Talk:Asma al-Assad/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

What Exactly is Currently in Dispute?

There have been so many side discussions that it has become difficult to keep track of the actual issues concerning the articles. What in your opinion remains to be resolved? This is an attempt at a fresh start to communicate openly, please treat each other with respect. Veriss (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I sought to add a couple of sentences about the recent commentary that centred around the apparent preoccupations of Assad's wife - shopping/fashion [1]- in the midst of the uprising - and how this had altered perceptions of her - tarnished her image - this was sourced to articles in the daily mail, the guardian, and the independent - it has been widely discussed. further i tagged an assertion that she had been credited with 'liberalising the economy' - the source - which is a highly critical article infact, that had been egregiously cherry picked for a couple of sentences - did not mention as far as I could see anything about her influence 'liberalising the economy'. a couple of sentences and a tag - and, oh my god, what a yawp started up. the e-mails, authentic or not, have been the occasion for much commentary on the personality and preoccupations of asma. thats it. i'm not going to pursue it but if the papers i regularly look at - the indepndent, guardian - continue to write about the Assad circle and asma's influence/personality/attitudes I will risk further abuse from the likes of etoiles - ( who claimed to have checked all my edits - what all 7000 of them etoiles? - is casual lying ok to you?) -in the interest of the article reflecting real world reportage etc. Sayerslle (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I see three issues raised by Sayerslle:
  1. The "liberalizing the economy" phrase
  2. The e-mail controversy
  3. The neutrality regarding Assad's "good" works and her "frivolous" activities
With respect to the first and third issues, I think the phrase can be eliminated (and I'm going to do so). It takes a stretch to pull that out of the CNN article. I also agree with Sayerslle that the CNN article is more critical than positive, but it's not exactly cherry picking. As I recall, the good stuff was taken from that source, and the balance was the subsequent paragraph about what she's been doing (or not doing) during the uprising. Still, I tend to agree with Sayerslle that the material is not well balanced, but in previous discussions I was out-voted on these issues (it got myred in the Marie Antoinette comparison, which many editors thought was over the top). We have to be careful not to get WP:COATRACK in this article because it is not an article about the Syrian uprising or her husband but about her. However, even with that in mind, it is not balanced at the moment.
With respect to the second issue, that is very hard because the e-mails are being portrayed in the media as very damning, yet the media acknowledges that they can't authenticate the e-mail.
With respect to all three issues, someone please propose some actual text we can evaluate. I hate doing this stuff in the abstract. If we're going to arrive at a consensus for what to do, we need to know what it is we're "voting" on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Bbb2, I'm completely fine with the latest edits made on the page. However, I still vote against the usage of the "Marie Antoinette" comparison. I believe that was a fair concession made and agreed upon; the media comparisons of Princess Diana, Carla Bruni (removed, completely unnecessary) vs. Marie Antoinette (media opinions). Lastly, you mention balance. What imbalance is there? I believe from your comments that you have agreed that Asma al-Assad needs to be kept separate from Bashar al-Assad and the current events in Syria. Yes, they are married, but no source has proposed that she is making orders for any of the current events in Syria. If anything, her silence has been the hot topic. However, you cannot vilify a public figure based upon your personal opinion. If anything, I have read Bashar al-Assad's mother and sister have more say in the politics than his wife. And, in regards to the alleged shopping escapades, again, it is unauthenticated. It seems obscene that we have a select number of editors who want to base this BLP on their opinions and media characterizations of this public figure. As I have said before, repetitively, facts over opinions. The page, as it stands, is neither here, nor there. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Bbb22 , here's a stab at some text: " Andrew Tabler- ( an American scholar and journalist who worked for Asma al-Assad)- has said that she 'coveted the good life', and by March 2012, comment on her apparent 'extravagant shopping in the midst of bloodshed' -(in footnote: "this, in the wake of the releae f e-mails of disputed authenticity")- occasioned a re-evaluation (in some quarters)? , of her caring image." And sources would be the CNN article already cherry-picked for use in flattering her, and articles in the guardian, mail and independent. Authentic or not the e-mails have undoubtedly been the occasion for critical comment and re-appraisal. of course the gramamr will need looking at for this text - and etoiles will have to ensure it is transmuted into hyperbolic text that is 100% flattering of the subject of the article. Sayerslle (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that we have identified 3 key issues to resolve.

  1. The "liberalizing the economy" phrase
  2. The e-mail controversy
  3. The neutrality regarding Assad's "good" works and her "frivolous" activities

I agree that that her impact on the economy phrase needed to go and I support it's removal as not supported by the citations.

I think the disclosed emails controversy is a porcupine. Rub it one way and its soft and the other way you get poked. All of the "analysis" articles about them that I have read seemed to be stuffed with caveats and disclaimers that they have not been fully verified. So much of it seems to be so "gossipy" that it makes me feel uncomfortable with the whole affair. The affair however has been big news so perhaps it should be mentioned but with as many caveats as The Guardian uses. I still think that nothing should be quoted from the emails. The big concern here is that they were provided to The Guardian by the opposition. They very well could be unadulterated but could just as well be a well crafted propaganda operation. The NYT stated "The Guardian said its extensive efforts to authenticate the emails suggested they were genuine, although it had not been possible to verify every one." Our challenge here is determining which have been authenticated and which have not been. That is not a road we are equipped to go down.

The issue about her good works vs her frivolous activities does not appear to currently be mentioned in the article. If that discussion is based on the emails then I think we should leave it alone...for now. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I was confronted with more fresh "analysis" about the email situation this evening when I skimmed my normal news websites. I am a bit dismayed at how the email drama is shaping up in that the New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press and the (London) Telegraph are continuing to pursue and analyze the emails regardless of the risks they must be aware of that I posted above. My faith in the lamestream media continues to erode.

