Talk:Arab Socialist Union

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Untitled

is this really one party, or just different parties with identical names? in the case it should be turned into a disambig page, with links to the different parties. --Soman 21:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is several parties supposed to act as one party, as they were formally branches of the same Pan Arab party. Some of them were really coordinated, some were only linked in name. It is the same case as with the Ba'th Party page, which covers several branches that in reality acted as completely separate organizations. Also, the Arab Nationalist Movement was never very cohesive, but it is very informative to treat the various offshoots at one single page. I suggest we keep it this way, but perhaps clarify the extent of the relation between the branches/parties. Arre 22:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

??? ANM was certainly a highly centralized organization up to the early 1960s. As with Baath it was a centralized party, later split in two. I personally feel that the two Baath parties ought to be given separate articles. Is there any proof to say that there was a coordinated central panarab body of ASU (like Baath has)? And if the various remaining ASUs are independent parties today, they should have separate articles. --Soman 22:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, then we should of course be consistent. If one of these articles is split along party lines, all of them should be. I kind of like having them together, though. It gives a better grasp of the organizational and ideological continuity. Sometimes it is too easy to only see the details when clicking through Wikipedia, and to lose the bigger picture.

Btw, I guess I know too little about the ANM. Can you suggest some (non-wiki, on-net) reading?Arre 00:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I created this article when it was requested at WP:CSB, not that I know much about it. There is a general theme of shared political heritage, and it's interesting to have the parties gathered in one article. If it expands, bits can easily be split off. I had difficulty with conflicting sources about the nature of the ASU in the lead up to, during and after the United Arab Republic. --Gareth Hughes 00:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[1] (page 38) perhaps offers small clarification: "In 1965 the UAR tried t o force t h e merger of the ANM w i t h its newly-formed, Egyptian-dominated, inter-Arab group, the A r a b S o c i a l i s t Union.* However, the ANM continued t o function on its own. This caused d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h Egypt and by early 1967 N a s i r had broken w i t h the ANM.**" and "*This is not t o be confused with Nasir's i n t e r n a l Egyptian party of the same name." --Soman 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more than just shared political heritage. The ASU parties worked closely together and even merged with one another on several occasions in order achieve an Arab Union. Charles Essie (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger

Throughout much of there history, these weren't exactly separate parties. As it says in there articles, they were regional branches of a single party. In the 1960s, they were the nucleus of the Unified Political Command which attempted to form a new United Arab Republic and of the Federation of Arab Republics project in the 1970s. In addition to that, these articles are not very big and have an insufficient number of sources making a merge all the more necessary. I have created an incomplete rough draft of what this merged article might look like. Charles Essie (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. Do we have any reference that this was a single, unified party? And regardless, the later incarnations of ASU in Syria and Iraq definately function as independent parties, so they need to retain separate articles. --Soman (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe a merger isn't the way to go for now. But there was some kind of "Egyptian-dominated inter-Arab group" per the source you cited in the above discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Arre, Garzo, and Soman: Which is why I think this disambiguation page should be converted into an article. I created a draft a while back to show what it might look like, but as you can see it still needs a lot of work. Charles Essie (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)