Talk:Asma al-Assad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ethnicity

She looks caucasian what is her ethnic background does she have english roots ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.196.83 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

She is Caucasian, like most other Syrians. In any case, both her parents are Syrian, and it appears she dyes her hair. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And she is a sunni muslim. --89.204.152.55 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming

She was given different names throughout the article, how about Asma? --SasiSasi (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

not to be pedantic, but she's not Syria's First Lady. The First Lady is Bashar's mother (wife of Hafez) who holds that title until she dies. If by First Lady the author intends to mean wife of the country's political leader, in this case Bashar, then she should be referred to either as Bashar's wife or as Asma al-Assad. The concept of First Lady is not the same in Syria as in, for example, the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.243.66 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, a source for that would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the subject of a row between Asma and her sister in law, Bushra,.... I think the western media refers to her as first lady, and some Arab media as well (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041021/2004102107.html ). To be honest, in the West the wives of leaders are called first lady (general use of language), it probably sounds better than "the wife of our president". the Syrian embassy in the US calls her first lady (http://www.syrianembassy.us/first_lady_of_syria.htm ).

We could add something to the article stating that Hafez's widow may hold this title as well? --SasiSasi (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Again, only if there is a source for it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chill out FunkMonk... --SasiSasi (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I think it's pretty chill to take time to wait until a source has been found, instead of eagerly wanting to add something regardless of verifiability, as if it was somehow vital. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. The issue itself is a contested one within Syria, so even if someone bothers to find a reference for this issue (I might do so myself), the issue is not resolved. I have a look if I find any official source for her title (Syrian government) and bring the article in line with her official title, + a section on the first lady issue. --SasiSasi (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to find an official source in English (apart from a UN press release). If someone could find an official source (I assume in Arabic) we can bring the article in line with Asma's official title. In the meantime if have added a first lady section explaining some of the dispute of the role and title of "first lady" --SasiSasi (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi SasiSasi, in response to your query....I was not able to find any Syrian governmental site in Arabic, that referred to Asma Al-Asad as "first lady"...However in the English version of Syria news, which is a governmental site, they do employ the title of "first lady"..here's the website, check it out http://www.syria-news.com/readenews.php?sy_seq=57103

In the two governmental websites Syria news and cham press, they employ this title "السيدة أسماء الأسد" which translates to "Mrs. Asma al-Assad". here's the article http://www.sana.sy/ara/182/2008/07/14/183936.htm, from SANA.

Now this gets a little twisted..I've actually heard Syrian news anchors in the past (from the Syrian national t.v), refer to her as "السيدة الأولى أسماء الأسد " ,which translates to..'first lady Asma Al-Assad"

So the verdict on this is not clear..however if the English governmental site uses the title "first lady", then I think it's ok to use the same title in English Wikipedia...that's my two cents

I hope this helpsGeorge Al-Shami (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that’s clear.... I think I will add some of the above to the article... I think that, despite the Wikipedia being English, it should reflect the local titles (e.g. the German Chancellor is what the US would describe as the President, while the actual German President has a ceremonial role, but the English Wikipedia certainly does not refer to the German Chancellor as "President" or even "Prime Minister"). An interesting aspect to this is that Syria is actually a republic (under emergency law), and that the Assads are not monarchs, hence I don’t see how the widow of the ex-President could still be the first lady of the country.... as far as I am concerned that is a technical point, but I guess some Syrians see this different. At least we tried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SasiSasi (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'Her Excellency Mrs. Asma Al Assad' is apparently her official title, as it's used in The Syria Trust for Development website. The Embassy site (http://www.syrianembassy.us/first_lady.html) describes her as 'The First Lady'. Flatterworld (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not objective

This article reads like a press release from a PR firm. It needs to be more objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montalbano (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It reads like a press release from the Syrian government. Should be heavily edited to remove or revise slanted entries, particularly with respect to sections on philanthropic activities. 76.111.158.52 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I tried that, and was quickly reverted, with prejudice. Please see the discussion below, and join in with proposed edits. It would also help if you would set up an account (in theory, anonymous contributors are as welcome as account-holders; in practice, anons' opinions are generally discounted).—Chowbok ☠ 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"With prejudice"? You really need to learn a few of Wikipedia's core principles: Be civil, and assume good faith. We don't need all sorts of "prejudiced" accusations thrown around. FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(indent) Okay, the last thing we need is a misunderstanding here. I believe what Chowbok (correct me if I'm wrong Chowbok) meant with "with prejudice", is more along the lines of the legal term. This article can obviously be salvaged with a little bit of GF-cooperation between the three of us. Regards. Yazan (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am being accused of "pov-pushing" by him elsewhere, so it's kind of hard to see where the line goes. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, fair additions made by anonymous. BB23 et al - not sure what the agenda is here, but comments regarding her role in the crrent uprising is important, as she was previously seen as the reformer and a temperate on her husband due to her upbringing. Please justify any reversions in the future - sorry, 'stop it' does not cut the mustard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.188.131 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issues

The article could certainly use a good copyediting and better wording to make it more neutral, but that's not an excuse to blank half the page. It certainly is not blatant propaganda. Yazan (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What a user deems "propaganda" is irrelevant, what's important is that the sources are reliable. But the problem with this article is that the reliable sources are wasted as "external links", instead of being used as sources in the main article. This has to be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the article was completely irrelevant and was only there to create a good image for the subject. You can't have a giant article about how so-and-so loves puppies and helps old ladies across the street, even if it is reliably sourced.—Chowbok ☠ 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And which Wikipedia policy do you base that on? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOAP, for one...—Chowbok ☠ 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Listen, I agree that the language needs to be more neutral and encyclopedic, and a criticism section added, but again, it's no excuse for indiscriminate blanking. Yazan (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't indiscriminate. I left in the parts that were relevant and neutral.

I guess, by your logic, if somebody wants to put in a bunch of irrelevant puffery into a biographical article, the trick is to overwhelm the rest of the article with it. I mean, if there was just one paragraph like that in an otherwise unproblematic article, nobody would have a problem with my removing it. But if you put in 15 paragraphs like that, suddenly removing them is unacceptable.—Chowbok ☠ 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Chowbok, can you then go over the article and present to us which exact segments you would consider unreasonable "soap boxing"? Just claiming that all if it is propaganda and tagging the entire article as such doesn't cut it. Needs to be more specific if we should have a chance of improving it, and that should be the goal here, right? And by the way, "criticism sections" are not necessarily something we would want anywhere on Wikipedia.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything past "Biographical Details".—Chowbok ☠ 23:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I see, the problem is the wording, the tone is way too fluffy, not the content. Go ahead and change the wording if you like, but the content is highly relevant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If it were just an issue with the wording, I would have changed it or tagged it. It's not the wording, it's that the entire article is a giant advertisement. Nothing except the intro and the biography sections has any purpose aside from showing her in a flattering light. The article is unrepairable in its current state.—Chowbok ☠ 23:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, seems like it comes down to POV then. I disagree with yours. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully the POV tag will attract other editors who can work out a compromise.—Chowbok ☠ 00:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice enough. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

She is not a political leader, as her husband is. Her one and only activity outside her family is her philanthropic work. Trying to make that 'controversial' is going to be both difficult and pointless. An encyclopedia relates the facts, whether they're all good, all bad, or somewhere in the middle. Sounds to me as if you're confusing 'POV' with 'she seems like a good person'. Many First Lady articles are similar: they're about wives who choose activities which aren't controversial and in which they don't have to make difficult decisions. If that's the sort of thing she does, then that's what we need to describe. That doesn't make it 'puffery'. She's not Lindsay Lohan - get over it. ;-) Right now, the 'Rural development' section sounds like she's involved with some Mafia-type group ("alleged", "theoretically", "claims", "allegedly", "perceived") - it sounds ridiculous, as if she's Natasha Fatale from Rocky and Friends. What really should be done (imo) is create a separate article for The Syria Trust for Development, and you can criticize it there. Flatterworld (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I put the Syria Trust material in a separate section. She's the chairman, so some mention of it belongs. Since there was so much pure opinion about each Division, I created sub-sections for each. I then decided to comment out the pure opinion (I first just added citation needed) because of Wikipedia rules on portraing living people, particularly those currently controversial or in the news. Flatterworld (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking? The entire article, practically, was "pure opinion" once you were done with it. It is ridiculous that we actually have to fight people to make this NPOV. I challenge you to show me another article on Wikipedia that is as fawning as this one was. Please do not re-add the promotional crap.—Chowbok ☠ 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My patience is becoming increasingly short at Wikipedia. Chowbok, I am reporting you for disruptive editing, POV, and refusing to Assume Good Faith and work with others constructively. I offered several alternatives. I went to a lot of trouble to track the material down, official sources are as reputable as any others, and I resent your high-handed attitude. Wikipedia does NOT belong to you and I am sick and tired of all the bullying that goes on here. Flatterworld (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "compromise", Chowbok? You just deleted two thirds of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect, I, Veriss, deleted two-thirds of the article after I found that most of the sources were invalid, User:Chowbok merely reverted User:Flatterworld's reversion of my edits even though User:Flatterworld made no apparent effort to replace the invalid sources and restored improperly sourced material to Biography of a Living Person. Please see the article history for my 16 or so edits and my detailed edit summaries. In short, the sources were invalid, especially for a WP:BLP so I removed all the invalid sources and their citations. See WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:SOURCES,WP:BLPSPS. Additionally, I made good faith efforts to find valid sources on my own and when I could not, I removed controversial assertions per WP:BLP, specifically, our duty under WP:BLPREMOVE. My concern is with sources and lack of sources which is why I started a separate section instead of belaboring the tone. User:Flatterworld should not have both reverted my edits and User:Chowbok's reversion without taking into consideration WP:BURDEN also known as WP:PROVEIT. Veriss (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Veriss1, I won't even try to untangle your scrambled summary of what I did. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Beginning to end, slowly and carefully, focusing on what sources are allowed. I'm sorry you think an NGO's official website is worthless as a citation, but lots of articles in Wikipedia cite various foundations. There are plenty of 'third-party news sources' used that are less reliable. I'm sorry you don't like Vogue, but it's not some sleazy British tabloid that skates at the edge of libel, is it? They check their facts, believe it or not. You were, and are, out of line. Surely you know better than to jump in and do such a massive deletion when there's plainly a discussion occurring on the Talk page. Deletions without discussion are done for libelous and/or malicious statements, not this sort of thing. You're claiming you can't tell the difference? Really? Clearly you dislike the subject - tough. That doesn't give you the right to throw out a list of irrelevant WP references. Just read the one that applies.' Flatterworld (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I never touched the Vogue sources and my summary addresses the actions I took and lists the policies that I was acting under. I suggest that we not sidetrack the POV discussion by debating validity of sources here but rather in the section about the sources as I do not wish to sideline this topic more then it has been already. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Entire article is whitewash - many invalid sources

I've removed most of the invalid citations and sources which leaves the article largely uncited. If other assertions are not properly sourced soon then they will need to be removed as well. Veriss (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had joined the discussion above. Flatterworld (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Veriss1 that the article needs third-party sources and justification that the material relates to Asma, not just to Syria. Right now, it reads like a promotional piece, partly for Asma, and partly for Syria. Too much material about the projects that is taken straight fromt he project websites. That simply won't wash. I've removed a lot of puffery, but most of what remains is hardly relevant and certainly not sourced. I removed one paragraph that was lifted verbatim from a website; that constitutes a copyright violation and can't be tolerated. As the article is presently constituted, if everything were removed that should be removed, there would be very little left. And that may have to be what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"And that may have to be what happens." iow, you didn't read the Talk discussion above (which was going on before Veriss1 jumped in), and you didn't check the editing history. What did you spend - five seconds before you posted the above? So much for an article as a work in progress - you just detest the subject, so everything's 'puffery'. Flatterworld (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not join the discussion above initially because my concern was not with tone but with the validity of citations and sources, thus a separate section addressing sources. Once the sources are sorted out then unsupported assertions can be removed and tone usually sorts itself out as statements are edited to reflect valid sources. Which section would you like to discuss the sources in, this one or the POV discussion above? Please peek at the policy shortcuts I pasted in my response above, particularly our duty under WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:PROVEIT. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Veriss1, I have no intention of wasting any more time with you. If you can't be bothered to read the full guideline I provided for you, that's not my problem. Perhaps some day you'll try to do something more useful than biting the newbies who started this article. I'm sure they've all been quite impressed with the performance of the three of you here. You can all give yourselves high fives for making that downward line of Wikipedians even steeper. Congratulations. You won the Vampire Award. Flatterworld (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, didn't you just try to report me for "refusing to engage in discussion"?—Chowbok ☠ 03:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Cut the teenage sarcasm. You're the one who bit the newbies, ridiculed their efforts, added the insulting words, and deleted most of it WITHOUT discussion. Can you spot the difference? btw - I see you all consider The Sun to be a reliable source. I have no words.... Flatterworld (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Flatterworld, fine but three times now (including this time) you have been pointed to two very small, very easy to read, WP:BLP policies:

• WP:BLPREMOVE directs us to "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced",
• WP:BURDEN a.k.a WP:PROVEIT which states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Interacting with people is your choice but I will continue to raise my concerns in a civil manner. Veriss (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and you've been pointed to the full guideline, which you clearly aren't interested in reading. (You may also want to mull over the meaning of the word 'contentious'.) iow, you've misapplied the 'shortcut' because you didn't understand its purpose. Flatterworld (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have read WP:BLP word-for-word many times, including tonight, which only reinforces my conviction. I particularly like this quote from the lead section "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (links and bold are copied directly from the source). You still have not related exactly which points under the broad umbrella of WP:BLP you disagree with me on which I invite you to explain. I have also provided a definition of contentious from Wiktionary - Contentious which reads: "1. Marked by heated arguments or controversy and 2. Given to struggling with others out of jealousy or discord". Would you like to discuss whether the sections you would like to include may generate heated arguments or controversy? You have nearly ten times the edits I have, please post your specific concerns. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Content

The section I removed was not appropriate, full of words to avoid, such as "good looks and understated glamour" and "charming", which are not inappropriate for a wikipedia article. Please discuss the content added before re-adding it, as per WP:BRD. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worse than that. It's POV. It's arguably a BLP violation. It's improperly sourced. At my request, the offending IP was blocked for 31 hours. Another IP came along and reintroduced the material, and you reverted it. However, a registered user reverted your reversion, probably without realizing what he was doing. I left a note on his Talk page. Unless I want to argue that any reversions I make do not constitute reversions for the purpose of 3RR, I'm out of reverts. I intend to ask for protection of the article - that will at least take care of the IP issue. Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The user who reverted it was using WP:HG, so it may have been an automated error. Regardless, I have reverted the content again as per WP:WTA, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPSPS, and in line with WP:BRD. I ask that the other editors discuss whether or not the content should be restored (and why), and after a consensus has been reached, to make appropriate edits to the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I overlooked the edit summary when I did the revert. I apologize for interrupting your discussion. I am but a simple vandal fighter...Cmichael (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Both of you clearly have no understanding of the perceptions of First Ladies such as Queen Rania and Asma within the Arab world. They build their reputations on the good looks and understated glamour. Stop being so Americo/Eurocentric - Wikis are for all and not just for Calfornia loving, dual booting assholes who think that they understand cultures that they spend more time bombing than learning about. The reversion should stand, and the initial poster was correct. The 'offending' words have been removed.

The content you have added does not have a neutral point-of-view and needs to be reworded to comply with Wikipedia policies. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation of The Guardian. January (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A list is needed to catalog all the things wrong with the material. The IP has been blocked for evading the first block. Not sure if I'll get the semi-protection I requested at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vogue deleted its own controversial article that is cited in this article.

While checking sources, I noticed that some key elements of this article depend on the now deleted Vogue (magazine) magazine article titled "A Rose in the Desert". Vogue, a fashion and lifestyle magazine, not a typical straight news source, apparently deleted its own article from its servers after much criticism according to these reports: Vogue Disappears Adoring Profile of Syrian Butcher’s Wife, Vogue Hides Its Flattering Profile of Syrian Dictator’s Wife] and Ill-Timed Profile Of Syrian First Lady Removed From Vogue Website.

