Talk:Bashar al-Assad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"noted for his sectarianism"[edit]

Sad lies. 16/18 of the most senior members of government positions are held by Sunnis incl PM and his wife is Sunni, his former best friend was Sunni before he defected. The majority of the Syrian Army is Sunni. Some of the most infamous generals in the Army are Sunni, others are Druze like Major General Issam Zahreddine and the former chief of staff of the sovereign armed forces of Syria was Christian before he was killed in a bomb attack by Liwa al-Islam, a Sunni SECTARIAN jihadist group.

If RAMSEY BOLTON and Joffrey Baratheon had a baby...

12% of the Syrian population is Alawite. 12% couldn't hold onto power for 5 days never mind 5 years. There is a massive overwhelming propaganda campaign and war against the Syrian government, despite the armies crimes and atrocities, you don't benefit from spreading lies. If you want to cry Sectarianism, then just look at the opposition, with Sunni's only representing 64% of the Syrian population, almost ALL the opposition groups are Sunni Salafist jihadist who are responsible for the massacre of Alawites in Latakia and the eviction of 150,000 Christians from Homs.

Semi protection, why not?[edit]

Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, especially when it occurs on biographies of living people who have had a recent high level of media interest. A recent alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favoured when an article is being vandalised regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Call of Duty[edit]

He appears in Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, I believe this should be mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 

I really hope you're joking. The (entirely fictional) character in COD4 was Khaled Al-Asad. This is Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria. (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Article locked?[edit]

Who locked this article and why? It seems suspiciously like the start of an attempt at polarised propaganda. I'd like to know who specifically locked this article and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It was likely locked due to the unconfirmed rumors about Assad's death. This page has already been altered to report his death today (and changed back), despite a lack of evidence at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zissou7 (talkcontribs) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the article being locked, but, from an objective view that I believe I have, my assessment is that the article is politically slanted against Assad. I'm no lover of the guy personally (pretty much all mid-Eastern rulers are jerks), but that's not the point. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Nehmo (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean?[edit]

During the campaign which went under the title of tactics, he was given the title of Guardian Hunter by his supporters.

  • No idea, I will remove it right now, if anyone wants to put it back in, please discuss here. Asabbagh 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Exposure to West[edit]

I don't see a source for this. Moreover I see absolutely no relevance for this. Does "exposure" to the West mean something other than trivial information? Is it meant to meant that the extent of his exposure is an indicator of how "civilized" he is? I wonder how many people Asad has killed in the Middle East in comparison to say... ummmm... say the UK... no no wait... the US!! The west imposed sanctions in Iraq that killed more than 500,000 Iraqis which is why Densi Halliday and his successor both resigned from the UN in disgust and horror at their mandate of imposing the sanctions in Iraq which Halliday said was tantamount to "genocide." That's western imposed. Then there is the Iraq war and the fact that more Iraqi's have died as a result of the occupation that under Saddam's entire 23 years (I don't include the Iran-Iraq war and the gassing of Iranians because the West was actively encouraging him and supplying him with weapons). Now let's look at Asad.. errrr... who?! Oh you mean that paragon of virtue, and fountain of civilization and humanity, yes I remember him. Edwardosaido 5:21, 2 October 2007 (GMT)

== Is it just me...

...or does he look ALOT like Steven Carell from 40 year old virgin in the first pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

He isn't so pure[edit]

No word about the fact that he gives a refuge for terror organizations like Islamic jihad and so on.Amirpedia 12:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that he's the current head of a rather vicious, brutal totalitarian regime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I am a critic of Bashar; and I think it might be appropriate for questioning of his mental abilities, as rumors continue to circulate. However, without figures and actual sources for "Why he is brutal"-I'm not sure it is completely appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmw0000 (talkcontribs) 07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention he, his government, and his military are fighting ISIS and other terrorist groups? You have to be joking. Come on, be fair. trainsandtech (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Why anyone feels the need to question his mental abilities is perhaps more a reflection of their own questionable mental status. The man is an eloquent, incredibly smart, educated person. He has made massive efforts to try and gain western favor, and tried to peacefully negotiate the return of the Golan Heights which is Syrian land occupied for nearly 40 years by Israel. Edwardosaido 5:10, 2 October 2007 (GMT)

I didn't say he wasn't eloquent or bad at medicine (and thus uneducated). I was more questioning his sanity. But that said, please leave the SSNP off wikipedia. We don't need it.J. M. (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You'd have to be extremely sane and clever to play with the West like he does right now, in spite of all the trouble they've tried to get him into. FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that he is mentally unstable and very weak because he appears to be caving in to those criminal family members and Mafia around him that are as reluctant as he appears to be to allow serious democratic reforms. Only a Crazy caged animal would go to the vicious lengths he and his regime have gone in their psychopathic efforts to stamp out ANY opposition to his brutal dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Further reading vs. references[edit]

We're supposed to cite sources, but we haven't so far in this article. Since we have quite a nice further reading section, if any of the books there were used as sources (or can corroborate the material of this article), can we confirm this and add them to a references section? Johnleemk | Talk 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

born in syria and an alawite, i know that history has been very cruel to our small sect. we are surrounded by a majority who had oppressed us and made us work as an almost endentured servitude for many years. we want what anyone wants, respect and to live in peace. we don't push our religion on anyone and we accept all as sons and daughters of god. please don't push syria into a choas of death and destruction as in iraq. let us talk, and then let live...together.

Bashar al-Assad: The Don Corleone of Arab Despots[edit]

The UN Security Council met in New York to consider the report by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis who has assembled compelling evidence pointing to the complicity of key figures in the Assad regime in the February 2005, Valentine's Day bombing of Hariri's motorcadein Beirut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mideast Facts (talkcontribs) 03:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Middle school gym class[edit]

Perhaps some mention should be made of Assad's striking resemblance to the one tall dorky kid in every school all the kids aimed for in dodge ball. NEMT 14:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps not. Asabbagh 08:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointless allegations of Syrian involvement in the Harboring of Militants...[edit]

If only one would face the truth of the matter, then I am sure that someone ought to know that the Baath party is strictly secular, moderate, and thus has almost no connection with the militants they are constantly accused of providing sanctuary for. They are a corrupt pack of wolves, I am sure of this, yet they are not radical. This in itself kills any arguement implicating them in the fruitless witchhunts for these "Terrorist cells" in a country which has reciev'd the mighty blow of American aid before, and wishes not to endure such again. Any fool with half a mind and a good amount of knowledge of the Al Assad dynasty should at least be able to comprehend their strict non-involvement with the political vacuum that is now Iraq (A comment directed strictly at the political situation there.) and therefore, by relation any and all Islamic "cells" and Nationalist movements save their own.

Please, come to thy senses, and prevent any such accusation from tainting this article.

Yes, I am quite against the Al Assad Regime. No need to invade it, it will die of old age shortly enough, just as the Ottomans before them did.

Seurat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It took the Ottomans 400 years to die of old age... Modinyr (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Heir apparent[edit]

So if al-Assad were to die today, who is the heir apparent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats why he should have introduced cloning to syria instead of internet213.42.2.28 08:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Dolly the lamb


>R>W>Surely, for somebody educated to be a doctor and help people in need, he has masterminded butchery of innocent children to perfection, hence I recommend we commence to call him the The Syrian Butcher<R<W< — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that he went to medical school, shouldn't he be named in the opening paragraph as 'Dr. Basar al-Assad', as is customary in other biographical articles? Damburger 09:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This question sounds legitimate to me. He didn't just GO to med school, I believe in 6 years' time he must've practiced his specialty. Character assessment should not interfere in objective equal treatment. Wikipedia is NEUTRAL. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
sure, as long as the name gets changed to Dr. Evil I have no trouble with that. (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Major Clean-up Necessary[edit]

You have the most ruthless regime this side of the clerical dictatorship ruling the IRI-in power for over three and a half decades-with an extensive record of human rights abuses, illegal detentions, suppression of political dissent, and a massacre-Hama-which eclipsed Black September in scale, in addition to its harboring of fugitive Nazis, the leaders of nearly every major Islamic and proto-Marxist terrorist group in the Mid-east, potential chem-bio WMD programs, as well as assorted nefarious activity occuring in the Bekaa Valley, and yet there is no mention of any of these atrocities and crimes in the text of this article, which is hagiographic in tone. - Ruthfulbarbarity 13:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How about cleaning the personal attacks from this talk page as well? --Astronaut 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What Astronaut said. Asabbagh 08:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"THE most ruthless regime"? According to whose classification of ruthlessness among regimes, effendim? Be they democratic or not, BTW : Adolf Hitler was initially brought to power by demagogy-filled, but unbiased and free national elections, we should never forget that. Democracy is no miracle protection against abuses either.
Back to topic, "the people demand to know your sources", sir. What ever made al-Assad such a uniquely horrible oppressor, compared to every single other arab world ruler? By all means, do quench our curiosity. It might bring some of us to concur with you then...
P.S.: Riddle me this, Batman: why was fellow-ruthless Ben Ali given sanctuary in Saudi Arabia, complete with his ton-and-a-half of looted national money? Was he too mellow for Assad's dark overlord standards?
I say, until further objective elements are presented, the international alignment of a dictator doesn't make them any worse (or better) than the countless others on this Allah-forsaken mudball. Here's looking at you, Plamegate. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Assad was criticized for Syria's presence in Lebanon which ended in 2005, and the US put Syria under sanctions partly because of this. He threatened many members of the Lebanese parliament in order to enforce the illegal accession of the pro-Syrian General Émile Lahoud to the Lebanese presidency in 1998."
A clean up is needed. Why is this mentioned if he didn't become president until 2000? He is NOT his father, this article seems intent on making him so. It looks like a feeble attempt character attack. Bashar, as far as I can tell has, done NOTHING particular offensive to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article really gives enough indication of the allegations leveled against Assad, which are numerous, and horrible, and whether are not they are considered false or a conspiracy, should still be discussed in their entirety. I suppose many are against his regime, but this is indisputably the same thing as against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed?[edit]

Anonymous user added something about a speech impediment. Removed this until a source can be cited. --Astronaut 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear all, I have heard that the Pres. Assad is Alavi, but not Sunni Muslem. Is that so? thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct, as it is stated in the second paragraph of the article. Bertilvidet 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you look up Alawites, you'll find that they are Shi'ites and not Sunnis.

  • The wife is Sunni, though. Funkynusayri 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Bashar al-Assad is a christian. Its clear when you see his wife and other female relatives do not cover their hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Many Muslims in Syria and elsewhere don't cover their hair. Alawis in particular never wear hijab, but many sunni and shia women also don't. He's not christian.Yazan (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Correct: laic/modern muslims do not feel compelled to cover their women's hair with blushing embarrassment. His wife's attire simply indicates that he's no fundie, no matter who he politically supports. However, Pres. Barack Hussain Obama IS NOT muslim, in spite of tenacious (and sneaky!) rumor. ;-) Issar El-Aksab (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Israeli War in Lebanon[edit]

I am going to delete the sentence that talks about how Israel lost the War in Lebanon in the Summer of 2006. I find the assertion that Israel lost that war to be false, and I'm sure most would agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, especially since it wasn't a war as much as a massacre of the lebanese. People need to get their facts straight.

The Israelis started that war and weren't able to reach their aims, which mean they have lost the war.

Can i ask you the reason why you think its false info?? Or because you can not admit that they lost like the 76 war ??

I don't think that it is necessarily false, but it is probably unproveable either way. The Summer '06 Israeli-Lebanon war is one that is shielded with controversy and POV, and it's a war that is difficult to say whether there were "winners" and "losers," largely because the goals, intentions, and "aims" of both parties -- Hezbollah and IDF -- were never clearly articulated. For what it's worth, if you really want to talk about goals, then every Islamic Middle-Eastern country has lost every war with Israel, because the goal of destroying Israel has not come to fruition... Thus showing the uselessness of talking about goals in non-traditional wars (like that between Lebanon and Israel in '06). Mike Murray 20:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OBE ?[edit]

Do you have a source for that statement? -- 11:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


"Shaa'b" seems to have the apostrophe in the wrong place.

