Talk:Asma al-Assad/Archive 3

Rewrite of article by Etoiles
Etoiles has a checkered history on this article. She originally edited as an IP, but as a named account, she started editing in March 2012. Since that time she has a total of 127 edits, of which 28 are to articles. She did not edit in April 2012. She edited once in May 2012. She did not edit in June or July 2012. She made a handful of edits in August 2012 and then did not reappear until November 28, 2013, at which point she came in with a vengeance and slashed the article, claiming at least initially that the Vogue section should not be included in the article and that there was a consensus for leaving it out. She has refused to back that claim up. She has been reverted by two different editors. Her version of the article presently stands.

This is the version of the article right about the time Etoiles left for over a year. The Vogue material was not then in a separate section, but here is what the article said:

"In March 2011, Vogue published a fairly positive profile of the first lady titled 'Asma al-Assad: Rose of the Desert' but it was removed from Vogue's website without comment that spring. In response to media inquiries about the removal of Assad's profile, Vogue's editor stated that 'Subsequent to our interview, as the terrible events of the past year and a half unfolded in Syria, it became clear that its [Syria's] priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue'. The author of the article, Joan Juliet Buck has since admitted that the piece—which resulted in Buck's contract not being renewed from Vogue after several decades of employment—was intended as part of a public relations campaign by the Syrian regime, which paid the public relations firm Brown Lloyd James to liaise with Vogue. Buck has since written another article for The Daily Beast giving a true account of the interview of Asma al-Assad, in which Buck describes being under surveillance by the Syrian regime constantly throughout her stay in Syria, and concluding that the subject of her piece was in fact 'the Devil's wife'."

In the most recent version before Etoiles changed the article, in a separate section, here is what the article said:

"In March 2011, Vogue published a flattering profile of the first lady titled 'A Rose in the Desert' authored by veteran fashion writer Joan Juliet Buck. The article was later removed from Vogue's website without editorial comment that spring. Responding to media inquiries about the disappearance of Assad's profile, Vogue’s editor stated that 'as the terrible events of the past year and a half unfolded in Syria, it became clear that [Syria's] priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue'. After strong public and media reaction to the article, Buck's contract was not renewed with Vogue although she had been employed by the magazine for over 30 years and had been an editor of French Vogue for seven years. The New York Times later reported that the piece was intended as part of a larger Syrian government-sponsored image campaign coordinated by the public relations firm Brown Lloyd James. Buck has since written another article for Newsweek giving an extremely critical account of Asma al-Assad, concluding that she is the 'first lady of hell'. Separately, Buck's original profile of Assad was satirized in The Philadelphia Inquirer."

Although the language has changed somewhat, it has about the same amount of text and much of the same material.

Etoiles never participated in the discussion(s) on the talk page about the Vogue material. There was an attempt to merge a section from the Buck article into this article in July 2012. It was shot down. There was a much longer discussion about the Vogue article that began in April 2012 and continued through August 6, 2012. No clear consensus was reached, but it coincides with the state of the article at that time.

It's possible to revisit the Vogue material and see if there is a consensus for changing what was in the article before Etoiles edited it, but the way Etoiles has gone about it is unacceptable. I am therefore going to revert the article back to the status quo ante. If Etoiles wants to change the article, she is going to have to obtain a consensus in the normal fashion before doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the prior discussions, it seems to be that there the weight of opinion (if not the clear consensus) was that there are issues of trivia and weight here, and that if this material is suitable for the article at all, it should only cover what is directly relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. it should skip the soap opera about things that went on at the offices of Vogue). I agree with all that. If it needs including at all, it needs no more than a sentence. I don't think the issue is whether we should be nice or nasty to Asma al-Assad, but whether we should digress into anecdotes about a magazine. Formerip (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, Bbb23, it was YOU who told me to register a username. I did as YOU instructed. Checkered editing? Indeed. I actually have a life outside of Wikipedia. Second, as noted by FormerIP, there was weight of opinion that there were issues with the Vogue piece. It is a OPINIONATED piece that has absolutely no place on this page. Vogue RETRACTED their original article which means whatever was said/expressed is no longer acknowledged by Vogue. What is the significance of the Vogue piece? Why on earth does it deserve it's own section???? I hope you realize that this page looks more like a TABLOID than an actual biography.


 * I'm really perplexed with WHY this Vogue piece is so important??? Perhaps it is because Bbb23 has been working on this article for too long, but ask any stranger on the street and they will say that the page, as it was originally, looked and still looks extremely sloppy . This page, as it stands, represents nothing but sensationalism, opinions, and lacks factual information. The neutrality of this page is highly questionable. You sir, are unacceptable and I have therefore reverted the article as it was . I have encouraged you to partake in discussion on this issue. So indeed, we WILL be revisiting the Vogue material as apparently YOU are failing miserably to look at the archived discussions on this very piece.


