Talk:Corrective Movement (Syria)

Discuss changes first
Please use this Talk page to reach consensus for controversial changes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Request merge
1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution → Merge to Hafez al-Assad – The page contains false information, the Corrective Movement was a reform package introduced by Hafez al-Assad immediately after the 1970 coup... At the first National Congress under his rule Assad stated that Syria was undergoing a "Corrective Movement" to correct the mistakes of his predecessors so as to return Syria to the right path... The article is not notable in itself, and has not received much scholarly attention... Many books uses the term "Corrective Movement", but few if any give any in depth explanation of what the term means... The page Hafez al-Assad is currently to large, while at the same time the article is missing key information (how that happened, I don't know), but the rest of the material will be moved to the article Presidency of Hafez al-Assad... It's in the planning stages, but everyone who knows anything about Assad will see the article is in dire shape, will it needs trimming... Moving is the only option.. --TIAYN (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) TIAYN (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge Merge to Presidency of Hafez al-Assad.. .None important event.
 * Oppose, this is an important thing in Syria's history, even if the article could be made better. Harold Snow (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying its not important, I'm saying it don't warrant its own article... I mean for god sake, most authors don't even know what it mean, some people think its a coup (and thats the majority), and then there are those who correctly state that they are reforms.... But its not a much written about subject... Yes, if you type in "Corrective Movement" "Syria" you'll get many hits, but none of them actually go in depth and explain the term. By keeping this article you are keeping a permament stub.. --TIAYN (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the title is very much sourced in WP:RS and was an important event, often described as a military coup without casualties, consolidating Hafez Assad's power. Sources for title "Syrian Corrective Revolution": Asad's Legacy: Syria in Transition ; Inheriting Syria: Bashar's Trial by Fire .Greyshark09 (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not a fucking coup. --TIAYN (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For purposes of this article, a number of reliable sources use the term Corrective Revolution to refer to the coup. Though technically incorrect, Wikipedia should reflect this usage as well.  Browse these books for examples and note specific cases below. —  AjaxSmack   00:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The topic receives coverage in a number of sources and redirecting readers to other articles would no better serve the needs of readers seeking the meaning of this term.  User:Trust Is All You Need has a point about the Corrective Movement technically being "a reform package introduced by Hafez al-Assad immediately after the 1970 coup", but many sources use the term for the coup itself (and subsequent the reforms in some cases).  These nuances are further reason why an article is needed where the various meanings can be explored. —  AjaxSmack   00:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss changes first
Please use this Talk page to reach consensus for controversial changes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Move to "Corrective Movement"

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Corrective Movement (Syria). EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution → Corrective Movement – the Corrective Movement is the official term, and the normal term. A search on google books for "Corrective Movement, Syria" gives 1,860 results, a search for Corrective Revolution, Syria gives 490. Corrective MOvement is both the correct name and the most normal name. --TIAYN (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - the target article is a redirect to Corrective Revolution (a kind of disambig page). Moving the contents of this article there is same as deleting it, which is something TIAYN is attempting to do for the last month for an unknown reason. Anyways, Corrective Revolution in Syria (a bloodless coup) was an event which took place on November 1970, and it is not exactly the same as the Corrective Movement, even though both topics are currently covered here. Maybe we can split Syrian Corrective Movement to tackle the issue.GreyShark (dibra) 07:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They are the same topic, there is no difference between the "Corrective Revolution" and the "Corrective Movement"... For instance, Ibrahim Elbadawi in his book Democracy in the Arab World: Explaining the Deficit says "Between 1946 and 1970, 21 coups and counter-coups took place until Hafez Assad assumed power in the aftermath of a bloodless intra-party coup, known as the Corrective Movement"... You're knowledge on this subject is baffling.. Why are you even here, you don't know crap.... Its a reason why the Syrian regime celebrates "Corrective Revolution/Movement Day" on 16 November.... Secondly, Corrective Movement redirects here. Thirdly, I've tried to delete the article "Corrective Movement" because its connected subjects which have nothing to do with each other. --TIAYN (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To quote AjaxSmack (from the merger discussions), "The topic receives coverage in a number of sources and redirecting readers to other articles would no better serve the needs of readers seeking the meaning of this term. User:Trust Is All You Need has a point about the Corrective Movement technically being "a reform package introduced by Hafez al-Assad immediately after the 1970 coup", but many sources use the term for the coup itself (and subsequent the reforms in some cases).  These nuances are further reason why an article is needed where the various meanings can be explored. " ... Corrective Movement, Corrective Revolution are the same thing, please Greyshark stop saying no because you like saying no, Im aware that you don't know crap about this article (and like to oppose just for the sake of opposing), but be constructive! Notice how is sources uses interchangeably uses "Corrective Movement" and "Corrective Revolution" to refer to both the coup, which is wrong, and the reform program. --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd support Corrective Revolution (Syria) or Corrective Movement (Syria) because there were other events named the "Corrective Revolution" or "Corrective Movement" in other countries. I agree that "Revolution" and "Movement" here refer to the same thing. The "1970" is over-specific. --Article editor (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Partially agree with you, could be Syrian Corrective Revolution or Corrective Revolution (Syria).GreyShark (dibra) 17:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We will move it to Corrective Movement (Syria), it has most hits and we will follow WP policy. As Article titles mentions, the "Titles are often the names of article topics, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." --TIAYN (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Who are "we"?GreyShark (dibra) 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying "we" since everyone who takes a quick search on google books(or any other search engine for that matter) will see that Corrective Revolution and Corrective Movement is the same thing... How you've reached the conclusion that they are two different things is astonishing. Really, its only one thing, a reform program. The Corrective Revolution/Movement Day is celebrated every 16 November in Syria to celebrate the first decree by the new government.. Western authors have for some strange reasons made the 1970 coup synonymous with the Corrective Revolution/Movement, which is, well, wrong from a factual perspective at least wrong (at least it was, but not any longer since everyone is writing Syrian history that way)... But thats not important, what is important is this (at least right now, moving the article to a better name, and making it clear that this article is about the coup and the reform program, which you Greyshark09 deny) --TIAYN (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per GreyShark, instead use the alternative names supplied by ArticleEditor. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But then you agree, so whats with the oppose? --TIAYN (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is exactly as I state it, I oppose your proposal, for the reasons outlined by GreyShark. However, ArticleEditor has an alternate proposal that is better. It couldn't be more clear. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - TIAYN, it is completely disruptive to change the target name of the article in move procedure after some editors have already responded - it is completely disrupting the votes. If you want to make a new name proposal, wait until this one is closed.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed anything, I seek support to move the article to either Corrective Movement or Corrective Movement (Syria)... It would have been different If I sought to move the article to Corrective Movement.. So no, its not disruptive, and really, I don't care as long as this article is moved to its correct name. Stop muddling up with the process. --TIAYN (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Corrective Movement (Syria) ( or Corrective Revolution (Syria) ) per User:Article editor. —  AjaxSmack   01:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To those supporting Article editor's alternatives, would you want Corrective Movement to redirect to the dab Corrective Revolution? If not, (Syria) is unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. The other Corrective Revolution (Egypt's) does not appear to be called a corrective movement so a redirect ot the DAB page is uncalled for.  If this is indeed the case, then a title of Corrective Movement and a hatnote would suffice. —  AjaxSmack   02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the other events are known as "Corrective Movemenet", the evens in Egypt and South Yemen are known as "Corrective Revolution" (probably why people have mistakenly called this article "Corrective Revolution").. So there is no reason for Corrective Movement to redirect to Corrective Revolution (they are not about the same topic, and the other events never use Corrective Movement) --TIAYN (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been many movements that could be more or less described as corrective movements. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a more complicated history here. Page Corrective Movement was about this movement from its start to its edit of 17:56, 30 August 2013‎, when it was 17,146 bytes; after that it seems to have been text-merged into Hafez al-Assad, probably at its edit of 18:35, 30 August 2013‎. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrective Movement was the name of the event, which other movements can be referred to as corrective movements?? The information of what was the Corrective Movement page was written by me, and was (90 percent) background information (which is the main reason for why I wanted to merge the article, because information on the actual events, the reforms are negligible).. The article before its revertion by JHunterJ on 22:11, 13 October 2013‎ was about the Corrective Movement.. See (its not well written, or organized for that matter, but its a start). --TIAYN (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Corrective Move has been created... Corrective Move is the most popular term used to describe to the South Yemenite "Corrective Revolution".. The official name of the Corrective Move is the "Glorious Corrective Move".. I hope that ends that discussion.--TIAYN (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion about what? Why did you rename the article?GreyShark (dibra) 18:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A search for "Corrective Revolution" "Yemen" gives 123 results, a quick search for "Corrective Move" "Yemen" gives 305 results.. Per naming conventions the most normal name is to be used as article name.. --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Move to Corrective Revolution (Syria, 1970)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be moved to either "Corrective Movement" or "Corrective Movement (Syria)"... Why? Per WP naming policy (which I've cited above), articles should be named after its most "popular name" (if that made any sense)... As I said above, Corrective Movement has more hits on the internet then Corrective Revolution, and since Corrective Movement is also the official name of the event, because of those reasons, there are no logical reason not to move it to "Corrective Movement" or "Corrective Movement (Syria)". At last, it goes against WP policy not to move it to Corrective Movement, why people oppose moving it I can't understand, since it goes against everything... So no, it should not be moved to "Corrective Revolution (Syria, 1970)". --TIAYN (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

3RR
I would just like to notify that it was agreed that this article will not fall under the WP:SCWGS sanctions (1RR), since it is not directly related with the Syrian civil war. Therefor 3RR applies as all standard articles.GreyShark (dibra) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we solve the problem, and reopened the page?... please
Can someone please tell me why this article is blocked, because I don't understand. Do any of you? --TIAYN (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you and Greyshark09 simply revert each other without discussing your proposed changes. But I've explained this to you before. You should link a diff here (on this Talk page) and explain the reasoning behind the change, and then apply it after discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tried, if you just look at his talk page, I try all the time, he does not want to respond. What can I do about that? Nothing. But just because he doesn't want to participate in the article's development is not a good enough reason for protecting it.. I've tried, he doesn't respond.. I give him sources, he says the sources are wrong.What can I do about that? ... Not that much really (I can't force him to agree with me, and I can't force him to participate in a discussion which he clearly doesn't want)..... --TIAYN (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not his talk page. This talk page. If he doesn't participate here, then the lack of participation is indication of new consensus. If it's just the two of you participating here, then a request for third party input can be made. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - i don't understand how come TIAYN may say that "there is no discussion" - there are 2 extensive WP:RM discussions above including both me and him. He is the main participant there it seems.GreyShark (dibra) 16:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you are against my edits on the page, which JHunterJ reverts because of you... --TIAYN (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have tried to blank the page numerous times, which is disruptive editing. You will probably try to delete it again if protection is removed.GreyShark (dibra) 14:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't blanked the page, I've expanded it, have you even seen my latest edits, its an expansion, not a blanking, see for yourself, how can this be described as a blanking? .. Its longer than the current article. --TIAYN (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You blanked the page 4 times, and now attempting to change the topic. Please stop or you will be sanctioned.GreyShark (dibra) 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

- you are once again requested to stop your edits. We have no agreement here on your changes.GreyShark (dibra) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, please discuss first before you radically change the article.GreyShark (dibra) 20:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How have I changed the article's topic, its talk about the coup, it talks about the reform package (the article in the current shape does just the same thing)... How can we discuss when you never ever bother to respond at the talk page and tell me what is wrong with my edits.. Whats wrong with the sources, whats wrong.. You wrote "Anyways, Corrective Revolution in Syria (a bloodless coup) was an event which took place on November 1970, and it is not exactly the same as the Corrective Movement, even though both topics are currently covered here. Maybe we can split Syrian Corrective Movement to tackle the issue".. Since you don't want to actually start a discussion I don't have much of a choice ... --TIAYN (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will stop editing, as long as you follow my request; tell me what is wrong, I've "blanked the page 4 times" and I'm "attempting to change the topic" does not tell me whats wrong with the current version Its vague, and doesn't say anything on how this article should be improved, unless you say why in clear writing why my edits are synonymous with "changing" topic, you're arguments are counterproductive.. I will be waiting for an answer. --TIAYN (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK - then per WP:GF please restore the long-standing (1-year long stable) version. Then, let's discuss your proposed changes one by one. As you can see community consensus is what we are seeking (move and rename procedures above).GreyShark (dibra) 20:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us proceed. --TIAYN (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the LEAD section (anyway it requires modification due to the WP:RM). Make your edits at the lead, expand it if you like and i will later review it. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * first of all, if you want a productive discussion, don't answer me on a different page every time. Posting on my talk page is completely irrelevant. Secondly, i don't mind where to start, i wasn't an order. Per WP:GF please start with one of the sections (you want to edit all sections i assume), and then let's see if we can end up with a compromise version per WP:GF. Will it work for you?GreyShark (dibra) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But how can I end up with a compromise section if I don't know the fault of "my" version.. Its inherently illogical. --TIAYN (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur some parts of your previous comprehensive edit, which includes all sections of the article. If you start to edit sections one by one (infobox, lede, background, aftermath, etc.) i think we can discuss any time i would not agree and find a solution. This is WP:BRD.GreyShark (dibra) 21:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you're not telling me why its bad, you're just saying its bad. --TIAYN (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with deletion or exchange of the infobox. i don't agree with downplaying the importance of the power takeover and imprisonment of many of Baath party members in favor of emphasizing the state reforms (movement vs. revolution). Both should be presented, but it is still a military coup, similar to power takeover in Egypt this year.GreyShark (dibra) 19:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not deemphasized the coup in the text (I even expanded the coup section....) Secondly, the coup infobox is still there in the article. Thirdly, what are you talking about; "movement vs. revolution"? The coup is not considered by the Syrians as a revolution, but the reforms are considered revolutionary (thats something entirely different)... Fourthly, the article is sourced, and they refer to it as a "reform" package, programme or some sort, the statement "but it is still a military coup, similar to power takeover in Egypt this year" is false. Fourth, since many sources incorrectly refer to the coup as the "Corrective Movement", my latest edition tried to give them both equal role... At last, just because you think it is a coup, you can't force that view on the article.. If you're problem with the "my lead version" was that it deemphasized the coup to much, I will try to get it a bigger role (so as to make it clear that the reforms couldn't be introduced without the coup...) --TIAYN (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, why don't you start with the lead and after we settle it continue on?GreyShark (dibra) 20:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * reply to"The Corrective Movement, also referred to as the Corrective Revolution, was a reform program initiated on 16 November by Hafez al-Assad, the leader of Syria, after he took power in a coup on 13 November 1970. The reforms are considered revolutionary in Syria, and they were introduced so as to sustain and improve the 'nationalist socialist line' of the state and party."
 * or"The Corrective Movement were reforms introduced by Hafez al-Assad on 16 November 1970, shortly after he took power in a coup on 13 November 1970. Because of the closeness in time, the two events are considered interchangeable by certain observers. The reforms are considered revolutionary in Syria, and they were introduced so as to sustain and improve the 'nationalist socialist line' of the state and party."
 * If you don't like them, please come up with an alternatives. --TIAYN (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask some patience on your side, i don't edit the wikipedia every day and technically i don't have to. If you change contents without waiting for my approval - this is a violation of WP:GF. Regarding the contents - i reinstalled your LEDE version with the modification from previous version. I think your are trying to show that the military coup and the reforms were separate events, but the article title implies that they were part of the same process per article content. Previously you also rejected the separation of the coup and the reforms, so why are you separating them now?GreyShark (dibra) 06:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are two different subjects, but because of notability issues (there are not many sources who have actually written about the coup or the reforms, 99 percent of the time they mention it in passing).. Secondly, in the lead I'm trying to show that the two things are interconnected - I did write "Because of the closeness in time, the two events are considered interchangeable by certain observers." --TIAYN (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you make a reasonable lede incorporating both your and my points?GreyShark (dibra) 16:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But I think I have, "Example 2" .. If you have a better option, why don't you write one (here)? --TIAYN (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "was a political change in Syria" is extremely vague, and doesn't say anything on what the Corrective Movement was/is (they still talk about furthering the implementation of the Corrective Movement in Syria, or launching a new one...) It is a reform program which was initiated by the coup - the two are not equal... Another example, Khaddam, after he defected, criticized Assad for going against the Corrective Movement, how could he have gone against the Corrective Movement if it was a coup? --TIAYN (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * i changed only some wording in the lead to make sense, and reinstalled the infobox on the top of the page. Except that i'm tending to accept your edits. Tell me if you are ok with it and please add some info on the reform.GreyShark (dibra) 17:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be on top; currently, the article is about two subjects and because of that, the infobox shouldn't be on top.--TIAYN (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)