Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria

Moved from Talk:Ahmed al-Sharaa § RfC on the term “Assad”

 – HurricaneEdgar 00:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

After the fall of Assad, there was discussion about how to refer to his government—whether as a "regime" or a "government," as noted above.

Should the terms "Assad regime" or "Ba'athist regime" in the content of Syrian articles (independently of the articles' titles), such as fall of the Assad regime, Bashar al-Assad, Ba'athist Syria, and Ahmed al-Sharaa, and in other articles that generally relate to the topic, be changed to "Assad government" or "Ba'athist government"?

• Option A: Include the "Assad regime."
• Option B: Include the "Assad government."
• Option C: Include the "Ba'athist government."
• Option D: Include the "Ba'athist regime."
• Option E/Other: Include it, but with different wording. HurricaneEdgar 14:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Both Option B and Option C are acceptable, depending on the context. "Assad government" should refer to the government of Bashar al-Assad from 2000 to 2024, while "Ba'athist government" should refer to the government of Syria from 1963 to 2024. Patriotparty1776 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree. "Regime" seems clearly to me not to be an NPOV term, and in any case there's clearly no consensus on it being one.GeoEvan (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

'Option A/D: Regime is the common name Inspiring Philosophy (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC) Blocked sock. HurricaneEdgar 01:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Regime is not the common name and it violates WP:NPOV. Patriotparty1776 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the guideline or consensus that says text within articles is subject to WP:COMMONNAME? I can only find information on it applying to the actual titles of articles, which is not what this RfC is about.GeoEvan (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

If any decision is made here, then it should also be applied to other articles, since many Syrian articles use different terms for Assad. I’m not sure if this is a good target for the RFC. HurricaneEdgar 11:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not true. It is a common name and what makes you think it is NPOV? Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option A most common name for the previous government, ie. regime.

Beshogur (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• B or C Regime as used here is a WP:LABEL and we should in no case be using it (WP:NPOV). Gotitbro (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

In line with WP:WIKIVOICE, Options B and C are strongly preferable, as the word "government" does not carry the weight of moral judgement which "regime" often does in non-political science (and, admittedly, in some political science) contexts. Of these, it is my impression that Option B is more commonly used, but that Option C is probably the best descriptor in many ways: it may make it easier for readers to make connections between both Assads' governments and that of Hussein's Iraq, and also prevent potential confusion from readers only looking at a particular section over the fact that Baathist Syria was ruled by a father and son who shared a last name.

Depending on article context, I think that Options A, D, and the word "regime" could definitely make an appearance which does not violate the WikiVoice principle. Especially, although not exclusively, in more technical portions of articles, I could see phrases such as "regime characteristics", "regime change", or "regime type" being the best option for communicating with readers. Using Options A or D in these contexts might be preferable simply for the sake of consistency. InterstellarWhale (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I've already commented above, but given that regime also has a technical usage without any negative connotation, it occurs to me that there may be some cultural, linguistic, and regional variation in understandings here. For those in doubt:

It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person’s own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition. Regime change thus refers to the overthrow of a government considered illegitimate by an external force and its replacement with a new government according to the ideas or interests promoted by that force.

As a professional in this field, I can say with confidence that this is indeed the context of the phrase fall of the Assad regime. GeoEvan (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Clarification needed: @HurricaneEdgar: The RfC question is currently ambiguous. (1) Which article does "the article" refer to? One particular article, or articles that generally relate to the topic such as fall of the Assad regime, Bashar al-Assad, Ba'athist Syria or Ahmed al-Sharaa? (2) Please confirm that the question refers to the content of Wikipedia article(s), and excludes titles (since titles are subject to WP:COMMONNAME).
  The actual text of the RfC needs clarifying, not just a threaded answer here. Boud (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC) (minor edit Boud (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC))

  The RFC has been started here due to a conflict between me and another user regarding the use of the term “regime.” I also mentioned whether this is a good target, since the Syria article uses the term “Assad” in many instances. I am planning to move this discussion to WikiProject Syria so it can cover all topics related to the use of the term “Assad.” HurricaneEdgar 00:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Please be aware that, per WP:Advice page, no determination made here at the WikiProject will be automatically binding on all articles this question may apply to. You will still need to establish a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on any article where an editor objects to the result established by this discussion, and will not be able to point to any consensus here as the "default approach". SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Clarification still needed: @HurricaneEdgar: Question (2) has not been clarified in the definition of the RfC (content-only or titles too?), which risks a huge amount of wasted discussion about WP:COMMONNAME, which is only weakly relevant to the content of Wikipedia articles. I propose replacing in Syrian articles by in the content of Syrian articles (independently of the articles' titles). Boud (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

