Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 9

POV-Pushing IP
68.5.186.216 has been adding massive amounts of unsourced, POV commentary to this article. While he appears to be acting in good faith, and some of his additions have been constructive, this cannot stand. He left a message on my talk page pleading ignorance after I warned him to stop. Here are some examples of such commentary, for which no citations were provided:


 * "Many of Iran's attacks were brilliantly thought out and planned, and despite shortages in weaponry, it is likely that the Iranians would have defeated Iraq had it not been due to the large scale selling of weapons to Iraqis."


 * "Since Iraq had no seagoing ships, Kuwait was used as their primary port, and Iran was forced to attack "neutral" Kuwaiti oil tankers."


 * "Operation Karbala 5 was the largest battle of the war, and possibly the largest battle in the world since World War II."


 * "The fighting was reminiscent of the Battle of Stalingrad."


 * "Iran still coped better than anybody expected."


 * "It is doubtful whether Iran could have still won."


 * "Iraq was favored by the US as being the victor, and was supported."


 * "While Iran had called many offensives "final offensives", this one seemed more likely than any of the previous ones to succeed."


 * "The Battle of Khorramshahr showed the fierce tenacity of the Iranian resistance."


 * "Despite the fact that Iran's air force performed professionally, Iran's ground forces were still convuluted, yet they fought ferouciously."


 * "The Iraqis were bad at night fighting."


 * "Nevertheless, the Iraqis also took massive casualties as well, despite the fact that they outnumbered the Iranians in virtually everything (including after 1985, soldiers)."


 * "Iran was able to adapt to the circumstances better than the Iraqis."


 * "Saddam tripled his repression throughout the country."


 * "People tried to keep their morale high, but the long war had taken its toll on Iran."


 * "The Iranians were completely taken by surprise, and recklessly, blindly but bravely steamed into battle, only to be cut to pieces by the superior American navy."


 * "The Basijis, armed with AK-47's and rocket propelled grenades carried out great sacrifices against the Iraqis."


 * "Thus, the Iranians began using human wave attacks against the Iraqis. There has not been any part of this war more subject to myths than these attacks. In the West, the image of unarmed soldiers and children (often with plastic keys around their necks symbolizing the keys to paradise) charging into Iraqi defenses and running over minefields has been seared into the memory many, however while that was initially the case in some cases, often that image was inaccurate and simplistic."

This is only the tip of the iceberg. I've tried to tag or remove all of his commentary, but there's almost certainly more. He appears to be editing from a pro-Iranian POV, although he is not always in support of the Iranian government (he also added commentary about Khomeini's refusal to negotiate being stubborn and "destructive"). I advise all users to closely monitor his future edits and strike any that appear to contain excessive amounts of unsourced or dubious material. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors,

I will be more careful with sourcing my edits in the future, and add more sources in my future edits than I previously did. I had thought that most of the previous edits I made were properly sourced, however I realized that one of the sources I had been using, a Google Books preview called "Arabs At War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991" by former CIA analyst Kenneth M. Pollack did not often work properly, which may have contributed to some of the confusion, since much of my information came from that site. I honestly always try to be neutral, and I have no reason to favor either side.

Objectively speaking, for 6-7 years of the war Iran was on the offensive against Iraq. Thus they pulled off an incredible accomplishment by successfully fighting Iraq (which according the United States had the 5th largest military in the world at that time) while they themselves were under deep sanctions and fighting mostly using pickup trucks, rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles. That was not an Iraqi success by any means, considering their "military might" and the fact that they were recieiving help from numerous countries while the Iranians recieved very little. Logically, that would be a reflection of both the ineptitude of the Iraqis and the cleverness of the Iranians. Yet Iran also failed to pull off very many decisive victories and they took many foolish and needless casualties against heavy Iraqi defenses. I explained all of this in my edits, and I complemented them with sources as well. Therefore much of my alleged "pro-Iranian POV" was simply me describing Iran's successful fighting and tactics between 1980-1987. And finally after 1987 when the Iraqis finally improved their tactics and eventually forced the Iranians into retreat, I described that extensively (Saddam's New Approach). I also covered how the Iranians declined after their defeat in Operation Karbala 5 (The Iranian Decline). In the future I will be even more careful than I previously was, and since I am doing all that I can to follow the rules there is no reason for anyone to treat my edits any differently than other people's edits, unless I start making errors that would compromise this article and violate Wikipedia policy.

Good luck to everybody. 68.5.186.216 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree on POV-Pushing IP
I just want to agree with the comment below (Sorry, I'm not an expert on how to modify these talk pages). I came across the article by chance and chose to read the whole article; It read in a very slanted manner the last section about who truly started this wear; the language is carefully constructed from a pro iranian POV. The language isn't as inflammatory as what the user below lists, but its of no surprise to me to find someone concerned about POV issues... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.199.169 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed split
This article is very long, and I'm not sure if most readers are interested in this much detail. I propose that we created a new article entitled "Timeline of the Iran-Iraq War" and copy and paste the content of the "Course of the war" section to there. After that, we can start summarizing the "Course of the war" section and make it shorter. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there seems to be a battle/operation article for each of the very detailed sections. However, the individual articles are strangely less detailed than the content in the main Iran-Iraq War article. What I'll probably do is move some of the content on this page to its respective battle articles, and then replace what I moved with a summary of the battles. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Contested change
As per the suggestion of 60.242.144.237, I'd like to contest a change. Originally, a sentence in the lead said:"It took several weeks for both sides to evacuate territory to honour pre-war international borders between the two nations set by the 1975 Algiers Agreement."

60.242.144.237 changed it to:"It took several weeks for the Iranian armed forces to evacuate Iraqi territory to honour pre-war international borders between the two nations set by the 1975 Algiers Agreement. [emphasis added]"

However, no additional sources have been cited to support this change. Also, later on in the article, it states, "Both sides eventually withdrew to the international border in the coming weeks, with Resolution 598 being formalized on August 8," which has a citation directly after it. The same paragraph notes that the Iraqis were still in Khuzestan near the end of the war. Also, the IP's change makes it sound as though Iran was the only aggressor in the final stages of the war, when Iraq was bombing Iran as late as July 1988 (with the ceasefire on August 6, 1988).

For their side, IP stated there were "long discussions between several wiki editors" to justify this change (by the way, could we get a link to that please?).

As I don't want to engage in an edit war, can we discuss this and reach a consensus?

Prof. Squirrel (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, please see previous comments regarding the: "it took several weeks for the Iranian armed forces to evacuate Iraqi territory to honour pre-war international borders between the two nations set by the 1975 Algiers Agreement". You will find that this was a statement which was in place for a very long time with no objections, until it was changed in September this year. If you go back to the history prior to September 2012, it was always part of the article.


 * I think it was part of the initial comments made by several editors of wiki, whereby a consensus was reached that the majority of Iran's ground forces were actually in Iraq by the war's end. So when Res 598 came about it took them several weeks to evacuate Iraqi territory. Hence after 1982, Iran was on the offensive. Remember that it was Iraq that invaded Iran, but after 1982 the tide changed and the rest of the ground war was fought in Iraq (apart from sporadic air raids by Iraq and isolated ground operations in Iranian territory. So I think to that end, it's fairly accurate to state that it took several weeks for the Iranian armed forces to evacuate Iraq at the war's end. Iraq which was on the defensive side didn't have to evacuate Iranian territory. Hope this was clear, Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.144.237 (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I found the discussions (I'm a bit of a newb and didn't realize we actually had archived talk pages – I thought everyone was just extremely reticent and blasé). Sorry about that part.


 * I understand that Iran did invade Iraq and had to clear Iraqi territory – I'm not contesting that part. However, two of my points still stand:
 * Later on in the article, it says, "Both sides eventually withdrew to the international border in the coming weeks, with Resolution 598 being formalized on August 8." The cited source states, "By July 17, 1988, Iran’s president Khamene’i sent a letter to the UN secretary general accepting Resolution 598... Iraq continued bombing Iran and made another incursion into Iran on the central front [emphasis added]." By this logic, shouldn't we state that both sides had to withdraw?
 * Even if point 1 is incorrect and the Iraqis were not physically on Iranian land, they were still bombing Iranian territory in July 1988 – not only Khuzestan, as stated in the opening post, but also at Zardan, as stated in the article: "In July 1988 Iraqi airplanes dropped chemical cyanide bombs on the Iranian Kurdish village of Zardan." Stating that (only) Iran had to withdraw makes is sound as though Iran was the only aggressor at the end.
 * Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I hope you don't mind that I indented your comments – it just makes discussions easier to read.

I would like to add my opinion on this matter. The statement about both sides having to evacuate territory to honor the Algiers Agreements seems to be correct. From April-July 1988, Iraq was on the offensive rather than Iran. They had driven out the Iranians from the Al Faw peninsula, Manjoon Island, and forced the Iranians away from Basra and southern Iraq. In addition, the Iranians retreated from Haj Omran and most of Kurdistan after the Iraqis threatened to launch a full scale invasion. In addition, Iraq had launched a fresh invasion of Iran and took the towns of Shalamcheh, Mehran, and Dehloran, the latter being 40 kilometers inside of Iran. In addition, when Iraq attacked Iran after the Iranians accepted the ceasefire (Operation Mersad), the Iraqi/Mujahedeen forces took Islamabad-e-Gharb and pushed towards Kermanshah before being defeated by the Iranians. Thus Iraqis were on Iranian territory physically.

Therefore it is certain that both the Iranians and Iraqis had to evacuate territory after the war. I am also relatively new here so I wasn't aware of archived talk pages. But is there any way we can change this to say that both sides evacuated territory rather than the Iranians, since that seems to be the case? 68.5.186.216 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If no new arguments arise in the next week or so then I'll go ahead and change it. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not change anything. This was agreed to between several Wiki editors. The fact is that, it did not take several weeks for any Iraqi soldiers to evacuate Iran. It was in fact the case where it took several weeks (if not longer) for Iranian ground forces to evacuate large swaths of Iraqi territory. The war's end saw only scud missile attacks and air-raids by Iraq. Iranian troops however were well within Iraqi territory, until the commencement of the ceasefire. Just leave this topic alone please. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.67.56 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that this topic was discussed before, but there's no reason it can't be discussed again. Also, you neither addressed the fact that point 1 in my previous post had a citation nor did you address point 2. So my arguments still stand. If Iraq really wasn't on Iranian land, could you please provide a citation?


 * Edit: also, just to clarify – you're the same as 60.242.144.237 (your writing style is the same, and you're both from New South Wales), right? Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

/* Contested change */ Howdy, In my opinion. Iran won the war (see BBC detailed coverage on the issue). The withdrawal process by Iran from Iraq sounds right? I wouldn't change it any more, unless others have some agenda of their own they wish to push???? imho, Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.192.144 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Prof. Squirrel. To start with it makes no difference who won the war (specially in this case where it was a stalemate), if both countries held territories that belonged to the other country, they both had to evacuate. And I don't see an agenda being pushed around. Uirauna (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the last edit I did, regarding the withdrawal process from Iraq would satisfy and bring this issue to final closure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.144.237 (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Squirrel, you've taken issue with this statement, by requesting a source. I provided that source for you (in good faith) from one of the most authoritative texts available. Unless, you have an opposing source, please stop making changes to this statement. Such unjustified action is against Wiki rules. If you have a source or citation that contradicts the statement please publish it here. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.144.237 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) That's Professor Squirrel to you.
 * 2) Please be sure to check your talk page for some notes.
 * 3) Also, I couldn't find the exact statement in the source you gave. Could you please provide a page number?
 * 4) And here's what you asked for:
 * (S/RES/598)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can find more if you want me to. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the sources you have shown refute or negate the statement subject of your query.

