Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 23 March 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran–Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Iran–Iraq War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 6, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 22, 2004, September 22, 2005, and September 22, 2006.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran–Iraq War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Economic Cost

Would like a functioning, and reliable, source for the 500 billion USD cost. Seems to be greatly exaggerated considering the actual size of the Iraqi and Iranian economies (neither which exceeds 500 billion USD even today, 22 years after the end of the war, despite economic growth and inflation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.237.223.30 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Iran-Iraq war", Microsoft Encarta (2008) is the source. Today, GDP by PPP in Iran is above $800 billion. GDP does not equate "total assets" in a country. For example, GDP in the USA is around $14 trillion today and "total hard assets" is many times that amount. Damage because of the war has also to include damage to the people and also healthcare costs. Still, all this does not account for opportunity costs and inflation, since these numbers were calculated by United Nations experts in the early 1990's. Today, the cost for Iran's economy alone would be above $1 trillion easily. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Belligerents

This is a request for comment, since the previous consensus is being constantly changed (and those changes disputed). The previous consensus (as can be seen in the section "Belligerents" above was to keep the USA out of the list, as well as other countries. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the involvement of most Arab nations and some developed nations like US in support for Iraq is well sourced. However, I am not sure where we draw the line as whom was a Belligerents/participant of the war and whom was not enough involved to be called that. I have my opinion on this but I hope we can have a more concrete way of distinguishing this. Maybe there is already an established procedure in Misplaced Pages for other wars? Anyone knows?Farmanesh (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If solely military or financial assistance to a party makes the third country effectively a co-belligerent of the country receiving supplies, then Israel must have been a co-belligerent of Iran. See Israeli support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war.
My argument here of course won't convince the Scythian POV zealots, but I hope this helps to explain to uninvolved users like you why it's nonsensical to talk of the US as a co-belligerent of Iraq. Some months ago, the same loony editors would insert the USSR as such, too. It must have been a great alliance then of all those otherwise unfriendly nations having their detachments fight alongside Iraqis! MIaceK (woof!) 14:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First I have to ask: why PUK and Daawa are listed as Belligerents in Iran's list and PMK as a Belligerent in Iraq's list. The criteria which make these addition OK and acceptable to those not letting USA being mentioned, should apply to USA too. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to act like that: (per wp:npov and wp:nor). Xashaiar (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both comments above shows the lack of a clear standard here for deciding who is a Belligerent. I hope that in some other place like an Academic setting or at least in a wikipedia well-discussed previous consensus about wars we can find the answer. Any help or suggestion on this?

But if we are the ones to decide (not a good way at all), but I guess one criteria would be that the support should have been "consistent", "broad", and "significant".

• Consistent: meaning the party involved should has offered the support for the whole duration or at least a considerable duration of the war.
• Broad: meaning the support should have been more than just in one sense. For example only a diplomatic support (even if consistent and significant) might not be enough to call the involved a Belligerent.
• Significant: meaning the support offered was of a level which would be worthy to the cause (war in this sense).

These were just my immediate ideas on this, feel free to suggest yours and even better find what others have done about this. cheers Farmanesh (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

About PUK, Daawa and PMK, I have no idea why they are listed as belligerents. I propose we reamove all beligerentes except for Iran and Iraq and individually discuss each party that someone would like to add. My arguments for not including the US (and several other countries) are:

• The US did not take part on the iraqi side of the war as an ally.
• It did provide economic support (through differente forms) to both Iran AND Iraq
• It did enter in conflict with BOTH Iran and Iraq.
• It is a third party, who despide being related to the conflict did not take part on it as an one-sided entity.
• The article itself cites that one of the reasons that Iran decided to end the conflict was fear of direct confrontation with the US due to escalating hostilities between the two countries.
• There was no open conflict between the two countries, only limited operations in response to Iran's mining of international waters

