Talk:Flag of Syria/Archive 3

RFC: One primary flag, Syrian government to be known as "Syrian government."
I started a discussion already in the section immediately above, but starting a separate RFC section here in order to bring in more participation from a broader cross-section of Wikipedia community.

In brief, my proposal here has two components which, as noted above, would bring this article into line with the conventions already well established at other Syria-related articles, such as the main Syria article:

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

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

Naturally, historic flags of Syria should also be mentioned in the article, and the flags used by any group occupying parts of Syrian territory, whether a rebel group like the FSA, ISIS, or al-Nusra, or a foreign power like Israel or Turkey, could also be mentioned. But the article should not suggest that any of these groups or their flags are somehow on equal footing with the actual government of Syria and its current flag.

As noted in the section above, the current status-quo for this article apparently emerged a number of years ago, towards the beginning of the war, when various rebel groups were rapidly advancing, and it looked like the government of Syria might fall at anytime and be replaced. But this is no longer the case at all today. -2003:CA:83C1:3500:DD19:E151:C1C3:7FC5 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: It is POV to call the UN recognized government "Assad regime". The flag of Syria (red one) is the one raised in the UN. The flag of the opposition is a historical Syrian flag that belongs in the historic flags section but should not be presented as a competitor for the the UN recognized one. We, Wiki editors, should not decide the legitimacy of a certain govenrment, this is an encyclopedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the civil war is still going on and until the rival government the Syrian Interim Government is defeated militarily completely,then we can talk about removing the rival government,the syrian interim government still has Daraa and Idlib,and SDF controls northeast Syria,as long as an inch of syria is still not under Assad's control,then we can't say that he is the government,and If SDF remains in control of Northeast Syria,then we might have to rename this article the Flag of West Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Alhanuty - You write above that "the syrian interim government still has Daraa and Idlib," but in actuality, much of Darra governate, and part of Idlib government, are already under Syrian government control. And within the portions of Idlib and Darra that are under anti-government insurgent control, most is controlled by groups other than those branded as the "Free Syrian Army."  Groups like the Al-Nusra Front (the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, uses various other names), Jaysh al-Islam, and the Islamic Front, all uses flags other than the FSA/"Syrian Interim Government" flag, and these are the principle non-ISIS rebel groups in Syria, who control the most territory. Idlib city, and most of the rest of the governate is under al-Nusra control.


 * ...Should EACH of these rebel groups (and others), and the "governments" which they claim to be, be given equal status with the actual government of Syria?...And if not, then why not, what makes this "Syrian Interim Government" and its "Free Syrian Army" special and more deserving of arbitrary recognition from Wikipedia than all of the other armed groups occupying Syrian territory and setting up their own pseudo-governments?


 * Also, you write that: "as long as an inch of syria is still not under Assad's control,then we can't say that he is the government," but this is actually a STRAW MAN. Neither I, nor anybody else arguing for these changes is saying that Assad is the government.  We're saying that the SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, which is currently led by Assad, is the government of Syria. It is the others here who are wanting to call it the "Assad government" and identify it with him personally.  The fact is though that Assad could die tomorrow and the Syrian government, with all of its institutions, would continue to exist.


 * Finally, regarding this "an inch of syria" rhetoric, there are numerous countries around the world that, currently or in the past, have had armed rebel groups controlling parts of their territory. In 1994, for example, the EZLN briefly occupied parts of Mexico's territory.  Does this mean that Wikipedia (had it existed back then) should have given them equal status with the actual government of Mexico, and referred to the Mexican government as "the de Gortari government"???

The Assad Government doesn't control all of syrian territory and there is a rival government represented by the Syrian Interim government,plus your information is wrong,the Free Syrian Army controls 70% of Daraa,as long as the opposition controls a important territory such as Daraa,near Damascus,the Flag of Syria remains contested,until something happens to the syrian interim government.Alhanuty (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact is that consensus on Wikipedia isn't simply about the number of votes - it's about policies, and I'm seeing a real lack of coherent policy-based arguments from those arguing for the status-quo in this article. -2003:CA:83CB:8100:AD6C:7400:E6F5:B509 (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: As another editor said, when a similar proposal was made last month (just up the page), the flag of the Syrian opposition was the flag of Syria until 1958. It was used even by the current regime at events right up to the civil war commemorating the break with the UAR. It is not simply the flag of the Syrian National Coalition or any one particular organisation, but widely used by the entire opposition, and very widely in the Syrian diaspora. Nothing has changed that should affect the consensus that has been repeatedly re-affirmed here.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Is SDF using this flag? If not, then it is used only by a minor part of the opposition, not by the entire opposition. We shouldn´t give undue weight to insignificant faction. However, as both sides of this discussion will not back down, I fear this never-ending edit war will end only with complete military victory of one faction (and I wouldn´t bet on the one using the disputed flag). Pavlor (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the SDF using it? Well, yes it is. For example, here is the SDF announcing the battle of Raqqa in 2017, with the historic flag prominently displayed. Several SDF components use the the flag as part of their own, e.g. Northern Sun Battalion, Manbij Revolutionaries Battalion, Army of Revolutionaries, Jabhat al-Akrad, Northern Democratic Brigade and Jabhat Thuwar al-Raqqa as well as members of the Syrian Democratic Council, the political arm of the SDF, e.g. Syria's Tomorrow Movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that supports my point... SDF is not using it, only some sub-groups and individuals. Pavlor (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except the first link was the SDF, and the sub-groups are a very wide spread of them. Do you think SDF use the 1980 flag? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @BobFromBrockley - You made much the same comment in the section above, and I responded to all of your points then, but now you simply repeat the same stuff here without even addressing any of the points that I've made. In the interests of good faith communication, I would request that you actually address what I've said.