There are however, several articles like this one from the (London) Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9154286/Syria-Asma-al-Assad-to-be-added-to-EU-sanctions-list-for-shopping-sprees.html If the EU is giving them that much credibility then perhaps we need to give the situation a serious relook. Veriss (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb2: according to the source you used for the "tarnished image" tidbit, there is your 'source' for the "Once a banker with J.P. Morgan, Asma herself is credited with having played a significant role in liberalizing the Syrian economy" that was questioned earlier. Lastly, I don't agree with the word "tarnished". According to who? Tabler? The media? Twitter Tweets? The YouTube commentary? I think "tarnished" is a very strong word and strictly up to the opinions and interpretations of individuals; in this case, Andrew Tabler. Her image has in fact been greatly affected by her silence in the Syrian Uprising, but tarnished is overkill. I rather have what we had earlier, which was, "....her image has dealt a serious blow due to the Syrian Uprising". Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

To Les Etoiles de Ma Vie, I have not reverted your edit since it is currently under discussion on this very talk page, a courtesy you did not observe when you decided to unilaterally make the change. The cited article was mostly negative about her. There was that single phrase' "Once a banker with J.P. Morgan, Asma herself is credited with having played a significant role in liberalizing the Syrian economy." A change that was under discussion, and a discussion that you opted to participate in which signifies that you were fully aware of the current status of that comment. The problem with that singular phrase is that the article does not go into any sort of explanation of how she single-handidly worked to liberalize the Syrian economy nor does it illustrate her role in that liberalization or in what ways it became more liberalized. Until another source can be located, I think that the accomplishment should be discounted as a random, positive factoid that may have been added to sweeten the pot so as not to be seen as piling onto her too much. My suggestion is that baring new, more illuminating citations, the phrase should be dropped. Veriss (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from my exchanges with Bbb2, what was under discussion was the fact that the "liberalizing" was not cited in the original source ((15:11, 18 March 2012‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎(→‎First Lady: removed liberalizing the economy (unsupported by source - see Talk)). This was the reason why it was removed by Bbb2 a couple days ago. Because I had not authored that section, I had no idea why and how the liberalizing section had even come to being placed in the section to begin with, especially given the original source, which made no mention of liberalizing anything for that matter. Read over the edit history for the BLP to confirm Bbb2's comments regarding this. The only reason why I re-added the tidbit was because the only reason why it was contested (myself included) was because there was no source to suggest this. However, a new source was re-introduced and there was mention of this "liberalizing the economy" verbatim. How the subject liberalized the economy, I have no clue. However, just like the "Marie Antoinette" that was picked up by mass media from one originator, I have seen multiple sources who have also picked up on the subject's supposed contributions to the economy -- in a sense, coat-tailing on probably one source who suggested this "economy" bit to begin with. I have however removed the tidbit again since you have contested. Again, the only reason why I added it to begin with was because the only issue being discussed was that it was not in the original source cited. You can confirm this via the edit history and the comments above, as clearly discussed.

Here is a source that suggests this supposed liberation of pushing towards economic reforms:

Whether she actually has - no clue. I do know that the website, that I assume belongs to her husbands, talk about the subject's contributions here *http://www.presidentassad.net/ASMA_AL_ASSAD/Asma_Akhras_Al_Assad.htm. However, for dead obvious reasons, we cannot use that source as it is clearly biased.

BTW, I think you meant to say, "a courtesy you did not observe". Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie, Just so you know, I'm not a fan of the "Marie Antoinette" analogy either which is why I haven't addressed it even though I have seen it passed around by the press in several media articles and am aware that it has been discussed here. I understand how that analogy came about but think it is too simplistic and sensationalist. I thought from Bbb23's comments that the "Marie Antoinette" concept was dead already for our article so I left it alone. I hate that the article appears to be so barren of interesting tidbits about her and have spent hours upon hours reading google searches for articles that might impart something more illuminating and substantive about her twelve years as First Lady of Syria. I have even come up empty handed with dates for the birth of her children. Sadly, I have not succeeded in that area. Perhaps it is a language issue but that I cannot easily overcome. Thank you for pointing out my typo, I have corrected (I think, if I don't get another edit conflict) Veriss (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear User talk:Veriss, thank you for your message. I also want to apologize for treating you unkind. I come off as mean, but as Bbb2 is realizing, I will eventually warm up and become cordial. In regards to the "Marie Antoinette" concept; no, it is not dead. It was attempted to be forcefully brought back into the article just a few days ago. I, of course, reverted every single time the edit was attempted, as it was agreed upon (with the blessings of an admin) that we needed consensus before re-adding that specific concept back in. I have absolutely zéro issues - none - zip - nada - with being critical of the subject. My purpose as a editor, is not to put this subject on a pedestal, but to represent her fairly. We must be critical. However, we should base any information on this article on facts, and not bias opinions. This, of course, has proven to be difficult with such limited reliable information presented before us, but it is not impossible. In regards to the barren article, I agree. I'm assuming this is how the page used to look (before all the recent unfortunate events), here is a replica I have found:
Have a great day. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was unsure of the best way to address the enotes.com profile you mentioned so pondered on it for awhile and decided that the most honest approach was to point to the paper trail. I think your unasked question is about how an apparently full figured article became so emaciated. My initial active edits on this article began on 26 Mar 2011 with an initial series of 16 edits focusing on validity of sources due to a discussion about NPOV and claims that the article was a "puff piece". I participated with other editors in the major restructuring of that form of the article just about a year ago and the end result is basically the current form which has changed little since then other then minor tweaks and details. Most of the contributing editors at the time were very good about using edit summaries to describe why they made the changes they did. I should also refer you to the discussion sections above directly relating to the major restructuring at that time beginning with "Not Objective" through at least to the section referring to the Vogue article, "Vogue deleted its own controversial article that is cited in this article". Those discussions reflect the rationale for the removals of most of the text and the article's current structure. I hope this helps and that your day went well also. Regards, Veriss (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Vogue

For anyone interested i may have found the only online copy left of the Vogue profile of Asma al-Assad

http://www.presidentassad.net/ASMA_AL_ASSAD/Asma_Al_Assad_News_2011/Asma_Assad_Vogue_February_2011.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.246 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link and keep up the good work. It was nice to read what may be the actual article. It is an interesting article but the article has been retracted by the publisher as discussed previously. I'm not really sure what we can do with it. There of course remains the standard disclaimers that this version of the article may not be a faithful copy. Open to suggestions as always. Veriss (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

EU Sanctions

This train has left the station. The Los Angeles Times is running with: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/asma-assad-travel-ban-asset-freezes.html Veriss (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17483714. More. Veriss (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the section header as undue and unnecessary and then just tweaked the sentence to make it active and clearer. I've also stayed away from this page for a while for various reasons - generally, you seem to be doing well without me.
I've reverted User:Sayerslle's edits for different reasons, and I'll leave you to working it out if he persists because I'll be taking a break soon. He seems intent on adding negative information. I don't have a problem with that per se. Certainly, the sanction material is negative, and I don't even object to adding the reason for the sanctions, which he wanted to do, but he did it by pasting the text from a second source, and instead of citing the second source separately, he just tacked a link onto the first source. I don't feel like cleaning up his messes, so I reverted. As for the second addition he made, he mostly quoted the source to avoid the copyright issue, although it doesn't really, but, worse, the assertions are based on the e-mail, and I didn't think our approach to the e-mail had been worked out yet, so I reverted. It was also undue, but that's of lesser importance.
Have fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Just trying to reflect real world reportage and not protecting a puff piece. bb23 - you keep finding petty reasons to make the article coy about anything negative and unclear imo. enjoyyour break - if you never get back it'll be too soon for me. have fun yourself, Sayerslle (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The BBC citation was a good choice since it is not built on the emails. I removed some commentary sourced from the Independent based on statements made by one of their international journalist here [[2]]. I don't oppose the concept being discussed in the article but suggest we find a better source. Veriss (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

that link is to do with something about Russia - whats that got to do with this here? Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I point to this quote from one of their international journalists "Dejevsky ... argued ... that British newspapers do not distinguish "between reporting and comment" as clearly as American papers, and British editors like "reports from abroad to have an element of individuality and judgement." She said the article "was based on subjective impressions and judgements." It is certainly not considered to be a UK newspaper of record. What I removed was commentary, not hard news. I do not oppose the concept being included, I suggest we find a better, more objective source when we do. Veriss (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The BBC cite for the sanctions was fine. There've been other reports about the sanctions, too. I don't have a problem with putting in the material as to why the sanctions were imposed as long as it's done carefully and is supported to a high quality source. As for the stuff about her shopping, etc., that is all predicated on the e-mails. (I stopped reverting because of edit war issues, not because I agreed with the material, the way it was presented, or the sourcing.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
the e-mails have been the occasion for masses of commentary , the criticism is out there in the reportage and actions of the real world, so the e-mails are real, authentic or not, the comment around them is real, - - what are 'high quality sources' according to you anyway? as far as I can see theres no clue in the article as to why eu sanctions have been imposed- so pov is the articleSayerslle (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and think the concepts you have suggested should be addressed in some form. I believe the position on the emails needs a re-look much sooner then I had anticipated. I've started a new section below and invite your comments. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is not just a whitewash...

"Her stylish designer outfits have also garnered some media attention.[8] The Syrian uprising has, however, dealt a blow to her public image."

This article is a joke in extremely poor taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherbrian (talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


I appreciate your comments. Please point out some sources and I will try to incorporate them. Veriss (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting How to Deal with the Leaked Emails

I originally advised against discussing or including the contents of the leaked emails with this rationale:

I think the disclosed emails controversy is a porcupine. Rub it one way and its soft and the other way you get poked. All of the "analysis" articles about them that I have read seemed to be stuffed with caveats and disclaimers that they have not been fully verified. So much of it seems to be so "gossipy" that it makes me feel uncomfortable with the whole affair. The affair however has been big news so perhaps it should be mentioned but with as many caveats as The Guardian uses. I still think that nothing should be quoted from the emails. The big concern here is that they were provided to The Guardian by the opposition. They very well could be unadulterated but could just as well be a well crafted propaganda operation. The NYT stated "The Guardian said its extensive efforts to authenticate the emails suggested they were genuine, although it had not been possible to verify every one." Our challenge here is determining which have been authenticated and which have not been. That is not a road we are equipped to go down.

At the time, I thought we would reach a point down the road where we would have to address it but could do so from the comfort of a historical point of view rather then a "breaking news" point of view. Since so many major newspapers, including many newspapers of record, have directly or indirectly addressed the issue in important articles (namely EU sanctions and travel bans), I think this position is getting in the way of addressing other important concepts. The important concepts waiting to be addressed are the effects of the news discussion of the leaked emails on her public image and related issues.

In light of this, I would like to take a fresh look at it and I invite fresh views on the subject though I still think we should move carefully and select the highest quality sources possible. Veriss (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a little further elucidation of the content of the comment and criticism , the nature of the blow dealt her public image - the contrast between what might be presumed to be obsessing her thoughts at this time, and the apparent reality of what was obsessing her thoughts - that kind of thing - for me, the authenticity is not a crucial matter because the change in perception is real - they are almost certainly authentic I guess - when etoiles lectured me that the british royals were extravagant , thats what royalty do, that seemed to imply she thought it was an accurate picture of what was obsessing asma too - I've not come across any caveats warning ' they look like fakes designed to traduce a frank and fearless woman of simple tastes' kind of thing - anyway - . its such a short article it could manage a sentence or two more to explain the nature of her current fame/infamy i think, reminiscent of the way perceptions of Saif, gaddafi's son, changed during an Uprising. if they prove to have been fakes - then the article reads thusly - 'her image suffered a blow when --blah blah - this was quickly reversed however when the opposition admitted they had faked..etc' what unfolds, what perceptions changed, what comment dominated - this is a matter of record - you can't erase reality because you hold to higher standards - 'reality is the master' (Lawence Durrell). thats my thought anyway. the guardian/independent/ telegraph are quality sources i think, if they are not personal comment pieces, but from the news sections.Sayerslle (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped for more comments and was waiting for the most recent active editors to offer their opinions before I offered more commentary but it appears that is not forthcoming. I signaled earlier that I felt that my earlier advice, though offered honestly and in good faith, was overprotective of the "Wikipedia Project" and that a change of course was needed.

I would like to reconsider my position and would like to offer as a start the phrase that I had initially reverted due to what I felt at the time was inadequate sourcing.

"The [[2011–2012 Syrian uprising|Syrian uprising]] has, however, dealt a blow to her public image[1], amidst reports of extravagant spending, and a picture had emerged "of a woman closer in spirit to [[Imelda Marcos|Imelda Marcos]] than the moderating counsellor to her husband's excesses that she might have been." [2] "

Are their any thoughts about restoring this statement and it's source? If you would prefer a different wording or a stronger source, can you please provide one? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the clause should be restored or a variation of it. It helps to clarify what public image is being discussed. Specifically, the public image before of being a moderating, westernizing influence and the new unfavorable public image which has emerged since the uprising and the disclosed emails which are pretty well verified [3]. And, I do feel that this one sentence is being protected a bit too much.--Guest2625 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


Foreign Policy Magazine is an excellent source, an interesting read, and I thank User talk:Guest2625 for providing it. I wouldn't be surprised if the email controversy gets a seperate article some day. I think we can go ahead and restore that sentence though I think it could be tweaked and adding a few more sources would be helpful. Veriss (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

New CNN Profile

I only had time to read part of it. Perhaps someone could find something interesting in it for the article. http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/25/world/meast/asma-al-assad-profile/index.html?iid=article_sidebar. Veriss (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I read through the article and felt much of the content has been echoed before. The article focused on the testimony of Andrew Tabler; someone who has popped up in many previous articles due to his close working relations with al-Assad. If anything, I felt that the article was more kind to Asma al-Assad and not as "hard line" as previous articles in the past. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

conclusion regarding whether to add or not?Happy monsoon day —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Muslim??

It would be interesting to know if she is a Muslim or converted to Islam 99.149.195.30 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Cara Hyrie

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was don't merge. Consensus from earlier premature close hasn't changed. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Very related to the discussions above on the Vogue article. It has taken a life of its own.

