Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Iran-Iraq War: friendly fire comment

Discussion between UCaetano & ZxxZxxZ, copied from from User talk:ZxxZxxZ

Please stop trying to add it. You tried it before, don't try it again. UCaetano (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Oh. But why do you think it should be removed? --Z 16:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Why do you think it should be added? Are there enough reliable sources showing that the Iraqi attack on the US ship was friendly fire? And please notify me when you post an answer to my comment in someone else's talk page. UCaetano (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC) UCaetano, it was a mistake by Iraq and a friendly fire. US even laid the blame on Iran. The reason I'm insisting to mention it is that many Westerners do not know much about the war and that who was siding with who back then. I restored the "friendly fire" part with a source --Z 11:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC) You'll need more than a source, you'll need plenty of them, because every single other source points to something different. There's an entire article about it: USS Stark incident. Please stop trying to add it, specially AFTER you've been reverted. That's edit warring. UCaetano (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Would you show me a "single other source" that contradicts the source I provided? --Z 11:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Did you even read the source you proposed? Here's what it says: "by Iraqi 'frienly fire'". The quotes are in the original. This brief mention, under quotes, by a random book doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. Let's take this conversation to the page's talk page, since a user's talk page is not the place for this discussion. Please propose your change there with the sources to back it. UCaetano (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

TLDR: In the infobox there's a pic of USS Stark incident, for the caption of which I added the phrase "(friendly fire)", because I think such image without a proper caption in the beginning of this article would mislead the readers that Iraq was hostile toward US in Persian Gulf back then, which is actually the opposite. As discussed in the USS Stark incident article, US did not consider Iraq as enemy and Iraq apologized and said it was a "mistake", which I percieve as friendly fire. IMO the only concern here is that it may be a case of WP:SYN, but I added a source (diff) which specifically mention "'friendly fire'", in quotation marks, which UCaetano thinks it's not enough and that there are sources that "points to something different", which s/he failed to provide so far. ANYWAY, in case that we do not reach a consensus, I think the pic should be removed from the lead, because it is misleading. --Z 16:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't misleading, USS Stark was hit from an exocet missile fired by an Iraqi airplane. Currently there is no mention of the intent of the attack. Qualifying it as friendly fire or intentional is dubious and controversial. It would be similar to calling the USS Vincennes incident friendly fire. Nobody calls either incidents episodes of friendly fire, and even your source mentions it between quotes. UCaetano (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a hell of difference between USS Vincennes and USS Stark incidents. As I said earlier, the USS Stark incident can be percieved as friendly fire, and I mentioned a reference that specifically use this phrase. The quotation marks in the source don't disprove anything; we can mention "friendly fire" between quotes in this article as well. --Z 21:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A mistake is not "friendly fire". You're desperately reaching to create the false impression that America and Iraq were co-belligerents against Iran. The picture was added by an Iranian editor to make Iraq look bad, not by an American editor to obfuscate the U.S. tilt towards Iraq from 1982 until 1990.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Book on the Iran-Iraq War

There is relatively new book about the war, called The Iran-Iraq War: A Military and Strategic History by Williamson Murray and Kevin M. Woods, and published in 2014 by the Cambridge University Press. While I haven't personally had a chance to read it yet, it is clearly very useful as a potential source. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I believe it may make use of the Iraqi archives captured after 2003, and thus shed some new light on the past.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

USSR-Iraq

USSR should be mentioned as the supporter of Saddam Hussein. behind of him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persian2015 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iran–Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151014060357/http://iranprimer.usip.org/sites/iranprimer.usip.org/files/Iran%20and%20Syria.pdf to http://iranprimer.usip.org/sites/iranprimer.usip.org/files/Iran%20and%20Syria.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/idUS180865%2031-May-2011%20PRN20110531

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Picture is not from Iran-Iraq conflict

The picture of a infant soldier appearing in the infobox montage is not from the military conflict covered by this entry. It's from the Algerian War.--damiens.rf 14:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Military use of children in Algéria-France war in iranian fronts.

Corrected - thanks for the notice. Done GreyShark (dibra) 08:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Divisions and army count

There's some contradicting information which I'm trying to wrap my head around. In the '1980: Iraqi invasion' subsection, it states:

"Of Iraq's six divisions that were invading by ground, four were sent to Khuzestan, which was located near the border's southern end, to cut off the Shatt al-Arab"

Now a division usually contains about 10,000 - 15,000 men, which then implies that the total invading force was a minimum of 60,000 men or a maximum of about 90,000 men. But the info summary box at the top of the page claims that the invading force at the onset of war contained 200,000 soldiers. As it seems there is a blaring contradiction between these two statements, which source is correct?

Might need further research on the size of an Iraqi division during the 1980's but I find it hard to believe that a single division could include 30,000 men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.84.209 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Belligerents and supporters

After being stable for several years, recently the infobox was inflated with various flags and countries, which mostly have marginal if any relevance to this war (violating WP:NOTABLE, WP::EXCEPTIONAL and WP:VERIFABLE).

Belligerents

For certain -on one side the belligerent was the Islamic Republic of Iran, allied with Iraqi Kurdish militias KDP and PUK; on the second side there was Ba'athist Iraq with an ally Iranian oppositional armed group Mujahedin al-Halq. I do not find any source for including KDP-I (which had fought Islamic Republic from spring 1979 to early 1981, but this had nothing to do with Iran-Iraq War) on Iraqi side; I'm also not sure about including Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, though its predecessor Islamic Dawa Party had indeed led some insurgent activity in Ba'athist Iraq in 1980-82, including assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein - thus possibly notable.

Supporters

Iran had very little foreign support during the war - the only notable one which supplied logistics, weapons or advisors could be Ba'athist Syria which rivaled Ba'athist Iraq during that period, but i cannot validate the source for its support to Iran and what kind of support was that. Supporters to Ba'athist Iraq included limited but notable support of the United States, Soviet Union, France and Jordan. Cannot find any verification for the rest of now added countries.

I welcome comments and would like to apply the herewith achieved consensus to create a stable infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 08:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

After review of sources i'm tending to add Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as Iraqi supporters, due to financial donations to Saddam by those countries. I'm not sure about United Kingdom, so a good source is required, otherwise to be removed.GreyShark (dibra) 11:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - i invite the active participants of previous 2010 discussion regarding belligerents. @Mikrobølgeovn, Uirauna, Kansas Bear, and Farmanesh:.GreyShark (dibra) 08:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexploded ordnance?

Hi. I am interested in knowing more about the after effects of this particular war. In particular information about unexploded ordnance (UXO), including landmines, left over from the war. I think it might be important to add to this article, in case unexploded remnants are still causing large scale problems today. RhinoMind (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy

Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Some users (including me) want to state "failure of Iraqi offensive" as a result of the war, because stating that "Iraqi failure to conquer territory on the east bank of Shatt al Arab" is useless, we already say in the territorial change "statut quo ante bellum"... Wikaviani (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"failures of Iraqi offensives" is not a result of the war. It doesn't even make logical sense. The final results section summarizes the end goals which both sides tried to obtain, but could not, as a result of failed military offensives. In other words what did the failed offensives, which are already present and can be read about in the main parts of the article, result in for either side; that is what the final results section is meant for --- PersianFire

@PersianFire:First of all, on Wikipedia users sign their messages with four tildes, you'll have to do the same so that I know who I'm talking to... It seems that you (if you are PersianFire...) badly misunderstood what i meant by "offensive". When i was talking about Iraqi offensive, it's about the war Iraq launched against Iran, not the successive battles of that war. So Iraq launched that offensive to take Shatt al Arab, Khuzistan and the three islands annexed by imperial Iran. None of these goals was achieved, that's why i said "failure of Iraqi offensive" and i, contrary to you, provided a source... The next part of the result of the war is ok for me, ("ranian failure to topple Saddam Hussein and destroy Iraqi military power as well as inspire sectarian divide in Iraq"). I know that Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, but when i read the result of this war in some other languages of Wikipedia, it's roughly stated what i propose:

In french: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_Iran-Irak

In Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_Ir%C3%A1n-Irak

In Turkish: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0ran-Irak_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1

I avoided Persian and Arabic articles to stay as neutral as possible... So all these contributors are not "logical" according to you, uh ? Farawahar (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If you take an objective look then it should be obvious, the final results section in the articles you mention are not balanced/neutral, they reflect an Iranian point of view and have likely been constructed by someone with an Iranian bias. By only stating that the Iraqi offensives failed, without mentioning it for the Iranian side, would indirectly imply that the Iranian side succeeded in their end goals/objectives, which is not true. Both sides failed in their stated end goals/objectives, hence a military stalemate. And even if one wants to rephrase it as "the Iraqi invasion of Iran failed", for instance, then one would have to also state "the Iranian counter-invasion of Iraq failed". I fair idea would be to add "Iraqi failure to permanently occupy.." before the annexation part. In that manner there would be no doubt that the Iraqis could not stay in any Iranian territory at the conclusion of the war. --- PersianFire

@PersianFire: It seems curious to me that one user (you...), says he is "objective" while others are not (me, Farawahar and the users who wrote the articles on this topic in other languages...) and all this without providing any source. You say that the articles cited above are written "by someone with an Iranian bias" but what evidence do you have for that ? If you have no evidence, then THIS IS ONLY YOUR POV. More, i think you're wrong about the goals of the two countries. Iran did not want to conquer Iraqi territory (officially), it wanted to topple Saddam and destroy Iraqi military capabilities and it failed to do so, this is written in the outcome of the war and is true. Iraq had a clear goal: to conquer both banks of Shatt al Arab as well as the province of Khuzistan and their military offensive to do so FAILED, this is also true but is not written in the article... The fact that Iraqi offensive failed to conquer Iranian territory is true and sourced, if you revert this kind of sentence, then i'm sorry to tell you that this is POV-pushing... Wikaviani (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iran–Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211135316/http://hprsite.squarespace.com/death-of-a-salesman-042007/ to http://hprsite.squarespace.com/death-of-a-salesman-042007/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170123153530/https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/DancingwithSaddam.pdf.pdf to https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/DancingwithSaddam.pdf.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201227/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201227/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AsJElOFL?url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/USS_Liberty_Pueblo_Stark/65rev.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/USS_Liberty_Pueblo_Stark/65rev.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran–Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807121348/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52412 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52412

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iran–Iraq War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103065353/http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appf.pdf to https://fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appf.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103191459/http://cns.miis.edu/iraq/ucreport/dis_acti.htm to http://cns.miis.edu/iraq/ucreport/dis_acti.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620160547/https://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm to https://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Table on "Usage of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran"

This table under Iran–Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq exhibits that Iraq was using mustard gas since 1980, though linked wiki pages and sources all point to the second half of 1983 (eg. Iraqi chemical weapons program article). It is also known that Iraq possessed riot control agents (eg. tear gas), mustard gas, tabun, and sarin, but the table also includes blood agents (eg. cyanide-based blood agents) and choking agents (eg. phosgene) which Iraq has never been known to possessed, but Iran was suspected to, particularly in the context of the controversial Halabja chemical attack where Iranian and international physicians found many victims to have died by cyanide poisoning.

With regards to these inconsistencies in both dates and types of chemical weapons, is it prudent and consistent to continue displaying this table?SeriousSam11 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As this has not had further discussion in over a month, and the table is misleading and contains inaccurate information, I'll consider removing it until a better source can be acquired. SeriousSam11 (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Distinction between belligerents and supporters

I have been reverted several times now while attempting to distinguish between those supporters, such as the Soviet Union, which provided material aid, but did not fire a shot, and supporters such as the United States which actively fought in the war. It is hard for me to prove a negative and prove that the Soviet Union, France, and other supporters did not fire a shot or suffer losses, but it is easy to prove that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait either actively fought (in the case of the US) or suffered significant losses Kuwait, or at least some losses Saudi Arabia. These facts are already well backed by the citations in this article, so this is not original research. How do we define belligerent?

I searched for definitions and found " adj. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive. adj. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare. n. One that is hostile or aggressive, especially one that is engaged in war."

If we take the first example, we could hardly call Iran a belligerent given that Iran was attacked. However, if we take into consideration the second defintion, the US is most definitely a belligerent. They actively engaged in fighting as is well backed up by the citations in this article. You may question whether the US was on the side of Iraq or on its own side, given that the Navy describes their engagement as follows "In late 1986, Kuwait asked the United States to help protect its ships, and within several weeks, the Reagan administration acceeded to the request." http://www.navybook.com/no-higher-honor/timeline/operation-earnest-will/ That sounds almost like a peace keeping role, thus I tried to put them in their column, in a similar fashion to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur in which the UN peace keeping force is in its own column among the belligerents. However, that was reverted as well.

