Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:25, 30 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran–Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Iran–Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 6, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 22, 2004, September 22, 2005, and September 22, 2006.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran–Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Belligerents

First, the US and the USSR should be removed, as they neither officially supported Iraq's position nor had troops involved in the warfare. Selling arms to parties of the conflict did not make Ronald Reagan a military commander involved in that war, as the article in its present state suggests. Funny belligerence would it have been, if we recall the Iran-Contra affair.
Secondly, some years ago, Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran and Komalah were listed as belligerent of Iraq. Why was that removed? The suggestion had some sources at least. -

1. Kurds in Iran (page2)
2. WHO ARE THE MEN IN THIS PHOTO?

   "He then makes an oblique reference to the fact that Ghassemlou and his party had collaborated with Saddam Hussain during Iraq's war against Iran"

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 19:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This nonsense is re-added by a static IP, already having served a 1 month block was disruption last year. Having checked the page history, I see /first and foremost) Xashaiar (talk · contribs) (September 2009) and an IP whose 'arguments' are confined to the , , , . There's definitiely no consensus to include the US as belligerent in that conflict. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Note also that this issue has been discussed extensively and there was a vote, whether or not to list the US as belligerent. See Talk:Iran–Iraq_War/Archive_6#Should_the_USA_be_listed_as_a_combatant.3F. There seemed to be a slight majority for no over the yes vote, but there were a few users asking to scrap this label from the infobox, given the multitude of opinions and controversy. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Even if we consider American operations part of the war, that doesn't make Reagan a commander on the side of Iraq, third party at best. Just like James Madison is not listed alongside Napoleon I in the infobox of the Napoleonic Wars, Reagan has no place here. Colchicum (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

US was an active participant in the tanker wars, which was phase of the Iran-Iraq war. Kurdo777 (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also as the sources state explicitly that "US was involved in direct military confrontation with Iran and alongside Iraq" the article must state that and list US as Belligerent (the old decision as reflected in the archive of this talk page did). This was not just a support for Iraq as Brasil was among the heavy supporter of Iraq but can not be listed as Belligerants. See also the appropriate section. Xashaiar (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The US similarly attacked the Iraqi navy when they saw Kuwaiti oil tankers threatened. This did not make them cobelligerents of Iran. And don't prop up with the old and discredited synthesis of “US was involved in direct military confrontation with Iran” --> was cobelligerent with Iraq. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not even non-sense: you better say why you are concerned about USA being listed but the rest on the Iranian side are there without single sourcing and you are not concerned. USA was involved in military conflict with Iran. This is what the sources say. This is the only criterion that wikipedia requires: RS sources and not what you dislike. You need to be civil and read wikipedia rules: do not call what others do by inapplicable terms as you did in your edit summary.

Xashaiar (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. You do no even have single source to back up you claim. The U.S never attacked Iraqi forces in direct response to attacks on Iranian oil tankers. In fact, the U.S did not even "attack" Iraq after the USS Stark incident, which left 37 American sailors dead, and a U.S Navy frigate crippled. The Scythian 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. A source claiming that the US was at war with Iran is irrelevant here. What is needed here to support your position is a consensus among reliable sources that the US was a co-belligerent of Iraq, not your own synthesis that they were on the same side. Colchicum (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As of 1988, it was. The Scythian 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Being in war with Iran does not mean it was aligned with Iraq AGAINST Iran. Please stop being disruptive. Until consensus is again reached, keep the US out of the list. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Until a consensus has been reached, you have no right to REMOVE information that is sources. You clearly have an agenda, and a revisionist one at that. One that no scholarly source would even begin to back up. The Scythian 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Persistently adding Egypt and Jordan as co-belligerents of Iraq, without no sources whatsoever, is no longer just POV-pushing, but simply idiocy. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 20:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source. . Do you need ten more? Please do not use Misplaced Pages as a means of pushing an agenda. Egypt sent a battalion sized unit to fight along side Iraqi forces in the war. If you are not aware of this, you either know nothing of the conflict, or a pushing a revisionist agenda. Your clear bias and absurd POV pushing should be be brought to the attention if the Wikiepdia community, as soon as is possible. The Scythian 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't need ten sources, a couple of sources that we could all verify would be all right for the assertion that Egyptian units participated in the conflict. Until we have zero (or just your words that a book refers to this), it's patently you who's pushing an agenda, not me.
After all those years of edit warring by your gang, absolutely no reliable sources have been presented that would unequivocally treat the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq. It won't. That has no prevented POV-pushers like you to re-introduce this nonsense ad nauseam. Instead of convincing others at talk of your factual basis, you just enter the US and a couple of other countries into infobox, hoping that this unsourced stuff could somehow remain there.
The same seemed to be true of your case regarding Egyptian involvement. Hence, reliable sources first at talk, preferably quotations from the books that show you are right. Otherwise many are inclined to believe that you are simply falsifying and presenting WP:SYNTH just like that Xashaiar troll above. Sources, explanation and consensus at talk please! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I could access a few pages of the book you referred to . The source, entitled Iranian perspectives on the Iran-Iraq war merely mentions that Egyptian volunteers and mercenaries took part in the conflict. So if we can ascertain what kind of units they formed (and if they were notable), we can add the particular unit as combatant. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nature of the "green light"

