Talk:1963 Syrian coup d'état

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 1963 Syrian coup d'état Mike Cline (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

---

8th of March Revolution → 1963 Syrian coup d'état –

While the name as it is represents the "official" name, it is neither the most common, nor accurate, nor does it represent NPOV. This was in fact, a military coup d'etat (as the article clearly states in the first section) wherby a military junta overthrew a civilian government and established a different regime. Searching on GBooks for ("8 march 1963" syrian revolution) returns 196 results, do note that some of the results refer to the "revolutionary council" which is a proper name for an official body, rather than calling the event a "revolution", and some simply stick to the official name. Searching for ("8 march 1963" syrian revolution) returns 334 results. Removing the "8" we get the same ratio of results, 1,150 vs. 1,820. Finally, the word revolution presents a POV (and that is one of the official narrative), with no factual or guideline reasons to support it. Renaming it to 1963 Syrian coup d'état, would also be consistent with all the other articles about past and subsequent military coups in Syria.Yazan (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator, per the arguments above. Yazan (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Tentative support - At first sight "1963 coup"/"coup of 1963" + Syria does seem to get about double the GBhits of "March 8 Revolution/8 March Revolution" and be in more NPOV sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, The majority of events referred to as revolutions are normally military coups. --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's hardly a policy-based argument. Wikipedia has very clear policy on WP:TITLEs. And 8th of March revolution, is hardly the common name for this event, this is usually referred to as the Baathi coup, Baathi takeover, etc.. Yazan (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The reader should be able to figure out what the article is about from the title. The current title could be about almost anything. Kauffner (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I would also support re-naming to "1963 Baathi coup d'état in Syria" or "1963 Syrian Baathi coup d'état", for further clarification.Yazan (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support In addition to Yazan's reasoning, the coup was also just another in a series of frequent coups throughout the 1960s. Do we refer to all of those coups as revolutions? Assad's ascension to power in 1970 could definitely be described as a revolution (and it mostly is described as such) since it clearly began seismic changes in the Syrian political, military and social spheres. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyedit

Per request, edited this. Comments:

• There are many redlinks that should be removed.

• The footnote strategy produces many more notes than necessary. Consider replacing the sfn's with a single ref and {{rp|#}} instead.

• The are many strong claims that aren't really backed up about what was necessary or insufficient about the affair. I neutralized some of them, but don't consider it a finished project.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1963 Syrian coup d'état/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review the article and have started a copyedit. I am not finished reading through the article and will, if necessary, come with additional comments later. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Done Unless talking about terminology as such, do not write "describes", "refers to" etc. but say "is" or "was". (fixed) Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Done "The landowner–peasant was..." a word missing there.
• Done Perhaps you could elaborate what you mean with "became linked with" imperialist and colonialist powers.
• Done There is a clarification needed tag.
• Done I don't know how many times the Ba'ath Party is liked, but once is quite enough; the same goes for Ba'athism.
• Done "the world learned that" is not an encyclopedic formulation. It also creates confusion as to if that was the date of the coup or it was the date it became known for some unknown delay reason.
• Done Remember to convert to olde units for our American friends (as so they will convert to modern units for us). (fixed)
• Done Several of the semicolons are not used correctly. Think of a semicolon as a pause which takes longer time than a comma but shorter time than a period. If you want to connect two parts of a sentence, use a dash (between the two first sentences a dash would have been possible, but a semicolon would not). You are also using a semicolon whenever a colon is called for.
• Done commander-in-chief should be linked at the first occurrence, not the last.
• Done The second paragraph under "immediate aftermath" is unreferenced.
• Done Are there no relevant images? Portraits of involved people etc?
• The background focuses a lot on class struggle. While this definitively was a major factor, there was also a geopolitical struggle in Syria during this period, especially between Damascus and Aleppo. Ba'ath was also largely an Alawi-dominated group; neither of these issues seem to be discussed in the background.
  • The Alawi problem came when the Ba'ath seized power, figures like Salah Jadid, Muhammad Umran and Hafez al-Assad appointed fellow Alawites.. Before the 1963 coup was a large party with a moderate sized Sunni following... Its make up before 1963 can best be described as composing a majority of members from minority groups.. The Alawites became prominent during the power struggle of 1963-66 between the Aflaqites and the Military-wing (which was led more-or-less by Alawite officers). --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You should read this article (its a good, albeit a short summary on the changes which took place in the Ba'ath Party during the 1963-66 period): --TIAYN (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ben-Tzur, Avraham (July 1968). "The Neo-Ba'th Party of Syria". Journal of Contemporary History. 3 (3). SAGE Publications: 161–181.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Sometimes it is hard to keep straight all the strains of history I have read at some time. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree, I have the same problem - its one of the reasons I'm active on Wikipedia, writing about these topics somehow strengthen my memory on the subjects. --TIAYN (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• The article is within the Cold War navbox, but it does not discuss the issue. Did the revolution have an influence on Syria's alignment or politics between Syria and either superpower?

