Talk:Hafez al-Assad/Archive 1

rant
I cannot understand how this rant about life Syria can possibly be related to Hafez Assad?

''Ever since Hafez's son, Bashar took power, Syria has been on fast track to pure, unadulterated, capitalistic prosperity. But it remains a rough place to live. Many of Syria's harder workers get jobs in Lebanon, where the wages are much better. The Lebanese Libra may be weak, but there is a whole lot more money in Lebanon to be able to afford Syrian work. But compared to Lebanese workers, they get paid next to nothing. Basically, these workers go around in 2 level buses packed to the brim doing contracting jobs, and getting very little amounts of money for what they do. When Lebanese employers are questioned about the ethics of their workers' wages, they most often respond with this phrase; "Who cares, they're Syrian?" This is mostly due to the economic strife caused by Hafez's poor decisions. Poor guys. running around in green gimp suits all day, working hard (Most of the time). When you see pictures of Syria, you can tell that something awful happened to that wretched place. Unless if you look at the beautiful town of Slenfah, and a few other towns in or near the valley. They hardly felt the aftershock of the Assads and the Alawites coups in the first place. But the people are now being kept a bit happy with 16k internet and way more Counter-Strike players per capita than could possibly be healthy.''

I think this part should be removed. --Magabund 10:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, Photo?
He's a very influential man in the world, even though he's dead. Surely he's more deserving of a photo than Courtney Love, no?68.161.23.129 09:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Find one that is appropriate and fair use.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

when was he born ?
when was he born ?

birth year and year of death should stay at the top of the text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.162.88 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Baseless Nonesense
His strongly authoritarian regime, under the leadership of the Baath Party dominated all aspects of Syrian political life.

Please spare us of these fairy tales. The Communist Party has been active in Syria since the 1970s and is by no means under the control of the Baathists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.222.58 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

name
It should be mentioned in the article that "al-Assad" means "The Lion" in Arabic, and whether this was the name he was born with (and if not, what was it). I was under the impression that he was born under a different name, and chose the descriptive "al-Assad" as his nomme-du-guerre (like Stalin chose his name meaning "man of steel"). But strangely, most sources I could find online that mention Assad being born under a different name, are articles with an overt Israeli bias; The name these sites mention is "al-Wahsh" (or al-Wahesh or al-Wahash), meaning "the beast". A perhaps less biased source that confirms this name is Asabbagh 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)this. So, was "al-Wahsh" really the name he was born with? Or is this a bizarre urban legend used to slander him (because the name al-Wahsh supposedly carries negative connotations)? user:nyh


 * Reply: Hafiz al-Assad was born with the surname al-Assad, but it is true that al-Wahsh was his family name. His father changed his surname from al-Wahsh to al-Assad before Hafiz was born, so al-Assad is not a nom de guerre - it was the one he was born with.


 * The current article states that he was born al-Wahsh and changed his name to al-Assad "later in life". This contradicts this last comment. Can anyone point to a source? Nyh 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He was born with the last name al-Assad. Asabbagh 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sensing bias
with sentences such as the following that offer no citations, I'm ruling this article as biased  A shrewd power player, al-Assad would use diplomacy, terrorism and tank armadas to the same effect: invariably, he strived to build a strong Syria under his own one-man rule. He was loved by many of is [sic] people but loathed by many too

-- Witchinghour 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

can somebody please add this image
http://www.thedictatorship.com/ go to that website and look a little and you will find a picture of Hafez and not the one that is already showed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.164.198.153 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * No need anymore, the image is now good. Asabbagh 01:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Euporean Origins?
His head shape, facial features and skin tone suggest clear Eastern Europeans origins. This would not be uncommon given the history of slavery in the Arabic so-called world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlikely (if not downright ridiculous) and unsourced. Anyhow, most slaves, regardless of origin, usually did not end in the Levant, but further south. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, try finding or tracing the family of slaves and having a source to back it up. It does not matter where MOST slaves had gone, it only matters that slaves were in Syria. The guy and his family are of clear European origins. If you did not know his name or where came from, you would swear he was fromEastern Europe.
 * What can I say? No sources say so, so it's irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is clear that he is not from Eastern Europe, otherwise he would have mentioned that he is, in his lifetime. Even if he looks like Eastern Europeans, it does not mean that he is not of Syrian origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.53.79.227 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

THis is terrible
Just rewrite the whole thing and don't forget SOURCES... woooweeee —Preceding unsigned comment added by FacistSpotter (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Contested statements removed to talk

 * Assad was president until his death in 2000 from a heart attack while speaking on the telephone with Lebanese President Émile Lahoud.
 * Most of the al-Assad and Makhlouf families have also grown tremendously wealthy

Please do not restore this information to the article without a citation.-- Birgitte SB  03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

REDO
This man's webpage appears to be written by an emotional 18 year old. Who thinks Syria is a soviet satellite, what of the CIA coup attempts? where are teh sources for this page?? please make this go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.236.131 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Numbers
The article states that between 150,000 and 200,000 people died in the battle between the Syrian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is quite outlandish to say the least. Whoever included it must have seen it in one of the books in reference to the death toll of the Lebanese civil war and assumed it was in reference to Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.114.54 (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A silly unsourced section.
I've removed the following paragraph: '' In 1999, Assad had his right-hand man, Mustafa Tlass, make an on-the-record statement labelling Arafat "the son of a whore", in addition to comparing him to a strip-tease dancer and a black cat, calling him a coward and, finally, pointing out that the Palestinian leader was getting uglier.

An effective strategy was undermining Arafat through support for radical groups both outside and inside the PLO. This way, Syria secured some influence over PLO politics, and was also able to literally blow up any attempts at negotiation with the US and Israel through pushing for terrorist attacks. The PLO's As-Sa'iqa faction was and is completely controlled by Syria, and under Hafez, groups such as the PFLP-GC were also turned into clients. In later years, Syria focused on supporting non-PLO Islamist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.''

One, no sources are provided, and two, it seems that the insults traded where very unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.202.231 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Esed
more correct romanization. Böri (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather biased
This article appears to be rather biased if favour of Assad. Let's take a small example, drawn in random from the short section on Lebanon:

"The Arab League agreed to send a peacekeeping force mostly composed of Syrian troops. The initial goal was to save the Lebanese government from being overrun by the Left and the Palestinian militancy. Critics allege that this turned into an occupation by 1982, which is not disputed within the Lebanese community."

I see lots of weasel words in the second sentence. Whatever the antecedents, the Syrian troops in Lebanon were not their as peacekeepers for most of their stay.

The intro paragraph is also a problematic one, making Assad look like a benign ruler. No mention there of wars, slaughters of rebels, of one-party rule, of building a failed socialist economy. Nothing! Just a plain encomium. That's what I call bias. Bazuz (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the article is biased, not at all. I made a hard effort to use everything possible from every source. The article isn't complete yet. This informations is also sourced. Well, nevertheless, you are invited to change it with proper sources. I'm trying to make this article GA, so any useful sourced information is welcome. --Wüstenfuchs 12:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I take your point and appreciate your efforts. Let's try to improve this together. First point I'd like to raise:


 * "Moreover, Assad has turned Syria from an object of encroachment on the part of neighboring countries into a regional power, challenging or affecting number of countries in the region and beyond."


 * I find this statement vague, somewhat bland, and potentially misinforming. What neighbours encroached on Syria? Can you give specific examples? I tried to look up the reference (apparently the sentence is taken verbatim from a book - might be copyright issues here, btw) but Google Books doesn't show much of page 52 in the book. What do you think?


 * Cheers, Bazuz (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Syria was unifulential country before. It suffered domination of Egypt during the United Arab Republic and was unstable before the 1960s. According to the Reich's book, Syria also had problems with Turkey and Israel. --Wüstenfuchs 12:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Pardon my brashness, but this is very shallow analysis. First, the United Arab Republic collapsed in 1961, way before Assad came to power. And anyway, broadly speaking, an 'Egypt' and a 'Syria' have been jousting for power in the region since time immemorial, the strength of each flowing and ebbing at different periods. I do not think Assad should be singled out in this way.


 * Second, did Syria really become stable under Assad? He took part in the 1973 war (that played out great for Syria, didn't it?), got embroiled in the 1982 war, invaded Lebanon and had to put down a major rebellion in Syria itself. Stability? Third, Syria still has "problems" with Turkey and Israel.


 * I still contend that the sentence in question is somewhere between wrong and too vague to be useful. Have I managed to convince you? Bazuz (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse the UAR was before Assad came to power, that's the point. Now, speaking of stability, it's about the political stability. Assad remained in powever from 1970 to 2000, that means he was stable ruler. Moreover, the Islamic uprising was a threat, but failed to gain more supporters. We can change the sentence though, reformulate it. Also, to add this; the USA was also involved in various wars, but it's stable. --Wüstenfuchs 12:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: UAR, my point is that the Syrian leadership found it's way out of it without Assad - implying that Syria was not prostrate and devoid of means to defend itself before he came. I do agree with you that anyone (except maybe hereditary monarchs) who maintains himself as sole ruler of a large country for thirty years must have serious political acumen. But this does not necessarily mean that his rule is good for that country - although it certainly is good for him, his family and his clan.


 * Re: USA, point taken. But, as a variation on my previous theme, there are various kinds of stability. Some are good for the country and some less. For instance, Italian politics during 1900-1920 was chaotic with governments constantly falling like so many clowns in a circus. Then came Mussolini and stayed in power for about 25 years. Certainly his rule was stable - but to content ourselves with stating that while ignoring the larger picture about his rule is to somewhat shortchange the reader, I believe.


 * Do you mind if I make an edit and we can discuss my version? Bazuz (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By all means, yes. Feel free to edit the sentence. --Wüstenfuchs 13:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mate, given that Syria is the only Mediterranian country not to have a Mediterainian tourist industry, I'd say that's one of the clear evidences that Syria has very little position of power or influence over the region. Syrian foreign policy today mostly only affects Lebanon, where they are trying to overrule Christian authority and establish a Shia ruling elite that is in favour with Syria. They are doing this by funding and arming Hezbollah. Until this happens though, it have no influence over any of its neighbours or trade partners. Syria currently has no power over Israel, not since it lost the 1973 war it started, and since it adopted the 3 no's (peace, recognition, negotiation). Hafez is also a stand up evil guy - he's a dictor that killed tens of thousands of innocent people to cling to power, and now his son is following in his footsteps. Selfishness, greed and mistrust outline his career. A neutral article about hafez therefore would be a biased one, because for the article to be neutral, you'll have to skew the tone so far towards positive just to balance out all the evil sh*t. For this reason a neutral article would actually be too skewed to have proper grounding and reveer. Colt .55 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(indent) I salute the great work and effort you've put into this article, especially at a time like this. I have one issue though I'd like you to take note of: you make it seem as if internal opposition to Assad was dominated (or almost exclusively so) by right-wing Sunni MBs, and that is factually not true. There was an influential and sizable coalition of leftist opposition (Communist Party - Politburo, Communist Labor Party, Arab Unionists, etc.) and they deserve a mention in here. Yazan (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Well, I followed the sources, and I was unable to find anything about Communists (leftists) opposing to him, but still, this article is under construction and will be still edited. It's far from being complete. --Wüstenfuchs 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hama insurgency
The intro states "Assad ruthlessly suppressed it killing some 38,000 civillians", but the article itself states 30.000. Apart from this inconsistency, that is also in the higher end of the proposed body counts, which is sometimes as low as 10.000, and this should be stated. Also, I have never read anywhere that all those people were civilians, as stated in the intro, but not in the article itself. It was an armed insurgency. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All reports on the massacre say that the vast majority of the victims were civilians. Check Fisk's Pity the Nation. Yazan (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we assume that, the numbers still don't add up, we're using one of the highest counts ever proposed, and intros should not contain info not in the article itself. As far as I recall, Fisk states many of the civilians left the city before the attack. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The numbers should be revised, agreed. The bit about majority civilian casualties though is well documented in the literature (Amnesty, Fisk, Wright), and it's why it's called a massacre, not a battle. Yazan (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edited the intro, take a look
I think I also owe you an apology was alleging bias in the article. Having engaged with it more now, I see that it is really striving to be objective. There are some deficiencies, but the whole tenor of it is neutral and correct. I must have been led astray by finding what is I consider one of the less successful passages, right in the lead.

So - my apologies, Wüstenfuchs.

Bazuz (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. --Wüstenfuchs 17:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

, given that Syria is the only Mediterranian country not to have a Mediterainian tourist industry, I'd say that's one of the clear evidences that Syria has very little position of power or influence over the region. Syrian foreign policy today mostly only affects Lebanon, where they are trying to overrule Christian authority and establish a Shia ruling elite that is in favour with Syria. They are doing this by funding and arming Hezbollah. Until this happens though, it have no influence over any of its neighbours or trade partners. Syria currently has no power over Israel, not since it lost the 1973 war it started, and since it adopted the 3 no's (peace, recognition, negotiation). Hafez is also a stand up evil guy - he's a dictor that killed tens of thousands of innocent people to cling to power, and now his son is following in his footsteps. Selfishness, greed and mistrust outline his career. A neutral article about hafez therefore would be a biased one, because for the article to be neutral, you'll have to skew the tone so far towards positive just to balance out all the evil sh*t. For this reason a neutral article would actually be too skewed to have proper grounding and reveer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt .55 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know what to say... That's just not the way Wikipedia works. Your personal oppinion is your personal oppinion. --Wüstenfuchs 00:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious POV in Wustenfuchs' edits
I've only had time to look at his edits to the lede - I will look at the rest of the article later. Wustenfuchs deleted many of the most famous facts about the figure, and has also added huge amounts of POV analysis, almost all based on Synth, to the lede. The lede should contain NPOV facts, and no analysis. It's also far too long. The lede will be reverted to the prior version until this is resolved. Avaya1 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I erased only the "facts" of which I was unable to find a source. And tell me, what sentences are problematic, I can fix those. The lead is also not based on the SYNTH amd the lead acctualy doeas contains the NPOV facts and no analysis. The lead's size is just fine. See other articles, Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to defend Wustenfuchs on this one until I see any real evidence that they are guilty of what they are charged with. This is obviously a very contentious article, particularly in the current climate of the Syrian Civil War, but I think they have managed the job of keeping to a relatively objective position well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reich's book
Seems to be too dated (1990?!). Does anyone have an idea for a more modern source? I looked around in Google Books but didn't find any previewable one in a very brief search. Bazuz (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked on Amazon, and two titles struck me as likely to provide more up to date appraisals -, the first published by Routledge, - Syria:Revolution from Above. by Raymond Hinnebusch ISBN 0415285682  (2002), and a book published just last year - Niikolas van Dam Struggle for Power in Syria-Politics and Society under Asad and the Ba'th party ISBN 1848857608 - oh, sorry, that van Dam book is a 1979 title originally - Sayerslle (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I acctualy don't see a problem with Reich's book. The year 1990 is just fine to describe Syria under Assad, some 20 years have been described in the book. The last 10 years are impossible to find, that's why I have so many sources as I tried to find informations about the post-Cold War era. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it lacks perspective. It's like taking a 1807 book as the major source for an article on Napoleon. (Not that the figures are commensurate in any way). It might have been a decent book for 1990 (I actually have lots of beef with the few passages I've seen, but let it be), but it certainly wouldn't do in 2012. Bazuz (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But there are no modern books dealing with Assad's biography... --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 10:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead is too long, actually
I looked up and it says 3-4 paragraphs. Some cases might be exceptional but Assad is not that major a figure in terms of world history to warrant such a long lead. I'd suggest for comparison Gamal Abdel Nasser or Saddam Hussein. So, I'd recommend trimming the lead a bit, moving some stuff to the body of the article. Bazuz (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please you are free to cooperate. Propose your lead here. I'm acctualy working to hard here, trying to find everything possible about his foreign policy. Leave your proposal here and we will discuss it. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that it is a delicate balance obtaining the correct length introduction; it must convey all of the most esential information yet not be packed out with too much detail. Personally I would recommend the Fidel Castro introduction as a good model to follow, as it has not seen any major alterations in many months and seems to have struck the correct balance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The new lead looks ok to me (the short one), although the HRW bit can be moved into the body of the article - the list of massacres is sufficient for the lead. Bazuz (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Soviet relations
The lack of a section on the Soviet Union in the foreign policy section seems to be an oversight, this relationship was perhaps more important than those to most of the other countries listed. There could be a section on US relations as well. The somewhat important Musa Sadr relation could be mentioned under Lebanon. FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm working on his foreign policy. As you may see I greatly expanded the section and added the "Jordan" subsection. I'm trying to expand the subsections about the relations with the neigubour countries and ofcourse the relations with the two major factors at the time, the Soviets and the Americans. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 12:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede proposal
Hafez al-Assad (حافظ الأسد, Levantine pronunciation: ; 6 October 1930 – 10 June 2000) was a Syrian statesman, politician and general serving as Prime Minister between 1970 and 1971 and then President of Syria between 1971 and 2000. He also served as Secretary of the Syrian Regional Command of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and Secretary General of the National Command of the Ba'ath Party from 1970 to 2000 and Minister of Defence from 1966 to 1972.

Before Assad came to power, coups and counter coups were endemic in Syrian politics. However, Assad succeeded in establishing himself as the country's unchallenged leader, setting up a strong and highly centralized regime that enabled him to stay in power for three decades, longer than anyone in the history of the Syrian state. Another testimony to the strength of his rule was the undisputed succession by his son, Bashar al-Assad in 2000. Assad transformed the country into a strong, stable and assertive state thus making it a regional power, challenging or affecting a number of countries in the region and beyond. Assad's rule brought changes, including the 1973 constitution which guaranteed women's "equal status in society". Assad attempted to industrialize the country, and it was opened up to foreign markets. Oil was discovered, and some degree of the revenue invested in infrastructure, education, medicine, literacy and urban construction.

Born to a poor Alawite family, Assad joined the Syrian wing of the Ba'ath Party in 1946 as a student activist. In 1952 he entered the Homs Military Academy, graduating three years later as a pilot. While exiled to Egypt (1959–1961) during Syria's short-lived union with Egypt in the United Arab Republic, Assad and other military officers formed a committee to resurrect the fortunes of the Syrian Ba'th Party. After the Ba'thists took power in 1963, Assad became commander of the air force. In 1966, after taking part in a coup that overthrew the civilian leadership of the party and sent its founders into exile, he became minister of defense. During Assad’s ministry Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967, dealing Assad a blow that shaped much of his future political career. Assad then engaged in a protracted power struggle with Salah al-Jadid, chief of staff of the armed forces, Assad's political mentor, and effective leader of Syria, until finally in November 1970 Assad seized control, arresting Jadid and other members of the government. He became prime minister and in 1971 was elected president.

Assad set about building up the Syrian military with Soviet aid and gaining the loyalty of the Syrian populace with public works funded by Arab donors and international lending institutions. Political dissenters were eliminated by arrest, torture, and execution, and when the Muslim Brotherhood mounted a rebellion in Hama in 1982, Assad ruthlessly suppressed it killing some 10,000  - 30,000 people amid the near destruction of the city. In foreign affairs Assad tried to establish Syria as a leader of the Arab world. A new alliance with Egypt culminated in a surprise attack on Israel in October 1973, but Egypt's unexpected cessation of hostilities exposed Syria to military defeat and earned Egypt's president, Anwar el-Sadat, Assad's enduring resentment. In 1976, with Lebanon racked by a bloody civil war, Assad dispatched several divisions to that country and secured their permanent presence there as part of a peacekeeping force sponsored by the Arab League. After Israel's invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982–1985, Assad was able to reassert control of the country, eventually compelling Lebanese Christians to accept constitutional changes granting Muslims equal representation in the government. Assad also aided Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups based in Lebanon and Syria.

His rivalry with the Iraqi wing of the Ba'th Party underlay Assad's long-standing enmity toward the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Assad supported Iran in its war against Iraq (1980–1988), and he readily joined the US-led alliance against Iraq in the Gulf War of 1990–1991. This cooperation resulted in more cordial relations with Western governments, which previously had condemned his sponsoring of terrorism. Assad sought to establish peaceful relations with Israel in the mid-1990s, but his repeated call for the return of the Golan Heights stalled the talks. In 1998 he cultivated closer ties with Iraq in light of Israel's growing strategic partnership with Turkey.

This is my proposal... any suggestions? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 19:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Impressive, as the rest of the article.


 * First, if you're planning to take this to GA, then you need to take out all the citations from the lede. The lede should have no references, rather they should be in the body.
 * There should be a mention of another one of his lasting legacy, the police state. He was the one who effectively constructed the various and intermingled security apparati that were instrumental in suppressing any dissent (and not just that of the MB).
 * "opened up the country to foreign markets" is very dubious, as this happened well in the late stage of his reign post-1991, and even then it was very slow.
 * There should be a brief mention of the sectarian tensions during his reign.
 * Yazan (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! At first look, I must express a reservation that this text is a bit too long, and could do with losing a paragraph, as well as editing down some of the more superfluous words. The four paragraph model seems to work over at Fidel Castro, which I would once again suggest is a good model for this page to imitate. You have my full backing for implementing this text, with revisions, as the new introduction for this page. It will certainly be a vast improvement on the text as it currently stands. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the first paragraph, I think it is basically fine as it is, although I believe that it could do with an extra sentence at the end, briefly summarising what Assad's political persuasion was; in this case Arab socialism and Arab nationalism, and the wider influence that his governance has had on Syria, i.e. nationalisation of certain industries, industrialisation, secularisation of society, etc. Doing so will help provide context for the rest of the introduction. How about "Politically a Ba'athist, Assad adhered to an ideology of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism. Under his administration the Syrian Arab Republic saw increased stabilization, with a program of secularization and industrialization designed to modernize and strengthen the country as a regional power."
 * The second paragraph is largely superfluous as it currently stands and really should be ejected in its entirety. Some of the more important facts that it highlights can be reasserted elsewhere in the introduction.
 * The third paragraph is excellent and can stay as it is in my opinion.
 * The fourth paragraph is also good, although could do with a few more links to events and places that might be unfamiliar to the average reader.
 * Much of the fifth paragraph again seems a little unimportant, but some of the most important facts could be kept, and merged into the above paragraph.
 * A final paragraph should be left to discuss Assad's legacy, briefly mentioning, for instance, that his son succeeded him,


 * Thx... I made changes and will add the last paragraph soon. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 13:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hafez al-Assad (حافظ الأسد, Levantine pronunciation: ; 6 October 1930 – 10 June 2000) was a Syrian statesman, politician and general who served as Prime Minister between 1970 and 1971 and then President of Syria between 1971 and 2000. He also served as Secretary of the Syrian Regional Command of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and Secretary General of the National Command of the Ba'ath Party from 1970 to 2000 and Minister of Defence from 1966 to 1972. Politically a Ba'athist, Assad adhered to an ideology of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism. Under his administration the Syrian Arab Republic saw increased stabilization, with a program of secularization and industrialization designed to modernize and strengthen the country as a regional power.

Born to a poor Alawite family, Assad joined the Syrian wing of the Ba'th Party in 1946 as a student activist. In 1952 he entered the Homs Military Academy, graduating three years later as a pilot. While exiled to Egypt (1959–1961) during Syria's short-lived union with Egypt in the United Arab Republic, Assad and other military officers formed a committee to resurrect the fortunes of the Syrian Ba'th Party. After the Ba'athists took power in 1963, Assad became commander of the air force. In 1966, after taking part in a coup that overthrew the civilian leadership of the party and sent its founders into exile, he became minister of defense. During Assad’s ministry Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967, dealing Assad a blow that shaped much of his future political career. Assad then engaged in a protracted power struggle with Salah al-Jadid, chief of staff of the armed forces, Assad's political mentor, and effective leader of Syria, until finally in November 1970 Assad seized control, arresting Jadid and other members of the government. He became prime minister and in 1971 was elected president.

In 1973 Assad changed the Syria's Constitution guaranteeing equal status of women in society and enabling non-Muslims to become a president, the latter change was reverted by the pressure of the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad set about building up the Syrian military with Soviet aid and gaining the loyalty of the Syrian populace with public works funded by Arab donors and international lending institutions. Political dissenters were eliminated by arrest, torture, and execution, and when the Muslim Brotherhood mounted a rebellion in Hama in 1982, Assad suppressed it killing between 10,000 and 25,000 people. In foreign affairs Assad tried to establish Syria as a leader of the Arab world. A new alliance with Egypt culminated in the Yom Kippur War against Israel in October 1973, but Egypt's unexpected cessation of hostilities exposed Syria to military defeat and earned Egypt's president, Anwar el-Sadat, Assad's enduring resentment. In 1976, with Lebanon racked by the civil war, Assad dispatched several divisions to that country and secured their permanent presence there as part of a peacekeeping force sponsored by the Arab League. After Israel's invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982–1985, Assad was able to reassert control of the country, eventually compelling Lebanese Christians to accept constitutional changes granting Muslims equal representation in the government. Assad also aided Palestinian and Lebanese resistance groups based in Lebanon and Syria. Assad supported Iran in its war against Iraq (1980–1988), and he readily joined the US-led alliance against Iraq in the Gulf War of 1990–1991. Assad sought to establish peaceful relations with Israel in the mid-1990s, but his repeated call for the return of the Golan Heights stalled the talks.

