The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 30, 2012 Peer review Reviewed October 23, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Hafez al-Assad, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: December 8 to 14, 2024

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.

Also, I know it's only because of Ahmed al-Sharaa that we stopped ordring. But it doesn't mea we can removd all of the orders, ageee? Richie1509 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: BasselHarfouch (talk · contribs · block log) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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? @Amigao BasselHarfouch (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]

I have asked you a simple question, why can't you provide a simple answer? BasselHarfouch (talk) 06:43, 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]

Damn seems like Syrian community here is dead, even we have a lot to say Algirr (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @TheUzbek since they wrote about a third of the article using their other old account 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so i just will wait until he answers Algirr (talk) 19:01, 29 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.

In this regard, okay, the paragraph can be moved, I agree with you. Algirr (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i fixed last paragraphs, you can check them and say how is looks now Algirr (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Non-Arabic speaker here, found this out by translating, recently added “native name” Translates to “Hafez, Son of a Monkey, Son of Abu Lahab (prophet Muhammad's condemned half paternal uncle), Al-Assad”, Arielahron (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary account was doing some vandalism. Thank you for fixing it. I reverted some additional vandalism that was missed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]