Talk:Operation Zafar 7

I added the POV tag today. I replaced the cleanup take because it was dormant and maybe redundant with a POV tag. In ==prelude== the tone is informal ("Nothing was happening anymore in the south..."), and assertions are not supported with citations ("...it was disastrous for Iran..."; "...so instead they attacked Kuwaiti tankers and got the US involved..."; etc.).

The battle
Tone: "easily defeated" (support?) "stubbornly left them to defend" (original research? support?) etc.

The issues persist throughout, but the examples above are to explain my reasoning for POV tag. I was moved to edit because I felt that the article was written by someone with a personal connection to the subject, and was written with a pro-iranian bias. I am not well versed on the subject, but I think that it needs work on tone and citation, but most importantly on POV.

Because of the unrest in Iraq and the tension between Iran and the West, I think it is essential for this and all related articles to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndfiz (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Far too many spelling mistakes
I've cleaned up the article. I wonder who wrote about this article!? Well whoever did needs some serious english lessons on how to write properly!

Iranian involvement in Halabja attack
Be notified that use of multiple accounts/IPs can lead to your ban (Sock puppetry). This is a fabricated WP:FRINGE theory (Read Halabja chemical attack for more details.) and does not belong in the infobox as a "fact". Your NYT source is an op-ed, not a RS. Pahlevun (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

SeriousSam11 is my only account. I find it troubling to not only be falsely accused of people using multiple accounts/IP, but for the accuser to remove factual and even book-written information from multiple sources that would implicate the IRI in atrocities or support for insurgents, such as removing 3 sources of a very established fact of Iranian support for Kurdish insurgent groups within Iraq. Worth noting that these 3 sources derive from 2 books on Iranian history written by Iranian authors. The point of Wikipedia is not a place to make false accusations against users for providing additional sources for events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousSam11 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't try to evade the point with discussing what has already been responded in Talk:Joint Operation Arvand. Iranian alleged involvement is a FRINGE theory and should not be asserted in the infobox. Pahlevun (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk page consensus is clear. You are edit-warring and have violated the 3RR rule.  Another reversion will bring you to WP:ANI -- Again.  And you will get another block.  You do not own this page.  Disruptive editing carries strong penalties.  158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A "consensus" between you and who? You can already bring it to WP:ANI, but I suggest you to first explain yourself at Sockpuppet investigations/SeriousSam11. Pahlevun (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what consensus he's referring to, but I have to agree with the point 158.59.127.132 is making. However, your accusation against me of sockpuppeting (because I actually use a logged-in account unlike these others users) due to users on this site being upset for what I assume is your sabotage of multiple Wikipedia pages is unacceptable. That you claim that documented and established information is FRINGE is revealing of ulterior intent. This demonstrates a very clear aversion to facts, NPOV, and is pushing a political agenda. In another article, you were removing multiple references to books published by Iranian authors on Iranian support for Peshmerga, also calling it fringe. As a proper comparison, US support for the FSA group in Syria is well-documented and reported on and the US government and agencies admit to this.SeriousSam11 (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)