Talk:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Ground Forces/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Request for Expansion

Being as Iran is receiving more and more attention in the media and the IRGC plays an important role in its politics, both domestic and external, I think it's appropriate that WP have a comprehensive article on corps. --Impaciente 07:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Made some changes to make it better looking and stuff. Will add more text later.

I would suggest addition of the Sepah's military intelligence to the organizational chart. It is considered a separate branch which report directly to the commander of the Army as well as the supreme leader. I think the latest commander was General Reza Rezaii. --MrHex (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Military branches

The "Military branches" section on the right sidebar is confusing. The IRGC is not a branch of itself. Or is it? --HResearcher 10:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the menu. I think thats what you call it... hmm? The (Iranian) military has branches... like Navy, Army, Air Force, IRGC, and then within these military branches, they again branch off into other things. ArmanJan 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That explains it, the sidebar displays Iranian military branches. Can we modify it a little on this article? --HResearcher 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Changed it to "Iranian Military Branches". ArmanJan 11:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks great, thank you ArmanJan. --HResearcher 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Center for Doctrinal Strategic Studies

Does anyone have ANY information on this department of the IRGC? --HResearcher 08:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

er, we have an article on it's head, Hassan Abbasi Buckshot06 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mention the 2003 disaster

The page should talk about the IRGC's incidents and disasters. Especially 19 February 2003 when an IL-76 aircraft carrying 275 guards and crew from the IRGC crashed in Shahdad, Iran in fog.

A message from 202.95.200.3.--202.95.200.3 14:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

title

I think this page should be called "The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution", the actual title of the force, with IRGC noted as an alternative (non-literal) translation.

Any objections?

Mesoso 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Islamic Guards' Army" would also be a possibility. I see no basis at all for use of the word "corps". Is there any distinction in Persian between "Guard" and "Guardian"? Mesoso 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sepah" =Army, "Pasdaran" =Guardians, "Enghelab Eslami" = Islamic revolution

Hence the correct name would be Army of the Guardians of Islamic Revolution, as stated. "Revolutionary"= Enghelabi is incorrect. Interestingly when an Iranian newspaper quotes western reports on "sepah", they use their incorrect translation to translate it back to persian: "gardhaye enghelabi".--Gerash77 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I included the correct translation, but I am not sure if others are ok with changing the title as well, considering it is widely used in english?--Gerash77 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If "Corps" is used, it must be wrong, even if it is a common mistake. "Revolutionary" means "of revolution". I am interested in understanding the distinction used here between "guards" and "guardians", which are very close words. Does Pasdaran really only mean guardians? Is there a seperate Persian word for "guards"? (is this gardhaye?) Mesoso 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is little distinction between guard and guardian, because guardian is simply "One that guards", so both could be used for the word Pasdar/pasdaran(pl). However "Revolutionary" is incorrect because it implies the guards currently want a revolution, as opposed to being guards of the Islamic revolution.--Gerash77 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think "revolutionary guards" possibly fits with the meaning of guarding the revolution. In any case, the article only refers to "revolutionary guards" after the proper title, so that shouldn't be a problem. I myself have never heard the term "corps" used in reference to this force (except uncited on wikipedia!). (Anyway it is an inappropriate term for an entire independent armed force.) Do you have any source for using this term? Mesoso 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Titled changed back to Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. This is its main name and most-often and officially-used name. See article 110 of [[1]] and [2] Tashtastic 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

it is NOT the official name, the document which you cite is a mistranslation that doesnt even make sense in English. We have already looked at the proper name, in PERSIAN, so your mistranslated internet document is not relevant. Mesoso 11:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As a late comer to this discussion, I think the IRGC is the better name for this article. It's used almost exclusively in western sources and media. Wikipedia's naming conventions are pretty clear here. From the introduction of the naming conventions article:
"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."
Moreover, a direct translation of the Persian name, without a source to back it up is original research. I'll refrain from moving the page back to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps until someone replies here; however, if no one does reply in a reasonable amount of time, I'll just make the move. Parsecboy 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been over a week since I posted here previously about this subject, and no one has responded. I'll give it another day or two, and then move the page back to IRGC, barring no objections between now and then. Again, if you do object to the move, please read the relevant guidelines before making an argument. Parsecboy 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because the US Department of Defense, and following them, most of the English-speaking world, hasn't paid very much attention to what the actual proper title of the force is, is no reason for wikipedia to copy them. You want a guideline? Try WP:IAR. However, IGRC should be incorporated in all lead paragraphs and we should not remove any redirects. Buckshot06 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So you're advocating violation of WP:OR? Unless you (or anyone else) provide a source for the direct translation of the Farsi name, that's what you're doing. Moreover, this is the English encyclopedia, and should follow the most common names in English usage. Parsecboy 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Show me a cite that says a direct translation from another language without a source is WP:OR, please. Buckshot06 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to. The very first line of the first section of WP:OR states
"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it"
All one must do is scroll up a page length or two, and see the editors involved with changing the name to the current title deciding what the direct translation is. That, is, by definition, original research. Parsecboy 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember why Mes. changed the title. It was because the name was absurd with regards to the definition that follows it. (IRG Corps is an independent army!! its either corps or an independent army, it can't be both). It's like saying: Country of Israel is a terrorist group... is it just a group or country? it cannot be both) That being said, we could eliminate the word corps, changing the title to "Islamic Revolution's Guards"). With regards to reference, pick up a dictionary and look up the word corps (= a unit that is part of an army)--Gerash77 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that a direct translation is original research, and prohibited. If an Iranian source, printed in English, would corroborate the name here, then it would be ok. But even that doesn't fit with the naming guideline that states the most common name in English usage, not necessarily the correct name in the native language, is the correct name for the article. So far, no one has presented one. As for the term "Corps", it doesn't necessarily have to be a part of a larger echelon. How about the United States Marine Corps? It's a separate armed force. Another example is the Badr Organization, which was at one point known as the Badr Corps. Parsecboy 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No, you would have to provide a cite that translations fit such criteria. Look, I understand your arguments and to a degree I agree with them, but if you want to use the WP:OR line above to justify it, we can have a long and esoteric argument about the meaning of the phrase 'original thought' and 'orginal research' (which I really don't want to bother to have; my main interest here is improving AFAGIR (or IGRC Air Force if you will)). For my purposes, the title AFAGIR could well be argued to be a completely standard utilization of translating each individual word by standard Farsi-English translating conventions, and then stringing them together. That is why I asked for a specific cite that translations by doing so constitute OR. Cheers Buckshot06 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the IRGC title

