Jump to content

Talk:Ba'athist Syria: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 126: Line 126:
*::::Let me be more clear, the oppose arguments simply follow no policies at all and violate multiple ones, while the support argument does follow the chief naming policy. [[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Let me be more clear, the oppose arguments simply follow no policies at all and violate multiple ones, while the support argument does follow the chief naming policy. [[User:PadFoot2008|PadFoot]] ([[User talk:PadFoot2008|talk]]) 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|Syrian Arab Republic predates the Ba'athist Syrian state}} 2 years vs 61 years. In fact another government named the same doesn't change the fact that this Syrian Arab Republic is the main topic. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 19:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|Syrian Arab Republic predates the Ba'athist Syrian state}} 2 years vs 61 years. In fact another government named the same doesn't change the fact that this Syrian Arab Republic is the main topic. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur|talk]]) 19:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|1=Syrian Arab Republic predates the Ba'athist Syrian state}}<br>I never said that for you to quote me on it '''[[User:Abo Yemen|<span style="background:#9b360b;color:white;padding:2px;">Abo Yemen</span>]][[User talk:Abo Yemen|<span style="background:#9d6b06;color:white;padding:2px;">✉</span>]]''' 06:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''' per above comments [[User:DeadlyRampage26|DeadlyRampage26]] ([[User talk:DeadlyRampage26|talk]]) 09:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' per above comments [[User:DeadlyRampage26|DeadlyRampage26]] ([[User talk:DeadlyRampage26|talk]]) 09:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:08, 11 December 2024

Government section

Should the government section from the Syria article be adapted for this article? EchoLuminary (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the strongest rocks will give way to droplets of a stream

Also should be added to goverment section of syria 182.18.198.169 (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

This article is ridiculously prematurely moved. I am not pro-Assad in any shape or form but comparing this to the capture of Afghanistan by the Taliban, this is ridiculously premature. First of all the former took a few days for everyone to fathom and understand, second of all, Syria is not a former state up to 2024. Parts of the nation still remain under government control, like Latakia.

Second of all, it is simply silly to present Syria as a neutral country with a vacant presidency. As of right now the very concept of a President is empty in Syria, which is split three-ways not counting Israeli annexed lands in the southwest. Why is Syria presented as an empty unified state waiting for a leader?

The article for Assad's Syria should remain without Assad, for now, until the situation becomes clearer. This is trigger happy moderation. 145.40.150.167 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the United Nations. We have to display the reality. Beshogur (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not reality but the biased Western POV. GreatLeader1945 TALK 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biased western POV? The Assad government has fallen, there is no Syrian Arab Republic anymore. Look up at the Afghanistan example. Beshogur (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to call this a Western POV. The government is no more, rebels know what they have, and right now they have little resistance. What happens in the following weeks/months, edits and changes may happen, but there is no more Syrian Republic. CalicoTC (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2024

Ba'athist Syria → Syrian Arab Republic – Similar to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Unles rebels use the same name, there is one "Syrian Arab Republic" not two, I don't see a reason Ba'athist Syria to stay in place. For Ba'athist Iraq, It was called "Republic of Iraq", while today's Iraqi government is still Republic of Iraq. Beshogur (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can people provide some evidence that Ba'athist Syria is a more common name than the Syrian Arab Republic instead of supporting eachother. Second Syrian Republic having the name for 2 years doesn't change the fact that this is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This redirect "Syrian Arab Republic" redirects here. For the state that was known as the Syrian Arab Republic from 1961 to 1963, see Second Syrian Republic. added above is enough. If we talk about the Syrian Arab Republic, 99,99% will be about this one, not the state between 1961-1963. Beshogur (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews of both titles Despite this being the page title, Ba'athist Syria only had 2 days more pageviews, which shows us "Syrian Arab Republic" being the commonname. I don't even who came with this idea. It is a unilateral move without asking anyone. Beshogur (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about that, I forgot that. But still WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would apply here. Ba'athis Syria isn't used much anywhere. Maybe in future. Beshogur (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pescavelho for the same reasons that they provide 2204happy (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The name "Syrian Arab Republic" is the name given after the separation from Egypt. It is not as reflective as "Ba'athist Syria" of the Ba'athist regime's rule over Syria, and quite a few news reports use the Ba'athist regime to refer to Syria at this time. Manilano12 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2 years vs 61 years. Beshogur (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gLcQYkYAbiQ used Ba'athist Manilano12 (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. We use mainstream media. Not youtube. Also I never says no one uses it. Beshogur (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My memory failed me and I for some reason thought that 1963 was when Syria left the UAR. In that case, it depends entirely or whether it's decided that the 1961-1963 period better fits in the page about the Second Syrian Republic (1950-1958) or the one about Ba'athist Syria (1963-2024). Assuming we decide on the latter, and the new government in Syria does in fact ditch the "Syrian Arab Republic" name, then this page could be renamed. Pescavelho (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been two Ba'athist states, Iraq and Syria. The article about Iraq under Ba'athism is titled Ba'athist Iraq, so I think this article should remain titled "Ba'athist Syria" Ironzombie39 (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Syrian Arab Republic" predates Ba'athist Syria.
i) "Syrian Arab Republic" was the name of the democratic parliamentary Syrian republic that seceded from the United Arab Republic. Ba'athist Syria was a one-party dictatorship established in 1963 after overthrowing the original government of Syrian Arab Republic through a military coup. Hence, the proposed title is extremely inaccurate.
ii) Furthermore, Ba'ath party's state in Iraq is titled as "Ba'athist Iraq" in wikipedia. Titling Ba'ath party's state in Syria as something other than Ba'athist Syria would be inconsistent and confuse the readers. The title "Ba'athist Syria" is also shorter and more concise than the proposed title.
iii) Also, Assad regime was anything but a "republic". It was a monarchy. The proposed title absolutely gives off Assadist POV vibes.
Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ba'athist Syria is more reflective of its ideology and politics. OwlCityzen (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly a separate issue: should we respell "Ba'ath" to either "Baath", "Baʻath" or "Baʻth"? The "straight" apostrophe is ambiguous, most Arab romanization systems use apostrophes to represent both ء hamza and ع ayin with the different directions differentiating between the two (ʼ vs. ʻ). In my view we either transliterate more narrowly or we get rid of the apostrophe that's not really doing anything in there. Pescavelho (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. The strict transliteration here would be Baʻthist, while the loose transcription in English is traditionally written as Baathist (compare زَعْتَر zaʻtar vs. zaatar, بَعْل Baʻl vs. Baal, بَعْلَبَكّ Baʻlabakk vs. Baalbeck, سَعْد Saʻd vs. Saad, سَعْدِيّ Saʻdī vs. Saadi, سَعْدَاوِيّ Saʻdāwī vs. Saadawi etc.). I don't know why Wikipedia insists on using "Ba'athist", which is neither a strict transliteration nor as common as "Baathist". SyrHist (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, besides being ambiguous, the apostrophe is also a hyperforeignism, as the second ⟨a⟩ is already standing for ع. Pescavelho (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re absolutely right! It’s really a shame to see it all over the encyclopedia. I saw that someone requested a few years ago (I don’t remember on which talk page) to move all the pages related to the party and the ideology in order to fix it, but it didn’t get enough support. I don’t think the participants understood the reasons for the request! SyrHist (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having the rebels also call their government "Syrian Arab Republic" makes it confusing and would require disambiguation if the title is changed. Ba'athist Syria sounds a lot better in distinguishing the two governments. Rager7 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless if the Syrian opposition is still going to use the name "Syrian Arab Republic", I think it should be changed. Hankow idk (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for the same reason as Hankow GameCreepr (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait For the same reason as Loytra; better to wait until (or if) the new Syrian government adopts a new name. Changing the title to "Syrian Arab Republic" now would be jumping the gun.
Republic Ball (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good argument. Not much to add. PLMandarynka (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Between 1961 and 1963, the country was known as the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Ba'ath Party had not yet come to power. This article focuses solely on the period following the Ba'ath Party's rise to power. Valorthal77 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous arguments. Iraq's predecessor is also called "Ba'athist Iraq" Moreover as mentioned earlier the Syrian Arab Republic predated Ba'athist Syria AsaQuathern (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per earlier arguments. As of now, this entity is what is primarily referred to as the Syrian Arab Republic over the preceding relatively short-lived political entity, fulfilling WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As per WP:COMMONNAME, apart from just "Syria", the "Syrian Arab Republic" is by far the most common name for this entity, not Ba'athist Syria. On top of all that, it is also the WP:OFFICIALNAME commonly used in international organisations and documents. If the new administration does not call themselves the Syrian Arab Republic, I wholeheartedly support this move. Zinderboff (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "Syrian Arab Republic" was already the name of Syria from 1961-1963 before the Ba'athists took power. Qbingcow (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Firstly, the name is inaccurate, as others have mentioned. Also, it is probable that the new state will also be called the Syrian Arab Republic. Calling this article "Syrian Arab Republic" would also be inconsistent with other articles about a period of a country's history marked by a specific regime. Examples include Ba'athist Iraq, Nazi Germany, Pahlavi Iran, Qajar Iran and Fascist Italy. These articles are named the country's name with an adjective at the beginning, not the official name of the state. Cyrobyte (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag?