The article alleges that in 1980 the Carter administration gave a "green light" for Iraq to invade Iran. But what exactly does that mean? What specifically was communicated to the Iraqis that could interpreted as a "green light"? A committment not to support Iran? I don't think Iraq needed a "green light" to figure out the U.S. would not support Iran in the middle of the hostage crisis. Did Carter and co. promise aid to Iraq? But in 1980 Iraq was a Soviet client state and was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. from 1979 until 1982, no actual aid was given by the Carter administration or Reagan up until 1982-85.

So can this be clarified? 71.65.71.145 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this all of this is very dubious. The section relies on a documentary that seems to be of the conspiratorial genre. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents (again)

Who claims Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE were involved? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple. They funded, equipped, supported, and in the case of Egypt, even sent troops to fight on the side of Iraq. The Scythian 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Uirauna (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

...I got about ten more where that came from. If you know nothing of the conflict, why even bother to edit? Unless you are an agenda driven editor. Which in this case, is very obvious. The Scythian 23:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That does not qualify as a reliable source. Not even as a source, since you do not provide the page and passage. Please provide a reliable source. Uirauna (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that a scholarly book, written by a noted and well-known historian on the topic of the Iran-Iraq War, is not a reliable source for an article ON the Iran-Iraq War? I'll have to dig the book up for an exact page number, but you CLEARLY have an agenda here, and one that is not going to stand up to any scrutiny. I'd love to see your "sources," since you proclaim such expertise on the topic. The Scythian 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to understand how WP works. If you want to add disputed content, you have to provide reliable sources, submit them to the community of editors and when consensus is reached (either directly or through mediation) the content is included. If you believe that I have an agenda, feel free to make a request for mediation. If not, please stop making false accusations. There has been a wide and long standing consensus on this topic, that you seem to prefer to ignore. Either please provide realiable sources (and in this polemic topic, several different sources) or refrain yourself from making disruptive edits. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Try here. This one says Egypt supplied arms to Iraq. This one says "military assistance"........, notably Egypt. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There has not been a long standing consensus on this topic, as actually more Wikipedians disagree with your position, than agree. Look at the thread yourself. As for knowing how Misplaced Pages works, you might want to read through the policy on what constitutes legitimate sources. You are in no position to pick and choose, simply to back up your own viewpoint. I am going to let more folks chime in, before making a request. Thus for, your behavior has been far from exemplary, and has been noted. The Scythian 03:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Those countries partially funded Iraq for war and diplomatically supported it during the war, number of sources are given here and more are availble. But I am not sure what exactly defines being an official party to the war. Is financial and diplomatic support enough to consider those countries an official party?Farmanesh (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What does "partially funded Iraq" mean? Billion of dollars, sending soldiers, providing and encouraging use of chemical weapons against Iranian people is partial? I wonder what "full" support would mean. Palestinian authorities and the entire arab league should also be included in the list of Iraqi Belligerents. Also "what exactly defines being an official party" is understood as "being involved" like USA navy. Xashaiar (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read Belligerent, then maybe you will understand. And again, if you think me and other users are pushing an POV, please request mediation instead of trying to push your POV. I'll probably do it soon anyway. Uirauna (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you should read that page. MKO is a Belligerent and USA is not?! By removing USA and leaving others you are clearly violating wp:npov and interestingly you still accuse other editors of pushing pov. Please respect the cons between the good editors above. Xashaiar (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I see, you seem to be the only one who disagrees with others (per ). And the stable version of the article has been "USA and Arab league in the list" (per history page). This means you should not "immediately" engage in reverting and reverting and reverting (as ) a version of the article which is at least similar to the stable version. Xashaiar (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Xashaiar, I thought we had finished discussing this 'US involved in direct military aggression against Iran' matter in summer. No way, here you come again with the same 'source' for this WP:SYNTH assumption. If people keep rejecting your sole 'source', then perhaps it's sth wrong with your assumption, not that all others are Zionist-Masonic-pro-US POV-pushers, right? MIaceK (woof!) 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Source is source even if already used! This means: Try to make a minimum amount of sense (referring to "No way, here you come again.."). The very fact that you link these things to Zionism is itself enough to dismiss whatever you say, no matter what, no matter where, no matter how, no matter why. One should not make such comments (per wp:forum). Xashaiar (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your source was discarded by others, simply because it did not list the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq against Iran. It was merely your own WP:SYNTH that it did. MIaceK (woof!) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Then which source mentions other countries/parties (like PUK or Daawa ,...) as such (that is "co-belligerent") and which you have kept? This is not pov and synth? Interesting. Xashaiar (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading title.

