Talk:Ba'ath Party

Title

Shouldnt it be be "Ba'ath Party" - Bagel7

67.184.72.84 and 83.147.132.181 aka "Freedom Lovers" keep on vandalizing the 1st paragraph, as well as the Party Outside Iraq + Book References sections... I think they should be barred from making further edits. - RazeYathrib

Name is translated wrong, it is not Arab Socialist Ba'th Party, it's Arab Ba'th Socialist Party. If we want a proper translation it should be "Arab Resurrection Socialist Party" or "Arab Awakenning Socialist Party" because this is what it translates to. Arab and Ba'th are conncted, putting Socialist between them makes one assume that Ba'ath is referring to a political idology (similar to socialist) when it's not. --Maha Odeh 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Modern Histroy of Baath? Is missing here

All history of Iraq and Syria is very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.242.165 (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC) https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/678893174920634368 Today conference with Baath-party

Removed "by the United States"

I removed "by the United States" as of course the UK and others had something to do with it as well; those needing a listing of the cast of characters can follow the Iraq war link. The Iraqi Ba'ath predated Saddam, and at this point it's future seems better described as uncertain than over. It seems that the coalition forces are making some use of mid-level Ba'ath officials; see for example this article from The Guardian April 21: Ba'athists slip quietly back into control -- Infrogmation 06:59 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

67.184.72.84 and 83.147.132.181 aka "Freedom Lovers" keep on vandalizing the 1st paragraph, as well as the Party Outside Iraq + Book References sections... I think they should be barred from making further edits. - RazeYathrib

CIA involvement

i wish you would talk about the CIA and its involvement in the Ba'ath party in the 1960s. this matter is a bit shrouded in mystery and debate, but most of it in the doldrums of obscurity rather than sunshiney public places like wikipedia.

I agree, and it should at least mention the CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:anonymous • contribs) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm 99 % sure it was created by the CIA and other foreign countries governments. It had nothing to do with Shia Islam! 5.239.172.224 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Origins and Ideologies

What is the actual meaning of the word "Ba'ath"? By that I refer mainly to its etymology. From what little I know of the language, I guess it has something to do with land. Sweetfreek 23:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It means "resurrection" and it's used in the Qur'an. Aflaq originally called his group "al-ihyaa' al-'arabi" which has the same meaning, though without the Qur'anic echo I think; it was Zaki al-Arsuzi who first called his organisation (or just his bookshop, depending on your source) "al-Ba'th al-'arabi". Palmiro 17:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Editors not reading article first

Insertions in this article demonstrate that not all editors are reading the text first. Wetman 18:37, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Post-saddam

I noticed that in the "post saddam" section it states that there were "widespread but unreported protests", but this makes no sense. If they were unreported, how did the author know about them. This sounds like an attempt to fabricate facts, since we could try to verify the fact but will of course fail, because the protests went unreported. They must have been reported somewhere, I would like to see some documentation of this claim. AdamRetchless 05:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Why is *Death of the dragon - obituary for the Ba'ath an "uneeded" link? It doesn't seem to me to duplicate what's in the article. Dejvid 01:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The ideal Wikipedia links to pages that are high content, neutral, and from sources with strong credentials. The link added to this page and, to the one placed in Micheal Aflaq, meet none of these standards. - SimonP 03:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

OK, now I understand but where is it agreed that external links must be NPOV. I can't read arabic but I doubt whether the link to Alfak's writings are NPOV and indeed many links I'v seen in Wikipedia are not remotely NPOV. I read "External Links" as a warning that you are leaving the NPOV zone. If you do think that all NPOV links need to be deleted would you like to delete this: Saddam a hero: Daughter which you will find on the Saddam Hussein page. Dejvid 13:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Primary sources, such as both those you mention, are always acceptable as external links, as they always present information that is not present in our articles. What is also important is how we describe an external link. A link saying "Saddam is a hero" is unacceptable but one saying "Saddam's daughter thinks he's a hero" allows a reader to better evaluate the claim. Ensuring that there is a diversity of points of view in the external links section is another essential method of being NPOV. For instance see global warming where the links are sorted by their affiliations. - SimonP 16:15, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Then I'll clearly label them as from opponents. Deal? Dejvid 22:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not really, but perhaps you could find some links from a notable opponent of Ba'athism like the INC, Qutb, or Sadr. The fellow who wrote your piece is a known critic of the Iranian government, but no expert on Iraq or Baathism. - SimonP 23:03, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are missing the bias that is implicit in the criteria you giv. Links from an organization automatically gain the status "primary" and they are, usually, pro. Syria remains a dictatorship so no Syrian opposition parties exist except in exile. Hence your definition of "primary" excludes partisan anti links but allows partisan pro links. It is true that there are now politically parties hostile to the Ba'ath in Irak but they are not involved in a struggle with the Ba'ath so their criticism of the Ba'ath is likely to be motivated by a need to prove their anti-Ba'ath credentials rather than anything deeper. And tell me, what qualification does Saddam's daughter have to assess Saddam as a ruler? Father yes, ruler no.

But more than that you seem to have a preference for political leaders over independent (albeit partisan) writers and journalists. The skill of being a good politician is not the same as that of a writer. Case in point Aflaq. Brilliant writer (even Makiya concedes that) - dead loss as a politician. Dejvid 12:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with POV links

There is nothing wrong with and there is no policy against POV links on Wikipedia (as long as the link description makes a clear statement which POV is represented). External links are not endorsements of their content. See Wikipedia:External_links, Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers and meta:When should I link externally. —Christiaan 01:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why was this moved Ba'ath Party it the far more common name. - SimonP 13:46, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of the word Ba'ath

The name of the party translates into "resurrection" not "rebirth" for example the same word is used in the bible (in arabic) to descibe Jesus's resurection not rebirth.

Every source I've ever seen gives rebirth. Do you have any references for resurrection? If the same word is used in the Arabic versions of the Bible it might mean that Arabic does not have a word for resurrection, and instead uses rebirth there as well. - SimonP 21:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

A good source would be the party's founder Michel Aflaq's own book "On The Way Of Resurrection". In addition I am fluent in both Arabic and English. The Arabic word for birth is woulida ولد. The correct way to say rebirth would be equivalent to saying “born anew” in English. I used the bible use of the word as an example of ressurection.

The source you cited again depends on your Arabic translation. Does the word you are translating literally mean "return from the dead?" Which is what resurrection means. Most of the scholarly sources I check give rebirth, for instance William L. Cleveland's History of the Modern Middle East states that Ba'ath literally translates as "rebirth or renaissance." Some people do seem to use "resurrection," and perhaps it should be mentioned as an alternate translation. - SimonP 22:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Actually all Arabic-English dictionaries (e.g Al-Manhal)I looked in translate the word into "resurrection" as in "return from the dead". Furthermore the writings of the party founders explain the name as such because it refers to the period under colonial rule as the time when the nation was dead. In that respect the word can carry the meaning renaissance. Keep in mind that the Arabic word for renaissance is "nahda". I found an online dictionary (it's bit clunky)www.sakhr.com. Choose arabic to english translation then type the word البعث

Rewrite

I've rewritten the sections about the party's origins and the Syrian party, but this article needs a lot more work. I'll try to add to it, but hopefully other people will be enthusiastic as well? Palmiro | Talk 22:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Split article?

User:Soman suggests that we could consider giving the Syrian and Iraqi Ba'th parties separate articles (given that they are indeed separate parties) and retain this article for the original Ba'th (up until 1966 if memory serves).

Personally I think there is a strong argument for this, though perhaps such an article should include brief summary treatment of the two successor parties. There is enough to be written about the Ba'th to easily fill three articles. However, it does pose some logistical difficulties: clearly, what the Ba'th was up to in Mosul in 1959 (as one example) had more impact on the future of the Ba'th in Iraq than on the national party, and falls more logically with a treatment of the Ba'th in Iraq. Any views? Palmiro | Talk 22:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

iraq/Syria split

This hasnt gotten a response in years, and i too think its warrants a split since both a different and doesnt seem to be much of a connection in years. Cant have all the Communist/Socialist/Christian democratic parties on 1 page. At any rate, Consensus cant wait for ever and it shouldnt have. So unless some objection coems up it warrants a split.Lihaas (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following scheme: Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (1940) for the Iraq-based party, Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (1968) for the Syria-based party and Ba'athism as the general main article (describing the ideology and joint history). --Soman (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(copy paste from Soman's page) ::Cool, ill move the discussion to the talk page. But as an aside, instead of Baathism (which i personally havent seen a source labelling it as an "ism") we could keep the party page as is on the overarchign joint history, etc and then split off the divisions). How does that sound?

Also why did the page move back to "Ba'ath party" when consensus below agreed to (and claimed it has been done) move to Baath party?Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sa'iqa

My understanindg has always been that as-Sa'iqa is an integral branch within the Syrian party, just as ALF is (was?) a branch of the Iraqi. Is that wrong? --Soman 06:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

All I've read about al-Sa'iqa has been in its context as a PLO member-organisation, and I don't recall seeing it referred to as a branch of the Ba'th party. If you're certain about it, feel free to change it back. Palmiro | Talk 10:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To add some more confusion. I found a catalogue printed by PASSIA (like around 1999) listing ALF and a Palestian Baath Party (led by Jamal Bustami, in Nablus). Several websources seem to confirm that Baath and ALF are separate structures, although ALF is under (was?) the leadership of Baath. One source says Bustami's party is pro-Iraqi. Thus is fair to conclude that the Palestian Baath Party is the branch of the Iraqi-led party? --Soman 16:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that sounds like a reasonable inference. PASSIA is probably as good a source as any for information on this sort of thing. Palmiro | Talk 16:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling consistency

We need to get the spelling of this party's name consistent. The article title, at the time I'm typing this, is "Ba'ath Party". But the introductory sentence spells it "Ba'th", with "Ba'ath" given as one of the alternate spellings. Thereafter, both spellings are seen in different places. We should only see one spelling in the whole article, with the exception of the part where alternate spellings are given, etymological sections, etc.

I don't know a word of Arabic, and I believe that qualifies me to strongly endorse the spelling "Ba'ath" :-) Seriously, it is by far the preferred spelling in English-language media, and my understanding and experience is that that is the overriding criterion in the Wikipedia guidelines for deciding on spelling. --Rschmertz

Thanks for the comment. I did my best to standardise the spelling inside the article on "Ba'th", as being the best of the three versions. I was sort of summoning up my energy to suggest a move of the actual article, which I agree should correspond with what's used in the title.

The thing is, there is no real justification for the spelling "Ba'ath". The apostrophe represents an Arabic consonant that doesnt exist in English, and that most English-speakers would probably hear as a long 'a' in this word or might possibly confuse with a glottal stop. The reason for the spelling "Baath" is simply this similarity, to the non-Arabic-speaking ear, with a long 'a'. There's no good reason for the spelling "Ba'ath": it's effectively transliterating the ع twice, and the apostrophe doesn;t serve any helpful phonetic purpose for someone who doesn't speak Arabic. After all, how do you pronounce " ' "?

So I would support either "Baath" or "Ba'th", but not Ba'ath, which is simply wrong because it effectively transliterates the arabic letter twice without making things at all clearer for the average English speaker. It may well be (I seem to recall doing a google-test myself that confirmed this) that Ba'ath is the more common spelling on the internet. On the other hand, my impression is that it's rather less common than Ba'th in serious books on related topics. The internet isn't necessarily the best guide to what's right, the media is often lazy and simply wrong ;) and just because something is widespread doesn't make it correct.

That's my two pe'nce, anyway. Palmiro | Talk 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now standardised the spelling throughout the article to Ba'th, as a temporary measure pending any decision we may reach. Palmiro | Talk 22:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re "just because something is widespread doesn't make it correct": that actually is debatable, strange as it may sound. Though I'm all in favor of encouraging spellings that map as closely as possible to the original language (an inexact science in itself), we sometimes have to make a determination that the widespread usage is the "correct" one, for purposes such as ours. I once followed a long WP discussion on hangul. The Korean government had promoted the English/Latin spelling "hangeul" for their esteemed alphabet, which does somewhat clarify the pronunciation, but the consensus (or was it the loudest voices?) was that the latter spelling was almost never seen in English print, and that the former, which nearly always was, was therefore the standard English spelling. It happens. The word Czech, for example, is not Czech at all; it would be nice if we could spell it as we pronounce it (something like "chek") or as they spell it (Česko, for the country name), but I don't see that happening.

