Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

POV: Tag team reverts to disputed material;history of bullying
02:31, 6 November 2006 Khosrow II (Talk | contribs) (reinserting SOURCED information. this is called disruption. by the way, thanks for the stereotypical comments. the POV pushers are apparent, just look at their comments...)

This revert and tagline line is typical of what went on. "Sourced" means someone said it, but the journalist Robert Parry only reported the memo by Carter was "alleged," and no one saw it but Al Haig so I fought for "allegedly" after removal didn't work, and did eventually get it. Perusing the article it's evident it's a littany of charges against the US and is the highlighted theme, anything that puts that into context such as the US helped both sides is reverted by these two users claiming we are "POV pushers." I don't think that's possible in this particular issue.

Saddam's 'Green Light',By Robert Parry  Iraq & geopolitics by Henry C K Liu The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict (1991), pp. 71-72

And this one:

Official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, stated that Bell helicopters that were given to Iraq by U.S. later were used to spray chemical weapons.[39]

Phythian, p. 38. Phythian cites former NSC official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, Twin Pillars to Desert Storm: America's Flawed Vision in the Middle East from Nixon to Bush, (New York: William Morrow, 1993), p. 275

Ths implies prior knowledge of this use, and the source is a hardly a mainstream historian.

These sources reflect an outside the manistream of history POV and are cherrypicked to pin all of the blame on the US and support a particular thesis. They should only get what blame they earned along with everyone else including the Iraqis and the Iranians at the forefront.

Here are more bullying reversions:

17:19, 6 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) (rv, POV pusher.)

05:23, 6 November 2006 Marky48 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to Last valid entry)

04:41, 6 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) (rv, POV pusher.

02:50, 6 November 2006 L0b0t (Talk | contribs) (This is in ARBCOM, you need to sign the arbcom and leave this claim out until the arbcom is over.)

02:31, 6 November 2006 Khosrow II (Talk | contribs) (reinserting SOURCED information. this is called disruption. by the way, thanks for the stereotypical comments. the POV pushers are apparent, just look at their comments...)

02:26, 6 November 2006 L0b0t (Talk | contribs) (removed Persian wishfull thinking. this is in arbitration, if you want this in the article you have to sign the arbcom. allah is blushing)

02:24, 6 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) (rv, clueless editor.)

02:22, 6 November 2006 L0b0t (Talk | contribs) (removed Persian wishfull thinking.)

01:45, 6 November 2006 Khosrow II (Talk | contribs) (reinserting sourced information. How much longer are you going to insist that sourced information has no place in this article?)

01:18, 6 November 2006 Marky48 (Talk | contribs) (reveret. Proper CONTEXT.)

19:26, 5 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) (rv POV pusher.)

19:10, 5 November 2006 Marky48 (Talk | contribs) (RV Tag team ethnic bias)

17:26, 5 November 2006 74.98.42.188 (Talk) (rv.)

16:55, 5 November 2006 Marky48 (Talk | contribs) (Revert)

05:47, 5 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) m (→Chemical Weapons)

05:37, 5 November 2006 Khosrow II (Talk | contribs) (back to marmoulak. this evident pov push is getting tiring...)

19:21, 4 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) (rvv, your edits have stooped to vandalism.)

You get the idea. This issue was resolved, but others remain in other sections particulatly Chemical Weapons and US Involvement. Even though other countries supplied the majority of this material, only the US is described in detail despite providing the least including the puffing of two helicopters used to spray gas. This is way out of context and implies intent.

He denies ancestry has anything to do with this view
"The User claims that we have a POV because we are Iranian. Well can't the same be said of him and his possible POV due to where he comes from?"

No, since I'm French/Anglo-Saxon whose POV would I be "pushing?" It could go both ways but it doesn't. I'm on the Wikipedia history project, although this isn't my area history. And User:Kirill Lokshin looked at this Carter assertion at my request and said at best it didn't belong in the lead paragraph because it slanted the article by putting that high up, so I moved it and added a source of merit Brezinski, not a fringe reporter or professor.

I was also accused of being a "Conservative Republican" by this user, which I'm not and said so on the talk page.

As for my overly zealous attempt to get the user marmoulak to sign on to a mediation so we could discuss this with a moderator, I was too forceful out of frustration and wrong for doing it in that way. I have no intention of editing this article again ever based on this experience so that's a given as I said in my initial statement. The source of the frustration is real and prolonged though. In the discussion early on a Wikipedian expressed this same frustration.

''The question is one of a balanced presentation of material, as it has always been. This will never be acomplished unitill the Perisan Junat that currently "owns" this article is dealt with.'' Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried.

It's interesting Khossrow continues to edit the article and now accuses others on this page of "bannable offenses" based on a perceived "stereotyping" of ethnicity. This just enforces what I'm seeing here with the blatant bias in the article. It's one-way myopia with Iran as the victim. Moreover, the article now has more Iranian advocates editing it, adding emotive words like "Bloodbath" and the like. Notice how he changed the charges to active voice from passive as added by the other Iranian? Yet anything even remotely neutral and not anti-American or Iraqi is reverted on sight. It's a partisan cabal ethnically based. That is crystal clear.Marky48 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It took an intervention from a mediator, user:TheronJ who provided the Brezinski source and had to appease marmoulak with scanned pages from his book as proof. He questioned the National Security Advisor as a source. That's very telling, but this is what I had to go through to get this source included. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor (United States) doesn't support this assertion. Marky48 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * last=Brzezinski
 * first=Zbigniew
 * authorlink=Zbigniew Brzezinski
 * title=Power and Principle, Memoirs of the National Security Advisor 1977-1981
 * date=1983
 * publisher=Farrar Straus Giroux
 * pages=451-454, 504}} ISBN 0-374-23663-1

Response to Khossrow
It depends on what one considers as criteria for combatant. That debate went on for some time. Your criteria is lowered to fit your facts. Someting may be a fact in and of itself but not amount to a particular bar required for a positive conclusion. This is context. The US supplied arms to both sides, but most came from other countries including USSR. This barely gets a mention and gets buried in a long in depth narrative with emotive terms and conclusions about US impact. This is not neutral by any reckoning. It's your opinion of a historical conclusion you aren't qualified to make. Exhibit A:Arms sales to Iraq I'm going to conclude my testimony here. I thank the committee for reading my evidence and views on the matter and I think I've made an attempt at discussing the difference in how we see this same issue with one of the opponents at least. I think the jist of the problem is POV relativism. The evidence supports one group demanding only their compilation of facts be used selectively and is a also big problem in public discourse, particularly in blog communities, but this isn't an opinion site. Neutrality should be sacrosanct, not one team beating the other with numbers of participants adhering to a particular view of history. Marky48 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Last comment. Khosrow: do not address me again as I won't argue tit for tat and false anaolgies any longer. Tell it to the committee. The facts do not tell the story of puffery you are. No one is claiming the US eventually didn't supported Irag. A combatant is one who throughout the history of the conflict participates on the ground. There is no downplaying here. There is upplaying. It's obvious you have a personal problem with the conflict. You're solution is to ascribe a keystone role no historian on earth does. That's the way hubris works. Spend your energies supplying links to counter-information since you seem to be the one without any and this page is for evidence. Post yours as we have. Do not address me again as I won't respond. You've wasted enough of my time as it is.Marky48

Response to Theronj
No, I didn't mean as a formal mediator. Without your defense though marmoulak would indeed have reverted the Brezinski source and said as much. He's not saying much here though in this long-lived arbitration. Is there a statute of limitations on when one has to show up or lose their say in these formal affairs? Somebody needs to just can this thing and get it over with. I'm tired of watching paint dry.Marky48 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by CJK
Frankly, what these people are doing is in violation of WP:OWN, with the exeption that multiple people are the "owners" of this article:

''Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. This does not include vandalism.''

This is exactly what has been happening. They revert first, then maybe talk later. Eventually, people get tired of this and go away. Just check the history of that article for the past 6 months. Only recently have they allowed substantial modifications, and only after I've agreed to include most of their unsourced, irrelevant, or biased information.

Although there has been progress, there are three important issues that I am still contesting with Marmoulak.

Koppel Quote
They insist on having an unsourced quote from Ted Koppel who provides no data for his assertions. As per WP:CITE, it can be removed as it is unsourced. 

The relevant text from WP:CITE is:

Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

Alleged weapons transfers
There is a source for an allegation that President Reagan allowed other nations to give U.S. arms to Iraq:

''Phythian, p. 35. Phythian cites Murray Waas and Craig Unger, "In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission," New Yorker, p. 70''

I subsequently asked for the source in "In the Loop" since Pythian clearly focused in on "exposing" U.S. help to Iraq and less on neutrality. When pressed, Marm said the source was a "proposal" from a U.S. official in Baghdad. As this was not evidence it was carried out, I changed the wording to reflect that and was promptly reverted. 

They also clearly violated WP:NOR by stating "these shipments were done without the approval of U.S. congress and were in clear violation of the Arms Export Control Act and international law" while the article they cite says "may" have violated the Arms Export Control Act (I don't know where they got "international law" part from). 

Loans
I provided a source which clearly shows that loans by the west and gulf states to Iraq during the 1980s were at $35 and $30-40 billion respectively, but was also reverted by the POV-pushers. 

The relevant text from the source is:

''Iraq’s indebtedness has been the result primarily of the war with Iran. Iraq traditionally had been free of foreign debt and had accumulated foreign reserves that reached $35 billion by 1980. These reserves were exhausted in the early stages of the war with Iran. It is estimated that from 1980 to 1989 Iraq’s arms purchases alone totaled $54.7 billion. Following the war, Iraq was faced with the dilemma of paying off short-term debts to western creditors estimated between $35 to 45 billion at high interest rates. However, the Regime resisted western attempts through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to reschedule the debt primarily because Baghdad believed it could negotiate more favorable terms dealing with countries bilaterally.''

''Iraq’s foreign debt was comprised of western credit provided for military assistance, development finance and export guarantees. This assistance has been estimated at $35 billion in principal. The former Soviet Union and Russia also provided loans to Iraq via the Paris Club during the 1980s and 1990s for the development and production of military programs (Figure 10). Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates provided an additional $30 to 40 billion in financing to fight Iran (Figure 11). Although the Gulf States considered the financial support provided to Iraq to be a loan, Iraq believed that the Gulf States were required to provide help to Iraq in its fight to prevent the spread of radical Iranian fundamentalism.''

Other stuff
In my last compromise, I permitted them to have an entire section devoted to where Iraq received precursors to biological warfare agents Iraq never used in the war. Previously, it was lumped together with chemical weapons sales. It should be questioned as to whether or not it is appropriate to disclose a source for biological weapons in an article about a war that never saw them used.

Also, they insist on copying and pasting the exact text from a source, the Colombian Journalist Review. As you can see from the futile attempt I made at summarization, the text removed was copied directly from http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp. I don't object to the facts, just how it has been pasted on the article.

Response to Khosrow II
Interestingly, CJK does not mention his stereotypical and racist comments that he made

My comments are many things but they are not "racist". I have not evoked race into this equation.

He simply assumed that because we may be Iranian (for all he knew, we could have been Europeans with an interest in Iranian history, or half-Iranians, or even Americans!) that we are automatically extremists with an anti American agenada.

I have no idea whether or not you are Iranian but your rhetoric is consistent with that of the current regime in Tehran. And yes, you are an extremist if you revert everything a person does without explanation.

Further showing his POV, Marky48 and CJK both insisted that the USA was not a combatant in the war simply because the USA did not declare itself one.

I have never said such a thing.

CJK 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Marky48
I dont really know how this works, as I have never been in an Arbcom, and I'm not even sure if this is still active or not or whats going on (can someone clear this up for me?). But I will respond to User Marky48's comments:

Sourced information is sourced information, Marky48's continually denial that the information put in was sourced, further undermines his position. What then has to be done, is to clarify and determine how and whether those sources should be put in. Most of the things going on here are between Marky48 and the other User, as I was only involved in this article slightly (did not have time) while at the same time I did agree with the other User and thought that Marky48 was being very disruptive in the way he went about his edits and his aggressive manner.

Marky48's criticism of the sources he mentioned are clearly his POV. Its his spin that makes him see it as the way they are. For example: ''Ths implies prior knowledge of this use, and the source is a hardly a mainstream historian.

These sources reflect an outside the manistream of history POV and are cherrypicked to pin all of the blame on the US and support a particular thesis. They should only get what blame they earned along with everyone else including the Iraqis and the Iranians at the forefront.''

Who is Marky48 to deterime what a source is implying without significant evidence to back up his claim. This piece of criticism shows his POV, in that he believes his interpretation of things needs to go into the article, instead of what a source directly says. To me, I dont see where the source he criticized implied any such thing, and that is what the source itself says. So whose right and whose wrong? Whose to say anything at all? Regardless, that is what the source says directly.

Interestingly, CJK does not mention his stereotypical and racist comments that he made (read here: ) He calls us "extremists" holding the article hostage and that we have an agenda against America. He simply assumed that because we may be Iranian (for all he knew, we could have been Europeans with an interest in Iranian history, or half-Iranians, or even Americans!) that we are automatically extremists with an anti American agenada. Also, Marky48 calls whoever that names his comments as POV, bias, while never bring up the evidence to support his claims, only his POV. Further showing his POV, Marky48 and CJK both insisted that the USA was not a combatant in the war simply because the USA did not declare itself one. The funny thing is, the USA destroyed the whole Iranian navy in one day, still not a combatant? If these do not undermine the credibility, bias, and POV of these two users, then I dont know what does.

Both Users, on this page and another page, admit that there has been progress, and their complaints have been riddled down to a few, however, notice how they had to back down on most of the things they were trying to take out! This clearly shows that they were the ones with the POV and later, when proven wrong, had to accept things for what they were.

Furthermore, Marky48 insists that ethnicity has something to do with this. However, let me tell him something: Americans are Americans, no matter where they come from or what their background is. It is a nation of mixed peoples, no one ethnic group. There are Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, and even, heres the biggest shocker, Iranian Americans! You bringing race into this is despicable. You wanted to deny everything "bad" about the USA, but at the end you were proven wrong and had to settle for a compromise. I am a proud American too, but I would never try to censor the bad things this nation has done in Vietnam, and the present Iraq War. Facts are facts, and you simply refused to facts you did not like.

Response to CJK
''My comments are many things but they are not "racist". I have not evoked race into this equation'''

Stereotypical then?

''I have no idea whether or not you are Iranian but your rhetoric is consistent with that of the current regime in Tehran. And yes, you are an extremist if you revert everything a person does without explanation.''

What is my rhetoric exactly? I could say the same thing about you cant I? Your rhetoric is the same as the Bush administrations? Your "defense" of your position is ludicrous. You made stereotypical comments, and if I had reported you for personal attacks back then, you would surely have been blocked.Khosrow II 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking back
Looking back at things, many of their requests have actually be fulfilled. However, they have several issues that in terms of their POV, they dont like, such as the discussion me and Marky are having on the discussion page. Since Marmoulak was more involved than I was, I think its best that he comment, however, I did agree with his position and I do agree with where the article is at this point. However, that does not mean we cannot deal with some more issues and get them resolved, if they are not POV assertions.Khosrow II 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to Marky
Do you have evidence that the USSR was a combatant in the Iran Iraq war? If so, bring it up and I will have no objection to it being added as a combatant. I dont even know what your talking about when bringing that up, if anything, it shows that I am an objective user who takes things for what they are and accepts facts.Khosrow II 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The criteria for a combatant is clear: taking military action. Also, the USA sold only 15 million dollars worth of weaponry to Iran, would you like to compare that with the amount Iraq got? Also, the money given to Iran was in return for hostages in Lebanon, but why did Iraq get so much money for nothing? Also, why didnt you add the contributions of other nations to the Iraqi war effort instead of trying to down play the American role?


 * Lastly, why dont you make clear who your comments are referring too, because sometimes it seems as though they are in reference to Marmoulak, and other times to me.Khosrow II 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification regarding my role
I don't think Marky48 meant to imply that I was a formal mediator in his evidence above, but just for clarification, when I stuck my nose into this dispute (primarily and ), I was doing it with my editor hat on, not my cabalist hood.

I also didn't see myself as "appeasing" Marmoulak by offering to share a few pages from one of my sources with him. Although Marmoulak initially had a slight misunderstanding of the burden of WP:CITE, that issue was resolved amicably, and as far as I know, Marmoulak didn't edit war over the Brezinski source I offered, even though it actually took me a few weeks to send him the cited pages.

In general, my impression from my brief interaction with this article is that both "sides" of the dispute were acting in good faith, but that there was enough history to the dispute that it was hard to de-escalate and work together, which is a shame. TheronJ 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.