The title of "US shoots down civilian airliner" is a misleading line that gives the impression the US deliberately shot the aircraft down with knowledge it was a civilian aircraft. A more neutral title would be along the lines of "Flight 665 incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

the Iran Iraq war- Iranian opinion

the title "the Iran Iraq war- an Iranian opinion" is what i suggest for this article, as is so biased, so biased that it seems silly to me, i read this a long time ago and in the past i remember it differently. but it seems to me some Iranians got there hands on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.147.132 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, because the Arabic version of this article must have been written by Saddam himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.114.189 (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

wow i find that an awkward comment, what has the Arabic version got to do with this one? or the Persian one for that matter.

I totaly agree, we should add "Iranian opinion" to the title. Just before the Iranian lose, they accept UN Secutiry council resolution to cease fire, and then many years later they claim victory online? I know it's sometimes hard to accept the facts, but seriously, you can't change the history. I also like the way they write "The Iranian forces crushed Iraqi forces overnight and took complete control over Baghdad <reff>>:ww.iranlovers.c0m<reff>" —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be called "Iranian perspective of the Iran-Iraq war". I'd rather not go into an edit war, with some of the more ludicrous claims in this article, instead I propose that a second article called "Iraqi view of the Iran-Iraq war" be written, and a placeholder article linking to both be put in place of "Iran-Iraq war". This should avoid edit wars as well as showing both perspectives (and I certainly intend the Iraqi article to be less biased and full of misinformation than this one). Hayderaziz (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hayder, you are a known poster at the ACIG forum, but I have to ask, are you at all familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies on sockpuppetry? The Scythian 23:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys need to be more specific about your claim. Which parts you see biased and what are your neutral-sourced-material to contradict them?Farmanesh (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Economic Cost

Would like a functioning, and reliable, source for the 500 billion USD cost. Seems to be greatly exaggerated considering the actual size of the Iraqi and Iranian economies (neither which exceeds 500 billion USD even today, 22 years after the end of the war, despite economic growth and inflation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.237.223.30 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Belligerents

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This is a request for comment, since the previous consensus is being constantly changed (and those changes disputed). The previous consensus (as can be seen in the section "Belligerents" above was to keep the USA out of the list, as well as other countries. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the involvement of most Arab nations and some developed nations like US in support for Iraq is well sourced. However, I am not sure where we draw the line as whom was a Belligerents/participant of the war and whom was not enough involved to be called that. I have my opinion on this but I hope we can have a more concrete way of distinguishing this. Maybe there is already an established procedure in Misplaced Pages for other wars? Anyone knows?Farmanesh (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If solely military or financial assistance to a party makes the third country effectively a co-belligerent of the country receiving supplies, then Israel must have been a co-belligerent of Iran. See Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war.
My argument here of course won't convince the Scythian POV zealots, but I hope this helps to explain to uninvolved users like you why it's nonsensical to talk of the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq. Some months ago, the same loony editors would insert the USSR as such, too. It must have been a great alliance then of all those otherwise unfriendly nations having their detachments fight alongside Iraqis! MIaceK (woof!) 14:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First I have to ask: why PUK and Daawa are listed as Belligerents in Iran's list and PMK as a Belligerent in Iraq's list. The criteria which make these addition OK and acceptable to those not letting USA being mentioned, should apply to USA too. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to act like that: (per wp:npov and wp:nor). Xashaiar (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both comments above shows the lack of a clear standard here for deciding who is a Belligerent. I hope that in some other place like an Academic setting or at least in a wikipedia well-discussed previous consensus about wars we can find the answer. Any help or suggestion on this?

But if we are the ones to decide (not a good way at all), but I guess one criteria would be that the support should have been "consistent", "broad", and "significant".

• Consistent: meaning the party involved should has offered the support for the whole duration or at least a considerable duration of the war.
• Broad: meaning the support should have been more than just in one sense. For example only a diplomatic support (even if consistent and significant) might not be enough to call the involved a Belligerent.
• Significant: meaning the support offered was of a level which would be worthy to the cause (war in this sense).

These were just my immediate ideas on this, feel free to suggest yours and even better find what others have done about this. cheers Farmanesh (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

About PUK, Daawa and PMK, I have no idea why they are listed as belligerents. I propose we reamove all beligerentes except for Iran and Iraq and individually discuss each party that someone would like to add. My arguments for not including the US (and several other countries) are:

• The US did not take part on the iraqi side of the war as an ally.
• It did provide economic support (through differente forms) to both Iran AND Iraq
• It did enter in conflict with BOTH Iran and Iraq.
• It is a third party, who despide being related to the conflict did not take part on it as an one-sided entity.
• The article itself cites that one of the reasons that Iran decided to end the conflict was fear of direct confrontation with the US due to escalating hostilities between the two countries.
• There was no open conflict between the two countries, only limited operations in response to Iran's mining of international waters

The same reasons apply to several other countries. The US has been off the list for a long time, from time to time the same users try to add it back, but it is eventually reverted. They keep trying to push their POV. If this issue is unresolved, I am willing to apply for mediation. And I hope Xashaiar and Scythian agree to it. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC comment:Providing material support to one side of a war (or even both sides) doesn't make you a belligerent. USA shouldn't be on there. Sol (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should. USA did engage in direct military conflict with Iran and only Iran and in support of Iraq during this war. This makes USA support to Iraq different from support from other parties that gave for example chemical weapons to Iraq. Anyway this is just infobox and the relevant materials could otherwise be put back into the lead. Xashaiar (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Iraq even attacked an American ship, oficially claiming it was inside the Iran-Iraq war zone. This makes no sense if the US was aligned with Iraq. Also, the US did not attack Iran to secure Iraq's interests, but to ensure freedom of navigation (as supported by UN Security Council Resolution 598) and as retaliation for Iranian attacks on US ships (Sea Isle City and USS Samuel B. Roberts). It goes even to the point that there was never open war between Iran and the US, only minor engagements, as well as there is no peace traty or anything like it (as there is between Iran and Iraq). Uirauna (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• RFC comment. This is stupid dispute. What is a belligerent? Obviously a person doing the fighting. Did the USA engage in fighting? NO. Was USA truly neutral? perhaps not, but that does not make it a belligerent. The mutually hostile attitude of Iran and USA since the Iranian Revolution has been well known, but that does not make it a belligerent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Iran articles
• Top-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Start-Class Iraq articles
• High-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• Start-Class Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Former good article nominees
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment