Talk:Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region

Removed text
Unreferenced; moved per WP:VERIFY: Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Regional Congress
The Regional Congress was, in theory, the de jure decision-making organ on Iraqi regional affairs when in session, but was in practice it was a tool in control of the party leadership.


 * Congresses held (while in power);
 * 7th Regional Congress (1969)
 * 8th Regional Congress (1974)
 * 9th Regional Congress (1982)
 * 10th Regional Congress (1991)
 * 11th Regional Congress (1993)
 * 12th Regional Congress (2001)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113073637/http://baathparty.net/ to http://baathparty.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense in infobox
In brief, the mess of list of "ideologies" and "positions" in the infobox is misleading and non-factual. The party never advocated "Iraqi nationalism" as such (although Saddam flirted with Iraqi national symbolism at a certain point), "neo-Baathism" is a neologism, etc., etc. --Soman (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per your comments here, my preferred version of the article is more stable than your preferred version of the article as it stood unchallenged for a longer period of time (almost an entire month) before all of this shitty edit warring began; in any case your revert violates WP:BRD as I reverted the changes that YOU were trying to make to the consensus version of the article. Also your OP doesn't explain why the ideology and the political description items are nonsensical all that you've done is describe what your problem with the article is; moreover, as it specifically relates to the political description issue, you'll note that you have less reason by even your own logic to exclude that item per your comment here as Iraq is not a one-party state. In the interest of compromise-building, I've removed some of the more controversial/less obvious ideologies (eg Iraq nationalism and neo-Baathism) but kept, among other content, the political description item. You're free to ignore what I've written and done, but as you're the one who is getting reverted, it's your responsibility to escalate the dispute resolution process. Wingwraith (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Why does this say almost nothing about Saddam Hussein's time in power?
In describing the history of the party, it says that they took over Iraq, then Saddam pushed someone else out of power to take over, then it describes a few things done beforehand by the guy he pushed out, then jumps to after he lost power due to the US invasion. Is someone deliberately trying to scrub all info about Saddam from articles about his own political party despite him being the leader of a country with that party for decades?--108.86.123.83 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Arab Baʽath which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ba'ath Party which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Baath Party which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Con Coughlin's problematic 2005 book dominant in this article
I found this article from another one and noticed that the references in this article are disproportionately from Con Coughlin's 2005 book  Saddam: His Rise and Fall. This book has been problematic on other Wikipedia articles since it comprises refuted claims with substantial implications (even at the time of publishing), the author's own fringe theories and conjecture, and old wives' tales with no basis. I wouldn't make this section it were not such a controversially poor source on Wikipedia. Just to give a couple examples regarding famous events, he extensively claims that Iraq and Hussein were behind 9/11 and long-time ally and supporter of Al Qaeda, but with no actual argument or evidence to back this up. He also claims that US and UN intelligence and inspections prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq doubting the alleged existence of WMDs was part of Iraqi deception and that Blair and Bush were right. And plenty of little strange tales like heating up iron stakes and stabbing animals for entertainment.

While the source itself is not balanced nor reads like any typical biography, it's further odd that this source dominates a Wiki article on something it tangentially covers. The source itself is not focused on the former Iraqi regime's ruling party, but more of a polemic and political sensationalism piece regarding the overthrown dictator Hussein, taking advantage of the Iraq War period, seemingly in an attempt to recover waning support for the Iraq War. Given Coughlin's famously strong pro-war sentiments, I can only surmise his goal was to try and bring more support for the rapidly unpopular war in the UK and USA because having read this this work, big chunks of it amount to yellow journalism.

Objectively, this is a poor source on the topic of this article or on Hussein, which it is more focused on. Not only is the ba'ath party not the focus of the work, but it's so distorted at points as to paint an alternative reality of things, such as with regards to the lead-up to the Iraq War and various details of the party and Hussein's life. As a point of comparison, Joseph Sassoon's book which is also heavily cited has a few of its own issues, but he's far more careful not to push disproven claims of immense implications and sensationalist conjecture and poorly-thought theories. Majid Khadduri's work Socialist Iraq provides a lot more insight and balance than other works, albeit it was published in 1978. The Old Social Classes & The Revolutionary Movement In Iraq (2004) by Batatu is good too but overly detailed if anything. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so too. I think Coughlin was the one who first reported on the mythical Atta-Prague-Iraq "9/11 connection." I just re-wrote the "Qasim's Iraq: 1958–1963" section using better quality sources that touch upon this murky period during Iraq's recent history, although I did leave Coughlin cited for some of the more uncontroversial statements.
 * Skornezy (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Al-Douri and Al-Ahmed
This article says Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed has succeeded Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri as the Secretary General of the Regional Command. Does this mean that they're two factions have reconciled? Charles Essie (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)