This source needs to be replaced. The assertions that the source supports do not seem to be controversial so I have not deleted them but we still need to source the statements properly. I think the most important facts to be re-sourced are the names and ages of the children. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the Syrian Embassy cite to see if it fully supports the sentence (now without the Vogue cite). I'm kind of tired and really shouldn't be editing. I put a tag on the children sentence. Thanks for noticing the problem and working on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, just because they removed it from the site doesn't mean it ceased to exist. It can still be used as a source. It was in the print magazine and will probably be in the Internet Archive later.—Chowbok ☠ 19:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, whether we should cite to a source that has been withdrawn by the publisher, apparently for political reasons. Is there some precedent for this?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, web pages we site disappear all the time. Usually we change the ref to the Internet Archive or WebCite. Nothing different here, except that we could just use the paper cite if somebody feels like looking up the hard copy. As barf-worthy as the Vogue article was, it was a good reference for her personal history and family information. We shouldn't toss it.—Chowbok ☠ 23:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Web cites disappearing on their own is different from a web cite being intentionally withdrawn by the publisher. A better analogy would be a hard copy newspaper saying X and then later issuing a retraction. At the same time, I tend to agree that if what we're citing is non-controversial, we could use the paper source, and I also note that Vogue hasn't issued a retraction per se.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It can be disputed whether or not the Syrian Embassy profile is a valid source and its validity should be open to discussion here. The Syrian embassy website is directly controlled by her husband's government which in my view means it is not a valid source and can be viewed as a self-published source. Since the facts the source supports do not seem to be disputed I won't delete it for now. However, I will insist that we also need to find a replacement for the Syrian embassy profile from a valid 3rd party source in the long run. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Even assuming the embassy website is a self-published source, it can probably be used under the exception to the policy to support the assertions before it. Of course, it's not clear-cut as editors could differ as to whether the exception applies, and a third-party source would obviate that potential disagreement.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The link should not have been deleted. I'm restoring the link as per WP:DEADLINK until the reference can be replaced with either an archived version, or something else. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I will not revert the permanently dead link being restored though I disagree with the concept. As I have stated in previous sections on this talk page, fixing poor sources resolves most problems with WP:BLPs, often also including tone issues. To put things diplomatically, this article has a long history of issues concerning the quality of cited sources. I didn't merely perform drive-by deletions of old citations, I performed my own English language searches for worthwhile replacements for the sources I have questioned; sadly, I was not successful. We can go through the bureaucratic motions of marking a permanently retracted link as a "deadlink" and "check that block" but the reality remains that basic facts such as the names, gender and relative ages of their offspring must be sourced to an actual reference that exists and is accessible to at least some portion of the readership. Perhaps by making this problem a discussion topic, an article from a Non-English site can be found to fill the void. Veriss (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Some commentary from the editors of the Wall Street Journal: The Dictator's Wife Wears Louboutins - Vogue magazine missed the trend: Middle Eastern tyrants are out this season. The Vogue article lacks any credibility at all and we need to step away from it so we can find a better source. I have searched for several hours without much luck but there has to be a better source then Vogue out there somewhere. Veriss (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Arabic sources links

Can this page be expanded with some original Arabic sourced news articles? Relying too heavily just on European and US media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.156 (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That was requested earlier but hasn't happened yet. Veriss (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Asma being Sunni

There was a revert on the statement of Asma's religion. The statement used a WP:RS and is a fact that is relevant to the current turmoil in Syria. On Bashar Assad's entry the fact that he is Alawi is clearly stated. In the current conflict the issue of Sunni's vs Alawi's has been repeatedly discussed in the media. Mentioning that Asma is Sunni will help to lessen the idea that the regime is an Alawi monolith, which it is not. If there are no objections Asma's Sunni religion will be put in the article in the second paragraph as follows: "Assad is the daughter of consultant cardiologist Fawaz Akhras and retired diplomat Sahar Otri al-Akhras, a Sunni family of Syrian origin."(ref name=Bar_S.380) -- Guest2625 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Last Paragraph

The last paragraph in this article appears to serve little purpose, since the added reference clearly shows Asma in Syria greeting regime supporters. The paragraph indirectly appears to give information about Asma's position on the current uprising in Syria. The first sentence indicates that she has left and does not support the regime, while the second sentence gives the opposing position of the Syrian government, which is generally not trusted as honest, that she has stayed and does support the regime. The added reference and photo of her meeting with regime supporters in July makes this last paragraph superfluous.Guest2625 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reasoning, but I do agree with your conclusion. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has something to contribute. If not, I'll remove the paragraph.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the last paragraph is useful since some commentators and news sources still report that she has left Syria with her children. I would leave the last paragraph with the added sentence, so that the information is available for the reader.Guest2625 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do you want the paragraph (as is now) in or out?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Just leave the paragraph in as it is now.Guest2625 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one for idle speculation, nor original research, but her kids could be safely in the UK and she could easily jet back to Syria for limited photo-ops as needed by the government. I personally don't believe that the First Lady and their offspring need to be spirited out of the country for their safety and that the whole paragraph is an exercise in gossip. This period is also summertime and great weather for the kids to visit their granny in the UK for previously planned picnics and excursions. Either scenario is easily explained. Without solid sources allaying the rumors, I have not opposed inclusion. Without solid reporting of her own statements or other significant reports of her frequent participation in events within Syria, a one off photo of her at a government rally is hardly proof positive refuting her flight to the relative safety of the UK. My opinion is that the last paragraph should remain with opposing assertions until sourced information is available one way or the other. Veriss (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Supporting her husband

An IP inserted a new section with rather dramatic material about al-Assad's support for her husband. I and another editor removed it. I've also warned the IP and explained what's wrong with their edits on their Talk page.

However, I can see a shortened version being inserted in the article based mostly on this source provided by the IP. What I also think should be done is to add a new section for material like this so it's not part of Personal life. I'd suggest leaving only the first paragraph of the current section in the Personal life section, and creating a new section for the other two paragraphs plus some version of this new material. The new section could be called "2011–2012 Syrian uprising" after the article we have and to which we refer in the body already.

I'm not going to make these changes today because, like the IP, I've run out of reverts, but I thought I'd raise the issues here for others to discuss.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did try to make a new section so that it was not part of Personal Life (I put it under heading 'Support for Her Husband.' I also take issue that my material was 'dramatic.' I stated 1. She appeared at pro-assad rallies in Damascus during the current conflict and cited a source for this which was an article from a reputable news site that also included pictures of her at said rally . 2. That she wrote a public letter declaring her continued support for her husband. I quoted a line from her letter and cited a reputable news site for this as well. (It also should be mentioned that neither her support for her husband, her attendance at pro-Assad rallies, or her recent pubic letter are matters of controversy or disputed issues). These have become issues of current interest and are worth mentioning. -108.82.190.79 "An IP"

Here is the text I would propose:

In February 2012, a representative for al-Assad sent an e-mail to The Times in London on her behalf. According to The Times, this is the first time al-Assad has communicated with the international media since the Syrian uprising began. The e-mail stated: "The President is the President of Syria, not a faction of Syrians, and the first lady supports him in that role". ([2]).

--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I referenced all my entries and furthermore formatted as you proposed (i.e. new section 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising) as well as used the text you proposed (even though I should not have to use your exact text to not have my revisions deleted). Again, everything is referenced. Prior to reverting my edits, please explain here as to why you think it inappropriate/not formatted to your liking/not worded to your liking. Thanks. 108.82.190.79 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't include my proposed text. You included your own extraordinarily expanded text. It is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I have reverted it. Please do not reinsert the material until you have a consensus for it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I only add word for word your proposal without adding anything else? You refuse to explain your objections to my entries. Every part is sourced and they are widely referenced, factual, and non-controversial.

1. Her not having any public appearances during the uprising until 2. Her appearance at a pro-Assad rally in Damascus 3. The recent letter from her office expressing support for husband 4. The recent 'official website' hoax which has been mentioned in many news stories

Please let me know which of these you dispute and continue to feel necessary to revert. 108.82.190.79 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I cited one Wikpedia policy and one oft-cited Wikipedia essay so you could spend more time learning how to edit at Wikipedia rather than diving in and getting it wrong. First, you are using the al-Assad article as a way of getting in content about other issues (Syria, her husband) - that's the coatrack problem. Second, you're adding too much material for what it's worth, including the stuff about the website, which is not worthy of inclusion. That's the undue problem. That is why the material I suggested adding is so short because that's all that's really necessary in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is putting in 3 sentences about the two or three incidents which have headlined during a notable/significant moment in Syrian history and by extension her biography coat-tracking? I'm not adding info about her husband or non-related Syria info, although she is inseparably tied to both (her notability stems from her relationship to her husband/Syria). 108.82.190.79 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Following up from WP:BLPN: I've added her public statement as First Lady, but agree that previous versions ([3][4][5]...) present WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT; it editorializes, presents irrelevant information, and on its own terms repeats bogus news. I removed another paragraph regarding media reports that were likewise subsequently and unquestionably disproven. I did so because they also present WP:UNDUE weight within the subject's personal life section, namely occupying a third of it with commentary about something that never happened. Coverage of something that didn't happen speaks more to the reliability of sources than it does to the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 02:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'hacked website' in the hoax website story obviously was a hoax, but it was a news story that was significant and not untrue and worth mentioning as it was probably one of the most significant stories that related to her during the recent events in Syria, plus it allows someone looking her up to be made aware that the website is indeed a hoax (particularly given its popularity and the fact that it comes on the first Google results page when you google her. People may be coming to wiki to figure out the veracity of that site or know what the story behind it is and thus can quickly get an answer. 108.82.190.79 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Media characterizations

At issue is the text restored in this diff. The text in question states that this subject has been likened in media coverage to Marie Antoinette, and is supported by three sources. Immediately preceding prose reports her likening to three other women, some living, supported by several sources. Prose after the text in question follows the subject's low profile during a particular time, and reports her sole well-covered public statement, apparently in her official capacity.

I think the text in question should remain even though it is, the IP says here, that it is merely opinion. The coverage that supports this comparison is substantial, in-depth coverage by reliable sources. For this reason, all the comparisons themselves are noteworthy, and in this case, additive to the subject's overall notability. The prose in the article is neutrally presented, and complies with WP:BLP principles. Though perhaps unflattering, neither the sources nor the content here approach attacks or libel of this public figure, or presents particularly WP:UNDUE weight. I hope the IP will consider discussing this content here rather than following through with this. JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me? So just because there is multiple media outlets that are basically copy and pasting the reference to Marie Antoinette and Lady Macbeth, it should remain? Are you serious? It is IN FACT purely opinions. Personally, I do NOT see the correlation between Marie Antoinette, Lady Macbeth, and Asma al-Asaad. I can't believe you are trying to reason with leaving this purely opinionated piece and want to deem it "noteworthy" just because several media outlets decided to copy word-for-word the same article. I will continue to remove the opinions. I have no problem with people being critical of Asma or her husband, or the current Syrian government, but neutrality will be maintained. You are more than welcome to block my IP address for your biased opinions; I will just use another IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.84.46 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing at a time. If after you are blocked, you fulfill your threat and come back as another IP, the article can be protected from editing by non-auto-confirmed users.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How about you address what I have brought up over and over again. Perhaps you are blinded from your objective readings and bias tendencies? Please use FACTS and NOT OPINIONS. The Marie Antoinette tidbit is PURELY opinion. It is totally irrelevant. I don't understand what you do not comprehend about that? 68.100.84.46 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone has an opinion about something and it's notable enough to be on a news report, then why shouldn't it be on Wikipedia? See Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality, as a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Editing from another IP counts as disruption and sockpuppeting and that IP will be blocked too. The article could then be semi protected, and you couldn't edit it from any IP, anywhere. Please stop getting angry and threatening to violate policy. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit about a death threat that just got toned down. Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTAL and media reports of threats or speculation as to how someone is going to die aren't encyclopedic. So the opposition thinks it'll kill the regime. Great. What is encyclopedic about it, how is this noteworthy, and how is this not undue weight? BTW adding the material edited a preexisting citation, which is not ok. I'll also note that before redaction, it was presented in a misleading manner indicating WP:OR at minimum ("repeatedly threatened with death" or somesuch). In the interest of preserving proper preexisting cites and removing content that has no WP:BLP value, I'll remove it until its significance can be established. However, it might belong on the opposition article, if any exists. Please discuss here. JFHJr (㊟) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you not just put the citation back where it belongs then...? It's a death threat with a verifiable source... of course it's significant. The tone was biased at first, but I edited it so it wasn't as bad, so I can't see what the problem is. I'm confused. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE (in personal life? really!), WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for starters. The way the source puts it, it's someone's prediction on a future event. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "Marie Antoinette" comparison is not appropriate per WP:BLP, and have removed it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but, more important, I don't like the balance of the section now. We have all that gushing stuff about her positive, progressive public image, and the only balance to that is her statement of support of her husband. I think there needs to be one sentence indicating that in January 2012 she altered that image by standing with her husband: "Their mere presence as a family was an act of defiance to those demanding an end to Syria’s hereditary dictatorship." ([6]). I'm just not sure how to word it properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan - Well, I completely agree with you. I do NOT agree with Bbb23. Obviously, this individual is more about fluffing items of interest with opinions than actual facts. You don't like the balance of the section? Tough luck. The world does not revolve around what you like and dislike. The fact that Asma al-Assad has come out in support of her husband speaks volumes on its own. That alone has altered her image for some; while others, will sympathize with the fact that as a Muslim woman in a Islamic society, she is doing her role as a wife. Why would you say she is NOT progressive and positive? Perhaps she is; after all, she was raised and educated in Great Britain. Just because she has to stand by her husband (as his wife), does not mean she, herself, as a individual, is non-progressive and negative. Again, the Marie Antoinette is a negative comparison that is the opinion of ONE author that has been used by various media sources VERBATIM. For you to post that negative comparison on Wikipedia would be irresponsible and give others the impression that the correlation between Asma al-Assad and Marie Antoinette is appropriate. If you are so inclined to be opinionated, how about giving others the benefit of choosing who they wish to compare Asma al-Assad to??? Keep your opinions to yourself. Feel absolutely free to share FACTS. Asma al-Assad has done absolutely nothing to be vilified. I have to admit, I'm a little disgusted by you. Will you start suggesting that Asma al-Assad deserves the guillotine like your suggested comparison, Marie Antoinette? Again, the Marie Antoinette comparison has no place on Wikipedia. Thank you again, Sarek, for recognizing this. I now have faith in Wikipedia again.68.100.84.46 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Here's the deal, folks, we have to decide if reporting the comparison to Marie Antoinette by the media is a BLP violation. If we agree with Sarek that it is, then it must stay out as a matter of policy. If we believe that Sarek's interpretation of policy in this instance is incorrect, then, by consensus, we can add it back in. Another option is to put some other material (along the lines I proposed above) in the article, as long as we believe it is not a BLP violation.

Just to have it in front of us, here's the now removed sentence:

Since 2011, however, she has also been compared to a modern-day Marie-Antoinette, as she was mostly silent during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising where she was seen at one of her husband's rallies.

As I understand Sarek's interpretation, he is saying that we are accusing al-Assad of being complicit in the "atrocities" committed by her husband, just as MA was supposedly complicit in Louis XVI's behavior. As with most analogies, it's hardly perfect. The Syrian president is being accused of massive atrocities by many in the world. Louis XVI was disliked, not for the commission of atrocities, but for his wishy-washiness and his belief in the absolute monarchy. The analogy is better in the sense that MA was supposedly silent about her husband's policies or lack thereof. I think here the media is using the analogy to indicate first that al-Assad doesn't really have that much power (her husband does), that she enjoys being a first lady, that she supports her husband (just as MA did), and that she is a bit of a glamor figure. I don't see that comparison as being a BLP violation. If we're going to report on her involvement in progressive causes and on her clothes, we should also report that some think she's being hypocritical and not really supporting the people in her country.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely in denial. It is not only Sarek's interpretation. That is the interpretation of many. I can bring 10+ articles that make direct (verbatim) comparisons of Asma al-Assad to Marie Antoinette where the articles are CLEARLY derisive, mocking, and utterly biased. She's being hypocritical??? How? She is FROM Homs! What role do women play in a patriarchal (Islamic) society? And again, your interpretation of "the people" is sketchy. We need statistics on HOW MANY are in the opposition, and how MANY are complacent with the current regime. I'm not choosing sides, but I find it problematic that the media wants to say "the Syrian people" when frankly, the question should be raised: who are the Syrian people? Is it the population of Syria as a whole, or the opposition population in Homs and Hama. Your Marie Antoinette opinion piece has no place here. Period. You don't see the violation because you are absolutely in denial. If you have compliments (or critiques) of Asma al-Assad, save it for the bar stool. It has no place on Wikipedia, where hundreds of thousands of people come for FACTS, NOT OPINIONS! 68.100.84.46 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, that's a fair summary of my position. I'd also like to add that one of the sources mentioning the Marie Antoinette comparison offered the alternate explanation that she's a virtual prisoner there, unwilling or unable to abandon their children. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the Marie Antoinette statement does not present a BLP violation per se. I don't agree with the interpretation of complicity; my impressions from the analogy are more along Bbb23's thoughts: glamor and maybe the specter of tragedy. I also think anyone's interpretation of the analogy is just that. But I don't feel strongly about including the coverage or the information in any particular way, as long as what we have neutral and balanced. And for the sake of consensus, it might help to reframe the issue slightly. Asma al-Assad has been the subject of significant coverage and media attention, but the quality of information that comes out is, like with many Syrian subjects and events, rather low. The coverage is full of speculation and opinion, and though reporting is relatively substantial, it's mostly either in relation to her husband or about her clothing, etc. For instance, speculation that she's a "virtual prisoner," or actually stating that she's complicit wouldn't belong. Other clear problems are WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT: how relevant to her personal life is it that she showed up to a rally for her husband, and why would it be noteworthy here even if reported in press? A better way might be just to state "She remained largely silent during the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising, issuing a single statement..." that would include the cites previously supporting Marie Antoinette bits. After all, without considering the analogy, that coverage does essentially report on those facts. While we're at it, we might as well redact likening the subject to other persons in favor of simply noting the topic of substantial coverage. I've made an edit to show what I mean. Let's let go of Marie Antoinette, but keep substantial coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 18:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I like John's changes to the article. He came up with the balance I was struggling to achieve (see my comments up higher). No comparison to Marie Antoinette, but also no comparisons to Princess Diana, Queen Rania, or Carla Bruni. The section now seems less puffy on the one end and less inflammatory (Marie Antoinette comparison) on the other. Anyone else can, of course, comment about the changes, including Sarek and 68.100.84.46. (I plan to make two minor edits, removing the word "fashionable" ("designer outfits" is enough), and changing "This representative" to "The representative".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with the revisions made. It's definitely neutral and appropriate. Too bad someone had to be so gung-ho yesterday about the Marie Antoinette reference being included; we could have avoided the whole debacle all together. I have made one small revision adding "the" because whomever made the previous revision, put "....remained largely silent during 2011-2012 Syrian uprising". An "the" should have been included before the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising tidbit. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the reference to her appearance at one her husband's rallies is of significance. Prior to that, there was immense speculation that she had left country or that the absence of any public appearance indicated some kind of disapproval of what was occurring. Her appearance at the rally put all the speculation to rest, in that she was indeed still in Syria and publicly supporting her husband and for that reason was a major headline. 107.8.173.201 (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Noteworthy in the context of wild and disproven speculation that itself isn't worthy of inclusion in this BLP? JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the appearance is significant. All this speculation needs to be taken as just that; purely speculation. If necessary, I think there could be a short sentence added that states that Asma al-Assad is currently residing in Syria. In regards to a public appearance signifying approval or disapproval for what is currently happening in Syria -- well, I think that is purely up to individual interpretation and personal opinion. Asma al-Assad can still support her husband but still disagree with the violence in parts of Syria. People have to understand that this "violence" works both ways; government against demonstrators and vice versa. The situation in Syria is not peaceful. There are angry people on both sides. Publicly, Asma al-Assad cannot condemn her husband. We are talking about a Muslim woman in a Islamic society here. While Syria is more liberal than Saudi Arabia and Iran, Islam is a quintessential component in everyday lives. It's sad what is going on, but there are people dying on BOTH sides. The violence needs to end, but neither side (government and opposition) want to drop their weapons or listen. I think it is unfair to accuse Asma al-Assad as being non-progressive or condemning her for supporting her husband. No one knows what she is saying to him behind close doors, or what she thinks about the situation as a whole. I have seen interviews she has given in regards to Palestine and she seemed very thoughtful and compassionate. The only statement she has released is that she supports her husband; NOT that she supports violence. Anyone's individual opinion of her is up to their own consensus.68.100.84.46 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How one personally feels about her or the current events is irrelevant. What's relevant are the facts, with neither condemnation or approval. We don't know what is going on behind closed doors or what someone's 'thinks in their heart of hearts' and that is an area of speculation not worthy of discussion even in a Talk page. What's important are the facts and those are that she has publicly expressed support for her husband and so it is worth noting this-people can then interpret this how they will. @JFHJr: regardless that it was 'wild speculation,' it was noteworthy in that their was much public discussion and it was eventually disproven and that whole episode is worth mentioning. It's just like with any celebrity/public figure, often rumors/speculation transform into big stories, and are proven/disproven and end up being worthy of mention either way. It is all the more relevant with her given its political significance. 107.8.173.201 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes stories that are unfolding are put into articles, even though they are later shown to be false. However, once they are shown to be false, the controversy surrounding the original speculation generally falls under the category of WP:RECENTISM, and would have a high bar to remain in the article, i.e., the speculation itself would have to be demonstrably newsworthy and, of course, noteworthy in the context of the particular article, to warrant retention.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much where exactly she was thought to be, but simply speculation that she had left. Her appearance in Damascus at a rally in Damascus was significant as it proved she had not left, but in addition was also significant in that it has been her only public appearance since the uprising in addition to being one clearly meant to have a political significance (in the front of a crowd of a pro-Assad event with her children) and so warrants mentioning for someone whose is really only noteworthy because she is a political figure. Perhaps something such as, "Her sole public appearance since the uprising began was at a pro-Assad rally in Damascus with her children," or something to that effect. 107.8.173.201 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I thought about something along the lines you suggest (although I'd leave out the children), and it could probably be worked into the "largely silent" sentence, but I'm not sure at this juncture that we'd get consensus for adding it in. Let's see if anyone else expresses an opinion the issue. There's no rush. As an aside, I really don't like all this material being in the Personal life section.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise adding the information at the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article, where it wouldn't present problems of WP:UNDUE. Especially a BLP this short or a section within it called "Personal life." Adding a separate section to contain coverage of the subject during the uprising would probably be undue. Besides, it's not her personal life, it's not relevant. And media speculation here hasn't approached that high bar. JFHJr (㊟) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Asma al-Assad's appearance at the rally is relevant. I have no idea why people are feeling so compelled to include these kinds of bits in the article. I agree with JFHJr. If you need to have it listed somewhere, add it to the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article. It has absolutely no place on this article. I don't see how being present in ONE event in Damascus (or wherever) adversely influences Asma al-Assad's personal life. Some of you need to just let this article be as it is now. JFHJr has made some wonderfully neutral and factual changes to the "Personal Life" section. I don't understand why the other two of you want to keep changing the dynamics of this article. Let it rest; at least until we get more facts on Asma al-Assad. If you add the public appearance aspect (which would adulterate the harmony of the article), I will have it removed. It's not relevant at all. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at the article the way it is now, why does the information about her image, her support for her husband, etc. belong in the Personal life section? Her "job" is First Lady, and the material is about her position, not about her personal life. Even the material currently "agreed to" belongs in another section. How about something obvious like "First Lady"? I'm going to make that change as soon as I save this (I won't add the other material at the moment).--Bbb23 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please keep your comments in the order in which they are received. I don't really understand why it is you are trying to expand on this issue given the limited factual information available, but whatever. I'm going to wait to see what others feel about this new section. It seems like there are too many sections for so little information. And I reiterate: the appearance at the rally holds no validity here. It appears you are attempting to squeeze in another section so that you can build upon speculations, which seems to be your forte and interest. First you complained that the article was too one-sided. JFHJr rectified that issue. Now you want to build upon the "largely silent". If you want to continue to tip this article towards one side, it's not going to happen. This article is not about your likes, dislikes, satisfaction, or dissatisfaction. Stop trying to fix something that is fine. You're starting to make this article look ridiculous.68.100.84.46 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'First Lady' section seems perfectly reasonable and is a perfect solution to the problem we've been having. Not sure why it's enraging you. Also, her long public absence and later rally appearance is not speculation, rather documented fact and is I think the case has been made that it does merit significance with regards to her political role. 108.82.190.79 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad - Arrangement of Her Name

