using Afghanistan as a reference for this whole situation, since it also saw a rapid change in government in the recent past so I would definitely be in favor of creating a page for the 1963-2024 Ba'athist government following a change in the infobox. Ezpler12345 (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until it is CONFIRMED by a majority of news sources that Assad's government is considered to have 'fallen', we do not simply change the infobox willy nilly. Ba'athist Syria should be kept as a DRAFT until then, and the changes to the infobox MUST be reversed. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We really don't know what is going on right now besides that Damascus has likely fallen, and we especially have no idea what the successor government will be. Let's wait for those things to become more clear before we get ahead of ourselves. DecafPotato (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian Arab Republic has fallen, it is pretty obvious. I'd prefer to revert to the old version where it simply said Syria w/o a government section in the infobox. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support a no government infobox. Things are extremely fluid right now, and presenting any single government as 'Syria' would be inaccurate. CitrusHemlock03:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this. It is clear that the arab republic government is no longer in power to some sort but it is also unclear who is the continuation government-wise. No flag, and no government infobox seems to be a good option. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it seems likely at this point that a government with that flag will rule Syria, it should not be represented until that government clearly exists and has legitimacy. Until then, there is no clearly legitimate government with a flag in Syria, and thus none should be shown. Bismarx (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, how should it be done? Should they be replaced with placeholders? Or maybe adding an explanation on why there is no flag, or government where they would be? Or both? And how about the coat of arms? Zabezt (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Assad government has lost Damascus per media sources, so it would be inaccurate to display them as the de jure government of Syria for right now. I am in favor of a no-flag, no-official name solution as of right now. Ezpler12345 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted one edit (which was a single user's unilateral revert to the SAR-recognizing infobox) and otherwise only changed the flags or the official names. Also, I've been keeping an eye on the discussion but haven't been engaging to see if a consensus can form. Ezpler12345 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect these past 2 comments don't make sense now that I realize they were talking to TheTechnician instead of me. Whoops. (I'm not a very frequent Wiki user, so I apologize for the misunderstanding). Ezpler12345 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert one edit about half an hour ago right after the article got EP, but that should be the only one. Sorry, this is all kind of a cluster right now. 😅 And I guess it's going to be a cluster working on this now. TheTechnician27(Talk page)03:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was at first in favor of using both the SAR and Syrian opposition flag (which was my initial edit) until the edits became extremely volatile. I think that given how uncertain the situation is overall, there should not be any recognition of one de jure Syrian government until everything cools down. Ezpler12345 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page clearly displays the Syrian Arab Republic as the de jure government of Syria so something clearly went wrong. If this was an accident it's no big deal but almost every source has confirmed the fall of the SAR. Ezpler12345 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I completely agree with the fall of the SAR at this point; it's noted in multiple very reliable sources. If I reverted that after that initial one about half an hour ago (before e.g. the NYT and Reuters started covering it), I didn't mean to. TheTechnician27(Talk page)03:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I would like to request an edit from a permitted user to change the page in recognition of Syria's currently unresolved status when it comes to their de jure government (no flag, no CoA). Ezpler12345 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While remnants of the state known as the Syrian Arab Republic still exist, the government as a whole seems to have collapsed. As the opposition groups (SIG, HTS) do not acknowledge the SAR, and given that they control the vast majority of Syria it would be inaccurate to claim that the SAR is an extant state. Ezpler12345 (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: while the military apparatus supporting the state seems to have collapsed, elements of the government seem to still have some remaining influence given the PM's statement. Ezpler12345 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow how the Afghanistan article changed in 2021. Syrian Military Command has confirmed the surrend to the Free Syrian Transitional government. We should change with Reliable sources.
Personally I am in favor of displaying either the SAR and opposition flag or opposition and Salvation Government flag as joint flags, but I feel obliged to follow the consensus that has been reached over the past few hours. Ezpler12345 (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is how easy misinfo about flags can spread out of wikipedia due to people not knowing the context: This is a topic that we kinda need to specify quickly - the notion syria no longer has a flag can easily become "fact" due to it - I think it's best to display the flags of the factions. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just linking the Flag of Syria page would work as a stopgap, if we really should display something? It'd show that they have a flag while preserving the complicated status. 96dot (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source? the prime minister has conceeded to a caretaker and agreed to transition power, I see no way you can argue that the SAR is still in charge! WikiNerd202224 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new Syrian government's ministry of public media (essentially a ministry-wide spokesperson) has an official twitter account that is recently up and running again. In one tweet they refer to the state as the Syrian Arab Republic, to my surprise. It seems even they consider the name of the state to not have changed. I will provide a link to that tweet, in the original Arabic. I read Arabic, and I can confirm the tweet calls the Syrian state seemingly by its official name, the SAR.
Now the question is, how do we differentiate between the SAR post Assad and SAR during Assad?
I suggest we add the Green White Black flag as the Syrian Parliament, Embassies, Government buildings have been seen flying them. OR, we can follow the Afghanistan model and have both flags side by side for now GucciNuzayer (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the Syrian wikipedia page the coat of arms clearly shows in the eagle chest the revolutionary syrian flag, as so we can add the revolutionary flag because is the flag that is currently used, if syrian transitional government changes the flag then we can replace it with the current they are using. I wanted to ask if we add syrian flag we add or *(tap picture to see difference) Asd3131 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Syrian Arab Republic falls completely, what will we do with this article? (More specifically, the flag and coat of arms at the top of the infobox) Zabezt (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the "Syrian Arab Republic" thread for discussion on this. The current consensus among most editors is to have no flag, coat of arms or official name until the situation has settled down. Ezpler12345 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Temporarily [since no flag really applies currently], we should link to Flag of Syria until a more definitive agreement is reached. This should be similar to the Austro-Hungarian page, with a label just saying something like "(see: Flag of Syria)" above the map part of the infobox. 96dot (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best solution we have right now for the flag dillema. While there is no official government, the factions in the civil war serve as temporary caretakers now that the Assad regime has been deposed. The consensus on "no flags" is worrisome as people can spread misinformation about flags if theyre on Wikipedia, so the idea that syria has no flag at all now can easily be spread. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me05:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm personally unopposed to keeping multiple flags with your caption of 'Flags of factions in control of Syria'. While it fails to capture the SAR flag of the holdouts in Latakia and Tartus in the northwest, that doesn't seem like it's going to hold for long, and we could just as easily add the SAR flag back into that list of factions for a total of four flags until it collapses (or if it doesn't). It technically fails to capture ISIS too which has small pockets of control in the south–southeast, but that's really a nitpick due to how insignificant they currently are, and those are liable to quickly disappear as the power vacuum closes. Overall, I think this is essentially the best, most informative way we can present what's currently happening. I wouldn't have a problem with no flag either because it is still a massive cluster, but I don't object to this either. TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Mass-pinging Cowboygilbert, GhostOfDanGurney, Bismarx, Freedoxm, ElijahPepe, Skitash, Chaotic Enby, Ezpler12345, Firecat93, and CitrusHemlock as the most involved editors I can find/recall from the past couple hours-ish so we can hopefully reach a final consensus on this. I think what WeaponizingArchitecture has presented is literally the best possible scenario for keeping the flags right now (namely that e.g. Firecat93 has tried and failed to put forth a valid source for a single flag of the interim government), so if it fails, I think the prospect of having any flag in the infobox is dead and buried until this situation develops further. TheTechnician27(Talk page)06:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with Weapon's point in theory, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria does not claim to represent the entirety of Syria and therefore its flag (the existence of which I am uncertain of) should not be utilized as a representative of the "flag of Syria". In my opinion, only the flags claiming to represent the entirety of Syria (3-star + Salvation govt. flag) should be utilized if we are to put back the flags. Ezpler12345 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe it is still best to keep the three factions' flags on the article, since there is a revolution going on, and there is currently no official flag of syria.
That's fine, but Syria is a sovereign country. Flags of semi-autonomous groups should not be used. Should the flag of ISIS be included, as it controls small areas of Syrian territory? I don't think so.