 Tim.thelion (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD when you are reverted it is your duty to take it to the talk page before making further edits. I've reported you for edit warring. Engaging in warfare is not taking part in a war, those are different. The US never declared war or had war declared upon it by any of the two countries. This is a conflict between Iran and Iraq, where the US had minor side conflicts, but was not a participant in the war. Additionally, you're doing primary research. It doesn't matter if you "prove" by reading the dictionary that the US was a belligerant, your opinion (just as mine) is irrelevant here. You'll need to find enough reliable sources explicitly stating that the Iran-Iraq war was a war between Iran, Iraq and the USA. UCaetano (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not seem that there is precident for the need for a declaration of war in order for a party to be listed as a belligerent in wikipedia info boxes. In the case of the UN peace keeping mission that I cited earlier, the UN declared war on no country, nor did any country declare war on the UN. Similarly, on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War Turkey is listed as a Belligerent, yet I'm not aware of any declaration of war by or against Turkey. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that neither the United States nor North Vietnam declared war on eachother http://www.english.illinois.edu/Maps/vietnam/anderson.htm , yet both are listed as belligerents in the Vietnam war info box. Here is an article claiming that the US fought a war with Iran in the Iran-Iraq war "it is useful to remember that America has already fought one war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. During the late 1980s, President Ronald Reagan intervened in the Iran- Iraq War in support of Baghdad and Saddam Hussein, ultimately leading to an Iraqi victory. The United States engaged in an undeclared yet bloody naval and air war, while Iraq fought a brutal land war against Iran. The lessons of the first war with Iran should be carefully considered before the United States embarks hastily on a second." https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-from-americas-first-war-with-iran/ And another: "The Last Time We Fought Iran" https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-last-time-we-fought-iran

Tim.thelion (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, that is a separate conflict, between US and Iran. Unless you can find a preponderance of evidence from reliable sources listing the US as an active participant in the Iran-Iraq war, this doesn't belong here. I have not reverted your last edit, but I disagree with it. I'll wait until the admins rule out on your edit warring before reverting your changes. UCaetano (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you accept that there is an objective difference between the role of the United States, which during the war fired missiles, and was fired at, and the role of say France which only provided material support? BTW, you need to remember that you don't own this article. This is an issue which should probably be brought to arbitration. I did not realize that it was one which had already been discussed in the past?

My position is that I do not care if the US is listed as a belligerent or not, nor do I care if they are listed as allied to Iraq or not (this seems somewhat contested).

However, I think that:

1. Their involvement should be visible in the info box without having to show/hide anything.

2. Their losses and causalities should be visible without and show/hide in the info-box.

3. The info box should clearly distinguish between those countries who actively fought in the war and those who simply provided weapons and intelligence.

Tim.thelion (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think or accept, you need to find reliable sources stating that the US was a belligerent in this war. The conflict between Iran and the US is covered in a separate conflict. Your position doesn't matter, only the sources that you bring. Unless you can back that up with reliable sources, it should not go on the page. Now will ou please revert your change per WP:BRD or should I revert it myself? And if you really think this is the case and really want to add the US, please go ahead and bring in arbitration. UCaetano (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not insist on the US being listed as a belligerent and my last edit did not list them as such. However, I feel that they should be shown in the info-box so that it is clear to readers that they played an important role in the conflict. Currently, they are not shown, as the collapsible list is hidden. This is more a discussion of formatting than of fact. Already, they are listed as a supporter, you don't contest that. But you seem to be quite insistent that the supporters list not be visible. Why is that? Tim.thelion (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As per the above reasons, I don't think the US should be listed as a belligerent or in the infobox. It would be difficult to say exactly how much support is needed to qualify here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But do you disagree with the US being visible at all in the infobox? I thought that this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&oldid=841559485 reverted commit was a good compromise. It makes them visible, it makes it clear that they engaged in fighting, but it does not list them as a belligerent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The US was never directly involved in the conflict. The US had a separate conflict with Iran, that was in no way supporting Iraq. History has seen a lot of side-conflicts caused by wars. For example, when the Russian Baltic Fleet made its disastrous journey around the world to the Battle of Tsushima in the Russo-Japanese War, it accidentally sunk a couple of British ships, leading to the British blocking them from using the Suez Canal. This doesn't mean that the British were on the side of the Japanese or supporting the Japanese. To place it as military support, you'd need strong evidence that the US acted specifically to benefit Iraq in the conflict. No such thing took place, the US was not in any way militarily involved in the war, so it does not belong there. UCaetano (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that's inconsistent with the info-boxes current content. If the US really didn't support Iran then why is it written that way, and why are several sections of the article devoted to the US's military involvement in the war if they were not involved. The article should at least be internally consistent. And does it really make such a difference if the info box is visible or not? Tim.thelion (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest removing the "support" section in its entirety, I actually agree with that. I originally opposed adding the supporting part, but had to compromise. Selling arms isn't "supporting". Independently attacking one side in an unrelated conflict also isn't "supporting". UCaetano (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Too long

@Wikaviani: and @MrDemeanour: in order to shorten the article, I'm going to move some material from the article to articles are more relevant. It was nominated in the summery of edit. Why did you revert edits?!Saff V. (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Are you asking me why I reverted? See the edit summary - "Unexplained deletion of sourced material". I nearly always give an edit summary - even for typos, grammar and punctuation fixes. I only omit the summary when reverting certain kinds of vandalism. If you delete sourced material, then I think you should certainly give an edit summary - it's entirely legit to revert the deletion of sourced material if no explanation is given in the summary or the talk page. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I posted the edit summary here and It is really boring that I repeat "in order to shorten the article" during this process. Anyway, I try to write more detail.Saff V. (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I reverted you because i think that you need to gain consensus as to which part of the article should be moved. Maybe you can discuss this instead of repeatedly removing large parts of sourced content ? Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Border conflicts

In order to shorten the article, the material of "Border conflicts ..." section is seen in Iraqi invasion of Iran (1980)#Border conflicts leading to war. Also, the material does not explain the border disagreement completely. So I describe the Border conflicts leading to war from Iranica online and removed previous material.Saff V. (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Split section

Propose to split the section on 1974-75 Shatt al-Arab clashes (part of the background) - the events were quite notable with some 1,000 killed. Can certainly be an article on its own right and shorten this one into summary.GreyShark (dibra) 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is such a brilliant idea and I will create the suggestion page.Saff V. (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Did Iran try to inspire sectarian divide in Iraq ?

Certain editors want the statement of "Iran... failed in inspiring sectarian divide in Iraq..." to be removed from the result section whereas the main article clearly states that Iran did try to inspire religious rebellion in Iraq in order to remove the Iraqi government, this was done by specifically targeting the Shias (Islam consists of sects). The reason they say is that the statement lacks a citation. However the editors don't seem to have an issue with the statement that Iraq at first tried to inspire divide in Iran along ethnic lines at the outbreak of war, specifically targeting the Arabs (that statement also lacks a citation). In my humble opinion, leaving one but removing the other leads to an misleading and untruthfull results section, as well as an inbalanced one.85.194.10.227 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If the Iraqi attempt to unspire divide in Iran is also unsourced, feel free to remove it. When in doubt, leave it out. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello TheTimesAreAChanging, the answer to your question is yes, i've read numerous things about the Iran-Iraq war but that was not the problem here. the problem was that there was some unsourced content in the article which was removed by two other editors and me, then you came up and added a source for it, therefore, the current version is fine for me. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Shorten the length of "Course of the war"

As the article has the too long tag, I am going to shorten the longest part, Course of the war, and move most of the contents to a new article by the name of timeline of Iran–Iraq War (1980-1988)or Course of the war. Is there any against opinion?!Saff V. (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The infobox is incompatible with the text

Should not North Korea, China along with The US and Israel during Iran-Contra affair be included in the Support section of Iranian side?

The Iraqi side seems to include both the political supporters and the arms suppliers. NetBSDuser (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What Iranians call their dead

I removed this addition as it's not particularly relevant to this article. However it has now been restored. Can someone else remove it? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

i do not understand there is all sorts of articles about dead people and cultures on this ENCycloepdia but just not 1 page about iranians war vocabulary i made 3 different messages on your talk pages i guess 4 of you wikipedia users have read about this edit or read this edit 5.219.93.144 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

We need more images from the Iraqi perspective

WP:NPOV: We need more images from the Iraqi perspectives. For example, close-up pictures of an Iraqi soldier, Iraqi troops in action, a scene from Iraq during the war etc. At the moment most of images are telling the war from the Iranian side. I've looked up the commons but there seems glaring lack of Iraqi images there as well. JahlilMA (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Economic loss currency not specified if adjusted for inflation

For the economic loss section of this page, there are 2 sources, one from 1991 and 1997, in the article it doesn't state if the dollar amount in losses are in 1988, 1991 or 1997 dollars. ReaIestTruth (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• President Khamenei visit an Iran-Iraq war battlefield.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• President Khamenei visit an Iran-Iraq war battlefield.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi offensive repelled

Iraq attacked Iran without any warning, but its offensive was repelled by the Iranian forces, this has to be in the outcome of the war as it's an important fact. I also added a source for it. Although Iranian forces were also repelled from Iraq in 1988, Iran's goal of war was not to invade Iraq.185.147.83.182 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Both sides had a goal of invading each other's territories at one point or another. 1. Iraq did it intially, hoping Iran would fail to retake land, eventually being forced to enter negotiations, in which they would have to give in to Iraqi demands of full sovereignity over the Shatt Al Arab and giving back certain disputed territories along the shared border, (which had not been returned as per the Algiers Agreement of 1975). 2. Iran from 1982 and on, seeing the need to capture land to use at the eventual negotiations in exchange for Iraq accepting Iranian demands, for instance agreeing to stop any further aggression against Iran, as well as possibly other demands (mentioned in the beginning of the article). These were the minimalist approaches. Both had maximalist approaches as well (already stated in the result section). PersianFire (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the main invader was Iraq, Iran wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, not invade Iraq in order to annex parts of its territory. The outcome of the war should include that Iraqi offensive was repelled, this is sourced content.185.147.83.168 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: I provided a reliable source for the edit and there is a consensus about the Iraqi offensive having been repelled. What other consensus are you talking about ?185.147.83.168 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The "reliable source" you provided is a mirror of the Wikipedia article you are editing. See WP:CIRCULAR. I am talking about consensus for the addition of the content you are attempting to add. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN. General Ization ^Talk 21:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a mirror, it's a published paper. Also, to make it clear, did Iraq annex any Iranian territory during the war ? If no, this means that its offensive has been repelled, right ? How can you guys deny this ?185.147.83.168 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Eg see Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628, the Persian invasion of the Byzantine Empire has been repelled and this is in the outcome, nothing else, i'm not trying to include false events, just a fact that is sourced.185.147.83.168 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review the sources at the bottom of this page. Not every fact must be stated in an article, especially if its inclusion is controversial and/or disputed. The absence of this "fact" in the infobox does not lead to a different conclusion by the reader as a result of the contents of the body of the article. General Ization ^Talk 21:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: Sorry, but the source you linked above is not the one i added in my last edit, it was this source that i added : https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-11.1.4-Iran-Iraq-War.pdf Also, how is "Iraqi offensive repelled" controversial ? Were they repelled yes or no ? Is this sourced yes or no ?185.147.83.168 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You're apparently not paying attention. Read what I said again: "especially if its inclusion is controversial and/or disputed". Even if the facts are not in dispute, the need to include this specific information in the infobox is. I suggest that you drop the stick and find something else constructive to do on Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: I understand, but could you please explain me why is this content's inclusion controversial ?185.147.83.168 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Read PersianFire's comments above. General Ization ^Talk 21:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST351-11.1.4-Iran-Iraq-War.pdf is a PDf of an earlier generation of this same article. Again, see WP:CIRCULAR. General Ization ^Talk 21:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: I saw Persian fire's comment, but what he said is only partially true. Iran never intended to annex Iraqi territory, but Iraq did. Thus, it's quite obvious that this should be included in the outcome of the war. Would it be ok if i find another source for it ?185.147.83.168 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Stalemate" v. "Iranian military victory"

@Babak Mirsalehi: On 2020-02-28 User:Babak Mirsalehi changed "result" from "Stalemate" to "Iranian military victory" with companion changes in the Infobox. These seem to be major changes in a prominent summary and should not be made without a substantive discussion in this "Talk" page, describing how those changes more accurately reflect the content of the article than the previous text. Accordingly, I've reverted most of those changes. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Babak Mirsalehi: User:83.53.19.120 just reinstated the edits you reverted without discussing them here. Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I've reverted it again. If that reversion is again reverted, I will post a request for Wikipedia:Third opinion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Source for formal declaration of war?

I cannot find a decent source for the declaration of war. From the Iraqi invasion of Iran page, I can see the statement "On 17 September Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq abrogated the 1975 Algiers Agreement and intended to exercise full sovereignty over the disputed Shatt al-Arab river." However, I do not see a formal declaration of war. Can anyone help out here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncdraper (talk • contribs) 12:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Crucial piece of information missing from main article

There is no mention of the disputed territories along the central section of the common border (four or five areas) under Iranian military occupation, which Iran had not given back as they should have per the Algiers agreement of 1975. For reference see, at 4:20 mark:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE8b_3yvoKc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.148.74.60 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sudan as a belligerent

The source cited for Sudan being a belligerent in the war writes:

The Ba'athists, although less scarred by past experiences than the SCP, also had a lukewarm relationship with the Free Officer Organization. The origins of the Ba'athist cell date back to the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–8, when Sudan sent troops to support Ba'athist Iraq and Saddam Hussein repaid the favour by providing a number of Sudanese officers with training in Iraqi military colleges.

— Berridge, W. J. "Civil Uprisings in Modern Sudan: The 'Khartoum Springs' of 1964 and 1985", p. 136. Bloomsbury Academic, 2015

Though this indicates support, this is not enough to prove that Sudan was a belligerent. I am moving Sudan to supporters. Pahlevun (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Iranian oil infrastructure.png (discussion)
• Mirage long-range strikes.png (discussion)
• Operation Karbala-5.png (discussion)
• Tanker War.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Insights from Murray and Woods 2014

Some recent edit warring (and related drama) has finally got me reading through The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History by Williamson Murray and Kevin M. Woods, Cambridge University Press, 2014, one of the premier academic studies of the war published in recent years and based largely on Iraqi government documents captured after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq... and boy, it sure doesn't look good for the pro-Iraqi partisans at this article! I'm still making my way through the book, but here are some highlights:

• "The historic events in Tehran certainly stirred the followers of al-Sadr's Dawa Party ('the Islamic call') but it was the Ba'ath regime's 30 March decision to make membership of Dawa a capital offense that tipped the balance into open conflict. Attacks by Shi'a radicals reached the heart of the regime when, on 1 April 1980, individuals attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz, the deputy premier and Saddam’s trusted supporter. The regime responded by brutally killing the movement's most public figure, al-Sadr, and his sister."—Murray, Williamson; Woods, Kevin M. (2014). "A context of 'bitterness and anger'". The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 56-58 (e-book, page numbers approximate). ISBN 9781107062290.
  • In other words, while Iranian rhetoric inspired some Iraqi Shi'ites to revolt against their government, it was Iraq's own brutal repression that "tipped the balance into open conflict."
• "Another [July 1980 Iraqi intelligence] report indicated: 'We expect more deterioration of the general situation of Iran's fighting capability. It is probable it will send other troops to the Kurdish region to confront the armed Kurds. Moreover, the shortage of spare parts and the continuation of the general dislocation and contradiction will lead to the continuous decline in combat capability ... it is clear that, at present, Iran has no power to launch wide offensive operations against Iraq, or to defend on a large scale.'"—Murray, Williamson; Woods, Kevin M. (2014). "A context of 'bitterness and anger'". The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 59-61 (e-book, page numbers approximate). ISBN 9781107062290.
  • This shows that despite Iraq's claims to "preemption," Iraqi officials were well aware that Iran posed no military threat to Iraq at the time of the invasion. The authors affirm this Iraqi analysis in an endnote: "Interestingly, the Iranians, despite their jabbing at Saddam with scurrilous propaganda and a terrorist campaign, appear to have discounted the possibility that the Iraqis would actually attack them. Therefore, they made no serious military preparations."—Murray, Williamson; Woods, Kevin M. (2014). "A context of 'bitterness and anger'". The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History. Cambridge University Press. p. 63 (e-book, page numbers approximate). ISBN 9781107062290.
• "On 7 September 1980, Iraq accused Iran of shelling Iraqi villages in the territories of Zain al-Qaws and Saif Saad on 4 September 1980. Iraq demanded that the Iranian forces in those territories evacuate and return the villages to Iraq. Tehran gave no reply. Iraqi forces then moved to 'liberate' the villages, and on 10 September announced that its forces had done so in a short, sharp military engagement. ... On 14 September 1980, Iran announced it would no longer abide by the 1975 Algiers Agreement. Given the scene that was set, it was no surprise that on 17 September, five days before the invasion, Iraq declared the accords null and void. ... On 22 September, Iraqi units crossed the frontier."—Murray, Williamson; Woods, Kevin M. (2014). "A context of 'bitterness and anger'". The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62-63 (e-book, page numbers approximate). ISBN 9781107062290.
  • Iraq had already forcibly reclaimed two villages that Iran promised to return under the Algiers Agreement but never did on 10 September, meaning Iraq did not even have that threadbare excuse when it launched an unprovoked massive invasion of indisputably Iranian territory twelve days later!
    • Kanan Makiya makes the same point in Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq: "There remains the issue of sovereignty over Shatt al-Arab. ... Granted that this might have been a genuine motive for abrogating the 1975 treaty, and reclaiming title to the whole Shatt, what was the point of the invasion on September 22? Iraq had taken back by unilateral action on September 10 the only strips of territory it still claimed under the treaty. There was no longer any 'territory' as such on the other side to conquer. The Ba'th had already followed the Shah's example of 1971 when he unilaterally took over the three islands in the Gulf."—Makiya, Kanan (1998). Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition. University of California Press. p. 270. ISBN 9780520921245.
• "Reporting of these events is generally unreliable, but the Iraqis complained publically [sic] of 544 incidents while Iran reported 797 cases involving airspace violations, artillery strikes, and cross-border raids."—Murray, Williamson; Woods, Kevin M. (2014). "A context of 'bitterness and anger'". The Iran–Iraq War, A Military and Strategic History. Cambridge University Press. p. 63 (e-book, page numbers approximate). ISBN 9781107062290.
  • Although this article cites Mearsheimer and Walt 2002 (in a paper titled "Can Saddam Be Contained? History Says Yes") for the assertion that Iran was the primary instigator of the border skirmishes, Murray and Woods cite evidence to the contrary.

Murray and Woods also confirm Iraqi complicity in both the Iranian Embassy siege and the Nojeh coup plot, and that Iraq wanted to annex Khuzestan—this stuff may be controversial to nationalist editors, but it just isn't controversial in reliable sources published by academic presses.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Million deaths claim

Why was [1] reverted? The editor cited a source that's already used in this article, and it's not some random person's website: it's a book from Cambridge University Press, a major academic publisher. When estimates are already varying widely (the reverted-to figure was between 200K and 600K), clearly there's no consensus on the question, and it's not undue weight to add this additional figure — it's not as if virtually everyone gave a specific number and this one author differed hugely from them. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The range is not particularly large as it stands now, and having one source with an almost double "estimate" of the current range is very clearly undue. Furthermore, if your point is that the current range has a wild variance, then the solution isn't to widen it further; it's to filter out the less credible sources to arrive at a more accurate range, preferably leaving only estimates by actual military historians rather than some random person with no relevant background. --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The most reliable sources do not support a figure of 1 million Iranians KIA. The official Iranian figure is closer to 300,000 KIA, whereas the Ba'athist Iraqi regime (which had every motivation to exaggerate Iranian losses, and was famous for propaganda hoaxes and numerical distortions such as the "spectacular lie" that UN sanctions killed 500,000 children during the 1990s) only claimed 800,000 Iranians KIA. However, documents released after 2003 show that "In internal memoranda, Iraqi intelligence estimated Iranian losses from the beginning of the war through August 1986 as: killed or missing, 228,000—258,000" which seems to prove that the official Iranian figures were relatively accurate whereas the information publicly disseminated by Iraq was deliberately (and grossly) distorted. Figures of 1 million dead seem to be citogenesis based solely on some sources claiming up to 1 million casualties (i.e., dead and wounded), sometimes on both sides, and sometimes just on the Iranian side, but those cannot be sustained on the basis of any currently available data.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So we need to prefer atlases and other sources over a university press publication? Here are the publishers for the citations at the moment: Taylor and Francis, ABC-CLIO, University Press of Florida, some atlas, no idea, no idea, no idea, no idea, and an encyclopedia. That's one university press, two other academic publishers, and six sources that we have no business using. I'd delete the atlas through the encyclopedia now, except I don't know what numbers came from where. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The name/reputation of the publisher is irrelevant; what's important is the background and credentials of the author (or person making the numerical estimate). Who is the author of that Cambridge-published book, and what credentials or background do they have to make such an estimate? Are they using any authoritative sources of their own, or just throwing out a random number that popped up in their mind? --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The name/reputation of the publisher is absolutely relevant to a source, in fact by definition of Wikipedia policy is part of the source. Otherwise, WP:RSN would likely not exist. The author, Ervand Abrahamian, is a professional career historian and professor and is one of the most eminent, if not preeminent, scholars on modern Iranian history, which has been the sole focus on his career. It's demonstrably erroneous to label him as "some random person with no relevant background", like saying Adam Smith is irrelevant to economics. Of all the sources that Nyttend pointed out, this is the best of the bunch, and pointed out six we probably have no business using. In fact, the above questions are far better suited to these sources. The detail in question is not insignificant in academia on Iranian history and Abrahamian doesn't have a reputation for throwing out random numbers, yellow journalism, or hyperbolic controversy. In short, there isn't any bearing to the claim that 1) the publisher is irrelevant and 2) Abrahamian is a random and irrelevant person, and plenty to the contrary. As for most of the other sources, those are far more deserving of scrutiny. Thank you Nyttend for pointing out a glaring issue on the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Quoting WP:V — "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science." We have ten sources here: two university presses, two other academic publishers, and six who-knows-what. CUP is a top-flight university press. University Press of Florida is a major university press, so at the minimum it ought to be treated as a typical member of this top tier of publishers. ABC-CLIO and Taylor & Francis are both high-quality commercial academic publishers, and we ought to use them too. Aside from Abrahamian, the academic authors are Farhang Rajee (UPF), Dilip Hiro (T&F), and Alexander Mikaberidze (ABC-CLIO). Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

PS, I don't have anything against any of the four books I called "no idea"; if you can show that some of them are reliable, sure, let's use them too. It's just that we shouldn't be using them without evidence of reliability. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case Nyttend, let me present a much better source then, compared to Abrahamian who has absolutely no military historical background. The following article [2] within this journal [3], titled "Iranian Casualties in the Iran-Iraq War", is written by H.W. Beuttel (a military analyst for Boeing and former U.S. Army intelligence officer) and analyzed by Shawn R. Woodford (a military historian with a PhD in War Studies) and carries out an in-depth analysis of the Iranian side of the war, with a conclusion of 262,000 military dead and 945,000 wounded. In the article series they also point out that the western "estimates" are almost all based entirely on Iraqi war propaganda, including their claim of "800,000 dead" for Iran. I hope you understand that it's quality, not quantity that matters the most when it comes to sourcing. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Precisely and agreed. We're not lacking on academic sources here and I'm as confused as you as to why it was removed. In terms of sourcing, the Abrahamian book is handily the best of the 10 if we want to scrutinize the credentials of the publisher and author. The original comment questioning why it had been removed is valid, and there's still not a justification for its removal. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"So we need to prefer atlases and other sources over a university press publication?" I'm not sure how that bizarre response is even remotely applicable to my comment, Nyttend. Did you not notice that I cited Murray and Woods 2014, published by Cambridge University Press, for the statement that "In internal memoranda, Iraqi intelligence estimated Iranian losses from the beginning of the war through August 1986 as: killed or missing, 228,000—258,000"? The only reason that I did not add this estimate to the infobox is because it is only a partial tally. Even so, it obviously strains credulity to imagine that Iranian casualties could have quadrupled during the final two years of the war. Contrary to your suggestion above, I support replacing poor-quality Western "atlases" perpetuating citogenesis with academic specialists and military historians wherever feasible.

Nevertheless, while Ervand Abrahamian is a widely-respected historian, Ridax2020's failure to provide a specific page number or excerpt from Abrahamian 2008 has complicated the verification process. In light of the vagueness of the citation and the publisher's description of the book as a broad overview of Iranian history "from the mid-nineteenth century to the present day, through the discovery of oil, imperial interventions, the rule of the Pahlavis, and the birth of the Islamic Republic," I think that both Qahramani44 and myself are understandably wary that either Abrahamian doesn't actually support the 1 million figure or perhaps that he merely mentions it in passing, without giving any indication that he specifically studied war casualties as part of his research (in which case Abrahamian's internal citation would be highly relevant to this discussion). I could certainly buy the e-book right now and attempt to elucidate the answers to these questions, but on some level the WP:BURDEN of establishing that this disputed content is verifiable and due for inclusion in the main infobox falls on the reverted editor (who has yet to partake in this discussion) and on those editors that are advocating for inclusion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"First Gulf War" does not seem correct for "Iran-Iraq War"

In the first paragraph of the article it is mentioned that Iran-Iraq war is also known as "First Gulf War". It does dot seem correct as the first Persian Gulf War was actually between US-led coalition forces and Iraq in Feb. 1991, but Iran-Iraq war started in 1980 and lasted until 1988. There are various sources including this piece by NPR which clarify the term "First Persian Gulf War". I believe the term 'first Gulf War' needs to be removed from the first paragraph as it is actually refers to another war in the region. Thank you.--Malekfarugh (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is in English and we should refer to English sources. While I [still] don't neither reject nor endorse your proposal, I think we should rely sources better than NPR. There are maybe hundreds of scholarly sources about this war. Pahlevun (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just made an edit regarding that. Ridax2020 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the lede and the infobox

Two major changes has been made to the lede [4] and the infobox [5] and both need to be well discussed before they can be effectively implemented. I believe the changes are largely against WP:DUE and hence WP:NPOV. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Murray and Woods and the peril of using a refuted single off-hand statement as a hard "fact" in the Wiki article, and a source further demonstrating this error

Disclaimer: The purpose of this section is not to pose any hard narrative or another (as the Wiki article tragically espouses in some sections), but to promote some thoughtfulness and clarity regarding the Wiki article and give an example to demonstrate the perils of stating a dubious, even refuted, off-hand statement from a book used on the article as base fact. I understand this may have the side-effect of ruffling some feathers of pro-IRI activists or other obstinance, but to be irked by the following is to demonstrate a refusal of rationality that controversial matters are controversial and that cherry picking a refuted and contradicted passing statement to pose as infallible fact on controversial matters is dangerous.

In the Wiki article, a cherry-picked off-hand statement, as interpreted by Wiki editor(s), by Murray and Woods in Iran-Iraq War: A Military Perspective that in a February 1979 meeting, Iraq had already hinted at deciding to attack Iran, and furthermore to "annex Khuzestan". The CRRC document, "SH-GMID-D-000-620, General Military Intelligence Directorate regarding the people of Arabistan (Arabs in Southern Iran) in Al‐Ahwaz area calling for independence", is the translated English document of the February 1979 tape recorded meeting, in fact points out the officials present in the meeting concluded they wanted to keep out of interference in Khuzestan of what they feared would cause problems with the new Iranian government. M&W are refuted by the very document they cite, embarrassingly. This is in direct contradiction to the M&W statement on the document and also contradicted by M&W in other statements in the book and other sources including one linked below.

TL;DR of the below content: the passing erroneous statement from M&W as a source for "annexing Khuzestan" is refuted by other sourcing describing the same CRRC document, and is in poor taste to continue to include in the Wiki article.