Pic Change[edit]

Ive put a nice pic coz i dont think the old pic is nice

I've sourced another photo of Bashar & got the licence to use it, the quality is far better. I've changed the picture to the new one. Author - Ammar Abd Rabbo Source - License - Some rights reserved CC-BY-SA --rakkar (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, is it better? It could be good for the body of the article, but as the main photo? I think a photo of only Bashar would be better. I'll mess with it and see how it looks. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying. there are three possible photos, The headshot currently on the article with the floral design behind, the same photo with the designs shopped out and the Moscow photo I added. The reason I felt it was better was that the picture quality was much higher than the grainy headshot photos, and as well as depicting him normally, the grainy headshot photos make him look more like Basil Fawlty than usual. Do you think we should crop out his wife? --rakkar (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I certainly agree that the quality of the newer picture is a lot better, but I think the picture of only Bashar standing in a suit fits more for the infobox, as well, it is more representative of how he usually looks and seems more "official". The newer picture is better to illustrate his personal life I think. Take a look at the George W. Bush article for example, where a more "formal" picture is used in the infobox, and more informal pictures of he and his family are used in the body of the article.

Just uploaded a bigger version of the image by the way. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Was he a practicing ophthalmologist and if so during which years?


"Bashar resembles his father in every sense but is more subtly surgical in removing opposition."

This is unsourced and obviously POV. I believe a swift removal is in order. -- (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Is it just me or does the default look like a CGI/Graphic/Cartoon?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Personally ,Bashar al-Assad is a Holocaust denier himself , claiming that he doesn't have "any clue how Jews were killed or how many were killed" and that while a massacre of Jews took place during World War II, the perception in the Middle East is that the number of Holocaust victims was exaggerated. Links are,7340,L-3233327,00.html and LeUrsidae96 (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"that while a massacre of Jews took place during World War II, the perception in the Middle East is that the number of Holocaust victims was exaggerated."... He might be a lot of terrible things, but he's certainly not a Holocaust denier. Yazan (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He might not be one,but he gives aid and comfort to Holocaust deniers.Look at link for more info. However,he says the numbers of those murdered during the holocaust are exagerrated.Link is,7340,L-3233327,00.html LeUrsidae96 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC) I welcome your view,but it is best if you have evidence. Besides,not all middle-easterners have the same view.For instance,take Ahmadinejad.He is a Holocaust denier. 09:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Also,claims that the Holocaust numbers were exagerrated is considered Holocaust denial.For more information, see wikipedia article on Holocaust denial. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are deliberately distorting the source and adding POV material, he also said that "The Syrian leader added that he did not know whether the killing of Jews was carried out through shootings or the use of gas chambers, noting he is not an expert on the matter." and however, "The killing method or number of victims are not important, Assad argued." I am reverting. If you feel this is very important then you might want to file for an RfC. Yazan (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
najad said he doesn't believe it happened. Assad said numbers don't matter, a massacre is a massacre! read the source, PLEASE! Yazan (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in filing an RfC,this will end here.also,please mind your etiquette.LeUrsidae96 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

```` The term 'holocaust denier' is a smear to denigrate intelligent questioners and close conversations. Do you believe that the Germans in WW2 used an atomic bomb to vaporise 20,000 Jews in a village in Poland? If your answer is 'No' then you are a holocaust denier and face a long term in prison because this atomic bomb was an accusation made against the Germans by the Nuremberg military tribunals and it therefore must be believed. Do you believe it? Are all of your history texts wrong when they state the first atomic bombs used against populations were explode in Japan. The six million figure should be adjusted downwards by 20,000 if forensic proof is not available to prove the existence of this atomic bomb but the 'six million' is not actually a number. Nothing can be added or subtracted from it. It is text, like a trade symbol (e.g. the Flatulator 2000) and not a mathematical number. I prefer to believe the International Red Cross figure of 271,301, the total of all deaths from Typhus,old age and starvation due to allied bombing of food/transport infrastructure. The Red Cross has representatives in the camps during WW2 - are they holocaust deniers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


I'm not exactly sure if he can speak French.If he can,what level is it? LeUrsidae96 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article says "casual conversational French". He studied at al-Hurriya, which is a very francophone-oriented school, so I'm fairly certain he speaks very good french.
He said in an interview to ABC news that French is his foreign language — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Women have no souls" according to al-Assad.[edit]

Bashar al-Assad believes that women have no souls. Maybe that could be added the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that "could NOT be added to the article". So many things wrong with that recommendation, where to start?
- Why the anonymous letter-style "denounciation"? If you're not a registered user, it doesn't prevent you from mentioning a screen name, anything you like, but SOMETHING specific to you. Otherwise, what's to tell us you're not another professional spin-doctor or CIA agent lurker trying to manipulate Wikipedia, as has happened several times in the past? Not trying to sound ad hominem... but it's impossible to "ad hominem" an unknown person, anyway! Better that you introduce yourself open-facedly.
- Since Bashar al-Assad is not world-famous (like Ahmadinejad) for sensational polemic international statements, what's the relevance of that detail in an encyclopedic article? Should we also care whether he loves raw liver or despises Goethe's writings? Unless he's a notorious misogynist and it shows in the way he rules, that's rather pointless.
- There is no evidence that Assad is a very religious Alawite in the first place. The Baath is a laic party. Therefore I won't even bother to check whether that claim about Alawites is true in the first place. Irrelevant anyway. I myself was raised in a community whose religious belief is that "we're better than all the other miscreants", but I didn't adhere to that nonsense. "Objection, your Honor : hear-say!"
- Just because an article is published in a Western newspaper, is no guarantee of journalistic objectivity. Especially, media in anglo-saxon countries (like Canada) have many a time published unproven claims against "unfriendly regimes". It's called "fair game propaganda", baby. Not once does this Judi McLeod character remotely suggest having some sort of source for that "article". Give me a link to the official Syrian news agency REPORTING such a statement, in one form or another, originating from Assad himself, and I'll happily translate it myself to serve as a reliable reference. Because then, it could genuinely be called "news" from a meaningful source, in compliance with Wikipedia standards.
- The entire form and tone of that article you link to is... embarrassing, without anything specific to inform about. It doesn't report any NEWS. It's more like an editorial, and an organized pamphlet aimed against Assad to make him look bad to the readers. Throwing in anything and everything together at random, like nearly-official government propaganda against an "unfriendly regime". (Was Canada about to send unpopular reinforcements to Iraq in July 2006, I wonder?) The article's "catchy" title itself is never backed by any subsequent mention of a statement from the Syrian President. It was all just an excuse to reach the predictable negative, and still unbacked, conclusion. FYI, Bashar is VERY different from his father in at least one thing: in the second Gulf War waged by the US against Saddam, he backed the other side. In his days, old Hafez had sided with the Coalition...
In conclusion, I vouch for immediate dismissal. And I'm showing MY name. You can contact me anytime on my talk page: Issar El-Aksab (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Syria has one of the fairest gender equality policies in the Middle East, his advisor is female, the vice president is female, the minister of tourism and minister of construction are female and the head of Syrian TV is female, his wife is involved in lots of different charity and political activities and has done a lot of work to encourage females to get involved in politics, how on earth can Assad have said females have no souls if he has achieved one of the highest level of gender equality in the Middle East!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced text[edit]

Jouejati[1] argues that economic reforms have the potential to lead to political reforms.


The above cited text was removed in the last revision with the edit summary "ce", probably meaning "copy edit". I mention it here in case its removal was an oversight.

The link is dead but there is an archived copy here. I leave it to others whether and how this should be reinstated. Generally, please could editors be careful in how they decsribe their edits in the edit summaries. Removal of sourced text is more than copy editing, and removal of text sourced by dead links is definitely discouraged. -84user (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Weasel word alert?[edit]

With apologies, people, I need to raise the very sensitive issue of "terrorism" here. While there's no denying that Assad is an objective ally of some radical groups and allows/welcomes them in his country, I'm very bothered specifically by the formulation "He has been criticized for his [...] sponsorship of terrorism". Do you see what I'm getting at here? "Aiding and abetting terrorism" is a hazardous claim, simply because he provides sanctum to Hamas figures. The whole Isreali-Palestinian issue is a notorious can of worms, one person's "terrorism" is another's "resistance against invasion and occupation", and it is not our role to take sides. A Wikipedia article needs to carefully formulate objective, factual terms. Now, if he had officially praised Osama in 2K1, that would be quite different.

Need I remind you that while the majority of 9/11 perpetrators came from openly fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, and so does much of their funding, that country's article never mentions any "sponsorship of terrorism"? And for good reason it doesn't! Shades of gray, folks. Shades of gray...

As for his links with Hezbollah, when was the last time the latter hijacked a plane or bombed random civilians in a western country? Theirs too is a delicate to define position nowadays, their two main activities being internal Lebanese affairs and their conflict with Israel, again rather military in nature. The whole world has changed a lot since the Eighties. Just because the US Department of Foreign Affairs keeps sticking the word "terrorists" to all anti-zionist movements does not turn geopolitical propaganda into objective encyclopedic facts.

And, finally, regarding the assassination of Rafik Hariri (which CAN qualify as terrorism... or as a mere political assassination, really), Syria has always adamantly denied any involvement, and the interntional investigation still hasn't concluded otherwise. Even if it did one day, there is heated debate about that institution's neutrality, especially relatively to the USA.

So, better to state WHO exactly is calling Assad "a sponsor of terrorism", rather than use general terms that "aid and abet" a failure of Wikipedia's beautiful and strict objectivity... a risk I rather intensely perceived on this very talk page! As the would-be cogs of an impeccable mechanism of worldwide knowledge, we have a duty to beware of all biases, including the very real propaganda tendancies of "the System" in the West. "Show me a politician and I'll show you a liar", as the proverb goes.

We all need to stay wary of our own, individual, cultural biases. I know I always try to. I'm having a very hard time finding a satisfactory reformulation of that bit in the introduction. Maybe I'll try an edit at some point. But the help of seasoned contributors more expert in the nuances of the English language would be welcome. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Ledes are being misused (and not just in this article) to project a certain view and weight which is not encyclopedic. We have the body of the article and various related articles (Syrian protests, Assad family, Hafez al-Assad et al) in which contentious statements can be addressed and discussed properly. Flatterworld (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Attitudes toward Judaism[edit]

Yesterday I created a new section in the article for part of the text below and gave it the name "Statements about Jews." Another editor reverted the addition claiming that the information was not notable – a claim I demonstrated to hold no water shortly thereafter by the addition of more notable sources. Next came another editor, expanding the addition but moving it from "Statements about Jews" to "Presidency"→"Arab-Israeli conflict." Now, there's nothing wrong with the expansion; I even welcome it. But why was the section moved into "Arab-Israeli conflict," as though anything in the Middle East relating to Jews is necessarily a feature of the conflict? That strikes me as editorializing – and a perplexing instance of it at that. Now, I've elected to keep the addition under "Presidency" out of consideration for those arguing that it does not deserve a primary section all its own; however, I've taken it out of "Arab-Israeli conflict" with which it has nothing to do and renamed the subsection "Attitudes toward Judaism." The reason is that there's no longer just a comment about Jews but also an example of Assad's policy toward Syrian Jewry.—Biosketch (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

During the visit of Pope John Paul II to Syria in 2001, Bashar al-Assad accused Jews of having killed Jesus and of having tried to kill Muhammad.[1] "They tried to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Mohammed," al-Assad said.[2][3][4] On the other hand, Bashar has begun to fund the restoration of 10 synagogues, in Syria, and other buildings associated with Syria's Jewish community, which had numbered 30,000 in 1947.[5]


  1. ^ "Polish experience shaped Pope's Jewish relations". CBC News. 2005. Retrieved 7 May 2011. The decision to beatify Pius IX, the pope who kidnapped a Jewish child in Bologna and who put Rome's Jews back in their ghetto, was one question mark. John Paul's silence in 2001 when Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said Jews had killed Christ and tried to kill Mohammad was another.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "Pope appeals for Mideast peace". CNN. Damascus. 5 May 2001. Retrieved 7 May 2011. 
  3. ^ Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 107th Congress, First Session. Government Printing Office. 2001. p. 7912. Retrieved 7 May 2011.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "ADL Urges World and Religious Leaders to Denounce Syrian President's Anti-Jewish Diatribe Delivered in Presence of the Pope". Anti-Defamation League. New York. 6 May 2001. Retrieved 7 May 2011. 
  5. ^ Jews in Damascus Restore Synagogues as Syria Tries to Foster Secular ImageBloomberg, By Massoud A. Derhally - Feb 7, 2011 9:11 AM GMT
Put it into another section, doesn't need a section of its own for one single statement, that is undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The concern of not wanting a discrete section for just a few lines is understood. There is also this article about Syria (and hence indirectly Assad) inviting an Israeli rabbi to visit the country. So there are two reasons not to subsume the addition under another section: 1. there is no section where it naturally belongs, and 2. there is still more information with which to expand the addition such that it could stand on its own weight.
On a related note, I've removing the words "and other buildings associated with Syria's Jewish community," because that's not written anywhere in the Bloomberg source.—Biosketch (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like things taken out of context. It's clear Assad was responding to something, and that 'something' was purposely left out, making it appear Assad suddenly, out of the blue, 'attacked' Catholics and Jews. After all these years o keeping Syria secular, you're claiming he harbors sectarian hatreds? Doesn't sound likely to me, just looks like the usual desperate cherry-picking of quotes. Flatterworld (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You had better have a damn good reason for assuming bad faith and accusing me of deliberately leaving out context and cherry picking, otherwise I expect you to strike that comment out from your message immediately.—Biosketch (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I call it as I see it. Flatterworld (talk)

The paragraph should be integrated with the rest of the article - making a whole separate section around it is UNDUE (as if we made a separate section about his "attitude towards Christians", or even "attitude towards the English" etc). That paragraph is part of the subject of the Israel-Syria conflict, which includes the consequent loss of the Syrian Jewish community in 1948 and the deterioration of Synagogues etc; his 2001 statement is clearly relevant to the fact that his country is at war with the Jewish state.Avaya1 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is of no bearing on this content. That policy is relevant to content where there are conflicting sources and no consensus. No one disputes what Assad said about Jews. Furthermore, saying that the paragraph "is part of the subject of the Israel-Syria conflict" needs to be backed by a WP:RS, otherwise it is as good as a personal opinion. For now there is no objective reason to identify Assad's comments about Jews in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, the more I learn about this, the more it may be a perpetuation of a long history of similar attitudes in Syria's history. More on that next week, though. The important thing is that all assertions need to be verifiable, and the assertion that Assad accused the Jews of killing Jesus is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict does not meet that criterion.—Biosketch (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In this Der Spiegel interview from July 2001, Assad goes into considerable detail about his attitudes toward Jews and Judaism. It'll take me some time to translate the relative parts into English, so help will be appreciate from any contributors proficient in German.—Biosketch (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The rest of us use Google Translate. Meanwhile, I did some research and put the 'assertion' into its proper context: Assad was talking about the Israeli/Jewish state treatment of Muslims while he and the Pope were visiting a flattened city in the Golan Heights. So YES the quote was cherry-picked and YES Assad was responding to something. As I rightly suspected. When something sounds either too good or too bad to be true - it probably isn't. Apparently the Pope got a lot of requests from the Muslim leaders he met with on that trip, all asking him to intercede with the Israelis on behalf of the Palestinians. btw - this section of the article still skips around in time periods. Flatterworld (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the protracted delay. I'd have preferred to use something other Google Translate, but since you approve of it, you're invited to have a look at today's edit and share any problems you identify concerning it.—Biosketch (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Minor Events?!!![edit]

are you serious about this section?? more than 10000 Syrians have been murdered due to the military intervention to squash the protests and you call it "MINOR EVENTS".. this is extremely BIASED... I'm not gonna ask you to expand this section, at least change the name to "2011 Syrian Protests" or something, even the Syrian state-run media don't call "whatever is happening there" (let's keep the neutrality here) "MINOR".. so please, whoever wrote this should respect the IQ of the readers... I strongly call for neutrality on this section!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like someone from the Syrian government or one of their supporters is editing this section. The last sentence is particularly damning - "On June 21st, around 14 million civilians gathered cheering for the president and supporting his actions for a more democratic country and a safe country." Every news outlet (CNN, BBC, al Jazeera, etc.) is reporting that this is anything but "minor" and that Assad's actions are far from "democratic" or "safe." This section needs editing and perhaps a lock ASAP. Pjones (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be best only to remove "minor" for now and let the course of history decide if the title should be changed later. If it's just "2011 events" then it appears more neutral, that's at least a start.--Tomvasseur (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Shia or not Shia[edit]

It's my understanding from common knowledge that the Assad family was proclaimed Shia Muslim by Iranian clerics but that proclamation's validity is disputed by other authorities in the Muslim world. For quite a while now there's been slow-motion edit warring over the word "Shia" in the religion field of the infobox. This is something that merits thorough discussion here, instead of these weekly oscillations between yes-Shia/no-Shia. I've therefore inserted a comment into the infobox that'll hopefully encourage future contributors to explain their edits here.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it for now as it's unsourced per WP:BLPCAT. If someone wants to put it back they need to comply with that policy. I might have a look for sources myself a bit later but it can't stay there without a source. There may already be suitable sources already in the article somewhere that could be cited e.g. an interview or other sources where he "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" and which demonstrates that his religion is "relevant to [his] notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". Sean.hoyland - talk 11:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, nobody disputes that Assad is Alawi. Secondly, all sources agree Alawi is a branch of Shia islam. Hence "Alawi" or "Alawi Shia" or a similar variant is a correct description. It was a minor dispute between myself and an anonymous IP who can't make his mind up - that generally does not warrant a discussion. Sort of like saying catholic vs catholic christian. I have re-added the term and added a source. Pass a Method talk 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I'm disputing that saying that Assad's religion = Alawi Shia in the infobox complies with the policies of Wikipedia and I'm a somebody. Remember, the mandatory requirement is that he 1) "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" and 2) that the source demonstrates that his religion is "relevant to [his] notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". It's easy to find sources that say that his being from the Alawi community is important but we also need sources for the first point. We need sources that prove that he describes his religion as X, not his community, not his family background, his religion. We need sources that say that he is a practicing X. So, to use your example, we need a source where he actually says he is a practicing catholic. We can't say religion=catholic in the infobox because his parents where Irish catholics. I should add that the article has many, many sources. It seems very likely that one of those sources already has the required information it. It's just a case of finding it and citing it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it. The source[1] isn't enough for mandatory WP:BLPCAT compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this article by Bashar al-Assad is good enough to say religion = Islam. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

PassaMethod (talk · contribs), it isn't true that "all sources agree Alawi is a branch of Shia islam." This is exactly the point I was trying to stress. To be precise, Alawism most likely began as a branch of Shi'a Islam, but as it developed it took on characteristics that some Muslims considered heretical. Maybe it never went as far as Bahaism, but certainly there remain elements in Islam, particularly among the Sunnis, who dispute the validity of the Alawite claim to membership in the Shi'a community. I was wrong that it was an Iranian cleric who proclaimed Alawism a legitimate sect of Shi'ism. It was in fact a Lebanese cleric who issued that fatwa. Indeed, the Alawi article says as much in the "History" and "Beliefs" sections. It even says there are Sunnis who reject that Alawism is Islam at all, which I didn't know was still the case in our time.—Biosketch (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Sean Holyland I disagree for thee reasons. Firstly, many wikipedia readers wants to know which denomination he belongs to because of a current sectarian conflict in Syria. Secondly, that statement is not reliable since it was done with appeasement to the Sunni majority. See here. Thirdly, there's many reliable sources describing him as Alawi. Pass a Method talk 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
1. "many wikipedia readers wants to know which denomination he belongs" - I'm sure you are right but it isn't relevant to how we make content decisions. We need to follow policy. People throughout the world are obsessed with various forms of sectarian categorization of human beings for some reason but as editors here we have to try to forget about that and focus on sources and policy. I feel your pain but WP:BLPCAT is clear, Assad has to have "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question".
2. "not reliable since it was done with appeasement to the Sunni majority" - While I completely agree that it's very obviously politically expedient for Assad to talk about being a Muslim rather than self-identifying in another way, that isn't relevant to how we decide what goes in the infobox. It's relevant to the article body though. Assad describing himself simply as a Muslim in an article he authored is as reliable as it gets from the WP:BLPCAT perspective. It fully complies with the policy. I also think it's worth having religion=Islam in the infobox precisely because it's a requirement for presidency and so as the policy says, it's "relevant to [his] notable activities or public life". I'm not blind to what's going on here with Assad's self-identification but we are constrained by policy.
3. "there's many reliable sources describing him as Alawi" - of course, because he's Alawi but unless he uses that way of describing his religion we can't put it in the infobox. We have zero degrees of freedom. His coming from the Alawi community can be described in the article body but Wikipedia can't label living people with a religion without a source where they apply the label to themselves.
I think there's an important Wikipedia-BLP-principal at stake here, that BLPCAT has to be rigorously applied everytime no matter what editors and readers want. Editors can't be allowed to label living people with religious beliefs or sexual orientations without complying with BLPCAT. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
..and I think you need to self-revert because "Bashar al-Assad, belongs to the minority Alawite group" sourced to the Guardian is not the same as "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" so it is a WP:BLPCAT violation for the infobox. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, that line you're referring to in WP:BLPCAT was recently added here only a couple weeks ago, by a non-admin, without an apparent consensus. We'll see whether that policy lasts the distance. Secondly, it would not necessarily overrule long established WP:Verifiability rules. Either way, if you're convinced of your stance, instead of reverting me, you could go to WP:RSN for a third opinion. Pass a Method talk 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That is current policy. It has been discussed extensively. You are not complying with it. I have therefore reverted you. If you want to include this information in the infobox you need to get consensus for it and consensus is based on policy compliance. It's your responsibility per WP:BURDEN to prove that you are complying with policy. I don't think you are. In the meantime it should stay out of the article. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the place to go for third opinions on issues like this and I encourage you to use it. I've done what I can to source the religion attribute in the article according to policy. I wish there were a reliable source where Assad described his religion in more detail so that this issue can be resolved but I couldn't find one. You seem determined to ignore policy and insert information because it's "the truth". That's an unwise approach in a BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have posted the issue at BLP/N, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bashar_al-Assad_and_religion_infobox_value Sean.hoyland - talk 07:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this discussion is focused on BLPCAT. The article content is not a WP:Category. The community's advice for these two is not the same. We do not categorize a BLP without self-identification, but there is no matching restriction on article content, because it's possible to qualify or explain the association in the article. For example, in an article, we can present a nuanced or qualified statement like "Smallville News identifies his family as Alawite", which is perfectly acceptable. The infobox is expected to reflect information that is already presented (and sourced) elsewhere in the article. (This is why you rarely see a citation in an infobox: the citation and further details are supposed to be in the prose.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is focused on BLPCAT because this is only about the religion= entry in the infobox. There is currently no dispute about article content on this issue and I don't expect there to be one because in the article body things can be discussed in depth without being constrained by an attribute = "xyz" statement of fact. Ignoring the edit you just made to change the WP:BLPCAT policy here, infoboxes are within scope of WP:BLPCAT. Can I ask you to make your case at the WP:BLP/N entry rather than here. I would like to get as broad a discussion of this issue as possible at the noticeboard because it is a generic issue. Policy says "do X" and people must follow BLP policy however policy does not necessarily make sense in this case. I should add that I regard "Smallville News identifies his family as Alawite" becoming religion = Alawite in an infobox as an invalid transformation of information and orginal research. Coming from an X family does not verify that a living person identifies as X. Religion is, in my view, not the kind of thing that should be in an infobox. If the infobox entry said "Religious or ethnic group that RS say he belongs to =" I would much happier about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Infoboxes are supposed to summarize (which sometimes means losing nuances and details) the content of the article. If his connection to the Alawites is not worth mentioning in the actual text of the article, then it is not worth mentioning in the infobox at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
If the information transformation that occurs through summarization, losing nuances and details means that an infobox applies a label that BLP policy cares about to a living person that they haven't confirmed is the correct label through self identification, the BLP policy needs to explicitly say that is okay. At the moment it doesn't. That is the issue. It goes to the heart of ensuring and enforcing BLP compliance, not just here but in many articles with these ambiguities. Hundreds of sources could say the subject's "family are X religion" or "he is X religion". The subject himself could say nothing or something else for all sorts of reasons. What do we put in the infobox ? Which set of information takes precedence in a case like that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ Stability and Change in the Modern Middle East Kjetil Selvik, Stig Stenslie - 2011


We call this guy a president in the very short lead. I think President for Life is better, but not completely true. He gets a rubberstamp election every seven years or something, right?

I think we should mention something that separates him from a traditionally elected President, like Barack Obama, as opposed to a President who slithered in without fair popular election, like G W Bush (j/k).

Any suggestions? I don't wanna say "this guys a dictator," but the word "president" implies democracy. Modinyr (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think "President" only implies democracy to US citizens. We should just say what the sources say and not worry about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

" the President of the Syrian Arab Republic"

There are many different kinds of presidents, but if we say he is the President of a Republic, then it implies him having a mandate of the people. The lead also says...

He became president in 2000 after the death of his father Hafez al-Assad, who had ruled Syria for 29 years.

That kind of implies that his father was the autocrat of Syria and he inherited the position. It isn't completely true to say Assad became president after the death of his pops, there was an intermediate stage before the Younger got the rubberstamp to lead the Bath party and the country.

We should be presenting things encyclopedically. Ambiguity is not encyclopedic. I'm not sure what I'm advocating right now, I haven't gone hunting for sources. But the lead is real short and an explanation of what "President" and "Regional Sectretary of the Bath party" actually mean could be real neat-o. Modinyr (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China. The term "President" doesn't contain any information about the nature of a political system or any mandate. See President. Details wouldn't hurt though but remember that the lead is just a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So the article makes a case that this guy is an autocrat. The lead should allude to that. I still think President and Republic in the same sentence creates an untrue image in people's minds. The example of Hu Jintao is a good one. He is the President of China, but that is not what makes him the Paramount Leader. I don't think the Hu article's lead does a good job describing what that man's job is. I want to do better on this article with a lead that informs the reader about the true nature of his leadership. You can help if you want, or you can "not worry about it." Modinyr (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll not worry about it. There are many editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did it without any cites. It could be better, and DEFINATELY longer, but I'm ok with it for now.

Brazilian Flag[edit]

For me, as a Brazilian, it is uncomfortable to see Bashar Assad depicted in front of a Brazilian flag in his main Wikipedia photo. I think it is an excellent idea to find another portrait, either with a Syrian flag or with no flag at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 27 September 2011[edit] (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC) everything must stop so Mr. MINMEM and yours

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reform Process[edit]

More should be said about the reform process led by President Assad. My proposal is this:

On 20 June 2011, President Assad initiated a reform process that seeks to meet the demands of the Syrian opposition. The reforms are both political and economic in nature. Among the most sweeping of the announced reforms was President Assad's decree allowing the formation of new political parties.(source) Previously, only the left-wing parties that formed the National Progressive Front were permitted to operate. Other reforms include allowing a free press (source) and expanding opportunities for Syrian students (source). President Assad has also declared that the opposition will help rewrite the Constitution in order revitalize Syrian political life. (source) (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Assad, Libya and the SNC[edit]

Somebody should copy the text from Syrian National Council about the Libyan NTC cutting all ties with Assad and pasting it here for cross-reference. -- (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Acacia Road, west Acton[edit]

FWIW his wife Bashar al-Assad lived in Acacia Road west Acton. I have long forgotten the number but neighbours would surly remember.--Aspro (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

subject s name in Arabic[edit]

The subject s name is given in Arabic as Bashar Hafez al-Assad. Is that an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Assad Emails[edit]

Interesting info published by The Guardian:

Should be added to article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I checked they are just rumours. Even the Guardian article uses qualifiers throughout the piece. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
A similar discussion is going on at Asma al-Assad's Talk page. I don't think it's fair to say that the e-mail are rumors. The question is whether they are authentic or fabricated by the Syrian opposition who supplied the Guardian with the e-mail. The e-mail have now been reported by many different sources, not just the Guardian, although it's clear that the Guardian is still the originator of the story. Some publishers, including The New York Times, are now independently confirming at least some of the e-mail. I'm not sure whether this should be included in the WP article at this point or whether it's premature given the background of the leaked e-mail. Obviously, if it were included, it would have to be done very carefully so as to note who leaked the e-mail and the issues of authenticity. I certainly don't think there's any hurry to include anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
In Dr. K's defense, just because something is reported by many different sources does not necessarily prove authenticity. A lot of what is published by various sources starts with one originator, which later snowballs into something bigger when other sources ride on the same coattails, so to speak. I have reviewed the New York Times article and it again, seems to be one-sided. I reviewed The Guardian article that the NY Times refers to and I would like to address a couple things that the NY article failed to build upon. First, the alleged email accounts, and were allegedly for only close family and friends. Which means, Lord Powell (former ambassador), Sir Andrew Green (former adviser), or Thomas Nagorski (ABC News Director) had no direct access or contact to the email accounts. The Guardian contacted only 10 people whose email addresses were in the cache of 3,000 of the alleged emails. Out of the 10 people contacted, only five people have confirmed that the email exchanges took place. However, here's the catch: two of the emails, which were from Sir Andrew Green, Britain’s former ambassador in Syria, were not addressed to the alleged email account. Rather, one of the emails were sent to Bashar al-Assad's father-in-law, and the other was addressed to members of the British Syrian Society. Lord Powell, Madeline Thatcher’s former foreign policy adviser, who is also one of the society’s former trustees, said the email looked familiar but could not positively verify the authenticity or actual existence. Somehow these emails, which were addressed to Assad's father-in-law and the British Syrian Society ended up in the alleged email accounts - I assume via forwarding. I don't consider that "verified". Second, another email that was forwarded to includes a correspondence between Thomas Nagorski, ABC News' managing director of international coverage and Sheherazad Jaafari, Assad's adviser. The correspondence was to arrange the Assad interview with Barbara Walters. Again, this was a correspondence between Nagorski and Jaafari that was forwarded to the alleged email account -- there was no direct contact. Now, the other emails that The Guardian has supposedly verified pertains to the alleged email account that people are assuming belonged to Asma al-Assad, The Guardian contacted four British suppliers whom the email account holder ordered goods from. The four suppliers have confirmed that email exchange between the email address took place. However, another catch. The goods purchased and the email exchanges were under "Alia Kayali", thus the 'AK' in the email address. I don't see how The Guardian can authenticate this and positively connect this to Asma al-Assad? Unless the goods were sent to the Assad's residence? Just a few things to consider, before automatically assuming and accepting the supposed "confirmations". Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of work. It's okay for us, as editors, to interpret what reliable sources say in terms of what we report in the article. It's okay for us to take note that when a reliable source says something obvious like "rumored", we don't necessarily have to report it, even though it comes from a reliable source. However, we cross the line when we start rejecting what a reliable source says because of our own independent analysis. I'm not necessarily saying that's what you're doing, Etoiles, because it would require me to do a lot more work than I feel like at the moment to say it with confidence, but that's my concern when reading your impressive post. Mind you, neither now, nor in my post above, am I advocating that we include the e-mail in this or in the wife's article, just continuing the disussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha, it was not a lot of work at all, Bbb2. I just read two articles (NY Times and original Guardian) and compared the two. Obviously the original article had much more information. Each article tried to put their own spin on things, with the NY Times leaving out a lot of details. You already know my stance on this. I don't think opposition members are reliable journalist or sources as they are clearly biased and have their own agendas. I would say the same for any information released by the Syrian media, as it is strictly controlled by the government. I don't do anything in life without questioning. And I love evidence and proof. As I said on the Asma al-Assad Talk page, the information from the emails can be used in the article, but we have to note that these emails are alleged. And I am fully aware you are not advocating nor shutting down the use of these emails in the articles; you have made that clear and I respect you for not jumping the gun. All I'm saying is that we need to really invest time into researching these emails and be strict, as well as cautious, with what we include in the article. I do know one thing is clear: the opposition who hacked and distributed these alleged emails wanted them spread to as many sources as possible; including The Guardian, Al Arabiya, and CNN being only a few of the sources they chose to distribute the emails. But lets wait for other editors who are more invested in this matter to speak. If I hear any officially authenticated info, I will be sure to share. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I had to back and look at the Talk page of Asma's article because I didn't remember your saying it was okay to include the e-mail as long as the word "alleged" was used, but, sure enough, in your previous IP life, that's what you said. I think I'd favor something more along the lines of unauthenticated or unconfirmed rather than alleged, but I'd still like to see any proposed material (another editor added some stuff to the Asma article that I reverted twice but to no avail) before making a judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion. My only clarification at the moment is that when I used the word "rumours" in my post above, I did not mean that the emails were rumours. They are obviously real. Someone wrote them and are now being distributed. But since their authenticity has not been confirmed, all the emails are doing at the moment is spread rumours about their targets. Obviously we cannot take unconfirmed claims as facts. This is what I intended to convey in my initial post here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, Dr.K., and thanks for clarifying your position. I must say I'm surprised that this e-mail controversy isn't seeing more "action" in this article and on this Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. It's always nice talking to you. For a change, it is good to be surprised for lack of action. :) Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
when etoiles des mers says 'we have to invest time researching these e-mails' I dont think we do - don't we reflect what is out there - we don't research e-mails - how would etoiles do that - what does etoiles mean by 'officially authenticated' info - we reflect whats out there in the independent, the guardian etc in the news, what historians and journalists are saying etc - authentic or not , opnion has been generated and the image of the regime affected - we should reflect that imo - i suspect this is a coterie? a snake-nest? of pro-assad pov pushers, thats all. Sayerslle (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You can keep your suspicions to yourself. I have warned you on your Talk page because you have already clearly breached WP:3RR (and not the first time, either).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also advise you stop your heavy-handed characterisations of other editors if you wish to continue editing here without interruptions. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
i don't see why the question of their authenticity is so essential - they are real as you say - they have been widely remarked upon - i remembr being told about the Zinoviev letter in some lesson - and I dont recall the context of the letetr exactly - it was a forgery but it still became something that was worthy of remarking on - the e-mails, whatever their provenance- have occasioned wide real-world comment and occasioned fresh analysis of the assad regime , his circle, and his wife. Sayerslle (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source about them:

Just say "the e-mails, provided by X, say Y" and we are good to go. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Bashar's Education / schooling[edit]

The entry for Bashar al-Assad's schooling is incorrect. He first attended the French private school known as Laique in Damacus at age three in 1965, and he continued there until 1981, when because of concern about his poor grades in certain subjects, his parents transferred him to an all-male private school (with smaller class sizes) called Le Frere, where he completed his secondary schooling for two years before he entered the University of Damascus. He was not an excellent student. At his own admission in an interview with biographer David Lesch he said he was an average student, and two of his primary school teachers at Laique confirmed this with him in personal interviews. This information can be found on pages 12-15 of 'The New Lion of Damascus: Bashar Al Asad and Modern Syria' by David Lesch (Yale University Press, 2005).Yaleup (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should go ahead and change the information if the source gives such detailed information about his education. If someone objects after the change then they'll be able to raise their objection here on the talk page. It should also force someone to fact check your source.--Guest2625 (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
shouldn't this be at the bottom of the page where new conversations are added? Happy monsoon day (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

-Didn't he go to medical school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC) whatever it is it should have some kind of authoritiive citation shouldnt?

We Alawites are not Shia[edit]

Yes we are close to Shiites in some things but we're ALAWIS,ALAWITES not SHIITES. We're different. Please edit his religion to Alawite or Alawi Muslim or Alawi Islam but NOT Alawi Shia Islam ... This is an offense to us alewites... it seems like we doesn't exsist.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you exist. Alawits are branch of Shia Islam. It's like Capitalism (Sunni Islam) and Socialism (Shia Islam); Socialism also has lots of branches. --Wustenfuchs 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The IP seems to have a different view from most Alawites. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the WP:OR section "International Public Relations"[edit]

Nowhere in the cited source that you include does it mention “Branding” or any synonym to that effect. Neither does the sourced article itself say anything along the lines of him hiring the firm to promote his image.

Your addition read:

"In order to promote his image and branding overseas, Assad hired a number of American-based PR firms and consultants, such as Brown Lloyd James.66

What the source does in fact say is limited to this:

The Syrian government hired an international public-relations firm to help coordinate a Vogue magazine profile for Asma al-Assad, Syria’s first lady.

That is a far stretch from what you construed from it. This is a clear case where you have misused a citation constituting WP:OR. I have roll-backed the addition of the section. Veritycheck (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The specific word "branding" isn't used, but the NYT specifically says "shaping image", etc. The Hill citation is only supporting the mention of Brown Lloyd James, and the NYT is for the section in general. I think the addition is neutrally phrased, but you are free to edit it to reflect the sources if you think you can do better.
I can't understand why you deleted the section.Avaya1 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I have searched the NY Times article as you requested on my talk page. I have yet to find an instance of the article stating that Assad hired Brown Lloyd James to promote his branding overseas. If you do not remove this WP:OR statement yourself, I will delete it tomorrow. If you can produce such a citation that backs your claim, please provide it here and quote the part of the article which you believe supports your assertion. Veritycheck (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of quotes in the article.

"With the help of high-priced public relations advisers who had worked in the Clinton, Bush and Thatcher administrations, the president and his family have sought over the past five years to portray themselves in the Western media as accessible, progressive and even glamorous."

"But the Assads have been especially determined to burnish their image, and hired experts to do so. The family paid the Washington public relations firm Brown Lloyd James $5,000 a month to act as a liaison between Vogue and the first lady, according to the firm."

"The campaign to make the ruling family the face of a more Westernized and open Syria began in 2006, when Mrs. Assad approached the public relations firm Bell Pottinger in London. Bell Pottinger did not set up interviews for Mrs. Assad directly, but advised her on how to set up a communications office in Damascus to help shape her image." Avaya1 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree there are plenty of citations in the article. However, none of them say, "that Assad hired Brown Lloyd James to promote his branding overseas."
This is a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. I believe you are familiar with it and am perplexed as to why you haven't spotted it yourself.
Let me break it down for you:
  • Your first citation doesn't even mention Brown Lloyd James, so let's leave it out as it does not support the sentence in question.
  • Your third citation also doesn't mention Brown Lloyd James, again it can't be used to support the sentence in question.
  • Your second citation does mention Brown Lloyd James but DOES NOT SAY that they were engaged "to promote his image and branding overseas". What it DOES say is that the firm was paid "to act as a liaison between Vogue and the first lady", nothing more and nothing less.
The assertion that it says they were hired to promote Assad's branding overseas is WP:OR. It is not stated in the citation at all. Do you get it now? That's why I am deleting it. I suggest you reword your contribution to reflect the citations staying mindful of WP:SYNTH Check the link for further examples if you require more examples. Veritycheck (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That sentence ("In order to promote his image and media portayal, Assad hired PR firms, incl Brown Lloyd James") was supported specifically by the citation (see below). But I also agree that the wording left room for improvement and I have re-written it .Avaya1 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
"But the Assads have been especially determined to burnish their image, and hired experts to do so. The family paid the Washington public relations firm Brown Lloyd James $5,000 a month to act as a liaison between Vogue and the first lady, according to the firm."
Much better and more importantly - accurate. Veritycheck (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


During the Syrian uprising, activists and protesters have called for President al-Assad's resignation.

Er, I think it has gotten well beyond that point at this juncture. Shits gotten real, so to speak, and the lead needs to be updated. This ain't "calling for resignation" time anymore, there's gunfire in the capital. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor typo needs edited[edit]

Under 2011-2012 subsection there is the following linked text on the last paragraph of that section: referendum on an update to the nations constitution.

Nations should be nation’s with apostrophe s to show possessive. this was already done Happy monsoon day 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

his rule is disputed[edit]

bashar no longer controls all of syria,the opposition now controls parts of syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with you his rule Disputed now ne loger controls all of syria .. (Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC))

That's a non-neutral point of view, please stick to facts. No matter how much land the opposition controls, but for now it seems half of Idlib, and pockets of Daraa, Homs and Deir, he is still legally and per the United Nations the official president of Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal rule is based on legitimacy of rule. If a ruler is deemed unjust, they lose the right to rule. In other words, being a legal ruler does not mean one is the legitimate ruler. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

His rule is Disputed Now,He has moved to latikia as when Gaddafi moved from Tripoli to Sirte (Alhanuty (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)) .

Why is his religion listed as Alawi?[edit]

there is no Alawi religion, just as there is no Ismaili, Ahmadiyya, Twelver, Sufi religions.

they are different sects of one faith, Islam.

Ayatollah Musa Sadr, Ayatollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Sistani have declared all of them Shia.

according to the religious rebels in Syria no one besides Sunni are Muslim, so please, can we stick to religious reality and use the term "Alawi Muslim" or "Shia Muslim" for Bashar/Maher/Hafez's pages ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

He is an Alawite Muslim. It's important to mention the sect he belongs to because sectarian dynamics are playing a major role in the ongoing conflict in Syria. Therefore, his religion should be listed as "Alawite Islam," not merely "Islam." -Anonymous

His staff[edit]

Is it acceptable to add important members? (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2012[edit]

Under Foreign relations> 'Assad was criticised for Syria's presence in Lebanon which' , correct spelling of criticized. (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter? "Criticised" is the spelling in most of British English, and there isn't really a single variety of English that's used here. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

President or dictator?[edit]

On the beggining of the article it introduces Assad as president of Syria. Is he an elected president or actually a dictator? 688dim (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Elected president serving a 7-year term. --Wüstenfuchs 07:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Usually in most countries the presidents are elected for 4 - 5 years. Is also there a Parliament with elected MPs or he rules alone the country? 688dim (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In Russia it's 6... so Putin is a dictator? The mandate duration is not important at all. And yes, MPs are being elected, last election was held in May 2012 as I recall. The President is appointed by the Parliament, if his party won majority of seats he will be the President. Now, President in Syria is head of government and in most of the countries that is a prime minister. Example, in Croatia parliament elects Prime Minister, similiar like in Syria and Croatia is not a dictatorship. --Wüstenfuchs 21:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course Assad is a dictator. Hitler was democratically elected, Mubarak was "elected", Saleh was "elected" and Mussolini was "elected". The method of coming in to power means little. A dictator is anyone who rules with authoritarian polices. Syria ranks among the lowest in both Human rights and Democracy index, conducted by non partisan NGOs. Yes Assad is a dictator.

Instant Google definition: A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. A person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere.

Marriam-Webster definition:

a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome

b : one holding complete autocratic control

c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively Zenithfel (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was elected and changed the way of rule, he implemented a totalitarian regime later. Mussolini did the same etc. And Assad has neither b or c. I mentioned example of Croatia: parliament appoints a prime miniter, like in majority of countries. That's not a characeristic of a dictatorship at all. --Wüstenfuchs 13:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the fact that makes a president dictator is the way he/she uses his/her power. Now Syria is on civil war and it is doubtful if the Syrian people still want Assad as president 688dim (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering number of votes his party got... I don't doubt they still want him. The turnout was 54% and he still won. The refugees in Turkey also carry his pictures and call for his victory. --Wüstenfuchs 14:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Turn out was low because Assad was the only candidate running in the election, making the election turnout and results pointless and undemocratic. As for refugees carrying his picture? All that would prove (if it is even a real thing, which it isn't) is that Assad really is actually a dictator who has cultivated a cult of personality. بروليتاريا (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Lol, nooot. :D I'm talking about the May 2012 election acctualy... so... And about refugees, it's true. Turkish authorities found this to be a problem. Search on google if you wish. And if you consider Syrian refugees to be stupid and not able to think for themselves - your problem. --Wüstenfuchs 16:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You are the one assuming Syrians are too stupid to think for themselves, needing a totalitarian dictator to tell them what to do and think. And a rigged election in the midst of an armed conflict (where the Ba'athist bloc gives up one seat) is as much of a joke as any of the previous "elections" in Syria in the Ba'athist era. بروليتاريا (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, in case that on the last elections Assad was the only candidate, as you mention, does not question the credibility of the elections?688dim (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In last election he wasn't the only candidate. See Syrian parliamentary election, 2012. --Wüstenfuchs 14:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The question is that if today there were elections in Syria, would Assad be elected again? 688dim (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say... but I believe he has a better chance then anyone else. Syrian National Council was in Turkey whole the time and didn't communicate with people at all, people in streets think of the FSA as bunch of tievs because of whom they have no watter, food etc (they blame them for the war). --Wüstenfuchs 21:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well to my mind I find it quite weird that the Syrian people still want Assad as a president. There is not any poll to ascertain this. Also, the recent bombing in Turkish borders by the Syrians (the rebels or the goverment?) will create more problems as Turkey wants now to attack to Syria.688dim (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

More sources[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV violation re: Russia[edit]

On 16 July 2012, Russia voicing concern at the blackmail on Syria by the western nations, laid to rest any speculations that it was distancing itself from Bashir Al-Assad.

How is the latter part of this sentence regarding speculations anything other than an NPOV violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by APairOfDocks (talkcontribs) 18:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Reference 34 Link[edit]

The YouTube link for reference 34, the ABC interview on al-Assad, links to a 'private' YouTube video that is inaccessilbe to anyone without uploader's permission. Can we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wboudreau (talkcontribs) 22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Relations Clarification[edit]

I think the following sentence should be revised: "The latter category would include most political parties other than Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad."

Please list some examples of "most political parties", and perhaps use "excluding" to denote Assad's lack of poltical association with groups such Hezbollah, et al.

It seems somewhat redundant to name the parties with which Assad is not affiliated without naming one example of any of the opposition parties he is (stated in the previous sentence) -- it's almost as if the author of this section was going out of their way to include well-known groups that evoke politically charged feelings. Wouldn't it make more sense to name whatever parties the article claims Assad is affiliated with rather than the the ones he is not? At the very least, if these groups' names are to be used, perhaps consider using them in a subsection and explicitly state the nature of their relationships (or lack thereof) with Assad.

One reason to be explicit about Assad's relations with the above mentioned groups is that a significant number of people are unaware that a political spectrum actually exists in this geographical region, or of the purported political differences espoused by the different factions or parties (i.e. secular/theocratic), and due to this, might blindly lump political parties in predominantly Islamic nations together. Although I acknowledge that political paradigms like "left/right or secular/theocratic" are in themselves simplifications of ideaologies and beliefs, they are conventions that may be useful in initiating further inquiry by readers and serve to expand what are even simpler one-dimensional notions of this topic. I realize and concede that in practice, some groups that are presumably politically polar opposites paradoxically often share similarities, and that the nature of world politics is complex and nuanced, but in short, please bear in mind that many people not from this region are unable to differentiate between groups such as the ba'ath party or al qaeda -- to be frank, Im not sure a former president was even aware....(kidding...sort of). (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

here, was a few word to said (free for islam not for war);change to new presiden)human right is looking a good save presiden — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

links to should be changed to[edit]

SANA changed the web address, please apply these changes to the current article links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Assad no longer in Damascus, hiding on a ship in the Mediterranean[edit]

This would explain why he has stopped being seen in public for months now: Report: Assad on warship with Russian security — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Must be a pretty fucking huge ship then: And since when was "Saudi Arabia's al-Watan newspaper" anything other than a mouthpiece of the Saudi family? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"rare public speech" would be the important part of that article you linked. Obviously he was flown in and straight back out after his attempt to rally what is left of the faithful. Which is a shame as this means his reign of terror probably won't meet the same sudden (and... sharp) end as his peer Gaddafi's did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Lol, I remember a few months ago, "Saudi intelligence" indicated the Assad family was hiding in London. Turned out to be bollocks, as always. "Saudi intelligence" is synonymous with misinformation. Anyone who believes it is either beyond naive or in on the gig. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, it seems that the same pro-yihadist agit-prop machine that disparage about martyr Muammar Gaddafi being in Venezuela in 2011, is doing the same now with President Assad. Some useful western world puppets never learn...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Assad's mother flees Syria[edit]

Notable as now only Bashar and his badly injured brother Maher survive in Syria as members of the Assad family: Assad's Mother Leaves Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashabasouri (talkcontribs) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Many unsourced assertions throughout article[edit]

This is not only a Biography of a Living Person, it is also the biography of a currently sittinghead of state. This person has been a head of state for over twelve years and his BLP has large sections with contentious assertions that lack any citations at all. Per WP:ProveIt, these sections and assertions can be removed at any time by any editor. I tagged the ones that I thought were most problematic to encourage better sourcing. Regards, Veriss (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is the issue of sectarian war between Sunni and Shia ignored?[edit]

I am not an expert, but I know that the issue of Sunni countries vs Shia countries is a major factor in determining loyalties and allies among Arab countries. For example, Iran, and now Iraq has large Shia populations - and that is one reason why they support Bashar. Hezbollah is also Shia.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are mainly Sunni and have been strong supporters of the rebels.

So when the article talks about possible peace agreements, it is important to know that Islam sects play a big role in preventing agreements. C6h12o2 (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


He lost worldwide his legitimation. Referring him still as President would take part with Russia and Iran. (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some people are a bit lost, WP is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Go elsewhere with your pro-yihadi agit-prop, boy...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC) (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013[edit]

Please edit or improve this part in the section "onor and awards":

"| width="80px" | ITA OMRI 2001 GC-GCord BAR.svg | style="font-size:90%;"|Knight Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic | style="width:8em; font-size:90%;"| Italy | align="center" style="width:10em; font-size:90%;"|11 March 2010 | align="center" style="font-size:90%;"|Rome | style="font-size:90%;"|Italian highest ranking honour. | style="font-size:90%;"|[1]"

Because: On September 28, 2012, the President of the Italian Republic signed a decree revoking the award already conferred to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for unworthiness. On the same day the order was countersigned by the Prime Minister, completing the procedure. On 31 August 2012 was obtained the restitution from the Syrian authorities of the insignia belonged to President Assad.

reliable sources below:

thank you. (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done See below. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 21:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ Dettaglio decorato (in Italian)

Edit request on 15 June 2013[edit]

Please edit or improve this part in the section "onor and awards":

| ITA OMRI 2001 GC-GCord BAR.svg | Knight Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic | Italy | 11 March 2010 | Italian highest ranking honour.

Because: On September 28, 2012, the President of the Italian Republic signed a decree revoking the award already conferred to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for unworthiness. On the same day the order was countersigned by the Prime Minister, completing the procedure. On 31 August 2012 was obtained the restitution from the Syrian authorities of the insignia belonged to President Assad.

So for these reasons I ask you to remove this award from the list "honor and awards"

reliable sources below: thank you. (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:Guest2625. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 21:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This shouldnt be deleted, but stated that it had been revoked, as Im gonna do. Otherwise would be simply falsify and hide history, something that several editors in WP seem to like...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Malware Link Removal[edit]

--Gary Dee 15:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bashar is not a president, he is a dictator[edit]

Bashar is a dictator, he was not elected by the Syrian people, he came to power after his fathers death in 2000 who in turn seized power through a coup d'etat. He has ruled Syria with an iron fist killing 120.000 of his own people to stay in power and is responsible for crimes against humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

One does not negate the other. Please stop spreading libelous lies; this is not a forum.Beingsshepherd (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
How has he killed "120.000 of his own people" when half of them are his supporters, according to the opposition itself? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, at least half of those killed opposition activists have confirmed as government supporters (soldiers, militiamen, officials) and at least a third of the remainder have been confirmed as rebels (combatants). So the actual civilian death toll is no more than 35,000-40,000. And at least part of those deaths (Alawite civilian deaths) were the rebels fault. P.S. You should know that the guy Hafez Assad deposed in the 1970 coup d'etat, Salah Jadid, actually also came to power in the 1966 coup detat, when he deposed Michel Aflaq. And the government that Aflaq led came to power after the 1963 coup in which Nazim al-Kudsi's government was deposed. Also before that you had the 1949 and 1954 coup. So that's I think five coups in total in just 15 years before the Assad's came to power, after that, no coups for more than 45 years. As I see it, the country was more disfunctional before the Assad's arrived. Sidenote, the original 1949 coup which deposed the democraticaly-elected president of Syria, Shukri al-Quwatli, was eventually proven to had been backed and organised by the American CIA. So, you reap what you sow. EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Add to that that Sunni civilians have been killed by rebels as well (sometimes for reasons not even linked to the war, but to sharia), as well as Sunni regime loyalists. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Logically he is the ruler of syria,Assad didn't kill 120,000 he is responsible for the deaths in various ways by killing Sunni civilians and who opposes him,and putting alawite Syrians in a sectarian and losing war that is draining the alawites demographically so he could and his family stay in power,and most of the supporters who were killed were soldiers and militias who came to obey assad's orders to kill civilians,and EcoGrak the golden ages of the syrian economy and democracy was during the 1950s,and most rulers even if they came from coups where from the Sunni majority of syria,not from a minority,and the Sunni majority was abused during hafiz rule,and alawites have been given very special treatment from hafiz favoriting them over the majority of syria,and Also when the syrian people protested against the coups of 1949 and 1954,the coup leader didn't drag syria to a civil war,they just peacefully left power,and even though hafiz made some projects,he led syria to humiliating defeats in 1967 as defense minister and 1973 and 1974 as president,and he led brutal crackdowns against people opposing him.Alhanuty (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood and Takfiris worldwide have been waiting for this war since 1982. The "Arab Spring" was just a pretext to get started. Since this is an existential war for Alawites, and it is going much better than anyone expected, you can pretty much give up on a Takfiri victory. What's happening in Egypt now shows that the fight against the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with sectarianism. It doesn't matter who ruled Syria, the MB would attempt a power grab anyhow. And even if Bashar dies or whatever, the battle will go on, because it is really not about him. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This war is sectarian,against the majority of the syrian people,who want democracy,and with Assad leading the alawites to the abyss,also MB is a moderate populist political party and it was the syrian people not only the MB who protested against Assad and want an end for totalitarian rule.Alhanuty (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so tell me, is Sisi of Egypt also an evil, sectarian Alawite? FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

He is a military dictator,the de facto ruler of Egypt ,staged a coup d'état ,and betrayed his oath as defense minister,overthrowing Egypt first democratic president,p.s doesn't care if he is from MB,BUT STILL HE IS EGYPT'S FIRST ELECTED PRESIDENT,in egyptian history,(even if I criticize him for some mistakes during his rule),using an excuse that 30 million people came out against,saying that google earth said that,although google earth denied that they gave numbers,and secondly the western and southern and Sinai and some northern governorates are very pro-morsy,tahrir square can only hold 800,000 Protesters by using logical math,between three and four millions came out against morsi,mostly not because of political reasons,but for the electricity and gas crisis which mysteriously ended after morsi was deposed,and the first demands were not morsi overthrow,but for early parliamentary elections,then presidential elections,which morsy wanted to stage the first one,and make an referdum for the second one,but Sisi used the crisis to intervene and overthrow democracy,and return mubarak's remanents to power,which he did,and to be simple the egyptian society is divided over the issue,two equal opinions,one with,another against.Alhanuty (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Sisi is massacring protesters daily in Egypt, yet you don't explain this with "sectarianism". So why are you accusing the Syrian regime of sectarianism? Most of Assad's supporters are Sunnis, and most of the Syrian army is Sunni. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no sectarianism in Egypt,situation is different there is two political point of views,with and against coup,Sisi is killing the protesters just to return the fear back ,and to return the mubarakite state back,and crushing everything related to Jan 25 revolution,in syria,it is now sectarian. His army or his militia is now completely alawite,all the Sunni are against him ,sunnis who are with Assad are supporting him fearing torture or are from the rich class who is benefiting from Assad, and in the beginning of the uprising Assad sectarianized the protests when his intelligence infiltrated the protests,and spread sectarian rhetoric,and by faking in 2011 that there were jihadi groups in syria,and releasing jihadis from prisons,this sectarianized the uprising,now before Assad sectarianization you had cities like Latakia and baniyas and Tartus and even alawites protesting against corruption and against Assad's rule,and Druze and Christians were also protesting,but after the sectarianization by Assad ,alawites who protested went silent and began supporting Assad because they thought that there were really jihadi in syria as the syrian media said, (which was a fabrication by Assad to justify crushing protests and sit-ins) and others went neutral,,and his supporters now are mostly alawites and some minorities fearing for what would come.Alhanuty (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Assad will not stay long ,if rebels lose 2,000 fighters they could replace them from the Sunni population ,if Assad loses 2,000 he cannot replace them from the alawites,he used up all alawite recruits,and if he uses Sunni troops prisoned in their barracks,they will defect immediately.he is In a losing position for the long period,and did a more stupid thing by using chemical weapons,which just make his situation dire.Alhanuty (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, now you're just spouting propaganda. Most of Assad's backers are Sunnis, and the army still has a lot of Sunnis. If that wasn't the case, the regime would had fallen by now. Secular Sunnis are with the regime, and they're at least half of the Sunnis of Syria. Just like secular Sunnis are with Sisi. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of his supporters are alawites, secular Sunnis are not a majority,only rich Sunnis support him and Sunnis who are fearing if they say something against Assad that they would be tortured,,and that is based from reliable reports.Alhanuty (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  • You are wrong. He still has a sizeable Sunni support (most secular Sunnis). Even if he only had support of 30% of Syrian Sunnis, they would still amount to more people than there are Alawites in the country. On the other hand, the only people who support the "uprising" now are Islamists or people who were paid by the Qataris. Regular Sunnis have become tired and afraid of the Islamists who rule them now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2013[edit]

Please revise/correct the following:

This statement "Until he became president, Bashar al-Assad was not greatly involved in politics..." contradicts the just-preceding description of his involvement in politics of Lebanon in 1998.

A "gradual withdrawal... beginning in 2000", could not have been "precipitated" (caused) by the event of 2005. A "gradual withdrawal" was proposed in 2005 and rejected by the international community, resulting in the complete withdrawal in April, 2005. Citation [48] referring to the Charlie Rose interview of 2006 is not to be found, although the one of 2010 is available on Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the 2013 Charlie Rose interview reflected in the article? --Lawfare (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


In this section, it sounds like Syria has to have an open market and capitalist economy. This presumption is not objective and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msegemen (talkcontribs) 21:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014[edit] (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Awards given by Two Sicilies?[edit]

Why at the bottom of the page the are two awards given by the Kingdom of Two Sicilies? It doesn't exist anymore since the Italian reunification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RampoParma (talkcontribs) 19:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Because, even though the Kingdom of Two Sicilies no longer exists, people around the world are still being awarded these distinctions. Please check here. - Gopalan evr (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Bias in the support section[edit]

The man heads a party with "Socialist" in its name and has been endorsed by various socialist heads of state, but the article gives more promimence to statements by some very minor far-right figures. This is clearly a breach of the neutral point of view policy. (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Adolf Hitler also headed a party with "Socialist" in its name: The National Socialist German Workers' Party (AKA the Nazi Party). Nulla Taciti (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
And a Democrat founded the KKK. Yes, the world is complicated, address the point instead of these useless red herrings. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Nulla Taciti, so, what we can deduce from your strange statement is either: a) if someone supports a "socialist" party it can be taken out of context and arbitrarily used as an accusation or a warning because Nazis also had the word "socialist" in their name, or b) that every "socialist" party can possibly have hidden motives. Who taught you such deranged logic?
Incredible. What the OP probably tried to say is that you have to have two sides of the story to present an objective and unbiased article. Not accusations or allegations directed from one side only, by notoriously slander-friendly Western institutions and individuals with geopolitical interests in the region in question.
Should we learn from history, or just keep ignoring it when it repeats? (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not actually what was complaining about. There's plenty of info on leaders on both sides of the spectrum. If you think someone is missing and have a reliable source, please add it to the article, instead of making personal attacks on other editors. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


A reader contacted Wikimedia to note an apparent conflict in this article. There is a reference to Bushra, who died as an infant but other references suggesting she is alive. I looked at one reference which explains the apparent contradiction. The first daughter was named Bushra, who died as an infant and they gave the same name to the second child.

Therefore there is no contradiction but could an editor make the clarification in the article so it is clear that there were two children with the same name?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY Done. Nulla Taciti (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Certain surprise users Possibly possible because indifference of Mr Assad and his supporters on discussion regarding Sarin - Massacre in capital Damackus. Friends and paid Assad - trailer's could raise to at least any arguments or explanations about what happened. For example, the use of gas sarin in Iraq was the reason for the execution of Mr. Saddam Hussein. Relatively painless executions, by hanging (in the US). Mr. Assad, the syrianische army but have plenty of conventional Waffen.Nun, here, for example modern SU- Jet's. (Sorry for my english.) Sacsaveclepain (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"his predisposition for violence"[edit]

In the Early Life: Childhood and Education section:

"Psychologists have noted that Assad grew up in an unhealthy environment, and his predisposition for violence stems from his early childhood development and family.[33]"

This is not a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). It purports that Assad is *proven* to have a "predisposition for violence". But this is the *opinion* of only one psychologist, the article's author, Kathryn Seifert. It is not based on any research or broad studies, just her opinion that he has a predisposition for violence.

The author is also disputed in the comments section of her article.

I suggest the following clause be removed: "...and his predisposition for violence stems from his early childhood development and family."

It assumes too much, it's not neutral and it affects the article's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASwiki (talkcontribs) 07:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ASwiki. The author of the article has never met or evaluated Assad, and her accusation of violence is solely based upon the chemical attack, whose perpetrator has never been proven. Six months prior to the chemical attack Stratfor was hacked, releasing emails showing the state department was taking tenders for a contract to smuggle chemical weapons into Syria. So, at best, it is unclear who perpetrated the chemical attack, and it certainly is not a valid ground on which to form a psychological analysis of Assad. The article in question is clearly not a NPOV source, but is closer to a political opinion and speculation. Given this objection has been here in TALK for 30 days with no counter-arguments made, I will delete that line from the main article. Cadwallader (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The procedure was followed. Objection was placed here on the talk page. 30 days passed with one person agreeing with the objection and no counter-objections made. I have deleted the POV claim from the main article. If other editors come in and immediately change it back without interacting with this TALK page section, that may suggest political interference. Cadwallader (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Electorate/ National Electorate[edit]

I notice there's a repeat of the words Syrian Electorate and National Electorate who has apparently elected Al-Asaad numerous times into power, Who are these individuals? what exactly is the meaning of Syrian Electorate/ National Electorate? Is there a Wikipedia Article on this subject? Bobbyshabangu talk 00:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"personality cult" - NPOV violation[edit]

From the Early Childhood section, the following statement is made, the Assad regime's personality cult focused on Bassel prior to his death.[29]

The use of the term "personality cult" does not seem consistent with NPOV. Based on the definition of "cult of personality" President Obama and many other world leaders may be said to have personality cults. However, this sort of language is not mentioned in their wikipedia entries. I suggest changing the term to something less inflammatory. Cadwallader (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

General failure of NPOV[edit]

This article contains a lot of partisan POV language. Assad supporters are referred to as "strongmen", referring to the family's "cult of personality", and other uses of inflammatory language which is more typical of propaganda that of encyclopedia articles. I am bringing attention to this in talk. Will give it a couple of days for discussion and then clean up the article a bit. Cadwallader (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


The article says Assad is dead, which I hadn't heard, and see no citations mentioning this. It also lists his religion (in the personal bio box on the right of the page) as 'Fake Islam', which links to Shia Islam page. Seems like vandalism to me...Jake Papp (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Sarin Gas Attacks[edit]

Strange how one of the most infamous charges against Assad, the purported sarin gas attacks against his own people, finds absolutely no mention in the entire article. Is it because creditable Wstern investigators (such as MIT, among others) have exonerated Assad from any implication in the deed, and that such a finding runs counter to the obvious bias of the article? Both the allegations and the exoneration belong in any factual account of Assad's rule.. Orthotox (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Sarin gas is organophosphate insecticide, probably not banned in Syria, and available from agricultural supplies stores. It should not be supposed that only he Syrian government had access to this chemical. The chemical may have been spread around the locality by a conventional weapon. Why would Dr Assad attackcivilians with a weapon of last resort?

Removal of lengthy quotes[edit]

  • I believe that the section titled "Syrian Civil War: 2011–present" is overfreighted with lengthy, opinionted and scarcely relevant citations of personages marginal to a bio, such as journalists, US generals, etc. I would suggest radical trimming thereof.Axxxion (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of rewriting of neutral wording and blatant POV pushing. I think any rewrite and/or added opinions need to be discussed for balance and especially as this is a BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016[edit]


Please fix spelling of the word "saying" in last sentence of the 12th paragraph (the long one); that is, unless this sentence does indeed mean that one of the figures close to the Assad regime dropped in status (as the verb 'sie' would suggest)... but given the quote at the end of the sentence, I think it should read:

Figures close to the Assad regime began voicing concerns regarding the likelihood of its survival, with one saying in late 2014: "I don’t see the current situation as sustainable ... I think Damascus will collapse at some point."[78]

Singinginthe (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done good catch! /wiae /tlk 01:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Domestic support section deletion[edit]

There has been now a couple of attempts to either delete or rewrite the "Domestic support" section into a domestic opposition section. This is not necessary as domestic opposition has places of prominence already. Attempts to rewrite this section border on white washing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your versions of this section are extremely biased (see WP:NPOV), and you yourself are whitewashing any balancing of the section. You are deleting sources you apparently don't like, not reading others, and claiming they don't say what they say they do (such as page 6 of Seale & McConville 1992) and engaging in blanket reverts. This is unacceptable. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please try to get consensus for your attempts to reorder and rewrite the article. This talk page is where we need to find consensus. Please discuss your proposed changes here and try to build consensus. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Do not WP:Edit War or I will report you, you are deleting references and not even reading what they say. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please work with me and others. Let us discuss first, and work towards consensus here on the talk page. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You are the one that must learn to work with others, and read sources. You do not get to present a one sided revision and edit war until you get your way, that isn't how Wikipedia works. Now tell me what page 6 of Seale & McConville 1992 says, and why you disagree with it. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the place to discuss vast changes to this article. No one editor owns an article, large changes are best done by consensus. You have not tried to get consensus for your changes on this talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You aren't a consensus of one person, you are the one who made a "vast change" (adding a one sided new section), and you aren't discussing the references. Now stop acting like a troll and tell me, what part of page 6 of "Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East" do you have an issue with? It says exactly what is referenced in the Wikipedia article, that Bashar Assad's grandfather moved from "simple peasant" to "minor notable". Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If you are going to call me a troll, I have to assume you are not working in good faith towards consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You are mindlessly pushing a biased revision, edit warring, and you are categorically refusing to address any specific issues you have with the article. I have to assume you are only interested in causing problems. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I asked you again and again to discuss your changes here, only to have you resort to name calling and endless arguemenr. If you want to actually discuss changing this section, as is the topic of this discussion heading, then this is the place to list your reasons and work towards consensus. Ism schism (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing, I'm discussing the article in specific detail, something which you are failing yet again to do. Why are you misrepresenting and deleting references? Are you aware that is against Wikipedia policy to delete WP:RS you don't like and only include ones you do? Are you aware this is against consensus? You also insist on deleting the articles/references presenting details regarding the Alawites, Christians and Druze who oppose the Assad regime... why are you doing this? Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are you altering the section, the subject of this heading, and changing its meaning/purpose? Please answer this question. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you not understand how Wikipedia works? The section you add is not perfect and immutable to change. Adding to this, the section you added ("Domestic Support") was biased and only presents one side of a complex issue in the context of a civil war (see Syrian Civil War). My edits simply showed the other sides. I'm sorry, but you simply will not be permitted to do add whatever you like in a one sided manner, all the while ignoring the consensus you repeatedly invoke as a rationale for your actions. If you wish to include this "support", you must also show the diverse opinions regarding the sectarian aspects of Syria, and list all the many other issues that existed regarding the last Syrian election. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A section about domestic support is per definition supposed to be about just that. Opposition is dealt with in other sections. Ignoring and underestimating domestic support for Assad is in fact one of the main reasons why he's still there. He is still in control of the most populous areas of Syria, and the government and army is still overwhelmingly Sunni, regardless of the fantasies propagated by some commentators. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok so split them up into two sections, Domestic support and Domestic opposition. I'm not denying (or more importantly, attempting to remove) any of the refs presenting support for Assad, yet presenting the election as a completely fair democratic process that is an accurate gauge of Assad's "support" is ridiculous, as is ignoring the divisions within sectarian factions regarding Assad and the Syrian opposition. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement with FunkMonk, the section on support needs to be restored. There is no consensus to delete it as has been done. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Nulla Taciti you do not have consensus to delete this section. I don't see any disagreement with your proposed changes to the election being depicted by some sources as unfair. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't "delete the section", simply added to it; stop misrepresenting other user's actions in a bad faith manner (see WP:GOOD FAITH). If you wish to include the election, you need to honestly represent what the sources used say, and edit in a balanced, non one-sided manner. Also stop with the blanket reverts that delete references, it isn't going to get you anywhere. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