After the fall of the Assad regime, the old flag of the Syrian Republic should be used. It is the flag that the unified opposition fought under, and it is the flag that is being carried by thousands of people on the street celebrating in Aleppo, Latakia, Damascus, etc. Firecat93 (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as the Assad regime has collapsed, and i'm also not sure if Syria is a republic at this point. Because of this other reason, I am not changing opinion. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Flag of Syrian Republic is the three starred flag. After the Baathist Revolution, the Baathist Party flag of Syria was used. Now that the Baathist Regime has fallen, the flag on the article should be reverted to the original Flag of the Syrian Republic. Thank you for considering my perspective. Firecat93 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow the logic that if a regime falls, we simply fall back on the previous flag by default. To take this to an absurd, if the US today suddenly collapsed, would we revert back to the Grand Union Flag? I understand the connection between the revolution and the flag, but I just don't think amidst this chaos that there's a good case for a single flag (de jure or de facto) right now. TheTechnician27(Talk page)06:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that we should use any flag atm because no official flag yet. The war is still going on and at the time I am writing this, the opposition haven't yet formally established their state. So no flags per WP:CRYSTALBALLAbo Yemen✉06:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Flag of Syrian Republic is the three starred flag. After the Baathist Revolution, the Baathist Party flag of Syria was used. Now that the Baathist Regime has fallen, the flag on the article should be reverted to the original Flag of the Syrian Republic. Thank you for considering my perspective. Firecat93 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Houthis control a significant part of Yemen, but their flag is not featured atop the Yemen Wikipedia page. Hezbollah basically has full autonomy over Southern Lebanon, but their flag is not used atop the Lebanon Wikipedia page. There are many different Libyan factional groups, but only the Libyan flag is featured atop the Libya Wikipedia page. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, but the flag on the Palestine Wikipedia page is not the Hamas flag or the Fatah flag. I believe that the same logic should apply here. Syria should be respected as a sovereign country. The flag of Syrian Republic is the three starred flag. It was only after the Baathist Revolution that the Baathist Party flag of Syria was used. Now that the Baathist Regime has fallen, in my view, the flag on the article should be reverted to the original flag of the Syrian Republic, which was also the unofficial flag of the Syrian Revolution and unified opposition groups. Thank you for considering my perspective.
Please see the @Ezpler12345's very insightful comment below:
"Although I agree with Weapon's point in theory, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria does not claim to represent the entirety of Syria and therefore its flag (the existence of which I am uncertain of) should not be utilized as a representative of the "flag of Syria". In my opinion, only the flags claiming to represent the entirety of Syria (3-star + Salvation govt. flag) should be utilized if we are to put back the flags."
Alrighty. Besides, stop pinging me, I'm already locked in on this. I'd really appreciate it if you stop pinging me and move on with your day. 🗽Freedoxm🗽 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time I have been pinged in this thread and this message doesn’t pertain to me. Please don’t ping me again unless it’s something specific towards me. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥06:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reminder that there is still Assad-controlled regions in Lakatia and Tartus, which Assad could be in right now. I think that we should add the rebel flags and the current Assad-ruled Syria flag. So 4 flags in total. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The green flag is the leading flag, it is said Assad has fallen and many Syrians are seen holding the Green flag, I'd say it is best to have it as the Green flag as of now, since it is clear which flag is being raised and which isn't. 2603:7080:2300:332:DDB9:CA4D:174C:22FD (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why the rush? Isn't it a bit too soon? Lets just wait and see what happens, then update the article accordingly. There isn't any need to update the article in real time whilst things are still developing. IJA (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the change should be based on some source saying flag x is or isn't the flag of Syria. None have been provided in this discussion. CMD (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For now the best course of action is to not use any flag in the infobox, at that point we might as well add government information for the various claimants. Until countries begin to recognize one of the claimants as either the de facto or de jure successor, no flag should be added.CitrusHemlock15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know when the discussion is going to end but it seems like most of the people who have voted want to put up the 3 flags - if no one is opposed to it then I'll go ahead and do so - The new interim government is expected to be formed tomorrow, so it should be a good temporary solution as opposed to having no symbols listed, which could lead to confusion and more edit warring. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me18:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to this. Once the government is formed, we should use the flag that they use (which is going to be the 3 star flag probably) and that one only Abo Yemen✉18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are going to keep re-adding the flags unless its made clear what is being used. We don't know when the new government will be formed - Considering wikipedia is often consulted first for flags, it's imperative we have something to prevent misinformation. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone adding the flags after we have added the notes and and reverted that one guy. Plus since when were we the ones who chose the flags for the countries? Us adding a flag when it is not yet official is not what we're supposed to do. People can wait with us too Abo Yemen✉06:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They just declared a transitional government and yet no flag has been adopted yet. I'm going to go ahead and re-add the 3 main flags back because the flag seems like the lowest of the new government's priorities right now. We can't keep the section empty forever. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me00:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeaponizingArchitecture: Your version was quickly changed to 1 free flag. So I reverted to the stable version without flags. We'd better reach some kind of consensus and note it on top of the talk page or these endless reverting back and forth would go on forever. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talkcontribs ] 02:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very reasonable chance a new government emerges and begins to sort out issues such as representation (which will be a priority, for foreign relations if nothing else) before an RfC is finished. CMD (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the revolutionary flag with adding a note "de facto flag" for now.
Oppose no flag this is asinine, we had the Ba'athist flag alone in the infobox when there was a civil war, now the Syrian transitional government controls most of the territory but we're not putting their flag in the infobox because: ?????????.
Support single revolutionary flag - There presently is no government of Syria, presumably this won't last long however, but until then, I would support changing the flag to the revolutionary flag, especially given it's now being used in a quasi-official capacity, as above. There will be no RS that the flag has been officially made the flag of the state of Syria, because as of now there are no officials at all except the Prime Minister to make that hyper-specific announcement or determination, it already being so obvious to all that it is not needed to be announced, and when there is more pressing matters to attend to, like continuity of the state and preservation of its institutions. There are already enough sources that the flag is being used by the government in a representative fashion of the entire state, not just the resistance, even if there is no legal document to attest to this. Factions like AANES (Rojava) or ISIS have made no claim on "The state of Syria", Rojava only claiming Kurdistan and ISIS having an undefined "Islamic State", basically as much territory as they can capture, they've literally declared a "Worldwide Caliphate", not just Syria. Sources supporting the remnants of the government using it to represent the (new) state, from the Flag of Syria article:
Subsequently the "Independence flag" began to be flown within the country[1][2][3] and at Syrian embassies abroad.[4][5][6]
I'm with Abo on this one. WeaponizingArchitecture provided I think the best alternative to no flag currently feasible, and it's clear that even that's contentious. The article is extended-protected, and putting up a flag still turns into a game of "Duck Season, Rabbit Season". That implies to me that neither side is ignorant of Wikipedia norms or of the facts; it's just an inherently murky situation. It's good, common practice that when even a bunch of experienced editors can't agree on what something should be (not just that "mine is better", but that "yours is wrong"), the answer until it becomes clearer is "nothing". I would further argue that the PM and the SAA ceding control to the rebel groups is a cause for them to be considered "the" Syrian government, but until they announce an official flag, the flag really technically is "nothing". TheTechnician27(Talk page)14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is already being displayed in embassies and cities in Syria and is generally used by the current official government, to which power has already been officially transferred. It is only a matter of time before it is written into the constitution. Alter73 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the view that we should use this flag as it is clear that it is being used. If for any reason they use a different flag, then we change it. But for now, it is clear that the intention is to use this flag as seen in the offices post-transfer of power. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not on what is "clear that is being used". We're not original reporting. Given current reliable reporting, the absolute extent of what we can surmise that it's probably going to be the rebel flag, but we're also not a crystal ball. What we can say concretely is that the opposition flags are being used in widespread celebration in Damascus. When we can say concretely that the rebel flag is currently the flag of Syria is either when the rebel leadership (which the SAA command and the PM are officially handing control off to, thus making them the official government) announce an official flag or when they write it into an official, binding document like a constitution. TheTechnician27(Talk page)14:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
flags are official if they are described in a constitution of some sort and not by flying flags that may not necessarily be used by all factions Abo Yemen✉14:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2024 (5)
It hasn't. The provisional government has not adopted a new flag, and the rebel groups use numerous different flags to represent themselves. The infobox doesn't use any flags or symbols as of yet because of this. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need official confirmation from the provisional government, which hasn't yet officially adopted any flag, let alone the Syrian opposition one. Ilhamnobi (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO. The new government hasn't made any official confirmation of a new flag or anything + the AANES controls the east part of the country and they have their own flag, we must wait. Regioncalifornia (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no single rebel group controlling a majority of Syria. Syria is split in 5 ways between Kurds/Americans, Israelis, the FSA, the HTS and the rump remnants of the Assad government. 145.40.150.167 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This flag should probably be put up there in due time, but probably not immediately. This is a very fluid situation. However the previous flag which was used under Assad should absolutely not be used anymore. I think continued observation of this situation is warranted and further discussion can take place after new developments. --NevadaExpert (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent can we consider that there is a new government proclaimed and that a new flag should be used if in ambassies like the one in Madrid, the Baaz Syrian flag is being taken down and the green white and black flag being raised? Because if we consider that official then maybe we should consider changing it. Below is my source
The Union Jack has no "official" status as the Flag of the United Kingdom, it's status as the national flag is entirely de facto insisting that a flag must be officially proclaimed in order to be shown on it's Wikipedia page would mean that the Union Jack would have to be removed from the UK's page. Additionally there are other historical examples of national flags existing in a de facto capacity only, such as the pre-1965 Canadian Red Ensign. Not having the de facto national flag on this page contravenes established Wikipedia precedent. 2204happy (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think the page of Syria should have the flag of the Syrian opposition which is in order from top to bottom: green, white and black horizontal tricolor with three five pointed red stars in the middle white stripe that go horizontally. NorthernRepublic3 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new government is literally raising the Free Syrian flag over its embassies around the world you've got assadists and rojavaboos here trying to bs everyone with their hot takes on "the situation not being over".
