Talk:Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Remedy instructions and exemptions ...
Close

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved A$ianeditorz (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

2025 Interim Constitution of Syria → 2025 interim constitution of Syria – or Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic. As best I can tell, this is a descriptive title. It is not the title of the document, and it should be in WP:SENTENCECASE. I did not find any source cited for the name as it is currently written (especially as capitalized). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 04:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Support moving to Constitutional Declaration of Syria, rather than the Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic or the 2025 interim constitution of Syria - per WP:COMMONNAME, tons of sources (only one example was provided), and search results (1,440,000), compared to the current title that trails slightly behind with 1,170,000 results. I'm against the implementation of Syrian Arab Republic into the title since it's not the COMMONNAME, but rather the official name. It trails further behind with 589,000 results. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    You may have not noticed my comment about capitalization (case). If we use a title that is not the actual title of the document, it should use WP:SENTENCECASE. The Al Jazeera article that you cited does not contain "Constitutional Declaration of Syria" (whether capitalized or lowercase). It refers to the document as "a temporary constitution" (lowercase), "the constitutional declaration" (lowercase), and "the document". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    If we go with "of Syria" rather than Syrian Arab Republic, we should use "Constitutional declaration" or "Temporary constitutional declaration". Katzrockso (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Constitutional Declatation of Syria per Freedoxm. The official name can go in the lede.← Metallurgist (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    If we do something like that, I believe "Declaration" should be in lowercase, since I think the title is unsourced and thus not a proper name. I also think it might not be the first constitutional declaration of Syria in history, so removing "2025" from the title might not be a good idea. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Constitutional Declaration of Syria, which is capitalized in the majority of sources that reference it (similar to the U.S. Constitution). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Can you list some sources that use "Constitutional Declaration of Syria"? It does not seem commonly used in reliable sources to me (especially with capital letters like that). It is not in the above-cited Al Jazeera article, and I can find it only in a very small number of rather obscure sources. The Google search link above is not for the exact phrase (perhaps this should work better, but it finds almost nothing). Please note also that Wikipedia does not use "U.S. Constitution" as an article title; it uses "Constitution of the United States". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Support '2025 interim constituon of Syria'. There is a mix of lowercase and uppercase capitalization.
We should keep at sentence case while the secondary sources on this proliferate in order to prevent the circularity of Wikipedia creating a "common name"
"Syria’s newly approved constitutional declaration, meant to govern the country’s transitional phase"
"The Syrian constitutional declaration of 2025 is an important milestone in Syria’s political transition after the collapse of the Assad regime"
For some examples of lowercase
Strongly oppose "Constitutional Declaration of Syria" in the strongest possible sense, a title that exists in less than 10 English language sources and would amount to Wikipedia fabricating a neologism as a common name. Katzrockso (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming. I wasn't sure whether I was doing something incorrectly or had bad internet access, but my exact string search for "Constitutional Declaration of Syria" indeed found less than 10 non-Wikipedia sources, most of which used lowercase. The few sources that it found appeared to be relatively low quality ones or not independent of each other (e.g., four of them were from Syrian Times). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
"Constitutional Declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic" would be much better than the title with Syria, as it has a decent amount of usage. But it's unclear what name will have enduring usage and most articles on the document often call it the "constitutional declaration" in lowercase in prose. Katzrockso (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Syria, and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3 November 2025 page move

@A$ianeditorz mind explaining why the page was moved against the majority of the respondents? It was clear that the majority of participants supported moving to "Constitutional Declaration of Syria". Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

as per the user who requested. He used full "Syria Arab republic". But I have no problem with current one. A$ianeditorz (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
I just noticed that the article was moved again by a different person who was involved in the discussion, 9 days after the RM was closed, and I am surprised by it, and I think it was improper. Although it appears that 3 respondents in the discussion expressed support for "Constitutional Declaration of Syria", the discussion ended with two editors (myself and Katzrockso) pointing out that we could find less than 10 non-Wikipedia sources that use that phrase, and most of those used lowercase for "declaration" in the phrase, and also that the few sources that used that appeared to be relatively low quality ones or not independent of each other. It was also pointed out that the example provided at the beginning of the discussion by Freedoxm was not valid (e.g., the one Al Jazeera article that was provided as an example did not contain the phrase). Those remarks were not rebutted. The linked searches provided by Freedoxm were not searches for exact phrasing matches but rather just searches for groups of words. I object to the article being moved later by Freedoxm, an involved party, after an RM closure that resulted in a different title. Although A$ianeditorz does not object to the additional move, I do. I also suspect that Katzrockso would object as well, since they said during the discussion that they strongly oppose the title that Freedoxm moved it to. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
I object to Wikipedia coining a new proper name out of thin air, this goes against all of Wikipedia PAG. Katzrockso (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
@BarrelProof and @Katzrockso, none of this is against WP page moves. @Asianeditorz wrongly moved the page to the one not chosen by the majority, so therefore, the current title is valid. There also could have been more time for relisting and for even more users to discuss, but it's since been closed. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, A$ianeditorz did not say that they "wrongly moved the page". They only said they don't have a problem with the renaming you performed 9 days after their closure. That's a different statement. Unless they quickly agree that their closure was wrong, I will request to revert your later action. Moreover, Wikipedia processes are not intended to be based merely on counting the number of people who express support for something. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: I never said they said they "wrongly moved it", they wrongly moved it (doesn't need to be said, just implied). Also, if there really is a link or a policy regarding on the process on where Wikipedia does not count the number of users, could you link it? Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
It seems you may not be very familiar with this. Here are a few links. WP:RMCOMMENT: "The debate is not a vote". WP:RMEC "Move discussions are not a vote". WP:RMNOMIN: "this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority". WP:NOTVOTE: "it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, and a discussion close may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
@Freedoxm
If you think that the close was performed improperly, the correct course of action would be to:
1) Ask the closer on their talk page about the close
2) File a report at move review
wrongly moved the page to the one not chosen by the majority makes me think that you believe that the close was performed improperly. The correct response to what you believe is an improper close is not to controvert the result of a close, but to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE it. @BarrelProof and I both request that you revert your move against the consensus and engage in the proper process if you still wish to challenge the close. Katzrockso (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
 Done - Already told them about it some time ago, and I'll file a report at move review. I'm not against the consensus (majority was in favor of my proposal, that's not how a page move works). In partial defense of my statement, I still believe they wrongly moved it and that they improperly moved it. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI