Talk:Syria

Relevant comments

• (summoned by SodiumBot). What do independent secondary sources have to say about this? What I usually say in infobox RfCs is that infoboxes are for simple facts that can be consumed at-a-glance, and are not the place to put anything that requires a lot of context, nuance or explanation, because there isn't room for it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• I'd say keep the kurdish, I think the kurds deserve recognition and Israel still has arabic listed, so I would say A Gorgonopsi (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• Do we have any sources either way?Moxy🍁 22:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Moxy: here Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20260116-syria-sharaa-declares-kurdish-national-language-following-clashes

  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/17/syria-decree-grants-kurds-new-rights-formally-recognising-kurdish-language

  https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/syrias-sharaa-grants-kurdish-syrians-citizenship-language-rights-first-time-sana-2026-01-16/

  https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/01/syrias-sharaa-declares-kurdish-national-language-recognizes-nowruz

  ANADOLU AGENCY 3801841 (see WP:AAPOLITICS; non-reliable; link removed)

  TRT WORLD ae758c825086 (see WP:TRT; non-reliable for interests of the Turkish government; link removed)

  https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/887764/kurdish-language-to-be-added-to-syrian-public-school-curriculum Gorgonopsi (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260116-syrian-president-declares-kurdish-a-national-language

  https://www.khaama.com/syria-recognises-kurdish-rights-and-approves-kurdish-as-national-language/ Gorgonopsi (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

  Please cross out TRT world per WP:TRT, it is flagged as pro-Syrian government and is not a WP:RS. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• I would go with D (Kurdish not displayed on the top of the infobox) but not at all with A or C, it's not a national or official language just a recognized language for a minority Prosnu (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  it's not a national or official language just a recognized language for a minority It is a national language according to SANA (Syria's official news broadcasting network) and Al Jazeera Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think A is the best. MarketFruit (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• for me D is better Hruu99 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• i think A should be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-63092-6 (talk)
• I fully support A—the word "official" is not used but Decree No. 13 does formally recognize Kurdish as a national language and affirms the Kurdish people as an essential part of the Syrian nation. Seems official enough at the moment, we will find the true answer in likely about five years when Syria transitions to a permanent constitution (which I hope will include Kurdish as official and will recognize other minority languages as well). Ihavetoentermyusername (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

B ~2025-35158-80 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2025-35158-80: Do you have a logical explanation against displaying the Kurdish language? ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• I support adding Kurdish into the infobox, because it is the reality. A PLMandarynka (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option A because as a national language the name of the country should be written in it Chidgk1 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• I'd personally go with option A. It seems a lot more fitting to put both the Kurdish language's status as a recognized language and the official name's Kurdish translation into the page rather than putting only one out of the two. Caltine (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• For now, until the status of the Kurdish language (and other minority languages) in the constitution is clarified, the best option to display is option B. Even if the constitution recognizes Kurdish and other minority languages ​​as national languages, it would still be better to only include the official/state language at the top of the information box, as in Angola. Atsuner (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Recognized" and "Official" languages are not the same. Kurdish is explicitly recognized by the Syrian constitution, and that is what is being stated. JGHFunRun (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  @JGHFunRun: I don't see your point here- It was recognized by Decree 13 of 2026, not by the Constitutional Declaration. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  My bad, I misspoke, I still feel the point stands, that it is explicitly "recognized" regardless of officiality. Thanks for the correction. JGHFunRun (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• option B option D. In Armenia, several languages ​​are also recognized as minority languages ​​by the government, including Russian, Assyrian, Greek, and Kurdish/Yezidi, but in the Armenia information box at the top of the box, the country's name is written only in Armenian.--Mtnze (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Mtnze but in the Armenia information box at the top of the box, the country's name is written only in Armenian I don't see how you would pick B, which removes any regard for Kurdish on the infobox, even on the recognized national languages section (per image B), considering that Armenia does list its recognized languages via a collapsible list. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 14:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right. I corrected it and chose option D. Mtnze (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• I support option A; Kurdish is the second most spoken language in Syria, and officially a national language. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option D. If we look at the Syrian presidential decree, according to the same decree, the Kurdish language has been introduced as one of the national languages ​​of Syria. In the future, other languages ​​such as Turkish, Assyrian and Armenian may also be added to the recognized national languages. But the status of these languages ​​is not the same as the Arabic language. The Arabic language is the official and comprehensive language. Kgb2122 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• I support option D. It is in accordance with long term Wikipedia style used in infobox style. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option D. 1) It is more consistent with the general usage on Wikipedia. 2) There are many other languages ​​and dialects spoken in Syria, and many more languages ​​may be added to the list of recognized languages ​​in the future. A recognized language and an official language are two different concepts. A recognized language does not have the same status as an official language. Vuzorg (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  A recognized language does not have the same status as an official language. See this article published by the state; It clearly says that Kurdish is under a "recognized national status"; its status is definitely higher than a "recognized language", and it's not just at a recognized status. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  In Syria, Arabic is the only language defined by the constitution as the official language of the state. “Recognized national status” is not the same thing as “official language.”

  An official language has a specific legal meaning. It is the language used in legislation, government institutions, courts, and national administration. A recognized language may be protected, promoted, or acknowledged culturally, but that does not automatically give it equal constitutional standing. Chekh77 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've never said that Kurdish shares equal status with Arabic; If you think I think they're in equal status, then I would've listed Kurdish as official, even if the decree didn't say it was. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  The issue isn’t whether you personally think Kurdish is equal to Arabic. The issue is how Wikipedia categorizes languages at the state level.

  In Syria, Arabic is the only constitutionally defined official language. If Kurdish is not legally defined as an official language, then it shouldn’t appear in the infobox section reserved for official languages, regardless of whether it has “recognized national status.”

  Recognition and official status are different legal categories. The infobox reflects constitutional status, not degrees of recognition. Chekh77 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Still insufficient @NeoSyria. The Article 3 states nothing related to being higher than a recognized language. It does not refer to anything nationwide, it does not refer to any official language, it does not refer to a mandatory use of the language. It refers to the optional use of the language in educational activities. So it refers to something entirely different from being an official language or being higher than a national language. Vuzorg (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• D per Vuzorg's and other relevant comments above. It's not on the same level as Arabic, and so A is WP:UNDUE. Moreover, the country's official self-designation and its spelling etc. in a recognized language needs to be properly sourced; unless a reliable and relevant (preferably governmental) source uses such an official self-designation for the country, I don't think it can be kept per WP:VERIFY. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

   Done - for now; removed Kurdish on top of the infobox until final verdict per WP:UNDUE. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  SANA, Syrian State Media, now has a Kurdish edition, which they started publishing in August of 2025 using the Hawar alphabet, and writes the full name of Syria in Kurdish as Komara Erebî ya Sûrîyê. Thegunkid (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  The constitution states that Arabic is the official language. However, nothing in the constitution states that the use of the Kurdish language in Syrian documents, such as a presidential decree. As the decree states, “Kurdish is also recognized as a national language and is permitted to be taught in public and private schools in areas where Kurds constitute a significant percentage of the population.” This means that the use of that language is optional. HurricaneEdgar 17:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  The same site has English, Turkish, French, and Spanish editions. Aintabli (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  You specifically requested a Syrian government source for the official spelling of the full name of the country in Kurdish, SANA is operated by the Syrian Ministry of Infomation therefore I would assume that's authorative on the matter, with the Kurdish edition of SANA being specifically launched for domestic consumption. Thegunkid (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  My comment wasn't just about verifying that the name is used by the government. That link shows it is the conventional spelling per a source associated with the government, but it doesn't demonstrate anything else. Aintabli (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• D My position still stands. The Constitutional Declaration clearly states that Arabic is the official language. This may change once President al-Sharaa’s government drafts a new constitution to revise it, as the current declaration is expected to remain in force for four years before the election. The decree signed by al-Sharaa was in Arabic, and the state operates in Arabic. HurricaneEdgar 14:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Other comments

Can you please explain to me how exactly a presidential decree can override the Constitution? I'd like more insight on your perception of the hierarchy of normative legal acts, cheers! Indiana3877 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Indiana3877: See the discussion at Kurdish on the Infobox?. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Comment It’s a bit vague what a “recognised national language” is if it is not at the same time “official”. Arabic for Israel constitutes a “special status” (again, quite vague), but Portugal feels instructive here. The other commentator commenting on the precedence of a decree over the constitution is making an irrelevant point. We’re not constitutional lawyers here. Yr Enw (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The phrasing "national language" is indeed quite vague, I am personally inclined to think that it would be more sensible to wait for further clarification from the relevant Syrian authorities in whatever form that clarification may manifest itself (I.E. issuing bilingual documents and what not as a basic example, drawing a parallel to Israel here) before making an edit to the info box. Indiana3877 (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should we wait for anything from Syrian authorities. This goes against numerous policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, starting with Pillar 2, as Syria is obviously not a neutral party in what constitutes national languages in Syria, and has every reason to dissimulate about the question. Waiting for their statement would be the equivalent of asking the CEO of a company or the board of directors what they would like us to put in the biography of their CEO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a press release posting service. In this article, as for all articles at Wikipedia, we decide on appropriate content based on what the majority of independent, secondary, reliable sources say about a topic. Syrian authorities are neither independent, secondary, or reliable on this question. To be clear, you can use Syrian statements for what the official policy of the Syrian government is about official languages per WP:ABOUTSELF, but not for national language(s) beyond official designation. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Except this is not a subjective case, where input from several sources can change the dynamic of the topic at hand, it is about presenting the objective status quo to Wikipedia readers. Allow me to disagree with your CEO analogy, because only the internationally recognized Syrian state can define what status languages have within the borders of Syria, and as far as that's concerned, it's already been defined constitutionally and by a relevant presidential decree that complements the Constitution that Arabic is the sole official language of the Syrian Arab Republic, and Kurdish is recognized as a national language. Secondary sources cannot change the law, no matter how independent they may be. Syria is not a company, it is a sovereign state with an internationally recognized government. The Syrian state does not have to be a "neutral party" in what constitutes national languages in Syria, because it is the only body with the authority to define what status languages have. Indiana3877 (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not; but this is not the place to decide a question based on authority from a sovereign state, as it would affect every country. That kind of question should be decided at a broader venue, likely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, or possibly WP:VPP, otherwise you could end up with individual country Rfc's deciding it every which way, leading to an inconsistent mess. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It already is an inconsistent mess, and this change to Syria's infobox only adds to the inconsistency. If you want to compare this article to other Wikipedia articles, then you'll find that some countries, like Angola have only one official language, but other national languages, and their infobox contains only the name of the country in it's sole official language. Other countries, like Algeria are missing one of their official languages in their infobox. My suggestion was waiting for further clarification, clarification that we might see through official documents, passport covers for example etc. The new Syrian Pound banknotes, for example, contain only Arabic and English text. Indiana3877 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

See Portugal; Syria is absolutely not the only country-related article with a second language that is a recognized or national language. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, but there are other examples that display the contrary, such as Angola Indiana3877 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so that's why I started the RfC; This issue is contested in its whole. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, and as much as the phrasing "national language" leaves room for interpretation, I think the problem mainly lies in Wikipedia not having an adopted standard for the infoboxes of country-related articles. I'm personally in favour of the Angola approach, which is just my opinion. Indiana3877 (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Consistency counts for something in article titling arguments, but for little or nothing in article content. What editors at Portugal do matters for Portugal, unless there is a guideline that covers them both. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, since what editors do should matter for each respective country, in that case, as I said, we should see how the situation in Syria evolves and to what degree Kurdish is used before making a change to the article. Indiana3877 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe you. I've seen this before in spades at Algeria, with editors clearly arguing their own, personal point of view over guideline and policy. It only quiesced when the main editor involved in pushing their own POV got indeffed. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC) (For something unrelated, I should hasten to add, lest I leave the wrong impression.) Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Freedoxm Comment: Since the status of the language is vague as of now, place Kurdish under a "Other languages" section, and then add an efn explaining the decree and national language situation. Seems to be a pretty good compromise, what do you think? TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  I absolutely think it is a a good compromise, though I will keep Kurdish on the top of the infobox and on the lede efns for now, as the RfC and consensus is to determine the overall layout in the future. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  TeddyRoosevelt1912, if the status is vague, what do you think about just listing it under 'Other' in the Infobox, and *not* offering an efn and just letting it be vague there? Recall the lead sentence of the purpose of WP:Infobox:

  An infobox is a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject.

  By its nature, the infobox is not the place to explain subtle details. Listing it as 'Other' is enough for starters, and for people who come to the article to get the gist of the topic, and who read only the lead sentence or two and scan the Infobox, that may be all they need; they aren't going to follow an efn anyway. For the more serious reader who wants to know all about the language situation, they are going to delve deeper, and read the § Languages section, where the details are given, along with several citations. I see no particular reason to have to duplicate or augment this with efn's in the infobox. If it's vague, then let it be vague. That's just fine for an Infobox. Let them read on, if they really want to know. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Though I highly agree with your point; the most important part isn't about full information right now, it's rather about reaching consensus on the RfC. The "other languages" section is temporary and interim, and it will be discontinued (or replaced if applicable) after this RfC is closed. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 04:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  @TeddyRoosevelt1912: I've reverted your suggestion as it seems like there is a small dispute on whether it should be placed or called. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Note to closer: the topic Kurds and Kurdistan is under ARBCOM Extended confirmed restriction, and imho !votes by non-ECR accounts on this Rfc must be disregarded. Just my opinion; please consult WP:ARBCOM for any needed clarification about this before closure. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• Note to closer: I believe this Rfc is tainted by multiple good-faith TPO violations by the OP, namely moving comments or votes by other users from one section to another, e.g., from 'Relevant comments' to 'Other comments'. I recently rolled back one instance of this, but the history is now too entangled to attempt to undo anything older. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  from 'Relevant comments' to 'Other comments'. I recently rolled back one instance of this, but the history is now too entangled to attempt to undo anything older They are sorted according to relevance, sources, and surveying (eg. a comment that isn't surveyed would have been moved back). I won't be attempting to do this more again (except for one case if they don't respond in a certain time). In contrast to what you believe, I highly disagree that this was WP:TPO, as I've refrained from editing even a single word from other's comments, but I did move them. Furthermore, I disagree that this was WP:BLUDGEONING as so were my previous comments. I will also refrain from commenting further on this RfC. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

And once more, in this collapse at 7:13, 4 Feb., of what might be intended as two votes by other editors. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe I am close to WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion, so I'll cease replying further. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)