Talk:Swedish volunteers in Persia

Thank you
Thank you for creating this! I was thinking of making it myself but you seem to have beat me to it. By the way, is there any citation for the eventual persian victory as is said in the infobox? Gvssy (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry that you had to go out of your way to messedge me on my talk page, dident see it in time. ); Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

When will this article become a C-class?
What is this article lacking for it not being C-class? Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * it is now, so it was nothing Dencoolast33 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Disputed
The title of this article, and the text supporting it, has to be disputed. The article claims that this was a formal intervention by Sweden in Persia, i e puts forth that Sweden was a formal combatant and that the participating officers were officially sent/deployed by Sweden. This is not correct, as the main source also shows (Ericsson Wolke, a renowned and internationally acclaimed military historian). The super powers in the area at the time, UK and Russia, needed a neutral part to assist in establishing a gendarmerie in Persia. Turkey and Germany were out of the question, so eventually, they turned to the neutral part Sweden who said yes. However, the Swedish government did not send/deploy any officers to Persia. They were all volunteers (off duty, receiving no salary or the like from the Swedish government). Therefor, it is incorrect to describe this as a Swedish intervention in terms of Sweden being a combatant. It is, however, correct that a small number of Swedish army officers helped establish a Persian gendarmerie, but not while on active duty for Sweden. The author of this article has argued extensively on swwp that this was an intervention/Swedish "war", but the claims have been rejected by experienced wikipedians with knowledge about Swedish military history. This also means that the listing in List of wars involving Sweden has to be questioned. As impressive as it is that a 14 year old has written a C-class article, the sources (mainly Ericsson Wolke) has been used in a way that clearly displays a lack of source criticism. Riggwelter (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If the swedish officers werent official, then how could sweden have been able to call them back in 1916? If sweden would have tried that in lets say the Winter war, they would've surely been ignored. Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "I november 1910 anhöll den persiska regeringen hos den svenska dito att få disponera ett antal svenska officerare. Svaret blev positivt. Orsaken till att det blev så har man i efterhand spekulerat kring.
 * Kanske fanns det från svensk sida en vilja att göra en fredsbevarande insats, men det kan också ha funnits svenska ambitioner att skaffa handelsmässiga fördelar i Persien."
 * The historian you sited says that it was sweden who did the instats/intervention, not an independant volunteer cour. He also writes that the Persian goverment asked Sweden for officers (again, not an independant volunteer cour). This is what differs between this intervention and the volunteers in Finland. Yes the officers were volunteers and were there at their own free will, but thats like saying that the american soldiers in afghanistan were volunteers cuase it was their own choice to join the military. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other suggestions for a name change? Swedish intervention in Persia fits in my opinion but I don't know much about this conflict. Gvssy (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Your arguments have already been firmly dismissed on svwp; do not start the same nitpicking here. Riggwelter (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * you mean the 1v5 lol Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it is important that you (as in experienced contributors to enwp) check this article and the way the sources have been used according to your quality procedures. I would probably recommend that you look into a name to the effect of "Swedish officers in Persian service" or something like that. Riggwelter (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * it is at least a military mission. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We've been through this on svwp. Riggwelter (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, i'll look over the article. Gvssy (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries. I would like to suggest that you also take a look at its listing in List of wars involving Sweden, but it is up to you. Riggwelter (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Riggwelter
 * "I november 1910 anhöll den persiska regeringen hos den svenska dito att få disponera ett antal svenska officerare. Svaret blev positivt. Orsaken till att det blev så har man i efterhand spekulerat kring.
 * Kanske fanns det från svensk sida en vilja att göra en fredsbevarande insats, men det kan också ha funnits svenska ambitioner att skaffa handelsmässiga fördelar i Persien."
 * The historian you sited says that it was sweden who did the instats/intervention, not an independant volunteer cour. He also writes that the Persian goverment asked Sweden for officers (again, not an independant volunteer cour). This is what differs between this intervention and the volunteers in Finland. Yes the officers were volunteers and were there at their own free will, but thats like saying that the american soldiers in afghanistan were volunteers cuase it was their own choice to join the military. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We've been through this on svwp, and your claims have been thoroughly dismissed there. I suggest we let the experienced users on enwp do their own evaluation. Riggwelter (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I strongly support Riggwelter in this. Yger (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Riggwelter
 * Is me being new to wikipedia invalidate any of my arguments? You really had to stupe low for that one. I do not have a single clue of how you could deny Swedens involvment in this conflict.
 * Sweden sent the officers
 * Sweden called back the officers
 * How were they independent of the Swedish state again? Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We've been through this a number of times now. Kindly let the quality procedure run its course. Riggwelter (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Riggwelter
 * Are you going to do a counter argument or just make constant call backs to our previous discussion.
 * I do not know why you're even complaining about me saying my arguments again, you knew what you were in for. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Riggwelter
 * It is impossible to deny swedish involvment, just admit it. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Riggwelter
 * You're proving my point.
 * "I november 1910 anhöll den persiska regeringen hos den svenska dito att få disponera ett antal svenska officerare. Svaret blev positivt. Orsaken till att det blev så har man i efterhand spekulerat kring.
 * Kanske fanns det från svensk sida en vilja att göra en fredsbevarande insats, men det kan också ha funnits svenska ambitioner att skaffa handelsmässiga fördelar i Persien."
 * Based on that citation, it is impossible to deny Swedish involvment, if you dont reply wiht any argument, i will remove the template at the top of the article. Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you remove the template before the review process has been completed, you might go against Consensus, and that's not a good thing to do. So far, your version of events is disputed, and consensus has not been reached. It's no rush, Wikipedia has no deadlines. Riggwelter (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Riggwelter
 * I see that you still havent addresed "I november 1910 anhöll den persiska regeringen hos den svenska dito att få disponera ett antal svenska officerare. Svaret blev positivt. Orsaken till att det blev så har man i efterhand spekulerat kring.
 * Kanske fanns det från svensk sida en vilja att göra en fredsbevarande insats, men det kan också ha funnits svenska ambitioner att skaffa handelsmässiga fördelar i Persien." Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No, because we have already been through that on svwp. Riggwelter (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, but now we're on english wikipedia, many people here do not have a high profiency in Swedish. Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is true. But we can't have the same discussion on every language version of Wikipedia, and I have faith in the experienced users on enwp. They will understand that this is a topic that has been brought to attention on svwp, and make their own deductions from the results there. So, I suggest that we leave this discussion as it is right now, because we won't get any further here, especially not if the same arguments keep being reiterated. Riggwelter (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, thats fair. Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also strongly support Riggwelter in this topic. Historiker (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Riggwelter


 * I know im stubborn and i apoligise, but i want change the name to "swedes in persian service" cuase it doesent adress the goverments involvment in the conflict.
 * I know that you may not want to deal with this right now, but would you be fine with a name like "Swedish military mission in Persia", "Swedish military expedition in Persia" or "Swedish peace keeping mission in Persia".
 * I also want it to stay on List of wars involving Sweden, as that list also includes un peace keeping missions and you can at least admit that this conflict is at the same level as un-missions, right? Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As we agreed earlier, leave this discussion as it is right now. If you want to discuss the characteristics further, do it all on svwp, not here. Riggwelter (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Isent "Swedish peace keeping mission in Persia" a name you could be satisfied with? Dencoolast33 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss the characteristics further, do it all on svwp, not here. Okay? Riggwelter (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I also agree with @Riggwelter here. I have not been involved in the Swedish discussion, but of course read it. When 5 very experienced wikipedians explains why this is wrong according to the sources several times and it is accepted it is not a good procedure to start exactly the same discussion on another language with same persons but tey to "win" other experienced non Swedish readers on its side as if the first discussion never occured.
 * I will not interfere more in this discussion if not addressed, because I know the experienced users on enwp uses the sam procedure of reading sources and compare articles as we do on svwp. Best regards Adville (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 10:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Swedish intervention in Persia → Swedish volunteers in Persia – More accurate description Esquilo (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Yger (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Volunteers suggests private persons on their own initiative. These people were sent by the Swedish government. switch to Support given more information. Walrasiad (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  SupportAdville (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC), Swedish officers, yes, but going there on own initiative and not sent by the Swedish government (according to sources).
 * Mm. Do you have sources for that? All I find says the Persian government approached the Swedish government, but doesn't give any further details. If they are private volunteers, then I'd switch my vote.  Walrasiad (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * source from 1911. States they are volunteers that on their own initiative want to go to Persia, not ordered to do so by Swedish government. And that they will work for the Persian government, and their work will in no way be under the Swedish government control Yger (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can't read Swedish, but I'll trust your translation. Walrasiad (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as per the discussion above. Riggwelter (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per the discussion above.--Historiker (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per the discussion above. /B****n (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as per the discussion above. Tournesol (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support According to Oppenheim's International Law (ninth edition, Longman 1992, volume I), a standard work on international law, 'intervention' is defined as a forcible or dictorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state calculated to impose certain conduct or consequences on that other state (p. 430). The notion that Sweden as a state actively interfered in the affairs of Persia in 1911 is an exceptional claim that per WP:EXTRAORDINARY would need exceptional sources – which of course do not exist. The term 'intervention' is completely inappropriate here, while 'volunteers' seems to fit the bill, no matter if Sweden as a state actively supported or just passivly accepted the officers' choice. --T*U (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
@Walrasiad @Adville If they were ordered by the goverment to go, then they are official, yes they are techniclly volunteers in the same vain as every person in the army being there "volunteerly". And it is false information that they only served the Persian goverment, other wise sweden would not have been able to call them back in 1916. Dencoolast33 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you proceed here when you just was warned on svwp to proceed there because you have gotten an answer on that and explained like 10 times. We do not make up things ourselves, but have to follow the sources. According to them you are wrong no matter if you write in Swedish or English. The only difference is that the English writers here does not understand the swedish sources but asks us to translate. Please stop this now. At least 5 of the most experienced swedish wikipedians have given you answers in over a week now. Adville (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And you were blocked one month on svwp by another user on svwp for disruptive behaviour while I was writing my last post. Adville (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But i think its fair that the people here hear my point of view too the same way they hear yours, its only fair. Dencoolast33 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why bother them with telling them you are wrong? You are reading the sources wrong. They have better things to do than getting pinged to see a newcommer wants to spread on all wikis that he was wrong. Let them do their thing here without being disrupted by you after you have been prooven several times that you are wrong in your thinking. It is not "point of view" here, if you want to discuss points of views do that on flashback or so, here we follow sources and your (or mine) "point of view" is not worth anything without a source that confirms it. Adville (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did i read it incorrectly? Are you denying the fact that sweden both sent and called back the soldiers? If you do, then you're just basing your argument on a lie. I am not reading the sources wrong, even if i am; why bother repyling since you're already in the "right". Dencoolast33 (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you read it incorrectly. Sweden did not send any officers, but made officers available for service under the Persian government ("ställa till persiska regeringens förfogande"). They were on leave from the Swedish army and of course the Swedish government had every right to recall them whenever it wanted. /B****n (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How did officers arrive if Persia asked Sweden for soldiers then? Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @B****n
 * Sorry, let me word that better.
 * How did officers arrive when Persia asked sweden then? Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand the question. Arrive where? In Persia? /B****n (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, Persia asked Sweden for officers and the officers arrived. Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't read sources that don't confirm your point of view. On svwp and above there is a link to a text in the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, 20 April 1911, wich clearly states that the first three officers were to travel to Paris where they would sign a contract with the Persian legation in Paris. The officers did not travel to Persia in the service of the Swedish government, but in the service of the Persian government.
 * You argue that the presence of Swedish officers in Persia, in the service of the Persian government, should constitute an intervention by the Swedish government. An intervention in terms of international law implies the use of force by one country or sovereign state (in this case Sweden) in the internal or external affairs of another (in this case Persia). You have not shown that the Swedish government in any way commanded or otherwise controlled the actions of the Swedish officers in Persia. /B****n (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But the goverment told them to go. Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the Swedish goverment did not tell them to go. The Swedish government made it possible for officers who wanted to voluntarily enter service with the Persian government to do so. But even if it had done so (which it did not), to call it an intervention, one must show that Sweden used force in the affairs of Persia, wich you have not. /B****n (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cant we agree on the name "Peace keeping mission" instead? We cant agree upon if Sweden sent them or not, but if you're right; it sounds more like a peace keeping mission instead. The populär historia article even call it as such. Dencoolast33 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the magazine Populär Historia does not call it a "mission". They write that there has been speculation in retrospect about why Sweden made officers available for service under the Persian government and that one reason could be that Sweden wanted to make a peacekeeping contribution ("fredsbevarande insats"). You still have not provided any valid sources to support your claims. You only cherry pick facts that support your opinion and twist quotes to make them match your claims. Swedish volunteers in Persia is the most accurate name for this articel. /B****n (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think that i am cherry picking.
 * If the officers were volunteers without any conection to the state, then how come Persia asked the Swedish goverment for officers? You cant deny the fact that the Swedish state had some involvment.
 * Joining the officer cour does not mean that you're a volunteer, the same thing with joining the actuall military does not make you a volunteer.
 * Yes the officers were there at their own free will (though orginized by the goverment), but the same goes for every american soldiers that has fight abroad since ww2, since they joined the military voluntarly making them "volunteers".
 * And another reason the soldiers in Persia could not have been volunteers are that the goverment could call them back in 1916, that alone would make it impossible for them to be volunteers since they respond to the goverments commands. The populaär historia article only calls the soldiers who decided to stay in after 1916 volunteers.
 * But i do respect your opinion regardless, and do think you should respect mine aswell since throwing degrading words at my arguments such as cherry picking is not anything you should do in a disscusion. For this to be solved, we cant let this devolve into arguing. Dencoolast33 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have made several claims, but without providing any valid sources.
 * No one has denied that there was some involvement by the Swedish government by making officers available for service under the Persian government. However this makes it neither a Swedish war, nor a Swedish intervention, nor a Swedish mission. Do you have any source that actually calls the Swedish contribution a Swedish war, a Swedish intervention or a Swedish mission? (And we have already established that you earlier misquoted Populär Historia in this regard.)
 * You claim that the officers could not have been volunteers since the Swedish government recalled them to duty i Sweden? What is your source for claiming that an officer on leave cannot be recalled to duty?
 * You claim that Populär Historia only calls the soldiers who decided to stay after 1916 volunteers. Could you give a citation for this? How do you explain the first sentence in the article: "Åren 1911–15 var en grupp frivilliga svenska officerare verksamma i Persien" ("In the years 1911–15, a group of volunteer Swedish officers was active in Persia")?
 * You claim that since American soldiers, who have voluntarily joined the armed forces, can be sent abroad, then Swedish officers who have served abroad for a foreign power must be sent by the Swedish government. Since there is no logical consequence, a source is required for this to be the case. Can you provide such a source?
 * B****n (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Our views sever when it comes to your first point as i believe that the involvment from sweden is enough for it to be called a mission.
 * So, there is no point to keep going, cuase we are too stubborn.
 * Best regards Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.