Jump to content

Talk:Operation Mersad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

evidence for the claim?

[edit]

any evidence to support the claim that the NLA was supported by saddams troops via air? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.184.95 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Mersad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

[edit]

@Stefka Bulgaria: you removed a book as a source that is widely cited in academic literature (an indicator of reliability) and replaced it with a {{cn}} tag. This was probably a mistake, so please be more careful in the future.VR talk 13:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the book that I removed? (I thought I had removed an Iran-Interlink source) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you click your diff you will see you removed <ref name="Farrokh 03"/>.VR talk 16:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a mistake. I see that you added sources to the section "Operation Eternal Light"; but isn't that a separate operation? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand Operation Eternal Light was MEK's offensive into Iran and Operation Mersad was Iran's counteroffensive against Operation Eternal Light. Sources seem to treat both as part of one continuous battle.VR talk 16:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VR: can you please show the sources that treat these two operations as part of one single continuous battle? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I got by reading page 110 of Iran Resurgent, and by reading the two sources I've been citing: Hiro, Dilip, The Longest War, (1999), pp. 246–47 and Farrokh, Kaveh (20 December 2011). Iran at War: 1500–1988. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. p. 413-414.
Are you proposing splitting this article or creating different sections? I'm open to your suggestions.VR talk 13:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your first source wasn't in the article when I asked (which I see is treating this as an offensive and counter-offensive). Could you please quote the exact text from the remaining sources that treat these two operation as part of a single continuous battle? Also do you know why the article is named after the counter-offensive? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quote them I'd have to copy and paste several pages onto here and I don't know if that would be a copyright vio. And that's if I can find PDFs for these books. Otherwise I'd have to type several pages by hand, which I'm not inclined to do. All of these sources are available on google books, have you made any attempts to read the sources yourself? If you read them and find I misquoted them, point it out here and I'll be happy to take a second look.
I don't know why its called that. Both "Operation Eternal Light" and "Operation Mersad" are used in sources, though some sources don't use any name at all (they just list the events by date).VR talk 07:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to treat this as a single event, we need to fix the lede and the body (and perhaps the title of the article as well). Right now the lede starts with the name of the counter-attack (Mersad) first, and then says the operation is "alternatively referred to as Operation Forough Javidan (Persian: عملیات فروغ جاویدان‎, lit. Operation Eternal Light, MeK's codename)", which is false. One is the attack (by the MEK), and the other is the counter-attack (by the IRI). The lede makes this even more confusing by placing the counter-attack before the attack. If we merge these two operations into the same article (as you claim sources do) then we need to follow a chronological sequence of events (starting with Operation Eternal Light); otherwise this becomes too confusing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: if we're going to treat the attack and counter-attack as a single event (as you claim sources do), then we need this article to reflect that. I propose changing the title of the article to "Operation Forough Javidan" (the attack), and creating a section in the article titled "Operation Mersad" (the counter-attack). The article would then treat this as a single event, explaining the operations as they unfolded (chronologically). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article name should reflect WP:ARTICLETITLE and chronology is not a criterion there. But the rest of the article should be organized chronologically, I agree.VR talk 13:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: WP:PRECISION is a criterion. "Operation Forough Javidan" was not a "counterattack", and it's being described as such in the lede. I propose we remove "Operation Forough Javidan" from the lede (and add it to a section within the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to fix it. Operation Forough Javidan, the Iraqi-MEK attack, definitely belongs in the lead. Its the whole reason this battle started.VR talk 16:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Since that's "the whole reason the battle started", shouldn't Operation Forough Javidan be mentioned first, and Operation Mersad be mentioned second? Right now the lede mentions the counter attack first and the the actual attack second, creating a significant WP:PRECISION problem about how events unfolded (I've already pointed this out, so please address this). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.VR talk 19:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Mersad&oldid=1209529472"