Talk:Syria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syria article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
To-do list for Syria: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Inline Citations: There are many claims and/or facts without citations.
  • Language Tune up.
  • Add an economy section !
  • There needs to be neutrality! If the man is elected as president, label him that, not as tyrant and dictator.

List by Ahmadac 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Last Modified by Ahmadac 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Aramaic alap.svg This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Syriac script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Syriac script.
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Demogra

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

[edit] The Palestine War of 1948

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Religion

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

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

[edit] Education

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

[edit] Removed: The Israeli War of Independence, 1948

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


[edit] The Israeli War of Independence, 1948

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[edit] News Flash

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

MADRID, July 23 (Reuters) -

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

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

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

[edit] Name

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

[edit] article source?

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

[edit] international relationships

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

What is worrying you? I don't think you need fear anybody invading anytime soon!
If you want more information about Syrian affairs a good starting point would be American professor Joshua Landis' blog [1]. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone took this recommendation of mine a bit too much to heart... Palmiro | Talk 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signs of war against Iran and Syria

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

[edit] total cleanup necessarily

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

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

[edit] war of Summers 2006

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

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

Mentioning of the syrian regime should be mention.

[edit] NPOV problems

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

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

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Kurds

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

[edit] Culture

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

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

I would difently delete this article.

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

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

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

[edit] Syria Governorate Infobox

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

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

Note:

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


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

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

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

[edit] A useful source

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

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

[edit] NPOV needed in this article

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

[edit] History section too long

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

[edit] Directed at geography

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

I agree. Asabbagh 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Israel occupies the Golan Heights, which was formerly Syrian territory. There is presently no recognized Palestinian state, hence it has no borders. I'm open to debate on this topic, however please cite some reliable sources to backup your claims and assertions. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Golan

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

Israel administers/occupies the Golan Heights...

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

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

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

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

Please take note, that to say "occupies" is not taking sides. It is the opinion that the whole world (except Israel) agrees upon. By saying "administers", and not clarifying the fact that the Golan is occupied Syrian land, you are the one taking sides, and thus violating WP:NPOV. To say that it is administered by Israel and that it is disputed territory, is not a lie. But, it is POV. You are expressing the Israeli POV by writing that, since that is exactly what Israel declares. Please stop defending this POV statement. Regarding how this dispute is between Israel and Syria, also note that the points of view expressed in an encyclopedia have to also include a world view, and the international NPOV agrees that it is occupied Syrian land. Asabbagh 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You have just stated it yourself. It is not agreed upon, whether by 1 country, 2 countries or 100 countries, it is not agreed upon as you have just stated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] French Mandate

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

[edit] Nancy Pelosi's Visit

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

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

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

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

[edit] Golan Heights and the Six Day War

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

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

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

Good point. Some people want to rehash a history of the Israel-Syria conflict (told from the Syria POV) in the introduction; better to say nothing or simply that it was taken over by Israel in the war (if that). Leave the details — annexation, UN opposition, how "belligerent" Israel is — to the main text. Best would be merely to say, "Historically, 'Syria', 'Greater Syria', or Bilad al-Sham (بلاد الشام) has often included the territories of Lebanon, Historical Palestine, and parts of Jordan, but excluded the Jazira region in the north-east of the modern Syrian state. The Syrian Government officially claims sovereignty over the region of Iskanderun and the Golan Heights, under Turkish and Israeli control, respectively. The dispute over Iskanderun has subsided in recent years." Calbaer 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess that would be the better route to a neutral introduction. —Anas talk? 11:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also nicer, I think. Right now, aside from information about the head of state, the only post-independence historical fact for Syria mentioned in the introduction is the loss and Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. That's not a pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist bias, but I think it's an Israel-centric bias, especially when you consider the fact that Hatay is mentioned without any historical context or discussion. Also consider all the other wars Syria has been involved with, the 30-year occupation of Lebanon, the assassinations in Lebanon (especially United Nations Security Council Resolution 1595), their alignment with Iran, their role (official and alleged) in the current conflict in Iraq, their 1991 and 2002 support-via-absense for American-led UN actions against Iraq (which in 1991 was a war and in 2002 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483), their past role as the most faithful independent ally of the USSR, and so many other topics that could be in the introduction. Most importantly, what about their union with Egypt, the union that produced the flag Syria still uses, the flag with two stars for Egypt and Syria? Of all this why mention only the loss of the Golan Heights? Calbaer 04:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So true, and so sad. Hopefully, as more members join WP:SY, this article will get the overhaul it deserves. —Anas talk? 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Syria

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

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

[edit] any help needed?

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

Haxxor23 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Palestine" as a border state

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, I might also point out that the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the most conservative estimate of what lands an independent Israel could have, has no Jewish lands bordering Syria, unless you accept the further fiction that Lebanon is part of Syria. But that is another fiction for another article.... Calbaer 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I've been noticing the little edit-war over this issue and would appreciate if it stops. —Anas talk? 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of the 'Human rights' section Disputed

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

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

[edit] Proper citation and reference list

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

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

[edit] Syria is a republic?

Psychomelodic 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] map of syria

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

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

Happy United Arab Republic's Day Today Sep 1, 2007 in Syria.

It's 18:55 on Sat Sep 1, 2007 in Santiago(City approx 10 minutes drive NE of Cordon),Isabela(Province approx 8 hrs NE of Manila,Metro Manila),Philippines.

My site is at http://www.michaelmanalolazo.winnerbb.net

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMLazo (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist state

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

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

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

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

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

While I appreciate the neutral tone of your latest article additions, to mention what are mere allegations on the main page for the country is undue weight. I've removed the Nazi harbor material, for now. The Behnam 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Proven fact is not mere allegations.--Roomsinto 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case we have "mere allegations." The Behnam 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish nation

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

[edit] Syrian Turkmens

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

[edit] Yezidis

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

[edit] new population statistics

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

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

[edit] Demographics make no sense

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

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

[edit] Units used is Syria

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


Units of length before 1931:

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


Units of area before 1931:

rotl (factor 1) 3.2E-3 [m²]

makuk (factor 250) 8.0E-1 [m²]

garava (factor 450) 1.44 [m²]

Units of area 20th century:

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


Units of capacity:

not found???


Units of weight before 1931:

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

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

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

rottolo (factor 1) 1.785 [kg]

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

cola (factor 35) 62.475 [kg]

zurlo (Aleppo) 62.692 [kg]

cantar (factor 100) 178.5 [kg]


Currencies:

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

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


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

[edit] French Mandate/ WWI

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