Talk:Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction)

Merge
I think the articles on the regional branches should be merged into the main article. Charles Essie (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All the regional branches except the iraqi regional branch (because it is notable, more notable than the national pan-Arab organisation) should me merged into this article. --TIAYN (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do note that Arab Liberation Front is not the Palestinian branch of the party, but a front organization for the Palestinian branch of the party. Regardless of the outcome of the main merge issue, that article should not be merged. --Soman (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're not going to merge, what we should at least just make the article bigger by including more information from the articles of the regional branches and the various paramilitaries and youth wings ect. Charles Essie (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the other regional branches are not notable enough to have there own article... With the exception of Iraq, Syria, Yemen,e Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan in the 1960s, the Ba'ath Regional cells have been mostly small and inactive.. The problem, however, from a western perspective is that no one has every bothered to write about the Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanese or Yemenite ba'athist movement. Because of a lack of information the best solution is to write about those branches in this article. e--TIAYN (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree (if anyone is wondering, I still am in favor of merging).
 * TIAYN, A merge would be appropriate, the other Ba'ath factions can be mentioned in the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region article, under a sub-heading listing them all. StanMan87 (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already said I support a merger of the small branches (that is not Iraq, Syria..) But as far as I can remember, I've already merged the articles. --TIAYN (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Without intention to jump into your discussion, guys, I just want to say my opinion on this issue. I can support merging of small and less notable regional branches, but the following ones must remain as separate articles:


 * 1) Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region (regional branch of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party)


 * 2) Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region (regional branch of the Syrian Ba'ath Party)


 * Articles about those regional branches are really huge, and it would be really non-practical to merge their content to some other article. Also, they are extremely notable, being the only regional branches which managed to took power in their respective countries, and to hold it for a very long time (they still rule Syria, as you know). They definitely deserve to have their own articles. --Sundostund (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sundostund, we are on the same page. Two separate articles on the Ba'ath Party (The Syrian and Iraqi branch) with their smaller branches mentioned in each one is most practical. StanMan87 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To clarify my opinion further, smaller branches should be mentioned in those two articles:


 * 1) Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction)‎
 * 2) Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction)‎


 * As can be seen, that work is largely already done, thanks to TIAYN. He already incorporated almost all smaller branches in those two articles, as it should be. Those branches were affiliated either with Baghdad or with Damascus, so they belong to articles which describe two rival Ba'ath parties (Iraqi and Syrian). --Sundostund (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My opinion would be to merge these articles, which includes the smaller branches into:
 * 1.) Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction)‎ > Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region
 * 2.) Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction)‎ > Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region


 * There could be sub-headings to mention all the regional branches who were under the Syrian Ba'ath or Iraqi Ba'ath sphere of influence rather than having four different articles on the Ba'ath which could be narrowed to two. This is just my opinion though. StanMan87 (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree. We can't merge articles about national (pan-Arab) Ba'ath organizations into articles about regional branches. It would be totally illogical, and it would turn upside down a really good work which is achieved so far regarding the systematization of this subject. We definitely need articles which describe national (pan-Arab) Ba'ath organizations, both Iraqi-dominated and Syrian-dominated, and those articles should encompass info about less notable regional branches affiliated to those national organizations. The most notable (and most active) regional branches should have their separate articles... All of this is (mostly) already done, as I said above I think in a really good way, and I can't accept any radical transformation of what is done so far. --Sundostund (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like I have been Wiki-defeated. D: StanMan87 (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd now like to clarify that I've reversed my position on this issue. I now think that the regional branches who don't have their own articles should have them. In fact I might create some of them myself. Charles Essie (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Defunct?
Is this party really defunct? The article says the national command stopped functioning, but is it defunct or just inactive? It also says the regional branches are still active and don't they consider still consider themselves part of the same party? Charles Essie (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unknown :P --TIAYN (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction). 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/20061118112036/http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1100 to http://www.sudanvisiondaily.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1100
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224061331/http://www.tunivisions.net:80/41491/222/149/tunisie-sondage-ennahdha-et-nidaa-tounes-en-tete-des-intentions-de-vote.html? to http://www.tunivisions.net/41491/222/149/tunisie-sondage-ennahdha-et-nidaa-tounes-en-tete-des-intentions-de-vote.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:11, 23 October 2016 (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:Arab Baath which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:49, 18 August 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 20:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)