The same reasons apply to several other countries. The US has been off the list for a long time, from time to time the same users try to add it back, but it is eventually reverted. They keep trying to push their POV. If this issue is unresolved, I am willing to apply for mediation. And I hope Xashaiar and Scythian agree to it. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC comment:Providing material support to one side of a war (or even both sides) doesn't make you a belligerent. USA shouldn't be on there. Sol (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should. USA did engage in direct military conflict with Iran and only Iran and in support of Iraq during this war. This makes USA support to Iraq different from support from other parties that gave for example chemical weapons to Iraq. Anyway this is just infobox and the relevant materials could otherwise be put back into the lead. Xashaiar (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Iraq even attacked an American ship, oficially claiming it was inside the Iran-Iraq war zone. This makes no sense if the US was aligned with Iraq. Also, the US did not attack Iran to secure Iraq's interests, but to ensure freedom of navigation (as supported by UN Security Council Resolution 598) and as retaliation for Iranian attacks on US ships (Sea Isle City and USS Samuel B. Roberts). It goes even to the point that there was never open war between Iran and the US, only minor engagements, as well as there is no peace traty or anything like it (as there is between Iran and Iraq). Uirauna (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Iraq's attack on a U.S ship was a mistake. They believed they were attacking an Iranian corvette. As for U.S actions not benefiting Iraq, that is utter nonsense. Operation Praying Mantis directly coincided with the most massive Iraq ground attack of the war, directly causing Iran to finally bargain at the peace table. The Scythian 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• RFC comment. This is stupid dispute. What is a belligerent? Obviously a person doing the fighting. Did the USA engage in fighting? NO. Was USA truly neutral? perhaps not, but that does not make it a belligerent. The mutually hostile attitude of Iran and USA since the Iranian Revolution has been well known, but that does not make it a belligerent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The U.S did some "fighting." That fighting directly benefited Iraq. That makes the U.S a belligerent. See Operation Praying Mantis. The Scythian 22:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite all the comments agree with keeping the US out of the belligerent list, you still want to dispute. I propose we enter in a formal mediation process to solve this issue and prevent any further edit warring. Do you agree Scythian77? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note. While in your original RFC you have focused on the USA but at the end you have added "as well as other countries". This is very vague and too generalized. Almost in all discussions here people have focused on USA, as it was also the primary focus of your RFC.

Now if you do go ahead with Mediation I think we should keep this specific focus on USA. Generalizing it to an unspecified "other countries" would not serve the mediation. Farmanesh (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

USA was not a belligerent. End of story. OmarKhayyam (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem Farmanesh, I´ll keep it focused. I´m waiting for the reply from Scythian77 to request mediation. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So Scythian77? Do you agree on the mediation? Or should we consider that consensus has been reached? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to no replies from the other party in over a week, I´ll consider consensus reached on keeping the US outside the belligerent list. I have also removed the RfC. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assumption. The Scythian 20:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please reply to the question I made above. Do you agree to start a formal mediation process? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents

There still seems to be a sort of slow-motion edit-war about who are the belligerents. Would it help if you first had a good look at the Hague Convention and agree what definition of belligerent you are using and then not add any belligerents other than Iraq and Iran (and obvious, agreed candidates) without discussing their belligerent status first, here, with sources.Fainites scribs 14:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

US involvement with Iran during the war

I have gone through the article/sources and have noted that the article misleadingly assumes that US was a strategic supporter of Iran during the war, which is completely wrong. The fact is that US supplied some equipment to Iran and these were done as part of a deal on Iran's hostage taking and terror attacks in Lebanon. This can not be put as a strategic support. There are numerous credible sources which are as such one is this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012102914_2.html . The article will be changed to reflect this and this is put here to initiate a consensus. --Irooniqermez (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this issue straight to the talk page. What changes do you propose? Uirauna (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. The reason I have put it here is to create improved fact based non-partisan article by consensus which is important for the article specially the consensus of old editors of this article. I propose that United States be removed from supporters of Iran section, since Iran was almost at war with US simultaneously. US navy was engaging Iranians as well being a party of an Iranian proxy war in Lebanon. These facts are enough to exclude US from strategic supporters of Iran. According to searches I have done there is plenty of credible references as well as first hand interviews with both US and Iranian officials which shows that Iran had received some equipments which were not huge, being at most a couple of airplane loads of spare parts and perhaps one or two F-4 fighter jets. All sources agree that these equipment were traded for American hostages in Lebanon some of whom were working for US government. The article should reflect this fact clearly so that readers do not assume US was a strategic supporter of Iran during the war. Also article has the capacity to be nominated for Misplaced Pages good articles, once improvements are done. There is also a need for a thorough copy editing as well as grammar correction. Thank You.--Irooniqermez (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which side turned out the better from this war?

