Hafez al-Assad was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15 October 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
We used the order before. It is a fact that Hafez was the 18th president. Why now remove it? It's not like only the US presidents can have orders, that's not fair. Yes, Syria doesn't count presidents that much, but here we do.
Hi, If i have sources saying the body was removed from the grave, but you claim these sources are not "legit" for Wikipedia, what does it mean? is the body in the grave or not? will Wikipedia claim the body is there, while all evidence show the grave is empty? @AmigaoBasselHarfouch (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One needs to cite WP:RS to back up any factual claim, and an unreliable and deprecated source such as WP:RT.COM cannot be used for that. If there is no reliable source to back up an assertion, it has to be removed. - Amigao (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is, that even though all evidence show the grave is empty, you are ok with the fact that information on Wikipedia (the body is in the grave) is wrong. BasselHarfouch (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the evidence comes from a disreputable source, one either rejects the evidence or finds an credible alternate that could verify that, which is your primary responsibility as the one trying to shove it in. If you cannot do so, then it will come as no surprise that you will be continuously reverted, if not taken to a noticeboard, for adding questionable information from subpar sources that compromises the veracity of the article and the project. And I suggest you read WP:IDNHT, WP:OR and WP:ASPERSIONS before letting your personal observations and sentiments get you into greater trouble. Borgenland (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So for example, if a leader of a small state dies, it is reported in the local news, but not in you "credible" news. In the world of Wikipedia, is the leader dead or alive? BasselHarfouch (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did RT, a site declared unreliable by a consensus of editors, become local news to you???? If you want to prove someone’s dead, then find a credible source instead of passing the buck, shoving a deprecated source then whining on having them being rejected and trying to turn yourself into a WP:IDNHT editor. Borgenland (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not answering the question, you can keep using very rude language, but you still haven't given an answer to a very simple question. I will repeat it as it seems you do not understant it, if a leader of a small state dies, it is reported in the local news (or in your words - deprecated source), but not in what you call a "credible" news. In the world of Wikipedia, is the leader dead or alive? BasselHarfouch (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been here long enough to know that competent editors rely on credible sources agreed on by consensus to judge that, not one’s sourgraping, WP:IDNHT and WP:SOAPBOXing on behalf of a disreputable source that is not even local. I see that you have taken no effort to prove otherwise the veracity of your claims, and as such I your have not shown that you can be taken here seriously. Borgenland (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. I believe that article is very close to GA, recently I made some improvements. Is somebody have ideas how to improve this article even more, for it become GA in the future? Algirr (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sad story! Assad could have saved the Ba'ath Party, but instead he turned it into a vehicle of nepotism and oppression. In fact, he destroyed it from the inside, just like Saddam. :(
As for the article, I think the article is good until the "Foreign Policy" section. The section on the Gulf War either needs to be removed or expanded. The "Autocracy, succession, and death" is a bit muddled, and ends with a paragraph that probably should be in the "Legacy" section. The "Legacy" section is repetitive. It begins with the positive, then the negatives, and restates the same positive features mentioned in the first paragraph. The tone is a bit muddled: in one place it refers to his totalitarian regime, in other areas just to the Assad regime, and in other places to the Assad government. Some places it says that he reduced oppression and only instituted symbolic trials against his opponents while other places it is stated that he hunted his opponents down and killed them: make up your mind, find a tone that explains both. The article is overall in good shape, and is obviously a Good Article contender. If you want to turn this article into a very good article one needs to have a tone that goes from start to finish, and hopefully that tone will be neutral (neither anti or pro-Assad).
These are my thoughts! :) I haven't read this article in ages, but it's nice to see that my edits are still in place. I still remember writing the section on institutionalisation. TheUzbek (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the statement about the party being destroyed from within - it had already suffered from factionalism and lack of unity, while Assad, on the contrary, managed to strengthen it. Why remove it? This would ignore a certain point in history. And it can be expanded, but personally I do not have a normal number of relevant sources.
The last paragraph - are you talking about the burning of Assad's tomb? In my opinion, it should not be moved anywhere, after all, the section on legacy does not really talk about this. Regarding the confusion of the article - I tried to avoid tautology. Assad eased the repressions after coming to power in the 1970s, but in any case, he did not cancel them. In the same way, this is influenced by the fact that with the suppression of the Islamist uprising, he rolled back all his concessions to the level of Jadid. I thought this was already mentioned in the article. Algirr (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the article even describes how power shifted from collective institutions, such as regional and national commands, into Assad's hands personally. There is a significant amount of research indicating that the party's role in decision-making decreased over the years. And are you defending his nepotistic policies of bypassing party cadres and high-standing party officials to appoint his son to the presidency and keeping power in the family?
This was my opinion. But lets take a look at the legacy section. This is the first paragraph:
"Hafez al-Assad was one of the key figures in the Middle East, who exerted considerable influence on the politics of the entire region. However, opinions about him and his actions are mixed. As the New York Times put it, "No lasting peace could hold without him, but none could be negotiated with him either. A treaty remained elusive largely due to his stubborn role in demanding back every inch of Syrian territory."[234] Assad was able to build a stable state: his domestic policies of expanding infrastructure, medical and educational services, strengthening central authority, and intensive militarization of society have turned Syria into a closed regional power, whose views could not be ignored.
And this is the third paragraph:
!However, many also acknowledge the merits of his rule, such as the stabilization and strengthening of the state, the creation of powerful Armed Forces, expansion of infrastructure, medical and educational services, the improvement of the standard of living in general, and foreign policy, which consisted of a consistent fight "against imperialism and Israel." His ability to get out of difficult situations, convince others and achieve favorable conditions for himself greatly impressed many diplomats who interacted with him. As The New York Times mentioned, "Mr. Assad most sought to create a legacy, remaking Syria into a power among the Arabs rather than a political football".
As can cleary be seen: the third paragraph is just a reformulation of the first. Its like someone is trying to sandwich: first good, then bad and end with the good again. TheUzbek (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Assad reduced the role of collective institutions in the party when he Assadized it (especially since the 1980s), but before that the party suffered from the exact opposite - from too much factionalism, and at the same time was still unable to solve problems normally. No, I do not defend his failures, I only note his successes.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect 1969 Syrian incident has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 24 § 1969 Syrian incident until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)