Can someone explain why Asma al-Assad became "Asma" and then now user Bbb (who seems to be unable to leave anything as is) changed everything to "al-Assad" when he himself, isn't sure the capitalization and grammar involved in the name? What is the purpose of this sudden change? Is there a valid reason for this change? If so, EXPLAIN. Can we actually utilize this Talk Page instead of making solo decisions as if this page belonged to one person. After discussion, we can move on from there. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb - this is directed towards you since you made the original changes. First, I agree with your statement that you cannot continually refer to a public figure by their first name. Point taken. However, I have gone over Asma al-Assad's husband's page and instead of "al-Assad", they are using simply "Assad". It looks cleaner. The edits you inflicted on this particular page made the page look very silly and sloppy. The "al-Assad", which to answer your original doubt, should have been capitalized from the "Al". Anyways, seeing "al-Assad" posted all over the page was messy. You can refer to her husband's page to see how a clean page should look. Additionally, you cannot refer the First Lady by "Assad" during her early life and the years prior to her marriage Bashar al-Assad. I have confirmed this with former First Lady Hillary Clinton's page. I have made the edits accordingly. Lastly, there is conflicting information on where the Assad's first met. The article by Shmuel Bar (pg. 29) states that the Assad's met in London, while Bashar al-Assad was studying overseas; while Zvi Bar'el's article states they met while Asma al-Akhras was on vacation in Syria. I have changed their initial introduction to each other to the reference to Shmuel Bar's article, as it was one of the first credible references; especially in comparison to the article by Zvi Bar'el for Haaretz (Israel News). 68.100.84.46 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I really just want to get this right. I don't have a problem calling her Assad if that's the culturally correct way to refer to someone whose surname is al-Assad. As for how we refer to her before she married, yes, we can still refer to her by her current name. Nothing wrong with that and, in my view, stylistically better. I looked at the Clinton article, and it's all over the place (sometimes Hillary, sometimes Hillary Rodham, sometimes just Rodham). In any event, we don't have to follow what that article does (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The only guideline I'm aware of on this issue is WP:SURNAME, but I don't believe it addresses this particular issue. Ulimately, what important is clarity and consistency, which is why I prefer to call her by Assad on all subsequent uses except when it would be confusing. I welcome other editors' viewpoints on this, but please don't change it without reaching some consensus on it. Finally, I'm going to remove the Emma part. The way you worded it, it sounds like Emma was an official part of her name. What I read was that while she was in university in England, she was referred to as Emma. That's a nickname (it sounds like the English wanted to anglicize her real name). So, I'm going to eliminate the Emmma part. Please work with me on all of this rather than assume I have some sort of ulterior motives.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to get this "right", you are failing miserably with your objectivity. Refer to Bashar al-Assad's page if you have questions of the usage of "Assad" for someone whose surname is al-Assad. In regards to referring Asma al-Assad to her current name prior to her meeting and marriage to Bashar al-Assad: I completely vehemently disagree with you. By not recognizing Asma and her maiden name prior to her marriage is taking agency from Asma as a woman. Feminists would agree to this as well; additionally, if you want to talk anglicizing -- you would know if you were a expert in this field, that in Muslim countries, women keep their maiden names even AFTER they get married. The adoption of the husband's surname is a Western practice. So the Western world is in a sense, anglicizing Asma al-Akras by assuming that like western countries, Syrian women adopt their husbands' surnames when they get married. Research this. This is a common practice in Islam. Personally, your "view" that it looks stylistically better means nothing to me. I want objectivity and politically correctness. So you looked at former First Lady Hillary Clinton's page -- you should read over what you write. You acknowledged that prior to Hillary Clinton's marriage, she is referred to as "Hillary" (which is fine, that's HER name), "Hillary Rodham" (perfect, that's her maiden name), and "Rodham" (again, fine because it is HER maiden name prior to her having anything to do with Clinton). Again, I don't care about your personal preferences. You have to understand, you do not OWN this page. You are not in charge of MODERATING this page. Frankly, your objectiveness and ability to control your bias has been questionable. Using "al-Akras" as her rightful surname prior to Asma al-Assad's marriage is not confusing at all -- you do understand that this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, yes? Any individual with a decent knowledge of the English language would not be confused by rightfully referring to Asma by her maiden name PRIOR to her dating-marriage to her husband. I'm fine with omitting her name "Emma" because there is no proof it was her legal name; however, it has been cited in many many articles that she used Emma during her years in the United Kingdom. And no, you are incorrect in your readings that she only used "Emma" during her education at the university in England. I'm completely willing to work with you -- you should do the same. You have made change after change on this page WITHOUT consulting to the talk page. Lastly, stop preaching to the choir. You ask that others do not make edits or changes without "reaching some consensus on it" and yet you make changes without consulting with anyone!!! Please, follow your own advice. I have made note on the talk page with every edit I have made thus far -- YOU have not. I have asked for two editors to review the changes I have made. I cannot settle with simply YOUR opinion because your opinion is, as I said earlier, questionable at best. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. I took Emma out of the infobox (I think your leaving it there was unintentional). I'm leaving "your" version in place. If someone else wants to voice an opinion, fine; otherwise, that will be an end to this wonderful chapter of working with you. I have no doubt you dislike it as much as I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the "Emma" out of the infobox. You are correct; it was not intentional. I thought I had removed all the Emma references. Please do not take it personal. Live a little. It's not about "your version" or "my version"; it's about the most accurate version. I hope you did some research on Islam and how a woman changing her surname after marriage is haram (forbidden) and how Syrian women, amongst other Muslim women, do not change their surname in accordance to their husband. This is purely a Western practice. Please refer to the talk page before making any future changes to this page. As you said, "reach[ing] some consensus on it" before. Hopefully Andy and Sarek will chime in with their opinions. Their presence has been requested.68.100.84.46 (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I skimmed over the vast majority of your great walls of text. The current state of the presentation of her name is inconsistent and appears to be random. I have not taken the time to examine who made what edits at which time but my initial inclination is that you have laid into Bbb23 much more then need be and I appreciate that he has remained patient and calm about it. If the current edits are the end state you desired then we have a long ways to go as the current status is completely unsatisfactory for any BLP, much less a serving First Lady (nominally). Veriss (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent and random? I urge you to visit any serving or previous First Lady's BLP and tell me how respecting a woman's maiden name prior to marriage is inconsistent and random? You are obviously a man. Only a man could make such assumptions. Furthermore, as noted in my more recent comments, women in Syria do not adopt their husband's surname. It is forbidden haram in Islam. So the very idea of applying al-Assad to Asma's name is a Western practice. In regards to your opinion that the current status is unsatisfactory; well, with the limited information we have on Asma al-Assad, I think the page looks decent. However, I will not just sit on my hands and watch anyone try to grow something big out of what is small. Any editor(s) must stick to the facts and put their egos and opinions to the side. Lastly, I have undone your revision. What "circle" are you referring to? And have you actually taken the time to go through the sources provided? Sans your personal opinion of Asma al-Assad's lack of voice in the recent events in Syria, prior to these recent events, how has she not been a progressive voice since she became First Lady? It does not matter what Western media today is trying to portray her as. It's not rocket science that the media is sexist towards women. My understanding of what you are trying to do with these edits is you are attempting to illustrate Asma al-Assad as some mindless, ditzy, and clueless individual who has no substance or opinion, and is only known for the clothes on her back. Prior to the recent events, she was applauded as a progressive woman in the Arab world. Please review the sources and actually read. It appears you like to skim. That won't be appropriate if you want to make edits of substance on this BLP. 68.100.84.46 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

She is referred to by name five times in this article and each time by a different form of her name. She is referred to in five different ways. That appears to me to be random and haphazard and hardly encyclopedic as most readers have no clue how to refer to her after reading it. Regarding the presentation of her name, this article remains unsatisfactory. I will work with you if you would please dump that huge chip that appears to be on your shoulder. Cheers,Veriss (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is English is your first language? Because there are Wikipedias for most foreign languages. Perhaps English is not your forte. The reason why we even had name changes in the BLP is because your buddy, Bbb2, said that it was inappropriate to refer to Asma al-Assad by her first name ("we can't call subjects by their first names except in rare circumstances"). Prior to his objection, it was Asma this and Asma that. You would have picked this up if you weren't such a "skimmer". You can confirm this by posting on his talk page again if you would like, since that will be quicker and more effective than "skimming". Haphazard? Wow, how dramatic. And no, please do not question the intelligence of the readers of this BLP, or any BLP for that matter. No clue how to refer her? Come on now. First of all, readers need to search Asma al-Assad (they know how to refer to her) to get to this page. Period. Second, you will see the first thing on this BLP is Asma al-Assad in BOLD. Confusion? A big fat maybe, if your knowledge of the English language is secondary. I don't really need you to work with ME. I am not the moderator of this BLP, neither is Bbb2. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that I will question and address any nonfactual information you try to impose on this page. I will bring outside moderators and administrators into the matter. So, don't bother trying to "work with me" and don't worry about my shoulders. Toodles! 68.100.84.46 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the name change made by Bbb2 since it was causing such distress for Veriss. Bbb2, he has started a conversation on your talk page so address the issue with him directly if you still find it problematic to "...call subjects by their first names except in rare circumstances". One additional thing: I feel that it would look better as, "She has remained largely silent" instead of "Asma has remained largely silent", but you two can buddy up and discuss that change. Have fun! 68.100.84.46 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My first language is "Wookiee" so I sometimes struggle with the English language even though George Lucas promised to be more inclusive. Perhaps you are familiar with it? We are tree dwellers. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest name changes and other edits

I just restored the article back to before all the latest name changes (even though they were more in line with my thinking) because it's not fair to go to that usage without first discussing it. If there's a consensus, fine; but, otherwise, it should have remained the way 68. had it (now Etoiles). I also removed a bunch of unnecessary wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK. Mixed in that, I probably removed some valid material, which could be put back in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care about the changes. The only thing I would like to insist that stays is the "Asma al-Akhras was born in London...." tidbit. As a feminist, I don't like that women are forced to lose their agency due to marriage. Her surname prior to marriage was "al-Akhras". I don't think it's confusing to address her as such in respects to her early life. It's like, "Michelle LaVaughn Robinson was born on...." We know who Michelle is, even though she will eventually become "Michelle Obama". I get that (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) but I would like to get this First Lady page in uniform with other First Lady pages. I don't get why we can't get this "crap" in sync with other First Lady pages. Is it because she is Arab? Because she is "the other"? Regardless of who Asma al-Assad's husband is and what he has done should not adversely affect how we should represent her on this page; the fact is she was born Asma al-Akras -- not Asma al-Assad. She will always be Asma al-Akras; regardless of what Western media wants to infamously call her. It's this orientalist obsession with this woman and wanting to categorize her as "the other" that mind boggles me. Let's not discriminate, assume, and treat her any differently than any other First Ladies throughout the world. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorting through the personal attacks, I think that

1)She should be referred to by her family surname as much as possible rather then her first name.

2)She should be referred to by her maiden surname for the discussion concerning her pre-married life.

3)She should be referred to by her married surname for any period including and following the section about her serving as First Lady of Syria.

My problem with this article as it currently stands is consistency in presentation, not ideological issues. I want a reader to know that he or she should refer to her as XXXX XXXXX or YYYY YYYY once they finish reading it. As the article currently exists, that cannot be surmised, thus these changes are needed. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You are American. Have a visit to the Michelle Obama page or the Hillary Rodham Clinton page, which in terms of "surnames" stands similar to this First Lady page. Just because a BLP states that "Hillary Rodham was born in October..." and "Michelle Robinson was born in January..." does not confuse the reader(s) of that persons' identity. Especially when the title of the page is listed as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Michelle Obama". Both of which are in bold letters in three places throughout the page. Perhaps you should remove the box on your page that credits your proficiency in the English language because it appears you have trouble following. Read up. Lastly, instead of whining and complaining about your issues or "haphazard" conditions, how about making some suggestions to ponder about, so that we can do something resourceful? Ex: We should replace "blah blah blah" with "ta ta ta". Toodles! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I made three very specific suggestions. I will continue to ignore your personal attacks because the continued use of them only weakens your position. If you have objections to my very specific proposals, please post up your concerns and offer alternative proposals. We don't groove on personal attacks and debates, we just want to resolve the issue. I invite you to be an adult and participate in an adult discussion without attacking your colleagues. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Veriss, if you were not such a "skimmer", you would know that I have made more than enough suggestions. You have made no suggestions. You have simply broken down and re-worded everything that I have argued all this time. Which is, that Asma Al-Assad should be referred to by her maiden name prior to her marriage, that Al-Assad should be used only after her marriage. And Bb2 suggestion, that first names should not be used for public figures. Perhaps you may want to take the previous advice of Flatterworld in 2011 and read, "..Beginning to end, slowly and carefully" and then, you may be able to follow and include yourself in this conversation more efficiently. Ha, you are hysterical. Bless your heart. Toodles! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be some consensus for the styles that I suggested so will make the appropriate edits. Veriss (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made the edits that I had envisioned and they do not appear to be too dramatic. If anyone has any concerns, please post up and I will be happy to work with you. Veriss (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Early Life

So Bbb2, per my message to you, this is what I have drafted to have changed for the Early Life section. Let me know your thoughts on this:

Asma al-Akhras was born on August 11, 1975, in London, to Fawaz Akhras, a consultant cardiologist at the Cromwell Hospital, London, and Sahar Akhras (née Otri), an retired diplomat. Her parents are Sunni and of Syrian origin, originally from Homs.

I am making this suggestion to make it clear as ice that Asma al-Assad's birth and maiden name is in fact, al-Akras. This should eliminate any possible confusion about her given name for those who are not proficient in the English language. So post your thoughts. Let's discuss and actually be constructive and progressive about this. Thanks. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside my earlier comments about how we refer to her, I have no problem with your latest edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thanks for your seal of approval. The previous paragraph was sloppy. I had to address it as I felt it contributed to the suggested confusion. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Chidren birth years

I added the years her children were born. The subject, after all, gave birth to them. Instead of adding the years to the actual paragraph, I added it into the info box. This can, of course be undone. What do you think, Bbb? Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Etoiles, some editors might prefer not to have the birth years of her children in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is that, Bbb? Doesn't the birth years of her children show that she was at least serving a purpose during those select years? Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

First, some editors believe that children don't belong in infoboxes unless the children are in their own right notable. Second, some editors don't like giving too much identifying information about children in the interest of privacy. Don't forget infoboxes are different from the body because they are very prominent. Personally, I don't object to what you've done in the infobox because you haven't given the precise birth dates (that would be a bit much), and in my view, children of heads of state are inherently more notable than children of other article subjects. I was just pointing it out, that's all.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb2, ah, okay. Gotcha. I do feel that these children are notable. If the current cycle in Syria continues, Hafez Jr. will become president. I'm not suggesting that I hope that happens, but these kids are possible heirs to this autocracy. Yes, I left the exact birth dates out because I felt that was overkill. The information is out there on the web; including their fathers' page. I just didn't feel we needed to go that far on this particular page. Thanks for the heads up. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Assad Emails

Interesting info published by The Guardian:

• Gilded lifestyle continued for Assad coterie as conflict raged in Syria

• Emails

Should be added to article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Boy, the Guardian is really pulling out all the stops. What text would you propose adding to the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Before everyone gets excited, there is no proof that these emails are authentic. These are "alleged" emails. "The Guardian newspaper admits it "is impossible rule out the possibility of fakes" in the cache of over 3,000 emails". If you want to include anything about the alleged emails, make sure you notate the 'alleged' somewhere.68.100.84.46 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I just have to reiterate. We are talking about 3,000+ emails; none of which are confirmed as authentic. Provided to The Guardian by the Syrian opposition (clearly, they have an agenda), which they are claiming to have obtained by hacking into personal email accounts. That is, with a huge question of whether or not these emails are even authentic. I have a problem with making any kind of addition from these alleged emails without knowing 100% they are authentic. That, and also the morality and ethics behind this. Have we learned absolutely nothing from the Rupert Murdoch hacking scandal? Shameless. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

These emails are great, wish they would have translated more of them. I'm not sure if the emails will have any information for this article. Maybe there's useful information for some of the articles directly related with the Syrian uprising or some of the other biography articles. These emails complement nicely the Strafor emails http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releases.html. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If these alleged emails are authentic, I think it is perverse. These are the private lives of individuals that the media has had a campaign to vilify since day one. These emails were allegedly obtained by Syrian opposition, through unethical means - hacking into email accounts. Whether the 3,000+ emails are the fabrication of opposition members with malicious intents, or authentic remains to be seen. The Guardian themselves, have said they cannot prove the authenticity of the emails. Why would you want to build upon material that is hearsay? Looks like desperately grabbing at loose straws to me. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

some of the emails are personal and are not relevant, however, there are some that are government related. a reliable source such as the guardian appears to be willing to use them so that material can be used by wikipedia. there doesn't seem to be much hesitation in using the leaked embassy cables of the US government, although, I don't think the government ever acknowledged them as genuine. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if The Guardian is a reliable source of information if their main source of information is provided by the Syrian opposition. I don't consider that fine or credible journalism. Of course The Guardian would use this material! It's juicy and it's controversial. This is what their main purpose and focus is: to reel in readers. In regards to the leaked cables -- I'm pretty sure the fact that the U.S. wanting to prosecute Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, as well as the outrage and reaction by international governments affected by the leaked cables are a clear testament that they are genuine. As a matter of fact, I believe the U.S. did in fact acknowledge the validity of the cable leaks so I would consider them "genuine" and authentic. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

While the authenticity of the leaks hasn't been confirmed 100%, reliable sources have suggested that they more than likely belong to al-Assad. It would not be a BLP violation to mention the existence of these letters. I'm not sure if anything can be quoted and explicitly attributed to al-Assad, that should be run by someone familiar with BLP policy. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not currently think that the contents of the emails should be used or quoted within the article until such a time as they might be corroborated as authentic. I do think that it is perfectly acceptable to use properly cited analytical articles from reliable sources that discuss the emails in question. Pardon me if I skimmed over something but my first language is Wookiee and we tend to go for the meat. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikifan -- Who exactly are these "reliable sources"? I read an article on CNN who quoted "reliable sources" but of course, these "reliable sources" are not revealed, which to me, does absolutely nothing. As I said previously, any mention of these emails must include "allegedly" until anything is verified and authenticated. Everything just seems hearsay to me. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

