Talk:1975 Algiers Agreement

Need for disambiguation

I decided it would be best to have this under Algiers Agreement since theres already a 2000 one. Algiers accord is only used for the 1975 agreement. --Karimi 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Arvand

I understand wikipedia naming convention but the actual agreement states Arvand River. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, your edit summary mentioned that [the use of Arvand Rud] is part of the agreement of 1975. I may be missing something here, but I see no such mention of Arvand Rud in the treaty's agreement's text (nor of Shatt al-Arab for that matter, since as far as I can see the text diplomatically avoids to name the waterway). – So, could you please indicate me exactly in which part of the text have you seen the name mentioned ? - Thank you already. Best, Ev (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BF, you re-inserted in the article the assertion that "[Arvand Rud] is the name explicitly referred to in the text of the Algiers Treaty of 1975" (initial insertion), and did so using a not particularly clear edit summary: rv. Per my statement in the talk page.

I assume you are refering to this assertion you made at Talk:Shatt al-Arab, and I quote:

In the text of the Algiers Treaty of 1975 only explicit reference is made to Arvand Rud, which implies that even Saddam Hossein agreed to the name Arvand Rud. End of endless discussion! --BF 12:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I already commented there (and as I repeated to Nepaheshgar above), I see no such mention of Arvand Rud in the treaty's agreement's text (nor of Shatt al-Arab for that matter, since as far as I can see the text diplomatically avoids to name the waterway). So, could you please indicate me exactly in which part of the text have you seen the name mentioned ? - Thank you already. Best, Ev (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

BF, you simply reverted back to your preferred version, with the same edit summary as before (rv. Per my statement in the talk page.) and without further discussion or any reply whatsoever to my concerns about the assertion that "[Arvand Rud] is the name explicitly referred to in the text of the Algiers Treaty of 1975", either here or at Talk:Shatt al-Arab.

Assuming that both of you (Nepaheshgar & BF) will continue to ignore my ca. 48hs-old query, I took the time to check the treaty's text at the United Nations Treaty Collection (see details below), and found the following:

• The treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relation (signed at Baghdad on 13 June 1975) uses the name Shatt al-Arab (or equivalents – see details below), as do various of the accompanying documents.
• The accompanying joint Iranian-Iraqi communiqué (dated 6 March 1975, Algiers), whose text is reproduced in this Wikipedia article, mentions "river frontiers or boundaries", without actually naming the waterway.
• The name Arvand is absent from all documents.

(If we were to follow your logic, BF, this fact would "[imply] that even the Iranian government agreed to the name Shatt al-Arab.")

I'm having trouble trying to explain this as a simple bona fide mistake. This means that you either:

• didn't really know for certain what name the treaty used, but added that bogus assertion anyway because you liked it, because you wanted it to be true.
• did know that the agreement of 6 March 1975 mentioned no name, and/or that the treaty of 13 June 1975 used the name Shatt al-Arab (or equivalents – see details below), and simply lied about it, in a deliberate attempt to use Wikipedia to propagate false information (we call that vandalism).

Absent a good explanation, I will consider taking further messures to protect Wikipedia's integrity. The issue has been mentioned at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. - Ev (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Link to AN/I archives: Shatt al-Arab again. - Ev (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The treaty uses Shatt al-Arab

The treaty and its accompanying documentation are avaiable at the United Nations Treaty Collection: Treaty Series, Vol. 1017, No. 14903, pages 54 to 213 (pages 66 to 225 of this rather large .pdf file ).

It comprises the treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relation (signed at Baghdad on 13 June 1975), and various accompanying documents, including the joint Iranian-Iraqi communiqué (dated 6 March 1975, Algiers), whose text is reproduced in this Wikipedia article.

• The French-language originals (pages 56 to 135 ; pages 68 to 147 of the .pdf file) use the forms Chatt-El-Arab & Chatt El-Arab consistently, although the form Shatt-El-Arab is also used when referring to a map with an English title, published par l'Amirauté britannique. :-)
• The English-language translations (pages 136 to 213 ; pages 148 to 225 of the .pdf file) uses the form Shatt al'Arab consistently.
• The name Arvand is absent from all documents.

The French original of the accompanying joint Iranian-Iraqi communiqué (dated 6 March 1975, Algiers), whose text is reproduced in this Wikipedia article, is in pages 118-119 (pages 130-131 of the .pdf file), and the point referring to the waterway reads:

"2. De délimiter leurs frontièrs fluviales selon la ligne du thalweg."

The English translation is in pages 196-197 (pages 208-209 of the .pdf file), and reads:

"2. They will delimit their river frontiers along the thalweg;"

The name of the river is not mentioned in the communiqué.

Also included in Vol. 1017 is the agreement concerning the rules governing navigation on the Shatt al'Arab, signed at Baghdad on 26 December 1975 (Treaty Series, Vol. 1017, No. 14905), whose French original and English translation mirror the usages described above (see pages 229-243 ; pages 251-255 of the .pdf file). The name Arvand is absent from all documents.

Regards, Ev (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, apparently making the same point exactly the same minute :-) I haven't been able to find an authoritative text of the actual Algiers agreement, which was apparently just an informal communiqué. I don't know if it is identical to the text we are currently quoting; if it is, it obviously isn't mentioning the name of the river at all. However, the actual, formal Treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relations, which was concluded as a follow-up to Algiers, in Bagdad, on 13/06/1975, can be found on the UN website [1]. It has "Shatt al'Arab" in the English [2] and "Chatt-El-Arab" in the authoritative French text [3]. No mentioning of "Arvand" at all. (That said, I also agree with Ev that the usage in the treaty text would not have any immediate effect on our own editorial usage either way; we are still bound primarily by the principle of "most common name used in English".) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny. :-) For clarity: the text this article currently quotes (the communiqué of 6 March 1975) is a different English translation from the French original than the one the UN Treaty Series includes. But, as mentioned above, the relevant fact is clear: the name Arvand is absent from the French original and from both English translations. And from the actual treaty (signed on 13 June 1975) - Ev (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope and structure of the article

By the way, independently of the naming question, given the fact we are dealing with (at least) two separate documents, the informal "Algiers communiqué" and the more formal treaty later on, we might consider whether the scope and structure of the article as a whole needs to be corrected. Currently, it's talking only of "Algiers" as if that was the one and only "treaty", which apparently it wasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I have seen so far, it would appear that the agreement reached in Algiers (also called Algiers Accord; and consisting in the joint communiqué of 6 March 1975), in which Iran and Iraq agreed to a thalweg border, was the basis for the various subsequent agreements that culminated in the bilateral treaties signed on 13 June & 26 December 1975. There would be at least three different -but closely related- subjects:

• The Algiers Accord of 6 March 1975 (this article - not sure about the name).
• The Treaty concerning the State frontier and neighbourly relation, of 13 June 1975 (sometimes 'Treaty of Baghdad').
• The Agreement concerning the rules governing navigation on the Shatt al'Arab, of 26 December 1975.

However, the issue is complicated by some books mentioning the June 1975 treaty as "Algiers Accord". Of course, they could all be handled in one unified article. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, splitting wouldn't be very useful. We just need to correct the over-simplifying lead saying "... was a treaty ...". Perhaps to something of the kind: "... refers to a series of diplomatic documents ...", and so on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about it yesterday. I have delayed actually changing that because I'm not yet sure of the appropriate wording. Perhaps: "...was an agreement to settle border disputes between Iraq and Iran ([edit-warring]), and served as basis (is that the correct word in English?) for the bilateral treaties signed on June & December 1975." - Ev (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead with the edit, after finding that few books use the term for the 13 June 1975 treaty itself. Most refer specifically to the events of 6 March 1975, or to the "agreement on borders" in general, without mentioning specific documents. - But feel free to modify it... This week I'm not feeling confident about my English. I'm doubting every word, every spelling. - Ev (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Longest war in XX century?

I think this title goes to either the Chinese Civil War (1927-1949) the Second Sino Japanese War (1937-1945) or the Argelian War (1954-1962) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So then what happened ?

So in this agreement, it was agreed that they would permanently delineate the boundary. Did this actually happen, prior to the subsequent war ?Eregli bob (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1975 Algiers Agreement. 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/20080918032828/http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/treaty.asp to http://untreaty.un.org/English/treaty.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

This is incomprehensible (sub section The Agreement):

Areas of Iraq are intended to provide some strategic depth was missing from an Iranian attack.

--Mortense (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Some of the English doesn't flow very well, I will correct it. It's not my intention to alter the meaning and I'm not checking any references.