It dosen't seem like either side won a clear victory to the war. Even though Saddam was backed by many Western powers and the Iranians had just undergone a major revolution. 204.184.80.26 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

9 years of fighting

In the beginning it says: making it the longest declared war of the twentieth century. That seems to be very strange. For e.g. the vietnam conflict was going more or less 30 years. And the war in north Corea pinciple is still today not official ended. And the war in Laos, and and and .. --Alias.n.b. (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That´s POV pushing by a group of editors, the source is the title of a book on Amazon. I tried to remove it but did not want to go into an edit war. I say we remove it. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A "group of editors"...As in a cabal? I would refer to your editing of this article as about as biased as they come. You originally removed the the statement of the Iran-Iraq war as the "longest declared war of the twentieth century," simply because your own highly personal POV didn't like it, regardless of the sources and policies of Misplaced Pages say. The Scythian 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct Alias.n.b.. In fact, you hit the nail on the head. The Vietnam "War" was not a declared war. It was a "conflict." It is a legal concept in international law. For instance, technically U.S involvement in Vietnam was not as a warring combatant per say, regardless of what it actually was to an observer who was there on the ground. The Scythian 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my POV. The Korean War has so far not ended, only a ceasefire was signed, making it the longest war of the 20th century. Sorry, but no matter how many amazon book covers you provide, you can´t argue with facts. And if you want a reference, here it goes by Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/04/us-korea-idUSSEO15784020071004?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews. If you want to be accurate, it is not the longest declared war. If you want to mean conflict, it is not the longest conflict, there is no pov in this, just numbers. And about pov pushing, I´m not the one who was blocked for disruptive editing and pov pushing. If you believe I´m pov-pushing, please (and I repeat, please) report me to the admins, I´ll be quite happy to deffend my case there as I know that as usual you accusations do not stand. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy...The Korean War was not a "declared war," either. It is still an ongoing conflict. U.S involvement was as part of a U.N "policing force." As for books I provide to you listing it as the longest war of 20th century, that fits right into Misplaced Pages guidelines. You trying to argue otherwise is clear POV pushing, as is your editing history on this article. As for a 24 four hour ban, big deal. You got lucky. Next time around, it'll probably be you. The Scythian 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It was declared war, you can argue as much as you want. Anyway, it is not something that I care about, I know that in the end enough editors will look at it and your edits will come down, just as they did in the "US as belligerent" issue. There's nothing about luck in that, you tried to push your pov, enter in an edit war, disrespect other user and as per WP guidelines was blocked. And again, if you think I'm pov-pushing or disrespecting you, please post me on the admin board. When I have enough time I'll open a RfC and resolve this issue. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to argue. U.S involvement in the "Korean War" was as a member of a U.N collation in a policing action, sanctioned by UNSCR 84. The U.S never "declared war" on either North Korea or China, and likewise, they never returned the favor. If you disagree, which is something laughable to do about it at best, feel free to take it over to the Korean War discussion page. As for "disrespect," I would call your quick rush to get me blocked for 24hrs due to a 3RR violation absolutely pathetic, and it really shows your true purpose here. I've dealt with POV pushers on both sides of the aisle on this page. Nothing new. I look forward to the RfC, since there are plenty of sources referring to the Iran-Iraq War as such. The Scythian 04:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

While you might think of it as pathetic, the administrators didn´t, and I see you at least have learned the lesson, albeit the hard way. Anyway, this is not the place for such discussion. Goodbye and keep it civil. Uirauna (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

no "tactical Iranian failure"

Hi my name is Robert

I've been following recent changes made by a few individuals to this article. There are several individuals wishing to remove the phrase "tactical Iranian failure" in the summary results box. However, an individual signing in as Uirauna, seems to insist on inserting that phrase. The below is my explanation as to why that assertion should not be included to describe "the Results" of the war.

When it comes to this war, one cannot insist on the phrase "tactical failure" when it comes to the Iranian offensives, at least in its traditional sense. This is better understood, if the Iranian objectives are studied and observed for what they actuality were. The Iranian actions throughout the war were mostly constituted as defensive manoeuvres and not intended as a major offensive and or to capture/destroy new targets. To that end Iran was very successful.

My understanding also is that the war needs to be looked at objectively throughout the period which it lasted 1980-1988. The main objective of the Iraqi armed forces, under Saddam Hussein, was to invade and annex the oil rich state of Khuzestan in South West Iran. That objective failed shortly after the invasion and the war was in-fact fought for the rest of the war in Iraq until its end in 1988.

I also note that once the UN resolution of cease fire was accepted by both warring sides, Iran had to pull its troops back and evacuate Iraqi territory. To that end, I am not sure how one can argue a "tactical Iranian failure"? In any event, that assertion should not be places in the summary results box, but rather incorporated in the main article with the relevant specifics of the facts.

I will also, edit this section out in the article to reflect the above facts, and invite the active member to follow the above. I will, also send a copy of this correspondence to WP.

Hope this was helpful

Thanks

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.192.146 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Iran articles
• Top-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Start-Class Iraq articles
• High-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• Start-Class Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Former good article nominees
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2006)