Anyway, this case doesn't seem as dire; I've looked around a bit more, and it seems that "Baath" occurs at least as often as its apostrophied version, so it looks like a good candidate to me. Meanwhile, most of your arguments against "Ba'ath" would seem to apply equally to "Ba'th".Rschmertz 02:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How did "Ba'ath" come to be so widely used? That is not how it is pronounced in Standard Arabic or any Arabic dialect I know of. I think "Ba'th" is the best transliteration, but "Baath" could be an official spelling: [3]. --Yodakii 03:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you added the diacritics, would it be بَعث or بَعَث? For the former, I would say Ba'th, and for the latter, I'd say Ba'ath. But I really want to come up with a good way to differentiate between ء and ع in transcriptions. --LakeHMM 06:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Restricted Google test

In a search confined to .edu domains, the results are as follows: Ba'ath Party 982, Baath Party 21800, Ba'th Party 485 In a search confined to .ac.uk domains, i.e. United Kingdom higher education institutes, the results are as follows: Ba'ath Party 127, Baath Party 136, Ba'th Party 56

This suggests that in the US at least, and for what it's worth, serious academic sources overwhelmingly favour Baath Party. Palmiro | Talk 18:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

I suggest this page is renamed either "Ba'th Party" or "Baath Party" (I prefer Ba'th). Those are acceptable transliterations from Arabic, wheras "Ba'ath" is not. Why Ba'ath is used, I don't know - probably because it is hard to imagine how an apostrophe would sound before a consonant to most non-Arabic speakers, and probably also as a mixup between "Baath" and "Ba'th".

I now made a request to move this page. Arre 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename/move - vote here!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: This poll is now closed, and the page has been moved to Baath Pary per the result.

---

Vote on renaming this page. The reasons for suggesting this move can be found in the discussion above. Some possible options are:

• Ba'ath Party (= retain present name)
• Ba'th Party
• Baath Party

Write your preferred option below and sign:

• Ba'th Party Arre 20:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ba'th Party, in line with the most common academic use, but no objection to Baath Party.Palmiro | Talk 13:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, while Ba'th is most common in the books I have, my google test detailed above suggests that it may not actually be the most common in academic use. Of course such a test should be treated with caution, Palmiro | Talk 18:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Arab Socialist Baath Party, --Soman 18:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Query: what is our standard practice for party names? I would indeed prefer this myself as it is the full correct name. Palmiro | Talk 18:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Generally it would be the full correct name. However, in some case preference is given to the name most commonly used in English-language media. This has some strange twists, as there seem to be an opinion that shifting articles like Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, etc. to the new officially used by respective organisations is perceived as an endorsement to that particular faction. However, I would strongly suggest using the full name for the article, as it that has been used by both the main parties in international relations. Still Baath Party, Ba'ath Party, Ba'th Party would redirect to the main article. It might also be a good idea to separate the whole into separate articles, one about Baathism in general and the development of Baathist movement and separate articles for the parties born out of it. Especially since many branches of the movement are starting to function independently (such as Sudanese Baath Party, etc.). 'Baath Party', etc. could redirect to 'Baathism', with links to 'Arab Socialist Baath Party (Syria-based)', 'Arab Socialist Baath Party (Iraq-based)', Sudanese Baath Party, Arab Democratic Socialist Baath Party, etc. --Soman 20:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: actually, both main branches seem to prefer "Arab Baath Socialist Party", in that order. Palmiro | Talk 15:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Baath Party , as weird as it looks to me, that seems to be the official spelling, and in this case I think it would probably be more appropriate than the "correct" Arabic transliteration (Ba'th). I have no objection to Soman's suggestions however. --Yodakii 11:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Although "Ba'ath Party" is most familiar to me, Baath Party is about 10 times more common in LexisNexis database of newspapers. So per Wikipedia naming conventions it should be the latter. ("Ba'th Party" gets much less hits than Baath Party; and oddly seems to used largely if not exclusively by BBC Monitoring. Rd232 ^talk 15:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Baath Party LuiKhuntek 07:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Baath Party Based on reputable sources such as the BBC and OED 81.99.198.116 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Fascist?

The assertion has been made by User:194.144.65.221 that the Syrian Baath party is a fascist movement. I don't know enough about it to say either way, but I'd like your input. - Stlemur 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fascism is a vague term that can be applied to many things, but I don't think the Syrian Baath Party is especially fascistic. Fascism is usually linked to strong nationalism and ethnic pride, but the Syrian Baath Party has long been controlled by the minority Alawite community. It has certainly never followed the economic policies associated with fascism. - SimonP 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not. It is a strongly nationalist movement but not a fascist one. Its founders were if anything more influenced by Marxism than by fascism. Palmiro | Talk 12:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

on the contrary, i would say they were definitely more influenced by fascism than marxism. The ba'th was always strongly anti-marxist, but some of its early ideologues i think had flirtations with fascism. also, the vague socialism, nationalism, militarism, leadership cult (a later addition, maybe), etc, all makes it ideologically similar to national socialism, if not mussolini-style fascism. however, it would of course be grossly POV to say that it is a fascist movement, but its relations to the 1930s/40s european nationalist movements could be better covered. Arre 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, in Haidar Haidar's novel about the Iraqi Communists, walima li-a3shab il-ba7r, the Communist characters are at one point quoted as referring to the Baathists as "al-fashiyyin wa wukalaa' amriika"... (the book, of course, currently in its seventh or eighth printing in Damascus thanks to its denunciation in Egypt as blasphemous). Palmiro | Talk 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither fascist, nor Marxist, the Baath’s ideologues were simply trying to craft some kind “third-worldist” patriotic movement meshing together center-left socialism and anti-colonialism: if anything, Aflaq and Bitar owed more to French intellectuals such as Ernest Renan and Charles Péguy than to German nationalism or Soviet collectivism. DrVictorino

• 1. Fascist heritage? I agree that they are, from the 60s onwards at least, mainly third-worldist. (Or rather, mainly vehicles of certain sectarian or military minorities who had seized control of the parties, but whatever.) Interestingly, though, both Renan and Péguy are often seen as proto-Fascist thinkers, and both were recommended and admired by Mussolini in his theoretical works.
• 2. WP Fascism Project. The project guidelines above could probably qualify the Ba'th as Fascist, in a WP sense. But I would still argue against inclusion, since that is a) controversial and b) strongly disputed by the party itself. Arre 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I definitely am not an expert in this area. However, I would like to add Bernard Lewis said "the Baath Party was founded, as a kind of clone of the Nazi and Fascist parties" in an article in the National Post of Canada, I believe on 4/8/03. In addition, on 2/7/06 the HistoryChannel broadcast a 100 minute documentary copyrighted in 2005 entitled "Saddam and the Third Reich" which goes into significant detail about the Nazi Party's influence on M. 'Aflaq's ideology, and Saddam Hussein's uncle K. Tulfah. It goes on to discuss the tight relationship between the Nazis and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, and describes his impact on all Arab political thought. Badlermd 04:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

