Talk:Bashar al-Assad

message: Assad is not Regional Secretary any longer. The post was abolished in 2018. His title is "General Secretary of the Central Leadership of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party" https://syrianobserver.com/EN/news/46525/ruling_baath_party_rearranges_its_structure.html
The post of Regional Secretary of the Regional Command was abolished and the Regional Command and the National Command were merged together if I remember correctly--84.212.173.160 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction: 

message: Continuing his personality cult on WP? Or is his secret police sanitising this article? Shameless. Arminden (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Arminden], under WP:NPOV, the photos and information we add to articles should be neutral in nature. While he has many sides, the article should present information accurately and not be biased in either direction. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that’s not what WP:NPOV says at all. The information we present most definitely must be “biased” in a particular direction if to do so reflects the way the subject is presented in the sources. In the words of the policy, we must “fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”. The Adolf Hitler article is “not biased in either direction”? AH is described in that article as the embodiment of evil. As far as the picture is concerned, the main aim is to be present a high quality (in a technical sense) image of him which is representative. The current pic is good quality - should he be smiling? I agree that’s slightly inappropriate - if a different pic can be found which is of equal quality then that would be better. But to be honest, it’s quite a minor issue. I don’t think that pic represents “continuing his personality cult”. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While I see your point DeCausa, WP:NPOV clearly states "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias." If we cite to an article that is from a reliable source and there is a fair amount of editorial bias, it should not be included. I agree with you, both sides of an issue should be presented if there is a legitimate dispute, but one side should not be dominate in an article if disputed. An example would be an op-ed from a reliable source. One could argue that what is being stated conforms accurately to the op-ed from a reliable source, but if it is biased, the bias outweighs the source. I believe there is a difference between bias and historically accurate. If history or facts presented are accurate and not disputed, it can paint a less than flattering picture of an individual. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: no, that’s still not it. It’s not for us to judge whether a reliable source is biased per se, although it may come into whether a source is WP:RS or not. The bare statement that we can’t use a reliable source because an individual editor thinks it’s biased is absolutely wrong. And also, it’s not a case of “both sides being presented if there’s a legitimate dispute”. Take this article, if the preponderance of WP:RS treat Assad as a saint that’s how he should be presented here. If the preponderance treats him as a bloodthirsty mass murderer, then that’s how we present him. It’s not for us to decide the “truth” and it’s not about “historical fact”, - “facts” can always be found to prove almost anything. The issue of difficulty in wikipedia is (a) when there’s a variety of views in the RS and how that should be presented (i.e. the preponderance is debatable) and (b) what to do with a minority view that’s not so much of a minority as to constitute WP:FRINGE. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why official, "nice", smiling pictures? 

message: add bashar al assad signature: file:Bashar Hafez al-Assad Signature.png Asd3131 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Assaded and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Assaded until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Assaded" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I cannot clarify that bashar al assad is a shia muslim.
Based on search on page typing, there is only mentions for 2 words which are called shia.2404:8000:1027:85F6:C83E:347B:474F:A63E (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article makes the sourced statement that he is an "Alawite Muslim", with a wikilink to the Alawite article as to what that means and its relationship to Shia Islam. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alawite = shia 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Please contact the local police to get General Kenneth McKenzie freed from the terrible kidnapping in Aleppo Syria held somewhere in a big forest.  This is a family member in the USA in Florida and please help get him released.  They are treating him very badly!! 2603:9000:B305:D778:C081:8872:BF61:6AC2 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidnapping of 4Star General Kenneth McKenzie in Aleppo Syria Help release him today!!