Jump to content

Talk:Fall of the Assad regime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Great Mercian (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 9 December 2024 (→Requested move 9 December 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fall of the Assad regime

I propose WP:MERGE WP:CONCISE Fall of the Assad dynasty → Fall of the Assad regime, MOS:AT. QalasQalas (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have placed a WP:RMTM for this. The Assads weren't royalty and didn't present themselves as such. In theory, the Baath Party leadership could have passed to others. SnowFire (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment below. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bashar al-Assad has probably died from a plane crash

There's reports suggesting that Bashar al-Assad has been killed in a plane crash (possibly fake). I feel like this should definitely be mentioned here. However, the reports are unconfirmed. Thoughts? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be done, unless it is confirmed. We need to wait this situation out. DerEchteJoan (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrian Air Flight 9218 - deleted because even if there was a plane crash, there are insufficient WP:RS and there's no notability related to Assad, since he appears to have fled to Russia. Boud (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With more information coming out it appears he has fled to Russia
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqx89reeevgo Pikachubob3 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. This was all a hoax. Well, at least we know better now. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:SNOW close, clear consensus in favor. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the Assad dynasty → Fall of the Assad regime – Just check the titles of the sources below, and how mainstream media calls this Assad regime, not dynasty. Search results: "fall of the assad dynasty" / "fall of the assad regime" anyways regime had been the most common word describing the government. WP:COMMONNAME. Beshogur (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support “dynasty” is used for monarchies and regardless regime is the most used 78.182.128.136 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ‘dynasty’ is more of an informal moniker when referring to Assad’s (sr and jr’s) government, while “regime” is more formal and more often used The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would make clarification better. It was also not a Monarchy. DerEchteJoan (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question This article seems tied to Al-Assad family which says, The al-Assad family, also known as the Assad dynasty, is a Syrian political family that ruled Syria... (Italics used in place of bolded text.} If this article is moved, should the other article be adjusted? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the family, noth about Hafez and Bashar alone. This is about the regime that ruled the country. Beshogur (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assad's government was not a monarchy and its clearer to the reader what the article is about. YaBoiWilhelm (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the question of whether the government characterises itself using the term "dynasty" is not of necessary relevance to the article naming, it is also clear that scholarly and journalistic sources do not commonly use the term "dynasty". Y. Dongchen (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title of dynasty is consistent with our article dynasty. Our article regime indicates that that term has a different meaning. Here are their definitions:
A dynasty is a sequence of rulers from the same family, usually in the context of a monarchical system, but sometimes also appearing in republics.
In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is a system of government that determines access to public office, and the extent of power held by officials.
So, the Assad family was a dynasty. The regime was Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction).
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to try to convince you but almost no one calls it the Ba'athist regime, but rather the Assad regime (media, etc.) WP:COMMONNAME, whether it's true or not. Beshogur (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Syria has been notified of this discussion. HurricaneEdgar 10:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support by the reasons exposed by other editors (not a monarchy, better clarification). Impru20talk 10:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, having in mind the (at least nominal) republican nature of the Assad/Ba'athist regime. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 11:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per WP:COMMONNAME.Regime is the more commonly used term and better reflects the ongoing collapse of an entire regime as opposed to a single family dynasty. Guinsardrhineford0079 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NPOV. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thought it over for a bit, and the fact the word "regime" is very loaded term, but Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy being at that title means its not without precedent. Also, the other preceding or ancillary members of the Assad family are not really relevant to this article.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 11:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it's the WP:COMMONNAME and using 'dynasty' presents WP:NPOV issues. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is a dynasty but regime is the common name A Socialist Trans Girl 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Protection

Can someone please protect this page so only EC users can edit it, due to constant vandalism by IPs. Waleed (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the government-that-we-don't-like

The current title means, effectively, Fall of the Assad government-that-we-don't/didn't-like.

While it's true that "regime" is widely used in the Western press, that's because Bashar al-Assad's government was widely seen as a government that "we" - leaders of Western states - didn't like. They happen to be right in my personal opinion, since al-Assad was a bloodthirsty tyrant, but that's irrelevant in this Wikipedia context. In normal content, we can't write "Assad regime", because that's WP:WEASELly. But for titles, we go by wide usage - WP:COMMONNAME. So two questions:

  1. Can we use a weaselly name because it's widely used in the Western English-language press? (The above RM suggests "yes".)
  2. Can we use or is it acceptable to use weaselly language in the content of this article to match the title, as an exception to WP:WEASEL?

The first question should probably only have loose discussion, unless the discussion starts evolving towards a "No" answer, since there was a snow close. At least in the short term, anyway.

For the second question, the precedent of Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy, a topic on which there have been many decades of historical discussion, I only see two non-quote usages of "regime" within the article, while "government" is used a lot more. I would tend to say "No", except in cases where it clearly refers to the general system of government, rather than the specific Assad government. The risk of "Yes" to the second question is that then we sound like we're presenting the preferences of Western governments in a WP:WEASELly way - instead of saying outright, Fall of the bloodthirsty Assad government, we're pretending to sound educated by confusing between a meaning useful in political sciences (general system of government) with a word that means "government" but adds a pejorative connotation: Fall of the nasty Assad government written in an intellectual-sounding way to camouflage the meaning. Boud (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The eagerness of the mainstream media and the unwitting cooperation of Wikipedians to use "regime" only for governments-that-Western-leaders-oppose makes me very much think of Two Minutes Hate. Boud (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I've not seen any "unwitting wikipedian" use "Putin regime or Moscow regime" in constrast to the term "Kyiv regime" which was used by some vandals a long time back. Theofunny (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ruling authoritarian governments which have lost the popular support of the people or don't have it yet and are being challenged politically, especially in a war are commonly referred to as "regimes" which is why, we don't see anyone calling the UAE or Saudi governments a regime. For example, in the Russian civil war article, you can see the bolshevik governance referred to as a "regime". Theofunny (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The designation "regime" has a quite specific meaning in political science parlance, and it is misused, both deliberately and not, throughout the encyclopedia.
The bias goes back centuries, though.
cordially, Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a de-WEASEL edit, hopefully without mistakes. People who see the nuances differently to me, feel free to further fix, or to avoid a risk of violating 1RR, propose them here if you think you've already done one revert in the last 24 hours. @Augmented Seventh: On the wider question of throughout the encyclopedia, someone sufficiently motivated could ask for help handling this with an interactive "de-regime-bot" - e.g. that finds pages with the word "regime" and asks you for each one if you wish to edit the section after checking the context properly. It shouldn't be done blindly, of course (quotes and references should not be changed, and some uses are valid). Boud (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Regime", in colloquial usage, describes an authoritarian an oppressive government, not a "negative" one. It may be your view (and the view of most of western society) that authoritarianism and oppression are bad but that doesn't mean that the word "regime" is inherently biased. The Assad regime was, by all accounts, authoritarian and oppressive. This is a simple fact.
Removing most instances of the word "regime", however, is biased, as it signals that you wish to separate an authoritarian regime from connotations of authoritarianism. Loytra (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Assad government was authoritarian and oppressive - that's well-sourced and not under debate. The problem with using "regime" with the connotation of "authoritarian and oppresive" is creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. If the "authoritarian and oppressive" connotation of "regime" were not vague, then we would state, per V-Dem Democracy Indices, "the Saudi Arabian regime", "the Qatar regime", "the UAE regime", "the Egyptian regime", "the Turkish regime", "the Thai regime", depending on which particular cutoff and which particular index we wish to choose.
Vagueness is not encyclopedic.
Replacing some of occurrences of the word "government" by "dictatorship" would be much better than writing "regime": the meaning of "dictatorship" is unambiguous. Particular changes would depend on what makes sense in each particular sentence: repeating that the government is a dictatorship is relevant in some sentences, and of minor importance or distracting in others. Boud (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian state television had nothing on but this message for several hours (in Arabic): “Victory of the great Syrian revolution and the fall of the criminal al-Assad regime". https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2024/12/08/syrian-state-tv-hails-victory-of-revolution-fall-of-al-assad- kencf0618 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2024 (2)

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jpatokal (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the Assad regime → Fall of the al-Assad regime – Like al-Assad family. ArionStar (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose nobody refers to them as 'al-Assad' unless using their full names. Assad is always used. Great Mercian (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boud and 331dot Horsers (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not as if the Assad family uses the multi-part naming convention of non-Westernised Arabs (comprising an ism, laqab, kunya, nasab, and a nisba), and that "Assad" is somehow ambiguous. It is short and unambiguously refers to the political family starting with Hafez al-Assad. Y. Dongchen (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most non-Arabic sources refer to him as Assad, not al-Assad Randomperson43322 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above demonstrations that "Assad" is more common than "al-Assad". estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose “al-“ prefix in Arabic means “the” so it is redundant. It would basically become “fall of the the-Assad regime”. So either “fall of the Assad regime” or “Fall of al-Assad regime” would be the choices here The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Intl media generally uses the term "Assad regime" not "al-Assad regime". "al-Assad" is usually used while discussing the dynasty. Theofunny (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:and Concur per @Boud adding Asad is family name if you [al-Assad] that mostly implied the fall of the last 24 years of al-Asad QalasQalas (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if we change it to Fall of the Ba'athist Assad regime or a variant of this. Zyxrq (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That is unnecesarily verbose Horsers (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's too long adds against WP:PRECISE QalasQalas (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

`Weak Oppose. I think either would be ok, but it's probably better to stick with the name usually used by Western media. MarchRain ♡ 「weather station」 06:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're now at 16 opposes and 0 supports, I'm invoking WP:SNOW and closing this out. Jpatokal (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding more context about the start of the anti-Assad offensive.

I added a paragraph about the political context to the start of the anti-Assad offensive against Aleppo, noting that rebels had planned the offensive in late 2023 (exact date not clear, but almost certainly after October 7). Turkey initially blocked the offensive but lifted its hold after a diplomatic initiative by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was rebuffed. The initial goal of the offensive was to be limited.

More could be added about the Aleppo phase of the anti-Assad offensive.

I initially proposed this as an edit to Bashar al-Assad's bio, but BobFromBrockley judged it to be too detailed for that article, and suggested it belonged better here; he is correct. ScottWade56 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong date possibility

I the first paragraph under the map in section "Opposition takeover" the date is "27 November 2023". Shouldnt it be 2024? Gubernator2 (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 December 2024

Fall of the Assad regime → Fall of Ba'athist Syria – "Assad regime" appears in no other article titles on Wikipedia, and its use in this title implies that the 1970-2024 rule of the Assad family over the Syrian state is all that ended rather than the entire 1963-2024 state itself. –Gluonz talk contribs 18:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no source is refering to it as Ba'athist Syria. Only Wikipedia is. Great Mercian (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fall_of_the_Assad_regime&oldid=1262123138"