In your queey above you ask:

"Later on in the article, it says, "Both sides eventually withdrew to the international border in the coming weeks, with Resolution 598 being formalized on August 8." The cited source states, "By July 17, 1988, Iran’s president Khamene’i sent a letter to the UN secretary general accepting Resolution 598... Iraq continued bombing Iran and made another incursion into Iran on the central front [emphasis added]." By this logic, shouldn't we state that both sides had to withdraw?"

The answer to that is Operation Mersad. The Iraqi incursion occurred prior to that massive counter attack.

Generaly however, we know that aggression from Iraq continued from time to time after both had formally accepted the UN Res. This text from one of the best authorities on the Iran-Iraq conflict http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/books/iran-at-war-1500-1988/ which is sited throughout this article (Wiki Iran-Iraq war) anyway, discusses in its last chapter the process of withdrawal from both Iran and Iraq. Where following Operations by Iran (Counterattacks) the Iranian army was well inside Iraq (despite what some anti-Iranian writers state in their literature). Following that, Iranian army spent several weeks evacuating Iraqi territory to honor Algiers agreement. Whether Saddam Hussein acted dishonorably and retained some Iranian property is another matter entirely. In any event, thanks for the messages you left on my talk page as well. Regards P. PersianStealth1 (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war1.php. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I have just rewritten the section "Iraqi preparations" to fit Wikipedia's policy guidelines. I used the same link from Iran Chamber Society: Iran Iraq War. Good luck. 68.5.186.216 (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tawakalna ala Allah & Second Battle of Al Faw
I'm writing a more expanded article about the Tawakalna ala Allah Operations (using bits from the main page too) and I'd appreciate hearing opinions on whether the 2nd Al Faw was part of the Tawakalna ala Allah Campaign. In "The Iran-Iraq War: Chaos in a Vacuum" & "Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War" the 2nd Al Faw is described as part of the campaign, but I'm aware that former General Hamdani describes the battle at Shalamcheh (Fish Lake) as "being called Tawakalna the First." Hamdani does also describe the battles that finished Iran as a series of 5 battles, which included the 2nd Al Faw.

What it sounds to me like is that the Iraqis, surprised by the quick collapse of the Iranians at Al Faw, expanded the previously planned limited campaign into a larger offensive against Iran, meaning that although Al Faw wasn't intended to be part of Tawakalna ala Allah originally, it in effect became the first of the five battles.

The reason I'm asking is mostly for the infobox - whether people think we should include 2nd Al Faw as part of the larger campaign -

e.g. Tawakalna ala Allah (2nd Al Faw)

- or whether people think that 2nd Al Faw should be treated as seperate from the rest of the campaign, as it currently is.

Thanks! MrPenguin20 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I think it all depends upon the source. However, most sources I have read state that "2nd Al Faw" was actually part of Iraq's Operation Blessed Ramadan, not Tawakalna ala Allah. But the two operations were fully related to each other. Take care! 68.5.186.216 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Arguments that Iran was the aggressor" section
There are some odd arguments in this section. In particular this quote:
 * "MAJ Dexter Teo Kian Hwee, in the Journal of the Singapore Armed Forces, pointed out that "most countries" agreed at the time to "label Iran as the aggressor" and that no one accused Iraq of responsibility for the war until after it invaded Kuwait."

This seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse: The reason "most countries" supported Iraq was exactly because of the widespread antipathy towards Khomeini's Iran. Conversely, the reason why the mood changed post-Gulf War was exactly because Saddam's Iraq was no longer "the good guy". And why is this Major Dexter Teo Kian Hwee a notable source anyway?

I understand the inclusion of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt because they're prominent scholars, but their argument still has Iraq as the actual aggressor, albeit on some sort of preemptive war model. In addition, I find their choice of Efraim Karsh as a source to be bit odd: Karsh is after all a revisionist Zionist, and so hardly likely to be well disposed towards the stridently anti-Israeli ayatollahs. Also, Karsh's comment is conjecture based on the assumption that Saddam would never be able to conquer all of Iran, and that this would have been the only possible reason to invade. That was probably never a feasible scenario, but Saddam may well have expected the new ayatollah regime to collapse (fits the preemptive war scenario) and/or be unable to mount a successful defence, allowing for an easy annexation of a part of Western Iran.

Furthermore, Robin Wright's example of Khomeini's unwillingness to accept a ceasefire, peace agreement and status quo ante bellum in 1982 is irrelevant to the question of who was the aggressor in 1980. The examples of escalating war goals among all the parties during a conflict are legio: Just think of World War I, when the invaded French went from mainly campaigning for a return of Alsace-Lorraine in 1914 to suggesting a break-up of the German Empire in order to recreate something like the pre-Imperial system of smaller German states in 1918/'19.

I wonder if it should be mentioned in the beginning of this section that the interpretation "that Iran was the aggressor" is (as far as I know) a minority view? Also, a reference to this section (something on the line of "an alternative interpretation is that...") might be added to the introduction of the article which currently seems quite unequivocal about Iraq being the aggressor.Mojowiha (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire section should be removed and replaced with one sentence integrated into the main text.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Human Wave Attacks
I noticed that some parts of an edit of mine, which largely debunked Iran's "human wave attacks" using this source http://books.google.com/books?id=V_-MKu4k6QAC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=Iran+did+not+use+human+wave+attacks&source=bl&ots=C8Ht5HSroj&sig=AR8LrPTXnbUcGG94Q9pVNfn8gj8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mAx_Ue6WOYix0QGa1YDoDA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q=Iran%20did%20not%20use%20human%20wave%20attacks&f=false has been reverted. It explains how most of the so-called "human waves" were really groups of individual infantry squads advancing towards specific objectives, and witnesses wrongly believed it was a single mass of troops charging. Of course, for lack of a better term they could still be called "human wave attacks" (even the source still calls them that), and for that reason I left most of the human wave references alone. However I changed some other references to human waves so the reader could distinguish between the large scale (aka. human wave) offensives Iran launched and the limited/infiltration ones they carried out later. Since both of them were infantry based offensives, using a varying mix of infiltration and frontal attack, it could be confusing as to when an offensive would be considered a "human wave" or not.