Or is it too early? 125.161.35.92 (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Red flag used during the Assads? So it should be used here if this article represena the regime. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be looking for Talk:Syria, where strong consensus has formed among experienced editors not to include a flag until there's some sort of official announcement from the incoming or outgoing governments. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the person asked whether this article should use the ba'athist flag or not, so I said this article should used that flag because it was used in the ba'athist Syria. I know there is a discussion in Syria article. Thanks. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State as a sucessor?

the islamic state still has a presence in eastern syria but no tangible territory left. should it be removed or replaced with "other groups" to show the various factions which dont hold any territory but are still present or just left as it is? ManU9827 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, successor states should be states, as in they control territory. CutlassCiera 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A successor state is a state (or state-like entity) that controls the former territory of another state. If ISIS doesn't control any significant Syrian territory then I would not regard it as a successor state on the latter requirement (bypassing the argument of whether it is a state). NateNate60 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to a piece of territory ISIS controls. Scuba 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISIL could be potentially put under both "Successor" and "Predecessor" columns, perhaps with italics to indicate it was unrecognized nature when it controlled substantial portions of territory. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add "Vacant (Rump state)" to the list of the Presidents?

I mean Assad fled, but the Syrian Arab Republic (Ba'athist Syria) still exists, even it's only a rump state and a "leader" of this rump state is unknown and probably doesn't exist. What do you all think about that? 77.13.90.7 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word vacant already is listed on the President of Syria page. I don’t believe we need a second place for the word to be used. Unless otherwise as the situation changes. 2620:6D:C000:1001:998:9E3B:C426:265B (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but I think it should added, because the vacant in the page of the President in Syria is there because the Transitional Government took over and doesn't has a President. 77.13.90.7 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The transitional government does have a leader though, Mohammad Ghazi al-Jalali. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The HST has been very keen on preserving state institutions, and have declared their intention for Syria to be a normal state. What they'll name it remains to be seen. kencf0618 (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Dialing code and internet TLD be removed

Should the Dialing code and internet TLD be removed now that the country has fallen and there are now the new regime? Popscurling (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as long as they were in use while the country hadn't fallen Rares Kosa (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding under "Today Part Of"

Given the occupation and de facto annexation of most of Golan Heights, I think it would make sense to to add under "Today Part of" the text: Israel (de facto) or some variation of such. 24.151.14.67 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

Baathist Iraq has an Economy section so why not this one? Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wrote one yet. Koopinator (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarian regime

The state operated under a sectarian system dominated by the Alawite sect, which provoked frustration among the majority population. Key decision-making roles, along with control over the army and intelligence services, were largely concentrated in the hands of Alawites. This point needs to be explicitly acknowledged. Valorthal77 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

idk how to change them so I'd ask someone of you haha. The coat of arms is wrong (with this green colour of the new government. In the article about history of Syrian emblems there's their old one, so it won't be a problem to change it, i just don't know how to do this. Thanks!!! Aeldare (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeldare Great catch, just fixed it. Zinderboff (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ba%27athist_Syria&oldid=1262402615"