Admins, even "senior admins", cannot override community consensus. That is neither an admin's job, nor a power they have. However, asking an experienced editor for guidance on starting a community discussion about the flag is very much a possibility (but again, the decision is community consensus, not a senior editor's authority). I would be happy to set that up, and help centralize the many talk page questions about the flag by opening a request for comment if needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the "community consensus" is insane and not backed in what we can see with our own two eyes, then yes, admins should get involved and fix it. Only the deranged could argue that we should either have no flag or the old flag when the rebels are in power. Scuba21:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, if most people do not agree with your opinion, it doesn't mean that you can declare them "insane" and "deranged". You can argue for your (totally reasonable) position without insulting others Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ba'athist Syria is done, keeping their flag up and denying the opposition's use of their flag is deranged behavior. Scuba23:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with "Rojavaboos" - It's because the government doesn't have an official flag yet, and flags are unfortunately a massive source of misinformation to spread here on Wikipedia. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeaponizingArchitecture Agreed. Flag needs to be changed back, or the de jure syrian flag needs to be put under the de facto one until it is either specifically confirmed by the new government that a flag change has taken place, or it becomes internationally recognized as the new flag, which as of yet it is not - it is just the rebels flag as of this point. 73.68.171.223 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more that Wikipedia editors tend to a little bit autistic in that they like to place a lot of emphasis on officialdom, despite the fact that there are many historical examples of commonly accepted national flags only existing in a de facto capacity. A perfect example is the Union Jack, which has no official status as the National Flag of the United Kingdom. 2204happy (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to clarify, being too attached to the "official" status of things isn't the same as autism, and using "autistic" as a pejorative that way isn't the most respectful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an autistic editor, I'll state that following WP:RS for determining what the flag of Syria is doesn't mean it's autism. There is no harm in being patient while we wait for good reliable evidence that it is indeed the de facto flag now. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, respectfully, what you are asking for is often times impossible, and making an educated guess based on observations is sometimes the only way to know what a country's flag looks like. This happened with Mauritania when they announced they were adding red stripes to the flag a while back. It would be years before any sort of government website finally showed us what the new flag was actually supposed to look like, and it changed quite a bit. During that span of time, all we could do was explore the internet looking for any photos or videos we could find of things like the flag being raised from government flagpoles, being displayed in Parliament, being displayed in diplomatic meetings, etc. That's a better option than displaying nothing while waiting for something that may never exist. Vanilla Wizard 💙14:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not remotely impossible, as your example says. If Mauritania announced they were adding red stripes to the flag, there you go. That's it! Very simple. CMD (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. What Mauritania didn't announce for many years was that this involved a complete overhaul of the design. How large are the stripes? What shade of red do we use? These were unanswered questions accompanied by the even larger mystery of why we suddenly started seeing evidence of a new flag that uses completely different colors and different shapes. Eventually we could finally confirm that the weird new flag is in fact the official design. But for several years, all we could rely on was various photos we actively searched for. Vanilla Wizard 💙15:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point seems to have been lost in the fine details: actively searching for photographs and videos of flags is very often the only way to confirm what the flag is. You say our eyes are not a primary source and what we need is an official declaration or a piece of legislation to tell us what the flag is, but it is not reasonable to assume that such information will ever be communicated. In those situations, we look to what flags are actually flying from the flagpoles and make an educated decision. We do use our eyes. As many others have mentioned, even the famous Union Jack is nowhere to be found in law, but we know it's the flag because it's been in use for centuries. There's no reason for the Syrian opposition groups to announce their flag is the flag, they've all been using it the entire time. Maybe we will get a declaration, but why should we expect it? Vanilla Wizard 💙16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get too side tracked from the Syria discussion, but these sources describe how the Union Jack is not the subject of any laws in England, Scotland, and Wales, while there are some guidelines on how to display it in Northern Ireland. I don't believe the text of any law makes it the de jure flag. Vanilla Wizard 💙17:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I haven't even !voted for a side yet. I was just responding to a specific argument I took issue with and explaining that photographs and videos are often times the best and only sources you're going to get to inform decisions on what image file to display in the infobox. Vanilla Wizard 💙18:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is simply wrong. It is 100% guaranteed that the official status of a flag will be communicated. It is through such communications that institutions like the United Nations obtain their information. The UK flag statement is a myth, as Abo Yemen mentions. We also have reams of sources saying it is the flag of the UK. CMD (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibertarianLibrarian85, please tone down the accusations of bad faith, and Scu_ba, please tone down the insulting language. I'm as sympathetic to the reasons for displaying a flag as anyone else (though I actually see both sides to this argument and am not prepared to cast a !vote yet), and like some of the above users, I too am autistic and flags happen to be one of my most noticeable autistic fixations, so I have to admit that seeing a country infobox with no flag pains me (I'd at least like a link to the Flag of Syria page). But the arguments against displaying one at this time are coming from a place of good faith. Even though I lean more in favor of displaying the green-white-black flag (its use in the coat of arms, which we do seem to be comfortable displaying, is a giveaway that the new flag is probably not going to be some other design), arguments like the ones you two have made here only push people away from your side. Vanilla Wizard 💙11:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 (5)
This is an arbitrary rule. There is no requirement on Wikipedia for things to be "official" before we use them. They just have to be reliably sourced. Michail (blah) 02:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2024
The flag is already in use everywhere, including by the new authorities and by embassies worldwide.
The official website of the Prime Minister has already changed the Coat of Arms As you can see here
The Facebook People's Assembly page is using the revolutionary flag. The National Football team has changed its logo: you can check it out here. Please stop blocking these changes which fully reflect reality. Cscescu (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided three different sources for the changes. This is arbitrary and contravenes the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines. Cscescu (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. There is no power vacuum, there is direct continuity between the structures of the Assadist regime and the transitional government. The state exists, it has embassies and international representation, its websites and public services are workin, and a transition ceremony took place between the old and new PMs. Your arguments have no legal nor political bases. Cscescu (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no power vacuum see the Succeeded by section of the Ba'athist Syria infobox The state exists Where is the constitution Your arguments have no legal nor political bases neither does yours It doesn't have to have whatever that means. Here on Wikipedia, we have our own policies and guidelines that we adhere to. Abo Yemen✉14:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why is the UK the norm here? The previous state had a clear law on the flag. Plus there is no syrian state atm. Yall should be worrying about the state's official name more than the flag Abo Yemen✉05:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying there's no Syrian state, but that's not a correct statement. Just because a country is in the midst of a regime change does not mean its statehood disappears.
National flags do not have to be adopted by law or in a constitution. Historically, those official acts have often been used to confirm flag changes that have already happened. Algeria is a good example: its flag was raised in 1962 but wasn't actually confirmed in law until 1963. It would be very incorrect to say Algeria did not have a national flag during that first year, even though there was no official act that said it was so. AquaVacation (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus so far 10 for A, 16 for B, 1 for C 0 for D. @Abo Yemen consensus is clear, please respect the consensus reached in discussion and allow the new flag to be added. Further modifications must be discussed prior to their inactment, if consensus changes, we will discuss it here. I am going to go ahead and add the flag, as well as update the talk page. WikiNerd202224 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been previously discussed (post right above this one). Looks like they're waiting for the flag to be officially designated by constitutional law or any other sort of decree before putting it in the article. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of 10 September, the "Independnece Flag" appears to be being used as the de facto flag of Syria. In addition to its use abroad by numerous Syrian embassies, the Syrian parliament (which has switched sides) is using it within thier debating chamber. It was flown during the swearing in ceremony of the transitional government (with a religious flag also being present in the room) and the Syrian Football Association have changed their symbols to include it. The caption below the flag could read "de facto flag" with its status explained in the main Flag of Syria article. Dn9ahx (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As ever with Wikipedia I think there's no easy answer. There probably won't be a televised press conference to reveal the flag. There probably won't be an official declaration from someone in a suit outside the UN. Yet here we are with what appears to be cumulative evidence to prove, more or less, that a new flag is in use. I think we are in the same area as with the Afghanistan flag, where there are two flags in place without too much disagreement. doktorbwordsdeeds22:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agreed. I would say at this point we have fairly unambiguous evidence from news articles, photos and official websites that the Independence flag is being used as the national flag by the new Syrian government. And maybe more crucially, I don't think we have any evidence to support the assertion in the infobox that "Syria does not have an official flag". That's a very strong statement and I suspect we'd struggle to find a source that backs it up. AquaVacation (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of trying to find sources to prove the inexistance of a state (p.s. you wont find anything), go find sources that prove that the state is established Abo Yemen✉16:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A state does not stop being a state just because its government falls. The government and the state are two different things. Syria has borders, a population, a transitional government, a prime minister, a currency, and international relations. AquaVacation (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2024 (4)
Please stop giving wrong information to other people. You don't need a constitution to use a flag. Many countries have no constitution either, for example Taliban led Afghanistan Islamic Emirate has no parliament, no constitution, and the flags/coa is used on the infobox. So, again stop giving wrong information to people. Beshogur (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen: yes it's your talkpage, you do whatever you want but this was directed to you. You gave this example 100 times here. It's basically untrue. Constitution is not a criteria for this. Beshogur (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Top: white Tawhid flag (took from Afghanistan; need a 2:3 version) Bottom: Syrian revolutionary flag
If there is consensus on placing the revolutionary flag on the infobox as a de facto then I am okay with it. Its not like i am the one who is controlling this page. But if we are going to rush it and place it in the infobox now cus the new govt is using it then we will have to use the Tawhid flag on the infobox too as it was used by the govt next to the revolutionary flag as seen on pics from the new prime minister here and here and on Jolani's cnn interviewAbo Yemen✉09:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything like controlling article or like that but the example you give (maybe others did too idk) is simply wrong. The reason I opened on your talk page is that, don't get me wrong. Also it's even possible a country having two flags, it'll be not so good example but Transnistria. But the rebel flag seems to be used de facto as evindences were presented by many users, and I think therefore should be used here too despite having nothing official. Beshogur (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even know when the constitution will be drafted etc. Not trying to convince you but tried to say the official thing is wrong if it's de facto used by the ruling authority (HTS for now). If there is a prime minister, and he uses that flag, we should use it on the infobox too. That's my opinion. See Taliban and Afghanistan example. Beshogur (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even know when the constitution will be drafted etc and we are not a crystal ball so we shouldn't be the ones determining flags here the ruling authority (HTS for now) The HTS is not the only faction here, idk if they merged with the other opposition groups but they definitely are not the only ones here If there is a prime minister, and he uses that flag, we should use it on the infobox too. Sure but the thing is, who is the one in power? The previous constitution says that the President is the one who actually rules but now that that constitution is no longer is use then who is the one officially in power? I mean yes we can assume it is the PM but is that officially the case? Abo Yemen✉09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah tried to explain constitution is not a requirement for this. Also Jolani seems to be the kingmaker, the learer of Syria whoever he likes to appoint. Anyways. Beshogur (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a constitution, we could take say the Prime Minister saying "We've discussed it and this is the flag of Syria". CMD (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure just don't use "took from Afghanistan" as it is irrelevant to Afghanistan and make them top and bottom instead of left and right to make space for the coat of arms Abo Yemen✉10:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that FIFA has officially adopted the green-white-black flag as the flag of Syria (source). This could be helpful in a broader discussion. –yeagvr ·✉00:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Syria article in most other languages used the new flag and coat of arms. Heck, even the Simple English Wiki uses the new flag. Zabezt (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that the RfC has not yet reached a consensus, but the requester edited the RfC to state that it had them made this request, which is obviously inappropriate, especially given they were WP:INVOLVED based on their participation in said discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen @Hey man im josh you two are the only one opposing the flag here. Saying that it's not reaching any consensus is just disingenuous when everybody are requesting the edit.
If you guys want to be productive, give us a vote and lets finish this quickly
@Afif Brika1: Regardless of your inaccurate assessment of the situation (there are 10+ people who voted for no flag so far), we wait 7 days for the RfC to conclude, at which point an uninvolved third party will close the discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said I am opposed to a flag? Did you not read my vote on the RFC? Plus There is clearly no consensus on the RFC till now and I recommend that you go and learn what the word consensus means Abo Yemen✉05:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flag has already been used enough to be added: the HTS-led transition government has even started to drop their "alternative" Tawhid flag at some press conferences and AANES has also flown it next to their administration flag. Syrian social media users are also celebrating the new flag being used by FIFA, and other Wikipedia editions (see the Arabic one) already use it too. I think there is a very clear consensus that that flag is going to be Syria's flag from now on, in the worst case scenario they'll have to standardise the flag's stars. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the previous flag with the shahada has not been in use for quite a while. Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani in the interview he gave to cnn you can see him sitting next to the rebel flag and a plain white flag with a shahada (perhaps a variant of this one?). Further, Mohammed al-Bashir, the new syrian PM was photographed next to those same two flags here, and again here which to me seems like they are already being used in an official fashion by government officials and being flown over governmnet buildings. I believe we should change it now. Brother Jerome (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flag was not used yesterday in an interview with Al Jazeera (link), and the reaction I've seen in Arabic-speaking Syrian social media posts was that of the government "listening to the people's demands", since one of the repeated slogans now is that of a non-sectarian Syria. I would say they used it mainly as a symbolic partisan symbol (since all of the cabinet is HTS-aligned) but basically anywhere else we see the green flag. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Syria proper shown in dark green; Syria's territorial claims over most of Turkey's Hatay Province and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights shown in light greenShow globe
Turkey newspaper say it was official flag of Syrian and it in government building so it official flag
Historical Significance: The flag featuring three red stars has been widely associated with the Syrian opposition and the revolution. It symbolizes resistance against the current regime and is used in anti-government demonstrations and events.
Cultural Relevance: The three red stars represent important aspects of Syria’s identity—originally symbolizing regions or revolutionary movements. This design has become an emblem for opposition groups and their supporters globally.
Current Usage: The flag is prominently used by Syrian opposition groups, diaspora communities, and humanitarian efforts, distinguishing it from the official government flag.
Credible References: Reliable sources, such as reports from reputable news organizations, academic studies, or international publications, document the flag’s use and significance. Including references like the one provided from Türkiye Today would strengthen the request.
I support this decision: it’s well-sourced (with the opposition flag being common knowledge), informative, much more appealing, and much less humiliating to the Syrian people to not have their country’s Wikipedia article have a flag. Maybe an additional flag for the SSG should be added (if sources back it up as another de facto flag), but this is good for now. LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it silly that the coat of arms which is in de facto use according to the article has the new Syrian flag clearly in the middle of it aside from the use of the new Syrian flag by every official media outlet that could exist internally and externally, even the Kurds started raising the flag as well. Aside from the transitional government using this flag as well. It's just completely ridiculous. The official name "Syrian Arab Republic" got added - which we can see obviously on the coat of arms - but the flag which we can also see obviously on the coat of arms isn't? The one symbol that means so much to the Syrians isn't. There seems to be some sort of intentional thing going on here. Wikipedia further proving it's not a reliable source. 2600:1700:6E1:7670:21F2:7613:FCA3:DC93 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The de facto flag of syria is the green flag because it was raised in a lot of world embassys (saudi arabia,russia,tunisia,UAE) and more countrys are gonna do the same
78.172.212.73 (talk) 9:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.194.128 (talk)
why isn't there a flag in syria page (Not the flag page)
^Humat ad-Diyar (Arabic: حُمَاةَ الدِّيَارِ, romanized: Ḥumāt ad-Diyār, lit. 'Guardians of the Homeland') was the national anthem of Ba'athist Syria (1963–2024) and the preceding First and Second Syrian Republic. Syria has been governed by a transitional government since the fall of the Assad regime on 8 December 2024, with no announcement thus far if this song will continue to be used as the national anthem. The Syrian opposition previously used a version with modified lyrics, calling for the overthrow of Assad.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2024
I don't think that there is sufficient evidence to describe the white flag as being "co-official". The independence flag is being used at Syrian embassies abroad, at government buildings, by sports teams and by the general public. The only place that the white Islamic flag has been observed following the fall of the Assad government is during the formation ceremony for the transitional government where it was used in addition the the independence flag. During the Ba'athist-era the Ba'ath party flag was frequently used with the national flag but Wikipedia never referred to it as a co-official flag nor was it included in the infobox. Until there is a formal announcement about the status of the white flag, the current infobox format, where the independence flag is listed as the de-facto national flag, and the white flag as an additional flag sometimes used by the transitional government accurately reflects the situation on the ground. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
To better put it in PAG terms (since TOOSOON is an essay on article notability), option B does not meet WP:V yet since there is no indication in reliable sources that this is the official flag. Will it in the future? Probably. But we're not a WP:CRYSTAL ball and can't predict the future. I think the best option is to show no flag, and have a prominent link to Flag of Syria which explains the situation for readers who aren't versed enough in PAG (which is okay!) to understand why B is inappropriate right now. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B since we need at least something on there to stop confusing people (who are now accusing the article of being biased towards assad/rojava), this is the best solution until an official flag is declared. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me15:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that would be considered WP:original research since we would just be inferring that because Syrian embassies are using it, it is official. We need multiple reliable sources to state that for us to move forward. Penguino35 (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B along with a caption of "de facto" under the flag. No confirmation of official status yet but there's enough use of it by new government institutions to be able to do so, I would say. Chessrat(talk, contributions)17:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there is already enough use of the three-star flag in an official capacity (various embassies, the football team, the new PM having the flag behind him in official capacity, etc) that we can definitely say that it is the de facto flag even if not yet official. Chessrat(talk, contributions)19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B There are many examples of national flags only existing in a de facto capacity, the most notable example being the Union Jack, which has no official status as the National Flag of the United Kingdom. Are some people here seriously insinuating that the Union Jack should be removed from the UK's Article because it is not "official"? 2204happy (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B Enough state institutions have used or showed intent to use it, at this point waiting for a constitutional change would be no different than withholding information. ElementLover (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B Waiting for an official source to formally declare it as the new Syrian flag is a valid concern. However, as pointed out above, it has been used pervasively around official circles, such as in a governmental website, waiting for an official announcement would withhold something obvious. I believe WP:IGNORE may be in order here to improve this article. Aintabli (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B Flags are not always adopted through "official" legislation or announcements, especially after a regime change. Insisting on an unrealistically high standard of proof here would just obscure the facts on the ground. It is quite obvious what the current national flag of Syria is. AquaVacation (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B with the caption “flag of the Syrian transitional government” to show that this is not a prediction of the official flag but rather a de facto flag used by the country and its new government The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. More than enough sources now, even if there is no one definitive document defining the flag (as others have said, not all governments even have their flags defined by law, such as the Union Jack). The government is using it as "their flag", even if there's no official document confirming as such. It can be listed as "de facto flag" or some such in the infobox if needed.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont />
A: The current situation regarding government is still unclear, and until all of this is sorted out and we see it being used officially, then no flag should be displayed. CutlassCiera19:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. We're featuring a coat of arms with the new flag, but not the flag itself? Am I the only one to find that situation ridiculous? Besides, the new flag is currently used everywhere in the media to represent Syria. It's the de facto flag of Syria. Khuft (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the new coat of arms is now prominently featured on government websites. If that's not an official sanction, I don't know what is. Khuft (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. This discussion is completely ridiculous. The flag is everywhere, established (for 13 years!!) and universally accepted by the Opposition forces in Damascus. The whole of Wikipedia's coverage of the Syrian Civil War is wildly pro-Regime (look at how rarely Government abuses are mentioned and how many articles rely on purely openly pro-Assad sources such as al-Masdar), but this filibustering of legitimising the new flag is really something (not to be proud of). Nrg800 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with using the other flag as well. While the PM may be using it together with the revolutionary flag, it's not being used in any other institutions, eg. embassies. If it becomes more widespread in its use, we can reconsider, but for now, the green-white-black flag is the only one in widespread use. Khuft (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B We now have a statement that the Kurds are adopting the flag as well.[2] I respect the caution here, but this is the flag of Syria, and whatever official endorsement that some folks are waiting for may never come, as it would seem redundant by those involved.GreatCaesarsGhost14:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B - The "Independence Flag" is already being used by the country's legislature, government, ministries, embassies abroad and football association. In the most recent video appearance, the new prime minister appeared with the "independence flag" alone. The flag is already being used in the infobox for Syria in many other languages and by Wikidata. The white religious flag is most likely being used as an additional flag such as the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander flags in Australia or the Wiphala in Bolivia. Dn9ahx (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B – It's time to make the change. There's now abundant sourcing of multiple official uses of the new flag. I understand being cautious at first, but we don't need to wait any longer. Wburrow (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B This flag is now being used by the Syrian parliament, the Syrian transitional government, and Syrian embassies internationally. Skitash (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Close RfC The consensus is clear, 80% of the latest 25 votes are for using the new flag and only 8 out of the 36 votes in total say it should remain as No Flag. The RfC page says voting should "last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration". We have both enough comment and enough consensus, especially as mountains more evidence has come out supporting the use of the flag over the past days. The idea that there is a voting period that needs to elapse before any change can be made is wrong. The guidelines explicitly say "editors should not wait for that [period to expire]". Consensus is clear, the widespread and formal use of the flag is clear. This continued filibustering is frankly embarrassing. The current 'solution' is one that 20% of people think is appropriate, and is clearly outdated. Nrg800 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Plus, why would they ever announce a new flag? It's CLEARLY obvious enough to deem it necessary. It'd be extremely redundant. Zabezt (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason any country announces a flag, to indicate to other countries and institutions that that particular symbol should be used to represent their state. At some point for example, a country with a new flag will need to transmit that information to the United Nations for use on lists such as this one. CMD (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just how it works. Someone who starts an RfC cannot withdraw it if there have been votes already cast, and someone who's participated cannot WP:SUPERVOTE by closing the discussion a particular way. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this requires following our policies, not an RfC. The answer here is A, as there are no sources. However, once we have a source, it'll immediately flip to whatever that source says, likely B, possibly something else. If more sources develop to contest that, which is possible, then that's an entirely new discussion. CMD (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fault Chaotic Enby for trying to consolidate everything above into one RfC. The root issue is impatience of trying to ram through the revolutionary flag which lead to so many threads in the first place. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)04:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I agree that it is the most reasonable, policy-based argument, the fact that people repeatedly ask to change it and that the infobox situation keeps getting reverted means that it is better to have this formally settled. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the wider question of should we use it, that file still has Syrian Arab Republic written on it, so while it could be the planned CoA moving forward it could also be the very quick work of one webdev who wanted to change one flag. CMD (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this source, the AANES/Rojava have officially adopted the independence flag. They explicitly note they are not the central government, but nonetheless this is an official statement of a national flag, as they also have a regional flag. CMD (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the model that I suggested in a discussion below, with the white religious flag being displayed separately.It is evident that the "independence flag" is significantly more widely used by state institutions than the white religious flag, which seems to me mainly being used by the cabinet, and even when used by the cabinet, it is always used in conjunction with the "independence flag". Dn9ahx (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
In this edit a few minutes ago, ElijahPepe reverted a sentence and stated via inline comment: "WAIT FOR CONFIRMATION; THE REUTERS SOURCE IS A CLAIM". I see where the disagreement lies, but I really don't think this is valid. Reuters is extraordinarily reliable for substantiating this sort of thing, and the very first sentence of its article reads: "Syria's army command has notified officers that President Bashar al-Assad's 24-year authoritarian rule has ended, a Syrian officer who was informed of the move told Reuters, following a rapid rebel offensive that took the world by surprise." I think the sentence: "On 8 December 2024, both the rebels and the Syrian Army's command declared that al-Assad's rule had ended." should be reinstated to the lead where it was. Very obviously the rebels have stated this, so I assume the contention ElijahPepe sees is with the SAA command's statement. I get the claim hinges on one officer, but Reuters seems pretty confident this is what has happened. Putting it up to a discussion because arbitration + I'm fallible. TheTechnician27(Talk page)04:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that a major news outlet reports not just that an official has said this but that there's some sort of official broadcast by SAA officials or that multiple SAA officials or the PM inform the major outlet of the same thing, then that's sensible; I can work with that. TheTechnician27(Talk page)04:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, if there ends up being a dispute within the rebel coalition. I think it's fairly obvious that neither the SDF in the northeast nor pockets of ISIS in the south can claim to be the real Syria(TM), but if infighting starts up within the coalition, then potentially. I think they seem pretty unified overall right now, though. TheTechnician27(Talk page)04:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear to everyone at this point that the "internationally recognized government of Syria" is no longer internationally recognized as of the last hour or so with the exceptions of a few rogue nations like Russia and Iran which might consider al-Assad a government in exile. The SAA command has ceded control to the rebels; the prime minister has ceded control; and in general, it seems like outside of the northwest (remnants of the SAA), the northeast (the SDF), and the south (small pockets of ISIS), the rebels have full control over and widespread support/minimal resistance within most of the country's major cities including Damascus. The US for example yesterday acknowledged that a military defeat would mark the end of the regime. There really seems to be no dispute outside of Assad himself (who is one man, not the parliament which seem to be peacefully transitioning) and small areas in the northwest (but under this logic, we could've considered Assad's government disputed due to the large SDF presence in the northeast). Even Assad does not appear to have formally challenged this yet, likely trying to keep a low profile while he escapes into exile. TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it should still be clarified that the government described in the government and politics section is not currently the government of Syria. Bismarx (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Need to see what reliable sources say. The situation seems to me to be less of a dispute over which government is legitimate, but rather that there now is no single government in the country, with the remnants of the previous government de facto being a transitional government waiting to be dissolved. Gust Justice (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wait, the Reuters article gives I think compelling evidence it's still disputed. "Syria's army command notified officers on Sunday that Assad's regime had ended, a Syrian officer who was informed of the move told Reuters. But the Syrian army later said it was continuing operations against "terrorist groups" in the towns of Hama and Homs and Deraa countryside." TheTechnician27(Talk page)06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox: Name of prime minister should be reinstated
This seems messy to me. On the one hand, al-Jalali hasn't left the country and hasn't abdicated the role of PM. However, per the article linked above by the IP: "Syrian rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Sunday that it was prohibited to go near public institutions that he said will remain under the supervision of the "former prime minister" until it is officially handed over." So it hasn't yet officially been handed over, but he's also "former"? It's weird. TheTechnician27(Talk page)04:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Obviously, changes have been made to the article/infobox to remove the Assad's regime as the one official government, and not mentioning any disputed government factions either as the situation is totally unclear as yet. Correspondingly, I request that: (1) The "official languages" infobox section, which lists only Arabic with a citation to the Assad regime constitution, be removed. The citation is now inappropriate, and Arabic-only is now inaccurate because the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria also has Kurdish. (2) The "currency" infobox section be removed or changed to list several. The rebel areas apparently use Turkish Lira and immediately introduced it in Aleppo [4][5], so the status of the Syrian Pound is equally uncertain as all the other government infobox sections. The Kurdish areas apparently also use USD [6]. Micler (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you argue it's appropriate to list no official name, no form of government, no president, no flag, but leave an official language with a reference to a constitution? Micler (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the language is changed, but I'm saying that IF the Syrian Arab Republic is not considered official for purposes of the infobox, THEN the Syrian Arab Republic Constitution cannot dictate anything in the infobox. Micler (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cowboygilbert: Please go ahead and take a look at the changes I've made. I think they work quite nicely given the situation. I list (with citations) the 'Major languages' as Arabic and the 'Minor languages' as Kurdish and Aramaic. I don't get into dialects, obviously, or the infobox would be 10 km long. I don't think it's fair for us anymore to call Arabic the 'official language' (we cite this to the Syrian constitution from 2012) because it doesn't seem like there's much of an official anything anymore outside of maybe a capital and a lame duck prime minister. Meanwhile, this also gives us a chance to accurately represent the two most prevalent minority languages. I think Micler's suggestion was a reasonable one and that I've made it work better than what we had before. TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the currency, I think I provided a reliable source that would support either listing >1 currency, or at least not listing the SYP. The Reuters article says: Another sign of intent was printed price lists at petrol stations in Syrian pounds as well as Turkish lira, and U.S. dollars. HTS had long banned the Syrian pound from being used in Idlib but was allowing both it and U.S. dollars to be used in Aleppo.Micler (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new regime is here and they are nothing like the Baathist Syria. I think that the Syria article ends here and a new article should be made marking this new point in Syrian history. RFC btw Abo Yemen✉06:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a history article. While the Government and politics section will likely change dramatically soon, that does not change the entire page. CMD (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is ridiculously prematurely moved. I am not pro-Assad in any shape or form but comparing this to the capture of Afghanistan by the Taliban, this is ridiculously premature. First of all the former took a few days for everyone to fathom and understand, second of all, Syria is not a former state up to 2024. Parts of the nation still remain under government control, like Latakia.
Second of all, it is simply silly to present Syria as a neutral country with a vacant presidency. As of right now the very concept of a President is empty in Syria, which is split three-ways not counting Israeli annexed lands in the southwest. Why is Syria presented as an empty unified state waiting for a leader?
The article for Assad's Syria should remain without Assad, for now, until the situation becomes clearer. This is trigger happy moderation. There's also no "Syrian Transitional Government", either self-appointed or an internationally recognised one. There's multiple governments right now in what used to be Syria. 145.40.150.167 (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's just so many inconsistencies it is ridiculous.
What is a "de facto" capital of a non-existent state?
What is a "President" post of a region in dispute with multiple governments? None of the three factions in charge (four, if you include Israeli territories) have any post that call themselves a President. None of the three non-Assad factions that aim to control Syria indicated any desire to have a head of state or government called President. For example HTS leader al-Julani calls himself an Emir. The Rojava has Co-Chairs.
All the other country-related points like "currency" and "time zone" etc are now false given the lack of a constitution ruling over what is left of the land.
Either move the article back to Syrian Arab Republic and simply remove Assad as President and link it to the Civil War or completely delist Syria as a country and leave it as a region, much like the Tibet or Moravia articles exist. Absolutely nobody will benefit from fake news such as the Syrian Pound being used in what is left of Syria right now. Or that Syria is waiting for a vacant President.