   Done HurricaneEdgar 12:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• A - per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see how the Assad regime isn't a regime, considering their unfair elections and repressive government. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Any and all of the presented options, depending on context. All of these options have been heavily used by sourcing on this topic, and may be appropriate, depending on the particular fact being presented, the period of time and circumstances being referred to, and the sources upon which particular bit of prose relies. And just to be clear, "regime" is perfectly "neutral", as that term applies on this project--meaning not that it is perfectly objective, but rather that we are following the usage in reliable sources, without skewing away due to the idiosyncratic views about the "truth" of the matter as seen by our editors. Anyone who does not not understand that distinction needs to review both WP:NPOV and WP:Original research. Particularly when looking retrospectively on the Assad era, it is pretty clear that this was not just a common description in reliable sources on the topic, but by far the most common one in English sources. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  NPOV would require us to forgo terms with colored or understood POV meanings, in this case as in most others the term is used to convey disagreement with the ruling government. MOS:LABEL (also known as MOS:TERRORIST) is pretty clear in this regard that commonname shouldn't trump NPOV unless RS unanimity exists which it doesn't here. Gotitbro (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with that guidance, but WP:LABEL is a section of the manual of style, and where it conflicts with clear language from a WP:PAG, particularly a pillar policy like WP:V or WP:NPOV#WEIGHT, both of which apply here, it does not control over those much more fundamental content principles. You cite NPOV, but NPOV is precisely the policy that most dictates that we follow the lead of sources, even where we personally find that their choices might be regarded as, in some respect or another, judgmental. Again, it's a common misconception, but on this project "neutrality" does not mean we stretch towards some abstract socially or morally centrist position on controversial topics. It means we completely set aside exactly those kinds of personal assessments and follow the lead of the sources, applying tests such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION to find wording that summarizes the aggregate RS position, no matter how exaggerated or wrong-headed we might regard them through the lens of our own views.

Now, that determination can sometimes be difficult when you have as large a corpus of sources as exist for this topic, but personally I think there is no doubt that "the Assad regime" is far and away the most dominant descriptor of the Syrian central government during at least the most recent decades of the period in which the family was in control of the country. You can always do ngrams testing or other suggestive metrics to try to get an empirical measure, but I'd be frankly gobsmacked if you found any alternative term with anywhere the same media and scholarship cache. Let me stress again that I don't think it should completely dominate prose on the topic. But without a doubt it has to be a part of any accurate treatment of the subject, and WP:LABEL in no way obstructs that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Any and all of the presented options, depending on context per Snow Rise. There may be times a particular adjective works better with a certain piece of text. A wariness of using WP:LABELs is warranted, but not to the point of full exclusion. Some variety in the text is by itself also not detrimental. CMD (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Any and all of the presented options, depending on context Some vigilance may be needed regarding WP:LABEL, and even more regarding WP:OR. LS8 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Normally only Option B, per WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL, or Option D, per the most likely reader's interpretation, because "Assad government" will tend to refer to (depending on the context) either the junior or senior Assad government, while "Ba'athist regime" will tend to refer to the whole epoch of Ba'athist governments (it would be ambiguous to describe a particular Syrian goverment). The use of the word regime to pejoratively mean "government that we don't like" is a WP:LABEL in the spirit of the Two Minutes Hate to allow the [editors and readers] of [Wikipedia] to vent [our] personal hatred towards a political enemy. We use sources for information, not for their choice of wording style (unless quoting is reasonable); see WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE. We should (as we do) state overtly that the Bashar al-Assad government and the other Ba'athist-regime governments were authoritarian (or totalitarian?), massively violated human rights, and so on (per the sources), instead of using a Two Minutes Hate label.
  Even the "form of government" usage, for Option D, has to be done with care. The current version of wikt:regime#Usage notes states When regime is used in the sense of a form or instance of government or state, it is usually meant as a pejorative, and may be intended to brand that government or state as illegitimate or authoritarian (bold added by me), so even the form-of-government sense can often be seen as pejorative. The Wikipedia section regime#Usage has a key sentence, after mentioning the pejorative usage, In contemporary academic discourse, the term "regime" is used more broadly than in popular or journalistic contexts (bold added by me). While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so in that sense is an academic context, it's also aiming at a popular audience, trying to maximise understandability for non-experts. Both of these contexts matter. The contexts where we use "regime" to mean system-of-government need to be clear on the meaning. A few ways to imply the system-of-government meaning and reduce the (vague) pejorative connotation are to write "system of government" explicitly, or put in an intrawiki link to the #types of political regimes section: regime#Types of political regimes.
  Practical test: If Assad dictatorship is justified in the context of a sentence, then state that overtly instead of Assad regime. If the dictatorial nature of the government is irrelevant or distracting in the sentence, then write Assad government (Option B).
  Earlier 'regime' discussion; ping @Andrew Davidson: (the other (1) participant).
  Another way of putting the problem with "regime": ambiguity in Wikipedia articles is bad. We should not use a word where the interpretation is likely to be ambiguous. Boud (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC) (edit: adding WP:WEASEL Boud (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC))