« I definitely am not an expert in this area. However, I would like to add Bernard Lewis said "the Baath Party was founded, as a kind of clone of the Nazi and Fascist parties" in an article in the National Post of Canada »You’re clearly “not an expert in this area”…and neither is Bernard Lewis for that matter! The man is a card-carrying member of Israel’s rightwing Likud party, and owns a deluxe condominium in East-Jerusalem built on lands stolen from Palestinian Christians who were brutally expropriated by the state of Israel in 1967… I’m afraid Lewis is not the most objective analyst you’re likely to find on topics such as Baathism and “Arabism” Pan or otherwise! DrVictorino

(sic!). Bernard Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University. --Wetman 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the credentials of Bernard Lewis, his judgement has considerable merit in this case. The Ba'ath movement inherited connections with European Nazis from Aflaq and Rashid al-Kaylani. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prezen (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

If the opposition to Bernard Lewis is just this anti-Semite cretin, then I think the facts are beginning to become clear. 129.171.233.24 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To me this debate is far from the truth. To be Fascist a movement must have tendencies towards corporatism in the style found in both Mussolini's party. Franco's Spain and Adolf's Germany. There is no corporatism in either Syria's or Iraq's Ba'th party. If there was one thing the founders fought it was the corporatism of the previous regimes based on family and clan influences. Please can we stop putting European/American history labels on non first world processes? In my view it is a silent extension of the superiority ideas of the Victorians. Arab Political history is influenced by its occupiers, but that doesn't mean it is following the same vectors. Thanks Wolfje

Well said, Wolfje. Asabbagh 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wolfje has barked but not bitten. First there is no generic European and - God beware - american labeling. USA and France do not have much in common except arrogant behavior ;) and Germans are - still today very different in theri thinking and way to negotiate to americans or other europeans (see Smyser, How germans negotiate ).

• MOre serious: Baath and the arabian national movement have been influenced strongly by 19th century German philosphers. In general Johann Gottfried Herder and the Grimm Brothers, based on the concept of Kulturnation had an impact. as Germany was not unified for long but germans shared a common cultural tradition and popular folklore. this worked well with the arab counterparts and various other new born countries, even if the folklore, as with Finlands Kavela was reconstructed much later. Germany was seen as a anticolonial power and friend of the ottoman and arab lands in the 19th century. Infrastructure projects as the Baghdad Railway helped to that impression.

• According Paul Berman, one of Baath founders Satia al-Husri especially was influenced by Fichte, a german philospher famous for his nation state socialism economic concepts, his antisemitic stance and his important influence on the german unification movement. Baath had a significant amount of arab christians among their founding members. For them, most prominent Michel Aflaq, a national and secular socialistic model was a suitable way to evade minority status under the osman and get an arab citizen. During the founding phase before and around 1940 prewar Hitler-Germany and the National Socialist workers party was definitely the role model for Baath . During Rashid Ali al-Gaylani short-lived anti british coup 1941 suport from Hitler was asked for and a meeting in Berlin was staged 1942. After 1945 the secular Baath movement was seen as less corrupt and better organized than the traditional arab muslim elite, which obviously had failed to prevent the foundation of Israel and was not able to provide welfare and administrative standards comparable to the western world.

Nevertheless I would not call Baath a copy of the NSDAP and bring them in line with 1942 style Nazi atrocities. Being secular, disciplined, militant, antisemitic and combining a nationalist pride with a welfare state approach and a Big Leader small moustache authoritan style - on could 1936 Olympic games Nazism as the role model to start with.

What I miss about the corporative aspect - has Baath had (and built) any economical or infrastructure project as part of its (local) political programs? Any Autobahn, Hoover dam, Pontinian swamp? How was their relationship to companies (state owned or private>)? Did they have any e.g. local jewish prominent members? As well the relationship to the eastern bloc after 1948 is not mentioned in the article. talk) 21:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• How can you argue that the Baath ideology is not fascistic? Many of you argue that it is not simply because there are distinctions between the Baathist ideology and that of traditional [Italian] Fascism. Well, there are appreciable distinctions between [Italian] Fascism and National Socialism, as well as distinctions between those ideologies and Spanish Falangism (hell, there are even distinctions between Franco's Falangism -which became highly intertwined with other monarchist and theocratic ideologies, as soon as he assumed leadership of the Party- and the original Falangism of José Antonio Primo de Rivera & Ramiro Ledesma Ramos). I feel that what makes the fascist movements unique -apart from slightly different philosophical influences- is that the emphasis on nationalism has a different impact on the nature of these ideologies and subsequent regimes. That is one of the things you will notice when comparing Baathism to [Italian] Fascism or National Socialism to Fascism. National Socialism, for example, was not influenced by Syndicalism, like [Italian] Fascism and to a varying extent, Spanish Falangism; it was influenced by [non-Marxian] German Socialism. Most of the political parties/regimes/movements that we today recognize as being fascist never considered themselves to be such, apart from [Italian] Fascism (of course) and the British Union of Fascists. So by applying your arguments to this point, we should not consider National Socialism or either form of Spanish Falangism to be fascist, because there were slight ideological distinctions and they refused to consider themselves fascist. It has also been argued that there are more parallels between Marxism than with fascism, which is quite frankly, laughable. Not mentioning the rabid anti-Communism of the Baathist regimes, the ideology is highly nationalistic (not internationalist), ethnocentric (the pan-Arab sentiment being similar to the pan-Germanism of National Socialism), militaristic and totalitarian. There is also an emphasis on wage diversity and private ownership. All of these principles are universal to every [authentically] fascist ideology that is recognized and further distinguishes it from most forms of socialism (especially Marxism). I move to, at least, include my outlined points in the main article. ForbiddenZone (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

@ being highly nationalistic, ethnocentric militaristic and totalitarian - works very well with Stalinism, including the antisemitic aspect. To deploy or get away the tag of fascism sounds difficult however. I assume that Baathism goes very well with the antidemocratic nationalist and totalitarian movements of the first half of the 20ieth century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentario (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• You would do well to check the latter part of my argument. Spanish Falangism and National Socialism did not regard themselves as being fascist ideologies or movements -this is especially true for National Socialism- but merely emphasized a similar ideological and/or philosophical foundation. More specifically, Falangism viewed itself to be more in line with National Syndicalist principles than Italian Fascism, while National Socialism was a separate development born of different influences. In this respect, the case for Baathism being fascistic is based on the National Socialist argument: in that it did not expressly consider itself fascist, but the fascistic foundation it's undoubtedly built upon is conspicuous to all that care to make the parallels -as is often employed when regarding National Socialism being fascistic. To your point on Stalinism, I would argue that, while it's obvious that Stalinism employed a similar form of totalitarianism and flirted with aspects of Nationalism, it was not an expressively Nationalistic regime -as Baathism was- nor was there the ethnocentric emphasis comparable to the Pan-Arab emphasis (this being completely similar to the Pan-Germanicism of National Socialism) of Baathism. Most importantly, Baathism was rabidly anti-Communist, which is the unifying hallmark of nearly every fascistic regime/movement. Again, I call for this to be noted in the article. --ForbiddenZone (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

References

1945 or 1947?

so todays historic event was the creation of the baath party in damascus in 1947. the article about the baath party says 1945. ?