or how about we wait till we have more info? Bashar had fled from syria and Damascus was captured by the opposition. The SAR is no more Abo Yemen✉07:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not represent the SAR as it is unclear what state(s) is/are in control of Syria. It would be inaccurate to keep the SAR as the representative state as that government has been confirmed to have been deposed by multiple sources. It should stay as a generic article of Syria as a country until there is more clarity. This article should also not be about Syria as a region because there is an ongoing civil war and there is no implication that Syria as a country no longer exists. Slothwizard (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being vandalized by everyone, for example why is it written that the secondary languages are Kurdish and Aramaic, and they are not official languages in the first place and are not used, and the sources for this in the information box have nothing to do with the matter, such as the source about the Kurdish language, while Aramaic is about the Aramaic language from thousands of years ago and its history and not now, I hope to correct the information box and remove Minor languages from the box and return it as it was, and return the name of the country to the Syrian Arab Republic, the fall of the regime does not mean changing the name of the country 109.107.230.237 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash, it appears you have been removing info from this source in the infobox claiming it is WP:OR: It is in fact already cited. Here is the link: [7] It is the most recent source in the infobox, and I can’t fathom the reason you are putting forward. Aintabli (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant by the figure being WP:OR. What makes Alawites Arab but not "Levantines"? The CIA World Factbook is unreliable when it comes to Syrian ethnic groups, as it appears to mash up ethnic groups (Arabs), religious groups (Alawites), and geographical designations (Levantines). The source even seems to be including "Nusairi" (another name for Alawites) under the "~15% other" statistic, which is why we should rely on the other sources. Skitash (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is respectfully not convincing at all. You could try seeking consensus at WP:RSN. Intriguingly, the other two references are from an earlier version of the World Factbook (same source!): [8] (Ctr+F "CIA World Factbook July 2012 estimate") So, you fancy one version of the same source and have not sought any clear consensus on the inclusion of a source that is widely cited throughout Wikipedia and elsewhere. Aintabli (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read what WP:NOR says. The source clearly makes no mention of the 65% figure, so including it is obviously original research based on your own judgement as to who is Arab or not. Skitash (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if that's your main concern, the source should be reflected as is. And it should most logically replace its earlier versions. Aintabli (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnoreligious groups exist. You probably want to ask WP:RSN. These are all your personal interpretations and not based on RS. This has been the long-standing version until several months ago. Apart from that, it is not understandable why you would want to keep one version of the source and cite but not entertain the most recent one. What I can come up for the moment is to replace the figures with "Various estimates" and link it to the relevant section. Would you agree with this? Aintabli (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash, please respond to my suggestion, which is to remove the percentages given there is ambiguity how to dissect certain groups. We can link the relevant section for the percentages. Aintabli (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"remove the percentages" Why should we omit the percentages when these cited sources[9][10] provide clear ethnic breakdowns? The CIA World Factbook source does not divide ethnic groups, but rather conflates ethnic groups, religious groups, and Shia sects, making it unsuitable for this purpose. Skitash (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. The same source is reliable in 2012 but not reliable in 2024 because it contradicts with your personal inferences. Aintabli (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Alawites are Arabs, the Druze are Arabs, the Levantines are Arabs, and among them are the Ismailis, the Imamis, and the Nusayris as well. The CIA World Factbook talks about religious beliefs and matters specifically, and Skitash provided other sources, so why do you want to distort and sabotage the article??? 109.107.230.237 (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why do you want to distort and sabotage the article???
Syria's opinion on whether it disputes the territory inherently defines what we consider disputed. It seems plausible this will change with the new government being heavily influenced by the Turkish government, but it nonetheless remains that Syria has not officially resolved the dispute. TheTechnician27(Talk page)15:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it relevant? Imo they didn't even care until the Syrian civil war, used more like a tool to annoy Turkey. It's even unclear if they officially claim it. But the map should show the difference between a claim for Hatay (UN recognized Turkish territory) and Golan (UN recognized occupied Syrian territory). Beshogur (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadı It's not about effective control. As Bronzehorn notes, the Baathist government claimed it as part of Syria (and we don't know what the new govt will do it about it).
@Yeagvr, my nationality is irrelevant with this discussion. Please do not make comments about user's nationalities. I see Venezuela example, I do not support these kinds of maps but, if it works like that in enwiki, I do not say anything again. KadıMessage15:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadı I didn't say it was relevant, but that it could be a reason for misunderstanding.
It was certainly not a negative comment about your nationality.
@Yeagvr, is there a clear policy on this? I looked up some examples and using the light green this liberally seems counterproductive to me. This is akin to marking Catalonia and the Basque territory out of Spain, because there are non-negligible claims being made there, or we know that many Palestinian groups (some internationally recognised) claim all of Israel. Not all claims hold the same amount of water. I assume you may be using a logic of checking whether a recognised country is making these claims (which would rule out carving out Spain for example) but this is also awkward. There are many countries that claim other territories without doing anything about it, without furthering their claims, without any real plan to get them back etc. Like, in Turkey, there are people who want to revive the Ottoman Empire, if this became official state policy, would we mark a whole lot of Europe and the middle East as light green as well?
What Hatay is within this spectrum of legitimate dispute vs dispute only in words, can be up for debate. I myself am not very knowledgeable about the details of the Syrian claims. Also, having this mindset should also make Hatay light green in the Turkey picture, in order to be consistent. But that would be perhaps even weirder.
Perhaps not the only thing to consider, but I would consider the ideal kind of disputed territory to be one in which the de facto and de jure rulers are different. This is the case in Crimea for example, while being legally recognised as part of Ukraine by most of the world, it is de facto controlled by Russia, making it a perfect candidate for light green. As for Hatay, it has been under the legal and practical rule of Turkey for almost a century at this point, and there hasn't been any real effort from Syria to get it back, either diplomatically or militarily. (Although there does seem to be some cultural work they are doing to raise awareness of Turkification in Hatay, but this isn't even close to annexing)
I would invite you to consider these aspects of the situation and maybe we can create a Wikipedia guideline for this (if there isn't one, if there is I'd be happy if you could send it here)
The light green is a standard part of the map convention, for when territory is seriously claimed, but not controlled. CMD (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CMD the opposite is also true, right? When an area is controlled, but the more recognised claim is by someone else. Like Crimea is light green for both Russia and Ukraine, the Golan heights are light green for both Syria and Israel, etc. Egezort (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map does not reflect the international recognition and it is true that Hatay is fully controlled by Turkey, however since its a claim made by the Baathist government it should be changed upon confirmation of a new government and declarations made by it. Bronzehorn (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. There's so much in flux right now, we should not presume anything the new government(s) might do or not do. Until such a time as official policies change, the old position endures with the context it might change in the future. JarlJberk (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia specifically highlights territorial claims of countries in their maps, usually with light green (like in the map used in the infobox). The map is not 'incorrect', it's simply highlighting the fact that Syria claims the area. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on Wikimedia Commons, the 2005 agreements state that the two countries recognize each other's borders. The former Syrian regime does not claim any rights over Hatay. [11]Gökhan Can (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of the "Current related" template concerning the entire article
The template had already been applied to the section "Government and politics". I think that is sufficient, as the remaining content isn't affected by the fall of the Assad government.
Please signal your opinion in replies below using the text "Support"/"Oppose". It would also be good to find contributors who added this template and call them to this discussion. Y. Dongchen (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different spellings for this man's first name in the article. The man's own article spells it Hafez, but there are numerous Hafiz in this article. I realize that Arabic letters can translate to two or more English letters, but it should be consistent. I've always seen Hafez, and heard his name pronounced that way. GBC (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition have an elected president named Hadi al-Bahra, who's really calling the shots and represents the Syrian National Coalition. I motion that in the infobox next to President, his name is added in but include "(de facto)". JayzBox (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the map it still shows Syrian claims on the Hatay province of Türkiye. It's unclear if the transitional government still claims Hatay, so until they make a formal statement best to remove. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is enough evidence yet to claim that the new government is not claiming Hatay however a government website is using a logo without the Hatay province of Türkiye.
No official leader has been named for Syria yet, but I agree that the flag should be changed as it is being used officially and has been for a while. It's been used at the embassy in Moscow and shown on state media news channels. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought not in constution, The current transistional administation recognised by this very page has been posing with the opposition flag in communications as recent as 4 days, a still from the same video is even used on the page of the current transistional prime minister which is linked on this page as well. So in a move to make information available faster I believe that flag should be added to this page as well, which will also respect the de-facto truth at ground. ElementLover (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop forcing. You don't need a constitution. Many countries have no constitution either. Taliban has no constitution either. Afghanistan Islamic Emirate is not even recognized. That's not how wikipedia works. WP:IDONTLIKEITBeshogur (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEITI have made it clear that i want to use the revolutionary flag once they establish their state (Also the taliban has its own constitution what are you on about Abo Yemen✉09:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add the new coat of arms as seen on the official government website.
@TheMisterMooseMan: A flag will not be added prior to a full 7 days from the start of the RfC discussion. After 7 days, an uninvolved editor will assess the weight of the arguments and determine consensus, keeping in mind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Alternatively, the discussion may be relisted in an effort to get more more comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Coat of Arms of Syria represents the official state symbol, as recognized by the Syrian Prime Ministry. Abu Mohammad al-Julani is the de facto leader of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, exerting significant authority in parts of northwestern Syria, as detailed on his [page]. This distinction highlights the complex political and administrative structure within Syria, with multiple entities exercising control.
https://pministry.gov.sy/
please answer back asp to me boss! JNOJ1423📘 (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jolani did not declare himself the de jure or de facto leader of Syria, he just has authority over civil affairs to a degree so I personally say No to this idea.
That's very amateur from them, but I highly doubt rebels using the name "Arab Republic", since it's a Ba'athist thing. There is no constitution either. But I support inclusion of the flag and coa like other users since it's used de facto for now. Beshogur (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaddafi left the title Federation of Arab Republics on the Libyan coat of arms decades after it ceased to exist so it's not without precedent.
Secondly 'Arab Republic' is a Nasserism and is unrelated to, and predates Ba'athist rule in Syria, hence why Ba'athist Iraq never used the title 'Arab Republic'. Thegunkid (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of precedent, it's an issue the large amount of original research going on producing contradictory article information. I was not the one who removed Syrian Arab Republic from the infobox. CMD (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that's definitely what the state used to be called, and we'll see if there's a change to the official name when the Constitution is adopted (by June). Also, that's what is written on the Coat of Arms, and on the government website. There is also the fact that that's what they're long name registered with the UN is and they haven't gotten around to changing that yet. Littau Eric (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They say the exact same thing with the exact same symbols/diacritics and the only difference is the designer's/Claigrapher's preference of placing the symbols. (which is the case with the Taliban's flag btw) Abo Yemen✉15:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Arabic caligraphy those diacritics are purely decorative, it's like Black letter when you add extra lines or diamonds to letters or you add a tail to the letter N or K and so on. Thegunkid (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Shahada isn't seen anywhere since the screenshots were taken. and other then the green-white-black flag there was never consensus from the rebel factions on it. i think wikipedia was too quick declaring it the secondary flag. it should be removed asap 2A02:8108:2988:4200:556B:8B28:EDA3:F740 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian national anthem, Humat ad-diyar (sorry I am not an Arabic speaker) has been used back since the foundation of the First Syrian Republic in 1930, the year Hafez al-Assad was born. So literally the anthem had already gained legitimacy even before the Ba'athist coup. The new interim government has not decided if they are to keep or to abandon it, but it has to be paid attention. Humat ad-diyar will remain Syria de facto national anthem until any solution is passed. HiddenFace101 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why people think the name is so controversial, it pre-dates Ba'athist rule and was simply the name choosen when Syria reestablished it's independence from Egypt in 1961. Thegunkid (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i dont think that they would change the state's name. They are Arabs and they are going to establish an Arab state so i don't think that the name is going to change Abo Yemen✉11:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are Arabs and they are going to establish an Arab state the Arab Republic is a Ba'athist thing. I highly doubt Syria under Jolani is going to use a nationalist name. For now the transistional government seems to use it. The name can stay on the infobox imo. Beshogur (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they may, they probably will, as way of appeasing and integrating the SDF. But we shall see. This has been a bone that Syrian Kurds have had with Damascus for decades. BasilLeaf (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then why don't we add the revolutionary flag in, given that it is more than obviously the Syrian flag at this point? You seem to be the main person gatekeeping this change. Brother Jerome (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What gatekeeping? I literally changed my vote above to include the new flag. You gotta wait for the RFC to end before seeing any change on that infobox Abo Yemen✉15:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: That's not a standard part of the template, and that particular map wouldn't look great at the thumbnail resolution of the infobox. PianoDan (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ba’athist regime fell, and the SAR is no longer the official government of Syria and it should not be referred to as such, regardless of the STG’s recognition status. LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Transitional Government is issuing decrees using the name Syrian Arab Republic as well as using it as a hashtag on Arabic Twitter for their official announcements as well as retaining it on all the official letterhead and the new seal of the Ministry of Foreign affairs.
It should be noted 'Arab Republic' has nothing to do with Ba'athism (hence why the only other Ba'athist state, Iraq, never used the title 'Arab Republic') and comes from Pan-Arabism (Both Libya and North Yemen became 'Arab Republics') and was the name Syria reestablished it's independence under in 1961 as a multi-party democratic state before the Ba'athists overthrew the Government in 1963. Thegunkid (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Syrian Arab Republic' predates Ba'athists rule in Syria, and isn't related to Ba'athism but comes from Nasserism, hence Iraq the only other Ba'athist state never adopted the title of 'Arab Republic', but North Yemen and Libya which never had any Ba'ath influence, did use the title, and Egypt still is officially the Egyptian Arab Republic. Thegunkid (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until Syria's new government gives a new official name, the top of the infobox and the rest of the page where an "official" name would usually be listed should just say "Syria". StrawWord298944 (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegunkid yes but there is a mistake there. The website, provides itself an english name. According that, it is called Syrian Arabic Republic, not Syrian Arab Republic. Could you change it? Greek Rebel (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is so wrong and it is probably a bad translation the same way at one point their website had "Republic" written as "Rebublic" Abo Yemen✉18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's every chance most of the changes we are seeing are ad-hoc actions taken by individual organizations or even single individuals, so little mistakes will slip through. If the Arabic is not changed, it's probably not worth making too much of how the English is written at this time. CMD (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets reiterate, the Transitional Government is issuing decrees in Arabic, using the full name الجمهورية العربية السورية, or Syrian Arab Republic, in Arabic, English is not an official language of Syria so it's irrelevant the English letterhead has typos. Thegunkid (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Syria proper shown in dark green; Syria's territorial claims over most of Turkey's Hatay Province and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights shown in light greenShow globe
^Cite error: The named reference Khalifa2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Shoup, John A. (2018), The History of Syria, ABC-CLIO, p. 6, ISBN978-1440858352, Syria has several other ethnic groups, the Kurds... they make up an estimated 9 percent...Turkomen comprise around 4-5 percent of the total population. The rest of the ethnic mix of Syria is made of Assyrians (about 4 percent), Armenians (about 2 percent), and Circassians (about 1 percent).
^Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
@Dn9ahx thank you for reverting this vandalism. it doesn't look like you reverted the change to the arabic country TLD which should not read "ash-sham".
also - the edit box was conflicting - can I edit this article? it's semi protected and I'm autoconfirmed, but there's an additional disclaimer saying I need to be extended protected or I may be blocked from editing. WittyWidi (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not an Arabic speaker so sorry if i missed the mistake. Please write the code that needs changing on this talk page and i will correct the infobox. Dn9ahx (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this article presumptuous calling it "Syrian Arab Republic" when they're essentially in some sort of anarchy with many factions saying they're in charge? 174.249.85.73 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "The Invasion purpose was to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel." is neither true nor is it upheld by the source given, which only states "The humiliating failure of the Arab intervention in Palestine against the newly created State of Israel in May 1948 brought serious discredit to the governments of the Arab countries involved, but nowhere more than in Syria."
Syria was part of the Arab League and their official statement was that they were intervening in Palestine because of the lawlessness there and the ethnic cleansing: "The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine." (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations) Mcdruid (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The ethnic composition of Syria is mixed as referenced on the same Wikipedia page, wherein Arabs comprise the majority but Kurds and Turkmens comprise a significant percentage of the total population. Accordingly, the official name of the country should be inclusive as the ‘Republic of Syria,’not ‘Syrian Arab Republic.’ The Syrian Arab Republic name suggests that the country is comprised of Syrian Arabs and excludes other minorities such as Syrian Kurds. Ahmadsfelo (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we jumping to conclusions based the use of this flag at one meeting? If so, should we hide it from the infobox until its status and use becomes more clear? Dn9ahx (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are two editors without any source are playing with the number of Turkmen in Syria, making an absurd edit that 17% of Syrians are Turkmen. can someone revert that unsourced edit. Alhanuty (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is enough evidence to list him as "acting president". However, he could be listed as "de facto Leader", "Leader", "acting head of state", "de facto head of state" etc. I think further discussion or a poll to establish a consensus is in order. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: No reliable source given + we already have 2 sources agreeing on the 2.5% figure [17] says "While accurate numbers are hard to come by, their population is believed to have shrunk to about 2.5% from 10%." Abo Yemen✉07:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's some grammatical errors at the end of the religions paragraph in the demographics section. "and 3.84% are Syrian are Christians at 2020.[7]" Zzabka (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
or 
*(tap picture to see difference) Asd3131 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: There is a discussion thread above. Use it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 03:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done see the discussion above Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing, see above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=spacer}
_disputed.svg)
_-_SYR_-_UNOCHA.svg)
![De facto coat of arms used by the Syrian transitional government[2] of Syria](/https/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Syria_(2024%E2%80%93present).svg)
No to this idea.
Yes to this decision. 𝙲𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚜 𝚁𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚗 (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: That's not a standard part of the template, and that particular map wouldn't look great at the thumbnail resolution of the infobox. PianoDan (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
25,000,753[10] (57th)
26.6[12]
0.557[13]
Done PianoDan (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2024 (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. Skitash (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
