Talk:Fall of the Assad regime

Fall of the Assad regime

I propose WP:MERGE WP:CONCISE Fall of the Assad dynasty → Fall of the Assad regime, MOS:AT. QalasQalas (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and have placed a WP:RMTM for this. The Assads weren't royalty and didn't present themselves as such. In theory, the Baath Party leadership could have passed to others. SnowFire (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment below. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad has probably died from a plane crash

There's reports suggesting that Bashar al-Assad has been killed in a plane crash (possibly fake). I feel like this should definitely be mentioned here. However, the reports are unconfirmed. Thoughts? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing should be done, unless it is confirmed. We need to wait this situation out. DerEchteJoan (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrian Air Flight 9218 - deleted because even if there was a plane crash, there are insufficient WP:RS and there's no notability related to Assad, since he appears to have fled to Russia. Boud (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

With more information coming out it appears he has fled to Russia

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqx89reeevgo Pikachubob3 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. This was all a hoax. Well, at least we know better now. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's very typical when regimes fall as quickly as Assad's did with very little (for lack of a better word) western media present, speculation goes wild Pikachubob3 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Who has seen him alive since he was deposed? Has he done any interviews? Been photographed? Or we just trusting Moscow’s word that he is still alive? If he has not been verified to be alive, I would argue that that is worthy of mention in the article (obviously we’ll need to avoid violating Wikipedia’s original research restrictions). 74.83.64.155 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Fall of the government-that-we-don't-like

The current title means, effectively, Fall of the Assad government-that-we-don't/didn't-like.

While it's true that "regime" is widely used in the Western press, that's because Bashar al-Assad's government was widely seen as a government that "we" - leaders of Western states - didn't like. They happen to be right in my personal opinion, since al-Assad was a bloodthirsty tyrant, but that's irrelevant in this Wikipedia context. In normal content, we can't write "Assad regime", because that's WP:WEASELly. But for titles, we go by wide usage - WP:COMMONNAME. So two questions:

1. Can we use a weaselly name because it's widely used in the Western English-language press? (The above RM suggests "yes".)
2. Can we use or is it acceptable to use weaselly language in the content of this article to match the title, as an exception to WP:WEASEL?

The first question should probably only have loose discussion, unless the discussion starts evolving towards a "No" answer, since there was a snow close. At least in the short term, anyway.

For the second question, the precedent of Fall of the Fascist regime in Italy, a topic on which there have been many decades of historical discussion, I only see two non-quote usages of "regime" within the article, while "government" is used a lot more. I would tend to say "No", except in cases where it clearly refers to the general system of government, rather than the specific Assad government. The risk of "Yes" to the second question is that then we sound like we're presenting the preferences of Western governments in a WP:WEASELly way - instead of saying outright, Fall of the bloodthirsty Assad government, we're pretending to sound educated by confusing between a meaning useful in political sciences (general system of government) with a word that means "government" but adds a pejorative connotation: Fall of the nasty Assad government written in an intellectual-sounding way to camouflage the meaning. Boud (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC) (strike through Q1 to avoid confusing the two questions Boud (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC))

The eagerness of the mainstream media and the unwitting cooperation of Wikipedians to use "regime" only for governments-that-Western-leaders-oppose makes me very much think of Two Minutes Hate. Boud (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose; I've not seen any "unwitting wikipedian" use "Putin regime or Moscow regime" in constrast to the term "Kyiv regime" which was used by some vandals a long time back. Theofunny (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, ruling authoritarian governments which have lost the popular support of the people or don't have it yet and are being challenged politically, especially in a war are commonly referred to as "regimes" which is why, we don't see anyone calling the UAE or Saudi governments a regime. For example, in the Russian civil war article, you can see the bolshevik governance referred to as a "regime". Theofunny (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The designation "regime" has a quite specific meaning in political science parlance, and it is misused, both deliberately and not, throughout the encyclopedia.

