Talk:Siege of Basra

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Text and/or other creative content from Iran–Iraq War was copied or moved into Siege of Basra with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Npov? edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The Iraqis had fought an excellent defensive battle at Basra, as they had at succeeded in fighting the Iranians to a complete standstill thwarting their obsession with capturing the city. The end of the battle saw a considerable breakdown of Iranian morale as hereafter only a small percent signed up for volunteering in the fanatical revolutionary guards or basij."

NPOV issue? Rest of article doesn't really give the impression that Iraqi defense was "excellent", and certain words such as "obsession" and "fanatical" might be technically correct but strikes me as perhaps too strong. 2A02:1406:15:BC16:79CE:DC52:6563:7407 (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic