Talk:Iran–Iraq War

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Cinderella157 in topic Missing
Former good article nomineeIran–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
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 22, 2004, September 22, 2005, September 22, 2006, and September 22, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee


Why is this a tie ? (Should be irans victory) edit

Why is this listed as a tie? I am so confused. Saddam said he would take over iran and failed. Not only did he fail, but iran gained some of Iraqi territory which it then lost back to iraq. How is this a tie? It is obvious iran won. 216.181.132.21 (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

😂😂😂 PreserveOurHistory (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
What the 174.208.232.48 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Israel in the infobox edit

@PersianFire: Unless you can prove that Israel participated in the war (military supplies and intelligence support is not "participation"), I suggest that you self-revert. "Supported by" is being phased out, and that means that non-belligerents have to go. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

No need to, it's all there in the source. The onus is on you to read it before reverting. The cited book states plenty information that Israel viewed Iraq as the far greater threat and an immediate one in the promixity, and thus lent military support and intelligence / planning to the Iran which in turn laid the groundwork for air force missions / strikes. By every definition that counts as belligerency. PersianFire (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Israel did not deploy its own forces, so it was not a belligerent. The country was not listed as a belligerent before "supported by" was phased out. If we are to include every country that offered support to either belligerent, we would bloat the infobox (and mislead readers). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
See Operation Opera#Iranian attack and Operation Opera#Preliminary Israeli/Iranian actions Parham wiki (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It was a belligerent, they did not need to deploy forces alongside the Iranians literally for belligerency to be apparent. Yes, other countries were belligerents in the war, notably US on the side of Iraq, since even though they gave armaments almost exclusively to Iran (but intelligence, political backing, and chemical weapons only to Iraq), deployed forces seperately from those of Iraq's, and fought Iran directly in the Persian Gulf. So if the US were to be added, it would have to be on the side of Iraq. PersianFire (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Israel had its own conflict with Iraq that predated this war. Since you just wrote that Israel did not deploy forces, I assume that's the end of the discussion (and of accusations of vandalism). Infoboxes are for belligerents, and no Israeli fired a shot in support of Iran. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Operation Opera was carried out with the help of Iran. Parham wiki (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of a prior conflict, they became a belligerent alongside Iran during the Iran-Iraq War due to aforementioned close cooperation. To say "no Israeli fired a shot in support of Iran", is simply a disingenous claim contrary to evidence. PersianFire (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
See http://www.angelfire.com/art2/narod/opera/ Parham wiki (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
To put it mildly: It's a stretch to suggest that Israel was a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq War because it received intelligence from Iran before Operation Opera. That same logic would make Chile a belligerent in the Falklands War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's not an apt comparison, Israeli-Iranian cooperation went far and beyond that which took place between Chile and UK. Also Chile did no conduct military operations and strikes against targets in Argentina during the Falklands War. PersianFire (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  I agree Parham wiki (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
To sum up your logic: By virtue of being at war with several of its neighbors, Israel would automatically count as a belligerent should any of these neighbors wage war against their neighbors? (And, to avoid this, it would have to pause its own conflict for the duration of these unrelated conflicts...?) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What ongoing conventional kinetic hot war did Israel have with Iraq prior to the start of the Iran-Iraq War, which according to you was paused? PersianFire (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We write what reliable sources say, what you mean is WP:OR. Parham wiki (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Reliable sources do not call Israel a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment I don't have a lot of time at this point to make a detailed assessment in respect to this matter but I will offer some preliminary thoughts that would shape such an assessment. What I am seeing is a move of Israel from being a supporter to being a belligerent in consequence of supported by being deprecated. The edits that would place Israel as a belligerent state: Israel cooperated with Iran throughout the war, providing vital support in the shape of military equipment and intelligence, against what they perceived as a common enemy. The rational intrinsically tells us that Israel supported Iran, not that it was a belligerent. A third party action against one of the belligerents during the war does not ipso facto make that party a belligerent in the war. I see attempts to rationalise why Israel should be considered a belligerent. We rely on what WP:RSs say. Such rationalisations would fall to WP:OR unless sources are specifically saying that Israel was a belligerent. Belligerency in this case is an exceptional claim. We would require a clear consensus in good quality sources before making such a claim in a wiki voice - ie calling Israel a belligerent in the infobox. A quick scan of the article is not telling me this. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, what is in the infobox must be supported by the body of the article. In this case, it would need to clearly tell us that Israel was a belligerent and not just a supporter. Lastly, there is clearly nuance to why Israel might be considered to be providing more that more that support - raising it to the level of an involved party. There is clearly nuance to this POV that cannot be captured by marking Israel as a belligerent in the infobox. This is something for which the infobox is unsuited and best left to prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Cinderella157 See https://archive.org/details/treacherousallia00pars_0
    http://www.angelfire.com/art2/narod/opera/
    Now supported by the body of the article. Parham wiki (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
How brilliant of you to add the contentious wording elsewhere in the article while there is an ongoing discussion. Also, "certain people" are now trying to argue that the Iran-Iraq War was a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is original research and complete nonsense. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No reliable sources refer to Israel as a "belligerent" or "co-belligerent" of Iran during the Iran–Iraq War (even in relation to Operation Opera); this is entirely original reseach by Parham wiki and PersianFire, citing sources that fail verification. The unverifiable material should be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As per Wikipedia's own article on Co-Belligerence, Quote "Co-belligerence is the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a military alliance. Generally, the term is used for cases where no formal treaty of alliance exists. Likewise, allies may not become co-belligerents in a war if a casus foederis invoking the alliance has not arisen. Co-belligerents are defined in the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law as "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not". End quote
As per Oxford reference, Quote "In strictness, co-belligerents are simply States engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not..." End quote PersianFire (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is reasonable to argue that Israel's role in the conflict, when considering the extent of its cooperation and military backing for Iran as well as striking targets inside of Iraq in conjunction with the Iranians, can be characterized as that of a co-belligerent, even though their close cooperation was unofficial and discreet. I'm just emphasizing the reality that Israel's actions behind the scenes and involvement in the war on Iran's side effectively amounted to de-facto co-belligerency on the side of Iran, even though it was never officially declared as such.