 * I am requesting that the tabloid material be left out of this piece until outside opinions. The status quo, you say? Who represents the "status quo"? You? If so, let me just say you have made this page into an absolutely trashy page that looks so repetitively sloppy. Why is there mention of the EU sanctions in two places? The mention of the EU sanctions only needs to be in the article in ONE PLACE. Why is there mention of Al-Assad getting a bachelor degree in French literature and computer science in TWO places of this page? Why is there mention that she married Bashar Al-Assad and moved to Syria TWICE on this page???? It's ridiculous. It's exceptionally sloppy work. And the material that is in contest is extremely sensationalist and very tabloid-like and I see no reason why it should be given it's own section. Not to mention, any kind of mention, given the fact that Vogue has retracted the article and no longer acknowledges it!


 * Finally, I agree with FormerIP in that the Vogue article should be given no more than A SENTENCE and that SENTENCE should be included in public opinion of Assad and nothing more. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again E. You touch on many topics in your post so I will number my responses to help focus disussion.
 * 1. While you have been blocked for edit warring, I reverted your last edit to the previous version that had been stable for over a year since you, yourself, opened a talk page discussion about several issues that directly relate to your revisions. Please do not continue to revert content related to the issues you have raised on the talk page.
 * 2. How or why you decided to register is not relevant to the facts surrounding this BLP. If you have issues with Bbb23 about that, please take those issues to his talk page as they have zero bearing on the article.
 * 3. The "Vogue" article was retracted and we do not include any information from that article in this article. There was a significant amount of controversy in international media about the article which is discussed. There was also reputable reporting about the Syrian government PR angle which deserves inclusion.
 * 4. Exactly which parts of the Vogue section do you contest? Do you have cites to other articles that contest the information presented?
 * 5. Exactly which assertions in this article do you contest? Do you have cites that contradict the ones that are here?
 * 6. Exactly which assertions are not factual nor properly cited to reliable sources?
 * 7. Please cease and desist from your personal attacks on a fellow editor. I.e.: "You sir, are unacceptable...". Those comments are completely unacceptable for an adult conversation about facts and sources.
 * 8. Exactly what material in the article is "tabloid"?
 * 9. I addressed stating a concept in the lead and then following up with more detail in a previous section. Between this section and the previous section you have pointed out three concepts that were introduced in the Lead and then followed up with citations in the body. If this is the repetition you are concerned with then you should refresh yourself on some of the basic concepts about an introductory paragraph. Please see WP:LEAD for more info.
 * 10. How, exactly, is the Vogue material "sensationalist"? There were hundreds, if not thousands of articles written about that incident so it merits mention. How do you think it should be presented?
 * 11. As I said before, you touched on many topics with a sweeping blow torch. I suggest you close this wide-ranging topic and open specific topics focused on resolving specific issues to facilitate productive discussions.
 * 12. Please review the article concerning assuming good faith WP:GOODFAITH and No personal attacks
 * Regards Veriss (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, the irony. The two thugs on this page command that others do not make edits, while they themselves do as they please without consultation or consensus. Tyranny at it's absolute finest . First of all, the only reason this supposed version has been stable is because no one has questioned you or Bbb23. The latter who believes he OWNS this article. Ha! Just because it remained "stable" does not mean the article itself was in good form. It's pitiful.
 * Why I registered was not directed to you and was addressed to Bbb23, who brought up the fact that I first wrote as a IP and then registered last year. I don't care if it's not relevant to you because I was not addressing you, so moving on.
 * Controversy? Yes, and was that not why the article was retracted by Vogue in the first place? But being that you two are men, it appears you do not realize that Vogue is a FASHION MAGAZINE. You hold Vogue up to a pedestal like it is Time Magazine or something important. According to the interviews I have read, the reason why Joan Juliet Buck was commissioned to do this piece was because it was suppose to be a piece about "culture, antiquities, and museums". It was suppose to have NOTHING to do with politics. And yet, you two, the lot of you, are trying to spin this Vogue piece into something political. Indeed, there was coverage by the international media, but why? And who represents the "international media"? Are we perhaps, examining this from too much of a western perspective? FormerIP has made a very worthy recommendation that includes the Syrian government's PR angle. I agree with her suggestions.
 * I'm contesting the fact that the Vogue article DOES NOT deserve it's own section. Again, we are talking about a FASHION MAGAZINE that was doing a piece on the subject on "culture, antiquities, and museums". I personally question Buck's integrity as a writer. She is the person who wrote the piece and then she wants to backtrack on the things she witnessed and reported on? Has Vogue personally come out and said that the sole reason why they did not review her contract was because THEY pressured her to do the piece? The Vogue piece does not deserve it's own section. Period.
 * So much about the article is tabloid. You are picking tidbits from western media that are basically providing their bias perceptions of the subject. The Imelda Marcos references. The previous Marie Antoinette reference. The Desert of the Rose references. They are all orientalist perceptions that are based upon what? Why are we giving power to these so called "perceptions" of the subject? Do you even know who Imelda Marcos is? Read up on her if you don't. It doesn't make sense that just because ONE writer decides to compare the subject to Marcos, it deserves mention. And yes, unfortunately, once one article writes something, maybe a hundred (not a thousand--you over exaggerate) other articles basically recycle the same material and it is repeated throughout different news agencies. In journalism, whatever comes up in the news feed is fair game to be recycled.
 * There is way too much sensationalism in the article at present. If you don't see it (which I believe you do not), it is because you have been too close to the article. Which is why I will be requesting a third party to examine this article. I am most grateful that FormerIP has joined this discussion with a brand new set of eyes. I will be further filing a request to have other editors re-examine this article as clearly, you and Bbb23 are not seeing what others are .Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we close this particular topic, focus on thing we can work together on and move on. Veriss (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As a Sunni Muslim by birth, Asma al-Assad's leading role was also important for the view of the Syrian government and president, an Alawite, among the Sunni majority of Syria.
I'm sorry, but I edited this out but Bbb2 has re-instated this sectarist statement. What exactly does, "As a Sunni Muslim by birth, Asma al-Assad's leading role was also important for the view of the Syrian government and president, an Alawite, among the Sunni majority of Syria" mean? We know that she is Sunni. It is already mentioned in her early life. How does Al-Assad's branch of Islam play a "leading role" in anything? I feel that this bit has sectarian overtones that have not be substantiated and should be removed from the article. I read through the cited Reuters piece and there's no mention Sunni/Alawite = leading role for the Syrian government/president???? I am opening this for discussion before requesting that it be removed from the article, as it is irrelevant. If you choose not to partake in this discussion, it is assumed that you are in agreement that this statement does not belong. Silence has no power. Speak up. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The assertion you pointed out,("As a Sunni Muslim by birth, Asma al-Assad's leading role was also important for the view of the Syrian government and president, an Alawite, among the Sunni majority of Syria"), is not supported by the currently cited single source. The statement in this article makes sense though and I believe that it was properly sourced at one time so it is possible that a valid source was accidentally removed during previous revisions. Since the assertion does not appear to be controversial, I have tagged it as needing a citation but will not remove it so other editors have time to find the missing source material. In the meantime, your assertion that if editors don't partake in this discussion that they support your position is in my opinion, faulty logic so please desist from that. (Edited to include a link to List of fallacies for your reading pleasure.)