I propose that the Controversy section of Joan Juliet Buck be merged into Asma al-Assad. I think that the content in the Buck article is more easily explained in the context of press on Asma, and that the attention should be put back on al-Assads, their atrocities, or on Vogue, at least, not the fashion writer commissioned by the magazine. The Asma article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Buck will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. --Aichikawa (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The current section covering al-Assad's entire 11+ year tenure as first lady of Syria is only 12 lines on my screen while the controversies section for Buck (which is only about that one article) is twice as large at 27 lines. I think it is much, much, much too large in the Buck article to begin with and even if it whittled down to half its current size, that section would dominate this article and take it off track. The brouhaha over the Buck/Vogue article seems to be more about editorial policy, objectivity and credibility with some hints of conspiracy give it some legs then about the life of al-Assad in my opinion. Keep the blow-by-blow over in Buck's article, we can provide a link to it for those who care to learn more. Veriss (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It has a lot more to do with Buck and Vogue than Al-Assad. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per both Veriss1 and Daniel. As Veriss1 already said, I can't fathom why it takes up so much space in the Buck article. It has more WP:COATRACK than substance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed merger is too large and lopsided. It gives undue weight to the Vogue article and the controversy behind it. If someone wants to add some relevant material from the subsection they can but should add only a few sentences. Guest2625 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments about my unfortunately premature closing

Is it common to close a discussion after less then a day and a half? Just curious. Veriss (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any guideline or policy on the issue, at least not in WP:MERGE. It seems awfully short, although many editors opposed, and no one supported it. Assuming it's a proper closure in these circumstances, why didn't Dondegroovily remove the template from the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah curious. I was on the oppose side but the presenter does deserve a chance for a full airing. I skimmed over that section in the Buck article again and I think we have all the points directly relative to Assad that we could use here. Do you think we should add a link to the bottom of the First Lady section? Something like { {See also| Joan Juliet Buckk#Controversy } } or something else more appropriate like a footnote? Veriss (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to hatnote, footnote, or otherwise link that section in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Look, it may seem irrelevant given the scope of the atrocities in Syria but it was huge big news in media and foreign policy circles in the States. Vogue thought that by taking the article off the Internet that it would kill the discussion but it was revived time and time again by frustrated journos. It was a media war, and I think it censorious to NOT to link.--Aichikawa (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
An example, just from today. "Joan Juliet Buck No Longer in Vogue," WWD--Aichikawa (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A apologize for jumping the gun on closing this. Please continue to comment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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.

add vogue controversy

im adding some information about the recent Vogue (magazine) controversy and in particular the mention about it in wapo. Happy monsoon day (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed. There are problems with your material. First, although the article in the Washington Post just appeared, the problem occurred in 2011, and, yet, it appears in our article out of chronological order. Second, it's worded poorly. Too much detail (3,200 word article?), too much coatrack material ("bloody crackdown"). Third, it doesn't really capture the essence of the criticism, which is as much about Vogue magazine as it is about her and Syria. I first thought about removing the material, then I thought about editing the material, then I figured I'd just see what others have to say and leave it alone for the time being.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
We discussed the Vogue article about a year ago at [4] I suggest we confine ourselves specifically to the topic of Assad and not diverge into analysis of Vogue's editorial issues. It does have some tangenital bearing on her public image but to introduce it will require some very careful wording to keep it on topic, NPOV and avoid coatracking. Veriss (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably why I had so much difficulty figuring out a way to reword the material and keep it relevant to her. My first instinct to remove it was no doubt best.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
If Happy monsoon day or others do not contribute to this discussion within the next day, I will remove the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I also had trouble figuring out how to reword it and felt that it was best to just remove it. I don't think that an article that has been retracted by the publisher is really relevant to a biography since the publisher is implying that the article was faulty to begin with. Veriss (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

whoops apologies guys i didn't have internet for a while. i'm not exactly sure what the major problem is because this has received editorial coverage and it was a notable and no doubt interesting development associated with her public persona. if there's a big problem then fine we can drop it. mentioning it a few sentences seems perfectly reasonable though. it was a major, notable controversy in a major western media outlet. why isn't it being mentioned again? note: issue is not to cite the actual vogue piece, but to refer to the reportage about the piece. Happy monsoon day (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

so wait a minute, were in a situation where the biggest article that has been written about this woman so far in the western press is not at all cited in this article. and why is that again? no one answered my question from a week ago, only pointing me to previous remarks. do not see the "coatrack" (i read the article, dont see how related) and how it supposedly violated npov? please enlighten. Happy monsoon day (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The text that you wanted to add read to me as much as a commentary about contemporary media issues then about the subject of this biography. I said above that I thought it may have some bearing on her media image but would need to be carefully be reworded. Also, another concern is that at this point 76% of the lines dedicated to her tenure of First Lady is about her media image and the Syrian revolt. Your text as quoted below could be cut back significantly and focused more tightly on our subject:
al-Assad was the center of a media controversy when [[Vogue (magazine)|Vogue]] magazine in March 2011 published a highly positive 3,200-word article about her just before there were attacks by her husband on Syrian citizens.[3] According to the [[Washington Post|Washington Post]], the article by Joan Juliet Buck was removed from Vogue's website, after al-Assad's husband began a bloody crackdown on his opponents, after it had embarrassed the magazine.
I will be happy to collaborate with you on it rewording it. Veriss (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks for getting back about this but whats wrong precisely with the above?i think that is short enough and quite fine.and so what if the article is mainly about those topics;;thats probably a function of what information is currently available. im sure if she were a renowned opera singer who won the nobel peace prize wed include that in the article because thats what the news reports would say right???Happy monsoon day


It appears to have found its way into the article. Veriss (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I didn't like the original wording, and I reworded it to give it more context. You reworded my rewording, and I like yours better than mine. As to whether it belongs, I think it does, although I have some misgivings about it. It has a small amount of WP:COATRACK quality to it because, ostensibly, it isn't clear whose "fault" it was that the puff piece was published in the first place, but I think it has enough relevance to outweigh that.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a collection of sources related to the controversy. But we cannot put too much prominence on it. If you want to expand information about the Vogue controversy, other aspects need to be expanded first.