I had also changed the title to 'Iran abandons mechanized warfare'. Iran used these "human waves" as early as 1980 as well as mechanized attacks, but it was in 1981 when they completely abandoned mechanized warfare and opted for "human waves", so the new title makes more sense.

And lastly, I am the one who had originally written "Iran had been bloodied (but not beaten) and would not export its revolution for the time being" and "The Iranians proved...even defeat a large, relatively sophisticated military..." in the Aftermath section. I realized the indented portions of the lines were mistakes, so I decided to fix them. It's unnecessary to revert those changes when I simply was trying to correct an earlier mistake I had made. There may be more reverts that I am not aware of as well.

I would personally prefer to revert it all (or at least some) back to my previous edit, but it seems like I will run into more objections if I do so, so I would like to hear the feedback of other editors first. Take care. 68.5.184.104 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to put this part of my previous edit back: "Despite being widely misreported in the west as "human wave attacks", in reality the Iranian assaults consisted of using 22-man infantry squads to attack and defeat specific objectives. When the Iranians attacked en masse and the squads surged forth to complete their missions, it was erroneously believed to be a large human wave charging against the enemy." (citation) I would also like to make it clear that "human waves" = large scale offensive. Those should be uncontroversial, so if nobody objects, I will add only that part the next time I manage to return, probably with a few corrections. When I do, there are a few more new facts that I would like to add regarding the Karbala Operations as well. 68.5.184.104 (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple things:
 * - First, there are other sources (such as the ones already in the article) that support the human-wave attack point. It is not up to WP editors to judge one source over another, that is OR. The correct way to approach this would be including a mention that some sources (such as the one you mention), propose that Iran's human wave attacks were not in the traditional soviet-like style, etc. When dealing with conflicting reliable sources, that's the way to go.
 * - My key objection with your changes is the almost absolute removal of the human-wave attacks from the text. Even the source you provided still uses the human wave terminology. We should not change info from the sources so that users can understand, we should instead offer clarification (again saying that sources disagree about the true composition of the human wave attacks).
 * My compromise proposal is:
 * - Keep the human wave mentions in the text, all sources use them and mention them
 * - In the "Iran introduces human wave", include a paragraph showing that some authors disagree on the exact tactics employed, and that some authors claim that the attacks were actually organized in squads, etc.
 * What do you think? Best. Uirauna (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine. Cheers. 68.5.184.104 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work, I think you really improved the article. Having different points-of-view on the human wave helps to clear any POV biasing. And congrats on the way you handled the discussion as well. Best, Uirauna (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 68.5.184.104 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased
After reading the whole article I can't help but feel like it was written from the side of Iran.


 * Dear anonymous, please sign your posts and provide some concrete arguments for/examples of bias.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

replace pictures
Almost non of the pictures have not arranged by topics and timeline. a user must arrange them.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit
Took a quick look at this monster, but it is way too active to warrant a copyedit. My real hope is that someone will refactor it to create multiple non-book-length pieces and a briefer summary piece. Once things calm down, feel free to re-tag or to add to the Guild's request page for extra-tender handling.
 * Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually working on copy editing it (and yes, I'm in the guild). Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More power to ya! Good luck. Lfstevens (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't delete or make any amendments based on your own agenda without proper citation and sourcing. I believe that Squirrel is acting unethically as a Wiki member by deleting and editing this article, particularly when they have been in place for a long time. If you have sources and citations, please provide them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianStealth1 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * was referring to editing and deleting by Prof. Squirrel. PersianStealth1 (talk)
 * Of course you were! But what, exactly, did he delete that you find questionable?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, he brought up and old issue (see above) about the withdrawal process of troops following the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war and requested citation. After months of searching finally was able to trace to the source and provided that citation. That indeed it took several weeks for the Iranian Armed Forces to evacuate Iraq following the complete cessation of hostilities. Now he disputes that source! The author is one of the best authorities on the subject. I also requested that he shouldn't delete or edit any other material before discussing it here first. Now I noticed, he's gone and deleted lots of other material from this article. I just think, caution and careful editing should be taken with this sensitive subject matter (imho anyway) PersianStealth1 (talk)
 * Well whomever works on this article please fix the grammar - much of it was obviously written by editors without a good knowledge of English.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which section(s) specifically? —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is very detailed, but long. There are a several sections that I would like to shorten and summarize.

In the following sections, I have already transfered their entire content to their respective articles, and plan on shortening and summarizing them:

-Operation Ramadan (First Battle of Basra)

-Operation Before the Dawn

-Battle of the Marshes

-Operation Badr

-First Battle of Al Faw

-Operation Karbala 5 (Second Battle of Basra)

-Operation Mersad and the end of the war

Also, I plan to combine the sections of the "Dawn Operations" into one single section (I have already transferred each of those to their articles as well). Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am also going to do a general copyedit of the article, to simplify it and remove repititious material. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs more than a copyedit!
I firmly believe this article needs to be re-worked completely. It's simply far too long and discourages visitors from reading it. Although the content is generally solid and well cited, it's simply too overwhelming. I would strongly suggest that:
 * we obtain consensus here (on this talk page) on the main sub-Headings which are essential in an overview of the war;
 * we move each of the existing sections to a page of their own, re-using the crux of the moved text (and the associated citations) here in the main article;
 * we rework the retained text to be more concise, more objective and less dependent on dubious sources such as Iranian press reports and a flimsy, non-academic publication by Osprey.