Veriss (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. If there is NO source that supports the in question material, why on earth should it remain???? It makes no sense to me. The statement makes NO sense. Asma al-Assad is a Muslim. Sunni is branch of Islam. Alawite is a branch of Islam. A Muslim married a Muslim. It's not like a Muslim president married a Christian wife. How is this a "leading role" for the Syrian government and president???? Marriage between different branches of Islam is common and by no means taboo or something to marvel about. If anything, I would think that the fact that she is English is more "leading" or more note-worthy than the fact that she was born a Sunni Muslim. I am proposing that the statement be removed until you or someone else can properly cite the blurb. There is no reason for the statement to remain if you have no sources to prove that Asma al-Assad's religion or anything related to such was a "leading role" in anything. We're talking about Syria, a secular country, where Christians, Muslims (of all sects), Druze, and Kurds lived together, in the same neighborhoods, for centuries. What's with the sectarian overtones? It's not necessary.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest that we work on this after we sort out the "Buck Issues". (added) I think I found the missing sources but was focused on mending fences tonight. It is late so I've saved them and will look at them later. It is an oddly constructed statement but I have to review the sources to see what the intent may have been. It is possible that the original statement was accidently and innocently mangled by other edits. Lets get through the Buck issue first. Veriss (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive Information
What's going on here? What is with all the repetitive information on this page? There was mention of the EU sanctions TWICE on the page--basically identical information. Why? Why is there the need for the same information, twice? Furthermore, there is mention of her marriage to her husband TWICE, "before moving to Syria to marry President Bashar al-Assad in December 2000" and "Asma moved to Syria in November 2000 and married Bashar in December of that year". I know of at least TWO qualified editors here. How are you allowing these kinds of mistakes under your watch? This page is in such a messy state and I left with good trust that it would be maintained in an orderly fashion.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC):
 * Ugh.... mention of this TWICE as well, "She graduated from King's College London in 1996 with a first-class bachelor of science degree in computer science and a diploma in French literature" and ".... and graduated from King's College London in 1996 with a bachelor's degree in computer science and French literature." Why??? Why is there so much repetition on this article? Can someone explain this?Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MOSINTRO. The two items you pointed out are both concepts that are introduced in the Lead and then covered in more detail in the body which also includes full citations. You can review this basic guide for a refresher: Manual of Style/Lead section. Welcome back E. Veriss (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But you see, these THREE concepts cannot qualify to be "leads" because they are in fact NOT covered in more detail in the body. Absolutely not. I learned nothing new from reading that Asma al-Assad married her husband and moved to Syria in 2000....TWICE. I learned nothing new about the fact that the EU placed sanctions on her and that she can only travel to the UK as a citizen, which is mentioned TWICE. I learned nothing new about the fact that Asma al-Assad earned a bachelor's degree in computer science and French literature.... TWICE! There's no building upon the concepts.... AT ALL. Do you read what you write? You really should. Your claim that these "leads" are covered more in detail is absolutely false and as of right now, the concepts mentioned are distracting and repetitive. The page is clumsy, sloppy, and messy. Again, I can see that YOU don't see it, which is why I am going to be filing a request to have this looked at by other editors that are not so deeply invested like you and Bbb23.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We need to look at this. I would like to suggest that we work on it once we work through the more pressing Buck and affect of religious affiliation issues. Veriss (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Vogue material
Working off of 's cogent comments above, if Etoiles is still interested in improving the article after her block expires, I suggest we start with the Vogue material as I believe that is her biggest complaint. We need to decide (1) whether the material deserves its own section, (2) what material to include, and (3) how the material should be worded. As a subissue to issue #1, if we determine that the material should not be in a separate section, we need to decide where it should go. I suggest we start with issues #2 and #3 first.