Reversions

TammamS/Fares keeps inserting passages. I can't speak for the other reverting their insertions, but I'd like to motivate my behaviour: 1. "While it was controlled by the Sunni minority and ruling the Shi'a majority in Iraq, the Baath Party is controlled by the Alawite minority in Syria and rules the Sunni majority. " I hardly dispute that Alawites dominate Syrian politics, or that Sunnis dominated the Saddam regime, but 1) there's no source, 2) the text fails to differentiate that the two parties are separate structures, 3) is this a particular Baathist characteristic? (which would motivate its inclusion in the initial presentation) nis it the only system of governance in the Middle East were minorities dominate over majorities? 4) whilst the groups mentioned (alawites in syria, formerly sunnis in iraq) have disproportionate influence over the Baath parties, the picture is actually much more complicated. Notably other minorities support/supported Baath (like christians, druze, etc.)

2. "(as usual in this country)", is a strange wording

3. "Practically, the Baath Party is mainly a political framework that allowed the accession of dictators to power in several Arab countries. By monopolizing power and controlling freedom of speech in these countries, the Party was institutionalizing a "police state" and establishing a reign of terror on the Arab populations." Is two 'several'? Is this a NPOV description of Baathist history? "reign of terror" hardly NPOV wording. Text passage entirely argumentative

4. "The Baath Party was responsible for multiple massacres against innocent Arab populations. In 1982, the Syrian Baath Party of Hafez Al-Assad massacred more than 20,000 Syrian citizens in the town of Hama. The Hama massacre was aimed at controlling the Muslim Brotherhood movement that was opposed to the policies of the Baath Party. The massacre of Hama allowed the ruling party to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood from the Syrian political life, and to terrorise any political party that would dare challenging the Baathist regime." Again this is not put under the Syrian section. Moreover, it has clear POV marks (like "innocent"). Furthermore, this article is about a political movement, not Syrian political history in general.

5. "The Baath Party is completely opposed to any form of democracy. For example, during the rule of the Baathist regime, Syria never experienced any free presidential election. There was always a unique candidate (Hafez Al-Assad), and he always won the elections with 99.99% of the votes. If any candidate dared to present his nomination against Assad, he was directly killed by the powerful Syrian intelligence." The last sentence would definately need a source to back it up. The first sentence is factually incorrect. Baathists have worked for democratic change in several countries (like Sudan).

6. "In the Baathist regime, the ruler should always be succeeded by his son." Original research? Basing assumptions upon two existing cases?

7. "By setting an ideology that does not accept any form of opposition, the Baath Party was in fact forbidding popular participation in decision-making, and discouraging the emergence of "new ideas". The results of this policy was catastrophic for the socio-economic development of the Arab countries." Original research. Private interpretations of causes of economic development.

8. "The existence of a unique ideology is considered as the main reason behind the "failure of the Baathist regimes to face the Israeli expansion" in the Arab world.", "This negative attitude of the Baathist regimes prevented the participation of all the educated Arab populations in the struggle against Israel." Weird wordings. Quote not sourced.

--Soman 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting a more constructive attitude. This would be more helpful in order to address your concerns.

Based on your comments, it seems that you are not challenging the facts that are stated (otherwise you would have included few documented COUNTER-EXAMPLES), but you are questioning some generalizations.

Your concerns could be addressed by re-phrasing and re-organizing the data in the article, and by adding more references to improve the article's accuracy

I hope we will be able to work together on these issues in the upcoming days

Regards,TammamS 14:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these additions are problematic, and seem like original research. They also seem to present all random similarities between the two regimes as integral to Baathism. - SimonP 02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On the whole I agree with Soman. Also, not everything that happened in Syria or Iraq under Baathist rule (good or bad, though I see we have only bad here) needs to be mentioned in the Baath Party article. The article History_of_the_CPSU, although not by any means perfect, is an example of an article about a ruling party that does not go into everything that happened in the state. Palmiro | Talk 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

References

websites

see http://www.elhadaf.net/ claims to be Arab Socialist Baath Party - National Command. has material from ALF, and image is from Sudan. Is this the "Iraqi" Baath Party? And what about http://b3th.jeeran.com, which also carries ALF material? --Soman 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A. What is the Iraqi Ba'ath party website (same ? as above) and B. we should add this into the article in case people want to learn more. Lophoole 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Lophoole

Where are these websites hosted? Are they updated from inside Iraq or is it all done by exiles? If so, where are they based? I have just heard on the radio that Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri's appointment as leader following the death of Saddam Hussein was accompanied by a statement from him posted on the web. 86.136.7.117 10:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

AlBasrah.net is credited as Iraqi Baathist Party's original website but the site itself claims differently. Can a MSA speaker verify the site description? Is this the obfuscated party website or it just an insurgent/resistance website?--Sstrak 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

www.elhadaf.net now clearly states that it is the organ of the Arab Socialist Baath Party - Sudan Regional Command, with a link to http://www.albaathalarbi.org/ as Arab Socialist Baath Party - National Command. http://b3th.jeeran.com/ doesn't give a very 'official' impression, just names the party name.

albasrah.net does not appear to be an official website at all, neither it started as such. See [4]. --Soman 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.albasrah.net/maqalat/ba3th_2003.htm is titles Declarations of the Arab Socialist Baath Party - Iraq Region, but as far as I can see it doesn't claim that the website belongs to the party. --Soman 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

General Federation of Trade Unions (Syria)

I just started the article General Federation of Trade Unions (Syria), and the source I used states that the union is closely related to the Baath Party in Syria. Would someone be interested in weaving (and expanding) that information into this article. I have no knowledge of the current affairs, and would do a pretty stilted job of it myself. --Bookandcoffee 00:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how much information about that needs to go into this article; in the meantime, I'll see if I can find any sources to improve the article on the GFTU. Palmiro | Talk 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Is "Ba'ath" pronounced "Bath", or is it pronounced "BAAth"? Garr1984 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)§

If you speak Arabic, it's بعث. If not, then Baath is close enough. The letter that you probably can't pronounce properly (if you don't speak Arabic) is this: ع. You can read about it here: Ayin. Asabbagh 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan

Politics of Pakistan mentions a Pakistan Baath Party ((Syed Raheem Muhammad Abid al-Majid Muhammad Hussein al-Tikriti) with no data on the election. --84.20.17.84 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be a Ba'ath party branch there? There aren't any Arabs there or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.228.5 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

THE PARTY OUTSIDE IRAQ

Some vandals keep erasing passages pertaining to the history of the "Qawmi"/pro-Iraqi Baath party in Lebanon, Syria and/or the Palestinian territories . I've reverted the info on the Lebanese branch of the Baath party, the pro-Baath wing of Fatah, as well as Gen. Amin Hafiz in Syria. --RazeYathrib

Also I think we should add a short paragraph on the party in Yemen, led by former MP Sheikh Qasim Sallam. --RazeYathrib

67.184.72.84 and 83.147.132.181 aka "Freedom Lovers" keep on vandalizing the 1st paragraph, as well as the Party Outside Iraq + Book References sections... I think they should be barred from making further edits. - RazeYathrib

nasserism vs. baathism

What was the difference between the two? I know that Nasserism was pro-Nasser and Egyptian whereas Baathism was Syrian/Iraqi. But what were the ideological differences? BillMasen 12:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

References

The article may be accurate; however, the only book references do not provide chapter references and there are no external link references or even a references section. BingoDingo (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the paragraph about post-Baath Iraq, it says that baath members were banned from schools, universities, and the government after the US took control of Iraq. However, later in the same paragraph it says that non-Baathists were not allowed to become school principals and company leaders until the rules were slightly revoked in February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.224.169 (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sudan

[5], a 2007 document, is signed by three different baathist groups; Sudanese Baath, Sudanese Regional Socialist Arab Baath and Socialist Arab Baath Party Sudan Region. --Soman (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Arab Socialist Rebirth Party (Yemen)

I reverted back a merger tag on Arab Socialist Rebirth Party (Yemen). There are (at least) two baath parties in Yemen, the iraqi one and the syrian one. Is there any source on what happened to them post 2003? --Soman (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Use Ba'ath for the spelling of the name of the party

Ba'ath is the most common spelling used on the internet with the most hits on Google. I've synchronized all or almost all of the article to have this spelling.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Baath in Yemen

[6] gives some detail on the current positions of the two baath parties in Yemen, and names of their leaders. One is simply called حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي whilst the other is called حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي القومي. It doesn't say which one is the iraqi and which is the syrian, though. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[7] lists both parties, with logos. --Soman (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Ba'ath takes power in Syria and Iraq

The following page is being considered for deletion: Ba'ath takes power in Syria and Iraq. There maybe some salvageable material, so I include it here.

Ba'ath takes power in Syria and Iraq

{{Infobox Military Conflict |conflict= Ba'ath Party Takes Power in Syria and Iraq |date= February 1963-1963 |place= [[Syria]] and [[Iraq]] |result= [[Ba'ath Party]] Victory |combatant1= {{flag|Iraq|1991}} {{flag|Syria}} |combatant2= {{flagicon|Ba'ath Party}} [[Ba'ath Party]] |commander1= Unknown |commander2= Ba'ath Party Commander |strength1= Unknown |strength2= Unknown |casualties1= Unknown |casualties2= Unknown }} In February 1963, the Iraqi Ba'ath took power after violently overthrowing Abd al-Karim Qasim and quashing communist-led resistance. That same year, the Syrian party’s military committee succeeded in persuading Nasserist and independent officers to make common cause with it, and they successfully carried out a military coup on 8 March. A National Revolutionary Command Council took control and assigned itself legislative power; it appointed Salah al-Din al-Bitar as head of a "national front" government. The Ba'th participated in this government along with the Arab Nationalist Movement, the United Arab Front and the Socialist Unity Movement. As historian Hanna Batatu notes, this took place without the fundamental disagreement over immediate or "considered" reunification having been resolved. The Ba'ath moved to consolidate its power within the new regime, purging Nasserist officers in April. Subsequent disturbances led to the fall of the al-Bitar government, and in the aftermath of Jasim Alwan’s failed Nasserist coup in July, the Ba'th monopolized power.

travb (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

I just deleted the term Arab Fascism from the infobox, as describing the Baath ideology. I see that there has been an interesting debate about wether Ba'ath Party is actually fascist or not, but I can't see a clear result. Nowhere in the article itself the Party is labelled as fascist, nor does it appear under Fascism. Nor it is clear what exactly "Arab Fascism" could be. So I think we can't use the term in the infobox - if someone wants it back, no problem: get a good source and integrate in the text a clear reference to why Ba'ath Party should be labelled as Fascist. As long as the text doesn't say it, the infobox shouldn't say it.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazism??

“75.172.106.52” keeps on vandalizing this article with his tired ‘Nazi’ canard cum faux references: the FACT is most US and European historians (unlike say Fox News or the Jerusalem Post) believe that the Sorbonne-educated founders of the Baath Party (both born and raised in Damascus when Syria was part of the French colonial empire) were mostly influenced by center-left French socialism and “Jacobin” patriotism.

Even Marxist-leaning liberals such as professor Hanna Batatu, a harsh critic of the Baath Party, believe that Aflak’s ideology is mostly a third-worldist revival of French Jacobin political thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RazeYathrib (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1955 Political Split

"In 1955 a coup d'état by the military against the historical leadership of Michel Aflaq and Salah Bitar led the Syrian and Iraqi parties to split into rival organizations – the Qotri (or Regionalist) Syria-based party being aligned with the Soviet Union, while the Qawmi (or Nationalist) Iraq-based party adopted a generally more centrist stance.[1]"

This sentence in the introduction needs clarification. Does "centrist" in this case mean an unaligned position in relation to the US and the Soviet Union? Or does it mean between the "left" and "right" of politics? Also the date 1955 is mentioned nowhere else in the article, which I find decidedly odd. Is it actually a reference to the 1966 coup in Syria? --82.0.66.100 (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote you are complaining about is pretty bad. Iraq was also an ally of the Soviet Union at least before the Iran-Iraq War. A much more important factor in the split is that Syrian Baath regime so detested Iraqi B'ath regime that it - alone among arab countries - supported non-Arab Iran during the long and bloody Iran-Iraq War.

Trimming lead

I have trimmed the lead to eliminate repetition, non-lead information and add some more pertinent information. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Umm, someone put "rednex" and "reddya" in the "Unity, Socialism, Liberty" bit, so I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.190.8 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Right wing"

This doesn't even need an explanation. A party whose sole motto is "Unity, Liberty, Socialism"? A party that was founded to revive the ORIGINAL political Left of the Jacobin era? Right-wing, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.16.254 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

However, the Nazi ideology's official name is National-Socialism and nobody doubts that it is far-right, the same could be said of National-Sindicalism. I'm absolutely not claiming that Arab-Socialism is a fascist or fascistic ideology or that the Ba'ath Party was similar to the NSDAP. I'm not equiparating the regimes either. My point is that having the words Freedom, Unity and Socialism in it's motto doesn't stop a party from being right-wing. There's a big difference between a party's early ideological postulates and it's evolution and practice. John Caves Goldenbear (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the Political Position should say "third position." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.235.213.113 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

De-Ba`athification Entry

I'm giving notice to the Wiki community that I will be working on a separate article (but will link to this article) about the US de-Ba`athification policy in Iraq as part of a class project through the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative. Amfarr21 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone please add the IPA for Baath? I'm never entirely sure about how to pronounce this. Thanks Akerbeltz (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia

There appears to be a Ba'ath movement in Tunisia now. --Smart (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been at least one Ba'athist group in Tunisia for decades, linked to Iraq. They used to be based in exile, and publish 'el-Ba'th'. They kept a rather low profile, but have emerged in public after the 2011 revolution. They use the name 'Ba'ath Movement', rather than 'Ba'ath Party', that might be due to Tunisian legislation. There are loads of Facebook pages of this group. --Soman (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What is really meant by "in power"?

Greetings! I am happy just to be copy-editing and am still reading the Wikipedia style guide. Phrases like "although it has only ever held power in Syria and Iraq" (paragraph 2) seem ambiguous (i.e., imprecise in meaning). --CousinJohn (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In government, in other words, ruling the country. --TIAYN (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on paragraph 3

1. By "but became so antagonistic" do you mean that the two factions (Iraq- & Syria-based) came to be at odds with each other? Just making sure of what you mean to say.

: Didn't write that sentence, but yes, it's refering to the two ba'athi cells. --TIAYN (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

2. By "non-Arab Iran" are you stating that Iran as a whole is non-Arab, or are you collectively referring to the non-Arab elements of Iran? --CousinJohn (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't write this sentence either; Iran as a whole, Iranians are not Arab. --TIAYN (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ba'ath is defined twice. What do you say we just define it once?

Its definition in the first sentence of the article really makes that sentence difficult to read. Then it has another fuller definition under the "Founding and early years" section. Why don't we try defining it up top *after* that first sentence? We can give that a go, and you can decide whether you like it or not.

The ideology section is a mess, it's some work, not only grammatically, but also in regards of factual accuracy! --TIAYN (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Use British English, American English, or?

We have both in various places. We should ultimately pick one just so that the article is consistent, as called for in the Manual Of Style. This can wait.

British English! :) --TIAYN (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

British English should be used. British English forms the basis of English as spoken in multiple countries: the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, etc. American English is only used in the United States.--R-41 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 copy edit

Hey Trust! Thanks for addressing those tags; I hope I didn't go overboard with them. Let me explain my reasoning with some examples:

• "However, in the three inner-factions of the Ba'ath Party..." The organizational structure was well explained in an earlier section, but I didn't know if "factions" referred to that, or to something else. It seems like there were three cabals within an upper-level organizational tier? In the Regional Command? (I am mortified that I let "Hhowever" slip through!)
• In the section The Syrian Ba'ath Party organisation, there's a line: "With the collapse of the pan-Arabist state, the United Arab Republic (AUR)..." And another later on: "supported joining the pan-Arab state (UAR)." I tagged that because I didn't know if AUR was different from UAR, or if it was a typo.
• "Later that year, the Ba'ath Party leadership were planning to assassinate Qasim." Were they in the midst of their planning later that year? Or was the killing to take place later that year? I was going to change "were planning" to "planned" but I realized it could change the meaning of the sentence, like so: "They planned to assassinate him later that year." Since I didn't know exactly what it meant, I tagged it. Also, what year?

Some other questions I had:

• Should ba'ath always be capitalized?
• Should the first a in al-Hafiz (or a similar name) be capitalized when it appears at the beginning of a sentence?
• I thought parts were kind of link-heavy. Manual of Style/Linking

That's all for now. I'll finish up in the next day or so. Thanks again for your help. Cheers.Braincricket (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hafez al-Assad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ba'ath Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121222114159/http://www.humansecuritygateway.com:80/documents/CTC_EmbattledInArabia_ShiisAndThePoliticsOfConfrontationInSaudiArabia.pdf to http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/CTC_EmbattledInArabia_ShiisAndThePoliticsOfConfrontationInSaudiArabia.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ba'ath Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050203235613/http://baath-party.org:80/eng/constitution.htm to http://www.baath-party.org/eng/constitution.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit recommended

The article could do with a good copy edit. I've therefore tagged it for the attention of the GOCE. – BroVic (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ba'ath Party. 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/20120310042933/http://www.tunisia-live.net/2012/01/04/tunisian-baath-party-celebrates-5th-anniversary-of-saddam-husseins-death/ to http://www.tunisia-live.net/2012/01/04/tunisian-baath-party-celebrates-5th-anniversary-of-saddam-husseins-death/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone scrubbed the most important information of all from this article

Namely, the over 2 decade rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the still continuing and multiple decade long government in Syria, which the government was officially considered to be by members of the Ba'ath Party. Somehow this article doesn't mention that this party ruled countries, and the only mention of these leaders in the article is about before they came to power. The article about the Iraq branch was purged in much the same manner, skipping the entire time period when Saddam was in power from the chronology of the party in the article.

Clearly this was done by someone with some sort of political agenda (though I don't understand exactly what that agenda is), and should be rectified, as it removes the most significant implications of the effects of this organization from the record.--108.86.123.83 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Munid

Very smart person Wiki Munif (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2020

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: Procedurally closed in favor of the multi-move request below. No such user (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Ba'ath Party → Baath Party – "Baath" is the most common English spelling as can be seen here. "Ba'ath" is not even correct as the Arabic word (بعث) is actually "Ba'th". Sahib1609 (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sahib1609: I think you should withdraw all these separate requests and renominate them in a single multimove. —Srnec (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2020 (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.

Requested move 16 October 2020

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: moved per ngrams evidence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Ba'ath Party → Baath Party
• Arab Ba'ath → Arab Baath
• Arab Ba'ath Movement → Arab Baath Movement
• Ba'athism → Baathism
• Ba'ath Party (disambiguation) → Baath Party (disambiguation)
• Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region → Arab Socialist Baath Party – Iraq Region
• Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Lebanon Region → Arab Socialist Baath Party – Lebanon Region
• Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region → Arab Socialist Baath Party – Syria Region
• Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Yemen Region → Arab Socialist Baath Party – Yemen Region
• Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Region of Sudan → Arab Socialist Baath Party – Region of Sudan
• Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Organization of Sudan → Arab Socialist Baath Party – Organization of Sudan
• Sudanese Ba'ath Party → Sudanese Baath Party
• Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction) → Baath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction)
• Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction) → Baath Party (Syrian-dominated faction)
• Democratic Socialist Arab Ba'ath Party → Democratic Socialist Arab Baath Party
• History of the Ba'ath Party → History of the Baath Party
• History of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region → History of the Arab Socialist Baath Party – Syria Region

– "Baath" and "Baathism" are the most common English spellings, as can be seen here, here and there. "Ba'ath" is not even correct as the Arabic word (بعث) is actually ba‘th: until recently it was usual to transcribe ع with a (e.g. Wadia Sabra for Wadī‘ Ṣabrā, not "Wadi'a Sabra"). Sahib1609 (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Also,

Search results

	Google	JSTOR
Baath Party	779,000	1, 440
Ba'ath Party	459,000	1,090

Sahib1609 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Certainly not true in my experience. It's almost always seen as "Ba'ath". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't judge your experience, but your second statement is definitely not true. Please refer to the above figures. I've personally never seen the "Ba'ath" spelling before reading Wikipedia. Sahib1609 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    • And I've almost never seen the Baath spelling! I will say that the British media tends to use Ba'ath (not always, but most commonly). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2020 (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.

Post-RM

@JHunterJ: Are you sure this wasn't closed prematurely? The last comment was just today. Charles Essie (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The usual 7 days went with only one oppose, and that based on that editor's experience rather than any of the usual reliable criteria. So, yeah, pretty sure. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No, as stated it was based on the fact that the British media tends to use Ba'ath and so WP:RETAIN probably applies. You should know that Ngrams and Google hits are not the be all and end all of RMs. It should have been relisted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

When stated, there was no indication that your experience with the British media usage was a broader fact. No type of evidence is the end all be all of any discussion, but in this case no counter evidence was provided, just a "my experience" note. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I quite clearly stated that the British media tends to use Ba'ath. Something you seem to have ignored. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• The original evidence for the move was quite poor. Google hits alone is sometimes a poor metric, since it includes multiple languages, usages, etc. It was not so overwhemingly supporting the move anyway. Ba'ath is used by Britannica, Oxford Reference and many other high quality references. I think a more careful assessment should be done. --MarioGom (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you the RM discussion should be reopened? Charles Essie (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2020

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: Consensus to move. This determination of consensus makes no comment on the merit of the previous closure, as move review is where that should happen. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• Baath Party → Ba'ath Party
• Arab Baath → Arab Ba'ath
• Arab Baath Movement → Arab Ba'ath Movement
• Baathism → Ba'athism
• Baath Party (disambiguation) → Ba'ath Party (disambiguation)
• Arab Socialist Baath Party – Iraq Region → Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region
• Arab Socialist Baath Party – Lebanon Region → Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Lebanon Region
• Arab Socialist Baath Party – Syria Region → Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region
• Arab Socialist Baath Party – Yemen Region → Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Yemen Region
• Arab Socialist Baath Party – Region of Sudan → Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Region of Sudan
• Arab Socialist Baath Party – Organization of Sudan → Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Organization of Sudan
• Sudanese Baath Party → Sudanese Ba'ath Party
• Baath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction) → Ba'ath Party (Iraqi-dominated faction)
• Baath Party (Syrian-dominated faction) → Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction)
• Democratic Socialist Arab Baath Party → Democratic Socialist Arab Ba'ath Party
• History of the Baath Party → History of the Ba'ath Party
• History of the Arab Socialist Baath Party – Syria Region → History of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region

– The past discussion was closed prematurely as was discussed above. Charles Essie (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@JHunterJ, MarioGom, Necrothesp, and Sahib1609: I invite you to participate. Charles Essie (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion was closed in a timely fashion. That you claimed it was premature does not make that true. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That may be, but the fact remains Google hits are not reliable evidence. No one uses punctuation in Google searches and "Ba'ath" is used by more reliable sources (the ones mentioned above). Charles Essie (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as my opinion in the RM and discussion above. Ngrams and Google hits are not the be all and end all of usage. Should never have been closed after only one opinion was posted (and ignored). Should have been relisted for a wider perspective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support on Google Scholar "Baath Party" and "Ba'ath Party" (with quotations) produces roughly the same number of hits so both transliterations are correct. Professor Muṣṭafá Kabahā however spells it Ba'ath which is convincing to me. ImTheIP (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2020 (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.

Post-RM administrative issue

After determining the consensus of the above discussion I realised two of the listed articles are sysop-move protected and I have therefore been unable to move them, please could an admin move them?

• Baath Party → Ba'ath Party
• Arab Baath → Arab Ba'ath

Further, given the page move logs of some of the other articles listed, there have been quite a few reverted undiscussed moves in the past, perhaps an admin could review whether some articles from the set above require further move protection or unprotection as the case may be? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

StraussInTheHouse, I've lowered the move protection on all four pages to ECP, so you should be able to enact these. – bradv🍁 02:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bradv, all done now. SITH (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It's time to solve the punctuation issue once and for all

There is still no uniformity in the spelling of Ba'ath. Across Wikipedia, I've seen it spelled Ba'ath, Baʽath, Baath and Baʿth (and probably others) which suggests there is still no consensus. What should we do? Charles Essie (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

For those working in the field of Arab studies—engaging with the original Arabic sources directly—the correct transliteration is Baʿth. In Arabic the spelling is بَعْث with a fatḥa (“a”) above the bāʾ (“b”) and a sukūn (no short vowel) above the ʿayn (“ʿ”), meaning there should be no extra “a” after the transliteration of ʿayn; the final letter is thāʾ (“th”). The spelling “ba’ath” seems to be a longstanding error of transliteration into English that has persisted.

See also the the IJMES transliteration chart and word list: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-middle-east-studies/information/author-resources/ijmes-translation-and-transliteration-guide PaxMazzini47 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Arabic word being used, and not its translation, "resurrection"?

It would make the party name much more transparent. All other parts of the name ARE being translated, what's so special about this one? Arminden (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)