 * For example, I wrote:


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


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


 * What is your response to this???


 * Like I've stated repeatedly, the idea that nothing has changed is patently absurd. Back in 2012/2013 it looked like Damascus might fall any day and its government be replaced, but that's clearly not the case now!


 * The core of Syria and most of its major population centers have now been secured, and to the extent that the war drags on it will be a low-intensity regional conflict - not the sort of thing that Wikipedia considers multiple national governments with multiple flags.


 * And once again, regarding "re-affirmation" of an alleged "consensus," above I wrote: "Moreover, when you say that a "consensus" has been "repeatedly re-affirmed," I'm honestly curious as to how exactly you are defining "consensus" and how you're defining "re-affirmation" of said (alleged) "consensus."


 * In my perusal of the discussion above, it appears to me that there are at least as many people expressing disagreement with the supposed "consensus" as there are those supporting it."


 * What is your response to this???


 * Finally, as Pavlor pointed out above, the idea that the FSA flag (the one with green on top and three red stars) is "widely used by the entire opposition" is patently false...


 * It's not used by the Kurds/SDF. It's not used by ISIS.  It's not used by the Al-Nusra Front (the largest and most powerful non-Kurd and non-ISIS rebel group).  And if it's used at all by Jaysh al-Islam and the Islamic Front (the two other primary non-ISIS and non-Kurd rebel groups), it's certainly not the primary flag that they use.


 * So again, like I asked in response to user:Alhanuty above, why should the FSA flag be given special treatment in the Flag of Syria article different from that of the Al-Nusra flag, the Kurdish/SDF flags, the ISIS flag, the Jaysh al-Islam flag, etc.? -2003:CA:83D2:9C00:2DF7:892C:5728:EBFC (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * PS - The proposal a month ago was not a similar proposal, not at all, and in fact one of the users who opposed that proposal is supporting mine here. -2003:CA:83D2:9C00:2DF7:892C:5728:EBFC (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I made the same comment above, as you have opened the same topic of conversation twice, first as normal talk and now as a formal RfC. I didn't have time to respond to your comments then, but wanted to make sure my view was registered in the RfC. (And I don't see it as a substantively different proposal from the previous one: splitting out the historical/opposition flag into a different article so it is an article about the regime flag is not substantively different from making it an article about the regime flag, which would anyway lead to the creation of an article for the historical/opposition flag. I'll try to reply to your comments later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Bobfrombrockley - 1. There is no "regime flag." There's a flag that's used by the government of Syria, a government which, throughout other Wikipedia articles on Syria, including the main Syria article, is referred to simply as the "Syrian government," or "government of Syria," not as the "Assad government," "Assad regime," or anything POV along those lines.  This article is an outlier from the broader consensus/convention here on Wikipedia. 2. As I've repeatedly made clear, the older flag, with the green on top and three red stars, SHOULD be discussed here in this article, just as the Flag of Canada article discusses older versions with a Union Jack that were used before the current Maple Leaf design was adopted, and the Flag of Germany article discusses historical flags like the Nazi flag and the red, white, and black tricolor.  National flag articles ALWAYS discuss flags previously used by that nation, and there's no reason that the Flag of Syria article should be an exception in this regard.  And this article SHOULD ALSO NOTE THE USE OF THIS HISTORIC FLAG BY CERTAIN ARMED GROUPS AND ACTIVISTS, just as the Flag of Iran article notes the continued use of the "Lion and Sun" flag by some anti-government activists and expatriate communities.  The point though is that a historic flag used by some activists and armed non-state-actors SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN EQUAL WEIGHT TO THE ACTUAL CURRENT FLAG OF THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT OF SYRIA.  There is only one Syrian government, with one primary flag that it currently uses.  3. There's no need for a separate article on the "opposition flag," as the flag you're referring to would already still be discussed here, and there's also not one single "opposition" flag, as the various armed non-state-actors in Syria use a variety of different flags, including the Kurdish/JPG/SDF flags, the ISIS and al-Nusra banners, and the flags of the various other Jihadist groups like the Islamic Front and Jaysh al-Islam.  The so-called "Syrian National Coalition" is simply a collection of folks who sit around in hotels in Istanbul and have little actual impact on events on the ground in Syria.  They're certainly in no way of equal status with the actual government of Syria, and that's the whole point! -2003:CA:83D1:3900:3C92:3E78:8CF:8BB3 (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 2003:CA:83C1:3500:DD19:E151:C1C3:7FC5 -- When you equated the 1946-1958 & 1961-1963 two-red-star flag of Syria with the Israeli flag above, you were engaging in a rather disingenuous rhetorical maneuver. (The obvious riposte would to point out that many people feel that the two-green-star flag has a lot more connections to Nasser and the Ba`th party than it does to Syria as a nation.)  However, all this doesn't change the fact that the official Syrian opposition achieved a degree of external diplomatic recognition by the Arab League and other nations, while individual fighting groups by themselves have not gained such recognition.  Furthermore ISIS never claimed to be a government of Syria, but rather a pan-Islamic caliphate, so that the flag of ISIS is not an alternative flag of Syria as a nation-state, and was never claimed to be such.  And the military banners of other fighting factions represent the individual groups involved, rather than claimed alternative governments of Syria as a whole.
 * P.S. I wonder why you didn't also propose that the flags of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah be shown? AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos - There's a lot to break down in your comment above....