If you and I were personally discussing the most dispassionate, rational, and non-contentious way to approach the topic as an a priori matter, I would be on board for every last aspect of your analysis there. But unfortunately, at the end of the day, Wikipedia's policies and fidelity to sources require something different of us, and I just don't think that WP:LABEL, a style guide provision formulated by a relatively small number of editors, gets to completely override guidelines and policies that represent the absolute most concrete, large-scale and longterm community consensus, like WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:PROPORTION, and others of relevance here. Once we start to come up with our own idiosyncratic analysis, down to examining dictionary definitions, we have crossed very definitionally into WP:original research territory. Again, I say that with the greatest of respect for the logical clarity of the underlying thinking behind the standard you suggest. But that's just not how we're supposed to be determining this issue, under our methods here. And again, I'll say that I do think "government" can do a lot of heavy lifting across relevant articles, but trying to banish "regime" from the coverage altogether is just not in my view feasible with the sourcing we are working with. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Fidelity to sources is to the information in the sources, not their style (except for WP:COMMONNAME in titles). As nicely stated in WP:PARAPHRASE: Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, ... (original italics). Our own words should aim at clarity, not ambiguity. I still think that WP:WEASEL is relevant (not just WP:LABEL; I edited my main !vote, adding this): Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. Boud (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but as the overall text of WP:PARAPHRASE makes clear, it is just encouraging us to deviate our prose enough that we are not committing plagiarism. And WP:PARAPHRASE is an explanatory essay: again, as with WP:LABEL, it is additional consideration for style that is meant to be applied on top of actual PAGs, but should not be taken to extremes where it undercuts the more vital considerations expressed in pillar policies, such as WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Or, applied more precisely to this context, WP:PARAPHRASE does not permit enough deviation such that we are selecting key terminology that changes the framing of the issues in a way which is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Key common nouns as used in WP:RS very much do constitute "information", as you put it, rather than being mere WP:STYLEVAR considerations. Again, WP:PARAPHRASE is concerned with making our content unique enough that we don't run afoul of copyviolations, not informing upon substantive editorial issues of neutrality in the same way as say, something like WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION, which very much do apply to how we choose among competing labels for a controversial topic. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

• Option B or C, and avoid using the term "regime", per MOS:LABEL and more importantly per WP:NPOV. Our core policy is that we must not state in wikivoice statements that are inherently WP:SUBJECTIVE, and must attribute the POV – no matter how popular the POV is. At Adolf Hitler, we don't call him "evil" in wikivoice, but rather attribute that POV. There is nothing that "regime" conveys that "government" does not convey. This is why we say "militants" and not "terrorists" etc. And Boud is 100% correct when they say "Fidelity to sources is to the information in the sources, not their style (except for WP:COMMONNAME in titles)."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

