Talk:Asma al-Assad

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asma al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.syrianembassy.us/first_lady.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi all, I would like to propose some changes to the page. My primary goal is to clean up grammatical issues, correct wording that appears to make assumptions or bias or is not based strongly enough on fact, and to reorganize and add information to some sections regarding Asma's actual actions as first lady. I would like to create a focus away from the superficial (her "style", for example), and more towards fact; I would also like to clarify details about why Asma is under fire and improve some sections to include a perspective directly from the subject. I have many research sources, some more scholarly, from a project I am currently involved in in university. Below, I will outline the changes I want to make.

• Firstly, the sentence in the introduction, "She briefly pursued a career in international investment banking before moving to Syria to marry President Bashar al-Assad in December 2000" contains an undertone of assumption. A more accurate depiction would be to rearrange the sequence of events, placing the marriage first, and then Asma's decision to stay in Syria afterwards. This edit is miniscule, but something about the wording seems to make an implication that is not necessarily known fact.
• My next concern in the introductory paragraph is that there is no explanation or background information given on why Asma is under sanction. I propose a sentence explaining the state of Syrian relations and the Arab Spring, and why the government is being criticized; these details include civil liberties violations of Bashar, because although this is not particularly relevant to Asma's profile, it is important to note that the consequences of the Syrian government's actions are relevant to the first lady's life. (note: Arab Spring will need a redirect)
• Grammatically, the sentence. "She grew up in Acton [...] .and her friends called her Emma" sounds awkward. I do not think the fact that she was called Emma is relevant (in fact it enhances Western bias), first of all, and it sounds like a randomly hanging clause at the end.
• I propose some sort of conclusory sentence for the "Brief finance career" section. It sounds abrupt. Also, using the word "brief" implies subjective bias. Reporting the timeline of events alone, i.e. how long she worked and where, should suffice.
• I find that the sections "First Lady" and "Style and public image" could be improved to be more accurate. The first lady section could be augmented-I have much more information on her work with the government agencies and their actual incorporation and function. I particularly have many firsthand accounts from research of her work at her Massar children centers. Basically, there could be much more here. Secondly, the "style and public image" section is unclear. Many of the public image matters mentioned could be put under her work as first lady. Furthermore, I think including her "style" is extremely frivolous and sounds more like glamorized media than an encyclopedic article. I think it would be most accurate for the section to only be "public image".
• I would like to correct the fact that Bashar returned to Syria for the presidency not directly because of the death of his father, but because of the death of his brother who was supposed to take their father's place.
• In the section "Syrian Civil War", the first sentence says that a "serious blow has been dealt to [her] public image since the Syrian Civil War intensified [because of] her extravagant personal shopping", and I think this is an inaccurate prelude to the true issue at hand. The matter of her shopping is not the primary reason for her media image issues and the debate over her involvement in Syrian conflict. This section could be improved overall, as with the "First Lady" section. The issue is that the public, in response to media coverage, questions Asma's role in the Syrian conflict as a whole and the contradiction between her work with active citizenship among children and the direct violation of children's active citizenship by her husband.
• The two arguments I see that the Vogue article is a key aspect of the first lady's image and reports a part of her character (as this is how many people around the world came to know her), and the other that a Vogue article is, as I mentioned before, is frivolous and biased in nature to report, are both valid. I do agree that the nature of the article reflects heavy Western bias. Because of this, I agree with a group of the editors who wanted to keep the section but pare it down to exclude potentially biased sentences or quotes from author Joan Juliet Buck. I think the section is important and it would be remiss as reporters of information on Asma to exclude it, but because it reflects such a biased public relations campaign, the section must be more careful in its reporting. There should be a brief description of why the article created a stir without giving an account of Buck's or other's inflammatory comments.
• I also wonder if I might be able to add more to "personal life" from my research. I do have accounts of the Assad's home life with their children and many quotes from Asma herself, and I wonder if these could be worked in. The section seems brief. I think more is available.
• Lastly, perhaps in the Vogue section or the Syrian civil war section (somewhere, I'm not quite sure where yet), I would like to try to include an acknowledgment that much of the literature and media about Asma reports on her "Westernness" and therefore hope for her to be her husband's "reforming hope". I think this is important, and I think it is workable to avoid subjectivity or bias. It relates to the outcry around the Vogue article and reflects on Asma's background.
  • If received well, I can provide an actual write-up of these changes and what they would look like. Hannahelong (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Hannahelong. I recommend fixing some of the grammar issues you've identified above so that editors on this page can focus on the more substantive changes. Take them a few (or one at a time) and make sure you're not changing the meaning of the text too substantively and you should be able to get those out of the way. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur, belatedly. Veriss (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asma al-Assad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012004323/http://gawker.com/5800551/vogue-disappears-adoring-profile-of-syrian-butchers-wife to http://gawker.com/5800551/vogue-disappears-adoring-profile-of-syrian-butchers-wife
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/asma-al-assad-a-rose-in-the-desert/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence and paragraph

I noticed that the article introduces the subject by a position she briefly held more than a decade ago, rather than what she is notable for, and edited the lead section to re-arrange it, so that it introduced her as the First Lady of Syria than as a former investment banker. My edit was reverted by User:Konigcorvus the next day, so I would like to them to explain why they did this. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As no explanation has been given, I have restored my revisions to the lead. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"First Lady" designation?

I just fixed the [[First Lady of Syria]] link since it was merely referring back to this same page. I did leave the text intact and even linked the "First Lady" portion to First Lady, but I'm wondering if using such an unofficial designation in Wikipedia is appropriate style, especially in this context of a major world figure. Note that this has nothing to do with the Syrian political situation, and I'm referring only to use of the term, as opposed to its mention (cf. WP:WORDSASWORDS, WP:UMD and the like). So I'm talking about phrases like:

Asma al-Assad is the First Lady of Syria

and not phrases like:

Asma al-Assad is often referred to as the First Lady of Syria

My suggestion is that we change the lead to read as follows (I'd normally just be bold but I think this is too hot an area and it's better discussed first):

Asma al-Assad ...<multilingual stuff>...née Akhras...<more>...b) is the wife of the 19th and current President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. She was born on 11 August 1975 in London to Syrian parents.

I'd then be inclined to leave it at that, but if the First Lady designation is important then perhaps it could go further down in the article? If someone feels strongly enough that it stay in the lead, then it could be added to the above to make it:

Asma al-Assad ...<multilingual stuff>...née Akhras...<more>....is the wife of the 19th and current President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. She was born on 11 August 1975 in London to Syrian parents. She is sometimes referred to as the First Lady of Syria.

(although that then kinda demands an WP:RS, in turn highlighting the problem I'm pointing out.)

Note that in looking at this I did compare with the entries for Melania Trump and Michelle Obama, both of which also use the First Lady designation. But I stick to my point for two reasons. First, I think the use is inappropriate in those two cases too. But more important, even if it is appropriate, the term actually is heavily used in the USA. So if it was going to be appropriate anywhere, the US would be that place. Compare, for example, with Norma Major, wife of a former British Prime Minister. The Brits rarely if ever use the First X designation which is why it would be inappropriate for Major's. Overall I reckon we should be erring on the side of neutrality of terminology, and in this case not inadvertently superimposing a US norm on an article pertaining to a (very) foreign nation.

Any thoughts?

Sleety Dribble (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: On second thoughts I'm going to withdraw the above suggestion. It would require some other substantial changes further down, and I'm pretty sure, having read some of the edit comments in history, that we'd see warring over what would be seen as political editing on my part. Since I am the one doing it, I can say with 100% certainty that I am concerned only with style, but it's not about what I think. And I know WP enough to know a hair-trigger topic when I see one. Leaving above in place but struck out. If it resonates with anyone else, feel free to un-strike and pick up the discussion from there. (Maybe I'll propose a new guideline as a balance to WP:BEBOLD. I could call it WP:WIMPOUT :-) Sleety Dribble (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not only American sources that call her First Lady of Syria, but also Syrian ones.[1][2][3] It is an unofficial title, but then First Lady of the United States is not an officially-defined title either. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)