Also there is a source about the shopping spree:

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


What has already been injected about the Vogue issue drips breathy, gossipy tid bits into this otherwise serious article about the wife of a sitting president. Seriously, this is by far the longest paragraph in the section about her entire twelve years as first lady. Unless we need to feed our celebrity fixated society, break out the long knives, it is already too prominent. Veriss (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
There's more to it than the tabloidy stuff - It revealed the allegation that a PR firm had liaised with Vogue to make a positive article. I am well aware that there should be no undue weight on an issue... WhisperToMe (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Journalist speaks out

The journalist who wrote the Vogue article on Asma al-Assad speaks out to The Daily Beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/29/joan-juliet-buck-my-vogue-interview-with-syria-s-first-lady.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.19 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Detail on Assad's house

I put in a detail about the family's strangely transparent house in Damascus from Joan Juliet Buck's Newsweek piece but an editor keeps deleting it feeling it off topic. Why? Sure, it's not as pressing as the number of people killed since the regime clamped down but since this is an article is about Alma al-Assad I think it completely appropriate, even illuminating: As first lady she represented the domestic sphere of the people in power. Designing one's house to be transparent house is weird as well as completely vain... because these people are weird!! There are other interesting details about the Assads from Buck's articles that could also be used, evidence of Alma's sadism in dealing with other people's children, the fact that even though they couple used an American PR company to liaise with Vogue, they were paranoid enough to have stand-in's photographed as their children.--Aichikawa (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This kind of material is odd without explaining at some length what it means. Even putting it in without giving it more context would be giving it more merit than it deserves, but giving it context would be even more WP:UNDUE. The Buck opinion piece is not something we should be using to slam al-Assad. It is Buck's opinion, and given its background and history, is hardly neutral. It may belong in the Buck article, but it doesn't belong here any more prominently than it already is. Some of your comments also indicate that you have trouble being neutral about the material in this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Buck lost all credibility as a reliable observer regarding this subject long ago. If the material is not directly relevant, verifiable, reliable or notable it does not deserve inclusion. Buck's most recent article is as suspect as her original piece for many of the same reasons and she should not be referred to here any more then absolutely necessary. Veriss (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. You think Buck made things up? And what qualifies as neutrality on the Assads?--Aichikawa (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Two editors have stated, very diplomatically, that Buck's observations are suspect. You press on. Why do you think Buck's observations merit inclusion and how exactly would the article benefit from including them? Veriss (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean you and someone else. Link the diffs please.--Aichikawa (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Look up about two inches. To answer your question about who would qualify; a correspondent, not a compromised fashion writer. Veriss (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing "the Devil's wife"

I propose changing the quoted characterization of Asma as "the Devil's wife" to "a woman on message like a banker"[5] [6]. The former doesn't really mean anything, may be sexist (she is a function not her own person), and the latter is more understandable and specific. --Aichikawa (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, or is this an attempt at humor? Veriss (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry if you can't or don't want to glean the difference between the two descriptions, Veriss. Anyone else? --Aichikawa (talk) 15:46, 23 Au
I also disagree that the suggested change is better. The reasons for the change stated make no sense to me. It's not sexist, and its meaning is crystal clear. That said, I'm not so keen on having any label from the Buck piece in our article. One possible rewording is: "Buck has since written another article for Newsweek giving a less flattering account of the interview of Asma al-Assad, in which Buck describes being under surveillance by the Syrian regime constantly throughout her stay." Another possibilty: "Buck has since written another article for Newsweek giving a less flattering account of the interview of Asma al-Assad." I'm open to other suggestions if there's a consensus to change the status quo.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your suggested change is editorializing since it is not based on comments in the cited articles and is far from illuminating or even helpful to the reader. Buck has thoroughly discredited herself and references to her observations should be minimal. Veriss (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed the original characterization completely during a thorough copy edit and downsizing of the paragraph. The reasoning is that it was not a direct quote but a constructed quote and that it was editorializing. The entire paragraph needed to go on a diet and could probably be trimmed even more. Veriss (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm always a little suspicious of editors whose names carry some characterization of themselves that they aspire to but haven't really proven in practice, i.e., Veriss. I feel like you've been exercising some agenda that's aggressive and not always right: You type in that someone has discredited themselves, like we all know or something, but don't bother to explain. I suspect that you don't start out thinking it's fact in the beginning, but the possibility of it NOT being a fact causes you anxiety (why?) so you aggressively seek to shut down the counter-possibility by pressing on and on about it being a fact. I entreat you to be more open: it's Wikipedia after all.--Aichikawa (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for my earlier sarcasm as it apparently hurt your feelings. However, I must ask you to edit your most recent post after you review Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks and specifically WP:NPA#WHATIS. Please also review Ad Hominem attacks and WP:TPOC. It appears that you would like to discuss why I believe Buck is discredited. Please let me know if that is the case and I will attempt to address your concern. Veriss (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Aichikawa, you've been told before that your communications with other editors is subpar, and your strained attacks against Veriss1 are uncalled for. If you have something to say about the content, then say it. Skip the rest, both in discussion forums and in edit summaries. So, apologize, strike some of your comments, and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
After waiting ten days for the user to self-edit, I have exercised my right and obligation as an editor to remove the more offensive remarks using the (Personal attack removed) ({ {RPA} }) template. Veriss (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Edited { {RPA} } overkill. Veriss, you made it seem like I was cursing you out when I was not. Will link more blatant examples of { {RPA} } if you need, but hopefully we've all moved on from this:)--Aichikawa (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

More sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is Asma al-Assad? I search the inter-webs regularly but to no avail. Sadly, disappearing appears to be a common problem in this country. Veriss (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Buck: Complicit, Dupe or Victim

It has been an interesting turn of events in that an apparently hapless fashion writer has become the focus of recent talk page stress instead of the subject of the article who is married to a de facto dictator. There are tons of articles about Buck's initial article about the Assads; too many to wade through and all nearly uniformly negative.

I had previously taken the position that she was complicit or at the very least a dupe so I was not very sympathetic.

However, I am open to a fresh perspective and would like to request articles analyzing her participation in a scholarly manner. TMZ type articles will most likely be ignored.

If you feel that Ms. Buck was complicit, a dupe or a victim, please post the articles that support your rationale here.

Keep in mind, this Wikipedia article is about Mrs. Assad's life and times so your contributions in this regard will most likely help with context and be a small part of the overall article. Veriss (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A welcome change of pace. Will add soon.--Aichikawa (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Kaplan Sommer, Alison (ליטל לוין). "In the Middle East, Good Looks Trump Bad Deeds." Haaretz. June 12, 2012.
Levin, Lital (ליטל לוין). "Former Vogue journalist: Asma Assad tricked me." Haaretz. August 1, 2012.
Sullivan, Amy. "Vogue's Suck-Up to Assad: Blame the Editor, Not the Writer." New Republic. July 30, 2012.
Adam, Guy. "I Was Duped Into Writing Asma al-Assad Profile, Says Vogue Wrtier Joan Juliet BuckThe Independent (UK). July 31, 2012.
Cohen, Richard. "Bloom Is Finally Off the Rose in the Desert." Washington Post. June 11, 2012.
Bio of Richard Cohen.
The others did not have on their respective publications' websites but they've all written extensively.--Aichikawa (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Buck continues to swim in negative accolades. Ms. Buck and Ms. Wintour were co-awarded first prize at the Walter Duranty Awards for Mendacity [dishonesty] in Journalism in New York City on 10 October 2012. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330096/walter-duranty-awards-patrick-brennan Veriss (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

I am unfamiliar with this publisher. Is this article, and it's supporting links, from what could be considered to be a reliable source for BLP? http://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/asma-assad-syria-452388 Veriss (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to find a better Info Box image for her?

