Talk:Iran–Iraq War/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Moving sourcing regarding the faulty "annex" claims in the article into its own Talk section, for visibility and because article changes were made without viewing it

@198.2.94.4 Good effort in the article changes but a lot of research was already done that you could have used. Please see the below. The first paragraph is copied from the previous Talk section so that it is more visible.

The tepid support for the "annex Khuzestan" claim in the article 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): [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] 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.

From the above and other works, there are primarily only 2 reasons in available and substantiated sourcing for Iraq going to war. 1) The foreign and domestic threat posed to Iraq and its government by Iran and the hope a limited military attack would put an end to that after other options had been exhausted. 2) Reclaiming the part of the Shatt ceded in 1975 after the collapse of the treaty, though this is apparently controversial too in academia as a number of contemporary Western works deny this. Anything beyond that is more speculative in nature, especially when works state things like "perhaps", "probably", "Iranian government sources claim" or a passing sentence stating the same.

Regarding Khuzestan insurrections, the Iraqi support for that was as a response to Iranian support for the Barzani faction and Dawa in Iraq. The Britannica edit[13] isn't immune to error, and certainly one-off statements are very prone to that, but it makes the same controversial and more or less refuted claim, in a single sentence. It's not a deep dive into these matters like other various journals and books so the error is understandable.

"Iraq wanted to seize control of the rich oil-producing Iranian border region of Khūzestān, a territory inhabited largely by ethnic Arabs over which Iraq sought to extend some form of suzerainty."

The "seize control of Khuzestan" is part of the problem this section addresses, and the "extend some form of suzerainty" has no explanation. Is this "seizing control"? Is this supporting local rebels in the same way Iran supported rebels in Iraq? There's no clarity here.

Another issue is the article is rather one-sided towards Iraq. There's little coverage in the Wiki article of the accounts of or reasoning behind Iran's hostilities, military attacks, provocations before the war, and repeated diplomatic refusal between 1979-1988, given various sourcing makes it clear Iran's goal was to remove the Iraqi regime and replace it with a client regime, but that's another discussion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:CITEKILL. Talk pages are for discussing specific edits backed by specific language in specific reliable sources, not general discussion of a topic, or critiques of alleged errors and cowardice that you have purportedly discovered in "a number of contemporary Western [academic] works" including Encyclopædia Britannica and books published by Cambridge University Press. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And this Talk section is doing that precisely. Yes, the questionable edit is being called into question. Please see WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE which are violated in the edit, specifically this statement "by severing Khuzestan from Iran and converting it into a tributary state under a form of Iraqi suzerainty".

To quote a few of these policies violated for easy reference:

In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

A single sentence used as a source that

1. the edit in the Wiki article is original research that is stating things not in the source like "severing" the province (this is called original research),

2. the particular sentence from the source comprises refuted fringe theory that has already otherwise been removed from the Wiki article for this very reason,

3. the single sentence from the source used for the edit is both unclear and inconsistent, further with the second half contradicting the first half of the sentence, and no further explanation or clarification on the matter (also original research),

4. failed verification,

5. adds undue weight to a fringe claim contradicted and also directly refuted by the overwhelming body of works including the dozen provided above,

6. attempts to make a synthesis with the following statement citing from a book that makes no such claim and in fact refutes it,

is not a poor choice of a source to use for this claim. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Saucy, it's adorable🥰 how you respond to a list of policies with an (irrelevant) list of policies, sort of like a small child mocking (or even emulating) an adult, but please take care that they apply before invoking them in the future. WP:FRINGE refers to things like Climate change denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories, not a statement from gold-standard reliable source Encyclopædia Britannica to the effect that "Iraq wanted to seize control of the rich oil-producing Iranian border region of Khūzestān, a territory inhabited largely by ethnic Arabs over which Iraq sought to extend some form of suzerainty." Similarly, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH definitely trip some people up, but they actually do not refer to merely combining multiple statements explicitly substantiated by RS (such as Britannica, above) into coherent sentences and paragraphs—that's just normal article writing, silly! By definition, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH exclusively apply to content that is not directly supported by any of the sources in the section/article—check with an admin if you don't believe me!—but they do not mandate your impossible standard that every source in a paragraph or article back every statement in that paragraph/article. (Considering that the latter standard is virtually never met, it could be invoked to justify deleting absolutely anything—or everything—on Wikipedia... hmmm.🤔) The more you know, amirite? Best regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of the sarcasm unless this response is trolling. No, the policies are relevant to the poorly made edit, specifically the one under line 299, as explained. Fringe theory does not mean conspiracy theory. It is simply wrong to say it is. Conspiracy theories are an extreme example of fringe theory, but not the only kind. I quoted the definition above. This is why reading and understanding Wikipedia content guidelines is important.