That came later; the original party leadership of Aflaq and al-Bitar supported a neutral line towards both the superpowers... The alignement to the USSR happened in the post-1966 Syrian coup d'etat. --TIAYN (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks I have no way of checking the references, so all in-line references are accepted in good faith.

Placing on hold. I have done a slight copyedit, although most of the article is well-written, there were a few systematic errors I have commented on. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on this. --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not force image sizes for thumbs (fixed). Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Purges of non-Ba'athists

Regarding the restoration of the "Failed coup of 18 July" subsection heading, I just want to make clear that ~50 Nasserist officers were purged between 28 April and 2 May, and the ~30 elite independents, including Ziad al-Hariri, were purged between 23 June and 8 July. Both incidents preceded the 18 July coup attempt by the Nasserists under Jassem Alwan's and the ANM's leadership. After the coup attempt, more Nasserists were purged of course, but most of the purges preceded it and I renamed the section to reflect that. Do you agree to a heading change? --Al Ameer 17:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Things I forget, okay, but then it should rather be titled, purge and failed coup.. --TIAYN (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I made slight adjustments to the new heading. --Al Ameer 06:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

NCRC membership?

Does anyone have a list of the NCRC's initial or expanded membership? If available, we could add a second reference note like that of the Military Committee's membership. And/or we could also add it to the article on the NCRC. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried, but the only thing I found was NCRC membership in Iraq, and that it the body changed it names with the introduction of the provisional constitution. --TIAYN (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I've been looking through Mufti and Rabinovich, but no luck. Let me clarify this then (because this slightly confuses me): Was al-Bitar's cabinet a separate entity from the NCRC or was it the same thing? In other words, was al-Bitar the PM of the NCRC, Lu'ayy the President, Hafiz the Interior etc.? Because if so, then I might have a preliminary list of the body's membership. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The NCRC was supposed to be the legislative body, but similar to socialist countries, it had supreme executive power.. However, it delegated its executive power to the cabinet when it was not in session... When the Provisional Constitution was issued, the NCRC switched its name to the National Revolutionary Council and instead of delegating its authority to the Cabinet, it delegated its authority to a five-man Presidential Council... At the beginning the Chairman of the NCRC was the head of state, but when the Presidential Council was established, the head of state was the Chairman of the Presidential Council while the head of the NRC became the speaker of parliament.... However, most sources continue to refer to the NRC as the NCRC even after the constitution... In reality, this is a mess, nothing else.. But to answer the question, the cabinet didn't have to be members of the NCRC, but they were elected (or at least approved) by NCRC.. The NCRC was not elected by the people, and, well , the whole point of the NCRC was that it would elect itself... This is all I know, but I can read through the Devlin book if you need more.. --TIAYN (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Damn, that is a mess. I've noticed many members of the March 1963 NCRC were also members of al-Bitar's first cabinet which makes this even more confusing. I'm gonna see if I could find more on membership. Would you know the composition of al-Bitar's first cabinet by any chance?

Just for future reference, this is what I have so far of Bitar's March 1963 cabinet from the Mufti, Batatu and Rabinovich sources:

• Salah Bitar (Ba'ath) was PM and foreign
• Nihad al-Qasim (Nasserite) deputy PM
• Muhammad Umran (Ba'ath) deputy PM,
• Muhammad Sufi (Nasserite) defense,
• Hani al-Hindi (Nasserite) planning
• Sami Sufan (Nasserite) supply
• Sami al-Jundi (Nasserite, then Ba'athist) culture and national guidance
• Sami Droubi (Nasserite, though member of Ba'ath also) education
• Mansur al-Atrash (Ba'ath) labor and social affairs
• Amin al-Hafiz (Ba'ath) interior
• Abd al-Karim Zuhur (Ba'ath) economy
• Jamal al-Atassi (Ba'ath) information
• Yusuf Zuayyin (Ba'ath) agrarian reform
• al-Wadi Taleb (Ba'ath) municipal and rural affairs
• Ibrahim Makhus (Ba'ath) health.

(Except for Jundi, all the Nasserites resigned by June, and Zuhur and Jamal Atassi were not part of al-Bitar's post-June cabinet either)

• Salah al-Din al-Bitar - Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs (Ba'ath)
• Nihad al-Qasim - deputy prime minister and justice minister (United Arab Front-Nasserist)
• Abd al-Wahhab Haumad - minister of finance (United Arab Front-Nasserist)
• General Muhammad al-Sufi - minister of defense (Nasserist)
• Brigadier General Amin al-Hafiz - minister of interior (Ba'ath)
• Mansur al-Atrash - minister of labour and social affairs (Ba'ath)
• Abd al-Halim Swaidan - minister of agriculture (Ba'ath)
• Sami al-Durubi - minister of education and culture (Ba'ath, pro-Nasser)
• Abd al-Karim Zuhur - minister of the economy (Ba'ath, pro-Nasser)
• Jamal al-Atasi - minister of information (Ba'ath, pro-Nasser)
• Darwish Alwani - minister of state for religious endowments (N/A)
• Hani al-Hindi - minister of planning (Arab Nationalist Movement-Nasserist)
• Al-Walid Talib - minister for municipal and rural affairs (Ba'ath)
• Sami Sufan - minister of supply (Vanguard of Socialist Unionists-Nasserist)
• Jihad Dahi - minister of communications (Arab Nationalist Movement-Nasserist)
• Ahmad Abu Salih - minister of public works (Ba'ath)
• Shibli al-Aysami - minister of agrarian reform (Ba'ath)
• Ibrahim Makhus - minister of health (Ba'ath)
• Talib Damad - minister of industry (N/A)
• Sami al-Jundi - minister of guidance (Vanguard of Socialist Unionists-Nasserist, defected to Ba'ath)

That's the original cabinet, but changes were made, it lasted form 9 March 1963 to 11 May 1963.. Of their affiliation I don't have a clue.--TIAYN (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the list. I think I'll start an article on it: Cabinet of Syria (March 1963-May 1963). I know each of their affiliations. The Nasserites weren't a party of course, but they were spread between the ANM, United Arab Front and Vanguard of Socialist Unionists (ex-Ba'ath). The rest were Ba'athists of different stripes, don't think there were any "independents" though. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to ask if that is even necessary, considering how bad the Salah al-Din al-Bitar... You don't create a sub-article before fixing the main article, at least that is my view. --TIAYN (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point, it could wait until the Bitar article is improved. At least we have it here as a point of reference. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

How could the population have been "indifferent"?

Since this coup has killed over 800 people where killed and another 20 pro Kudsi politicians where publically hanged, how could the commoners have been indifferent? That is more people killed than Hitler had killed in the night of the long knives. Not to mention a state of emergency was declared, a police state created and Syria's last chance at democracy was terminated. How could this of led to the population being in different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.129.155 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"Alleged" infobox tag

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I don't see a good reason for why you added the "alleged" tag to the infobox when the cited source does not treat U.S. and Egyptian involvement as something that was only "alleged." You said in your edit summary: "There is nothing in the article body about foreign involvement, so this is already iffy," but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I know that's not a policy page, but recent academic scholarship on a certain topic is not undermined just because Wikipedia hasn't commented on that topic yet. Brandon Wolfe-Hunnicutt is a historian on the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy; he's definitely a relevant expert to be cited authoritatively. Moreover, Wolfe-Hunnicutt cites political scientist Malik Mufti's 1996 book—which is cited on this article six times—for his interview with senior Syrian Ba'athist Jamal al-Atassi in which al-Atassi states that "even in the case of the takeover in Syria—there was a push from the West and in particular from the United States for the Ba'ath to seize power and monopolize it and push away all the other elements and forces." So really, we have two sources so far: Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2021 and Mufti 1996, both authored by relevant experts. Skornezy (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Skornezy, can you describe what "support" or "involvement" there was by the U.S. or "the West," specifically? I'm talking names, dates, places, and any archival evidence that may bolster these assertions, if it exists.

On its face, the allegation appears to be lacking in credibility, for multiple reasons. The spectacular failure of the CIA's documented efforts to overthrow the Syrian government in 1956–57 seemed to show that the CIA did not have the assets in Syria necessary to carry out a successful coup. Moreover, Syria is generally described as having been firmly, and continuously, in the Soviet/Russian sphere of influence since 1957. For example, as noted at Russia–Syria relations: "Between 1955 and 1958, Syria received about $294 million from the Soviet Union for military and economic assistance. ... The far-left neo-Ba'athist factions that dominated the Syrian Ba'ath pursued close alliance with Soviet Union. Following the Sixth National Congress in 1963, the party publicly adopted the doctrine of ideological alliance with the Socialist Bloc". Notwithstanding the vague quote from al-Atassi (above) about "a push from the West," which does not mention the CIA, has been available for decades, and requires Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2021's interpretation to translate into direct CIA support for the successful March 1963 coup, the Iraqi Ba'ath Party's reputation for foreign collusion was a point of tension between itself and the rival Ba'ath Party branch in Syria. Finally, Wolfe-Hunnicutt himself uses the word "probably" to describe the CIA's supposed "help", and no concrete examples of that "help" are elaborated on, at least in the excerpt provided.

At present, the current revision fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which states: "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring the specific exceptions listed below, an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." That failure alone may constitute valid grounds for challenging your addition.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Skornezy, can you describe what "support" or "involvement" there was by the U.S. or "the West," specifically? I'm talking names, dates, places, and any archival evidence that may bolster these assertions, if it exists."

You're basically asking me to engage in original research; I provided two high-quality academic sources that say there was support. That "the allegation appears to be lacking in credibility ... the CIA did not have the assets in Syria necessary to carry out a successful coup is your own original research; do you have any sources that explicitly says that the claims are not credible? Anyways, if I had to say, the U.S. government's support was to provide encouragement and its approval; "there was a push ... from the United States for the Ba'ath to seize power."

"Notwithstanding the vague quote from al-Atassi (above) about "a push from the West," which does not mention the CIA, has been available for decades, and requires Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2021's interpretation to translate into direct CIA support for the successful March 1963 coup."

So what if al-Atassi doesn't explicitly mention the CIA? Al-Atassi directly implicates the U.S. and it's hard to imagine the U.S. supporting a coup without the CIA having anything to do with it; Wolfe-Hunnicutt seems to think the same. Besides, I didn't add "CIA" as a supporter to the infobox, but the more general "United States."

"the Iraqi Ba'ath Party's reputation for foreign collusion was a point of tension between itself and the rival Ba'ath Party branch in Syria."

According to al-Atassi, yes, who then goes on to say that in the very next sentence that "even in the case of the takeover in Syria—there was a push from the West and in particular from the United States for the Ba'ath to seize power and monopolize it and push away all the other elements and forces."

"Finally, Wolfe-Hunnicutt himself uses the word "probably" to describe the CIA's supposed "help", and no concrete examples of that "help" are elaborated on, at least in the excerpt provided."

I don't think you're quoting Wolfe-Hunnicutt accurately. He's saying that the CIA's support was "probably" greater than Egypt's: "Nasser appeared to support a March 1963 Ba'thist coup in Syria. In truth, the Syrian Ba'th probably got more help from the CIA than from Egypt." Wolfe-Hunnicutt is usually pretty direct on these types of things; if documentation is lacking, Wolfe-Hunnicutt would've explicitly said so. For example, see Wolfe-Hunnicutt on the 1959 assassination attempt on Qasim by the Iraqi Ba'ath and on involvement in the July 17 1968 Iraqi Ba'ath coup.

"At present, the current revision fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE"

Okay, fair enough. That can be remedied if I added a subsection on the scholarly commentary. Do you have any objections to that? Skornezy (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I'm willing to drop the infobox dispute if we can possibly get some other editors to comment. For now though, what do you think of this subsection? Skornezy (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Skornezy, by asking you about specific details of the foreign assistance allegedly provided (e.g., "names, dates, places"), I wasn't asking for you to engage in original research (although OR is permitted on talk pages); I was simply trying to establish if your source, Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2021, provides any details at all.

Your response (above), and your corresponding edit to the article body, speaks volumes: No, Wolfe-Hunnicutt does not have specific details or evidence, he just considers it likely that the Syrian Ba'athists carried out the coup with at least the expectation of moral support from the U.S. and Egypt. (The fact that the author cannot quantify the material aid provided by Egypt versus the material aid provided by the U.S. and thus has to guess, and elsewhere seems agnostic about whether foreign support must be "material or simply moral," using a broader definition of "support" than other authors, again speaks for itself.)

Based on the date of publication and the fact that Wolfe-Hunnicutt 2021 may be the only source expressing this minority (if not downright WP:FRINGE) view, it may be difficult to find a properly-sourced "rebuttal," at least in the short term. In any case, I welcome the feedback of other editors as to whether unevidenced assertions of foreign involvement by a PhD are WP:DUE for inclusion here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, although Wolfe-Hunnicutt does say there was "more help from the CIA than from Egypt." I think your comments here are valid, but I would have to strongly challenge you on calling Wolfe-Hunnicutt WP:FRINGE. Wolfe-Hunnicutt is considered a preeminent historian; his 2021 book is considered "an "essential contribution" to "multiple fields," first and foremost the international politics of oil, a "brilliant account" of US foreign policy, and an "important" study of Iraq in the 1960s" by fellow scholars. Skornezy (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)