PersianFire (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"It is reasonable to argue that Israel's role in the conflict, when considering the extent of its cooperation and military backing for Iran as well as striking targets inside of Iraq in conjunction with the Iranians, can be characterized as that of a co-belligerent". PersianFire, can you provide any reliable sources to substantiate your reasoning above, or is this merely original research and personal speculation, for which Wikipedia is not a valid publishing venue? (Parsi 2007, p. 107 contains no claim of "co-belligerence" and therefore failed verification.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Of course it's not personal speculation. It's all there in writing in Parsi's book, not only on one page, it's all throughout. Israeli-Iranian close co-operation and intelligence sharing / planning military operations amounted to co-belligerency on the side of Iran. Whether you want to see it implemented is another matter. Certainly you will not find a statement from either side explicitly stating they were co-belligerents after the fact nor at any time during the war. PersianFire (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would still be grossly misleading to list Israel as a belligerent over a single airstrike which (for Israel) had nothing to do with Iran or the war. All other co-operation mentioned is irrelevant, as material and intelligence support does not make a country a combatant. I again point out that some users seem to want to frame this war as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, for whatever reason. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Result in infobox edit

Ali36800p, your edit here is contrary to MOS:MIL (see the bit about infoboxes), which gives voice to the template documentation about the result parameter (see Template:Infobox military conflict). I would suggest you read the two linked pages and revert your edit as it is against the broader consensus expressed in those links. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ali36800p, you continue to make edits to the result parameter of the infobox (here) contrary to guidance, even when you have been specifically pointed to that guidance. I would suggest you self-revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why is it called "Iran–Iraq War"? edit

Shouldn't it be "Iraq-Iran War" instead? Iraq started the war, thus the war should be called "Iraq-Iran War". Romanshein (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It depends on how it is known in sources. See this ngram. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Removal of weapons section in the article edit

I deleted the weapons section here with the edit summary: removed section not supported by sources and of questionable value. This was reverted by PersianFire here with the edit summary: Are you serious? This is vandalism. To answer the question, I am perfectly serious. There is not a single source and WP:BURDEN applies. The section consists solely of a table that is a mass of links. There is no prose that would indicate why this might be of value such as an analysis by sources of the relative armories. This type of data dump probably falls under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It is certainly not a section that would appear in our better quality articles. WP:P&G does not support the inclusion of this section. Consequently, characterising my edit as vandalism probably wasn't appropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Missing edit

It needs tó metion in the infobox hlé Both sides claimed victory. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per MOS:MIL and the template documentation, such nuance is not for the infobox but for the lead and the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply