Talk:Iraqi chemical attacks against Iran
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iraqi chemical attacks against Iran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
non-free copyrighted source
edit@Kolbasz:, You added a tag in relation with a non-free copyrighted source, Long Legacy. What is the main problem of the source and what do i do to remove the tag? thanks Lstfllw203 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- The source is not the problem. The close paraphrasing - copying text from a source with only minor cosmetic changes - of it in the article is the problem. Close paraphrasing violates Wikipedia's copyright policy and can lead to article deletion and even an editing block. Kolbasz (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- According to the Earwig's Copyvio Detector, there is not so many close paraphrasing from Cbrnewworld source of the article. About the washingtonpost source, the quotation of the article which is attributed precisely , is not the problem. So i removed the tag. Thanks!Lstfllw203 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Saudi involvement
edit@John N Smith: Regarding your revert, please note the following in the source given:
"To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia."
So, can you explain why the phrase should be removed? Tnx. --Mhhossein talk 07:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sir, I appreciate your openness to discussing the issue. First of all, the phrasing is misleading: While Saudi Arabia generally supported Iraq during the war financially and, according to the referenced WaPo article through intelligence sharing, the WaPo article said nothing about involvement of Saudi "forces". There is no implication nor evidence in the referenced article of any Saudi knowledge of, let alone involvement in, chemical attacks against Iran. It is very misleading to mention it in an article that specifically talks about the horrible Iraqi chemical attacks against Iran. It is unfair and wrong to accuse and single out Saudi of being involved in it. Thank you for your understanding. John N Smith (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome John N Smith, I think your explanations are fair enough, sorry for the revert. I was misled by the title of the WaPo article. So, Saudi Arabia was only involved in supplying "battlefield intelligence", as the source says. Nice to meet you. --Mhhossein talk 17:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Table of attacks
edit@ZxxZxxZ: Thanks for adding this table. Would you mind adding inline citations supporting the materials in the table? Regards. --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)