I had explained and quoted the policy on WP:OR, which fits the poor edit like a glove. Extrapolating and adding one's own spin on things, especially from a single inconsistent, unclear, self-contradicting statement in the source, as already explained in prior comments, is textbook OR. Yes, WP:SYNTH is applicable. The edit combines two contradictory and disparate sources to make a conclusion along the lines of: "By taking over Khuzestan and severing it [PS: this latter part is not in the source], the Iraqis hoped Iranian government would fall or end their interference". Neither source makes this combined conclusion, hence the synthesis. I agree, OR and SYNTH trip some people up, as evidenced in the poor edit. "Gold-standard" sources can still often be wrong and poor to use for some of its content as in this case, and EB often fails in this respect. More importantly, when the overwhelming body of work, especially those that make more than a single self-contradicting sentence on the particular niche content, is in direct contradiction and refutation of that sentence, this is where WP:UNDUE applies.

WP:RS seems to get confused sometimes. It's not just about who the publisher is, as is commonly mistaken on Wikipedia. The guideline is clear it's also who the individual author, who is unnamed here unfortunately, and what the particular content (article, book) is. Further, just to rehash content guidelines, content used from a source is subject to scrutiny, especially when it is to the extreme of a single self-contradicting sentence and on the fringe from mainstream, substantiated views on the matter, especially the substantiated part. The source itself in total is a 2-minute read of an article published in 1998 with a few minor updates since, and a number of sloppy errors, while we have 700 page books strictly on the conflict with lengthy discourses on this matter, and a variety of journal articles focused specifically on this topic of why Iraq invaded. That's a lot more useful than a sentence that contradicts itself from a 2-minute read on an 8-year armed conflict. WP:OWNERSHIP is useful to review too. Unilaterally removing or changing many edits across a number of articles to fit a personal point of view on things, made evident by inclusion of OR, SYNTH, and cherrypicking on multiple occasions, is textbook ownership. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I am the anon who made the changes you mention. I am not an expert on the topic of the Iran-Iraq War but have been interested in knowing what Iraqi objectives were in the Iran-Iraq War. Do many common sources make the assumption that Iraq wanted to annex Khuzestan because Iraq did not have a geographic border to create a new border at the Zagros mountain range along the east border of Khuzestan? Also do many common sources assume that Iraq sought to annex Khuzestan because of Iraq's annexation of Kuwait during the Gulf War? Iraq claimed Kuwait had historically been part of the Ottoman province of Basra if I remember correctly and claimed that the deal made with the British to create Kuwait was illegal, Iraq made similar legal claims on prior control over the east bank of the Shatt-al-Arab river but Iraq could not legally make a justification for outright annexing Khuzestan because there was no modern legal precedent for Iraq to lay claim to the region. However Iraq supported an Arab separatist movement on the grounds of national liberation I presume in that Arab populated strategic oil-rich region. Are there reliable sources from scholar experts that say that Iraq believed they could cause a situation where an ally Arab state in Khuzestan could be created?

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:

• Saddam Hussein..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:05, 3 December 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:

• Saddam and Rajavi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Bani-Sadr

There's a lack of consistency in spelling this guy's name, such that you can't be sure whether the one mentioned in this para is the same guy as the one in the previous para. I propose to fix that. I will choose "Abolhassan Banisadr", because that's what they all wikilink to, and I'll use "Banisadr" for secondary mentions. If that is the wrong latinisation of his name, that matter should be dealt with at WP:Abolhassan Banisadr.

MrDemeanour (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Zero proof the first photo 'child-soldier' is legitimate

The first photo of "a child soldier on the front lines", has zero proof it is a child soldier, or that it is on the front lines. There is no proof there were child soldiers. It was made up, just like "Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators - 1991 - was made up, and WMDs in Iraq - 2002 - was made up. Take the photo down.