CNN is a reliable source. Wikifan^{Be nice} 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? No source is 100% reliable. I still remember when CNN falsely reported Gabrielle Giffords as dead after the horrific shooting in Tucson. In regards to this particular situation, I still would like you to elaborate on whom these "reliable sources" are that you referred to earlier. Frankly, I'm quite disgusted with mainstream media. A lot of the information coming out of Syria is provided by activists and opposition members, whom apparently are credible "journalists" now. Granted, there is a huge censorship issue in Syria, but I don't agree with taking what these activists report as 100% true. The government has an agenda, as well as these opposition members. If CNN, or any news agency for that matter, cannot provide these "reliable sources", are we suppose to take their word for it and just savor what they are spoon-feeding us? The whole point of the Wiki Leaks was for transparency. Pity that the media cannot be held credible, nor do they themselves provide transparency. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Les, I get your frustration, really. But the wikipedia community considers CNN, as well as the Guardian, to be reliable sources. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I can't help but feel this is nothing short of a vicious cycle. If CNN reports something, and we automatically assume that it is authentic without being provided backing credible sources, we are just contributing to this vicious cycle of the media circus. Any sane and intellectual person should be aware that media, in itself, is highly censored and biased. There's so much in mainstream media that is filtered. And just a quick FYI: The Guardian has not addressed the recent sexual assault and murder of their female journalist in Libya, nor has any mainstream media covered the Christian Syrians in Homs, who have been displaced out of their homes due to being evicted by the Free Syrian Army (opposition). So much is biased and one-sided. There is a lack of balance and equilibrium in media. Even in the sources we have now, everything is Western media characterizing an Arab woman. Totally one-sided. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian and CNN are reliable sources at Wikipedia. Not using the material because these sources are unreliable is a non-starter. The issue of the authenticity of the e-mail can be dealt with in the text we use. The sources we cite to mention the issue of authenticity, so that, too, is not a problem. It just has to be worded carefully. The bigger problem, in my view, is ensuring that the material we put into the article is not WP:COATRACK or WP:UNDUE. In other words, the material has to be relevant to her, not to her husband. That's why I suggested that someone propose text to insert into the article so we can evaluate something concrete. The only reason I haven't done it is (1) time and (2) I'm not in any big hurry to insert the material. I generally consider it more urgent to remove inappropriate material than to insert appropriate material, particularly with respect to BLPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me get one thing straight. I am not saying that The Guardian or CNN are unreliable sources. I'm simply saying that no source is 100% reliable and authentic. The fact that these two sources are mainly depending on the journalistic skills of activists and opposition members for Syria-related news is sketchy to me. That is the exact same case with these alleged emails, which again, were provided by the opposition by supposed unethical and illegal means. I watch CNN, amongst other news sources, and I can tell you with confidence that they are and have been one-sided on a plethora of issues now and in the past. Additionally, the "reliable" Guardian that released these emails have said themselves that they cannot authenticate the emails. As I stated previously, there are 3,000+ alleged emails that exist. Have we gotten so desperate that we have to extract information from allegedly hacked emails that are not even verified to be authentic? The Guardian has contacted the various emails corresponded in the alleged emails and no one has confirmed the authenticity. Orientalist fascination. Pity. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@Les Etoiles de Ma Vie, It appears from the venom in your personal interactions on this talk page, your personal attacks and other indicators that you are perhaps personally involved in the subject of the article.

If perhaps you have a personal involvement in this article then you should declare your involvement or just take a few days off from editing it. Bbb23 and I, as well as others have been watching this article for a long time so we won't let anything drastic happen if you decide to take a few days rest. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@Veriss, You are hysterical. Venom? You really are dramatic. You may want to pursue theater. Personally involved in the subject of the article? Nope. Personal interest in Islamic studies? Yes. I suggest you take a recess from this article, as you have been absolutely nonproductive. Based upon the comments on this talk page, you have been active on this article for only a year. For the past month, you have not contributed to this article in any way. Based upon your interactions (and yes, I read - I do not skim), you clearly have an agenda. I do not. If you read through my comments and did not "skim", you would come to realization that I only would like to represent Asma al-Assad truthfully, with facts, sans personal opinions. Opinions do not matter here. Egos have no place here. Speculation can be represented, but should be clearly noted as such. While I appreciate your suggestion, I would like to return and suggest you take your own advice. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Etoiles, can't you ratchet it down a few notches? Your substantive comments are often helpful, but your attacks aren't. Disagreeing with Veriss is fine, but the rhetoric isn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb2, are you seriously calling out my rhetoric opposed to Veriss'? As if he is not instigating my responses? Every single time he has something to say to me, he responds in at least two different categories. He's always popping in with his unhelpful silly comments; thinking that he is a smart ass when with all honesty, I think he's just a joke. He should either contribute to this page and put his damn ego aside, or just shut the hell up. With that said, I'm not going to be addressing him further, as I think he is a waste of time and energy. If he wants to contribute to this page, he is of course more than welcome to. But if he wants attention, perhaps you can suggest he gets himself a dog. Oh, and P.S. Bbb2 - I just wanted to let you know that Supreme Deliciousness copy and pasted the exact same thing on the Bashar al-Assad talk page. The response there has also been that these emails are just "rumors". So I'm not the only skeptic in regards to this emails. Just a FYI. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(smiling) That's hardly ratcheting it down. Thanks for the pointer to the Bashar article Talk page. So far, only one editor has commented (an experienced and, in my view, very careful editor, though) - I may watch it to see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

He suggested that I have venom -- which to me, suggests that I am a snake. I detest snakes. But there will be no need to ratchet down in the future, as I don't plan to address him directly until he matures into a gentleman. He can always post on this talk page and on your talk page if he needs your attention. And yes, definitely watch the talk page for Bashar. I just noticed last night that they have protected his page from random edits, so I assume the editors in charge are prominent and respected. Thanks. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, some snakes are quite beautiful, but I gotta confess I'm not real fond of them either. The Bashar article is only semi-protected; I wouldn't necessarily assume all the editors who can edit the article are "prominent and respected", just registered accounts with enough edits to be auto-confirmed. I just happen to respect the editor who responded about the e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, some snakes are beautiful, but I detest them nonetheless. Thank you for clarifying how the editors are chosen for the article. I guess I was under the wrong impression. And yes, I did check Dr. K's page and he is quite the intellect. I'm glad to hear you respect him. He is a true academic. I will be watching the Talk page as well. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute and edit war

i don't want to be blocked for edit-warring - are you neutral on ths subject etoiles ? has her extravagance not been remarked on ? it has you know. Sayerslle (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to stop. As you can see, from the above, there has been a lot of discussion about whether to include material related to the leaked e-mail, and, in my view, no consensus has been reached. I've also asked editors to propose material here first so it can be evaluated before inserting it into the article. In addition, if you look earlier on the Talk page, you'll see that inclusion of references to Marie Antoinette was rejected, so for you to put that into the article without additional discussion is inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I need you to use better grammar. How old are you? Do you really want to edit this article with that kind of grammar? Because if so, you should consider retiring. To answer your question, yes, I am absolutely neutral. But honey, you live in the UK, so certainly you know that people in authoritative situations live in opulence and extravagance. In your case, the Royals. Lastly, if you did as I told you earlier and read through the Talk page, you would realize that the emails have not been proven to be authentic. I need you to read. I also would like for you to use proper grammar, as your current grammar, adversely devalues your intellect. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

where does the source say she is credited with liberalising the economy? you didn't answer- are you neutral? - its a rule of wp we dont drag our politics onto article pages and seek to shove our pov on the page. i think the extravagance has been widely remarked on , not just because its common for rulers to be like that, but you know, context 'honey', - the contrast between what she was concerning herself with and the other things going on. Authentic or not - and , well, - authentic or not opinion has er 'coalesced' around them whatever,- ( sincere apologies if thats not the correct word- im a thicko as you know) plus its a bit immature to cry off to other editors and ask for them to deal with people you are fighting with, etoiles du caniveau Sayerslle (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are a hopeless cause. I have already stated that I did not author that part of the article. Do you have ADHD? Because you are not following anything. I have already answered your question on neutrality in the previous comment. Please learn to read. I find it kind of laughable that you are telling me about not bringing politics into article pages when that is precisely what you are infamous for. I have read through all your edits and your history; you seem to thrive on controversy and forcing your opinions down peoples' throats. That won't work here. Lastly, again, you really need to work on your grammar. Your writing is all over the place and I simply cannot take you seriously. You don't have any credibility, at all. Pitiful. And fighting? With you? Oh goodness, don't flatter yourself. You are not even close to being on my level. Thank you for the laugh. Finally, I won't be wasting my energy conversing with you further. You are a waste of my precious energy. So not worth it. So have fun talking to yourself. ;) P.S. Nice last minute edit with the French, but again, so laughable. Trouve toi une vie! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. are you neutral? why can't you answer a simple question.If you didn't author that part of the article, you still took away the tag I'd put there and thus endorsed the source as saying something I was questioning it as saying - i dunno - say good night to the folks, gracie. taré. Sayerslle (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC

I think we have a problematic editor on our hands. If the tone of the discussion and the personal attacks about editors having ADHD and being illiterate do not cease immediately I suggest that we request outside commentary. Veriss (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)