I have recently purchased many of the main English books on this war and have numerous academic papers on the conflict. I am willing to give it a try - but it's certainly not a one editor job!

I have started creating a png base map of the area of the conflict, as I believe that much of the text needs a strategic and series of tactical maps to better understand who attacked who - where, in which series of battles. I will post the baseline map here for comments in the coming week - and once it's generally accepted, we can start adding a strategic overview followed by a series of tactical maps.

Views?

Farawayman (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Supporters in infobox
For a long time it listed Iran, PUK and KDP, Iraqi Shiite militants on one side and Iraq, Mujahedin el-Halq (PMOI/MEK) on the other; it doesn't seem there was much beyond that, with perhaps extraordinary arms delivery being separately mentioned as logistic support (any good source for Syria, Libya?). Something i've missed?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Summarizing:
 * I think US logistic support for Iraq is well known (US also participated in some skirmishes during the Tanker War);
 * Syria provided marginal economic support to Iran, including boycotting Iraq, though i doubt it is significant enough to mention;
 * arms sales from China, Korea, Brasil, Egypt, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Soviet Union, Britain, West Germany, Yugoslavia, South Africa, Singapore etc. are what they are - sales and cannot be regarded as support - many countries profit from many wars and we cannot claim Soviet Union/Russia supported every war fought with AK-47 and that selling some metal parts prior to a war was a "support";
 * Alleged arm sales from Singapore and Israel are WP:SYNTH - those countries didn't make any official deals with neither Iraq or Iran, If in some cases those countries were transits for shipments or their citizens were involved in some weapons sales, it doesn't imply their involvement;
 * Kuwait did support Iraq, but seems very marginally (mainly economic support);
 * Jordan was allegedly a "major transit route", i would however appreciate a good source for that statement;
 * Qatar - poorly sourced possibility of covert support in the beginning of the war is WP:UNDUE;
 * Saudis did provide significant economic support to their fellow Sunni Iraq against the Shia Iran;
 * UAE - the source says "UAE provided aid to Iraq" - which aid? how much? the source is non-academic so i think this is redundant;
 * The rest is even less relevant.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After more reading it seems France might also be included as its arms sales to Iraq were extraordinary and included also "loaning" of advanced equipment.GreyShark (dibra) 11:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you not think the Soviet Union does not count? They sold the most weapons and provided advisors and training among other thing. They intitially opposed Iraq's actions but this is besides the point since US did not initially back the Iraqis. They also replaced Iraq weapons on a one for one basis. Surely this is enough. The Soviet arm sales were more extraordinary then French in terms of number. Even if the reason was to make money it probably wouldn't matter. There are plenty of sources that describe Soivet support. Surely it is enough. Regards. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * do you have a source for this (academic source)?GreyShark (dibra) 19:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Some editors are trying to put a source on USSR involvement dated August 1980. The publication is prior to Saddam's invasion to Iran. Is this a joke?GreyShark (dibra) 12:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, its quite possible - in the time of the USSR, history was written at least five to ten years in advance and was regularly edited and updated thereafter! :) Farawayman (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally some concrete source on USSR support to Iraq: allegedly 8 billion USD during the war, much of it as postponed payments - meaning actual financial support in line with military supplies. The source is however weasel (a copy of US Congress summary?). Some actual historian assessment would help.GreyShark (dibra) 08:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Reduce size
The article is over 260k; In similar cases of oversized articles, such as the Syrian civil war, the solution was to split sections into subarticles and keep only the summary. It is evident the timeline section here is oversized. Let's spit Timeline of the Iran–Iraq War? Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 21:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Main picture
The main picture needs to be changed. It gives a ruidiculous overview of the conflict because it is US-centric. The US role in the war is miniscule compared to Iraq and Iran and really needs no representation in the main graphic especially considering there are no Iraqi pictures. As well as that Nimble Archer and the Rumsfeld meeting are of little importance to the actual Iran-Iraq war. Someone please correct this. Please replace the US pics with something more relevant like Iraqi soldiers, Halajba etc. It needs to be done and there are plenty of availabe pictures. Regards Stumink (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even I disagree US role in the war is "miniscule", it is US-centric and I agree with replacement. Perhaps even little bit undercover-POV with allusion "US deals with Iraq, attack Iran, gas them and kill their children". How about destroyed Osirak, secret IRI-ISR meeting, Iranian soldier with Uzi, Khomeini with Jerusalem poster... [you got]. --HistorNE (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say the US role in the war was miniscule, but compared to Iran and Iraq it is. Stumink (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nearly all the pictures on this page actually show Iranian combatants with just a few pictures of Iraqi's. Stumink (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I think one Iranian editor inserted many photos few months ago. --HistorNE (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Death toll
At least three times I reverted extreme playing with math. There's a good website for the start if you don't posses reliable literature. There you can see huge difference between books directly related to war (Hiro, Potter) and various media outlets, dictionaries or other books. That's why I prefered to insert only first kind in infobox, former may be mentioned in text sections. For example, Saddam's regime has claimed "800,000" Iranians died (absolute peak), but Timeframe Media even increased it to "900,000". Such estimates obivously make little sense, media isn't strong WP:RS. Iranian official numbers are 123,220 KIA + 60,711 MIA, with included civilians up to 195-220,000. According to Hiro, Pentagon has estimated it to be 262,000 - larger then Iranian official number, but still reliable and not extremelly higher. Iraqi officials gave number of 100,000 own military deaths, almost same as Pentagon: 105,000. However, when you compare this tolls with this article half year ago with claims military losses were "minimum 620,000 Iranians" and "minimum 55,000 Iraqis", then we see somebody seriously likes to play with math. It's normally that users like Irondome or Tobby72 reverted my edits prior this explanation, but calling Iranian official numbers as "claims" like Avaya1 did or me as "pov pusher" by Coltsfan is not. --HistorNE (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All numbers in this article are estimates. There are no "official numbers". Like I said, don't make stuff up. The Iranians say one thing, the West says another and that is the way it goes. Coltsfan (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is quite difference between reliable estimates like those given by Iran or Pentagon (220-260,000) and charlatans who claim three time higher. On which basis? "Official number" is one given by Iran, its based on list which includes all names of KIA and MIA. There are documentation centres with comprehensive data about every single victim, so hiding another "500,000" estimated by some "expert" from 2-3 million families sounds like sci-fi. As I said, such