Talk:Abdul Halim Khaddam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Some contributors seem intent on adding their own political speculations and views to the article. I removed a whole speculative section about France and Saudi Arabia backing Khaddam, which is factually baseless and unverifiable.

The article seems overly political. In need of some attention.

i agree. could the editor who keeps adding the stuff about saudi-french conspiracies please make his case here on the talk page instead? maybe some of it is relevant, but in the present form, it should not be on the page. Arre 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

indeed. It is highly speculative and does not merit to take up more than half of the article about Khaddam even if true. Petergee1 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

yes. I agree with Petergee1.

[edit] Khaddam strikes again

He now says he is forming a governement in exile. While difficult to assess to what degree he may constitute a threat to the regime, I do think his past position and long career within the Baath regime warrant an expansion of this article. I'll try to find some more biographical information when I have the time (arabdecision.com may be useful). Also, I wanted to add a picture. Since I'm very new to wikipedia, I am not sure which picture can be used given the copyright issues (a simple search in google pictures returns a good number of hits, but which one to use?). Anyone? Petergee1 10:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

expanding it is a very good idea. i'll try to help. about pictures, i don't know really. i'm no good at that either. Arre 12:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help and contributions :-) About the pictures: i'll try to get some more info here on wikipedia and look for some guidelines. Concerning your revisions: Great move on Rifa't, I completely agree. About the references: they are more suitable as general references about syria (second book) and the Baath party (first book) and are a bit outdated (esp the book about the Baath until 1966). Since Khaddam only rose to power after Hafiz' coup, I doubt this last book is relevant. The third reference was vandalism that we missed somehow (see here):-). Petergee1 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

oh, okay :o) for gathering news and views on khaddam, i suggest we use these two pages, among others (though blogs are not used for sources in WP). note that the landis blog actually linked here from a comment that encouraged readers to edit the article. i suspect that's were our anonymous vandal came from... Arre 15:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

good call on the blogs, although the 'facts' presented there may indeed not all be suitable for inclusion here. I propose that for the moment we stick to neutral biographical facts. And indeed, comparing the views on Landis' blog to what are vandal was trying to add, I think you're spot on. He must have come from there:-). Others reading this: feel free to contribute Petergee1 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the reliable sources policy, you'll see that blogs maintained by a known academic in their own name are considered acceptable. I wouldn't rule out the Landis blog at all; it's a good source of information about Syria. It is just necessary to approach it with the necessary caution, bearing in mind that Landis is prone to give too much space to speculation (but we are talking about Syria, most of the time all we have is speculation, so this is hardly surprising!). Palmiro | Talk 16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)