Although I quoted it above, for ease of reference, here is the material currently in the article:

"In March 2011, Vogue published a flattering profile of the first lady titled 'A Rose in the Desert' authored by veteran fashion writer Joan Juliet Buck. The article was later removed from Vogue's website without editorial comment that spring. Responding to media inquiries about the disappearance of Assad's profile, Vogue’s editor stated that 'as the terrible events of the past year and a half unfolded in Syria, it became clear that [Syria's] priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue'. After strong public and media reaction to the article, Buck's contract was not renewed with Vogue although she had been employed by the magazine for over 30 years and had been an editor of French Vogue for seven years. The New York Times later reported that the piece was intended as part of a larger Syrian government-sponsored image campaign coordinated by the public relations firm Brown Lloyd James. Buck has since written another article for Newsweek giving an extremely critical account of Asma al-Assad, concluding that she is the 'first lady of hell'. Separately, Buck's original profile of Assad was satirized in The Philadelphia Inquirer."

Any editor can comment on the above material, but it would be preferable to do so in concrete terms, i.e., remove x sentence, reword y sentence from a to b. No matter how much we may disagree, the discussion must remain civil and respectful.

I'll get things going a little and suggest the following (some paring down and some rewording):

"In March 2011, Vogue published a flattering profile of the first lady titled 'A Rose in the Desert' authored by fashion writer Joan Juliet Buck. The article was removed from Vogue's website without comment that spring. Responding to media inquiries about its removal, Vogue’s editor stated that 'it became clear that [Syria's] priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue'. The New York Times later reported that the piece was intended as part of a larger Syrian government-sponsored image campaign coordinated by a public relations firm. Buck later wrote another article for Newsweek giving a critical account of Asma al-Assad."

I mostly removed material. Notably, I removed the sentence about Buck's contract - the relevance to Asma is too remote. I also eliminated the inflammatory "first lady of hell" quote as unnecessary and Buck's opinion. I also removed the satire of the original profile as again being only remotely relevant to Asma as opposed to Buck. I also left out the name of the PR firm - who cares? It wouldn't bother me also to remove ""coordinated by a public relations firm" as the important Asma aspect is that the piece was part of a Syrian government campaign, not who executed it for the government.

Just as an aside, my recollection is that much of the discussion that occurred a long time ago about this material was a spillover from the Buck article itself, meaning that some editors were more interested in the Buck article and saw the Asma article as a way to augment their views. To some extent, that's emblematic of WP:COATRACK and shouldn't be permitted, but at Wikipedia one works with consensus, even if one disagrees with it, and the Buck consensus was unfortunately intertwined with the Asma consensus. But that doesn't mean we can't revisit it.

I'll await comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As commented above, it should be much shorter, dispense with minor detail and focus on material directly about the subject, rather than about Vogue.
 * "In 2012, it was reported in the New York Times that a flattering profile of al-Assad, published by Vogue the previous year, had been connected to a public relations initiative of the Syrian government."
 * Formerip (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with FormerIP and I would appreciate it if you (the lot of you) acknowledged the opinion of FormerIP, as he/she is much more eloquent than myself in basically saying that the material should DIRECTLY focus on Asma Al-Assad without all the opinions, fluff, and fillers. Upon doing some minor research, I realized whoever decided to include this irrelevant Vogue section basically COPIED AND PASTED the exact same thing from the page of Joan Juliet Buck. How lazy. The fact is, the Vogue piece has been retracted. Anna Wintour herself has retracted the piece. It does NOT deserve its own section and instead, should be included somewhere in the First Lady section. I'm actually ALL IN FAVOR of what FormerIP has suggested, as he/she has made changes that is straight to the point, without all the unnecessary rubbish.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Buck section needs to be trimmed even more then Bbb23 and I trimmed it over a year ago and the content merged into the preceding section. The problem I have with FormerIP's suggestion is that it lacks so much context that the reader would say to themselves "so what" when they read it. It needs some context so I am leaning more towards Bbb23's suggestion and also agreeing that it no longer needs a seperate section. If we decide to keep the PR firm bit, then we should add "American" or "US" to qualify it. Veriss (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think "so what" would be exactly right, which is the nub of the issue. A story about Vogue belongs in the article about Vogue and a story about Joan Juliet Buck belongs in the article about Joan Juliet Buck. But al-Assad's involvement is tangential. She consented to a profile in Vogue, but she's not really involved after that point. Formerip (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, I think that's a bit of an overstatement (or should it be understatement?). According to reliable sources, a PR firm hired by the government, of which Asma is a part, arranged the puff piece. Giving the article a little more context would he helpful to the Asma article. The contretemps between Buck and Vogue, I agree, is not relevant to the Asma article. I also think that the Buck's subsequent critical piece of Asma is worth a mention and completes the "circle". I am fine with not separating the material into its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, according to reliable sources, a PR firm hired by the government, of which Asma is a part, arranged the puff piece. This is all that's remotely relevant to the article (although not exactly fascinating - what wife of a head of state doesn't have PR people working on her image?) and it can be said in a single sentence, as I have done in my suggestion above. What additional context are you suggesting? What happened subsequently at Vogue isn't context, it's coatrack. Formerip (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So an editor has suggested we should "make stuff happen" and says that this discussion is "stagnant" and yet, no one has addressed FormerIP's question about additional context. Are select editors choosing to ignore FormerIP's participation in this discussion? What is this, a pre-school playground??? Can we not work together and play nice? Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, not true. If you read the piece by Buck, you will read that Vogue had approached Asma al-Assad for two years to do a piece. She had declined each time before finally consenting. To directly quote Buck, "The editor explained that the first lady was young, good-looking, and had never given an interview. Vogue had been trying to get to her for two years. Now she’d hired a PR firm, and they must have pushed her to agree." Who is the reliable source you are referencing? There is no doubt that the government (or al-Assad) hired a PR firm, but the proactive pushing for the article was on Vogue's part. That is, according to Buck. Why was Vogue pushing to do a piece on al-Assad? Who knows. Perhaps because the orientalist perception of women in the Middle East is that they are oppressed, covered, and subservient creatures. P.S. FormerIP, you are a REFRESHING editor to have on this page. You are so classy and concise in relaying what I have been feeling all this time. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "I also think that the Buck's subsequent critical piece of Asma is worth a mention and completes the "circle" - nope, don't agree with that. That can go on Buck's page, arranged by Buck's people. I read over Buck's subsequent piece, as well as Buck's original Vogue's piece, which has been resurrected by Gawker. It's really appalling to me how different her impressions are in both pieces and it's further mind boggling to me that somehow, a Vogue piece that should have focused on "culture, antiquities, and museums" became a "Rose in the Desert" or whatever rubbish the Vogue piece ended up being. Quoting Buck's subsequent piece, "We don’t want any politics, none at all,” said the editor, “and she [al-Assad] only wants to talk about culture, antiquities, and museums. You like museums. You like culture. She wants to talk to you. You’d leave in a week.” I don't believe Buck deserves any mention on this page. She is insignificant. Vogue employed Buck, Vogue paid/arranged for the piece. I'm still ALL IN FAVOR of FormerIP's suggestion. We don't need the additional commentary by Buck, the Guardian, the Telegraph, CNN, etc. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Vogue piece contains useful information about what Mrs Assad is like as a person. It comes from a reliable source. It does not present a rounded picture though. But that is OK, because the article can use other sources for that. There is the potential sticking point that Vogue has withdrawn the article from its website - but Vogue has not said that this was because the article got its facts wrong - just that Mrs Assad and her husband have different values. There are also plenty of reliable sources to show that the article was an embarrassment to Vogue. In any case, newspapers routinely withdraw articles from their websites, and that does not in itself stop the articles from being reliable sources. I think it is therefore appropriate to use facts from the Vogue article in the Wikipedia article to say what Mrs Assad is like.

But there is also the issue of the hate campaign against Mrs Assad. This hate campaign started long before Vogue article. For example, it is illegal to accept her credit cards as payment in shops in her native London. The criticism of the Vogue article was part of this hate campaign. I do not think the Vogue article deserves a section on its own. It should be part of a section on the hate campaign against Mrs Assad. I think things like the US newspaper comparing Mrs Assad to Eva Braun is relevant to the article.

I do not think that Buck's face-saving article is particularly relevant to this article - it seems reminiscent of all those Germans who after the war suddenly started liking Jews.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dearest Toddy1, welcome!!!!!! :)♥♥♥♥ The main qualm I have with the Vogue piece is that in comparison to Buck's preceding piece with Newsweek, although the author is the same, the opinions and perceptions of the author towards the subject seem drastically different. It's as if Buck has a double personality. How on earth do you go from, "freshest and most magnetic of first ladies" to "first lady of hell"??? It's bipolar. I'm not sure which of the two articles is more "authentic" in terms of capturing who the subject is as a person, as a first lady, etc. There's something very questionable about the ethnics of Buck as a writer. But you are right in that the reason the original article was retracted was not because the facts were wrong, but rather, the political situation of Syria.