Although the word corps is wrong for reference to this independent army, but since a huge number of English media refer to it as such, including major news agencies: [3][4][5], the title should be included in the introduction, so there shouldn't be any doubt that they are the same organization. I'll make the change, noting that 'corps' is wrong word.--Gerash77 18:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As i suspected, the term "corps" for this force seems to be used in the US, i assume by analogy with the US Marine Corps. I agree that corps should be added then, as an american term. Mesoso 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I found that the abbreviations used in the article were 50% IRG and 50% IRGC. The article should be consistent using one abbreviation thrghout. Subsidiary (linked) articles such as IRGC_Air_Force use IRGC in their titles, so I changed all IRG abbreviations to use IRGC. I would be entirely happy with IRG throughout if somebody prefers it, but consistency is important, and it would take some effort to rename all the articles involved to use something other than IRGC. EdH (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The word sepāh

Historically this word meant military (as a noun, like the French word armée) and until Qajar dynasty it meant military as long as the word qoshun (قشون). But after rise of "Reza khan" (later Reza Shah Pahlavi, king of Iran) and modernization of Persian (Iranian) military the word artesh (ارتش) used for military and the word sepāh used for corps. After Islamic revolution Iran has two militaries, artesh and sepāh. Both of them have separate ground force (army), navy and air force. Unfortunately after Islamic revolution the word sepāh has two different meanings. One of them is military (as a noun) and another one is corps. So I think if we don't want to use the familiar translation "Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps" it is better to translate it Military of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. 109.162.219.240 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have the translation to end all translations using help from our friends in deep east side of central Iranian plateau "Islamic Revolution Guards Corps"37.255.73.234 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Basij

What does "Basij" actually mean? What is the origin of the name? Mesoso 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

it means 'mobilization'--Gerash77 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unity and cooperation is a means to basij for a specific purpose

Anti-imperialist fighters

According to this, these people are now considered by the US government to be "terrorists". Naturally we will have to change the article accordingly. -Stevertigo 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A horribly slanted disinformation attempt by Foxnews is hardly newsworthy let alone "evidence". How would you label those who have murdered one million Iraqi and Afghan civilians so far?--Victor Jara 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is not a Forum nor a Soapbox. Please keep your remarks on-topic and without undue (and unsubstantiated) emotion in the future.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nothing has been determined yet--the possibility of a US designation of the AGIR has merely been reported in the news.Publicus 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Involvement in the Iraq War

The middle paragraph in this section does not seem relevant to IRGC's involvement in the Iraq War. The US GAO study does not address missing high explosives or shaped-charge IEDs. Can anyone support the inclusion of this paragraph in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.191.1.161 (talk) 00:59, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph seems to show the complex context in which the United States is making its allegations. The background information it provides shows that many governments may inadvertently or indirectly arm Iraqi insurgents and contribute to the flow of weapons in to and out of Iraq. --68.253.46.116 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I disgaree. The paragraph seems to attempts to minimize Iran's alledged participation in expanding the civil war in Iraq, as alledged by high ranking U.S. military and civilian officials. The United States loosing weapons has zero bearing on Iran's alledged puposeful arming of various waring factions. If this is a necessary fact that should be mentioned anywhere, it should be under an article about The United States, not Iran, in regards to the Irag war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackscrew (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to condense the paragraph to something that we both find reasonable or remove it if there is a consensus that it is competely off topic.
The paragraph is there to show that a number of parties are inadvertently arming Iraqi insurgents. If the DoD has alleged that Iran has purposefully ordered the Guards to arm the insurgents, and that it isn't a group within the Guards doing it of their own accord, then it would make sense to cite this in the article. The paragraph we are both discussing would also seem less relevant then. I hadn't seen that allegation anywhere though. If you've seen it, I think we'd both be happy if you added it, and then we could also see how the article needed to be updated.
Leave your comments and ideas. --68.21.93.136 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's horrifyingly audacious coming from the nations actually invading and destroynig close to a million lives and leaving several million injured, orphaned and homeless. Let's talk "interference" and "intervention" now!! "Alleged" is only that (i.e not proved or confirmed) and these claims are just that.Victor Jara 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johancruyff74 (talk • contribs)

I added a cite about the US military claims that I could find. It said the weapons were coming from Iran, and specifically the Guards.. but it doesn't mention the DoD is alleging purposeful involvement from the top of the Iranian government (with purported intelligence) or whether elements of the Guard are alleged to be doing this on their own.
As the Guards are supposedly such a broad part of Iranian society, it seems fair to ask whether they were ordered or if it happened loosely. The Administration has alleged involvement [6], but specifically says they can't say who ordered it. Again, if there's been new information, I think that would be very relevant to add. I'm also willing to work on the wording either way.. --68.21.93.136 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
My complaint is that the article is about the Revolutionary Guard, not the United States, and not about Iraq and that war in general. Anything within this particular article should be about the Guard, not The United States, nor the Iraq war more generaly. How does the U.S. losing track of thousands of weapons connect to the Revolutionary Guard?? There isn't a connection to the Guard, they are separate issues. To my knowledge, no one talks about the Guard and the lost U.S. weapons in any connected conversation. The lost U.S. weapons might be significant enough in the broad topic of the Iraq war. But the lost weapons and the Guard have no connection. I would also argue that the lost U.S. weapons have little political or military significance to the Iraq war, and, equally, zero significance in relation to the Guards involvement in the iraq war. On the other hand, the Guards involvement in the Iraq war most certainly is significant, as it represents a visible sign of Iran's involvement in that conflict. Any arming of any parties by the Guard is certainly significant to any article on the Guard. The same can't be said about U.S. lost weapons in an article about the Guard. We know the U.S. is arming Iraqi's, no one debates that, on purpose, and accidentaly, no doubt. That the Guard may be doing so as well is hugely significant in an article ABOUT the Guard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackscrew (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, it's showing that numerous parties have their weapons turning up in the hands of Iraqi insurgents. The information shows that a particular group within the Guards may have chosen to arm the Iraqis by themselves, or that maybe Iranian weapons just wound up lost in Iraq like 100,000 US AK-47s or Russian weapons being imported from Italy.
The fact that the DoD is asserting Iranian weapons have been found is given, and then more background information is given to inform the reader about the wide array of weapons which have been found in or going to Iraq. It seems like the logical way to address it unless there has been more information about orders coming from the top, etc. So if you've seen this information, be sure to throw it up.. --69.218.58.110 03:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This article shows how weapons from half way around the world may have again inadvertently made it in to Iraq. It doesn't need to go in the article, but it reinforces the point. If weapons from half way around the world can make their way in to Iraq, then maybe it can happen from a country which borders Iraq. --69.218.58.110 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Labelled as "terrorists" by US govt.

Is this really important to this article? Especially considering that it currently takes up 5.5kb, a full third of the article? That, and it's not really notable. So the Americans and Iranians got in a name calling match; it isn't really important. Thoughts? Parsecboy 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important, but certainly not worth the amount of space given to it here. I'm going to edit the section down and move the info the more relevant articles. Publicus 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's been given far too much weight here. Reduce the section away. I'll be around to help if you like, as well. Parsecboy 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
In the long run, this is probably not going to be a huge issue, but it did make me look up the status of the organization within the framework of the Iranian constitution, which is why I added the reference to its constitutional establishment at the beginning of the article. To me, as an American, one could call the Navy Seals a terrorist organization under the same logic. Both are legitimate military units under the laws of their nations, and both us asymmetrical tactics. Engaging in asymmetrical warfare is not the defining factor in whether or not an organization is a terrorist group, and I think it is a stretch to apply that label to a legitimate agency of any government. --Dwcsite (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Northern imperialist Christian nation--Victor Jara 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)s allegationas and fabrications are not facts and neither are your standards unviersal standards. The Corps is the the best phenomenon happening to Iran and the only reason the country and the revolution haven't been invaded by the fascist NATO forces and their Zionist allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johancruyff74 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOXHammerFilmFan (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to mention the US designation of the IRCG a terrorist organization because it was purely politically motivated. Interestingly, the designation of the US Armed Forces a terrorist organization by Iran has been removed from the US Armed Forces page.--RichyBlack (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have an ORBAT for the IRGC?

If any of you lot have an ORBAT for the IRGC it would be nice for it to be added. It would be quite useful. 72.227.231.178 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

involvement in Bosnia (1992-1995)?

Hi, according to sources which I have researched for the Bosnian Mujahideen article, the Revolutionary Guards were involved in Bosnia (on the Sarajevo-based Bosnian government side). The sources are an article from the US Institute for Peace, [NY Times] and a [Council of Foreign Relations] article. Should we include this in the article?Osli73 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes Jw10u36engeve25be768ko27siw37ppql639sns918nvzfgzb (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Resistance/Revolutioanry organization

I added the category "Organizations designated as terrorist". Source:[7] VR talk 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The category is reserved for non-governmental organizations, so the category does not apply here. A baby turkey[citation needed] 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Northern imperialist Christian nations allegationas and fabrications are not facts and neither are your standards unviersal standards. The Corps is the the best phenomenon happening to Iran and the only reason the country and the revolution haven't been invaded by the fascist NATO forces and their Zionist allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johancruyff74 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Number inconsistency

It is stated in the article "Basij miitia, which has a potential strength of eleven million."

The infobox to the side of that statement shows a potential strength of ONE million. One of these numbers must be wrong, but I don't know which one.

Perhaps I haven't read far enough, but it would be good if something in the article stated what that "potential strength" was based upon.

Loren.wilton (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere that it was 11 milltion several years ago, though not sure how many there is now.. though im pretty sure it's 11 million rather than 1 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.138.200 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the numbers for both the Guards and the Basij. The article previously stated that the Guards were over 12 million in number, which is totally off. I'm examining several reputable sources that seem to agree on a figure between 120,000 and 125,000. I'm not sure how the original number was so far off. Same changes made for the Basij. --96.255.185.40 (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Article should be thoroughly reviewed for neutrality

These types of articles are a problem for editors concerned with NPOV and accuracy. Please, an expert review and check this article to ensure that there is no bias and is as neutral as possible. Also pushing allegations of terrorism as fact against a sovereign nations and UN member state is not proper according to WP policy. Allegations are allegations, not fact. Laval (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution

This article has provided false information Forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps 23500000 Pasdran estimated that 8 million Basij forces and other officials are Basij-week training course The local patrol forces and some are licensed to carry a warm interest. Ndrad age requirements in mobilization. Economic activity, and Corps of Military Tslyhat raw material industries in Oman and the Persian Gulf by several Bndrdr do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irokatana (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

huh? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over info on Syrian Civil War

Rvt here. Nihlus1 did not like my qualification of memri as an "unsympathetic" source. If there are other sources backing it up OK, I'll remove that description, but memri is controversial and it definitely has a point-of-view. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Pasting question from edit summary: Nihlus1 are you keeping track of IRGC casualties, adding them up? so the total is current? if so it should say: "From January 2013 to _____ 2015," so people know it is up to date.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Pasted from edit summary by Nihlus1: "Yes, these casualties are current [if you'd like to see the Fars News articles about every death in October, they're all linked on the Reddit page "Iranian casualties in Syria megathread"). They include October. But not 2011/2012 or the last few days." --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nihlus1 still has the paragraph starting "Since January 2013, 531 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps troops have been killed in Syria, " Which should be changed as noted above. WIkipedia is full of statements like "recently ...." or "since [rill in the date]" that are no longer particularly recent or no longer updated. It is best to show the readers the information is up to date. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think saying "Since January 2013, more than 531 IRGC troops died in Syria" just leaves more room for considering it a running tally. I'm fine with it just saying "from January 2013 to October 2015, over 531 IRGC troops were killed in Syria", though. Just wanted to confirm that those deaths in October did happen (and that those units are there), and they weren't made up by MEMRI (which should be a RS anyway since PBS uses it).--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Well ... If the sentence says "From January 2013 to [very recent date] 2015," the reader knows exactly what they're getting. It is unlikely they are going to think "well, the editor must have stopped counting after [very recent date]", and if they do think that, well so what? Isn't it better than not being sure how up-to-date the information is?
(MEMRI has a lot of information not available elsewhere but uncontroversial they are not. I doubt PBS uses MEMRI as an impartial source on the Iran nuclear agreement.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 20:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. 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:

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) 08:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. 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:

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) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over the neutrality of the materials added by sock-puppet

The materials added by a sock-puppet suffers from neutrality issues and needs to be reworded with much more scrutiny. So, NPOV issue is raised here. Although, I've already told all of these things in my edit summary, an IP has reverted me to my surprise, alleging that my edit was not explained! --Mhhossein talk 13:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The page is now temporarily semi-protected to allow discussion and consensus about the new text prior to its addition. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

War crime allegation

@Modesikuwasi: Unlike what's added by you in the lead citing to Washington Post, the source is not crediting war crimes to IRGC. There's only a quote from "president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran," which is not counted as an official voice. If you'd like to add the material, you need to make proper attributions (see WP:WikiVoice) and move it from the lead, as IRGC is not really credited with that crime. --Mhhossein talk 12:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Your un-discussed move

@Sahehco: Can you support your move ? In other words, why did you do that? --Mhhossein talk 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Based on the rules for article title we have to consider the most suitable and common name. I have never seen the phrase "Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution" in the literatures. As you might know, this organization is known as Islamic Revolutionary Guards (literally its most famous translation) and its derivatives which stands for "IRGC". According to the recent established military group in Libya called "Revolutionary Guard Corps", the current name "Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps" can differentiate "Sepah" from the libyan version of revolutionary gurad. Additionally, the abbreviation IRGC would be matched with it. Another options are "Iran's or Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps" which I find even better and academically commoner. The following reliable sources use "Iran, Iranian or Iran's revolutionary guards": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. best--Sahehco (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Sahehco: There are many sources using the former title; See [8], [9], [10] and etc) Even one of your sources uses the former title. So, for now, I revert you and you may consider going through the common method for requested moves. I hope this revert does not offend you and please consider that this way we gather more views. --Mhhossein talk 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
NP, Feel free to revert it. We are developing the encyclopedia together :) --Sahehco (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein asked on WP:AN for someone to revert the move, I've done that per the above comment. Hut 8.5 18:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Thank you, but is not too urgent--Sahehco (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution → Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. The common name used in English is Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as established by:

While it's understood that the literal translation is Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, that name doesn't fit WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:ENGLISH.

Therefore, we are better off by renaming the article to its common English name: Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as referenced above. IdlePheasant (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: @Sahehco: Would like to take your voice here? --Mhhossein talk 13:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, As I have mentioned above, the current title cannot introduce IRGC correctly. As a rule of thumb the references which have used Islamic revolutionary guard corps are significantly more than the others. Therefore, I would like to second this move.--Sahehco (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of related discussion

I have initiated a discussion related to this page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasdaran. Ibadibam (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Alleged 2018 clashes

The whole section seems to be the POV of Israel. I checked the sources and there's no concrete evidence and/or independent viewpoint saying that Iran has directly acted in the clashes. The drone incident itself is a controversial issue, let alone the rest. Moreover, how do we know that IRGC was involved? I've hid the section until there's a consensus that we can include the section. Per ONUS, those who wish to include the material should try to build the required consensus. --Mhhossein talk 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the only one objecting this content. Incident was widely reported by multiple reliable sources, and it's also properly attributed to Israeli claims.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of the world-wide media seems to be reporting on the reported Iranian involvement.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no independent source saying the attacks were done by Iranian forces. Don't restore the material until there's a consensus over it. For example see this this source where we read "Israel's military spokesman said", " Israeli military said" and etc. --Mhhossein talk 18:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe there are independent sources saying this in their own voice - however that is irrelevant as the allegations or reports that the IRGC was involved, when widely repored, is sufficient for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Find those independent sources first. No, millions of allegations convoying Israeli voice are still allegations. --Mhhossein talk 18:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
No need as we routinely include widely reported allegations on such matters. Per NPOV omitting this widely reported event would violate BALASP.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a misunderstanding. No, ONLY ISRAEL is saying this. So, we can't dedicate a whole section to the this allegation. --Mhhossein talk 19:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Those source are not Israel [27],[28],[29]--Shrike (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
No, they don't. Although they are not that reliable, you can see LaTimes: "The Israeli military said" and newsroom: "what Israel called" in them. Btw, WSJ is not more than just an opinion source. There are numerous ultra reliable source making the attribution in a cautious manner and you're referring me to those sources? Moreover, you're ignoring a major question; How do you know that IRGC was involved? --Mhhossein talk 14:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
We don't need to "know" the WP:TRUTH - what matter is whether this was report in a WP:RS - and it was. Extensively. The drone incident in February has several sources reporting on it as Iranian in their own voice (in fact - this is not denied by Iran - who is just denying it entered Israel), as well as coverage of funerals in Iran. The May incident is more recent - however we have a huge amount of sources saying Israel (and others) alleged the IRGC to have fired the rockets - and we have sources in their own voice reported on damage and casualties to Iranian installments in Syria - all tied, by the sources, to the IRGC and Qasem Soleimani.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I also think there's no need to make a whole section for the only Israeli POV. Really, are there sources saying IRGC was involved?Saff V. (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The other side is clearly violating ONUS. They are trying to keep the section although there's no consensus over it. It's more interesting that they are basing the whole section on the Israel POV. See this edit where the user tries to connect the section to the article solely based on the Jonathan Conricus comment, an IDF figure. --Mhhossein talk 11:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
What's your problem? The Iranian drone is already attributed to Israel in article.--יניב הורון (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Problem? Your violation of ONUS and your edit warring.--Mhhossein talk 13:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we dedicate a whole section to this?

Consensus to include, with proper attribution. As the supporters say, numerous international sources report on the incident(s). If, as the opponents say, those sources are mostly or solely based on Israeli statements, then we need to say as much, and ideally find and present the Iranian view, but consensus is clearly that the incident(s) has/have gotten sufficient coverage for inclusion.


As for the dispute between יניב הורון and Wikaviani about whether or not this is a vote; you're kind of both right. In an editing dispute, the most important thing are our policies and guidelines: if there were one person citing policy and ten just giving their opinions, the one would win. But that only happens rarely. Much more often, such as in this case, people on each side make reasonable arguments about how to apply our policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT), and the number of people who favor each argument is an important data point. After all, we can all read the policies and guidelines, if most people seem to be reading them one way, that's a strong point that they do in fact read that way. Here it seems clear that most participants believe there is sufficient, wide spread, international, mainstream, reliable source coverage to make up for the fact that this coverage is mostly based on one point of view. --GRuban (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some users are trying to have whole section to the recent Israeli invasion of Syria and the related incidents. There's apparently no independent reliable source saying IRGC was involved and there are just some claims form the Israeli party. Should we dedicate a whole section to this? Saff V. (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note that the above question is not neutrally presented. The contested material is this section.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • No: It's not logical to dedicate such a section to the pure POV of Israel. I don't oppose adding a line or two to the "In Syria, 2011–present" section. Attribution should be done in that case. Saff V. (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - As fire incidents and widespread airstrikes between Israel and Iran in Syria have been widely documented, involving the IRGC. While some points remain "according to Israel" (e.g. - who fired the 32 rockets at the Golan in May) - the conflict as a whole is reported by multiple sources without attribution to Israel - e.g. strikes on IRGC targets in Syria, funerals of IRGC personnel, etc. Regardless of whether some statements need to be attributed (as WP:RS attribute them - and we follow RS) - even the attributed events have been widely covered - worldwide coverage in reputable sources - and are extremely significant in regards to the IRGC.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No: There are many reliable sources in this regard but all of them are attributing it to Israel and there's no independent narration of the incident. There are just "Israel said...according to the Israeli army...". We can't base a whole section on such a pure Israeli allegation. However, as Saff V. said, there's already a "In Syria, 2011–present" where we may add those allegations very briefly. That Israel has attacked IRGC targets in Syria and that there were funeral of IRGC members does not mean IRGC were involved in the clashes. --Mhhossein talk 17:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Supported by MANY different sources, including Jerusalem Post, RussiaToday, BBC, Haaretz, New York Times, Fox News, etc. If the problem is that this is "only" an Israeli claim instead of what multiple reliable sources report as facts (which I don't think is the case), you can attribute the content. But removing the entire section is not a valid option.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - multiple reliable sources support that. Flayer (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No: I have not found any reliable sources confirming that the IRGC forces were involved, this is why i added "according to Israeli forces" in some articles about this topic.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
"Lt Col Conricus said that, in Thursday's attack, around 20 projectiles, most likely rockets, were fired by the Quds Force, an external arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, at around 12.10am." But even if those rockets were fired by other Iranian forces, Syria, Hezbollah or Barney, the fact is that Israel attacked IRGC targets as retaliation.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The Israeli strikes on the IRGC are not evidences of the latter's involvement. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per Icewhiz. No reporting has challenged or questioned IRGC involvement in the recent clashes with Israel, so it's unclear to me what the "oppose" editors are basing their skepticism on. (Note that there is no dispute over IRGC activity in Syria generally, so the reports of IRGC involvement in the recent clashes with Israel are hardly exceptional in nature). It may also be worth noting that the "2014 Israeli drone shoot down" section of this article appears to be based on attributed Iranian claims that have not been independently confirmed but were widely reported and not refuted by other sources, so if the "No" votes set precedent here that section would be next on the chopping block. EC: Finally, as יניב הורון just noted above, even if the Israeli allegations were proven false (highly unlikely), it's a confirmed fact that Israel struck IRGC targets in response, thus automatically ensuring that the disputed content is relevant to this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: It was reported in the media world-wide that Israel attacked Revolutionary Guard sites. This is clearly sufficient for notability and reliability. Wikipedia is not required to give equal weight to alternate view points. Nevertheless, we should, of course, mention that Iran officially denies its involvement because the official Iranian statement is part of the events. OtterAM (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes even all known states confirmed it. The Iranian involvement is confirmed by official Russian government [30], American [31], German [32], British [33], EU[34], Bahrein [35], French [36] governments, Arab medias, NGOs....or by other words it seems to be confirmed by everyone related, beside Iran. Tritomex (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Agree, and I will note that Wikipedia exclusion on the basis of an involved country denying something..... Would lead to some very funky articles indeed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Widely reported by many reliable sources. Specific claims can be attributed to those making them, without stating it as fact . Attack Ramon (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Question @Tritomex, OtterAM, TheTimesAreAChanging, and Flayer: You are all referring to sources saying Israel said it attacked IRGC targets and it does not mean IRGC was involved in the incident. Can any of you show just a single independent source saying IRGC directly took action against Israel in that incident? --Mhhossein talk 13:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, the EU, Germany, France, UK; USA and some other leading powers directly and explicitly condemned the "Iranian attack on Israel", (see sources above) while Russia condemned the "Israeli airstrikes against Iranian forces". Anyway, in both cases the IRGC is involved, in offensive or defensive way. I do not see any relevant source, except maybe Iran, questioning this.Tritomex (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, multiple sources confirm this. I had not been aware that this was controversial until coming here. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's interesting that you fail to provide a single source of those "multiple sources". Just one source, without attribution to Israel, saying IRGC took action against Israel. --Mhhossein talk 18:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact there are such sources for parts of this (e.g. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets - reported without any attribution to Israel, particularly casualty estimates by various Syrian sources) - it is irrelevant. The question isn't who says what, but what degree of coverage this is receiving.Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the countries you're talking about (UK, Germany, France) are just repeating what Israeli sources state. The case of the USA is quite different because Trump's administration is a close ally of Israel and supports any of its actions (until now). I don't see any independent sources here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: The question is quite relevant, since "Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets" does not necessarily mean IRGC had took action against Israel and the latter, which is quite necessary to include the material in combat history of IRGC, is not found in any independent sources. --Mhhossein talk 05:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The refusal to read multiple sources, including official American, British, German, French, EU or Bahreni condemnation of Iranian attack on israeli forces as well as official Russian reaction that also acknowledge Iranian involvement in those clashes is WP:IDONTHEAR First it was said that only Israel claimed that those clashes happened. Later,it became clear that half of world took even official political position on those clashes. Its not upon editors to to make WP:OR or create different theories on what motivates 27 countries of EU, or USA or Russians to take certain position, but to add facts, as reported by reliable secondary sources. Its clear that no one denied those clashes, as shown by all major world medias. In fact, it looks to me that the denial of such incidents is original research, without any support from WP:RS. There is a clear consensus on this talk page on this issue, and we should proceed with adding relevant material to this article .Tritomex (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Tritomex: All what you said in some words: "Israel claimed a POV and 4 countries did not deny, so it has happened." As Wikaviani said, yes, no one is denying those clashes but that does not mean Iran was involved in those clashes in terms of taking action against Israel. Using "official American, British, German, French, EU or Bahreni condemnation of Iranian attack" as a tool to push the impression that Iran has directly took action against Israel is a clear violation of No Original Research and should be avoided. In fact, it looks to me that the verification such incidents by users is original research, without any support from WP:RS and of course there's no consensus over adding the related material. I urged you to show one single independent source saying Iran took action against Israel and you all failed to do it. Said that, I would not oppose adding 2 or 3 lines to the "In Syria, 2011–present" section. --Mhhossein talk 14:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact that 4 or 5 Israeli allies support an Israeli claim is not surprising, is it ? It would be quite naive to think otherwise, wouldn't it be ? We have sources stating that Israel claimed an attack from the Quds forces, this Israeli claim is supported by some European countries and the USA (not surprising), but denied by Iran and some other countries (Iranian allies : also not surprising), why should we favor one side against the other ? We editors here on Wikipedia must keep a neutral point of view, right ? As Mhhossein said, any other statement would be WP:OR. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So far eight users voted 'Yes', three voted 'No'. Is it too early to restore the content or should I wait for an administrator after 30 days?--יניב הורון (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון, i think this is not a question of votes, this is a question of Wiki rules (WP:OR, WP:NPOV).---Wikaviani (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, your interpretation of Wiki rules seems to be flawed according to most editors. That's why RfCs are for: to determine contentious issues based on the majority. At some point a decision must be reached, even if you disagree with it. Remember you don't WP:OWN this article nor this encyclopedia.--יניב הורון (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Easy man, no need to be aggressive, i'm discussing nicely and politely with all of you, i'm not claiming any WP:OWN and i am not driven by any nationalism, i just say that what really happened in Syria is not clear. None of you is providing a single independent source to support your claim and i also will welcome the eye of an admin to make it clear. If there is no wiki rule that is broken with your supported version of the text, then it would be okay for me. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with nationalism whatsoever, my problem is with lack of honesty. You were already shown several reliable newspapers saying IRGC or Quds Force were responsible for firing around 20 rockets on the Golan Heights. If lack of attribution is your problem, then add attribution to Israel or whatever source says so, but don't remove a bunch of sourced content.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, יניב הורון, if you don't have any problem with nationalism, then clearly, you and me are not here for the same reasons. As to my "lack of honesty", could you please post the diff where i "removed a bunch of sourced content" ? I edited only one time the article and since you fail to check facts, let me help you, here is the diff of my edit : [37]. Now, i'm ready to present you my appologizes if you show me what "bunch of sourced content" i removed ... you should avoid baseless accusations of other editors. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, you clearly agree with this edit, that's why you voted "No" [to restore the content] in this RfC.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
First, I agreed with the edit does not mean that i made the edit. Second, the only reason i agreed with the edit and voted no is because i think that your version of the text would break some wiki rules (WP:OR and WP:NPOV). Again, if some admin or such shows me that no wiki rule would be broken with your version of the text, then it would be perfectly fine for me.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Whatever. We have eight votes against three. Your approval is not needed to restore the content. The question is when, not if.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
"Whatever. We have eight votes against three. Your approval is not needed to restore the content." : Sorry יניב הורון, but you're clearly wrong about that per WP:VOTE. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You are mistaken again. Wikipedia in general is not based on democracy, but certain policies. However, when sourced content is disputed and submitted to RfC, the number of user votes is what counts.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Any link pointing to this wiki rule ?---Wikaviani (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • No: There's no independent source saying IRGC was directly involved in terms of carrying out attacks, though there are sources making attribution to Israel, and making such a section gives the readers the impression that IRGC has really attacked Israel, which is against WP:OR. Reliable sources such as CNN don't verify it: "...but if confirmed it would be the first time Iranian forces have fired rockets directly at Israeli forces." I suggest adding some lines to the "In Syria, 2011–present" section. --Mbazri (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The official British condemnation of "Iranian attack on Israel" is "depended" source? [38], or it is the official condemnation of Iranian attack by 27 countries of European Uninon [39] or it is the official American condemnation of Iranian attack by USA [40] or on whom the official German condemnation of Iranian attack on Israel depends [41], German Chancellor Angela Merkel has denounced Iran's attacks on Israeli positions in the Golan Heights, during a telephone call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. [42], Bahreini condemnation [43]. Canada officially, strongly condemned Iran "for attacking Israel" [44], so did Australia. I did not see any source claiming that this attacks did not happen and the denial of this is solely a non independent Iranian claim, without any verification from independent sources .Tritomex (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No wonder if the allies of Israel condemn the attack and they are no more than mere "condemnation". Actually there's a huge difference between your sources and the sources verifying/saying IRGC directly took action against Israel, which is needed to insert the disputed materials. Moreover, it's so much clear that there's no need to sources saying " this attacks did not happen". --Mbazri (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blackwater

please change ((Blackwater)) to ((Academi|Blackwater)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:4c0c:6a13:1716:add6 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 Already done DannyS712 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019

Add Section 5.2: Response to terrorist organization designation

The move was met with unfavorable reactions from Iranian leaders and militants.[1] Shortly after the US announced the designation, the Iranian government declared the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility includes the Middle East, as a terrorist organization.[2] According to Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the move "was in response to the illegal and unwise move from the U.S."[2] On the following day, Iranian Members of Parliament displayed their support of the IRGC by collectively wearing green military pants and chanted "death to America" as they opened session. Iranian president Hassan Rouhani also responded to the move, commenting that it was a mistake which would only increase the IRGC's popularity in Iran and elsewhere.[2]

I am suggesting that this section be added in order to inform people of the Iranian government's reaction to the IRGC's designation as a terrorist organization. Osustudent1869 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Requesting user has added section themself. Closing request. NiciVampireHeart 11:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Clarke, Colin (April 11, 2019). "The Revolutionary Guards Are Ready to Strike Back". Foreign Policy.
  2. ^ a b c Eqbali, Aresu (April 8, 2019). "Iran Labels U.S. Central Command a Terrorist Organization". The Wall Street Journal.

Armenia

Armenia is not an ally of the IRGC. This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.80.242 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. There is no link between Armenia and the IRGC. As a matter of fact, Armenia and Iran do not cooperate militarily. I will be removing Armenia from the list until proper documentation is supplied. Clean-up Time (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2019

Armenia is listed as an ally of the IRGC, and there is no truth to this - there is no reference provided as there are none available. Armenia cooperates with Iran economically, but not militarily. This claim is blatantly false. I request that Armenia be removed from the list of allies. Clean-up Time (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Clean-up Time (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Trialpears (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Trialpears - Thank you. I am new to this, so if I made any errors, please, let me know. Clean-up Time (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Clean-up Time You did nothing wrong, we just have a huge edit request backlog so it takes a while. Thank you for helping improve the encyclopedia! --Trialpears (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

What does this mean?

  • The IRGC consists of ground, naval, and aviation troops, which parallel the structure of the regular military. Unique to the Pasdaran, however, has been control of Iran's strategic missile and rocket forces.


-This paragraph is in the article. I think the last sentence needs clarification and fix the grammar.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Subsection Name Change

Aid to known terrorist organizations to U.S. Department of the Treasury terrorist aid claims

Proposed name change to reflect the contents of the article. Additionally, this subsection is from a single non-neutral source. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

▶ protests against IRGC to conceal the cause of the Ukrainian plane crash ✎

Please include content related to the protests against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Sepah in order to conceal the cause of the Ukrainian plane crash. There were also protests against the IRGC at Sharif University and Amirkabir University. ☮☮☮ Please don't be censored here either. ⚫⬤ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 The content must be clear so that we do not go into secrecy. ★★★ But what has happened so far has not been fully written.--Hamed455 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is better guards corps or guard corps

Which is better guards corps or guard corpsBaratiiman (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

Change: tainted units to “tainted” units

As it is used here, tainted is an adjective that would likely be used by the subject of the a article and his subjects to describe the units in question, but would not be used by the majority of readers. Hence, I believe it should be clear that this is simply the perception of Khomeini and his followers. 2600:1700:BEE0:3080:1DC4:7FB7:D03B:54EF (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We do not deduce what would "likely be used by the subject of the article". If you think that "tainted" is the wrong word, please provide either a) a source or b) a suggestion for a different one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


– Per WP:COMMONNAME and wp:CONCISE. Almost all sources don't use to the "of the" but rather put it as IRGC _branch_. "Of the" is most commonly used on wikipedia or foreign sources that appear to have translated their articles literally to English. Garuda28 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved by Garuda28 at 15:47 on 20 April 2021 (UTC). Kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Ground Forces → Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – The previous user added Ground Corps by mistake. It’s best to revert to its old name. Silence of Lambs (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone fix this error as soon as possible. RopeTricks (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Army of twenty million" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Army of twenty million and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Army of twenty million until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps_Ground_Forces/Archive_1&oldid=1136827244"