Regarding: "the 1946-1958 & 1961-1963 two-red-star flag of Syria" - there is no such flag. The historical flag now used by some opposition groups has THREE red stars. Yes, just a technicality, but it calls in to question how familiar you are with the topic.

Regarding Israel - I didn't just make a comparison with Israel, but also with Turkey, since they are both foreign states which occupy Syrian territory at the present time. Regarding Russia and Iran and Hezbollah, they do all have military presence in Syria, but they aren't occupying territory and keeping the Syrian army out of said territory, and their presence is at the invitation of the government of Syria - so it's in no way comparable to Israel's occupation of the Golan.

Now you talk above about the "official Syrian opposition," presumably referring to the Syrian national coalition, but this isn't a government which actually controls any of the forces on the ground. There are all sorts of rebel groups who run various Sharia law courts and other pseudo-governmental institutions, but there's no real authority being exercised by the SNC in Istanbul. It is true that the Arab League and some others have given some recognition to the SNC, but that's in no way comparable to the actual government of Syria, which is recognized by the UN, controls the entire capital of Syria and the lion's share of its major population centers, and is regularly referred to in mainstream media as the Syrian government.

And that's what this ultimately boils down to. There's only one actual government of Syria, and some rebel groups or foreign powers occupying parts of Syria's territory doesn't change this fact.

A good analogy would be Colombia a few years ago, when the FARC was occupying some territory in the mountains and jungles, but the actual Colombian government controlled the lion's share of the country's major population centers and its entire capital, and of course was the UN-recognized government of the country. The FARC did aspire to overthrow the government, but their claim didn't mean a whole lot....And even if, say Cuba and North Korea and some other countries set up diplomatic relations with FARC, this still wouldn't change the fact.

Again, Syria has ONE GOVERNMENT, which uses ONE PRIMARY FLAG. The flag with the green top and three red stars should of course be discussed in the article as a historic flag, and its use by some opposition groups and militias should also be noted, but it's in no way on equal footing with the actual current flag of Syria, and it goes against NPOV for Wikipedia to suggest that it is. -2003:CA:83D1:5200:E04D:B5CB:AF80:C4B8 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I made the star-number mistake, but I was the one who uploaded the first version of image File:Flag of Syria (1932-1958; 1961-1963).svg in 2006, so I'm familiar with that flag. If you look at File:Syria-flag-changes.svg (which I also uploaded in 2006), you can see that the flag of Syria has changed from 2 stars to 3 or vice versa several times, which was why I was briefly confused.  I also started the "Flag of Syria" article on Arabic Wikipedia (though admittedly it wasn't much to boast about at that time): علم سوريا.
 * Israel's occupation of the Golan is a 1967 and 1973 issue, which has no real connection to the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011 (44 years later!) so I really don't know why its flag should be included in the flags of the Syrian civil war on that basis. I thought you wanted the Israeli flag to be included as that of a part-time combattant, but if it's just because of the Golan, then that's really an irrelevant red herring.
 * And FARC in Colombia wasn't diplomatically recognized by anybody, as far as I'm aware (it often had difficulty just being recognized as a "belligerent force"). If the FARC had been placed in Colombia's seat at meetings of the OAS, that would be a good analogy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Main issue of the current "consensus" is not that some government is recognised or not, but that this article gives undue weight to one rather minor faction. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces doesn't have any fighters directly under its command (as far as I'm aware), so it's not even on the radar in that sense. However, it had significant diplomatic weight in 2013 (since when things have been somewhat in stasis on the diplomatic front)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @AnonMoos - First, regarding the number of stars, I take back that comment, which wasn't really that relevant to the overall point being discussed here, and it's honestly a mistake anybody can make when they're typing and a bit distracted or whatever, so no worries :-)
 * Now, regarding: "Israel's occupation of the Golan is a 1967 and 1973 issue, which has no real connection to the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011 (44 years later!) so I really don't know why its flag should be included in the flags of the Syrian civil war on that basis."
 * There's a couple points to clarify here: 1. This article isn't "flags of the Syrian civil war," but "Flag of Syria." If it were the former though then Israel should arguably be included as well, as it has actively participated in the Syrian civil war throughout the conflict, but I digress.  2. My point here was NOT that the Israeli flag should be included in the Flag of Syria article.  Rather, I was arguing that another entity, whether an insurgent group or a foreign government, controlling part of Syria's territory did not make it a government of Syria, and did not mean that its flag should be listed as a primary flag of the country...
 * What my contention ultimately comes down to is the articles opening paragraph and the tone which it sets: "As a result of the ongoing Syrian civil war, there are currently two governments claiming to be the de jure government of Syria,[dubious – discuss] using different flags to represent the state. The incumbent government, led by Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'ath Party, is using the red-white-black United Arab Republic flag in use since 1980; while the Syrian Interim Government, led by the Syrian National Coalition – seeking to overthrow the Assad government – readopted the green-white-black Independence flag in 2012."
 * ...This puts the SIG/SNC, and its flag, on equal footing with the actual government of Syria and the primary flag which it's represented by. This is uncalled for, and breaks with the broader consensus/conventions of Syria-related articles throughout Wikipedia, including the main Syria article.
 * As I've stated above, I think a good model to follow for this article would be the Flag of Iran article, which leads with a discussion of the current flag used by the current actual government of Iran.....But then, in its discussion of historic flags, includes a relatively substantial discussion of the "Lion and Sun" flag and its continued use by some opposition groups and expatriate communities. It does this though without putting the "Lion and Sun" flag on an equal footing with the flag of the actual current government of Iran.  -2003:CA:83CC:F800:B5A1:AC77:E3D6:A452 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The Israeli flag discussion is a distraction. Nobody arguing for the inclusion of the 1932 flag is arguing simply that some of Syria is controlled by people who fly the 1932 flag. The arguments are, instead, (a) that there is an on-going civil war, so there is not simply one government, but an alternative entity that has come to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of a significant part of the international community (a far better analogy here would be the American Civil War: if there had been a Wikipedia then, you'd expect the Flag of America article to include two flags, that of the Union and that of the Confederacy), and, perhaps more importantly, (b) a significant number of Syrians, in the rebel zones of Syria and in the diaspora (well over a fifth of the 2011 Syrian population are now registered as refugees outside the country) identify the 1932 flag as their flag, as the Syrian flag, and see the 1980 flag as illegitimate. The 1932 flag is not the flag of "a minor faction", but used across the whole swathe of the opposition, including the civil opposition and rebel groups, as well as across the diaspora. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Confederacy did not claim to be government of the US... quite opposite. If Wikipedia existed back then and somebody did such propaganda work for the Confederacy, the US government would probably use emergency war powers to shut down this entire site. Pavlor (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 2003:CA:83C1:3500:DD19:E151:C1C3:7FC5 -- In your original comments of "19:16, 6 May 2018" above, it sure seemed like you wanted to include various and diverse flags of the Syrian civil war in this article. In any case, the 3-red-star flag is not the military banner of a faction which has occupied some territory, and has not been included in this article on that basis. AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment What about available reliable sources? What these say about topic of this article? This, not POV arguments I see from all sides, should be basis for our discussion. I must repeat my point in the "UN recognized flag" section above: even governments not in friendly terms with the Assad regime use the 1980 flag for Syria on their webpages. Current state of the article gives equal weight to both flags, but so far no one provided sources supporting this (so often) disputed claim. Pavlor (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - The American/Israeli backed insurgents have at this point lost the Syrian Civil War and the Syrian Arab Republic controls the vast majority of the territory, not only that but it is the government recognised at the UN. All other Wikipedia language articles on this topic have the government flag as the flag of Syria. The Syrian Arab Republic is the status quo.... an insurgency attempted to overthrow it and has failed. Until it is successful (not likely at this stage) then the flag should not be changed. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

we can't change the compromise,there is still a rival government,which its militias still controlling wide parts of Daraa and Parts of Idlib.Alhanuty (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

nobody should be changing the agreed consensus,even as we are having these debates.Alhanuty (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this "consensus" seems to be unpalatable for many editors... However, you may ask an admin for page protection, so IPs and new accounts will be not able to edit there (an admin will probably protect the article anyway sooner or later, if the edit-warring continues). Pavlor (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Whatever consensus you had years ago is gone now. Calling the opposition a Syrian interm government while calling the only internationally recognized government "assad gove" is POV. Wiki editors should stop acting as international law judges. Tawian claimed the whole of china but we wont see its flag as the flag of china because it has no UN recognition. Same goes for those opposition governments.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don´t compare SNC/SIG to the "Republic of China". Taiwan has full sovereignty over part of claimed territory and armed forces with full chain of command. Speaking about law... our only binding authority should be reliable sources. So far no one presented strong sources supporting current "consensus". Pavlor (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No one can decide what is a right comparison. I see the taiwan example suitable when it is aimed to compare the claim of taiwan over the mainland. Anyway, the CIA factbook is a relaible source. The flag in it is the red flag. We dont need reliable sources to prove that the flag shown in the UN headquarters is the official flag. Even then, we can use the CIA factbook to at leaat rename the section from assad government to the syrian government or I will rename the other section: flag used by rebles' governments.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Will [this reliable source bring some logic to this article and end the POV consensus?.--[[User:Attar-Aram syria|Attar-Aram syria]] (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good start. Now it is up to the other side of the dispute to provide at least as good source to support its "consensus". Pavlor (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

We used this model as a solution for the Flag of Libya and it worked out well,so why need to change the consensus.Alhanuty (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The terrorists were successful in Libya, they won there so now we show their flag. In Syria, they have lost. You are comparing apples and oranges. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you dont have a consensus anymore. Because your consensus is POV. And because the UN have other things to say.. just go to Newyork and see which flag represents Syria there. For god sake at least call it the Syrian government like you call the rebles governments with the names they chose for themselves if you have an ounce of NPOV.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, BobFromBrockley, Alhanuty and Anoos are with the POV consenus that doesnt exist anymore. While Me, Claíomh Solais, the IP who started this discussion, and I think Pavlor are against your "Consensus". Seems that we have a new consensus, so can you at least not use the word consensus in every comment of yours ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

who are you to decide what is a consensus,plus you are launching a personal attack against me,accusing me of sockpuppetry,plus we go with past precedents.Alhanuty (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

plus Attar-Aram syria you have reverted once again,self-revert yourself.Alhanuty (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are under the impression that you have a consensus, but you dont, count the votes up till now. As for reverting, I made a new edit to a different section, so No, I did not revert again. And no, you dont go with precedents, you go with reliable sources which I provided showing that Syria have one official flag used by the republic of Syria not Assad government--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There's no "voting" as such in settling these types of issues at Wikipedia. Overwhelming numbers of people being on one side of a dispute can have an effect, but it's not decided by vote-counting as such (see WP:VOTE)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes darling, im not new here, i dont need the vote link. But since alhanuty shoves the word consensus every two sentences, it felt suitabl to show that no such a thing exist anymore since consensus means that all parties have reached an agrrement while obviously this isnt the case now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If you knew that voting settles very few issues at Wikipedia, then I wonder why you invoked it in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * my prebious reply answer this.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The fortunes of war have shifted, but the diplomatic gains of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces have not been formally reversed, and the three-red-star flag is still commonly used as a common anti-Assad-regime symbol by a number of different factions and individuals. The fact that the rebellion is militarily on the ropes (without having been decisively and finally defeated) due to outside interventions, does not necessarily mean that the rebellion has "lost" (despite what Claíomh Solais says), and shouldn't by itself automatically result in changing the article page (yet)... AnonMoos (talk)


 * Okay, so do you agree that Assad government is POV and it is NPOV to write the Syrian Government just like you adress other governments with their self-designation ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you then provide RS supporting your version of the article (two equal governments - one of them called the "Assad government" - and the 1961 flag as the flag of Syria)? If you have strong source, you may have my voice on your side. However, so far only the "pro-regime" side provided any sources to support their claims. Pavlor (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You're giving me undue credit when you call it my version of the article, when I did very little of the editing involved.
 * No country recognizes two equal governments (that would be a Two-Syria policy, parallel to the Two-China policy), but a significant number recognize the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, and flags follow behind such government recognition, as I said in my comment of "10:15, 30 November 2017" above.
 * It may be that the rebellion will soon collapse and no longer be a credible government contender. but that hasn't happened yet (despite Claíomh Solais's claims), and I don't see the need for this article to anticipate or predict future events... AnonMoos (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So, you only argument is recognition by few states. Quite weak. As I see it there are three main statements requiring strong RS:
 * 1. There are two Syrian governments with comparable international recognition.
 * 2. The "old" government is called the "Assad government".
 * 3. The 1961 flag is widely recognized as the current flag of Syria.
 * I must repeat my previous request, can anybody provide reliable sources supporting these statements? Pavlor (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those three arguments are not the arguments on which the case for leaving the article roughly in the form it has had for the last few years. (1) No-one is arguing there are two governments with comparable recognition; the argument is that the recognition given to the Assad government is far from universal, their territorial control is far from total, and a significant part of the Syrian population (and even bigger part of the Syrian diaspora population, which is 20% of the 2011 population) does not recognise the Assad government or its flag; (2) the terms "old" and "Assad" are irrelevant to this case; (3) the 1961 (1932) flag is not "the" current flag, but "a" current flag, which is why both flags should be included in the article, with the government one first and the opposition one second.
 * If you look at other articles on Wikipedia on the current conflict, you will note the main article is called Syrian Civil War, and all of the articles referring to it are categorised in relation to a civil war. A civil war, by definition, is between two sides claiming the country. While the war is on-going, even if one side currently has the upper hand, it is right that the article reflects this rather than takes a side.
 * In articles relating to the war, the belligerents are given flag icons in the infobox. The Assad government is given an icon with the 1980 flag, the opposition an icon with the 1932 one. This is appropriate, and shows there are two flags, and this article should follow that convention used across the whole of Syria-related Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will put it bluntly, disputed claims must be referenced. The "Consensus" state of the article lacks support in RS (at least nobody provided these so far) and is disputed for years. Arguments based purely on POV (like you presented above), not reliable sources, are directly in contradiction to the WP:V policy. If you can´t support your POV by reliable sources, it is original research - in direct contradiction to the WP:OR policy. If you give undue weight not supported by reliable sources to one minor faction, it is in direct contradiction to the WP:NPOV policy. It is obvious, the "consensus" is not based on Wikipedia's three core content policies. Pavlor (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Pavlor -- the facts about the diplomatic recognition of the "National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces" should be suitably sourced in the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces article -- I don't really see what would be gained by copying such references from that article to this one. In any case, as I've said before (more than once), foreign states don't really recognize flags directly -- they recognize governments, and the flag follows from the government.  That's standard diplomatic practice (not "original research")... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Subject of this article is flag of Syria, not diplomatic recognition of some government. Sure there are RS about diplomatic recognition of SNC/SIG, but we need sources concerning the flag. You can´t simply reason that when some countries recognize government A, then its flag is a flag of the country. You need RS to back up this claim, else it is OR. As of flag recognition, the "pro-regime" side presented The World Factbook published by no one other than the CIA (I don´t think these people work for Assad...). If you have similar (or better) source supporting your POV, it would be much stronger argument than unreferenced statements. Pavlor (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your demand for sources of one particular narrow hypothetical type is unproductive and unconstructive in this context -- since a statement saying that "Country A recognizes the three-red-star flag of the Syrian opposition forces" is not how things are done, so that such statements almost certainly do not exist. Rather, the statements which do exist are of the type "Country A recognizes the Syrian opposition forces as the government of Syria", and therefore should be used on the Syrian opposition forces article page.  The status of the flag of the Syrian opposition forces (as far as country A is concerned) follows from the country A's recognition of the Syrian opposition forces as the government of Syria.  I really don't know why you're having difficulty understanding this point... AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What you wrote is the very definition of OR. If there are no RS, there can´t be verifiable content. Pavlor (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- the particular type of source which you seem to be demanding almost certainly does not exist, because the work of diplomacy is simply not done in the way that you apparently think it should be done (you're far more "original" than I am in such a demand). Therefore maybe you should accomodate your sourcing demands to the types of sources which actually do exist in the real world?  Just a suggestion... AnonMoos (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a joke? Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources (and even more so disputed content). If there are no RS supporting such content, it has no place in this encyclopedia. Pavlor (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If you're demanding sources which by their nature don't exist (or are very unlikely to exist), then you're clearly the "Original" one. AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not my idea, but core policy of Wikipedia (WP:V). Pavlor (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It would move things along if you could express your demands for verifiability in terms of things which exist in the real world (as opposed to what might exist in some parallel fantasy universe). AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The other side of the dispute was able to provide exactly this kind of sources I requested (The World Factbook by CIA may be not strong RS, but better than nothing). The ball is in your court now. Pavlor (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Pavlor, by your logic, you need to provide a RS for governments recognising the two star flag. The CIA factbook shows the flag, but by your logic it is OR (SYNTH) to jump from that to claim the flag is officially recognised. And this is especially incumbent on you as the burden of proof to change something where there is no consensus for change rests with those arguing for change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don´t request "official recognition" of the 1961 flag, I only want to see coverage of this flag as current flag of Syria in reliable sources. Source we both mentioned (CIA World Factbook) plainly states the 1980 flag is the flag of Syria (even with simple flag description under the Government section). Can you post similar source for the 1961 flag? Only RS backing is currently provided by ft.com article (behind pay-wall) from 2011 (adpotion by the opposition), which is too old to be useable today. Such coverage would merit a mere mention, not status equal to the 1980 flag. "Consensus" was born few years ago from wishful thinking, quality of sources apparently was not that important back then. Even after the change proposed by this RfC, the flag adopted by SNC/SIG will have prominent place in the article far above its level of coverage in reliable sources. Pavlor (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pavlor -- Every country which recognizes the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate government of Syria thereby automatically and correspondingly boosts the international significance of the flag of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, because that's the way that diplomatic recognition works under the system of diplomacy that we have in the world today. I really don't understand why you're tying yourself in a knot about this, or demanding as sources diplomatic documents of a type which don't generally exist under the current way of doing things... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The so-called Syrian Interim Government has not received diplomatic recognition from a single state. It is a self-styled rebel admin body. Things might change but as of today, only the Damascus-based administration can be in Syria legally termed as government. — kashmīrī  TALK  16:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces has been recognised as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people by several governments, and as a legitimate representative by several more - see Foreign relations of the Syrian Opposition. Moreoever, as well as being used by the various institutions of the formal, recognised opposition, the independence flag is used widely by civil society groups, diaspora organisations and rebel armed factions, so this formal recognition is only part of the story anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the article you linked, only one government has recognised them as "sole representative": Turkey. So, your claim of "several governments" is factually incorrect, to put it mildly. "Wide" flag usage (how wide btw?) does not make it the official flag of Syria. Nor is this flag considered a protected state insignia anywhere in the world (except in Turkey). Try to stick to the facts please. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article? It says that France and the UK are among those that have recognised it as the sole representative. Similar wording was used by the 114 member Friends of Syria group of states in December 2012. Several more, e.g France, Germany, US, as well as the EU recognise it as "a" legitimate representative, or as "legitimate representatives" of the Syrian people. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly can´t count these countries (at Friends of Syria meeting/s in 2012) as one voice. Eg. Czech Republic (EU and NATO member) still has an ambassador in Damascus. Pavlor (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Country profile of Syria on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey webpage still shows the 1980 flag:  Pavlor (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pavlor, I really don't know why you keep getting hung up on unproductive inessentials in this way. As I've been explaining since "10:15, 30 November 2017" (over six months ago, now in the archives!), the way things work in the real world is that governments don't usually directly recognize foreign flags -- instead they recognize governments, and the flag follows along with the government... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then read government description on that very page... That much about "recognition" by Turkey. Pavlor (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Why should we change something we have been doing since 2011? In Syria there is an Alternative government and it controls part of the country, it has relationship with many countries. Assad controlling the majority of the country doesn't change anything as long as the civil war is still going on as in 2014 ISIL used to control the majority of the country. We can decide which flag should stay after the end of the war. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia if you are interested in supporting your respective favorite parties of the war please go and fight for them on the ground and leave Wikipedia alone, thanks. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per the now removed close, . 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ’’’Oppose’’’: given that the Syrian interim government using the free Syrian flag is still recognized by some major powers (such as Turkey) and given that the flag is widely used in the Syrian diaspora (which represents millions of Syrians), I believe it is unfair to claim the Assad government’s flag is uncontested and free Syrian flag confined to history. I further believe « Assad government » is a fair and a NPOV characterization, which simply reflects the dynastic character of the Syrian Arab Republic. Comparisons to the Bush or Clinton « dynasties » in the talk section below are ludicrous and reflect the biased nature of the views of those editors pushing to remove mentions of « Assad » government. Ignostic199 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Split
Let's simply split Flag of the Syrian opposition into a separate article - this is already 6 years and neither the opposition nor the Ba'athist Syrian Republic are not going anywhere. We should be realistic and stop pretending like both Koreas are the same country with same flag or that Republic of Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Cyprus can unite - all have distinct flags.GreyShark (dibra) 17:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Korea has been hostile but stable since 1953, while Cyprus has been hostile but stable since 1974. Syria is still very volatile and unpredictable... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - in light of recent discussions I would like to reinstall the split proposal - this would reduce edit-warring. Remarks welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 16:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose its not up to us to be realistic. Both Koreas have international recognition but only one Syria have such a thing. The flag of the Syrian opposition is the flag of Syria until 1958; just because the opposition used it doesnt make it a new flag that deserves an article named the flag of the Syrian opposition.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now. Civil wars may drag on for years (eg. 15 years in Lebanon...). To put it cynically, some problems may solve themselves - with enough time... and firepower. Pavlor (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, But... Civil war is civil war. No matter how long the conflict goes on and no matter our opinions, until the Syrian people and government make a decision we should show both sides of the flag. But I do agree that this information should also appear on a page discussing the Syrian opposition. (Dnmppolitico (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC))
 * Support per the same reasons I describe in this comment Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 07:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on whether to use the Syrian Opposition flag equally
I am not formatting this as a formal request for comment because there was one this year that closed as a no consensus vote and it feels too early to formally reopen the wound, but I still feel obligated to comment as I would had the last rfc remained open. Personally, I support splitting the opposition flag into its own article and reserving this article for the incumbent Syrian government. The lede of this article is problematic because it says both are claiming to be the de jure government, which isn't exactly the correct way to discuss de facto versus de jure. All de facto countries claim to be the legitimate government, but Syria is both the de jure and de facto government, despite the multi-party civil war.

