Talk:Ba'ath Party
From Academic Kids
An event in this article is a April 7 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).
| Contents |
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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940335,00.html?=rss) -- Infrogmation 06:59 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)
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.
Origins and Idealogies
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)
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 (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00733) 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 (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/801925.cms) 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)