The following statement from the book that is used for "annexing Khuzestan" in the Wiki article is astonishing and mistaken for a number of reasons:

Certainly Saddam believed that the oil-rich areas of Arabistan (Khuzestan) were within his reach, a goal his intelligence services seemed delighted to further.138

1. February 1979 would be the earliest claimed point by anyone that Iraq had any sort of plan to attack Iran and annex a large province. Either Murray and Woods did not mean to imply this conclusion and this is a misinterpretation by editors on this Wikipedia article, or Murray and Woods didn't understand the gravity of such a mistake and the lazy off-handedness of their remark would imply as much. So the decision was already made by Vice President Hussein to invade Iran, to annex Khuzestan, and his intelligence services seemed delighted to further in Feb 1979? Why is there nothing else to corroborate such a novel and significant claim? Assuming M&W are implying Iraq's plan was to annex Khuzestan, the referenced document says no such thing of a plan to annex Khuzestan anyways and in fact it says Iraq didn't want to interfere in Khuzestan (more on that).

2. M&W readily admit they don't know when the Iraqi decision for war was made: "At present, gaps in captured Iraqi records make it impossible to answer the question of when Saddam truly decided on war." But, editor(s) on this Wiki article have interpreted this and the desired goal (annexing Khuzestan) from the M&W mis-statment citing the Feb 1979 document.

3. More striking, they contradict this statement interpreted as "annex Khuzestan" in a few other sections in their book, even noting Iraq confining "the conflict by restricting the army’s goals, means, and targets", in line with other publications on the war of a limited attack to send a message to Tehran. This is a far cry from the referenced misinterpretation by M&W and cherry-picked by the Wiki article editors, or yet another case in the book of M&W contradicting themselves frivolously. Worse, the quoted statement "Certainly Saddam believed..." is immediately preceded by a lengthy discussion that Hussein at most wanted to retake the Shatt Al Arab due to the collapse of the Algiers treaty and "to warn Iran to cease and desist from interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs." and even "Those participating in the conversation had not yet considered the strategic and political goals of a war.". So is it Shatt Al Arab, is it Khuzestan, is it neither according to M&W? So how did Iraq have this resolute plan to take Khuzestan in Feb 1979 as the Wiki editor(s) interpreted, yet the authors claim Iraq had not considered goals in a war in the previous page? Apparently M&W point to all in their book with these sloppy contradictions. Unsurprisingly, the book has a number of critical contradictions, like concluding that each side claiming that the US was supporting the other was "paranoid", while then noting the Iran-Contra affair.

4. As an example of the refutation regarding the M&W statement regarding on the cited document, a 2018 academic paper in MEJ https://muse.jhu.edu/article/693089/pdf touched upon the same exact CRRC document. Nelson touches on this and subsequent documents that show, in fact, the Murray and Woods conclusion is incorrect. On this exact document, Nelson writes, referencing the SH-GMID-D-000-620 document: "Just before the rebellions broke out in Khuzestan in April 1979, Iraqi leaders specifically declined to diffuse propaganda throughout the province out of fear it would create tension with the Iranian government.78" He subsequently discusses more records/evidence regarding this matter and sums it up with "There is no evidence that Iraq sought to seize Khuzestan Province while Iran was weak; in fact, there is evidence to the contrary." Not wanting to interfere in Khuzestan is a very far cry from M&W's misinterpretation and Wiki editor(s) further misinterpretation of "annexing Khuzestan". To be clear, this is a 20 page journal article discussing the matter and touching on this CRRC document, not an off-hand and out-of-place statement.

5. Touching on #1 again, the context of the cited document in the book is in discussion of events in the weeks leading up to the war. It's oddly out of place to include something from Feb 1979 to point to Sept 1980, and that it is included out of context is strange. The circumstances and discussions in February 1979 and September 1980 were completely different. I could understand better if this was from summer 1980, but instead it's the same month the regime change in Iran occurred, at a time the Iraqi regime was looking for rapprochement with Iran. What is clear is (a) M&W merely mention this in passing and (b) without indication of further research to this particular "annex Khuzestan" claim. Also, see the points above regarding this again. It was a rather bizarre statement to include given the preceding discussion and other contradicting statements by the authors in the book itself.

6. I've had access to the CRRC collection (thanks NDU!) this record belongs to before and have read this and other records to know that Murray and Woods are really stretching the truth or making a critical human error (Hanlon's Razor) if they actually meant anything resembling "annex Khuzestan" or anything beyond Shatt Al Arab. This is why it isn't too stunning they contradict this in the preceding discussion in the book and other statements and demonstrates why vague off-hand, erroneous single sentences to mention something then never again don't make well for Wikipedia. But don't take it from me when there's journal articles on the matter of the SH-GMID-D-000-620 document...

7. While M&W were mistaken and refuted by that same record and other sources and contradict themselves in their book, let's assume they weren't mistaken: a suggestion or "belief" is not a decision, which the Wiki editor(s) involved clearly misinterpreted as a hard fact and present as such on the article. Every government when planning to go to war touches on plenty of goals and possibilities including those they have no intention of pursuing. A one-off musing in a single meeting (contradicted by other records and evidence) is not consensus or even anything resembling a decision. This is a tragic flaw on M&W's part, and further, a misinterpretation and disingenuous to state as a hard fact in the Wikipedia article. As an aside, other source referenced to back this claim, Iran at War by Farrokh, is clear in the text it is a claim by Iranian authorities (telling given the author's evident biases in the book), adding further doubt to the hard claim on the Wiki article. Again, this point is a hypothetical assuming M&W were not in error, it would still be flawed to present the sentence as hard fact.

If contradictions against the statement in question in M&W itself along with a source refuting M&W's erroneous sentence regarding the same exact cited document doesn't at least cast doubt on using M&W regarding the "annex Khuzestan" claim in the Wiki article as a hard fact while ignoring many other sources rejecting this assertion, then it's clear the article needs to improve significantly on having an NPOV approach.

Addressing a Wiki strawman/error: retaking the part of Shatt Al Arab ceded in the 1975 treaty and the dubious claim of annexing Khuzestan are two very different things, but sometimes get interpreted as meaning the same thing on Wikipedia. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Look, it's not on us as Wikipedia editors to engage in original research and analyze these documents ourselves. Many sources state that annexing Khuzestan was at least a possible, if hardly non-negotiable, objective of Iraqi military action against Iran, and this perception does not appear to be based merely on a single document or an isolated remark (misinterpreted or otherwise). That said, no-one is ever going to object to your citing reliable secondary sources to the effect that annexing Khuzestan was not a primary Iraqi goal of the war, or that Iraq refrained from taking action to destabilize Khuzestan in February 1979 when Khomeini was struggling to consolidate power and Saddam himself had yet to outmaneuver his Ba'athist rivals and formally assume the Iraqi presidency, ending talks of union with Syria. At that point, we are faced with a dispute between nominally reliable sources, which Wikipedia can summarize but which we are in no position to ultimately resolve (see WP:TRUTH). The one caveat that I would like to note is that some recent scholarship has called into question earlier narratives regarding Iraq's "limited war aims," which were based largely, if not entirely, on Iraq's demonstrable inability to advance very far into Iran (and not on any deeper insight into Iraq's decision-making process or strategic mindset). For example: "These transcripts and documents show that Iraqi generals were ordered to invade Iran only days before the actual invasion took place. Caught completely unaware, the generals had only limited resources and could only execute the war as far as their logistical tethers would allow. This created problems in Baghdad, because the regime wanted its forces to advance, but its troops could not get enough supplies to the front to continue the assault. This completely debunks previous explanations for the start of the war that Saddam had intended to fight a limited war in order to physically retake the Shatt Al-Arab river and establish a buffer zone to ensure Iraq's supremacy over the waterway."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It is unsurprising that the warning in my disclaimer about irking pro-IRI types turned out to be true, in record time at that. It was your edit on the Wiki article adding the particular citation and statement in question, so I can understand the defensiveness. Care to explain how Murray and Woods' own writings in their book, and the Middle East Journal article correcting what that CRRC document and debunking the M&W's error, and further, your mistaken interpretation of said error, constitute "original research"? This is an evident strawman. Why do you so willfully discard the MEJ paper?

"At that point, we are faced with a dispute between nominally reliable sources, which Wikipedia can summarize but which we are in no position to ultimately resolve (see WP:TRUTH)"

I agree, which was the general point of my opening post. If you truly believe this, then why not follow that line of reasoning instead of putting claims and defending a refuted sentence from a source and if it's a hard fact and truth as demonstrated on the Wiki article? Especially considering this is regarding the "annex" POV that is controversial at best, or exaggerated and debunked at worst?

Because as we can see from M&W, that single erroneous sentence from M&W is the only one in the book lending any credence to the POV claim, while we have another journal article demonstrating that the cited CRRC document actually makes the exact opposite point, that it is is precisely about Iraq staying out of interfering in Khuzestan in Feb 1979, not annexing it. Those are two significant opposites. Simply put, M&W made an error in citing that document that actually says the opposite of what they wrote in that sentence, and got contradicted by the book itself and refuted by another source.

PS: Do you realize the 2010 link you posted is an unsourced and poorly written post on a random Saudi website? That really isn't helping your case. :) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to poke another hole in your continued defense of the M&W statement refuted by another source citing and summarizing the same exact CRRC document correctly, and the 2010 Majallah post and on the topic of Iraqi generals it mentions, here's what the generals had to say to Murray and Woods.

The strategic plan for war was based on the assumption that Iraqi forces could achieve victory in four to six weeks, and military operations would not require real reserves. The plan was to send a light reconnaissance force out along the border to locate the enemy and determine targets. Infantry would advance and control the borders. We would control 5 kilometers on either side for a total of 10 kilometers. The armored forces would advance 10–20 kilometers into Iran, if the Iranians fought. Each of the major divisions had a city or area objective, which they were to control. Iranian troops would be forced to concentrate and engage in a battle. The counter-revolutionary forces would then rise up and seize control of Tehran and oust Khomeini’s regime. What would Iraq gain at that time? First, Saddam would achieve a military victory and be considered a great commander. Saddam had read that the greatest commanders in history were those who fought and achieved victory. Second, in the process of military victory, Iraq would regain those areas given up in the Algeria Accords in 1975, which had been lost in exchange for Iran’s ceasing to support the Iraqi Kurds, specifically small areas along the disputed frontier, the oil fields in Abadan, and Shatt al-Arab. The Algeria Accords had been hard on Iraqi sovereignty.

Where do you see anything from the General Hamdani's (an anti-Saddam one very critical of Saddam Hussein, mind you) statement about annexing Khuzestan province? He just mentions the disputed frontier: Shatt al-Arab and oil straddling the border. Anyways, if you reply, stick to answering the questions I asked instead of continued strawmanning, please. If you truly believe: "At that point, we are faced with a dispute between nominally reliable sources, which Wikipedia can summarize but which we are in no position to ultimately resolve", then I think you will produce a more neutral response and will answer regarding my questions about M&W, the Nelson MEJ article, and the response will have a lack of random Saudi website posts. I'm all about building understanding and promoting thought. The obstinance and double-downing isn't helping. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

1. More briefly addressing the use of original research to support the "annex Khuzestan" claim

To add to the passages in the opening post namely point 3 that M&W themselves contradict the "annex Khuzestan" theory an editor attempts to make, I forgot to include this. Like in other sections in the Murray and Woods book, they explicitly state in no unclear terms that it was about regaining control of Shatt al-Arab, not "annexing Khuzestan".

In September 1980, Saddam believed Iraq could kill three birds with one stone. First, he thought the war could topple the revolutionary government in Tehran and replace it with a less hostile regime. Second, that change would enhance his standing in the Gulf and Arab world. Third, he would regain control of the Shatt al-Arab, ceded in the 1975 Algiers Agreement.49

To reiterate from the OP, this edit adding it as a source to support the claim is ignoring the context immediately around the statement and the editor drawing a contrived conclusion from what is described as an idea/suggestion in order to support the "annex Khuzestan" theory. This constitutes original research (see "Drawing conclusions not evident...It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.") On top of the OR, M&W were mistaken in the meaning of the cited CRRC document, as demonstrated by Chad Nelson in this 2018 MEJ article, who corrects that the CRRC document is about Iraq keeping out of interference in Khuzestan, contradictory to the M&W error regarding the Feb 1979 doc. Given the original research, we should not be using this as a citation for the "annex Khuzestan" claim, especially when M&W are clear what the actual Iraqi goals in the invasion were and this was not one of them. As such, it would be appropriate to minimally tag the use of M&W as evidence of the "annex Khuzestan" theory in the article with an inline OR tag. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

2. Significant, substantiated works rejecting and repudiating the "annex Khuzestan" claim; this claim being dubious at best

The tepid support for the "annex Khuzestan" claim is countered by a substantial body of works that directly discredit it and/or explain and support other objectives. To give a modest sampling (in the process of making Wiki citations for these): [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] The article's status quo is a case of undue weight and a rejection of the significantly more substantiated and academic point of view. In fact, where the "annex Khuzestan" claim exists is made typically as a passing assumption/statement with little to no detail/attention or "Iranian sources claim", whereas other works outright refuting the view and/or explaining the invasion's goals on the basis of domestic and foreign threats and/or reclaiming the Shatt al-Arab (nothing with respect to annexing the whole of Khuzestan province, which is a significant leap), including works dedicated to this precise matter, generally discuss and support their cases in detail. It would be appropriate to tag the "annex Khuzestan" mentions in the article as "dubious" in the meantime, linking to this Talk section. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)