I am not against having a place to include information for the Free Syrian Army flag which is used de facto in certain parts of the country; de facto / unrecognized countries / states with limited recognition happens to be one of my niche areas for editing, but I don't recommend making this article give equal weight to both parties in an unresolved conflict.

The reason is simply because the two are separate entities. I've read editors cite Korea as an example of why we should not split the article, but we have separate articles for the two separate entities. Per DeterminePrimary, it's not disputed that the primary topic for the name "Syria" does in fact refer to the sovereign UN member state. So long as this remains true, the Syrian Opposition is the opposition, while the incumbent government is Syria. We don't know when the war will end, and we don't know who will ultimately become/remain the Syrian government, but it's not subject to opinion which one is still both the de jure and the de facto Syria. These entities are separate, and it is a preferable format to keep their articles separate as well.

Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As a follow-up, it's notable that Flag of Belarus, a well-written featured article, puts the most popular opposition flag in the infobox but still gives it a separate section. If we cannot reach a consensus to make this article about the official Syrian flag and a separate article for the Syrian opposition, this may be a desirable format. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the de jure and de facto wording, which is indeed clumsy, could be amended. But the fact is that there is still an on-going civil war (rather than just a breakaway state, as in other split contexts). The former state has (shaky) sovereignty over a fraction of the pre-war population, with refugees out of the country, the population in and displaced to rebel territory, and Rojava between them constituting a huge percentage. It is premature to make the more significant change now.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Though I think your rationale is very reasonable, and I agree that it would be premature to make sweeping changes now, I'm personally not entirely swayed that the civil war necessitates splitting this article into its current state. The territory held by the Syrian opposition is now effectively nonexistent compared to that of other groups like Rojava, and we have an article for the Flag of Rojava. I understand that the circumstances there are slightly different, as their goal is not to defeat and ultimately replace the government of Syria. However, the limited ability for Syria to fully assert control over the territory it successfully reclaimed from the opposition still seems like a shaky reason to use both flags equally; quite a lot of countries are definitively regarded as failed states - entities whose governments are not fully capable of exerting sovereignty over their own territory - but that has hitherto not been a reason to give their opposition coequal status. Though it would be fair to respond by saying that not all failed states are in a civil war with a clear opposition, Flag of Yemen is simply about the flag of Yemen and not the Houthi flag, which in my opinion is how it should be (though that flag article also needs to be improved in other ways).
 * More to the point, I still agree that it's unlikely that we'll actually reach a consensus one way or the other any time soon, but I think that for the time being, a reasonable compromise (or rather a reformatting in compliance with the last no consensus result) is to display the Syrian opposition flag in the infobox as the opposition flag (similar to the Belarus example) rather than using one flag per section and no flag in the lead. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Brendon, I support your position. The latest maps show the government of Syria controlling most of the Syrian territory to the West of Euphrates. I disagree that its control is “shaky” as the area under government control is steadily expanding, not fluctuating (this can be seen on liveuamap.com website, which has a time-rewind capability). Six largest Syrian cities (by pre-war population) — Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Hama, Latakia, Deir-ez-Zor — are controlled by the government. At present, Syria is a sum of four parts: 1) the government-controlled part, which is a continuation of pre-war Syria, containing the capital with its ministries, parliament and universities, large urban centers, ports, etc. — the things that define a country’s identity; 2) Idlib region controlled by opposition; 3) northern regions occupied by Turkey; 4) Manbij, Tabqa, and everything to the East of Euphrates controlled by Kurds and NATO countries. Thus, I think it’s best to show the government flag as the flag of Syria, the opposition flag in an infobox (as they don’t want to secede, but overthrow the current government), and the Kurdish flag in a separate article (as they seem to want to secede). 46.242.13.150 (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By shaky, I didn't mean fluctuating; I meant government sovereignty is limited in government areas, as it is effectively a patchwork of warlords, militias, foreign forces, etc. But that's not really relevant to the argument. The other thing to bear in mind as well as territorial control is the loyalty of the population. I can't see a RS right now, but the pre-war population outside the government territories is a considerable proportion, including those displaced to rebel territory, IDPs in border camps like Rubkan, the international diaspora, as well as those in Rojava. I think it is important that the opposition flag is used widely in the diaspora, in refugee camps, etc, and is considered the legitimate flag of Syria in those contexts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the Assad regime controls majority of Syrian territory and population, but the war is still far from over and Syria remains fractured. However, I don´t share your point of view: what the refugees may think is of no use for us, as we can only refer to reliable sources. Although I agree with OP the current lead is outdated, I don´t think we are able to reach a new consensus now, better to wait in this regard. As of splitting the article, that certainly is not good idea right now - in year or so, if the war degenerates into frozen conflict, we may follow similar pattern as in case of Georgia or Moldova. Pavlor (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have created a version of the article with a redone lede, the english standardized to american english, and with some minor adjustments. This version of the article is in my sandbox. (I haven't revised the article itself to this version yet because this seems to be a bit controversial, waiting for consensus) Thoughts?Thespündragon 15:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * wait, just noticed the notice at the top of the page that this is in british english, ill standardize mine to british englishThespündragon 01:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * fixedThespündragon 02:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Protection
there are many pro-assad vandals who are attempting to vandalize the page,can the page be protected,only for confirmed editors.Alhanuty (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you'll need to make that request at requests for page protection. [[User:Gaelan|Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Syrian Arab Republic flag should be main topic
I believe the flag of the Baathist Syrian Arab Republic should be used as the primary topic, instead of the Regime and Opposition flags being given equal weight. Both the articles on Syria and the Coat of Arms are about the Baathist Arab Republic rather than giving the Opposition governments equal weight. So the SAR infobox should be brought to the top of the page, and the lede should be changed to reflect this. Thespündragon 02:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * that would be bias firstly,secondly that would ignore facts on the ground,Assad Government doesn't control near 40% of the country,millions of people are out of his control,and there is a rival government in the north,led by the Syrian National Coalition,that nominally intends to replace him,also,the syrian coat of arms and the syria article,should have been disputed between the Assad Government and the Syrian National Coalition,don't know why that hasn't been done in 2012-2013,when the syrian opposition declared the rival government.the Kurds lead a rival government in the areas they control.also the Assad Government has no sovereignty,it is basically a puppet government.Alhanuty (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alhanuty. The article already gives precedent, in terms of order and weight, to the Baathist flag rather than equal weight, but it would be wrong at this stage to eliminate the opposition flag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I (cynically) wrote in one of the above threads, some problems may solve themselves... with enough time and firepower. To be more serious, some rewrite of the lead is indeed needed, as the other "government" is now a shadow body rather than real power in Syria. Something like: As a result of the ongoing Syrian civil war, there are two different flags used to represent the state. The incumbent government, led by Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'ath Party, is using the red-white-black United Arab Republic flag in use since 1980; while the Syrian opposition – seeking to overthrow the Assad government – readopted the green-white-black Independence flag in 2012.  Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this would first need an update to Syrian Interim Government. As it stands now, Wikipedia still considers the opposition groups as a Government, following its recognition as such by a handful of countries. Until that changes, I see no point of modifying the lead section (even though your version probably better reflects the ground reality in Syria). — kashmīrī  TALK  17:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don´t think this is necessary, the article about SIC has proper attribution of their claims (The interim government indirectly controls some areas of the country and claims to be the sole legitimate government on behalf of the Syrian Opposition in defiance of the Council of Ministers of Ba'athist Syria), so it is not even in Wikipedia voice. Pavlor (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made a new lede focusing moreso on the flags rather than the governments that use them:
 * any thoughts? -Thespündragon 18:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. That might be a pragmatic solution. -Bobfrombrockley 14:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have implemented the new lede (with minor structure changes) -Thespündragon 14:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have implemented the new lede (with minor structure changes) -Thespündragon 14:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

for various reason,i prefer the old lead for now,but i will have no objection to change it in maybe in the incoming months,but currently there are two rival governments still and both are fighting.Alhanuty (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alhanuty, the new lede does recognize that there are different factions using different flags in the war. An article on the flags of Syria does not need to go into specifics on the legal status on these factions, especially in the lede. If a reader wishes to learn more on the governments in question, they can click on the wikilinks and read those articles. -Thespündragon 16:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * New lede is certainly an improvement. Neutral wording, no fringe POV-pushing (like the old one). So, Thespoondragon, you have my "vote". Pavlor (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For clarity, heres the edited new lede proposition, as was implemented on 5 June:
 * -Thespündragon 02:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be the main topic. It's 2020, Assad won the war, the flag is everywhere save a few small pockets of terrorist strongholds.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting back to your non-consensus revision before a new consensus is reached certainly is not a good way to start a new discussion about this topic. That being said, I´m "neutral" to the change proposed. Pavlor (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Non-consensus"? That "consensus" was from 2019. It should not require a big fuss on the talk page to make a blatantly correct update - consensus from other Wikipedia pages about the Syria issue has been reached that Assad pretty much won the war. There is no dispute as to what actually is the flag of Syria and what is merely the flag of a loosely organized opposition with little power and little diplomatic standing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If your edit is reverted, you should discuss the proposed change on the article talk page, not push your favourite version by another revert. This page has a long history of edit-warring over this very topic, don´t be surprised, if another users reverts to the "consensus" revision. As I wrote, I´m neutral towards the proposed change, but I don´t like the way you did that edit. Pavlor (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If your edit is reverted, you should discuss the proposed change on the article talk page, not push your favourite version by another revert. This page has a long history of edit-warring over this very topic, don´t be surprised, if another users reverts to the "consensus" revision. As I wrote, I´m neutral towards the proposed change, but I don´t like the way you did that edit. Pavlor (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Flag of Syria (1963-1972)
Which one was the offical flag of Syria from 1963 to 1972, the 2:3 version or the 1:2 version? i'm not so sure. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ColorfulSmoke (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The proportions were not defined, so many variants existed,(all of which were "official") among them versions in 2:3 and 1:2. A 1:2 version is used here as it is consistent with our image of the First Republic's flag and is how it was shown in many period flag books. -Thespündragon 08:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)