User:GRuban/Flag of Syria RfC

What
Talk:Flag_of_Syria

Points to resolve
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.

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.

Views

 * 2003:CA:83C1:3500:DD19:E151:C1C3:7FC5 (only contribution!) - proposer, support both. 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. Same as 2003:CA:83CB:8100:AD6C:7400:E6F5:B509? And2003:CA:83D1:3900:3C92:3E78:8CF:8BB3?
 * Alhanuty - oppose both. the civil war is still going on; as long as an inch of syria is still not under Assad's control, then we can't say that he is the government.
 * BobFromBrockley - 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. - presumably this means Attar-Aram Syria's comment at Talk:Flag_of_Syria?
 * Pavlor - 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; 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. - Not quite a formal support, but very close.
 * Claíomh Solais - 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.
 * Attar-Aram Syria - basically support. 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. 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. Links to CIA Factbook using 1980 flag: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html
 * BobFromBrockley - 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.
 * AnonMoos - 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 ... shouldn't by itself automatically result in changing the article page (yet)... - 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 - Basically oppose
 * kashmīrī 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. —
 * 3bdulelah 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.
 * 198.84.253.202 - Support per the now removed close.
 * Ignostic199 - 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.

Straight vote counting (less important than evidence, policy, guidelines)

 * Oppose: 5: Alhanuty, BobFromBrockley, Ignostic199, 3bdulelah, basically AnonMoos
 * Support: 4: Claíomh Solais, Attar-Aram Syria, basically Pavlor, Kashmiri
 * Anon Support 2: 198..., 2003...,

Misc
Why create an account?

Closing
Consensus for 1 to use "Syrian Government", not "Assad's government/regime/etc." But, unfortunately, no consensus on 2, the important part, only the 1980 flag in the lede.

The first part is easy, there were few to no arguments in favor of continuing use of "Assad's government", and multiple arguments against. The second part is likely going to be controversial, not only because it's about a conflict with actual blood being spilled, and naturally heated feelings on both sides, but also because it's been closed another way before. So I'm going to be long winded here; please forgive.

Sheer numbers of named editors voicing opinions on each side were almost balanced (Support 4:Claíomh Solais, Attar-Aram Syria, basically Pavlor, Kashmiri; Oppose 5: Alhanuty, BobFromBrockley, Ignostic199, 3bdulelah, basically AnonMoos). The previous closer, 198... tried to resolve that count by counting 3 "support" participants from an earlier similar discussion, but first, that's a debatable tactic, since we can't guarantee they are still interested, since they didn't participate in this discussion (I haven't looked, but several people mention that there was an earlier consensus for the status quo; should we count whoever argued for that as well?); second, the number of participants has increased since that close, so even counting those 3 wouldn't give an overwhelming majority to either side. There are ... some number, probably two ... IP participants, the 2003... IP, who created the RfC and is possibly the same as all the other 2003... IPs, but that is not at all clear, for example, their contributions page says this was their only edit!; and the 198... IP who tried to close the RfC the first time. I'm giving noticeably less weight to the arguments of each, for multiple reasons: first, because I can't properly judge the contributions of the different-every-time 2003... account, it could well be a Single-purpose account; each contributions page I clicked on only had a few edits, most to this page. Please, please, 2003..., create an account, having an established account with constructive contributions will build an editing history and will give additional weight to your well phrased arguments. As for 198..., first, the "please create an account" advice also applies. But I have to criticize your close, not just on the "an IP can't close an RfC" grounds, but on the grounds that after the close was reverted you then stated an opinion in the dispute. Someone who has an opinion in the dispute should not be closing a contentious RfC, for obvious reasons. Even when you make an account, which I hope you do, since your arguments were also intelligent and well phrased, please do stay away from closing RfCs on issues in which you have a personal opinion.

Even more important than counting numbers, though, are strength of arguments. No Wikipedia policies or guidelines were cited, or seem to be directly relevant, except for Reliable sources. Attar-Aram Syria provided a link to the CIA Factbook which uses the 1980 flag, which is a reliable source, and they and Pavlor referred to the fact (I don't see an actual citation, but no one contested this) that the UN uses this as the official flag of Syria. AnonMoos and BobFromBrockley countered with a reference to the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces which has references for 20 countries including most of the G7, the EU, and the Arab League, recognizing it as the legitimate government of Syria. Now those recognitions are mostly from 2012, and the "support" voices argued that the situation on the ground has changed since them. Maybe the recognitions have lapsed? However, we don't have reliable sources saying that. We don't have to go as far as "as long as an inch of Syria is still not under Assad's control," that's arguably been unachievable for nearly any Middle Eastern country for the last two thousand years, but we can certainly be influenced by the official recognition of 20+ major and local powers.

So, no consensus on the flag in the lede, and the status quo remains. I can imagine this being reopened if there are noticeably better sources, saying, for example, that most of the major powers that used to recognize the NCSROF have withdrawn their recognition, or that the NCSROF essentially ceases the fight. But please don't reopen this if there aren't either new sources or new arguments.