The bias goes back centuries, though.

cordially, Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've done a de-WEASEL edit, hopefully without mistakes. People who see the nuances differently to me, feel free to further fix, or to avoid a risk of violating 1RR, propose them here if you think you've already done one revert in the last 24 hours. @Augmented Seventh: On the wider question of throughout the encyclopedia, someone sufficiently motivated could ask for help handling this with an interactive "de-regime-bot" - e.g. that finds pages with the word "regime" and asks you for each one if you wish to edit the section after checking the context properly. It shouldn't be done blindly, of course (quotes and references should not be changed, and some uses are valid). Boud (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Regime", in colloquial usage, describes an authoritarian an oppressive government, not a "negative" one. It may be your view (and the view of most of western society) that authoritarianism and oppression are bad but that doesn't mean that the word "regime" is inherently biased. The Assad regime was, by all accounts, authoritarian and oppressive. This is a simple fact.

Removing most instances of the word "regime", however, is biased, as it signals that you wish to separate an authoritarian regime from connotations of authoritarianism. Loytra (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The Assad government was authoritarian and oppressive - that's well-sourced and not under debate. The problem with using "regime" with the connotation of "authoritarian and oppresive" is creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. If the "authoritarian and oppressive" connotation of "regime" were not vague, then we would state, per V-Dem Democracy Indices, "the Saudi Arabian regime", "the Qatar regime", "the UAE regime", "the Egyptian regime", "the Turkish regime", "the Thai regime", depending on which particular cutoff and which particular index we wish to choose.

Vagueness is not encyclopedic.

Replacing some of occurrences of the word "government" by "dictatorship" would be much better than writing "regime": the meaning of "dictatorship" is unambiguous. Particular changes would depend on what makes sense in each particular sentence: repeating that the government is a dictatorship is relevant in some sentences, and of minor importance or distracting in others. Boud (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You're giving such examples, but it's actually your WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you're trying to tell we're not liking Assad and trying to denigrate him, but it's your arguments showing you don't like that terminology. Can't even give proper examples. First of all, it's the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DUE. Like it or not, Assad's government was a regime. No reason to romanticize it. Beshogur (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, just check the condescending language that he has been using since the start of this discussion about "wikipedians". Theofunny (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There has been a long-term convention in editing Syria articles to use the term "Syrian government" or "Assad government" as NPOV, even though many sources use "regime". I've always complied with that but wondered whether consensus was established. Now there's been a change of government, all our uses of "Syrian government" will be problematic and confusing, and make much more sense if changed to "Assad regime" or "Ba'athist regime". So I think now is a good moment to confirm a new consensus of using the term "regime" for the regime, so we can use "government" for whatever emerges next. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

RS uses of "Assad regime" include:

https://www.politico.eu/article/austria-deport-syria-migrant-bashar-assad-regime-fall/

https://www.ft.com/content/7f1f2cfe-9811-471e-85ec-30ceda4140a4

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/12/sudden-collapse-bashar-assad/680917/

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cdjgder83eeo

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/07/world/middleeast/iran-syria-rebels.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/12/08/syria-united-states-biden-stabilize/

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/12/08/who-will-rule-syria-now-the-assad-regime-has-been-toppled

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/12/05/syria-assad-regime-collapsing-quickly/

Including non-western sources:

https://www.newarab.com/news/how-fall-assad-regime-marks-new-chapter-lebanon

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/12/8/what-the-collapse-of-the-syrian-regime-says-about-the-arab-region

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2024/12/09/we-havent-heard-from-them-for-over-a-decade-thousands-of-syrians-flock-to-sednayas-infamous-prison/

https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1439034/au-liban-de-premiers-incidents-contenus-apres-la-chute-du-regime-assad.html

https://www.madamasr.com/en/2024/12/08/feature/politics/assad-no-more-the-10-days-that-changed-everything/

https://elwatan-dz.com/evenement-majeur-en-syrie

https://french.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/7/1230/57687/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9/Mode-de-vie/Les-Syriens-d%E2%80%99Egypte-h;sitent-;-rentrer-au-pays,-p.aspx BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The name Assad regime exists for over 50 years. Beshogur (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Syrian state television had nothing on but this message for several hours (in Arabic): “Victory of the great Syrian revolution and the fall of the criminal al-Assad regime". https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2024/12/08/syrian-state-tv-hails-victory-of-revolution-fall-of-al-assad- kencf0618 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

These sources are irrelevant for the question under discussion (my Q2). To clarify things, I'll put a strike through Q1, to avoid confusing the two questions. Q2 is not a title debate. For the information in the body of our articles, we use WP:RS for the meaning of the sources' content, not for their style, especially when that style is vague or euphemistic or jumping on a bandwagon of loose language. For titles, the style of sources is relevant for WP:COMMONNAME. If the vast majority of sources call Joe Bloggs Joe the cool dude, then chances are the article title will be Joe the cool dude. However, the meaning of the sources will probably explain that cool dude means that the guy is popular and has charisma, so the content of the article will say "Joe was highly popular and charismatic", but will not say, "The cool dude was born on 1 Jan 1970 ... The cool dude won an award on 31 Dec 2010". Boud (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Boud is correct - "regime" is widely used and interpreted as having a disapproving connotation, and its use here is not good practice in terms of WP:NPOV, and in fact is blatantly inconsistent with its usage in other articles in Wikipedia. I am a profesional editor of neutral geopolitical reporting, and I would never allow the use of "regime" as a purportedly neutral term. Its use here plays into outside perceptions of Wikipedia being more biased than it really is, and I strongly recommend we get our act together and fix this. GeoEvan (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

If someone wants to revive this discussion, or maybe propose a properly constructed WP:RFC, or write an WP:ESSAY, then this archived 2025–2026 Iranian protests discussion should be linked too - a good point was made that the problem is more WP:LABEL than WP:WEASEL, although my feeling is that it's still a bit of WP:WEASEL (it's not actually a WP:NPOV issue, because it's about connotations and the moral judgment of the Wikipedia authors, not about claims of facts). Boud (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That discussion will likely be revived due to a user disapproving of the term “Assad regime” in the al-Sharaa article, arguing that it is pro-HTS and anti-Assad. See the talk page regarding the use of “Assad regime.” HurricaneEdgar 03:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I started an RFC about this issue Talk:Ahmed_al-Sharaa#RfC_on_the_term_“Assad”. I’m not sure if this is a good target, since Syrian articles have been using the term “regime” for Assad and his government. HurricaneEdgar 15:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding more context about the start of the anti-Assad offensive.

I added a paragraph about the political context to the start of the anti-Assad offensive against Aleppo, noting that rebels had planned the offensive in late 2023 (exact date not clear, but almost certainly after October 7). Turkey initially blocked the offensive but lifted its hold after a diplomatic initiative by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was rebuffed. The initial goal of the offensive was to be limited.

More could be added about the Aleppo phase of the anti-Assad offensive.

I initially proposed this as an edit to Bashar al-Assad's bio, but BobFromBrockley judged it to be too detailed for that article, and suggested it belonged better here; he is correct. ScottWade56 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wrong date possibility

I the first paragraph under the map in section "Opposition takeover" the date is "27 November 2023". Shouldnt it be 2024? Gubernator2 (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you like some more useful sources?

Hello! Unfortunately, I'll have no time at all to help you update this and other pages with more information on the offensive and the fall of the regime; however, I just wanted to leave you some useful sources you can use to add more details and links yourself.

Obviously, we've already got plenty of good live timelines to choose from, including The Guardian, The New York Times, the BBC, El País and Le Monde.

However, I think you should check out the material from Il Post and Al Jazeera, too: the former outlet has put together a very on-point timeline, with lots of references to other newspaper and social media content, as well several in-depth articles like this one, while the latter has created a bunch of maps and graphics that could be quite useful as Creative Commons content that could be uploaded on Wikimedia portals.

Let me know if this helps! Oltrepier (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do it! Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Categorization of the Assad regime as "totalitarian"

The word itself is nigh-meaningless in its vagueness, since there's no political or economic system called "totalitarianism" and its application to one country or another depends entirely on external perception. It is also way too rooted on an ideological framework. Besides, when applied to both North Korea and Ba'athist Syria you know one of the two must be wrong. In my view it is WEASEL and editorialized. I petition it be replaced with more accurate/neutral terminology such as dictatorship or authoritarian. Figueiredo96 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The Assad regime was absolutely totalitarian in the same way that North Korea was. There were secret police, there was a cult of personality, you could find pictures or statues of Hafez and Bashar practically anywhere. It was a place where the walls had eyes and ears. It was a hereditary fascist dictatorship. -Sailor Ceres (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It was totalitarian, you could have visited Damascus to even experience it. No need to romanticise it now. Theofunny (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Per totalitarianism, In the field of political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, ... Per the 2024 V-Dem Democracy Indices (i.e. for 2023), Syria was 16th worst in terms of electoral democracy (Saudi Arabia was the most totalitarian by that parameter, Eritrea the second worst), and 15th worst in terms of liberal democracy (Eritrea was the worst by that parameter; North Korea second worst; Saudi Arabia was only the 11th worst). Political scientists have plenty of sources of information on which to make reasonably objective judgments whether or not Syria under Assad qualifies as totalitarian, or "only" authoritarian; the V-Dem Institute publishes numbers; The Economist Democracy Index has four regime types, none of which are called "totalitarian". There are plenty of academic sources that can be used to attribute claims that the Assad government was totalitarian, but giving the ratings on some of the researchers' numerical systems could be useful too. Go to the Wikipedia articles to find the some sources.

On the other hand, in relation to the discussion above, The Economist Democracy Index does not discriminate between regimes that are regimes versus regimes that are democracies, since it would be quite confusing to contrast regime regimes versus democratic regimes. Boud (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC) (minor edit Boud (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC))

Totalitarian is not a serious academic term. At worst it just supplants the use of fascist as insult, at best it is a misnomer. The use of the label based on Wikipedia's own definition in combination with some democracy or freedom ranking is WP:OR. Desalado (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Also to go along those lines. The term “totalitarianism” is not only an extreme form of authoritarianism; but it also has certain key aspects: a charismatic dictator, a pervasive cult of personality, a secret police, etc. Syria is a textbook example of all of those things; and probably the reason why Syria did better on the than Saudi Arabia on that index is because Syria at least had “elections” for president (even though they may have been sham/show elections but they still had them). Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and thus don’t have elections for head of state at all. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

And furthermore @Boud, Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source. It is an OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I was using Wikipedia for a general credibility check, not proposing it as a source. That's why I wrote There are plenty of academic sources that can be used to attribute claims that the Assad government was totalitarian, but giving the ratings on some of the researchers' numerical systems could be useful too. The numerical values would not decide "totalitarian" versus "not totalitarian"; they would be useful, WP:RSed information (which the reader may interpret as s/he wishes). I did add Go to the Wikipedia articles to find the sources, but I really only meant that that's a way to find some sources (I've updated to clarify) - the issue of finding an unbiased selection of sources is a difficult question going beyond the scope of this talk page. I might be wrong about plenty of academic sources for "totalitarian", but if there are serious academic sources using the adjective or noun, then they can be used. Boud (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of Reactions sub-article

Please see Talk:Reactions_to_the_fall_of_the_Assad_regime#Is_this_article_necessary? — ypn^2 00:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional section for “reactions” for non-state groups

It may be worth listing the reaction of non-state actors like Hamas (which is not recognized as an official government) due to the unique and/or interesting stances that they may take on the event. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Location

I propose changing the location in the infobox from Ba'athist Syria to Syria. Ba'athist Syria refers to the political regime rather than a geographic location, so it’s not suitable as a place name. I'm raising this here first to seek consensus and hopefully avoid an edit war before making this change. Lova Falk (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No protests. I'll perform this. Lova Falk (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Collage version

Under unreasonable demands, I create a consensus on the collage version, although this should have been done by other people who cancel my version of the collage.

I propose posting a combined collage in the infobox. It consists of the same photos as now, but it can be viewed by the name "File:Collage of the fall of the Assad regime.jpg" At the same time, other people delete the collage and put several separate photos in its place, hiding behind the corresponding policy, which in itself does not prohibit the use of the combined collage (as evidenced by its frequent use in other articles).

Above there is another consensus, in which I ALREADY INDICATED this collage and an agreement was reached on its placement (for some reason, none of those who changed it bothered to look at this).

The question is who prefers the combined collage (the name of which is indicated above), and who prefers the "separate" one (which is now)?

Algirr (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• WP:COLLAGE/WP:MONTAGE—which bizarrely was cited in an edit summary as a reason to revert—explicitly states that collages on Wikipedia comprise single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, i.e. many images in one. It is correctly licenced, expands nicely so doesn't lose detail, and was the original montage after the single image was replaced, by consensus, on 15 April; arguably, therefore, the WP:ONUS (at least in spirit) lies on those editors who wish to remove it to seek inclusion. And as for edit summaries calling on the other party to "seek consensus on the talk page" that is what those seeking to overturn inclusion should have done. Discussion is for talk pages, not for edit summaries. Those believing separate images are better should justify their position. Specifically, User:Hoben7599—who s far too inexperienced to indulge in edit warring—should explain why they changed it without an explanation on 22 April; note that their reversion did not revert back to the prevous image (of a lone burnt out tank) but added as a new creation, the discrete image selction. Why was this done, and with what consensus was it done? It seems curious behavior for established editors to defend. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has no policy against using a merged collage. It is used in a huge number of articles and no one complains. Algirr (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is unclear on what basis the consensus should be created by the one who cancels the edits, and not by the one who first started making them. But in any case, I am forced to do it and have already done it under unfounded demands. Algirr (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand what your opinion is. Which version of the collage are you for? Algirr (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  It is possible there is a comprehension problem. You have not understood what I said above, and you also don't seem to have understood the massive notice at the top of this page that says there is a Limit of one revert in 24 hours... and you go and make two a day three days running. You're lucky you haven't been dragged to AE. Anyway, to clarify my comment—and despite your edit warring—I mean do not think there needs to be a discussion to restore a revert whch itself had never been discussed. Clearly the single image had been (albeit briefly) discussed, whereas the collection of images has never been discussed. And in the spirit of WP:CON, any discussion is better than no discussion. But please desist from edit warring. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I am not understand. For me it is Complex formulations which are always difficult to understand.

  Yes. To be honest, I don't count the hours, but that's not what we are about, we are about the collage.

  Whatever AE means, I'm currently blocked from editing so it doesn't really matter to me.

  Well, that's exactly it, my combined image was discussed, but their separate one wasn't - but for some reason they are right, and I have to make a topic with consensus. Algirr (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Repeated Reverts When Adding the Toppling of the Hafez Al Assad Statue and the SANA Broadcast Interruption (Key Events on December 8th)

The images currently on display in the article do the main events of December 8th no justice and I'm repeatedly being revert blocked from adding the most high profile images that defined events of that day

The first is the toppling of the statue of Hafez Al-Assad in Latakia by crowds of Syrians, uploaded to commons:https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Assad_Toppled.png

The second is a live broadcast by formerly assad regime controlled SANA after it eas seized by the Syrian opposition announcing the fall of the regime:https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SANA_Message.png

I've faced repeated reverts by @Abo Yemen and even had an attempt by him to take down by via speedy deletion under false copyright grounds the first image of Hafez Al-Assads statue being torn down in Latakia, on its wikimedia commons page

Not only that but continued reverts under pretenses of not "seeking consensus first" and the images i uploaded being "too low resolution" and "rasterized" despite the first one being a still from mobile video of people on the ground and the second one being a cropped still from syrian state TV

Until higher resolution resolution versions of these images can be found, i insist on these images added staying and will remain persistent until their inclusion through edits and as well as dialogue on this page LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You falsely claimed to have taken that image of the toppling of the Assad statue on the commons page but that's clearly not true. That image doesn't even have any metadata and if anything, you're clearly infringing upon copyright laws. (Not to mention how you're claiming that your 441 × 539 pixels image is "higher quality" than the current 1,180 × 723 image). As for the SANA broadcast message, there is a higher quality version of that image already in use in this article in the "Loss of political control" section. So overall, I strongly oppose the use of any of the images that you've uploaded to commons, not only in the infobox, but anywhere else in this article. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, no, you haven't faced repeated reverts by @Abo Yemen. I've only reverted you one time. Other people who've reverted you are @Freedoxm and @Quetstar, whose comments here would be very appreciated 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed to have taken that image and you've only made a copyright claim on the image of the hafez al assad statue yet not the SANA broadcast interruption, which i happen to find deeply suspect LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed to have taken that image
The description of the image clearly says "own work" and it wont say that unless you explicitly said, when uploading that image, that you've taken it. You don't own the copyright to that image and hence it should be deleted 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm new to Commons and fixed the source and author fields, they were stills from a live broadcast of SyriaTV that day that corroborated social media videos like the Hafez Al Assad statue being torn down in Latakia and the SANA broadcast interruption LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You still dont own the copyright to that image, so please stop removing the deletion tag 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Uploading on commons doesn't automatically imply ownership

Also, these are images from social media and public broadcasting meant for widespread dissemination to document the fall of the regime for all to see

No copyrights were claimed to begin with

And to be honest i think your excessive focus on taking down the image of the statue of hafez al assad being torn down while never claiming copyright infringement even once over the sana broadcast one i uploaded deeply implies something about hafez al assad being torn gets to you personally and you want to ensure that even the mere possibility of it being added is eliminated via bogus copyright claim on commons, let alone being added on just this page

I will resist your attempts to remove it, they are unfounded and i won't budge LibertarianLibrarian85 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I really recommend that you read commons:Help:Copyright instead of claiming that I am a Hafez fanboy. Anyways this should be continued at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Assad Toppled.png#File:Assad Toppled.png 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@LibertarianLibrarian85 I will resist your attempts to remove it, they are unfounded and i won't budge If there's one more personal attack, i'll have to take this to WP:ANI. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Freedoxm I already took them to ANI after their message on the deletion discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Was the SOR involved?

I clearly see no reason on how the SOR has zero involvement. The SOR was the first rebel group to capture Damascus, as highlighted on its article and a few maps. This source even says the SOR captured Damascus, not the HTS. Besides that, how would the Turkish-backed SNA even be involved in this? They are based in Afrin. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Quetstar Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Page lock bias on the first anniversary of the fall of the assad regime

I spent the week looking for the following 4 images uploaded by another user that covered the events of December 8 before this page suspiciously got locked today despite being open the for the entire week up until today.

Which isn't a coincidence as today's date is the first anniversary commemorating the fall of the assad regime in Syria and is being observed nationwide in the country

In case these images get deleted on bogus copyright grounds again to prevent them from becoming a part of the historical record for Syria and the broader region

I'm going to describe each and provide the links to each regardless if they get deleted

The first depicting the toppling of hafez al assads statue in Latakia province on December 8 2024: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toppling_of_Hafez_Al-Assad.png

The second announcing the fall of the assad regime on formerly regime controlled state television on December 8 2024: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Announcing_the_Fall_of_the_Assad_Regime_on_Syrian_State_Television.png

The third covering the liberation of sednaya prison and the political prisoners that were held captive there, some for decades, emerging from its gate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liberation_of_Sednaya_Prison.jpg

The fourth showing a heap of portraits and banners belonging to the ousted assad regime disposed by Syrians: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syrians_Disposing_of_Assad_Regime_Portraits.jpg

I call on senior admins for assistance in overturning this page lock and allowing these images considered historically significant for Syria and the broader region to be added to this page

It is history that we cannot afford to see lost HanFeiJun (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2025 Postage 4.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Formatting

Hello,

It may just be me, but my Firefox browser running on Windows 11 is showing many images overlapping incorrectly with the References and See Also sections at the bottom. Is anyone else seeing this? This should be ideally remedied, if so. I am happy to simply remove the images, as they do not clearly correlate to anything nearby. I just came upon this page, though, and feel like that may not be the best idea!

Thanks,

Ambndms (talk) Ambndms (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Everything looks fine on my Firefox browser, but I have a Mac. Lova Falk (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)