Talk:Bashar al-Assad/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140429080726/http://www.marada-news.org/?q=node/3338 to http://www.marada-news.org/?q=node/3338

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719135235/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9085/syrias_leaders.html to http://www.cfr.org/publication/9085/syrias_leaders.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518091443/https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/assads-last-battle-121228488.html to https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/assads-last-battle-121228488.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018150440/http://www.srpskaradikalnastranka.org.rs/omladina-srs-urucila-ambasadi-sirije-pismo-podrske-u-borbi-protiv-terorizma/ to http://www.srpskaradikalnastranka.org.rs/omladina-srs-urucila-ambasadi-sirije-pismo-podrske-u-borbi-protiv-terorizma/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091010/http://www.antt.gov.br/html/objects/_downloadblob.php?cod_blob=3231 to http://www.antt.gov.br/html/objects/_downloadblob.php?cod_blob=3231

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170602223827/http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-syria-chemical-attack-provocation-assad-47790720 to http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-syria-chemical-attack-provocation-assad-47790720

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018150439/http://falange.es/contenido/2013/06/14/cinco-razones-por-la-que-falange-espanola-de-las-jons-apoya-la-solidaridad-con-siria/ to http://falange.es/contenido/2013/06/14/cinco-razones-por-la-que-falange-espanola-de-las-jons-apoya-la-solidaridad-con-siria/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Omission of details in overview.
The overview contains this following excerpt: "The election was dismissed as a "sham" by the Syrian opposition and its Western allies,[8][9] while an international delegation of observers from more than 30 countries[10] stated that the election was "free and fair"." However, it neglects to include the fact that the delegation was led by allies of the Syrian government, something which is explicitly mentioned by citation [10]. It would be wise to include this fact in this excerpt, if it is to remain whatsoever. Altersuperego (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No international opposition?
We have a section on Domestic opposition and support and a section on "International support". Why isn't there a section on " International opposition"? StAnselm (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Israel Bombs New Military Positions in Syria And Missiles Fire Back
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-bombs-military-positions-syria-154434321.html?guccounter=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4PXou0aGiE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar

94.118.36.62 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Putin should be mentioned in the Right-Wing support section
Putin and his party are right-wing nationalists, and their support for Assad far exceeds any other right-wing groups support for Assad.

--Arsaces (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Two Sicilies has not existed since 1860s
If you look at pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Two_Sicilies and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Carlo,_Duke_of_Castro (who is currently mentioned in the article as having bestowed a distinction on Bashar al-Assad) you will see that the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was absorbed into the country of Italy in the 19th century. In other words the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was never a legitimate political or diplomatic entity in Bashar al-Assad's lifetime.

So it appears this "distinction" was presented to a head of state by a plain old private citizen (who claims succession to the title of a deposed hereditary aristocrat).

Is there a policy about whether arguably obsolete ceremonial acts should be included in Wikipedia? What qualifies a legitimate "distinction"?

Spelling of "Assad"
I'd like to propose changing the spelling of "Assad" to "'Asad" throughout this page. "Assad" is incorrect. This would include changing the spelling in the title of the article.

The spelling "'Asad" (with the initial apostrophe serving for the arabic letter 'ein) would be most correct. Otherwise simply "Asad" would be better than "Assad," which is quite a wrong transliteration and encourages mispronunciation. "Asad" is the common spelling of this dynasty's name in academic literature: see, e.g., Seale's classic book, Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad05.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ali Khamenei and Bashar al-Assad05.jpg

al-Assad should clearly be described as an autocrat
In a mind-blowing fashion, the lede suggests that al-Assad is the rightfully elected leader of Syria, and that there are mixed views on the issue, with some countries saying he's not rightfully elected while "election monitors" from undisclosed countries (Russia, Venezuela and other mostly non-democratic countries). This is an idiotic of framing the issue, because it misleadingly suggests he's rightfully elected and that there are mixed views as to whether he's an autocrat.

The simple fact is that peer-reviewed academic research universally describes Assad as an authoritarian and the Assad regime as a dictatorship. Academic sources so universally describe him as such that it's pointless to list them here. Just see Milan Svolik's award-winning 'The Politics of Authoritarian Rule' (Yale University Press, 2012), where the Assads (Bashar and his father) play a key role, and is probably the highest cited scholarly treatment of authoritarianism in the last decade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The elections of 2000, 2007 and 2014 are widely characterized as sham elections in the literature on authoritarianism. It's frankly sickening to see them not only emphasized in the lede, but see them suggested as indicators of his public support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV violation to fail to mention that the elections were non-democratic
A likely sockpuppet account just reverted changes I made. My changes clearly identified the elections that Assad won as "non-democratic", which is uncontested and uncontroversial fact noted in all RS. The changes should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well the wiki page of said election shows it is quite clearly a contested so-called fact. Jorge1777 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing me to that page, which is in an absolutely shambolic state. I will proceed to fix it when I have the time. And no, the only actors contesting that it was a nondemocratic are crackpots and other authoritarians. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not for you to decide who's a crackpot. Jorge1777 (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The cited RS for that sentence say two things, neither of which is that they were undemocatic in an unqualified way. The first thing they say is that it was contested against two other candidates. The second thing they say is that Western and Arab opponents of Al-Assad say that the election was a sham. So, keeping the reference to the two other candidates is justified. The following sentence goes on to make the sham point. So I think it is fine as is. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that two people were allowed to participate in the election does not make it democratic. In fact, it's an egregious NPOV violation to mislead readers into thinking it was a free and fair competitive election by mentioning two other candidates (but good job on falling hook-line-and-sinker for authoritarian propaganda). And no, academics and RS universally describe the election as non-democratic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven’t fallen for anything. I think the election was undemocratic. But that’s not relevant. I’m a Wikipedia editor applying Wikipedia’s policies (Try it some time). I’m just going by the RS cited against that sentence which don’t say what you want it to say. If you want to change it produce the RS here for discussion and once accepted you can change the sentence with the new citations. You can’t just change it and leave the existing citations not supporting your change. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine on being a stickler for RS, but why then keep content in the lead about the other two candidates? You do not see how it would be grotesquely misleading to readers to say that two other candidates participated in the election? You are content with effectively leaving authoritarian propaganda in the lead of this article, which suggests to readers that this was a free and fair competitive election? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing wrong with saying there were other candidates. No one’s claiming that’s untrue. The text on the previous elections makes the point they were uncontested - so to make no comment on that would be odd. It seems to me that you want to do is beef up an additional comment on it being a sham. Fine. Get that word into the following sentence in the context of opponents describing it thus. If you want to state objectively it was a sham (I.e not just that opponents describe it so) you’ll need to find new RS to cite. Generally, that’s not the way RSs describe it though. It’s usually reporting critics making that comment. But you might find some. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued tendentious behavior by Jorge1777
The editor Jorge1777, who was created two weeks ago (yet bears all the hallmarks of being familiar with Wikipedia editing practices), has decided to pluck one quote from one of several academic publications, and spin it so that its determination that the election was non-democratic is made less clear. The sources all clearly state that the 2014 election was not democratic, yet the editor purposely chose one quote "within an authoritarian context" to make this determination less clear. I cannot stress just how tiresome it is to look up what the academic literature says on the topic, add it the to article, and then have it altered by a single-purpose account created two weeks ago. The content should be restored ASAP, yet the editing restrictions on this page prevent me from doing so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I quoted your own source, if quoting your own source is a problem then your edit is a problem. Jorge1777 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added multiple sources which all characterize the election as non-democratic. To purposely pick out one quote from one source and pass it off as the precise determination of all sources is tendentious. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Snooganssnoogans. This user's edits have been questionable for a new account, and all too familiar with WP policy. The WP:BRD cycle was not followed here by Jorge1777. comrade waddie96 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC) comrade waddie96 (talk)  08:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you "comrade". Jorge1777 (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same type of edit done to 2015 Belarusian presidential election with r/v at and at 2014 Syrian presidential election with r/v at . comrade waddie96 (talk)  09:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record Waddie96 has an obsession with me and has already been censured for this at the Admin noticeboard.Jorge1777 (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice that you’re not bothering to deny that you’re not a new user.  Volunteer Marek   09:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this before. Jorge1777 (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the thread at ANI for your own perusal to decide if I've been "censored". comrade waddie96 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

not true
hi THIS IS NOT TRUE I CHECKED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:100E:848E:EC5F:24BE:F23A:EBA1 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Correction:
Assad is not Regional Secretary any longer. The post was abolished in 2018. His title is "General Secretary of the Central Leadership of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party" https://syrianobserver.com/EN/news/46525/ruling_baath_party_rearranges_its_structure.html

The post of Regional Secretary of the Regional Command was abolished and the Regional Command and the National Command were merged together if I remember correctly--84.212.173.160 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why official, "nice", smiling pictures?
Continuing his personality cult on WP? Or is his secret police sanitising this article? Shameless. Arminden (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Arminden], under WP:NPOV, the photos and information we add to articles should be neutral in nature. While he has many sides, the article should present information accurately and not be biased in either direction. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that’s not what WP:NPOV says at all. The information we present most definitely must be “biased” in a particular direction if to do so reflects the way the subject is presented in the sources. In the words of the policy, we must “fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”. The Adolf Hitler article is “not biased in either direction”? AH is described in that article as the embodiment of evil. As far as the picture is concerned, the main aim is to be present a high quality (in a technical sense) image of him which is representative. The current pic is good quality - should he be smiling? I agree that’s slightly inappropriate - if a different pic can be found which is of equal quality then that would be better. But to be honest, it’s quite a minor issue. I don’t think that pic represents “continuing his personality cult”. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While I see your point DeCausa, WP:NPOV clearly states "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias." If we cite to an article that is from a reliable source and there is a fair amount of editorial bias, it should not be included. I agree with you, both sides of an issue should be presented if there is a legitimate dispute, but one side should not be dominate in an article if disputed. An example would be an op-ed from a reliable source. One could argue that what is being stated conforms accurately to the op-ed from a reliable source, but if it is biased, the bias outweighs the source. I believe there is a difference between bias and historically accurate. If history or facts presented are accurate and not disputed, it can paint a less than flattering picture of an individual. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * no, that’s still not it. It’s not for us to judge whether a reliable source is biased per se, although it may come into whether a source is WP:RS or not. The bare statement that we can’t use a reliable source because an individual editor thinks it’s biased is absolutely wrong. And also, it’s not a case of “both sides being presented if there’s a legitimate dispute”. Take this article, if the preponderance of WP:RS treat Assad as a saint that’s how he should be presented here. If the preponderance treats him as a bloodthirsty mass murderer, then that’s how we present him. It’s not for us to decide the “truth” and it’s not about “historical fact”, - “facts” can always be found to prove almost anything. The issue of difficulty in wikipedia is (a) when there’s a variety of views in the RS and how that should be presented (i.e. the preponderance is debatable) and (b) what to do with a minority view that’s not so much of a minority as to constitute WP:FRINGE. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)