Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War


 * Even the movie 7 Days in Tehran has been made about Reza Khatibi who escaped from Iran. It has been published by the New York Times and reprinted by Human Rights Watch at http://www.hrw.org/iff/2002/ny/reza-interview.html.

It is a real and verifiable from story of an event from the pre-information age in addition to other external links and references — though, I shouldn't repeat myself
 * Here is another one: "8/10/87 Geneva, Switzerland Ahmad Moradi-Talebi A Colonel and pilot (deserter) in the Iranian Air force, gunned down near the Hotel Edelweiss. The assassins left a blue baseball cap behind them, as a signature."

.--Patchouli 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the sources on the movie mention anything about opposition to the war. To the contrary, the cited interview with the director states: "Rather, he escaped the country in 1986 at age 17 out of an instinct for survival: to avoid fighting in the bloody Iran-Iraq war." (emphasis added) Not a word about opposing the war; he wanted to stay alive. The other link says a deserter was killed. You have not produced one single citation to link desertion or draft evasion with opposition to the war. Fan-1967 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Iranian objections
It is amazing how many Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry want this article deleted. Maybe fleeing a war scene is inapposite to the larger-than-life images. However, I strongly lampoon the removal of an article about a true event.

This is a double standard as we chronicle such events for other peoples.--Patchouli 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry" (aka the "Watchdog" as they call themself) are an incredibly well-organized group and this is not the first time I have seen them use coordinated strength in numbers to get articles to say only the info (or disinfo) they want, regardless of what any other sources say. I think it's gotten to the point where someone should drop a word to Jimbo about how the project is open to abuse and has been abused in this way. 71.253.130.106 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am an American of Irish/French/German/English ancestry. Fan-1967 17:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Issue: The issue here, according to my understanding, is mainly between Fan-1967 (talk), and Patchouli (talk). Fan is claiming that Patch has not supplied any sources that prove that there is opposition to the Iran-Iraq war. Patch, however, believes that by having verifiable sources that discuss derserters, fleeing, and hiding, the article should be kept. In my understanding, the main issue of this dispute is the disagreement as to whether or not the desertion and evasion that the soldiers are currently doing is opposition to the war or not. Patch believes it is. Fan believes that without a source, it cannot be included in Wikipedia.

Dispute according to Fan: Fan believes that this article does not have enough verifiable sources to back up the claim that there is opposition to the war. He believes that soldiers who desert and flee from battle are attempting to survive. To quote him, "Let's face it, both Iran and Iraq used their draftees as disposable cannon fodder. Deserting or evading was not "opposition"; it was survival." However, Fan has said that if a source can be found that proves that the acts of desertion and evasion are motivated by opposition to the war, then it would be acceptable as proof of opposition to the war. However, presently he believes there is no source that does this.

Dispute according to Patch: Patch believes that the desertion and evasion is proof of opposition to the war. He believes that the article should be kept because of this. He has found sources that he believes proves this point. Patch has also admitted that while desertion may not be considered as large an object of opposition as other opposition/criticism pages, he does not agree with the deletion of a true event.

Dispute according to other editors: Currently, all are in favour of deletion, for the reasons Fan has made. Some have also claimed that the article is presently unencyclopedaic. I would appreciate it if LittleDan (talk) would assist. He has raised points that may lead to a compromise between the two parties. Please indicate if you would be willing to help reach a compromise. LittleDan talk 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests: I have three things to ask of you, so that we can sort out this issue simply. I believe that it is entirely possible to sort this out without starting an edit war, if you both work together to come to some form of a compromise. Please, indicate your agreement with these terms below. I hope we can come to some form of agreement, without having to go further.
 * Neither of you edit the article while we the conflict is being resolved.
 * The article is not deleted until both sides come to an agreement.
 * That you both agree to perservere to try and resolve this issue.
 * I agree as above. Fan-1967 17:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I herewith agree with the terms set forth.--Patchouli 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography• 11:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that I was asked to come and comment on this, but here goes. Partly, I agree with Patchouli: I do think that opposition to the Iran-Iraq war is an interesting, encyclopedic topic, and that evidence of people fleeing the country to escape the draft and of a draft of children would be relevant for an article on this topic. Hopefully, Wikipedia will eventually have a well-cited, neutral article on this topic that incorporates these facts. While unsourced statements are generally bad, they are not a criterion for deletion, and are found all over Wikipedia. However, the article is currently does not fit some basic criteria which all articles need, especially NPOV. The article is not very balanced, listing only alleged negative things about the war. Additionally, Patchouli should cite his sources for the first two paragraphs of the Iran section. The most important problem of all is the relative lack of information that is actually about opposition to the Iraq war. There may be some information in the currently cited sources about internal opposition (such as evidence of protests, guerilla groups, etc.), and Patchouli and other editors should try to use this and other sources in the article to make it more complete. The currently present information, such as that a draft existed, and some vague group of people held undefined negative opinions about it, is not very unique in war, and if more information is not added, the content is non-notable under its current title. Maybe the information about the draft would be better put at the article Iran-Iraq War. Sorry if that was a bit long-winded :) LittleDan talk 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I could add a few points: We have anecdotal reports of desertion and evasion. All wars have some degree of this. We have no cited sources to indicate numbers. If, in fact, such numbers could be found, there might be a potential here for an article on desertion and evasion. However, if the article is titled "Opposition to Iran-Iraq War", somebody, somewhere in the article has to be cited as saying "I oppose this war." Not one such citation exists. Patchouli feels that desertion equals opposition. I don't agree, and don't see that anyone else does either. Every single source that specifies a reason for the evasion/desertion lists fear or desire for survival as the reason. That's not opposition. Fan-1967 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree completely. I'm not sure if I'm a good impartial outsider for this. LittleDan talk 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be. That's what I'm here for. I'm also here because I felt you raised issues that were slightly different to the other two editors, along with the other people who voted for Delete. They are, admittedly, very similar to Fan's points - but you have made very specific examples. I am sure that you would be very vital in reaching a compromise, since you seem to come from somewhere in the middle. Also, as you are the person who nominated this article for deletion, and thus inadvertantly beginning this RfC, I feel you should take a part in it - even if it is small. Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•? • 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The First Compromise
First Compromise: Under what terms would you be willing to agree to keep this article? What is the furthest you are willing to go to achieve a compromise? By doing this, we will know where to begin in negotiation between the three parties. Patchouli:The leader of the Iraqi Communist Party "Aziz Muhammad and his Kurdish compatriots had gained control of the ICP and that Kurdish interests therefore outweighed national interests. Muhammad's tenacity in supporting the armed struggle of Iraqi Kurds and in totally opposing the Iran-Iraq War helped to bring about a ,split in the ICP leadership. "http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0113) (this is not a permanent link. It is from the Country Sudies of the Library of Congress.)  Again, I think protests would not have been possible in either country and thus desertion is enough. --Patchouli 03:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments by the Commentor: Fan, do you consider this a verifiable source? Would you accept this as a part of the article? Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•? • 07:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan-1967: Produce, cited, verifiable content about opposition to the war. Not desertion or draft evasion that someone assumes is indicative of opposition. Actual content about opposition. Fan-1967 02:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments by the Commentor: Essentially, you feel that this topic currently violates the verifiability guideline. Presently, I agree with you. However, Patch has come up with what may well be an appropriate source. Would you be willing to keep the article if more sources like this were found? Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•? • 07:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Little Dan: I agree with Fan-1967 entirely; there is no need for me to paraphrase what he or she said. LittleDan talk 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Just briefly, outline your position and why. Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•? • 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Comments after First Compromise: At this time, I must make some critical comments. The primary issue here is that Patch is unable to come up with a verifiable source that says fleeing is a mark of opposition. I agree with fan on this. However, Patch's opinion that desertion is, in fact, a sign of resistance, could be what makes the difference. At this time, I have formed two possible compromises that may satisfy both sides. 1. If a verifiable source were to be found that proves that most desertion is a sign of resistance, would both parties be willing to come to an agreement? This would also mean that if no source similar to this is found, the article should be deleted. 2. Patch, Fan makes two good points. All other opposition/resistance articles have proof of resistance that this article does not have. Also, it is normal to assume that desertion is out of instinct for survival, rather than anything else. For that reason, I currently lean towards recomending the article for deletion, unless all parties agree with the first compromise. For that, I ask if you would be willing to accept the deletion of this article until you find a verifiable source. This is what LittleDan and Fan want, I understand. The deletion of the article would not be permanent. When you find a verifiable source, it would be perfectly acceptable to reconstruct the article again. I welcome comments on both of these compromises, by any user. Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•? • 07:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a Dispute Resolution page
I don't think a "Request for Comment", or any form of dispute resolution, is appropriate procedure on an ongoing AfD page. This is neither the place nor the time for this. This page is not about a dispute between two or three users, it's about the article and whether or not the article or the subject matter is of encyclopedic nature. --Mardavich 23:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I've never seen an RFC on an AFD before. Not sure it's appropriate. If there is a consensus to delete, does an RFC become a method to forestall that consensus? If invoking RFC becomes common, does the AFD process end up becoming hopelessly clogged? It's bad enough already. Fan-1967 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we need to ignore the rules and not cavil about bureaucratic issues.--Patchouli 03:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And sometimes people desperately need to grasp at straws to try to avoid the process. You have not convinced one person that this article is salvageable, so you went to RFC to try to do an end run around the AFD process. It may delay the process. It won't change the result. Fan-1967 03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, I ask you both not to fan the flames. This is only going to make things harder for a compromise to be reached. Regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for a request to be made, it was. I ask you both to try to avoid starting more conflicts like this one. Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•? • 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AFD is supposed to be about reaching consensus. So is RFC.  AFD is not a vote.  Perhaps this is a better way to run an AFD?  At least in cases like this where leaving the page as is would be wrong, but deleting it outright would also be wrong?  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's ridiculous that we're spending so much time in commenting and bureaucracy when Patchouli is the only one who opposes deletion, and he wrote the article in the first place. I know you have good intentions, Scalene, but I'm not sure that all of this is helping. I'm not trying to "fan the flames" or anything, but we all have more important things to do. LittleDan talk 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, here. I just want to get the thing closed. I've been notified that the article has been moved to Conscription in the Iran-Iraq War. I think that Patch is trying to avoid deletion. Plus, he has not responded to either compromise.
 * I'm thinking that this needs to be dealt with further up. Patch has a history of POV pushing, and this is slowing things down. I'm thinking that I should pass this thing on to someone higher up. Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є • 20:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Patch is also consistently clearing out his talk page. I think this really needs to go to Arbitration Comittee, and I believe LittleDan has already nominated it. Any chance of a link? I like to keep updated. Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•<font style="color:#00F;">Є • 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone agrees that soldiers tried to desert from fighting this war. But this doesn't prove opposition.  There was no opposition, actually everybody supported this war.  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. 71.253.130.106 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One may assume that there was some opposition. However, one cannot write an article based on an assumption. There must be verifiable citation of opposition activity, and that is clearly absent. Fan-1967 02:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am completely in agreement. I am going to end this RfC right now. No responses for three days, by two of the parties - I'm thinking that this is over. It's slowed things down enough. If any of you have any issues with this, it should be taken further. <font style="background-color:#cedff2;font-size:100%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid#a3b0bf;text-align:center;color:#000;">Scalene •UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•<font style="color:#00F;">Є • 09:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

