Talk:Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Iran Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Terrorists

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

[edit] 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)


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)