Iran's extensive use of child soldiers during the Iran–Iraq War is well-documented in reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2022 (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 Afghanistan (1987–1992).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Iraq Iran War Was Crazy But It Only Lasted 8 Years And The Iraqi Dictator Did Not Let Iran Take Over. The War Was A Tie

And That What happened 2604:3D09:737F:C700:E0E4:F2EA:A03:CEA2 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

remove pakistan from combatants list

Pakistan didnt choose a side they sold weapons to iran. Just like Vietnam and a handful of other countries which aren't included as combatants here. PHOTOGRAPH: President General Mohammad Zia-Ul-Haq , in a meeting with Iraqi President Mr. Sadddam Hussain on January, 28,1981 | WHITE STAR ARCHIVES: https://i.dawn.com/primary/2016/08/57b426c91aff8.jpg Video of Zia ul Haq's view on the war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVg57cjKID4 PreserveOurHistory (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2022 (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:

• InfoboxHez.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

AlbertSmith100

To editor AlbertSmith100: Please discuss your content issue rather than edit war. You can expect to be blocked, soon. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor spelling error

Please change 'Ayatullah' under the heading 'Cultural Impression' to 'Ayatollah' Bruhfallo314 (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

😂😂😂 PreserveOurHistory (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

What the 174.208.232.48 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Israel in the infobox

@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)

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)

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)

See Operation Opera#Iranian attack and Operation Opera#Preliminary Israeli/Iranian actions Parham wiki (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Operation Opera was carried out with the help of Iran. Parham wiki (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

See http://www.angelfire.com/art2/narod/opera/ Parham wiki (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

We write what reliable sources say, what you mean is WP:OR. Parham wiki (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not call Israel a belligerent in the Iran-Iraq War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Result in infobox

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)

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)

Why is it called "Iran–Iraq War"?

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)

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

Removal of weapons section in the article

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)

Missing

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

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)

Estimates of total deaths and casualties

Hi @Cinderella157. "Casualties and losses" sub-section of the infobox is quite confusing. There is no row on "total deaths" in the infobox.

According to Britannica Encyclopaedia and History.com, the total number of deaths that occurred as a result of this war is approximately 500,000. Dilip Hiro wrote in his book "The Longest War: The Iran–Iraq Military Conflict" (which is referenced in the "military dead" columns in the "Casualties and losses" sub-section of the infobox):

"Conservative Western estimates put the total number of war dead at 367,000 - Iran accounting for 262,000 and Iraq 105,000. With more than 700,000 injured, the total casualties were put at over one million."

I couldnt verify information from the other sources, but probably there is a heavy over-estimation in the "Military dead" columns. It appears as if the contents are not summarized properly in the infobox. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have deleted the range at the bottom of the box because, as you say, it fails verification. There is a lot of detail in the casualties (and strengths) in drop-downs that do not appear collapsed on mobile devices. A lot of this "detail" is inappropriate for an infobox and should be moved from the box. The amount of detail on casualties in particular suggests that the figures are nuanced and this is something for which an infobox is unsuitable. If the casualties section in the body is not consistent with detail in the infobox, this needs to be harmonised. I might have a bit too much on my plate ATM but I would support objective editing along these lines. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox Belligerents' Supporters/Suppliers

In other infoboxes for war articles, there is usually a list of nations which supported each side. Why is this missing? These are countries which supply weapons, logistical support, raw materials, capital, and other resources without deploying its own troops to join the fight. Could someone add this? The main players can be found in the main text of the article. Thank you.66.91.36.8 (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

USE of "supported by" has been deprecated and will be removed from other articles with time. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Arms suppliers in infobox

Skitash, "arm suppliers" in the infobox is just "supported by" by anoher name. Adding such information to the infobox is deprecated - see Template: Infobox military conflict where a link is provided to the associated RfC. While not totally prohibited, such inclusion requires a strong affirmative consensus (ie an RfC). See the close of the linked RfC for details. No such consensus exists for the material you would add. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"Supported by" is broad and can encompass various forms of support, including political backing, military assistance, advisory roles, or arms suppliers. This broadness was a key reason editors decided to omit the use of "supported by" on the infobox RfC. In contrast, "Major arms suppliers" is more specific, clearly indicating to readers the type of support being referred to. Moreover, this has been present in the article consistently until it was removed in October without consensus here. Are you suggesting that we need to initiate RfCs for individual articles? Skitash (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That is what the close says. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Solution to Article Length

Hello! This article most certainly qualifies under WP:SPLIT to be split as it is well over 25,000 words. Here are a couple solutions that might help:

• Split the "Background" section into its own article
• Split the "Aftermath" section into its own article (and include the "Legacy and Memory" section).
• Merge "Iran and Iraq's Modern Relationship" into Iran–Iraq relations.

Any consensus would be great. Garsh (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)