L0b0t's comments on Patchouli

 * Comment User:Patchouli is pestering me at my talkpage with the following You should have read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War before advocating deletion.--Patchouli 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did read the article. Then I voted to delete or merge it. Why would you think otherwise when I even quoted from the article in my vote comment? L0b0t 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You had read this:The leader of the Iraqi Communist Party "Aziz Muhammad and his Kurdish compatriots had gained control of the ICP and that Kurdish interests therefore outweighed national interests. Muhammad's tenacity in supporting the armed struggle of Iraqi Kurds and in totally opposing the Iran-Iraq War helped to bring about a ,split in the ICP leadership. "http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0113) (this is not a permanent link. It is from the Country Sudies of the Library of Congress.)? Also, it is more appropriate to take issue with the article name as opposed to advocating outright deletion.--Patchouli 14:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may have me confused with someone else. I did read the article and voted the way I thought best. Why are you challenging my vote on my talk page? Why are you quoting sections to me that have nothing to do with my vote, reasons, or comments? L0b0t 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"As per above this is survival not opposition" I was "quoting sections to [you] that have [a lot] to do with [your] vote, reasons, or comments."--Patchouli 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if someone does not like the way I voted but hectoring people about their votes is VERY INAPPROPRIATE.L0b0t 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith as you need not get on the offensive and dubb a dialogue "hectoring". A simple question is not a "challenge".  Additionally, a talk page is for communication and clarification to promote harmony, not acrimony.  Your response is an ill-considered accusation of impropriety.--Patchouli 14:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Again, I'm sorry if you don't like the way I voted. Accusing me of not reading the article before I voted when I've quoted from the article itself in my vote is, to me, inappropriate. I voted for the options that I thought best, in this case delete or merge, I owe you no explaination for my vote or anything else I do for that matter.  The links to other articles  I included to disprove the claim that Iran was doing anything anything new or unprecedented by killing or torturing deserters, that has been a feature of warfare for as long as humans have been warring with eachother, even in the U.S. Army, desertion can get you sentenced to death.  As it stands, I see nothing in this article that could not be easily covered as a section on conscription in the Iran-Iraq War article.L0b0t 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I forthrightly concede that I did not like the way you voted. I furthermore appreciate your time and examination of the matter at hand on top of recognizing your right to vote.  However, at Wikipedia, one is highly encouraged to build consensus through explanations and reasoning.  I didn't accuse you of not reading the article;  I thought perhaps due to oversight you hadn't read the discussion to this page.

Concerning your last point on a conscription section, the Iran-Iraq War article is currently 66 kilobytes long. It is ill-advised to further lengthen it.--Patchouli 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The size problem can and should be dealt with by removing all the Iranian POV about America controling the Iraqi invasion but, that is another discussion. You are right on point about consensus though, and I apologise for misinterpreting your comments.  I still feel that an article about "opposition" to the war should include more on opposition from civilians and less on deserters and cowards.  With that said, I think an article on conscription, both Iranian and Iraqi, might be a good idea. L0b0t 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a problem, however, with turning this content into an article on conscription, draft evasion and desertion. Pretty much most of the content is anecdotal. All of these activities appear in just about every war, especially when casualty rates climb. Was desertion or evasion more common in this conflict than in others? We don't seem to have sources that say so, just some vague commentary that there was a lot. No reliable numbers seem to be there. They're needed. Fan-1967 02:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)