Talk:Ba'athist Iraq

Moving back to "Ba'athist Iraq", reason: 150,000 search results for this name, and only 7 for "History of Iraq (1968-2003)"
Searching "Ba'athist Iraq -wikipedia" on Google results in over 150,000 search hits, while "History of Iraq (1968-2003) -wikipedia" only has 7 search hits .--R-41 (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what is your point? Are you suggesting that the article be renamed "Ba'athist Iraq"? Well, if that's the case, then I agree with you. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I propose it be renamed to "Ba'athist Iraq", as well. This will put it in-line with other former states article titles. For example, it's Empire of Japan, not "Japan under Imperial rule", or Nazi Germany, not "Germany under Nazi rule". Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I have officially listed the article to be renamed. Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Move has been completed. Take care! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Relations with the Soviet Union
In copyediting this section, I came across several confusing (to me, at least) references to Iran; I don't know if the editor who added them confused Iran with Iraq, or if it's just off-topic in an article about Iraq's relations with the Soviet Union.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 02:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Totalitarian
The source provided does not appear to support classification of the form of government as totalitarian. I doubt such sources can be found because the term is controversial. TFD (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Secularism?
The everlasting and undisputed claim that the regime was secular puzzles me. As far as I know the Ba'ath made Islam the official religion of Iraq in 1968 and it's regime(specially under Saddam Hussein) were clearly islamic and dramatically reversed the secularization policies which had taken place under previous governments, specially Abdul Karim Qassim's.John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please someone add in the infobox the fact that Islam was the State Religion. I'm new to wikipedia and I don't know how to do it. Thanks in advance.John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can still be a secular state and have an official state religion, see Norway for instance... And while its true that during the 1990s the regime tried to win more supporters by initiating several Islamic campaigns, the campaigns were merely propaganda..... After the war with Iran and the Gulf War, the regime reduced the rights of women to win popular support.. These decisions were pragmatic.. However, the Ba'ath Party remained secular, and Saddam Hussein was secular, or if you want a more precise wording, he was extremely pragmatic. --TIAYN (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed with TIAYN. Btw, Iraq was officially a secular state till Gulf War 1. The resulting sanctions and the rise of Islamist groups across the region led to Saddam to opportunistically put religious policies to shore up support among potential Islamists and defeat the appeal of Islamist groups that would challenge Ba'th supremacy in the country. He even changed the Iraqi flag, which up till that time had only had three stars representing the Ba'th principles. In the early 90's, he added Allahu Akbar, pandering to the Islamists. Throughout the late 60's and 70's, the official propaganda and self-imaging of the country was staunchly secular. Saddam openly identified with the country's pre-Islamic pagan heritage felt it was the beginning of Arab civilization (identifying earlier Semitic civilizations with Arabs on account of the Semitic family's hypothesized origins in the Arabian peninsula). The progressive family law legislation of the Qasim era was brought back during the Ba'th rule after 1968, after several years of rule by the more conservative Aref brothers were not Ba'thists. It was also part of Saddam's effort to co-opt the platform of the Iraqi Ba'th party's left wing which was very influential during the mid-late 1960's. Plus, secularization was very popular throughout the Arab world at that period as part of the modernizing dimension of Arab nationalism. Sati' al-Husri, the father Iraqi Arab nationalism, was as secular as you could get and his ideas were very influential in Arab nationalist discourses in Iraq going back to the 30's - see William Cleveland's influential biography of al-Husri, published via Princeton University Press. Scarsdale.vibe (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ba'athist Iraq?
The title of this article could give a misleading impression of the actual role and power of the Party, specially under Saddam Husseín. Moreover, the period covered by this article seems to be very heterogeneous. Maybe it woul'd be a good idea to create a separate article about Saddam Hussein's regime called "Saddam Hussein's Iraq", for example.John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Saddam Hussein's Iraq" sounds like POV and goes against Wikipedia naming conventions. For example, "Nazi Germany" is used in place of "Hitler's Germany", because the Nazi Party was in charge during that time period. Likewise, "Ba'athist Iraq" during this time period was a single-party state under the rule of the Ba'ath Party, thus, which is why the name is why it is. Likewise, "Italian Social Republic" is used in place of "Mussolini's Italy". Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and completely agree with it. However (Sorry for insisting), I wander if it wouldn't be better to create a separate article called "Saddamist Iraq", for example. My reasons for proposing this are the ones stated above. I'm an amateur Wikipedian and definitely not an expert on Iraq's history. I also think that it is important to draw more attention and detail to non-western countries History. Cheers.John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * we won't due that. We havn't created an article called Stalinist Russia either, and its because of the same reason... Secondly, officially (throughout his reign), the Ba'ath Party ruled the country, with Saddam as its leader.. Thirdly, this article is about the Ba'athist era from 1968 to 2003, not about Saddam's Iraq... If you want to learn more about Saddam's Iraq either go to the Saddam Hussein page, and if you're not happy with it, improve it. --TIAYN (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Saddamist Iraq probably wouldn't even be done either. I've never heard the term used before; Wikipedia article titles are based on widespread common usage. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Totalitarianism
Myself and user 'Trust_Is_All_You_Need' appear to have conflicting arguments with regards to the form of government that was institutionalized under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr 1968 –  1979 and then under Saddam Hussein 1979 – 2003. He/she is adamant that for reasons unknown, Ba'athist Iraq was not a dictatorship in which the leader vested all power into the state, and that the central government controlled the aspects of all citizens lives. Apparently, according to said user, both a Totalitarian and Authoritarian dictatorship do not qualify as a Form of Government but rather as a "Form of Rule". I would just like to know who gave said user the authority to assign definitions to already broad and vague political terms, when it seems Encyclopedia Britannica (And I will provide the links) have both described "Totalitarianism" and "Dictatorship" as "Forms of Government" (See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/600435/totalitarianism and http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/162240/dictatorship) whilst Wikipedia's very own article in relation to "Authoritarianism" is described as a "Form of Government". Now, it would appear to me that what is already in the Ba'athists Iraq's infobox referring to it a "Ba'athist Single-Party state" is not a sufficient enough description to describe the political system within Iraq during the time period between 1968 - 2003 and that more information would be better for both the humble Wikipedia user who might happen to stumble upon this article in the future, or among the veteran Wikipedia editor. As Wikipedia editors, shouldn't we be striving for as much detailed description in relation to articles as possible in order to expand the discussion? User 'Trust_Is_All_You_Need' seems to believe that this article belongs to him/her: "i'm saying this is not how its done... fuck off". Since when has the fate of an article rested in the hands of one user? I would like to receive word back from a user who doesn't have a blatant biased POV agenda. - (294.3511.47I.65 (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC))

It should be noted that when I attempted to make an edit, user 'Trust_Is_All_You_Need' described my edit as: "plagiarise this page with youre bullshit". -(294.3511.47I.65 (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC))
 * thats not even reason, but okay... Its a dictatorship, yes.. secondly, one-party system is enough, as you're source point out, "By the beginning of World War II, “totalitarian” had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive single-party government" Single-party system is enough. Even you're source says so. Anyhow, we can't allow you're pov edits here. --TIAYN (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The source points out that Totalitarianism and the like is in fact a Form of Government which you adamantly object to for some reason or another, which leads me to suspect that you do not have the best interests of this article and for that fact neutralism at heart. It being synonymous with a single-party state by the beginning of WW II i.e 1939 is irrelevant, we are talking about the late 1960's to early 2000's which is an entirely different era, and as such, our knowledge on such terms has expanded over a period of more than seven decades, unless you're suggesting that we still have a vocabulary in tune with the late 1930's. And for you to label my edits as POV, I would like you to present evidence on which you base your accusations on. Not labeling Ba'athist Iraq as a Totalitarian dictatorship when such sources indicate otherwise is ridiculous and either shows you are intellectually inept, or are severely ignorant as to who Saddam Hussein was. --(294.3511.47I.65 (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC))
 * It became synonymous with a one-party system with the beginning of World War II, when the book The Origins of Totalitarianism was wrote... And it says beginning, it didn't say stop... I've already poked another whole in you're logic... You're stubbornness amazes me, and if you really want to pursue this biased POV thing of yours fine, but I won't let you... Just please, I have other things to do, and you probably do to. --TIAYN (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another whole, see the respected book Saddam Hussein's Ba'th Party: Inside an Authoritarian Regime... Did you see it, oh you probably did, he used authoritarian ... shit boy... Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are vague words without any real meaning.. The word totalitarianism came in the book The Origins of Totalitarianism when the author looked for similarities in Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR. --TIAYN (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See, its a different definition... Why? cause its impossible to define totalitarianism.. It really is, its just really bad word. --TIAYN (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're referencing a book written in the 1950's that conflicts with sources that you have previously cited e.g The Origins of Totalitarianism - "Totalitarian movements are fundamentally different from autocratic regimes, says Arendt, insofar as autocratic regimes seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition, while totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone's life as a prelude to world domination." and - "Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority. The term was coined in the early 1920s by Benito Mussolini". Hannah Arendt seems to be blending the two together, resulting in a confusing hybrid of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. It also seems to mention that it didn't continue either, and that it is merely highlighting the differences between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and did not take into account the more complicated regimes that occurred in the latter half of the 20th century such as autocratic regimes that allowed for limited democratic processes such as Hosni Mubaraks Egypt. Anyway, I digress. I admit that the sources have conflicted with my opinions and appreciate user Trust Is All You Need's contributions in attempting to better the article, but I still do not agree that "Ba'athist single-party state" is sufficient enough information to signify the government that was ruling Iraq between 1968 and 2003, as it seems to vague and broad. Ok, single party state, but how were peoples lives affected under said regime? The term "Totalitarian" in my opinion, seems to sum it all up for anyone interested in this chapter of Iraq's history. --[[User:294.3511.47I.65|294.3511.47I.65] (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh?? Inside an Authoritarian system was written in 2011/2012? What other book from the 1950s? It may sum everything up for you, but when I think of totalitarianism I think of North Korea, and Ba'athist Iraq was not even close to the crazy Juche, pretending-to be socialist state Korea... And as I have made clear to you (or at least tried to), or at least clearer, totalitarianism is impossible to define (its kinda like the term socialism, to take one example, many Americans believe state-ownership is synonymous with socialism which is, well, completely wrong)... The word totalitarianism carries with it an extremely negative connotation, single-party state doesn't (or at least it doesn't on the same level), while at the same time being straight to the point.... And no one could argue that Ba'athist single-party state is wrong, what you want to do is something different, you want to make it clear to the readers that Ba'athist Iraq was an oppressive place... And that doesn't really belong there... --TIAYN (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm satisfied. I just wish you'd explained to me earlier that you wanted the reader of the article to make up their own mind, and judge for themselves if Ba'athist Iraq was really a bad place after all, at least compared to modern day Iraq.--294.3511.47I.65 (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ba'athist Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140324211613/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/international/middleeast/02IRAQ.html?8br to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/international/middleeast/02IRAQ.html?8br

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ba'athist Iraq. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/international/middleeast/02IRAQ.html?8br
 * Added tag to http://www.acat.asso.fr/courrier/annee_2007/Courrier_273/irak_272.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722184035/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/From%20Militant%20Secularism%20to%20Islamism.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/From%20Militant%20Secularism%20to%20Islamism.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011195656/http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html to http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.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) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Republic renamed Republic of Iraq
I can't find the source, but i remember reading that Hussein changed the formal name of the country. The reason was that in Arabic, like many languages, the noun Republic is feminine, thus Iraqi was a feminine adjective. Apparently he wanted the name of the country to use masculine grammar, so he renamed it Republic of Iraq, where Iraq stood as a masculine noun. Donutcity (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Islamic Republic
In 1993 the Iraqi Ba'ath party started to promote Islamism, this Islamist campaign was called Faith campaign and Iraq began yo turn more socially conservative and Islamization of the government. So maybe Iraq was an Islamic Republic back then, or at least Ba'athist with Islamic tendencies. Mhatopzz (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ves should be formatted like this:

Requested move 8 November 2021

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior  21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

– The trend is seem to followed on Cambodia (1953–1970) per WP:COMMONNAME 142.112.224.41 (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ba'athist Iraq → Iraq (1968–2003)
 * Kingdom of Iraq → Iraq (1932–1958)
 * Iraqi Republic (1958–1968) → Iraq (1958–1968)
 * Oppose - The current titles are more natural and effective disambiguation. By stating the different types of government (or governing ideologies, in the case of Ba'athist Iraq), the current titles make it immediately clear what the salient difference is between these articles; simply listing the chronology, conversely, wouldn't convey that information. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Simply known chronology doesn't make sense. 125.167.58.58 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Cambodia (1953–1970) was moved this year without any discussion so not sure how much weight a "per that article" has. Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current titles reflect political regimes, while the dates appear random at best. The Cambodia article should be renamed. Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 15:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The mention period is know by the ideology than years. Dear Debasish (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saddam Hussein file in dictator wiki article
Should Saddam be added along side gadhafi in the dictator wiki article 196.206.84.71 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)