Content deleted Content added
→References: link added |
|||
Line 1:
==Deletion==
''213.42.1.165 deleted the following text from the article, without giving a reason. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)''
Since 1994,
==Terrorism==
--[[User:151.188.16.45|151.188.16.45]] 20:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)[[Media:[[Image:
== [''[[
== '''Syria''' ==]]''] ==]]]] has been on the official [[U.S.]] list of [[state sponsors of terrorism]].
[[Palestinian Islamic Jihad|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 with this removal because, until we cannot expand the article in order to better describe this country (which will certainly have something of important in many other fields too), this (perhaps offensively) seems 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. --[[User:Gianfranco|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|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? [[User:Paul Weaver|Paul Weaver]] 15:20 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Could someone verify the info that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=210.50.112.97 210.50.112.97] is adding? (also on [[Politics of Syria]]) [[User:Evil saltine|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 -- but in its current ___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. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 17:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
----
==Copyright==
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?
[[User:Kstailey|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? [[User:Tarvin|TroelsArvin]] 13:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: Yeah, it's spam. removed it and several more links. --[[User:Ayman|Ayman]] 12:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== External links ==
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 only have 2 links now, SANA and the Syrian Ministry of Tourisim, both are official sites, and can be useful for those interested in more info about Syria. No need for hosting companies links, or local newspapers in Arabic, is everyone happy now? -[[User:Ayman|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 previously removed by an anon user). See e.g. this [http://www.syriatourism.org/new/modules.php?op=modload&name=Subjects&file=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. [[User:Uriber|-- 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 [[User:63.243.163.194|63.243.163.194]] 17:24, 25 August 2005 (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. [[User:Garzo|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 to be associated as arabs or not. There is no such thing as "real native people" 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.[[User:Yuber|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 racially Arab, show me one. Don't tell me about the Christians in Syria and Lebanon, they are not Arabs, were never Arabs, and will never be Arabs. I'm talking about countries like Saudi Arabia (who are the real Arabs). Not one Saudi is a Christian. By the way, many Muslims in Syria and Lebanon are non-Arabs as well. There are "real native people (Even if they're mixed)." For example, in the United States, many American Indians, who are the natives of America are mixed with the whites, but that doesn't take them out of the Native American category. Whether you consider yourself an Arab or not is entirely up to you, but I know for sure that the Syrians and Lebanese are not Arabs. I'm so sorry to say that you did not prove anything. No effence, the only thing you were doing 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.--[[User:66.81.173.40|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 need to provide sources before making such a statement. The process of change in the religious makeup in the region took place over many centuries and involved many different groups (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.. [[User:Tiller1|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.[[User:Yuber|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 the first to fall to the Arab invasion, and the Christians of that city ran away far to the mountians which is known as Wada Nassara, and what were these Christians, for sure they were not Arabs, they were Byzantine Greco-Roman-Aramaic Christians. Michel Aflaq, who was a famous Arab Nationalist was Greek Orthodox which happens to indicate that he was ethnically Greek. Arab today defines people who just mostly speak Arabic, nothing else. Just because somebody speaks English does not mak him English, just because somebody speaks French does not make him French, and most importantly just because somebody speaks Arabic does not make him an Arab. Please wake up! There my have been real Arab Christians in the past, such as the Ghassanids and the Nabataeans, just like you pointed out Yuber, but eventually these real Arab Christians converted to Islam and there decendants are no longer Christians.--[[User:66.81.174.130|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.[[User:Yuber|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 are they are a minority in the Christian community. The main Christians throughout Syria and Lebanon are non-Arabs. When the day comes that you stop being stubborn and hard headed and start to have an open heart in who 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, .--[[User:66.81.173.40|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.--[[User:140.144.175.147|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.--[[User:Gramaic|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. Many friends of mine said they did not get sick when they went to Syria, and of course many of them did get sick. So what kind of vaccinations should I take if I were to travel to Syria?--[[User:Gramaic|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 sure that your boosters for things like tetanus and hepatitis are all up to date before going travelling. If you are travelling a long way from home, you will be exposed to various bugs that your body isn't familiar with. When in Damascus, eat locally made live yoghurt (not pasteurised): not only is it delicious, but it is a safe way to expose your system to small amounts of the local bacteria. 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. -- [[User:Garzo|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.[[User:Yuber|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 people such as Syriac and Assyrian, many Semites in Syria are of Hebrew ancestry. For the Indo-Europeans, we should say that we have Greeks, Romans, etc. Just a thought.--[[User:Gramaic|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 mainly a mixture of Arab and Aramaean ancestries, but Syria has been such a historical crossroads for nations of east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial. --[[User:Garzo|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 powers that be', are you implying people do not really identify as Arab in Syria? Thanks. [[User:Tiller1|Tiller1]] 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 claim that there were no racial arabs in Syria. I disproved this claim very easily with links on Wikipedia itself. As for what Syrians themselves think, there is no question that they feel they are different from your average Saudi, Yemeni, or Algerian. Indeed, there is some racism among Syrians against other arabs such as Khalijiay (Gulf Arabs), as there is racism against Palestinians that inhabit many of the refugee camps. So the question is not so much "do Syrians identify as Arab", but rather it is the pre-islamic history of Syria that is a tough question. For example, queen Zenobia of 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 a website that collects signatures from many ethnic Maronites, Syriacs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. signing to make the petition to the Arab American Institute that they're not Arabs. You guys can visit this website [http://www.petitiononline.com/NotArab/petition.html if any of you wish].--[[User:Gramaic|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.[[User:66.81.185.13|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. [[User:Tiller1|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. --[[User:Garzo|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?--[[User:Gramaic|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 ;)?[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 12:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== 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?--[[User:Gramaic|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". --[[User:Garzo|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 [http://www.souria.com/ar/home.asp Arabic version] of Souria.com, go ahead.--[[User:Gramaic|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.[[User:Yuber|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 rot]]ted 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. --[[User:Aarchiba|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.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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. --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 20:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
In fact, [[Economy of Syria]] and [[History of Syria]]have 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. --[[User:Aarchiba|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.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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). --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 21:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
== Links ==
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?--[[User:Gramaic|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.
--[[User:Equitor|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? [[User:Avalon|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. [[User:Arre|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 ...... [[User:Avalon|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.
::[[User:Arre|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? [[User:Arre|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. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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'', [[User:Arre|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. [[User:Arre|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. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
::Or you could just continue reverting on 5 different articles. Please do mind the [[3RR]]. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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. [[User:John McW|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. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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. [[User:John McW|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. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
you have to prove you didn't lie about that. who agrees with you? have them name themselves. [[User:John McW|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. [[User:Arre|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? [[User:John McW|John McW]] 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:John McW, consensus has been reached. Please respect it. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 11:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
::you don't know what "consensus" means. "consensus" is not whatever Yuber says. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
| |||