 * Indeed, the issue of the hate campaign against the subject is also something to consider. There is such limited information online about her and she's been criminalized by de-facto due to her association/marriage to Bashar al-Assad. The subject has been compared to Marie Antoinette, Eva Perón, Imelda Marcos, and Eva Braun, amongst other female historical figures. But my issue with these comparisons is who is making these comparisons? And what agency do they have to be issuing these parallels? By making these comparisons, the writers are creating an environment for the reader to have preconceived notions of the subject.


 * I am patiently waiting for Bbb23 to name his reliable sources on the Syrian government or the subject herself orchestrating the Vogue piece. At this time, I'm leaning towards the earlier quote from Buck, who has stated that it was in fact Vogue who was courting/arranged for the subject to do the original piece. I did go over the cited sources and nothing (including the original NY Times piece) names any kind of "reliable sources" that substantiate that the "puff piece", as mentioned by Bbb23, was the product of the proactive efforts of the PR firm, Brown Lloyd James, which has previously been used/hired by the Clinton, Bush, and Thatcher administrations, and was the PR firm hired by the Assads and/or the Syrian government.


 * I am so HAPPY to have Toddy1 and FormerIP here on this article. Welcome, with open arms, to both of you! :) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been watching this discussion but have a lot going in in my real life at the moment. I have some fresh perspectives after looking over all of the US first lady articles back to Mrs. Kennedy and all of the first ladies or consorts of the nations near Syria, in particular, focusing on the first ladies or consorts who are notable for their sense of style, such as Queen Rania of Jordan, etc. (Trying to keep this brief so she is just a single example). I also noticed that there was very little about the wives of Prime Ministers in other English speaking countries such as the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. or any predominantly Islamic nation. It appears that the only ready examples for articles of a first lady are US or French first ladies. Most of those articles include extensive discussions about their style, public image and relations with the press though not all do, such as Barbara Bush's article. Similar discussions would be very applicable to Mrs. Assad.
 * Even as a guy, I know that Mrs. Assad is well known for her style and fashion sense. Perhaps we should all look at the articles of other first ladies or consorts who are known for being stylish for ideas. I am beginning to think that a section dedicated to discussing her public image, fashions, etc. would be worthwhile to start building since that is one area she is very notable for and there are many, many articles available in that area. A very trimmed down discussion of the Buck business could be covered there with other material that would help balance it. If she was an ugly toad I don't think any amount of Syrian funding would persuade Vogue to feature her.
 * These are just some quick, though admittedly, incomplete, thoughts to let you know what I am working on. I hope my real life will settle down and I am able to contribute more thought out suggestions soon. I think this is something everyone else can look into in the meantime. Regards, V Veriss (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * >How on earth do you go from, "freshest and most magnetic of first ladies" to "first lady of hell"?
 * Buck's switch was a face-saving manoeuvre. Some people (particularly women) have personalities that make them "fit in" well with the people around them.  Such a personality can lead to a happy marriage, and good promotion in a job, because bosses and colleagues find such people easy to get on with.  Of course, such people have no backbone; they just go along with whatever the people round them think is right.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Toddy1! :) I think it is really sad that Buck felt she had to save face and to do so, had to be shamed (maybe?) into losing her credibility as a writer by giving two drastically different perspectives on the subject. Very sad. I even wonder perhaps, if Buck's contract was not renewed by Vogue simply because her time at Vogue was over. After all, I cannot imagine how Vogue can punish a writer they pushed (or "pressured", as Buck says) into doing a piece that she did not have much interest in doing.
 * >"If she was an ugly toad I don't think any amount of Syrian funding would persuade Vogue to feature her."
 * You and Bbb23 keep suggesting that the Vogue piece was arranged/pushed for by the Syrian government or the Assads. Well, I think you are suggesting that Vogue was paid off to do this piece on the subject? Where is the proof for these allegations? I'm going strictly based upon what Buck has said in her interview with Newsweek and according to Buck (this is a repeat), Vogue was trying to do a piece on the subject for TWO YEARS. The subject did not consent/agree until the PR firm came into the picture. Coincidentally, I was also thinking of the subject in comparison to Queen Rania, who is another figure of the Middle East that the "West" is obsessed with. Queen Rania, Princess Ameera al-Taweel of Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser degree, Queen Noor, all come to mind as women of the Middle East who are simply written off as fashionable "pretty faces" that challenge the orientalist depiction of women in the Arab world. To quote Buck yet again, the subject was "extremely thin and very well-dressed, and therefore qualified to be in Vogue.”.... Nothing misogynistic about that.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, you seemed to zero in on one statement and missed the bigger picture. The Buck article was a major incident in her public image domain and that is not going away no matter how much people may wish it would. It deserves discussion and should be discussed. I was looking for ways to balance it and present other aspects of her public image along side it and think there are plenty of sources and opportunities to do so. I have a lot going on so don't have much time to connect all the dots for everyone so you guys need to think out of the box for a change and quit nit picking over trivial stuff. After spending a significant amount of time reviewing many other first ladies/spouses/consorts pages I observed that many had a section discussing their public image, relations with the press, etc. I think she deserves a full section devoted to her fashion, style, media relations and public image. Regards, V. Veriss (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think the attacks on the Vogue article should be part of a PR section. I think it should be in a section on the Syrian Civil War - alongside international restrictions on her shopping in Europe.  The article needs to put it in the context of a hate campaign against Mrs Assad, even from her native country's government (she is a British citizen).--Toddy1 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Veriss, that single one statement is one that is significant if you want to have future discussions on the piece. There is a big difference between being asked to do something and pushing to do something proactively. I guess it just comes down to individual values and priorities. I am someone who believes in the details of the fabric and not simply looking at the finished product. In regards to your personal life: I assure you, we all have things going on in our lives. We all have a life. So just FYI: you aren't the only one.
 * This should not come as a surprise, but I am in complete support of the suggestions made by FormerIP and Toddy1. It's hard to reach "consensus" on anything on this page when it seems the two editors who are dominant in their editing ways are absent from the discussion. I was hoping to get this knocked out of the way within a week's time and it seems that for whatever reasons, this collaborative discussion is moving at a snail's pace. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A few comments. First, consensus building at Wikipedia is often a slow process. Second, I'm not sure I understand Toddy1's points. Third, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms that can be used, Etoiles, if you wish. Finally, I understand your frustration, and I appreciate the fact that you've left the article alone while the process continues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "I'm not sure I understand Toddy1's points". Which words/phrases/sentences do you not understand?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, I proposed language to replace what is currently in the article. FormerIP proposed different language. I think we are in agreement that there doesn't need to be a separate section for the Vogue material (I know I'm good with that, anyway). Rather than my trying to parse your points, what language are you proposing?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several good ways of handling this. However there is a a problem with sources currently available:
 * One good approach would be to have a section entitled something like: Mrs Assad during the Syrian Civil War. This could cover her various activities, the measures taken against Mrs Assad by foreign governments to make it difficult for her to go shopping in Western Europe, and the hostile propaganda campaign against her. I think the word "during" would be essential to that kind of approach - it is NPOV - it does not imply that there is anything bad about her going shopping, for example.  This approach could be supported by sources currently available.
 * Another good approach would be to have a section devoted to those of Mrs Assad's activities that were directly linked to the civil war, and another section devoted to her trying to maintain a normal life for her family (she is a wife and mother), and a third section devoted to the hostile action by foreigners such a foreign governments and foreign media. If we were writing about events fifty years ago, this might be a better approach, as we would have proper histories, and memoirs to draw on.  But currently we have newspaper reports, magazines, websites, etc. which are both participants in the battle for hearts and minds, and sources for so-called "facts".  This makes it very difficult to support this second approach now.
 * On balance, the first approach seems best.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Toddy, I suspected you were suggesting more ambitious changes to the article. I understand that you may believe it's hard to isolate the Vogue material from a restructuring and other changes to the article, but if you were to focus, at least for the moment, on the Vogue material, what would you propose? If we could come to a consensus on just that one issue, we could, of course, address other issues with respect to the article. One aside: if the article spills over more deeply into the Syrian civil war topic, it would then be subject to general sanctions (see WP:SCWGS). It's arguable whether it's already there.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "First, consensus building at Wikipedia is often a slow process." Yes, but perhaps not so slow when you have two buddy-pals monopolizing an article. Très bizarre. I understood all of Toddy's points. "I appreciate the fact that you've left the article alone while the process continues." I'm leaving the article alone for now, but that will not be for long. FormerIP has made a superior suggestion in comparison to yours and Toddy1 is hitting at some very valid points that obviously you nor Veriss have addressed/considered. I'm not going to sit on my thumbs and whistle myself in boredom if legitimate editing does not commence in the coming days. This is not proactive and the article as it stands has many flaws. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Bbb23 -- FormerIP has directed questions to you above. Please address said questions, directed to you on December 2, 2013. Let's get the ball rolling and engage in effective communication and transparent dialogue. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that the issue of "language" has been brought up. Bbb23, I don't like your "language". Your "language" is too wordy. I like FormerIP's "language" because it is concise and gets right into the gist of things, without all the gibberish. Those are my two cents for the day. Thanks. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One of our colleagues posted a request for comments seeking new input from additional editors which I support and commend. I had already posted a couple of suggestions focusing on what I think is the the bigger picture for improving her article toward a level similar to US and French First Ladies. I was not ignoring anyone's suggestions but was waiting for additional outside input. I still think the media event (circus) should be addressed but feel that should be done in a section where other related material can be presented so that it is balanced. Veriss (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Notice. Please be aware that an uninvolved administrator has placed a notice at the top of this talk page that the article is subject to WP:SCWGS. No one in this discussion has edited the article recently, but I wouldn't want anyone to inadvertently run afoul of the restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the warning notice is on the talk page, not the article page. So the people who need to see it, will not see it until too late (if ever).  The notice itself is hidden amongst Wikiproject notices, etc.  It is is effectively invisible to all editors who are likely to break the rule.  This is completely unsatisfactory - there should be a warning notice visible to people when they try to edit the article page.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sanctions warning notices are always on talk pages. Sometimes, an edit notice is used on the article itself. In this instance, the administrator who placed the template on the talk page chose not to create an edit notice (it's not required). Editors can also be notified directly of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been eight days since this thread was started and though a colleague solicited more eyes, it appears that we have attracted very few new editors with fresh views. I suspect that new editors see this long, emotional thread, sometimes laced with vitriol and decide to steer clear of the drama. I really don't blame them as I myself have considered removing this article from my watch list at least a few times due to the unneeded hysterics and unremitted personal attacks and insinuations.

