Talk:Iran–Iraq War

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)