Talk:Operation Forty Stars

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)

Baathist or Iraqi
Somewhere in Article body used the Baathist word according the sources and citations. The Baathist phrase is more neutral than Iraqi or Iraqi Army because many sources around the world called the Saddam Husein regime Baathist. Also, the Baathist phrase is more accurate.Forest90 (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, nowhere in the other sub-articles (battle articles) or even the main article of the Iran-Iraq War is the word 'Baathist' used in reference to the Iraqi armed forces, why should it be the case now. Secondly, it is absolutely not a neutral descriptor and gives the whole article an Iranian tilt clearly showing the information was written from an Iranian point of view instead of a neutral one. Thirdly, we shouldn't use "Baathist" just as we don't use phrases such as "Khomeinist forces" or "Revolutionary forces", or even "Nazi forces"/"Nationalsocialist forces" in articles relating to World War Two. Fourthly, just because the Iraqi armed forces were involved in actions during a military conflict while Saddam Hussein was in power does not mean they have to be refered to as "Baathist", you could appropriately do that in articles that deals with the government or system of governance of Iraq during that period, but not its armed forces. Fifthly, the "many sources" you are alluding to, or more precisely the ones you have linked to the article, have each been written by an Iranian (so right there those sources are not neutral or unbiased), and it doesn't mean the word "Baathist" has to be applied to the Iraqi armed forces on a wikpiedia article about an Iran-Iraq War military battle. In my assessment coming from an objective point of view there are just too many factors against using the term "Baathist forces". 188.148.66.184 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are judging the sources and only trying to change something that is obvious. The Baathist and Iraqi Army are different. If you really use Wikipedia, search about this and find Iraqi Army has an article and Baathist has a different one. Using this two phrase in correct place (or like you in wrong place), will not close to WP:NPOV. Instead try to change the Baathist word with another one, find a reliable sources that write MEK worked with Iraqi Army, then let to speak out. Now, All reliable sources have wrote Baathist not another thing else. We can't change the fact which written by reliable sources because we don't like it.Forest90 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, i still don't see it as being Neutral at all, and my statements still stand. Besides the so called "reliable sources" you have linked to are nothing more than bloggposts...which do not even count as trustworthy sources...i mean it can't be anymore obvious than that. Yes, if you would bother to do a lengthier search you would certainly come across much better and un-biased source that deals with the Iraqi-MEK cooperation. In any case, the proper thing would be to have a neutral third party arbitrate or rule on whoever's opinion is right, and whatever the outcome is, should be acceptable to both. Can't be anymore fair would you agree?188.148.66.184 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It is somewhat disingenous to claim that the word 'Baathist' should be used when the sources provided by Forest90 do not even once refer to the Iraqi military or Army as 'Baathists'.PersianFire (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleting reason
Hi. Why did you remove two sources and some sentences from Article introduction section? You just deleted them and didn't mention why...Forest90 (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, I did mention why in my edit summary. Those sources are not reliable for Wikipedia. Ypatch (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Background verification
@Fad Ariff: In this edit you say it failed verification. What does page 1040 say instead? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't a page 1040 in the edition that I have access to, which signals that this entry is likely a hoax. If your copy has a page 1040, then let me know what it says and I'll verify it. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest checking out pages 104 and 140, since it's quite possibly a simple typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)