biased political wording should be deleted[edit]

when talking about left wing support it is a judgement whether support from george galloway one britain or venuzualian political party are left wing or not i believe this should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Domestic opposition and support[edit]

>In 2014, the Christian Syriac Military Council, the largest Christian organization in Syria, formed an alliance with the Free Syrian Army opposed to Assad,[216] joining other Syrian Christian militias such as the Sutoro who had joined the Syrian opposition against the Assad regime.[217]

This is not true, the Syriac Military Council is a militia, and not the biggest Christian organization in Syria. They did not form an alliance with the FSA, they are part of the SDF. And the Sutoro militia didn't join the uprising against Assad, but was formed to defend the Syriacs and Assyrians from the opposition to Assad (ISIS, and Al Nusra Front)

The Syriac Military Council is the largest Christian military organization in Syria, and according to the CNN WP:RS used in the article, they did form an alliance: "Under the agreement, moderate Muslim rebel groups fighting under the Supreme Military Council of Syria agreed to form an alliance with the predominantly Christian Syriac Military Council.". Secondly, they do oppose the Assad regime, as multiple references attest, a particularly good one being a Your Middle East article interviewing Sutoro fighters: "Gabi Dawd, 23, who has a Jesus tattoo on his left arm, said, "I first fought alongside Kurdish comrades in the ranks of the Peoples Protection Units (YPG) before joining the Sutoro. If you put yourself in our place as Kurds and Christians then you would understand why we are fighting for our rights. The regime wants us to be puppets, deny our ethnicity and demand an Arab-only state"". This has been an issue around which a lot of inaccurate pro-Assad regime propaganda has been formulated, yet the facts consistently show there is significant opposition to the Assad regime from all Syrian minorities, including Christians. Actually reading the references used would help a lot. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the wrong format. But please note that "indignity" should be changed to "indignation" -- it's a wrong translation from the Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Bashar al assad a massmurder[edit]

Government forces are responsible for many more of the estimated 250,000 deaths in the four-year-old conflict than are the Islamic State militants and rebel groups, analysts and monitoring groups say. The figures, they say, underscore how Assad’s indiscriminate use of violence has empowered the Islamic State and other extremist groups and forced millions of Syrians to flee to neighboring countries and Europe.

“For all the Islamic State’s horrendous brutality, we can’t forget that the Assad regime has been the main source of death and destruction in Syria since 2011,” said Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. “You can’t solve the conflict unless you find a way to address this, which the world hasn’t yet.”

Rights organizations and analysts say that these air raids are tantamount to war crimes and serve a number of calculated goals. These include preventing the formation of local rebel-run authorities and making the population think twice about allowing insurgents into neighborhoods.

The air raids have leveled swaths of Douma, said Takuldin, who recalled the carnage of the attack on that day in August. After the attack, he said, once-bustling streets were littered with mangled bodies of men, women and children.

Assad, Takuldin said, “is killing my neighbors. He is killing my friends. He is killing my family.”

During a 10-day period in August, air bombardments killed or wounded about 1,300 people in Douma and surrounding areas, according to figures from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, another monitoring group based in Britain.

Abu Hamza Doumani, 35, a resident of Douma, said the attacks collapsed the home of his aunt, her husband, their daughter-in-law and two young grandchildren, trapping them under twisted rebar and shattered concrete.

As government forces continue to lose territory to insurgents, the frequency of aerial attacks appears to be increasing. In July, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights documented nearly 7,000 government airstrikes conducted around Syria — the highest monthly number since the conflict began. Some of the areas that sustained the heaviest bombardments include the northwestern province of Idlib, which fell to rebel forces in recent months.

“These indiscriminate attacks have continued, but there aren’t measures in place to protect civilians,” said Nadim Houry, Human Rights Watch’s deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa.

The rising death toll is fueling an exodus that has overwhelmed neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan with millions of Syrian refugees, who are increasingly streaming into Europe. For those still in Syria, the desperate circumstances appear to be benefiting al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and other extremist opposition groups, said Hassan Hassan, a Syria analyst and co-author of the book “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.” The groups have attracted many followers as they continue to seize territory. In the process, they have overrun moderate, Western-backed rebel forces that were poorly armed and seen by many Syrians as ineffective against Assad’s forces.

Analysts say the government attacks are indirectly hindering U.S.-led military initiatives against the Islamic State. A year of airstrikes by a coalition led by the United States has not stopped the group from expanding, and a U.S. plan to train and equip thousands of Syrians to fight the Islamic State has struggled to attract participants. For many Syrians, a key issue with those efforts is that they do not target Assad’s forces, Hassan said.

“Most Syrians still consider Assad as the biggest criminal and their worst enemy,” Hassan said. “And that means any initiative to fight the Islamic State, including the ones by the Americans, is bound to fail if rebels and Syrians in general see it as a diversion from fighting the Assad regime.”

The Obama administration has long said it supports diplomacy to secure the eventual removal of Assad. But while U.S. and European officials view Assad as a key driver of Syria’s chaos, they also express concern that his sudden fall from power could permit extremists to wreak even more havoc.

Yousef al-Boustany, 24, a Douma resident, said he wants the Syrian leader’s immediate ouster. Assad’s forces have besieged Douma for years, killing dozens of Boustany’s family members and friends with indiscriminate bombings, he said.

“Assad is massacring us,” he said. “We don’t support the Islamic State, but if its fighters came here to save us, believe me, the people would welcome them with open arms.”

Hugh Naylor is a Beirut-based correspondent for The Post. He has reported from over a dozen countries in the Middle East for such publications as The National, an Abu Dhabi-based newspaper, and The New York Times. Follow @HughNaylor The Post Recommends Doctors were startled to find the cause of this 24-year-old’s excruciating pain They rushed her into emergency surgery. What they found surprised them. Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky and Lucifer, explained Sympathy for the devil? The astounding carelessness of Donald Trump finally caught up with him Undone by his own unpredictability.

What has happened with genuine journalism? When the war was young there were regular updates on casualties and it usually turned out that Assad and the rebels were equally deadly. Now we get this example of journalism light that tries to convince us with case studies and with general terms like "much more" that Assad carries a disproportionate responsibility for the death toll. Conspicuously absent are concrete figures. rcr4 9/6/2015 9:15 PM GMT+0200 It is surprising that Nalyor and the Post would criticize Syria’s UN recognized secular government for trying to defend itself against the forces of Al Qaeda (JAN) and the Islamic State, and protect secular Syrians, Shia, women and minorities (Christians and Alawites) from mass rape, execution and torture at the hands of Islamic militants who seize and occupy government-controlled territories. Naylor even criticizes the Syrian government’s use of its air force to battle Islamic State. In a sane and logical world, we would be applauding and lauding a government that has managed to kill more of the terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State and Al Qaeda than the reverse. Shouldn't the US support a secular Arab government that protects minorities, secular Arabs, Shia and women from the depredations of Al Qaeda and Islamic State that have “shock[ed the] world” rather than arming rebels to fight in tandem to with the world’s most barbaric militants to bring down the last bulwark protecting civilization in Syria?

Naylor's “opinion”, based on the accounts of two anti-Assad residents in Douma and unnamed “rights organizations and analysts” and his own prejudices shouldn’t have seen light of day in any event, but since the Post decided to inflict Naylor's opinions on its readers, then the piece's final resting place should have been Fred Hiatt’s Neocon op-ed section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedkad (talkcontribs) 03:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Assad is based though... --Donenne (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears there is some sort of vandalism, some instances of the word "Assad" have been replaced with al-jahsh, which means "the mule" if correct. It seems highly unlikely this is not vandalism, it also seems that part of the childhood and education section has been damaged in such a way that it is broken. ISSVictores (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Important info about impartiality[edit]

Look, you need to be fair and unbiased; this isn't a persuasive test to promote an agenda. Words and phrases such as 'regime' and 'regime-sanctioned' are highly contested. I ask everyone reading, do you know of the changes Assad has made? The introduction of the internet, foreign media, YouTube, and, of course, this very site? What about the Western polls putting his approval in Syria over 50%? You need to research to be impartial. Provided you have been exposed to the armed opposition's claims, I suggest you look at some material that shows the points made by the government, to make your perspective as well-rounded as possible. Look at Assad's interviews, available on the official YouTube channel of the Syrian Presidency. Look at the translation of the Arabic Wikipedia's article on Bashar al-Assad. Look at the English article on Syria's parliament and recent parliamentary elections. Maybe watch a documentary, such as Inside Assad's Syria, on the website of PBS Frontline. Search the changes and reforms Assad has made, and compare photos of Damascus today to before he came to power in 2000. Does the capital of a dictatorship commonly have Western music playing on its radio stations, and advertisements for foreign tech brands, including one for Sony on Damascus's tallest building? The point is, be fair. Thanks.

Here are some sites I recommend:

trainsandtech (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

North Korea 's Activity in Civil War[edit]

Reference 181 that the statement, "According to Syrian Opposition sources, North Korea has sent army units to fight on behalf of Assad in the Syrian Civil War" is based on leads to a dud link.

I haven't seen any credible sources for North Korean involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox Christians support Assad[edit]

Eastern Orthodox Christians, in Syria's western cities support Assad [1] [2]. He is also supported by Armenian Orthodox, Catholic (Roman, Maronite, Melkite, Syriac etc.) and some Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian Nestorians in the east of the country.

Bishop Elias Toumeh, representative of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Bishop Armash Nalbandian, primate of the Armenian Church of Damascus, Rev. Riad Jarjour, Presbyterian pastor from Homs, and Bishop Dionysius Jean Kawak, Metropolitan of the Syrian Orthodox Church lobbied American lawmakers (e.g. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) ) and think tanks in Jan. 2014 to pressurise Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey against supporting logistically and financially jihadi rebels [3]

"We do not support those who are calling for the fall of the regime, simply because we are [for] the process of reform and changes," said Yohanna Ibrahim, Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Aleppo, at a religious summit in France. [4] "The Christian community is very concerned about what is happening. The vast majority do not consider it to be the 'Arab Spring,'?....Although they sound like legitimate protests to give more freedom and democracy, in reality they are a camouflage to bring back fundamentalist groups." Mother Superior Agnès-Mariam of the Cross heads the St. Jacob's monastic community (Qara, Syria)

Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Jean-Clément Jeanbart of Aleppo said Putin's actions are giving Christians "a renewal of confidence" while helping to solve the problem of Christian genocide. He noted that Putin "serves the Christian cause" even if he is only intervening for the interests of Moscow. "Things have begun to change since the Russians are bombing ISIS," the Archbishop told the Daily Express in October. [5] "My colleagues — bishops, priests and faithful — in Syria now feel they have hope that the problems will be sorted and the war will finish since Russia intervened and struck Daesh [Islamic State] seriously," the Archbishop added. (July 2014)

"Russia has given hope to the people of Syria," according to Patriarch Ignatios Ephrem II, leader of the Syrian Orthodox church. (Eastern Orthodox, the largest denomination) [6] (December 2016)

Eastern Christians are supporters of both Assad and Vladimir Putin [7]

Pro-regime Christian militias include Sootoro/Gozarto Protection Forces based in Qamishli (east of country), Nusur al-Zawba'a (Eagles of the Whirlwind) of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), Suqur al-Sahara' and Fawj Maghawir al-Bahr, and Quwat al-Ghadab ('The Forces of Rage'), which is based in the Christian (specifically Greek Orthodox) town of Suqaylabiyah in northwestern Hama province [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 (talkcontribs) 18:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

International Relations? Neutrality Debated[edit]

It seems like the international relations section doesn't focus that much on actual international relations - and more on a whole bunch of trivial information about social media and potraying even things so minor such as an online posting by his 11 year old son.

I feel like it needs some cleanup and should expand more on international public relations than just trivial things from Social media. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe (talkcontribs) 02:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I have just read through that section and a lot of it does not seem to actually be about Bashar al-Assad, but about his relatives. Does anyone have suggestions about what to do with this, or shall someone remove the information that is not about al-Assad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrodvarsson (talkcontribs) 15:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Since no one else has commented, I am going to remove some of the information that is not about al-Assad himself.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bashar al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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