estimates which higly vary from reliable data may be included in text. --HistorNE (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One can say that it's the "Iranian government official claim", but to say that it's the official death toll of their losses in the war? Not quite true. Because no side have 'the truth on their side', so they can only make estimates. Like I said, one side say one thing, the other says another, nobody can claim that they have the "official numer", they have their official 'claim'. Coltsfan (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've inserted "Iranian". I divided numbers in three groups: official toll, other reliable estimates and claims by enemy side. Inserting numbers from some book which mention war in 2-3 sentences isn't reliable at all, especially when it's 300% higher or even larger then Bathist propaganda. As you noticed, I also reduced Iraqi numbers from max. 370,000 to 180,000 so there's no any kind of "POV-pushing". --HistorNE (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. It should be noted that some sources mention "total casualties", for example Iranica. "Casualties" may refer not just to KIA but also MIA, POW and injured. In this book, Iranian Perspectives on the Iran-Iraq War (Farhang Rajaee, University Press of Florida, 1997, p. 2), you can also find that "conservative Western estimates put the number of total Iranian deads at 262,000", but it additionally mentiones "700,000 injured, so total number of casualties were put at over one million". Regarding injuries, there are WP:RS about that issue also, like this: according to JAO report, 398,587 individuals sustained injuries that required prolonged medical and health care following primary treatment. Of them, 52,195 (13%) were injured due to the exposure to chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas or nerve agents. Due to delayed manifestation of symptoms in chemical agent exposure, the number of Iranian chemical warfare victims will increase in the future. In addition, 218,867 Iranians died due to war injuries and it number included 56,575 army forces personnel (25.8%), 41,040 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) (18.8%), and 87,822 volunteers (40.1%). Meanwhile, civilians (mostly women and children) account for 15.3% (N=33,430) of total deaths. Prisoners of war comprise 42,875 Iranian victims. They were captured and kept in Iraqi detention centers for many years after the war was over (from 2.5 to more than 15 years). Infobox sould contain only casualties related to war, all rest belong to aftermath. For example, part of those 218,867 deads due to war injuries belong to post-war period, even today number is increasing because of new deaths (as source states). In that case we have increasing, but regarding 42,875 POW victims we have decreasing since they return between 1990 to 2000's. Thanks to that differences "casualties" may vary depending about year of publication, and there's absolutely no any dispute like "Iranian hiding" (195-220,000) or "Pentagon's exaggeration" (262,000). There's only Bathist propaganda (800,000) and charlatans who read "casualty" as "KIA". --HistorNE (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources HistorNE removed are indeed obviously, self-evidently RS. Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, International Conflict : A Chronological Encyclopedia of Conflicts and Their Management 1945-1995, Iran, Iraq and the Legacies of War, ect. HistorNE has explained why he deleted every source except the official Iranian government estimate: "describing official number (with full list) as "claims" and inserting charlatan sources is not just pov push but retarted." Western sources suggest that 262,000 to 600,000 Iranian soldiers were killed, but the Iranian government says it was much less than this. HistorNE's idea of a "compromise" was to delete the high end of the range and cite 262,000 as the "Western estimate". This is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT from an Iranian editor who is pushing an Iranian POV. Now, he argues that "hiding another "500,000" estimated by some "expert" from 2-3 million families sounds like sci-fi." This is textbook original research!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also consider the mass IP tagging of this article with no edit summary or comment, and in the midst of this heated edit war, highly questionable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
I really believe that the entire infobox needs a remake. It is simply too large and contains too much irrelevant information. The "Commanders" section alone, is totally overloaded, same with the continuing trend to add every possible state into the "support" section of Belligerents. I propose something like the below "trimmed down" version. Perhaps more data on key military commanders is warranted (Army, Air force and Navy). Comments? Farawayman (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Also - please refer to this archived talk page discussion where the debate ended without any firm decision or conclusion being reached. Farawayman (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the casualty estimates in the info box should be pared down and better organized. The simple range for each side that you have suggested in the info box example works for me.  If a more detailed breakdown is desired, see my suggestion above .--Wikimedes (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree - the Iran-Iraq war was among the largest and the longest post-WWII wars. It was a complex warfare and as such requires good explanations. Simplifications may downgrade the content.GreyShark (dibra) 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the casualty estimate sections in the WWI and WWII infoboxes are much simpler than the current Iran-Iraq War infobox.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion on the effect of the Invasion of Kuwait on the peace negotiations
One of the sources we cite says that Iraq accepted Iran sovereignty over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab because the invasion of Kuwait negated their need for the waterway. We only glancingly mention the invasion at all in the Aftermath section, but I think this should be expanded into a few paragraphs at least. I can try to do it later, but I don't have a lot of time. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: Decisive Iranian Victory
Anonymous user 162.156.59.55 changed the result in the infobox from "Military stalemate" citing United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 to "Decisive iranian victory", citing nothing. I reverted the change. I'm not an expert on this war, but I've seen many things that described a stalemate but none claiming a decisive victory by Iran. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If anything, it would make more sense to claim an Iraqi victory, since Saddam's regime survived Khomeini's incessant attempts to export the revolution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the (dubious and partisan) logic behind calling the result a "decisive" Iranian victory is that Iraq failed to achieve its two likely goals behind the initial invasion: Seizing Iranian territory and, as a possible result, toppling the Iranian revolutionary government.
 * However, considering the appalling Iranian (and Iraqi) losses, the failure of the subsequent expanded war goals of Iran (to carry the revolution to Iraq and beyond) and the result, a status quo ante bellum, a stalemate seems the most accurate description of the outcome.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Longest Conventional War
The first line on the page states that "The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the First Persian Gulf War,[27][28][29][30][31] was an armed conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Iraq lasting from September 1980 to August 1988, making it the 20th century's longest conventional war.[32][33]" however the Second Sino Japanese War was a conventional war that was longer by three months. "Full scale war: July 7, 1937 – September 9, 1945 (8 years, 2 months and 2 days)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.40.250 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg
The file File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Iran Air Force in 1980-88
Hello.

I suppose on Wiki everyone is an expert, but I was nonetheless taken aback at you caveat to Footnote 75, saying claims about Iranian F-14s shooting down dozens of Iraq fighter were "dubious".

If your people knew about air war history, they would know Cooper, along with his associate Bishop, is perhaps the leading expert on the Iran-Iraq air war. His material is meticulously researched and he has access to sources few of us have.

rikhye1@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.193.157 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

On cross-border attacks
1.) 6 paragraphs down, this page says this:

"In April 1980, Shia militants assassinated 20 Ba'ath officials, and Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was almost assassinated on 1 April;[44] Aziz survived, but 11 students were killed in the attack.[36] Three days later, the funeral procession being held to bury the students was bombed.[61] Iraqi Information Minister Latif Nusseif al-Jasim also barely survived assassination by Shia militants.[44] The Shias' repeated calls for the overthrow of the Ba'ath party and the support they allegedly received from Iran's new government led Saddam to increasingly perceive Iran as a threat that, if ignored, might one day overthrow him;[44] he thus used the attacks as pretext for attacking Iran later that September,[61] though skirmishes along the Iran–Iraq border had already become a daily event by May that year.[44]"

The cross border attacks are already mentioned on the page. "Disagreeing" with its presence isn't really an option.

2.) The first mention is in a paragraph describing aggressive rhetoric going back and forth between Iran. And then suddenly there's a summary statement at the end of the paragraph, on a completely different topic.

We cover the material in a later place on the page, in more depth. It is inappropriate and unnecessary where it is. Put down your pitchfork. The information is preserved, this is merely a minor cleanup of the page, to correct an addition by someone who did not read it in its entirety. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if the information does or doesn't appear above, but it should be brief, and not written to imply that Hussein was compelled to invade Iran. -Darouet (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I was talking to User:TheTimesAreAChanging. He insisted on inserting a summary of that paragraph in a completely inappropriate place.  Now he's trying to defend some source or something.  I'm not sure what his agenda is, since we have a bunch of sources for the same material o.0 PraetorianFury (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have asked you on numerous occasions why you want to delete that source and you have repeatedly refused to respond. "we have a bunch of sources for the same material" is now the most explicit you have been when discussing your motives. Therefore, I can only assume that you are the one with the agenda, an agenda you are not willing to discuss openly. That's a separate matter, of course, from whether or not deleting the source would improve the article (a case you have yet to make, but must make if you insist on deleting it yet again).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I need no justification to delete a source.  I need to justify deleting material, which I did.  If it seems like I am not responding to your question, it is because you are upset about something that does not matter, and I do not understand why you care.  Deleting a source does not matter if we have other sources saying the same thing. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect to claim that you can arbitrarily delete whatever you want. Since you say this dispute means nothing to you, perhaps you should back off.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ PraetorianFury (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this has anything to do with duplication of material or excessive linking: it's a content issue involving neutrality. TheTimesAreAChanging, I don't believe the summary you're adding above is a fair reflection of the dispute that developed between Iran and Iraq. It tends to suggest that Hussein was justified in responding to Iranian provocations, while it seems clear that the Iraqi regime ultimately decided it would use the crisis as a pretext for reclaiming disputed territory (not to absolve the Iranian regime of responsibility either). -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you check the edit history, you'll see I did not write any of that. In fact, that is not the text PraetorianFury was deleting. I assume it is accurately sourced, but it is not my responsibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, sorry about the confusion. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You
With the drumbeat to war in response to what, by comparison, is minor meddling by ISIS, and the press falling all over itself to promote what will be a ratings gold mine instead of doing their job by putting such things under scrutiny, I just wanted to thank all the contributors of this excellent page on the Iran-Iraq war. It's invaluable in providing context.

I've contributed to enough Wiki pages to know "Kudos" are rare, but perhaps it's time to establish this tradition for exceptionally well-written pages. At any rate, I very much appreciate all the hard work that must have gone into writing this page, and encourage others who feel the same to "+1" this exceptional effort. --Solidpoint (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

After Which Incident?
I'm hesitant to meddle, but at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#After_the_Iranian_Revolution there's "After this incident, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government" and the referent might be the cross border skirmishes mentioned in the paragraph above, but as written it looks unclear and suggests an unnamed Iraqi provocation.142.232.98.47 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Iran Air Force in 1980-88
Hello.

I suppose on Wiki everyone is an expert, but I was nonetheless taken aback at you caveat to Footnote 75, saying claims about Iranian F-14s shooting down dozens of Iraq fighter were "dubious".

If your people knew about air war history, they would know Cooper, along with his associate Bishop, is perhaps the leading expert on the Iran-Iraq air war. His material is meticulously researched and he has access to sources few of us have.

rikhye1@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.193.157 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

lhlhlhlhllllh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.133.42 (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is the US not mentioned in the "Support" section for Iraq?
The US gave Iraq billions of dollars, military intelligence and weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. Can anyone explain to me why the country has been removed? If we are going to include Kuwait in that section then the US needs to be put there as well since the latter gave far more support to Iraq than the former. If I don't get any explanation I will proceed to add the US in the list in the near future.

--82.164.6.47 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is reliably sourced, it stays. If not, it will be challenged and removed. Unsourced assertions especially in such an important article, are unhelpful. Simple. Irondome (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that the US supported Iraq and Saddam during the war. We even have a whole wiki page for that. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war Here. ] But well, it can't be helped. Added them now. --82.164.6.47 (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Result
The "Result" section in infobox says: "Iranian failure to invade and capture Iraqi territory and to topple Saddam Hussein"; but "invading and capturing Iraqi territory" was not the aim of Iran. The state aim of Iran was toppling Saddam Hussein (per Khomeini) and/or destroying his military machine (per Rafsanjani). --Z 07:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: "Commanders and leaders"
The de facto commander-in-chief of Iranian forces was not the supreme leader; but the president. --Z 14:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Iran–Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140407091100/http://www.cal.org/co/iraqi/ihist.html to http://www.cal.org/co/iraqi/ihist.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101105212626/http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001251999/DOC_0001251999.pdf to http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001251999/DOC_0001251999.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130403150153/http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/saddams-generals.pdf to http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/saddams-generals.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140808231300/http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/idUS180865+31-May-2011+PRN20110531 to http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/idUS180865+31-May-2011+PRN20110531

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Anfal Campaign civilian dead
I changed the number from the 182,000 claimed by the Kurds to 50,000-100,000, a statistic given by Human Rights Watch because the actual page on that event considers Human Rights Watch to be more credible than the Kurdish sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.226.174 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Brazen pro-Iranian lies
The article repeatedly, falsely claims that the main obstacle to peace from 1982 to 1988 was the refusal of Iraq to totally withdraw from Iranian territory when Iraq publicly offered to do just that within two weeks of the cease fire. I am attaching a neutrality tag until these lies are removed.

65.186.210.25 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

New box photo
I created new mix-picture for article-box with full-caption. what is your idea? Alborzagros (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)




 * Support Alborzagros (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alborzagros: That's funny. You suggest and you support! Anyway, the new collection is comprehensive. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the hilariously bad English to be frank and because of the variations in meaning portrayed through that utterly bad English. Military voluntarily use of children in iran-iraq war in iranian fronts.. What does this mean anyway? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another Iranian editor incapable of objectivity on this matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, why are we voting? The changes have already been made! Obviously, the pictures (especially the USS Stark) were selected to make the Iraqis look bad, but at least the whitewashing of the Iranian children eagerly participating in "voluntary" human wave attacks was dropped.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Global policy+Khamenei.ir
Hey UCaetano. Could I ask how you found those sources unreliable? Mhhossein (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". That website doesn't satisfy any of those criteria. Really, look at this for example. UCaetano (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * UCaetano: I know the definition but you failed to show why it is unreliable (how did you concluded unreliablity based on the pic?). The article is well referenced (just check the refs). Besides you have removed the "Global policy" which is supporting the material. Mhhossein (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We get it, Mhhossein. You're an Iranian nationalist, and your purpose on Wikipedia is to promote the Iranian party line on all articles related to Iran as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That article is, however, blatant propaganda with material copied-and-pasted from Wikipedia and other worthless sources and devoted to the great Imam Khomeini, and if you really believe it qualifies as a reliable source I suggest you take it up at WP:RSN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you know that you just made a personal attack repeating which might get you blocked? "Comment on content, not on the contributor", please. You could explain why the source was not reliable in a civil manner. I think you did not read my comment completely because I had also mentioned "Global policy". Mhhossein (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer to call a spade a spade, rather than to robotically spit out policies and platitudes while maintaining an exaggerated pretense of innocence and civility. Khamenei.ir also blames Britain for the deaths of up to 10 million Iranians during the World War 1 era famine, which (as far as I can tell, at least) is probably more than the entire population of the affected areas of Iran at the time (the causes of the famine were varied, but a more reasonable estimate for the death toll seems to be a figure of up to 2 million, which is certainly tragic enough without any need for exaggeration). To my knowledge, the Global Policy Forum isn't a great source, either, though it would certainly be valid as a situational source if nothing else.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia you can't do all what you prefer and in this case you have to respect the policies. I would not call that "robotically spit[ing] out policies and platitudes while maintaining an exaggerated pretense of innocence and civility." You can't judge the sources based on your own WP:OR. Any way, I think instead I'd better take it to the boards. Mhhossein (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source noticeboard
As per the discussion at the board, the source is bad. to be frank khmenia source should be considered comedy seeing the kind of stuff they print. A mere cursory perusal gives us the great gems of information that Israel is backing boko haram, America being responsible for every calamity to befall Islam is now also backing ISIS and everything that ever happened to Iran can be traced to the "accursed" jews. With such a mighty intellectual like the grand ayatollah giving us this information who gives a diddly squat about editorial oversight? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Iraq Invasion of Iran (1980)
Due to the fact that it is a long article, I made a new sub-article: Iraq Invasion of Iran (1980) for it and intend to shorten the current article. Let me know your idea. -- Seyyed(t-c) 22:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to say at the moment, except that the idea should have turned into reality earlier and thanks for this split. Mhhossein (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please help to improve it and nominate it for DYK.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need separate articles on Tanker War and War of the Cities as well. --Z 22:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, War of the Cities already exists, though it needs more work, and an infobox. --Z 22:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Due to the fact that you are more active on this article, please remove the extra information from it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)