How about this lede? The legacy paragraph will be added later... --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 12:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "who served as" rather than "serving as" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ba'th Party" should be "Ba'ath Party". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Assad ruthlessly suppressed" – I'd definitely remove the word "ruthlessly", as it is somewhat POV. Some people (myself included) would consider it "ruthless", but others would undoubtedly disagree. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to Hama. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lebanon racked by a bloody civil war" – remove "bloody", it's an unnecessarily descriptive term. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe mention the significance of the constitution ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I hope it's good now. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nepotism
There are plenty of sources that detail the corruption and nepotism in the Hafiz Assad era. Not the least in the highest leadership. In fact, Bashar's reputation was prepped up as the anti-corruption figure. Let's not forget Shihabi and Zuabi. But you want a source, here's one Yazan (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What about anti-corruption campagins taken in 1990s and 1980s? This is why I removed corruption. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 20:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, "despite" these campaigns (and they were little more than appeasement), by 1998 the system was collapsing because of nepotism and corruption. Or else Assad Jr.'s maiden speech wouldn't have been about corruption. Yazan (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't collapsing. Those anti-corruption campagins weren't little more then "appeasment". See the economy section of the article (1980s). --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 20:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Crony capitalism
Is there any other source beside the documentary that is impossible to verify. And what critics (except you ofcourse) had accused Assad of crony capitalism? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 20:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The programme will probably be available to 'listen again' to soon - i'll put a link here and you can hear for yourself the description of hafez al-assads system of 'crony capitalism'- made by hs critics -, so then it will prove not impossible to verify. The link above seems pertinent here too - 'nepotism' described - same point being made as 'crony capitalism' - china describes itself as communist i believe - it doesnt mean critics havent described it as  having , er, capitalist elements. Sayerslle (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you heard wrong because every newspaper article that I found on google search were acctualy connecting Bashar al-Assad with crony capitlaism and not Hafez. And if it is so hard to find any other source then it is not good to add this in lede. You need this to be generally accepted by reliable sources. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 20:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't hear wrong - heres the link to the programme - it says - apart from the  repression, and ruthlessness - " hafaz al-assad also used what today would be called crony capitalism' - so maybe thats the problem - it wont appear so-worded in old books but will amount to the same thing - corruption,  'stay out of politics and i'll make you rich' - its an interesting listen but you wont like it - says saddam hussein sent a video to Donald Rumsfeld to help him understand the nature of the beast kind of thing - a black and white video of hafaz at a miliary parade watchig a line of young uniformed women picking up snakes and proceeding to chew off their heads as the snakes writhe about, then some more other young soldiers appear and start stabbing a puppy to death with sticks - all the while he smiles applauding surrounded by senior military colleagues - many who are his close relations -  - it also gives a far higher figure than the one in the article for the immediate retribution after the failed grenade attack in june 1980 - 600-1000 Muslim Brotherhood prisoners kiled at once the programmes said - and in 1991 , he got 99.4% of the vote - so the votre rigging issue  appears - and the personality cult - on the notebooks at school, his image, in every classroom, and every morning after the national anthem  they had to give 3 or 4 things  about the president like 'i love the president ..' he sounds a bit of a tyrant to me, but  you like him, fine, but please dont stab every edit you dont like to death with your stick   Sayerslle (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Sayerslle, the link that you provide, to a BBC documentary, is not necessarily the best of sources to use in this article; try using some academic texts to back up your arguments instead. I'm not here to defend the human rights record of Hafez, but your attacks on Wüstenfuchs seem unjustified to me. He (or she) has helped to produce an article that does manage to pursue a relatively neutral line that is neither overwhelmingly pro- or anti-Assad. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Controversial stuff in bios has to be well sourced per policy. A single radio show isn't enough at all. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the only problem. If you read the WP:LEAD you'll understand. The article must have a significant part that deals with this subject, if not it shouldn't be in the lead. Another problem for this is that there is not enough sources to confrime this. Radio show is not a reliable source. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 19:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * its true enough that just the radio documentary is a bit of a reed to put a lot of weight on - though of course i do believe that the documentary maker was not expressing a personal opinion but expressing  an opinion that has been pretty widely expressed elsewhere -it wasnt just a personal opinion documentary - it was a collection of interviews kind of thing with ex-diplomats, historians, various commentators kind of thing -  i have  a list to read  - - Eyal Zisser 'Assads Legacy' - Alan George, 'neither bread nor freedom' -  Carsten Wieland - etc i'll see whats in those books-- I havent read the article so  i dont know what it says about what critics of the dynasty have said- i was only adding a sentence to the lead -i didnt realsise it would cause so much consternation and disgust. Sayerslle (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But only the host said he was involve in the crony capitalism, not the guests. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 21:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Education and early political career
During the requested copy-edit, I have removed the final paragraph of this section because it doesn't directly relate to the subject of the article. I may move it back if it appears more impotant than i thought.

The Ba'ath Party, also called the Renaissance Party, was a Pan-Arabic socialist party. In 1947 the United Nations agreed to decree a Jewish state in a large portion of Palestine. Leaders of the Ba'ath Party were incensed, as this was opposed to their idea of Pan-Arabism. In 1948, Syria and other Arab countries invaded Israel in the Arab-Israeli War. The Arab countries lost that war, leaving Syria with a large number of Palestinian refugees. In 1949, Syria witnessed a very unstable political situation. The army officer Husni al-Za'im came to power in March, but was overthrown in August by Sami al-Hinnawi. In turn, al-Hinnawi was overthrown and arrested in December and replaced by another army officer Adib Shishakli, who ruled Syria until 1954. During the Shishakli's rule, the Ba'ath Party was forced to operate underground. The Ba'ath Party succeeded to regroup, however, often by establishing coalitions with peasants, soldiers and students.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Gaining support
Removed from third paragraph of the section because it is out of context and probably the remains of a previous version. What is the policy referred to here? It doesn't make sense in the existing context.

"In order to gain legitimacy for his regime and to meet his nationalist objectives, Assad planned to carry out this policy, in external and internal politics. Moreover, he saw it as a struggle for the well-being of his people, notably the unprivileged section."

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Libya
Removed the following uncited text:

"It is alleged that the Syrian presence in Lebanon began earlier with its involvement in as-Saiqa, a Palestinian militia composed primarily of Syrians. The Arab League agreed to send a peacekeeping force mostly composed of Syrian troops. The initial goal was to save the Lebanese government from being overrun by the Left and the Palestinian militancy. Critics allege that this turned into an occupation by 1982, which is not disputed within the Lebanese community." Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Palestinians
Removed entire section; completely uncited - and no references forthcoming since June 2012:

"The hostile attitude to Israel meant vocal support for the Palestinians, but that did not translate into friendly relations with their organizations. In the 1970s, Al-Assad conducted military operations against Palestinian camps in Lebanon, including involvement in the Tel al-Zaatar massacre, which drew strong criticism for his regime in the Arab world. Hafez al-Assad was always wary of independent Palestinian organizations, as he aimed to bring the Palestinian issue under Syrian control in order to use it as a political tool. He soon developed an implacable animosity towards Yasser Arafat's PLO, against which Syria fought bloody battles in Lebanon. As Arafat moved the PLO in a more moderate direction, seeking compromise with Israel, al-Assad feared regional isolation, and he resented the PLO underground's operations in Palestinian refugee camps in Syria. Arafat was depicted by Syria as a rogue madman and an American marionette, and after accusing him of supporting the Hama revolt, al-Assad backed the 1983 Abu Musa rebellion inside Arafat's Fatah-movement. A number of unsuccessful Syrian attempts to kill Arafat were also made." Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon issues
There should be a mention of the Arab Deterrent Force and Musa Sadr's role in recognising Assad and Alawites as Muslims. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it, with refs, while I'm copy-editing and I'll c/e it when I reach that section. I'll be going offline after posting this reply. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll take a stab, though I thought Wustenfuchs might want to do it himself. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me - I'll go through it properly before I leave the article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I appriciate everyone's help... However, to busy now with faculty... I will nevertheless add all infos I find reliable and feel free to edit those. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 07:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I removed some of the text you added because the issue was already covered in the article; there was a paragraph in 'Alliance with Egypt' that should have been in the previous section 'Gaining power'. I retained the Kaplan quote and later re-added the 1974 fatwa text.

I notice that your new text says "In 1973, a new constitution was adopted that omitted the old requirement that the religion of the state be Islam and replaced it with the statement that the religion of the republic's president is Islam." . The existing text says: "On 31 January 1973, Assad implemented the new Constitution which led to a national crisis. Unlike previous constitutions, this one did not require that the president of Syria must be a Muslim, leading to fierce demonstrations in Hama, Homs and Aleppo organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and the ulama." Have I misread this during my copy-edit, or is there a discrepancy between the sources? Anyway, feel free to fix this if it's necessary.

Here is the full version of the paragraph you added, for reference:

Robert D. Kaplan has compared Hafez al-Assad's coming to power to "an untouchable becoming maharajah in India or a Jew becoming tsar in Russia—an unprecedented development shocking to the Sunni majority population which had monopolized power for so many centuries." In 1973, a new constitution was adopted that omitted the old requirement that the religion of the state be Islam and replaced it with the statement that the religion of the republic's president is Islam. Protests erupted when this was known. In 1974, in order to satisfy this constitutional requirement, Musa Sadr, a leader of the Twelvers of Lebanon and founder of the Amal Movement who had earlier sought to unite Lebanese Alawis and Shias under the Supreme Islamic Shiite Council without success, issued a fatwa stating that Alawis were a community of Twelver Shia Muslims.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No source I know of mention that the requirement was entirely removed, maybe Wustenfuchs knows what's up. I may have read somewhere that the requirement that the president be SunniMuslim was replaced with simply "Muslim", but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Assad just removed the article from the Constitution which stated that president must be a (Sunni) Muslim and allowed any Syrian, no matter which religion, to become a president. After the demonstrations he returned the article I belive with minor editing... President needed to be only a Muslim no matter which branch of Islam. If you recall Assad himself needed a confrimation he is "a real Muslim" in a Sunni mosque. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 08:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your comments on this, and for clarifying; I was concerned about the contradiction remaining in the article. I'll have to check the source i found; please feel free to amend the text as needed. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Useful source
This source might be useful to those who want to add further information to this article. Reference: Thomas Collelo, ed. Syria: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987. http://countrystudies.us/syria/ Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can do this in two days... if nobody wants to do it today. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 07:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)7


 * Sorry, It will take longer time... I can use this with Zisser... but not very soon. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 08:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll be finishing my copy-edit soon anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the recent changes to the introduction
Hello all. I'd just like to highlight a few problems with the introductory section. This all-important part of the article has recently seen some alterations that, I believe, are largely detrimental, even though they were likely undertaken in good faith. As originally built between myself and Wüstenfuchs, the introduction stood at four paragraphs long, and aptly summarized both Assad's biography, his legacy, and the controversy that surrounded him. Recently, the removal of the fourth paragraph (which focused on the legacy and controversy) has caused significant aesthetic and textual problems; admittedly, several points from the fourth paragraph have been re-incorporated elsewhere in the introduction, but nevertheless I believe that they were far better suited where they were. On the aesthetic level, the third paragraph is now significantly longer that the preceding two, which is quite frankly unsightly. Furthermore, as it stands, the article fails to make mention of the human rights abuses committed under Assad's regime, thereby bringing this article wide open to criticisms of failing to stick to NPOV Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Solved... --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 13:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it out of line to call him a dictator? The Sanity Inspector (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Following Wikipedia protocol, it is fine to say that "Assad was widely labelled a dictator by his critics" (as long as sources back this up), but not acceptable to outright say "Assad was a dictator." The concept of "dictatorship", like that of "terrorism", is all too often in the eye of the beholder. While some scholars have attempted to develop singular definitions for these terms which could be used with objective precision, there has never been any widespread concensus on the subject, within academia or society in general. While for some, Assad is a dictator because he maintained autocratic rule in Syria, others would argue that he actually expressed the democratic will of the people and did permit elections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Note about English variants
When I copy-edited the article, American English spelling was the dominant version, although the first version to differentiate used the British/Commonwealth spelling of 'Defence' (| diff). I don't care which variant is used as Syria has no strong historic ties to either the UK or the US, but if you're going to change a few incidences of 'defense' to 'defence', you should probably change all of them, and also change the template at the top to  or , and correct each 'or', 'ize', 'll' etc. variant as required by that English variant to ensure internal consistency. Also, please don't change 'Defense' to 'Defence' in piped wikilinks, as that will link to redirects. Please refer to WP:ENGVAR if you are unsure about this. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thannks alot... I'll do so. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Info, pre-1970
This article is heavily in favour of al-Assad... This article fails to mention that al-Assad was not a leader, or even a prominent figure in the Ba'ath Party before the 1963 coup, and then only through his position in the military... The Military Committee was established without the consent, or knowing of the civilian leadership.. Thirdly, somehow the relations between the Military Committee and civilian leadership is presented as something OK, when it really was a power struggle which consumed syria from 1963-1970... This article si highly biased. Every great man deserves the truth be written about him, and this article fails to do so. --TIAYN (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why did you erased that he become a leader of the MC? This information was sourced, so I'll restore it. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 14:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because he was never leader....... Muhammad Umran was its first leader, and then Salah Jadid, and then it was dissolved from within.. He was a leading member, but never a leader... You have misinterpreted the source.... This article presents portrays Assad as a leading figure within the Ba'ath Party when he was really, until the Military Committee took power, officially a normal party cadre who had no influence or any political weight.. Assad the politician took power through force, and his predecessors did the same - this is seen as the reason, by most historians and political commentators why he made his son (and not a respected politician who actually "deserved" to be his successor") president and head of the party. --TIAYN (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Omissions
Some important details seem to have been left out. For example, it should be mentioned that Assad needed Musa Sadr to accept Alawites as Shia Muslims, to give his presidency legitimacy. Furthermore, there is little mention of his almost good relations with several American Presidents, and very little on relations with the Soviets and other Arab leaders. "Foreign policy" is not only war, as implied by this article. We have a lot of interesting media on Commons that is not used either. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, here a lot of sourced material that was removed for no apparent reason can be found: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hafez_al-Assad&diff=571268525&oldid=559618281 FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No information has been removed, see Presidency of Hafez al-Assad... The article is currently to large. Some information had to be moved... But the article isn't finished, and you're correct, section on Assad's foreign policy towards Israel, Russia and the United States are missing... --TIAYN (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, hadn't noticed the split. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bias Bias Bias
I said this last year and I'll say it again. This article is hugely bias spinning almost every sentence in favour of Assad, or trying to find neutrality where none should be. Shorten the paragraphs about Assad providing stability and growth in Syria and lengthen the ones where he killed 40,000 of his own people. Someone has changed the number to 10 - 25000 with no references. Everyone knows that 40000 people were killed in Hama alone in one incident! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8571164/Syrias-Butcher-of-Hama-living-in-10-million-Mayfair-townhouse.html I shouldn't need a reference to show this. Last year I wrote all of this and I find it weak that no wikipedia mods have found the time to control this petty edit war on what at the end of the day is an important article for people to read. Especially with the current war on the people by Hafez's son. Someone please contact a mod Colt .55 (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Wüstenfuchs, the user who wrote the majority of the article, is pro-Assad ... Why?? I wouldn't know, but he probably believes that Assad is a socialist, which is, well, wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet again, 40.000 is the absolute extreme upper estimate, and therefore not neutral. There was a Muslim Brotherhood insurgency, if no one remembers, and they killed many opponents (and innocents) as well. Doesn't matter if the writer was pro-Nazi, as long as the article was well sourced. If well sourced material has been removed, a deep-revert may be needed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems with Wüstenfuchs' edit was that he more often then not interpreted the information, he wrote the article with the an agenda... So much, which have been removed, of the information was sourced, without that particular information being in the source..... But you're correct, but we probably would write something that between 10-40,000 people died.. --TIAYN (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it doesn't seem as bad as I thought, after you pointed out there had been a split of information. So well enough. But again, it should not be understated that the Hama attack was the culmination of an almost civil war like period, and that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists were assassinating plenty of people before that. Some people, like Colt here above, like to underplay this, and make it seem as if Assad just murdered random, innocent people. Not the case. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We all know that is true, the question people raise is why he bombarded the city for 27-days (it seems a little to much...) ... But I don't care, really, if Assad hadn't appointed his own son and created a family dictatorship and kept Syria running as a Ba'ath Party dictatorship I'd probably would have had "some" respect for him, I mean, he stood up for Israel and helped solve the Lebanon crisis... But this discussion isn't that interesting anyway, and it doesn't solve the problem, this article needs work, and the article on Bashar al-Assad needs even more work.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not "pro-dictatorship", but the Assads have probably done more for the Arab-Socialist cause in the Middle East than any other leader there since Nasser. The whole inheritance thing is fucked up, though. But then again, that's the norm in Arab sates, so I don't see why the Assads should be singled out. Especially when most of their critics are allied with other comparable regimes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The norm thing is a bad excuse, just look at Egypt (all the leaders died before planned, and the last one lost power in a revolution but there was never family succession), Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Iran etc etc .. There are a bunch of monarchies if thats you're point, but Syria was a republic ... No excuse, no norm, the Ba'ath Party became what it wanted to eliminate, it became a feudalist movement with a feudalist system... It could have gone an entirely different way, the "norm" thing just doesn't add up... All communist regimes have been domed to failure they used to say in the 1990s, since it had been the norm, but look at China, Vietnam and Laos... And of course there is the fact that he was a one-man leader, it can work for a short time, but it always leads to a roadblock, that even happens to the "good" dictators, look at Nasser, there is a reason why he suffered an early heart attack... Sorry, I just love discussing things, its a reason why I'm active in politics :) --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Succession by son was planned in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. But we all know why it didn't happen. Algeria will probably end that way as well down the line (they're still in the junta-stage). So yes, even in the non-royal dictatorships, it would be the norm. Iran is an exception, due their theocracy, but I wouldn't say that's an improvement. And Lebanon is pretty much ruled by "royal families" as well. What's left? Any doubt one of Saddam's sons would had taken over? That said, I bet Bassel might had been a better leader now than Bashar. The reason why the West, Islamists and the gulf states went all in during the "uprising" is because they saw him as weak and fragile. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was planned in Egypt true, in Tunisia it wasn't at the planning stage yet... Libya and Iraq yes, but it wasn't the original plan in Iraq until Saddam went, well, crazy... Secondly, Communist Albania, Communist Romania and COmmunist Bulgaria all planned family succession, it still not an excuse that it was normal... The Soviets didn't do it, but the others still planned to do it... The reason it happened in all those countries (Libya, Syria, Iraq and the communist states) was that those countries were not Ba'athist, Arab nationalist, communist or socialist but one-man dictatorships.... This uprising is just the continuation of the Islamic riots (and the one uprising) which have been a feature of the Ba'ath regime since the 1964 Hama riots.. This is no conspiracy, the Ba'ath was never popular when they came to power, Hafez made it a bit more likeable but then came the uprising, and then came the succession, and then came the very same conservative, dead-end feudalist anti-development ideology from his son, Bashar.. You wonder how these regimes can call themselves socialist when socialism is, in its very essence, about economic development, economic equality and about giving all people equal economic rights ... In Syria socialism has become to mean a super-capitalist class which exploits its own people.. It could have been different, that's saddening --TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say it was "normal", but it was the de facto norm among Arab states until very recently. And I think we can be pretty sure it would also had happened in those countries where it wasn't "planned" yet. But yes, these guys were by no means true Socialists, but that's what we had, and it sure was better than unorganised Islamists with ridiculous agendas. Yay, we get power in Libya, legalise polygamy as the first thing?! And they didn't even have the excuse the Syrian opposition is waving around now, that they only became Islamists because the West didn't help them earlier. And no, the uprising was of course not a "conspiracy", but you can be damn sure that the Islamists and their Gulf backers were biding their time and waiting for the opportunity. The poor (secular) suckers who actually began the uprisings didn't know what they were to unleash. And for the record, I supported them in the beginning. But Libya taught me a lesson, and should be a lesson for the world. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I get you're point, I really do, but Assad regime in Syria is dead... The country hasn't evolved in decades, is still pursues the same policy (with some modifications) which were developed in the 1970s and the 1980s... The only difference to Assadist and the Islamist is that the Islamist are real religious revolutionary zealots who believe in what they are saying, Assadist Syria has evolved into a system which safeguards the elite, and represses the people without giving them anything in return (the changes which were introduced were either introduced by the National Command-Regional Command in 1963-1966 or by Salah Jadid or Hafez al-Assad)... And its not like Assadist Syria is perfect either, a father can marry away his daughter without her consent.. Assad is a dead end, no change is happening, at least when the Islamist are coming, change will come... And of course, there is the point, do you really think that Israel will accept the growth and establishment of an Islamic state in its own backyard? The whole region is going to blow up, and who is to blame?? Sadly, the blame lays chiefly with the secular Arab nationalist movement, the movement degenerated into Gaddafi, Saddam, Assad and others.... The Arabs got one Nasser, and a whole lot of bad guys.. Its not surprising, and its sadly not illegitimate that many Arabs want an Islamic form of rule, close to everything that was connected to secularism failed spectacularly...
 * I don't really care what comes, how can you decide, how is a corrupt, dead-end, elitist, nepotistic family rule run on sectarian lines better then radical Islamic zealots?? There is no difference, none of them are bringing forth the right solutions.. Syria is not China and Cuba (who are both dictatorship, but they work strangely enough in their own strange way), Syria is just, well, its stagnating, and its been stagnating for some years now.... --TIAYN (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, it is not about morals for the most part. It depends on whether one wants a brutal and secular dictator, or a brutal and Islamist dictator. See Egypt, for example. There is a lot of whining about Hama, even from western politicians, but remember the West didn't care about it when it happened, just like they are letting Sisi (very much a dictator) massacre hundreds of MBers in Egypt right now, without any consequences whatsoever. Similar with Saddam and him "murdering his own people". When he did it, the West supported him. Syria is not perfect, no, and no one claimed it is even close. But if many Syrians prefer Assad over Islamists, that is quite a legitimate sentiment. And that's the only realistic choice now. I don't care about Assad, but whether you like it or now, right now he is a symbol and rallying point against Western meddling and dominance in the region, even more so than al-Qaeda (who are falling in line, because they can't function without Gulf money). On the archaic Syrian laws you mentioned, keep in mind that such have been put in place to appease the Islamists. Give them one finger, and they want your whole arm. As for Israeli acceptance, there is nothing Israel can do without protection and money from the US, so it doesn't really matter what they accept. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Israel don't care what the United States, it has its own modus vivendi.. Secondly, you don't know if the Islamic dictatorship will be brutal, and that should be enough.. While I know that most Westerners consider all form of political Islam as fundamentalist, but we have political Christianity in Europe (in many countries, including mine, Norway) ... While I doubt the moderates will win, I doubt that the next government will be stable.. From what I read, the rebels are split between many, many different factions... If the Islamist do take over, there government will be weak, have no government control in Alawite, or minority dominated areas and so on and so on. If the Islamist do take power, they won't hold on it for long, because I doubt that the Islamists are as well organized as the Bolsheviks, and that conflict was a very close one. --TIAYN (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the government itself is brutal or not, if most of the country is ruled by random militias, see Libya as an obvious example. Egypt is going the same way, and see Algeria in the 90s. As for Israel, I think you're overestimating that country. The current IDF is not made of the same material as those who fought in 1948. Without the US, Israel will crumble. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Egypt is not going the same way, its reverting back to the military dictatorship it was until Mubarak's downfall, and yes, Algeria had troubles, but, as you may now, Algeria is steadily improving everyday (but terrorism is still a problem)... Libya, that's a point, but Libya has a bigger landmass, with people, and tribles being scattred around the country, Syria is more unified, and always has been... But I get you're point ,but in Syria, unlike Libya, no groups have called for secession.. They are fighting a war for control of the country, not for the country's dissolution... That's different. --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Imprisoned?
In here, it says that Assad was kept in Egypt after the union of 1958, and that after the break up of 1961, Assad was imprisoned with other Baathists...

the article make it sound as if Assad was in Syria at that time, I dont know a lot about this part of History, so Im not assuming whose right, can somebody give an explanation ? and if Assad was indeed in Egypt then the article should be modified.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment/Legacy
This article features an abundance of information on Hafez al-Assad's military career, his political career, his domestic and foreign policies, and his succession. But it doesn't seem to have any information about people's assessment of his leadership or his legacy. Shouldn't it have coverage of that like most biographical articles of major historical figures? Charles Essie (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not use background colours
Please do not use background colours, they create many problems. Σοφία Κουτσουβέλη (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)