Jump to content

Talk:Syria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Deletion

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

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

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

Ed, I agree as if there is nothing to say but this.
Also, IMHO we can't report such statement only, without a wider note on the theme and, before, on Syrian politics. A political list, even if credible and of serious origins, is not produced from a NPOV by definition. We can add it as a reference, but it cannot be the main argument. --G
I'm going to put back "Islamic Jimad" and "state sponsors of terrorism", both of which are factual. Q or Jacob or someone else can add all the balancing information they like. --Ed Poor 07:24 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spam?

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

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

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

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

Iskenderun is disputed

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

If you look at the Hatay Province article you'll see that it states that Syria does no longer lay claim to the province. I don't have any sources and no time right now, so perhaps somebody can verify this?
In any case, I would have to say that the border at Bab al-Hawa looks very permanent.
--Stefan 63.243.163.194 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Right. I crossed the border at Bab al-Hawa 2x last summer wihout any problem. --83.240.4.195 09:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Syria was not always an Arab country.

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

Thank you for your comment: it has been noted. Gareth Hughes 11:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What an ignorant comment. I really take offense when people try to tell me what or who i am or where i belong. Syrians are a mix of all those people, yes, but there is an ARAB component in them too. Check out the Ghassanids, the Nabataeans. Please don't try to tell us what we are, and whether we want tpeople" of a land when so much mixing occurs. And i hope i have proven you wrong that there are christian arabs, yes, RACIAL ARABS. Your bigoted comments about islam are stupid.Yuber 05:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have never made a bad or bigoted statement on Islam. I only said that the Arabs forced the Byzantine Christians to convert to Islam, in addition, the invading Arabs gave the non-Arab Christians another choice to pay a 10% tax which is reffered to as the Jizyah. Syria and other countries in the Levant were under the Byzantine Empire, the Arabs invaded the non-Arab Syrians and Lebanese during the Arab Conquest of the 7th Century. You say that there are Christians that are was just ranting. Before you dispute anybody or anything, check your references and most importantly check your history. Let's not be hostile, call each other names, and accuse one another of being ignorant, bigoted or stupid. Byzantine Empire, and the History of Greece will show you where I'm at.--66.81.173.40 08:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arab culture and history is more than just Islam. The people of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq etc are clearly Arabs (whether they are christians, muslims or do not follow a religion): They use the Arabic language, they share the same history and destiny and they see themselves as Arab etc etc.
This is not to say people may also have other identities. As for your allegations of forced conversion, you (Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols etc). Most likely a complicated picture emerges. The tax referred to is of course a fact, part of history. Many of the leading figures of Arab Nationalism like for instance Michel Aflaq are from 'Christian' families. Aflaq was Syrian by the way. You might want to read some of the books on Arab history: The books by Albert Hourani and Philip Hitti are the introductions most widely read.. Tiller1 11:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
66.81.173.40, i have already shown you that there were arabs in the area that is syria over 800 years before the coming of Islam. The Ghassanids were Yemenis who arrived in southern syria and adopted christianity. The Nabataeans arabic people who moved north to Syria and settled down and built a great civilization. Therefore there were racial Arab christians, and i don't really care about your claim that not one Saudi is christian because that has nothing to do with the topic. Also, to your claim that i was just ranting, it seems that you did the same. At least i provided sources.Yuber 14:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Your argument has degenerated from "There are no racial arabs in syria and lebanon", to "There are no racial arab christians in Syria and Lebanon", to "There might have been racial arab christians but all their descendants converted to Islam". And i'm sorry to say that your last claim is in fact false as well. There are still christian communities in southern syria parts of lebanon whose inhabitants are clear racial arabs that speak arabic and wear traditional arab clothing. This argument is moot, trying to group a certain race with a certain religion and divide the middle east never works out, especially when you don't have your facts straight.Yuber 21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yuber, the only false claims around here are the comments you have made. I don't know whether at this point and time if there are still real Arab Christian communities in Syria and Lebanon, if there arewho the real people of Syria and Lebanon are, I'll start to respect your comments. Until then, just check your history correctly from the right sources, then you will discover that you are the one who is false and wrong.

Regards, .--66.81.173.40

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

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

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

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

Vaccinations?

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

Proof of vaccinations is not required to enter Syria. As a general rule, it is always best to make . Fruit and vegetables sold in Syria, especially those sold in street markets, often are sprayed with a light disinfectant: it's best to wash fruit and veg before eating or cooking. Otherwise, don't worry too much about it: if you get sick, you get sick. -- Gareth Hughes 14:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Make sure your meningococcal booster is up to date as well. Last time i went, all my boosters were up to date, i only drank bottled water, and i still got sick. It's hard to avoid sometimes, but it was only a stomach sickness that lasted about a day.Yuber 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

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

As evidenced in the discussion above, ethnicity is a tough political question in the Syrian Arab Republic. Being Souri is considered being Arab, at least by the powers that be. I think it would be better to make the section on Syrian demography a little less specific. Syrian citizenry is east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial. --Gareth Hughes 13:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is the first time I see anyone refer to ethnicity in Syria as 'tough', it is an Arab country. May I ask why you have this focus? Is there a political point you are trying to make? 'At least by the 22:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not so much that ethnicity is "tough", almost all Syrians identify as Arabs (except for obviously Kurds, Armenians, and Circassians). The discussion above was heated because of a Palmyra (featured on some Syrian currency) is referred to as an "Arab Queen" in Syria. However, it is obvious to anyone who has read the history of Palmyra, that she was a Roman woman who had nothing to do with Arabs.Yuber 23:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


Most Syrians do identify themselves as Arab; however, there are many Syrians who don't. Demographic terminology is influenced by the politics of the day, and being or not being Arab is as much a political statement as an ethnic one. Kurds, Aramaic-speaking Christians, Armenians and Druze are thus often in a difficult political situation: if they emphasize non-Arabic character, they can be seen as being non-patriotic. --Gareth Hughes 19:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You've got a point Gareth, but Druze? If I'm not mistaken, are'nt the Druze ethnically Arabs, I mean did'nt their ancestors come from the Arabian Peninsula?--Gramaic 22:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm a Syrian, and I'm 100% non-Arab (but I don't hate Muslims or Arabs). I also describe myself as Neo-Byzantine. The person who was declaring in the discussion above that the Syrians and Lebanese are non-Arabs is very correct. So the users who disputed this person, the only thing I have to say is don't let your hatred towards Christians blind you. Isn't enough Christians have suffered in the Middle East by the hands of Muslims!?
How do you say "Neo-Byzantine" in Arabic ;)?Yuber 12:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Homs

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

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

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

Souria.com

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

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

Politics of Syria

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm, I really have no idea what to do with that article. Perhaps a summary can just be included here.Yuber(talk) 16:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
That seems to be the right solution (well, I suppose that article could go away and this article could be the only one); Montreal and History of Montreal had the same problem and it has been more or less fixed by drastically summarizing the section in Montreal (and making sure that any facts removed from Montreal were in History of Montreal). It would be easier if Politics of Syria were longer. I could try to write a sumary, but I don't know very much about the current political situation (just about what's in the article now), so any summary I wrote would necessarily be extremely brief and probably not fair or neutral. --Andrew 20:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

It seems that those articles were created when this article was being expanded and people were trying to bring this article up to the standards of other countries. I think a summary would be good, I'll see what I can do. I disagree about the History of Syria article, however, as there is much more information in that than in this. I also intend to add a lot more about Syria's history in the future.Yuber(talk) 23:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I have summarized the section on politics after looking at the two separate versions. There's still some work to be done on wiki'ing both versions and adding more info.Yuber(talk) 03:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's great - a big improvement. I think the key idea is to make the section here obviously only a summary so that people who want to add information add it to the full article. I think your changes do that very well.
I think that country articles are usually divided up into subarticles according to some Wikiproject, and perhaps based on the CIA world factbook, so the people who did it may not have put the care and attention that we would like. In any case, I think this article is good and getting better. My only concern is to avoid duplicated effort (improving this version and the full articles). --Andrew 21:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

Syrian ethnicity

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

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

- Habibo

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

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

Introduction

Given;

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

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


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


Yes I appreciate that the system claims to be a republic, but so did the Roman Empire for some time. Bishar al-Assad is still young. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ...... Avalon 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the system has been hijacked by the Assads, but there is an important difference between a monarchy and a republic, technically and also in how the regime presents itself (there's kind of a conflict line between "progressive" republics and monarchies in the Arab world, for example). Also, the Assads didn't create this institution. They inherited it from previous governments and constitutions, and Syria once had a very different way of filling the presidential post (mainly by military coup :-). It'll change again.
Arre 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Syrian workers

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

I changed a few things on your version. First off, there is no single Syrian or Lebanese view. Second, it is not a "view" that Syrian workers helped with reconstruction, because they DID help with reconstruction. Yuber(talk) 02:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that the Syrian presence was supported by the US and the Arab League. It was briefly accepted and supported by both of them at various points in time, but since then, and before that, there was controversy within the AL and outright opposition by the US. I assume you are referring to the Arab Deterrent Force and US acceptance of the ousting of Aoun, and I do agree these things must be mentioned. But when it's written like this, it gives a faulty impression of continuous support for the Syrian presence, and that was certainly not the case.
  • True about Syrian/Lebanese views; not so about the motivation for the Syrian workers going there. They went there simply to get a job, not as part of a humanitarian crusade (I don't blame them, I would have too). Now, the Syrian government claims it accepted/encouraged this to help Lebanon's reconstruction, and this should be pointed out (as should the opposite view). But the workers themselves didn't go there "to help Lebanon", just as Mexicans don't cross the border "to help USA", even though their hard work for crap wages has been very beneficial to America. Do you see my point, and would you agree to a change here? Salaam, Arre 04:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I think what I had meant to say was they went to get jobs in the reconstruction of the country, not that they went into the country solely to reconstruct it because they felt pity for the Lebanese. Hopefully my latest change emphasizes this.
This is fine with me, the part about the workers is very well formulated. Thank you. I still think the US/Arab support for Syria in Lebanon is - well, not wrong, but overemphasized. However, since there's so little on the subject, I'll just leave it until we can add more overall on Lebanon, instead of deleting what little we have. Arre 05:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Quotes from right-wing authors are not needed in a general history section. And your POV terms such as "flooded" are not needed either. That source is wrong, by the way. There is no way 30 % of Lebanon's population is Syrian. Please find a better source. Yuber(talk) 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Or you could just continue reverting on 5 different articles. Please do mind the 3RR. Yuber(talk) 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • I agree about the quote, it doesn't fit the article. I do think, however, that the viewpoint that the influx of workers had political implications (and motives) should be better represented. Now the article says that their presence in Lebanon is "controversial", but it doesn't say why or to whom.
  • Regardless of that, I have changed the "1,5 million workers" into "about one million workers", which is what the CIA factbook and some other sources say. I still think that is on the high side. Arre 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
i gave a link to someone who says it, but yuber keeps reverting it. how can you guys take out information that comes directly from a source, and just make up other stuff and put it in instead? does Wikipedia really allow this? John McW 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
John McW, consensus has been reached. Please respect it. Yuber(talk) 11:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
you don't know what "consensus" means. "consensus" is not whatever Yuber says. John McW 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
JohnMcW has asked me to take a look at this. I don't know the issues, but his edit is well-referenced, and seems relevant. Yuber, could you say what you object to about it? Also, I'd say many, not some, people call the Syrian presence an "occupation," though I don't know what the legal status was. Here's the material Yuber deleted:

About one million Syrian workers came into Lebanon after the war ended to find jobs in the reconstruction of the country. Lebanese scholar Habib C. Malik has called the influx of Syrian workers into Lebanon "nothing short of a movement toward Syrian colonization of Lebanon." (Between Damascus and Jerusalem: Lebanon and Middle East Peace (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1997), p. 42). In 1994, under pressure from Syria, the Lebanese government granted citizenship to over 200,000 Syrians resident in the country. Syrian nationals make up at least one-third of Lebanon's resident population. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

John, so you know for the future, there's some information about how to format your citations at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
POV quotes don't belong in a general history section, and after being here for so long you should know this SV. Yuber(talk) 11:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
where is the wikipedia policy that says that? are you going to stick to this excuse for deleting the information, or will you find a new excuse when this one is shown to be a lie? John McW 13:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  • Quote: I do believe that the colonization-aspect should be covered in the text, and John McW:s quote could be used as a source for that. Putting the quote itself in the text is not preferable, for two reasons: it is very long (when the full source identification is included) and, also, I've never heard of this Habib guy. A quick google shows that he is apparently very controversial ("right wing", "zionist", "neocon" etc), but to use him as a source of opinion -- as an example of people who label the workers' presence "colonization" -- is of course unproblematic.
  • Number of workers: 1,5 million workers is one of the highest numbers I've heard, and it seems quite unrealistic (though not impossible). I believe the 0,5-1 million workers depending on which season of the year you measure is more accurate; the CIA factbook, which I think is pretty reliable, says 1 million. Whichever way, I think "about one million" gives more room for the different opinions. Another possibility could be that their number is "estimated at between 0,5-1,5 million" or something like that.
  • Occupation: I don't think that the Syrian presence in Lebanon was widely referred to as "occupation" before 2005, and it was definitely not internationally recognized as such (by the UN or a large number of governments). I happen to think that it was an occupation, though -- in every way, shape and form. So I'm pretty much neutral to this, but a claim of "many" should probably be given a mainstream source.
That said, please, everybody calm down a little. Arre 08:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
who says Habib is "very controversial"? he is a well respected Arab Phd who works at the American university in lebanon. the only people calling him "zionist" etc. are anonymous bloggers. John McW 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, anonymous bloggers say so :-) And anyone who is respected by anyone in Lebanon, is bound to be detested by twice as many, that's the first law of Lebanese politics. Anyway... as you can read above, I don't think he should be excluded as a source of opinion. But perhaps we should not use him as a source of fact, for example on the number of workers. I noticed you changed that again, to "at least one million". I have not seen anything to make me think that a figure below one million is impossible, rather to the contrary. Wouldn't "about one million" be okay with you?
Also, you deleted the sentence on how the workers are paid low wages, why? That is how they got the jobs in the first place, and I don't think anyone questions that. I mean, they're basically gastarbeiters, paid crap wages and treated like filth, just like the Palestinians were before them. Many of them in fact live in the refugee camps, having nowhere else to stay. Arre 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
i left in the stuff about them being paid low wages, I don't think i ever deleted that. lots of people say there are well over 1 million syrian workers in lebanon, or were. here's another link. http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2005/10/will_syrias_pla.php John McW 05:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Number of workers. I could find zillions of quotes backing 0,5 or one million workers if I wanted to do that. Also, an obvious difference so far, between your sources and my CIA factbook (which says one million), is that your sources are all Lebanese nationalist pages, which would probably have an interest/tendency to inflate the numbers of workers. I'm not saying it is NOT 1,5 million, I'm just saying that I personally don't think it is very likely. And that a lower estimate should at least be represented, if 1,5 million is to be mentioned. So I feel that "about one million" would be very appropriate, since it gives room for both my guess and your guess. Your 1,5 million is certainly within the margin of error, but I don't think you'd deny that it is in the high end of the spectrum? Why not a less controversial mid-range figure, or at least all the figures ("estimated at 0,5 to 1,5 million")? Arre 20:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The Lebanese government has never recognized it as an occupation, not even this latest "opposition" one. Yuber(talk) 11:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The Lebanese government was a puppet of the syrian occupation and is still under its thumb. John McW 13:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
True, but then that just means they are not one of the "some" or the "many". But, sure, that should of course be pointed out somehow. I think there's an article specifically on the occupation of/Syr presence in Lebanon, and maybe that's a better place for all this linguistic fighting. Haven't looked at it, though, so I can't say for sure. Arre 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Arre, I can't comment on the substantive issue in case I have to protect the page, but just talking about the source, I checked him out last night, and he's a regular academic in a university. His views could only be excluded under NPOV policy if they're tiny-minority views. If it's a majority or significant-minority view, it can't be excluded. Perhaps instead of deleting it, you could add a quote from another academic with an opposing view.
See answer to JmW above. An opposing view is already represented, I think, and I am not trying to delete the viewpoint. It is certainly not tiny-minority, I bet that a solid majority of Lebanese feel this way. But I do think it is too long, and, since it presents a viewpoint, it would be better to summarize it in a "some people say"-sentence with Habib as a clickable reference. Arre 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
As for presence/occupation, "Syrian presence in Lebanon" gets 20,800 Google hits, Syrian occupation of Lebanon gets 22,200, and "Occupation of Lebanon" 104,000. I tried to argue elsewhere a few weeks ago that we should get rid of the word "occupation" entirely when discussing any that are disputed, particularly from titles, but the majority disagreed, arguing that the word is legitimately used in Wikipedia if commonly used elsewhere in relation to the particular situation. So the task here is to find out whether the word "occupied" was commonly used of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, and if it was, it shouldn't be deleted. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Please be aware that "Occupation of Lebanon" can also refer to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Yuber(talk) 01:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
what a joke - google give's me well under a 1000 hits for "israeli occupation of lebanon" and they're mostly from syrian apologists like you. John McW 05:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we are debating. The article now says something like "what has been referred to as a 'de facto'-occupation". Just link that to Syrian occupation of Lebanon and everybody should be happy. Although, when I take a closer look... that page doesn't really seem to be about the occupation at all. It's just a more poorly written version of the excellent Cedar Revolution article.Arre 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I linked it back to the sryian occupation of lebanon article but I'm sure yuber will revert me in a few seconds, it's all he seems to do. John McW 05:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I also linked it to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon article, but I removed the POV quote that doesn't belong in a general history section. I hope this will end the revert war. Yuber(talk) 05:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
oh what a surprise, you reverted me in seconds - that's all you know how to do. look above, arre thinks the quote belongs too, and now you're using a different excuse, its always some new excuse, anything to make sure syria doesn't look bad. you're syrian, aren't you? John McW 05:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, arre said the quote shouldn't be put in, but instead just linked to in the sentence about the presence being controversial. Yuber(talk) 05:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Please look at the latest version before reverting. Enough concessions have been made, and the part about one scholar calling it a colonization has also been included. More reverting will be taken as a sign of bad faith and unwillingness to compromise on articles. Yuber(talk) 05:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
i looked at it and it is the same deletion of sourced information as before. you use any excuse to revert the information out. it is you who is reverting in "bad faith" and "unwillingness to compromise", because you cant stand to have anything negative about syria in an article. you are syrian, aren't you? John McW 05:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The quote doesn't belong in a general history section, so I don't see what's so hard to understand about it. The fact that a scholar calls it a colonization has been mentioned. You really need to learn how to compromise because you haven't changed one thing on your version since you started this edit war last week. I and other editors, on the other hand, have incorporated much of your version into the article, but you still revert to your own version.Yuber(talk) 05:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
just because you say it doesn't belong doesn't mean it doesn't belong, and i have continually made changes to the version, of the paragraph, but the only thing you do is revert the two sourced quotes. you can pretend all you like yuber, but youre really obvious. go apologize for syria's actions on your own personal website. John McW 05:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Please show me a wikipedia article about a country that has quotes in the history section. Yuber(talk) 05:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
first you show me the rule that says articles can't have quotes with sources in their history section. show me the rule that says you can revert everything I do. i dont think syrians should be allowed to edit articles about syria if they can't be honest about what syria has done. John McW 15:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I haven't reverted everything you've done. There were at least 5 articles I disagreed with you on and now there's only one and you can't accept the compromise. Do you want me to change the other articles as well?Yuber(talk) 21:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
"compromise" does not mean putting in your unsourced defense of syria. are you threatening to start reverting all other articles too? I'm not surprised thats what you do best. John McW 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

author

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

Hariri assassination

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

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

Oldest city

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

Merge economy section with 'Economy of Syria'

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

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

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

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

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

Motto

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

The above motto is true and it's not "Umatun Arabijatun Wahida Zatu Risalatin Chalida", it's "Umatun Arabiyatun Wahida Zatu Risalatin Khalida" in Arabic "أُمَّةٌ عربيَّةٌ واحِدَة ذاتُ رِاسالةٍ خالِدَة" ! --Hasan.Z 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a Baath Party slogan. I don't know whether it is also an official slogan of the Syrian state; mostly it's to be seen on party buildings and other official edifices. It means "one Arab nation, with an eternal mission". Palmiro | Talk 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't know well if it's really a motto for Baath Party coz it's not mentioned here Baath_party and the Baath Party motto is "wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya"! BTW: who's messing here? I see alot of changes and deletion!
I Asked today someone who knows well, and I've been told it's the Baath_Party's motto and we can consider it as a local motto as it's the leading party in Syria.

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

Comment on ethnicity.

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

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syria/Archive_1&oldid=1262074322"