No personal offense intended, Vice regent, but you couldn't have picked an example that better demonstrates that your interpretation of WP:NPOV runs completely opposite to the normal way in which that policy is meant to be applied: because, in fact,we use "terrorist" on countless articles, including thousands of articles, if not tens of thousands, where we don't even attribute it but in fact use it in direct wikivoice. Again, the point of WP:NPOV is not to avoid all "subjective labels": the actual policy could not be more plain about that, throughout. Labels our editors may find subjective are not only permitted, but in the majority of cases required, if the sources adopt those labels extensively enough. Also, WP:SUBJECTIVE has absolutely nothing to do with this situation: that section is entirely about overly flattering, flowery, or overly poetical prose when covering art and other aesthetic topics: First line, "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia." and it goes on like that without any kind of reference to the kind of position you are ascribing to it regarding labels for contentious topics. Anyway, this is the last post I think I'll make here, because I've said about as much as I think I have to say as an FRS respondent. But yeah, again, not trying to be rude, but I think a closer reading of WP:NPOV calls for the opposite of what you are suggesting here, difficult as that can be, sometimes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the instances of "terrorist" being used either as a proper noun (which we can't change), or simply in violation of our policies. For example, one of the first instances comes of David Headley, who is described as "mastermind behind the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks". Yet that article was moved (back) "2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks" to 2008 Mumbai attacks, because the use of the term "terrorist" was deemed POV. So I've gone ahead and changed that (and if you disagree, please start a discussion on that talk page and ping me).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

"Most of the instances of "terrorist" being used either as a proper noun (which we can't change), or simply in violation of our policies."

I'm sorry, but that's just simply not true: the word is used across many, many thousands of articles (and very rarely as a proper noun), because that is precisely what is called for by WP:NPOV, in some instances where the WP:RS overwhelmingly treat it as such, and WP:LABEL does not override those instances.

Just for the sake of clarity, your definition of proper noun seems to exclude most instances that technically qualify for that grammatical/syntactic label: for example "the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks" would typically be regarded as a proper noun, whether capitalized or not. But your analysis of that factor is incorrect in any event, we absolutely can (and sometimes do) opt to use terrorist in those instances, and sometimes don't--and again, the major factor there is the agreement of sources. In any event if you are saying that only organizations which adopt the label of terrorist in their own movement name can have it invoked against them, I would submit to you that this is the least likely use case for the word, since few groups willingly do that, even historically.

But I'll let further respondents draw their own conclusions as to what policy calls for and what local consensus typically lands on by randomly sampling the results, if they are undecided on their own !vote; again, I've repeated my input about as many time as I feel comfortable as an FRS respondent and can't do so further without increasing repetition. However, in parting, I would suggest this: does Ockham's razor suggest that if your perspective disagrees with results of local consensus on so many high-visibility, heavily-reviewed articles, is it more likely that all of the editors working on those articles applied standards inconsistent with policy, or that your own interpretation of NPOV may be out of lockstep with broader community consensus?

"Yet that article was moved (back) "2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks" to 2008 Mumbai attacks, because the use of the term "terrorist" was deemed POV. So I've gone ahead and changed that (and if you disagree, please start a discussion on that talk page and ping me).

That is your prerogative, and I have no intention of reverting you or debating the point there. I'm only here at this discussion responding to a bot notification and have no interest in a broader discussion on the topic. But I would give friendly caution that you not make a pattern of such edits along a similar lines of reasoning, changing the status quo version of multiple articles that are likely to fall under WP:CTOP, without first gaining consensus on the talk pages of those articles, as that could be viewed as disruptive. Though I strongly disagree with you about what policy calls for on this issue, I can tell you are operating in good faith to try to improve the encyclopedia, and don't want you landing in trouble by acting hastily to fix this "mistake" across too many articles all at once. Again, that's it for me here, unless someone pings me back. Happy editing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• B or C. Regime is not a neutral word and MOS:LABEL applies. There is no clear definition of "regime" and there are other no less brutal governments that for various reasons have not been called "regime". The policy being what it is, if the overwhelming majority of RS use this term for the previous Syrian government, then this is what we should use, however the burden of proof is on those who support the "regime" option. Here I don't see any evidence that this is the case. Alaexis_¿question? 11:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• OPTION E/OTHER I think all four terms are acceptable and should be chosen on a case-by-case basis for stylistic reasons, rather than political reasons. I think regime is a neutral term for a regime. But government is also sometimes the better word. Most of the time, it doesn't make a huge difference and is just a matter of personal preference. Slava570 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) per WP:COMMONNAME, and because the governance extends beyond specific govt cabinets, which is what is generally meant by specific 'governments' . I fail to see wow the term regime is not neutral, we speak of 'democratic regimes' as easily as we speak of 'authoritarian' ones, and in this instance, the Assad period was closer to the latter than the former anyway, so the term would still be apt.Pincrete (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)