Some of our editors have expressed an interest in wrapping this particular discussion up so we can move on to resolving other relevant outstanding topics.

Bbb23 submitted this proposal:

"In March 2011, Vogue published a flattering profile of the first lady titled 'A Rose in the Desert' authored by fashion writer Joan Juliet Buck. The article was removed from Vogue's website without comment that spring. Responding to media inquiries about its removal, Vogue’s editor stated that 'it became clear that [Syria's] priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue'. The New York Times later reported that the piece was intended as part of a larger Syrian government-sponsored image campaign coordinated by a public relations firm. Buck later wrote another article for Newsweek giving a critical account of Asma al-Assad."

This situation, as addressed in the quote above, sparked a huge media splash and is notable simply from the number of articles generated by it. I really don't see anything in this discussion of the event directly negative or attacking Ms. Assad. It isn't exactly positive but it isn't an indictment either. It gives context to a major event in her relations with the mainstream media which is valid for discussion, especially if you look at other first lady/consort pages. I don't see any aspect of it furthering any "hate" campaign against her. It is a very matter of fact discussion and doesn't attack her in any way that I can see.

To pare it down much further would remove any context. What exactly about this discussion as quoted directly above could be seen as furthering an alleged "hate campaign"? Why does this article not deserve a balanced discussion of her public image, media relations, etc.?

I'm sorry, perhaps I am dense, but the vehement and sometimes emotional objections still puzzle me. Regards, V Veriss (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I love how you acknowledge Bbb23 proposal (massive surprise, surprise *cue in the fireworks*) but did not address FormerIP's proposal.


 * "In 2012, it was reported in the New York Times that a flattering profile of al-Assad, published by Vogue the previous year, had been connected to a public relations initiative of the Syrian government."


 * Veriss, instead of repetitively assuming/suspecting that the reason why there are no new editors is because of the supposed "drama", how about not assuming/suspecting anything? Do you think that maybe *gasps* that there might not be that many people interested in this article subject and hence the lack of editors? Wow. Do you think that might be a possibility? For the fourth or fifth time, I vote for FormerIP's suggestion. ;) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have said several times. "To pare it down much further would remove any context. What exactly about this discussion as quoted directly above could be seen as furthering an alleged "hate campaign"? Why does this [topic] not deserve a balanced discussion of her public image, media relations, etc.? You never answered an honest question. Regards, V Veriss (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what, since you and Bbb23 work as a singular. Why don't YOU answer FormerIP's question from earlier this week? There's TOO MUCH GIBBERISH right now. We need a SIMPLIFIED blurb on this. Context, you say??? What in the world does BUCK have to do with this article? Vogue was COMMISSIONED by VOGUE, so Vogue deserves mention, but not Buck. As for answering YOUR question, was your question directed towards ME??? If so, directly address me. And you might want to RE-READ this entire discussion, because it was not I who brought up the alleged "hate campaign"! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, looks like you lost your temper, yet again. I'll go to bed so you can make endless edits to your post and will check tomorrow's version. Regards, V Veriss (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny, eh? Isn't this the passionate "E" that you so sadly missed just one month past as you nostalgically discussed on your comrade Bbb23's talk page? Go to bed and indulge in your dreams! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we are at a standstill. Two editors, FormerIP and E are in favor of FormerIP's proposal, and Veriss1 and I are in favor of mine. As far as I can tell, Toddy1 has not taken a position, but even if he did, it would hardly be a consensus. As I've said before, we do appear to agree that a separate section is not needed, although we have not precisely pinpointed where the new language would go in the article. Unless we can get past this impasse, the article will remain as it is. My suggestion is WP:DRN. Any editor can initiate a discussion there. I don't intend to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think we are at a stand still. It just takes time for people to realise how the small differences between the different ideas can be accommodated.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

reference sump
This section exists to collect up any references from previous sections, and separate them from the next section.


 * Thanks for cleaning up the references. Veriss (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)