Looking at the current info box picture of Assad I think it is of very poor quality when compared to the info box pictures of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama and Samantha Cameron. I think it is possible to find a better photo for the most prominent of image in her article.

My concerns with this image are that it is fuzzy, has a terrible background with distracting lines and has poor color and lighting among other issues.

The current image is: [File:Asma_al-Assad.jpg]

A quick selection of images is here [image asma al-assad]. Veriss (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) Copyright vio? (2) Pregnancy

(1) This edit removed a link to a website which carries the "withdrawn" Vogue "Rose of the Desert" article on subject. By searching with Google for the block of text "In the Saint Paul orphanage, maintained by the Melkite–Greek Catholic patriarchate and run by the Basilian sisters of Aleppo" from the website text, I've found 285 results across the web which have at least that part of the Vogue article. On top of that of course there are the hard copies of the print magazine (which weren't withdrawn of course).

Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which the editor only cited casually (no link) as reason for deletion in the Edit summary, seems to deal exclusively with the copying of copyrighted text (or photos) into Wikipedia. There was none of that in this case.

I'd say the policy reason maybe the editor was trying to get at was Wikipedia:Verifiability, that is, Is presidentassad.net a bona fide source for Wikipedia to cite? That page, like the 284 (in which there are many duplicates, so not that many unique sites) others, say they have the Vogue copy but (a) they presumably have it without permission and (b) there's the chance of corrupted (imperfect) copying. Is it our job to enforce Vogue's copyright at a third-party site? I don't really think so. Are we worried about imperfect copying? I'm not that worried about it. My little bit of text was perfectly spread amongst a number of sites. No proof it's genuine, of course. But there are still all those hard copies out there to help "keep it honest".

Another site I found in looking into this made me think of another angle. Here's the site, the Vogue copy at liveleak.com. They say "vogue paided hundreds of thousends to get this stroy offline ..." in part. Casual typing aside, to have Wikipedia helping enforce this "scrubbing" of info off the web -- after the magazine, with a major PR firm feeding it, put this copy out 1,248,121 (2011, US ed. only) times, with big-name-photographer photos and all -- seems wrong to me. If the website I've cited disappears (due quite possibly it seems to Vogue enforcement action), we've lost it. But while it's there, I disagree with acting like it's not.

Yes, this was highly embarrassing to Vogue maybe. And/or it is highly embarrassing to have the real thing (more or less) still out there to remind everyone what they did, maybe. Or maybe they just did it and got caught and now don't want to be reminded.

I favor restoring the source.

(2) Then the same editor removed reference to the first family's fourth pregnancy "since original source does not appear to meet WP:SOURCES". Well, there's a real policy cited and linked to (same one as "Verifiability" above) for this removal. But that "appear to" seems pretty "soft". And we have a reputable British paper (Guardian) with by-line citing and linking to a Lebanese paper (Al-Akhbar English); with both stories linked to in the Wiki footnote; and with the primary Lebanese source citing people whom they trust to bear authoritative information from Damascus, sources assessed and asserted to be close to the family; unnamed but clearly subjected to journalistic inquiry and judgment. Are we to throw out such best-efforts reporting on a subject which the family seems clearly to be trying to get out -- "good news"; I'm sure they're still getting good PR advice; Vogue's done, now something else -- because of what? because it "does not appear to meet" a policy? I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion.

This "good news" also could be "smoke", ie no pregnancy; and noone's on record saying there's a pregnancy; just spread the rumor. Well, I would favor having the "smoke" on the record; the papers can and I expect will re-examine the issue if the pregnancy proves to be a phantom. If the story changes in the future, the Wiki article should note that, too. Meanwhile, we have a reasonable piece of information, a substantive piece of an unfolding story.

Again I favor restoration.

Thanks for attention. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I am the editor that you speak of.
2. We've been down most of these roads before though I always enjoy meeting a new editor who has critical thinking skills, welcome.
3. You have made many speculative statements but I will try my best to focus on the parts that deal with facts that have been established. Our job here as editors it to relate verifiable, reliable information to the biography of a living person.
4. The copyright vio was not directed at you but toward the site that was linked. That site does not own a copyright to the article formerly published but withdrawn by Vogue Magazine. It was withdrawn from publication so that makes that site's version both an unauthorized version (copyright vio.) and unverifiable. Because of those two issues, links to that article are not eligible for inclusion in an article about a living person. Verifiability is also an issue since the original article was withdrawn by the publisher, there is no way to establish that the linked article was a faithful and accurate copy.
5 I beg your pardon for not providing a link to Wikipolicy on copyright violations but I observed that you had a very similar edit history as I do so did not want to insult you.
6. This is what I posted on a fellow editor's talk page regarding Al Akhbar (Lebanon): "I looked over the article for Al Akhbar (Lebanon) and found this statement: "The New York Times has criticized it for 'too much reliance on single sources, and news pages that often show a loose mingling of fact, rumor and opinion." [4][5]" I decided that it was not a reliable source and will remove the assertion she is pregnant from the Assad article. I won't clutter the WP:RSN with a request unless the original editor protests. Regards, Veriss (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)".
7. If you would like to discuss the two very separate and distinct issues, I invite you to create two separate topics and try to leave out the speculative comments about possible motives and such. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Veriss1, but I'd like to add a couple of comments. The relevant copyright policy is WP:LINKVIO. The pregnancy material cannot go back into the article because of WP:BLP concerns. There are many relevant portions of that policy that militate against having material in a BLP article that does not have high-quality sourcing. I'm not going to cite them all, but here are a couple of examples: the section WP:BLPSOURCES and "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." (from the lead).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my response to the responses to (1) above.

I am not a policy whiz but I knew this one seemed loose and I couldn't confirm it so I challenged it. LINKVIO is it, thanks Bbb23. That provided, I will have to argue the case at the policy level, if I can muster that. What are termed my "speculative comments" are still the core argument though I can now see accepting them would require a policy exception.

Thanks. Swliv (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy "exception" that I'm aware of for violating copyright policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking over Bbb23's WP:LINKVIO link, I had the thought that if you could dig up Vogue's original article on the Wayback Machine, it may be possible to link to that version in the section where that article is discussed. I am not personally skilled in using the Wayback Machine so would have to defer to another user on that. This may address both the copyright vio. issue and the verifiability issue. Regards, Veriss (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would work. If I understand how Wayback works, they would have archived the original content, which means they copied it. Unless they have permission from the copyright holder, I don't see how it's any different from any other site copying the content. Wayback has a method for a copyright holder to request removal of the content, but just because a copyright owner doesn't take advantage of that offer (they may not even know about it) probably wouldn't change the equation as far as Wikipedia is concerned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not on Wayback; I checked. As I interpreted the policy, though, if it had been at Wayback it would have been usable. It was by consulting the policy that I found out the option of Wayback. I think it is assumed that copyright holders know about Wayback.
As to the pregnancy news, (2) above, in short, the NYTimes (in a somewhat puzzling citation; I'd like to see the "fellow editor's talk page" to understand the context et c.) seems to be presented as sufficient solitary reliable judge to dismiss the primary source. The Guardian, which chose to cite the primary source and was cited itself here in Wikipedia along with the primary, is not considered in the least, above. Any reason?
Further, though, interestingly, on (2), the Bashar al-Assad#Personal life section has the pregnancy news via an interview with the husband by the Washington Post. That report is followed by a disagreement with the initial report from the husband's office, also reported in the Post. Would those paired-reports work as another reliable source, to make the news acceptable here in the wife's article?
I've struck this one paragraph having now read the two Post articles mentioned therein. I may be back on it but the Post was using the same Lebanese source so it's more complicated than it first appeared. Swliv (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Now I've partially un-struck the paragraph for purposes of discussion below. Swliv (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I did try to split the two issues, addressing (1) in its own new paragraph per an editor request. The new paragraph delineation/headline though not its content has been removed above by another editor. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The way you organized your post was fine, it just gets to be unwieldy to navigate due to the sheer size of the discussion. I was pretty sure that Vogue's legal team had sanitized the net of any lingering copies as best they could so am not surprised it is not available on the Wayback Machine. On the issue concerning the pregnancy source, you can always request more expert opinion on WP:RSN (The Reliable Source Noticeboard). My original thoughts and discussion on Bbb23' (talk), focused on the notability of the fact that a sitting first lady may be pregnant in the midst of a war zone. We agreed that it would be notable and he restored that part of your edit but then I questioned the original source as related above. The entire discussion is here: [[7]]. I suspect we are more sympathetic to your cause then we may at first appear but are constrained by policy, at least as I interpret it, relating to this situation. Perhaps WP:RSN will support you. Veriss (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I agreed with the unwieldy argument and tried.
You still haven't just said "The 'Times' is good as arbiter but the 'Guardian' [or the Washington 'Post' now in its way ("un-struck" above)] is not". But that seems to be what you're saying. Maybe I'll go the RSN route. I'd noted it from (way) above.
I have no cause here but building a good-quality, nuanced and up-to-date article.
To the degree that there are seemingly hundreds of web sites with the article, Vogue's "sanitiz"ing is only partially "best" I'd say. I too wasn't too surprised about it not being on Wayback, though. I would still like at minimum an official Vogue statement on the "withdrawal" in the Asma article and may look for that. So far it looks like all we have is "removed ... without editorial comment" in the article. With only that I still think a Web page which has the article is fair game in the circumstances.
Thanks for the link to Bbb23 talk. I guess I could have found it through your history. I think it's good practice to link such, preemptively, to the Talk page here via Edit summary so it doesn't seem like double-teaming or inexplicable/unexplained actions; I've felt both mildly in this go-round; maybe even led me to feel a little heat under collar.
I'm happy to leave these responses without expectation of reply unless I've magically changed minds. If another editor comes along to add new view, of course, I'd welcome that. There are a couple of alternative routes I can explore, too, as outlined, if I choose.
Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
1. I hold the view that as a Newspaper of Record by Reputation, The NY Times is a more reliable arbiter while The Guardian is less so. The issue of The Guardian as a reliable source in this context has come up before for this article and there has been discussion on Wikipedia notice boards that The Guardian has political inclinations regarding Mid-East affairs that tend to color how some see its reporting in that area. The issue however, is not primarily about The Guardian which is merely echoing a primary source that some, including myself from my limited research, do not see as reliable enough for the biography of a living person. If this were your biography, or your mother's biography, wouldn't you insist on only reliable and verifiable citations from the most sterling sources, or at least multiple sources? The issue is about the primary source.
2. Editor beware, circular reporting is not multiple sources.
3. I accept your criticism that I should have preemptively included a link to the relevant discussion on Bbb23's talk page about the thought process leading up to my decision to remove the assertion about her possible 4th pregnancy. When I first responded, I considered linking to that discussion but I had a couple of concerns. Chiefly, Bbb23 is a SysOp on Wikipedia but he was acting as a regular editor regarding this article since he and I have been editing this article much longer then he has been saddled with being an Admin. Secondly, I was initially questioning a decision, on your behalf, made by a fellow editor whom I greatly respect, though we have disagreed at several points in the past. By linking to Bbb23's page it would've been clear that he is a SysOp and I did not want to appear to be relying on his standing to bolster my arguments. I wanted my arguments to stand on their own logic.
4. I point out again, that even though you and I disagree and that I appear to be the obstacle to what you are trying to accomplish, I have tried to suggest multiple avenues for you to explore if you feel strongly about your positions. I think the last remaining route for you to try is the WP:RSN which I notice you have not taken advantage of yet.
5. WP:PROVEIT puts the onus on you to get consensus that your original source is good enough for a WP:BLP and your best bet is to seek support on the RSN.
6. From our discussions here and on my own talk page, I would like to suggest that you read this article about Wikipedia:Assume good faith. There was no conspiracy or tag-teaming against you. I even stated in my edit summary that I was reverting your good faith edit. Please, before you take the defensive stance that other editors are not acting in good faith, take some time to review their recent contributions.
6. I look forward to hearing other views and to seeing a determination on WP:RSN. All the best, Veriss (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
"saddled with being an Admin"? Heh, Veriss, you're not only smart, you're priceless.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess one man's crucifix is another man's golf cart. :-) Veriss (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Three weeks have passed since the original pregnancy report and all of the recent news articles on Google about "news Assad pregnant" all refer to the Al Akhbar (Lebanon) primary source (circular reporting) and most use terms that call Al Akbar's reliability into question. The Washington Post article you referred to [6] is a blog discussing the news so not hard news reporting and was not complementary at all of Al Akhbar. The section of Bashar al-Assad's biography that you linked also refers to a posting by the same blog stating "Assad’s office issued a statement contesting the pregnancy that was reported [7]" using very strong negative terms such as "false allegations that led him to wrong results which are far from reality". I think this issue was much ado about nothing unless I have missed something and I am glad that we kept it out of the article. Veriss (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Nine months have passed and still no news of a fourth child. It seems that the media consensus about Al Akhbar (Lebanon)'s reliability may have been justified. Veriss (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Vogue

Obviously, the conversations we have had on this page in regards to the Vogue article have been removed, but we argued the relevance of the Vogue piece of Asma al-Assad to the bone about a year ago. What is the purpose of including that article and any references to it on this page? If we need to engage in debates about that article, yet again, I'm happy to do so. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you would provide a link to the archived discussion. In the meantime, don't edit war in the article. Long time no see.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You were present for that conversation/debate, so feel free to find the link to said archived discussion.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)::
I was present as well. Bon retour Les Etoiles de Ma Vie. Most older discussions were automagically archived. Perhaps this link will take you to the main discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asma_al-Assad/Archive_2. Veriss (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I figured that out already. I was telling Bbb23 to read it himself, since he was faking like he had no idea what discussions on this Vogue article were had previously.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reset Button

There has been some residual tension on this talk page over the past year or two that has continued up until recently and inhibits trust and cooperation between fellow editors who all want to see this article improved. Some tension is good and stimulates competition and original ideas but too much tension gets in the way and is counterproductive as has been evident here. We have clearly tilted towards the counterproductive side and that needs to be corrected or the article will remain stagnated as it has been for the past year or so.

Basically we all share the common goal of improving this important article but we often don't agree on how to get there. I think we can all agree that this article concerning a sitting First Lady is still very inadequate and needs a lot of work.

Les Etoiles de Ma Vie has taken strong steps to help reduce this tension and I would like to join with her and ask all of us to drop any hatchets we may still clutch -- myself included. From this point onward, I would like each of us to reread WP: Assume good faith and try to keep those principles in mind as we work together to make this article better. I have refreshed myself on it tonight.

Some of my observations about the history of this article, older talk page debate and why the article still languishes in its poor state.

  • I arrived here over 2 1/2 years ago (26 Mar 2011) because the Assads and the Syrian war were in the headlines and I wanted to know more about what was going on. I immediately saw that this article was very clearly a puff piece and was very poorly cited. Bbb23 arrived here the same day according to the edit history and I presume for the same reasons.
  • Having experience on other BLPs, I knew that sorting out reliable sources was the first step and that once those were sorted out that the tone and balance "should" naturally fall into place. Some editors very much wanted to include any salacious details against the Assads that they could scrounge up. I think we were successful in keeping much of the unsourced or trivial material out. Many editors worked to clean the article up and try to get it to a more neutral point of view.
  • On 12 May 2011], while still checking sources for this article, I learned that Vogue had withdrawn the article "A Rose in the Desert" and reported it here. That article still haunts us to this day. I strongly pushed to replace it as a source with other, more reliable, sources. Several of us also tried keep any content from that article that wasn't sourced elsewhere out of this article when we learned that the magazine had disowned it and we had consensus supporting that. I believe we were successful in keeping that content out.
  • The brouhaha about the Vogue/Buck article continued to boil in international mainstream media and many editors wanted it covered here more extensively. Around that time, because of controversy at the Buck article, what I refer to as the "Buck Crew" migrated to this article and wanted to expand coverage of it here and there was even a merger proposal which I closed as "strong oppose" on 18 Jun 2012. That debate created a lot of tension here and I would like to think that Bbb23 and I both worked hard to minimize any material relating to the Buck affair that was presented in this article. Looking back however, even though Bbb23 and I both trimmed a significant amount of material from the Buck section to try to reach consensus, today, without the influence of the Buck crew, I think we both would've trimmed it further. We were trying to work with the editors actively commenting at the time.
  • Thoughts on consensus specifically regarding the Buck article. A wiser editor then me recently sent me this concerning the "consensus" about the Buck article and I agree completely. "As you probably know, consensus often depends on the constellation of editors who are arguing at a given point of time. The idea that there is a "community" is fictitious as the [Wikipedia] community, of course, is way too large. Obviously, the larger the number of editors contributing to a consensus, the more supportable the outcome." Placing his observation in context with the temporary influx of the Buck Crew into an already small pool of editors may explain how a consensus may have been colored by a specific event and contributed to much more coverage of the Buck article fiasco in the Assad article then it probably warrants.

My suggestions for moving forward.

  • Confine observations, complaints or suggestions to just one issue per topic to help focus discussion.
  • We should all keep in mind that we are a very small group and none of us are probably going away anytime soon so we need to work out how to work together.
  • The "Assad Community of Editors" has only ever been a handful of editors so a few very vocal editors can skew any discussion. Refereeing these debates and trying to keep things NPOV can be more difficult when the pool of editors is very small.
  • If we can show that we are working together, even though we disagree on some issues, we may be able to attract more editors to the pool. Look back through the edit history or archives and invite reasonable editors to return and help improve the article.
  • Thoughts on lack of sources. The Assad administration is a closed regime that is currently at war so reliable information is very hard to come by. That strongly contributes to the scarcity of reliable sources we can use. I would like to ask the few interested editors here to do various searches when you have time about the Assads to try to find new material.
  • Western vs Eastern points of view. This point has been raised and is probably valid. I have served in the Middle East and know too well how little we understand "them". We should make a point of trying to find Eastern articles and editorials. That of course is difficult unless you read those languages but we would be remiss if we did not make the effort.

In closing I would like to thank you for reading my short history of how I view the development of the article and how we ended up where we are today. This article is lacking in many ways but I think the most pressing issue is trimming the Buck section. Once that issue is sorted we can work on the many other issues.

Cheers, Veriss (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference AFP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ [[The Independent|The Independent]] 'Syrian first lady's caring image unlikely to recover', 16 March 2012 [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-first-ladys-caring-image-unlikely-to-recover-7574585.html]
  3. ^ {{cite news|last=Farhi|first=Paul|title=Vogue’s flattering article on Syria’s first lady is scrubbed from Web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/vogue-profile-on-assads-wife-disappears/2012/04/25/gIQAgMWthT_story.html|accessdate=April 27 2012|newspaper=Washington Post|date=25 April 2012}}
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/syrian-version-of-annan-talks-not-hopeful/
  6. ^ "Syria's Bashar al-Assad says his wife is pregnant". Washington Post. Retrieved 29 January 2013.
  7. ^ "Assad's office issues statement contesting the reported pregnancy". Washington Post. Retrieved 30 January 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asma_al-Assad/Archive_2&oldid=1136533953"