Talk:Asma al-Assad/Archive 4

Proposed New Section: Ms. Assad's Style, Public Image and Media Relations
I proposed a section like this above modelled after Ms. Obama's article. It was buried in a long, tiresome and sometimes vitriolic thread so perhaps was missed by some who skimmed over the extraneous drama. I think about 3/4 of the First Lady section and all of the following section could be combined into a new section. This would leave the First Lady section a bit bare but that may invite editors to flesh it out with new information.

The following is a simple copy and paste merging the info from the two sections:

Style and public image
She was described by analysts and in media as an important part of the public relations effort of the Syrian government early in her tenure as first lady and she was credited with taking progressive positions on women's rights and education. The United Nations Development Program, UNDP, spent US$ 18 million to help organise a complex set of reform initiatives showing the Syrian government was working toward a more modern and progressive form of government. A key part of the program was helping to create "a reformer’s aura" for Asma al-Assad, highlighting her participation in anti-poverty and social programs and her role as founder and chair of a national umbrella charity called the Syrian Trust for Development until the program was suspended as the country descended into civil war. Additionally, her stylish designer outfits garnered media attention including fashion slideshows on The Huffington Post and Elle. 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.

Syrian Civil War
A serious blow was dealt to her public image since the Syrian civil war intensified in early 2012 amid reports of her extravagant personal shopping. A new picture emerged in western media "of a woman closer in spirit to Imelda Marcos than the moderating counselor to her husband's excesses that she was once seen as being". The Daily Telegraph reported that in January 2012, despite worldwide condemnation of her husband's regime, she appeared with him and two of their children at a pro-regime rally.

The first lady was criticized for remaining silent throughout the beginning of the Syrian uprising. She issued her first official statement to international media since the insurrection began in February 2012, nearly a year after the first serious protests. She sent an e-mail to The Times stating: "The President is the President of Syria, not a faction of Syrians, and the first lady supports him in that role." The communique also described her continued support for charities and rural development activities. Also in early February, she sent an email to the The Times declaring her support for her husband and related that she "comforts" the "victims of the violence".

On 23 March 2012, the European Union froze her assets and placed a travel ban on her and President Assad's other close family members as part of escalating sanctions against the Syrian government. Asma al-Assad herself remains able to travel to the UK because of herBritish nationality but she is barred from entering the rest of the EU.

On 16 April 2012, Huberta von Voss Wittig and Sheila Lyall Grant, the wives of the German and British ambassadors to the United Nations, released a four-minute video asking Asma al-Assad to stand up for peace and urge her husband to end the bloodshed in her country.

She had not been seen in public regularly since the July 2012 bombing of the Military Intelligence Directorate that took place in Damascus, leading to press speculation and government denials that she had fled the country or the capital city of Damascus. She made a public appearance at the Damascus Opera House for an event called "Mother's Rally" on March 18, 2013, refuting the rumors. She made another public appearance in October 2013 and further dispelled the rumors of her fleeing the country by saying "I was here yesterday, I'm here today and I will be here tomorrow."

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.

This is merely a rough merge to try to rejuvenate the stagnant discussion above. Let's talk about the merits of a section like this in general terms before we get wrapped up in slicing and dicing minor passages. Let's make stuff happen. Regards, V. Veriss (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't even want to think about this until we flesh out the Vogue piece. The only reason why the discussion above is "stagnant" is because there has been no further acknowledgement of the suggestion made by our new editor, FormerIP. Consensus should be established amongst the editors PRESENT in the article and talk page. This isn't about the opinions of a couple editors anymore. This might take some time getting used to, but we have five active editors in the discussion now. No more monkey business. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some editors have said that they do not think that there should be a separate section on the Vogue article, saying that it needs to be put in context. Veriss1 has responded to this with what he/she thinks might be a solution.  I think Les Etoiles de Ma Vie may not have understood that Veriss1's proposal above is an attempt to "flesh out the Vogue piece".


 * Les Etoiles de Ma Vie do you think that the proposal is a good idea? Or is it mistaken? If you think it is mistaken, please could you propose something else, and explain why your proposal is better.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Toddy1', hi! :) I'm all for not giving the Vogue article a separate section. However, Veriss has not fleshed out anything. He's too stuck on "context" to want to flesh out much because unless things make direct sense to him, everything just hits the fan. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Toddy1, you know I have the utmost respect for you. However, I don't think I see anywhere in what Veriss has just written where he suggests fleshing out material. Rather, all he is suggesting is that we merge the two sections. And he wants to "merge" the two sections before "slicing and dicing", which is what I consider "fleshing out". Honestly, Veriss is simply doing what I have been suggesting all along which is to include mention of the Vogue piece in the First Lady section. However, I don't want to think about any "merging" until we re-visit the Vogue piece, which is what Bbb23 suggested we do. P.S. Veriss has forgotten the serial comma in the heading of this suggested merging of the sections. I guess old habits are hard to break! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just did some simple research and I do not agree with "media relations" in the subheading/section title. Media relations, as defined by Wikipedia: Media relations involves working with media for the purpose of informing the public of an organization's mission, policies and practices in a positive, consistent and credible manner. Typically, this means coordinating directly with the people responsible for producing the news and features in the mass media. The goal of media relations is to maximize positive coverage in the mass media without paying for it directly through advertising. Many people use the terms public relations and media relations interchangeably; however, doing so is incorrect. Media relations refer to the relationship that a company or organization develops with journalists, while public relations extend that relationship beyond the media to the general public.


 * Since Toddy1 has suggested we consider this, I will retract what I said earlier and will discuss this. I think there needs to be another word instead of "media relations". Who is the media here? Who is representing "the media"? Who has relationships with the "media"? I see what Veriss has done with mirroring the form of First Lady Michelle Obama's page, but I don't like the term "media relations" because it seems like someone is handling/coordinating the media in its portrayal. Maybe we can make a separate section for "Portrayal by the Media" or something like that. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Veriss' proposed section. Only the first paragraph deals with the period before the civil war. The other six paragraphs deal with what Mrs Assad has done since the civil war started, and how people have reacted to it. If a heading or subheading along the lines of Mrs Assad during the Syrian Civil War were put in front of the second paragraph, it would describe it very well, and approximates to what I had in mind when I proposed that in the discussion on the Vogue article.

Of course, there are matters of detail to be fixed in the paragraphs - but I am sure we can go through them, fixing the problems.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed "media relations" from the main heading and inserted a proposed short subheading for the war period after the first paragraph per the suggestions above. I left the first paragraph because there is ample material available to flesh out the public image and style discussion such as this article about the | 7 Most Beautiful First Ladies that I stumbled on recently. Presumably there will be a period of time after the war in the future. I agree Toddy1 that there are things that need attention within the proposed section. For example, Etoiles pointed out earlier that the last sentence of the initial paragraph no longer makes sense; I think it may have been mangled during other edits but we can sort that out soon.


 * It seemed that the one point of agreement we had was that the Buck incident did not merit it's own section so I thought it would help if we found a proper home for it so that we can add material and keep everything balanced and in context. Regards, V


 * (Edit) I didn't want to tinker with the proposal too much all at once and tried to restrict my changes to suggestions that had been discussed. I did notice that the Vogue mention is out of chronological order, however, to put it in sequence would make it the lead paragraph which I don't think is what we want. Veriss (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If other people think this approach might work, the next step would be to discuss each paragraph separately, so that facts are put in context. YOu can see the kind of thing I mean at Talk:Salafi movement/Archive 3, where we discussed various deletions that an editor wanted to make.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of whatever you suggest, Toddy1. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Toddy1. Your suggestion makes a lot of sense. When I started this new thread though I had a longer term confidence building strategy in mind that called for building consensus on minor issues and working up from there. The previous discussions were pretty volatile but it appears that we are now making progress and I thank you for your contributions in that regard. Even though these are baby steps, I ask everyone to be patient. Soon we will be addressing the bigger (scarier?) steps. (Bbb23 recently had a tragedy in his family so may not be present as much as he would like to be. I know he won't mind if we keep driving on.) Veriss (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Any progress is good even if it's just baby steps at first. Looking more closely at the structure of the current article and comparing it more carefully to Mrs. Obama's article, I would like to propose several more small confidence building steps.
 * Remove the main heading "Biography" as unneeded.
 * Promote the sub-headings "Early life and education", "Brief finance career", and "First Lady" to main headings. (note: I'm not allergic to serial commas when they are helpful for clarity or precision.)
 * Rename the heading "First Lady" to "First Lady of Syria" which I believe is her proper title and more closely follows Mrs. Obama's example.
 * Keep "Style and public image" and "Syrian Civil War" as sub-headings under the "First Lady of Syria" main heading.
 * Please comment and offer suggestions. If we can agree on these minor tweaks to the structure, I can update our working copy and then I have some larger proposals to make. To save time, if you support these small steps, please also give your consent to making these changes to the live article as well. Of course, if not everyone agrees or anyone wants to do something different, then I won't make any changes live. Regards, V Veriss (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Veriss, you really need to stop being so dramatic. Please refrain from your over-dramatized descriptions of our discussions. Volatile? Pahhhleeaaaaase. This is shocking coming from someone who describes himself as a [former?] Marine. Hate to say it, but man up. It really is not that serious. Honestly. Your dramatization and commentary on the "vitriol", "volatile", and whatever else you use to describe the discussions on this talk page is getting really old and frankly, pathetic. In regards to serial commas: come on now. There are grammatical rules for a reason. Helpful for clarity and precision? I mean, the rules are there for a reason. Obviously, when I incorporated the serial comma in the article, you felt it was "excessive punctuation". Well, it isn't. Just follow the rules of grammar, as your idea of "clarity and precision" is not in-line with the rules of the serial comma.


 * Finally, I don't have a problem with your proposed tweaks to the structure. HOWEVER, I would like to wait to hear from FormerIP and Toddy1 on your suggestions. Furthermore, I would prefer for these changes to be implemented into the article by not you, but either of our two new editors, so that they can start actively working on the article that has for so long been monopolized by you and Bbb23. It would be refreshing (and perhaps motivating) to other editors to see that there are other names, other than your own and Bbb23, working on the improvement of this article. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you E for your consent to the tweaks to the structure of the article. With the structure of the sections settled, it should be easier to address specific topics. I plan to wait until late Wednesday night for more feedback, unless others reply sooner, and then will make more proposals. I think the next one up will be sorting out the issues that you pointed out earlier in in the first paragraph of our working copy since there appear to be mangled sentences and possibly misplaced cites. As I said before, I think I found the missing cites and have a few more about her style and image to help update that section. I'm not a fashion person so hoping people can help find more recent sources in that area. Regards, Veriss (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, "V". It would have been nice to have had these changes implemented sooner, but hence the importance for "fresh new eyes". I sincerely hope FormerIP will chime in as well. Personally, I find it sad that consorts/first ladies/etc have so much focus on their fashion/style. Is the same done for male public figures? Nope. We live in such an objectifying society. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, I did visit the page for First Lady Michelle Obama and I liked the way they structured her page. Good job with your suggestions of bringing some of that here. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I originally wanted to use Queen Rania of Jordan's article as an example to work from since they are both noted for their style and are from the same region, but so much of Queen Rania's article is devoted to her outreach and communications, while the Assad administration has been so closed, that it would be very difficult to build Mrs. Assad's article in the same way. I thought the safest option was Mrs. Obama's article, who is also noted for her style, since it has so many eyes on it. I agree, as long as the guy's socks match, his shoes are shined and his tie doesn't clash with his shirt and suit, he's good to go and gets a pass from the media. :) I intend to start a new section to discuss her "style and public image" section when we get there. I think we should work through each section and get those sorted before we look at the article's lede when we can tackle redundancy concerns and be sure everything is properly sourced and cited. I actually have a plan and am not just kicking the can down the road. Looking forward to your input and fresh eyeballs. Regards, V Veriss (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * True, true, the Queen Rania of Jordan's has a lot going on in that article. I think it was a very sound decision to go with mirroring the FLOTUS' article. :) I'm looking forward to tackling and fleshing. Game play on. Hopefully our other editors chime in soon. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After taking a look, I agree that using the FOTUS as a model is a good idea. That way things get some coverage but they don't go overboard. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, looking for more feedback so we can move on and possibly pick up the pace. Thank you for the input so far. V Veriss (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * E, looks there aren't any other comments so feel free to make the agreed changes if you like. V Veriss (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "V", I think it would serve this article better to have another editor, such as Toddy1, FormerIP, or WhisperToMe (welcome) to implement these changes. I would like for our new editors to get their feet wet and make their mark on this article as it goes through its new transformation. :) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it needs to be discussed on a paragraph by paragraph basis before it is ready.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal under discussion though was the restructuring of the sections. It was proposed that the details of each paragraph would be sorted later once the sections were organized. What are your opinions on the restructuring concerns so we can move on to dealing with each paragraph next? Regards, V Veriss (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I already answered the question what I thought of the restructuring in my reply on 21:58, 8 December 2013 (see above). My understanding was that Les Etoiles de Ma Vie was suggesting that the restructured version be pasted into the article, and in my post of 08:27, 12 December 2013, I restated the view I had earlier expressed at 21:58, 8 December 2013 that we need to have a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion before we post the section into the article.  (Sorry if I did not make that clear.)  I have been expecting all week for someone to start a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion, but it has not happened yet.  I am not really sure why not.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't left, just FYI. :) I'm waiting with the hopes that we get more editors to voice their opinions. This should come at no surprise, but I am of support in whatever Toddy1 suggests, but I recognize the efforts you have put forth, Veriss. Let's wait until after the holiday festivities (after we ring in 2014) before we proceed in improving this article. That is, unless other editors pop in before then. If there are no objections, we will look at the section--paragraph-by-pragraph--as Toddy1 has suggested at that time, and we can also implement the section heading/subheading changes at that time as well. Merry Christmas to all, to you and yours. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I had proposed that we fix the structure and then work on individual paragraphs. We appear to have settled on the structure improvements so I don't see the value to delay pasting them in and then starting a new task of improving each paragraph. I would like to see each step that we have consensus about implemented as they are agreed to so that they aren't held up by possible disagreements on later steps. Like E, I was curious to see if other editors would join the discussion but there appears to be little interest. Why wait? V Veriss (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought Toddy had suggested earlier to start a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion? If I'm misunderstanding what's been said, feel free to implement the structure improvements. :) Happy New Year, everyone! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no surprise to me that this article has remained the way it has for as long as it has. It's "quiet" because there is a serious lack of editors who actually have interest in this article. The only two consistent and dominant editors appear to be Bbb23 and Veriss1. It's such a shame because this article needs a whole lot of work but the complacency of the mediocre work is prevalent because there simply is no fresh eyes who are willing to work on this article. The occasional editor that does come in, like FormerIP, are treated like second-class citizens. Shame. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still watching the article, waiting for constructive responses to my proposals and a clear consensus to move forward. I think I have treated everyone respectfully throughout. If people have concerns, they need to put their big boy or girl pants on and speak up. My proposal has been lingering for over a month. If someone else has a better idea then my approach, they should step up, start a discussion, present a plan of action and make stuff happen. If not, then I will proceed with my approach. (On a personal note, I have an over-full work schedule lately so have even less patience then before for bullshit and drama - please stay professional and keep discussions mature and respectful.) Let's make stuff happen. Veriss (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we are all watching and waiting for input. But how on earth can we have any kind of consensus when there are only three of us? And really, drama and the other obscenity you mentioned are relative to the individual. Frankly, I think it is unprofessional, immature, and dramatic for you to even mention your personal life. You probably don't feel that way. Such perception is based upon the individual. We all have personal lives, I assure you. I will continue to patiently wait for input from outside editors. To make changes between the three of us is simply not optimal. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Three of "who"? I only see you and I active. We don't need 'optimal', we only need 'serviceable' to get the job done. My current plan, absent any other constructive suggestions, is to make the agreed structural tweaks very soon and then start fixing individual paragraphs. Veriss (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Les Etoiles de Ma Vie - please can you make comments or amendment proposals on the suggested paragraphs in the structure below. If there are paragraphs that you have no comments on by this time next week, I will assume that you agree with those particular paragraphs.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year, Toddy1! I'm a little confused. Are you suggesting that we examine the suggested paragraphs, paragraph by paragraph? Because if you read just a few comments earlier, I thought Veriss1 did not want to look at the material yet and work on the overall structure? Thanks. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

5th paragraph
Les Etoiles de Ma Vie has a good point at Talk:Asma al-Assad. The sources used above said that she "rarely" appears in public. But the Syrian Presidency's Instagram site shows quite a few appearances in public in recent months. Now this may be in response to such criticism in the media in her native England. Or maybe her public appearances have not been so rare. It suggests that this paragraph needs reworking to make it clearer exactly what is being claimed, and with some links to particular captioned photos on the Syrian Presidency's Instagram site with some sort of statement that the Syrian Presidency has published photos of her at public events on specified dates. I think we need to be cautious; the captions of the photos showing her in an apparently small room for Mother's Day or planting a a small bush in a garden are not evidence of public appearances.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Fresh eyes needed to re-examine the article and remove unnecessary tabloid-like material, bias opinions (many from the western perspective), as well improvement in the basic flow of the article
In comparison to the article subject's controversial husband, the subject's page is filled with a lot of extraneous information and opinionated commentary. The article has been mainly under the supervision of two editors. The article needs a facelift and new eyes to see the article from a outsider's (uninvolved) perspective. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It comes across as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.138.16 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead with approved section merger
There was a detailed discussion and consensus on restructuring the First Lady section to more closely follow Mrs. Obama's article at the time. The discussion broke down but there was consensus on the structure. Since no further progress has been made beyond the agreement of how it should be structured, I went ahead and implemented what was agreed up to that point in the interest of stimulating additional contributions and presenting a slightly improved article layout. The section restructuring also required some minor image relocations. Veriss (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)