Talk:Military of Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military of Iran article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Military of Iran 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.

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	National militaries task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Middle Eastern military history task force

[edit] Iran Middle East power status

Removed the two lines of USA qoute about Iran is the most powerful military in the Middle East. There is utterly no proof of it! and its based almost complete on one mans personnel opinion not very reliable. No point in adding that comment until after more information is proven. It seems more like a ego and national pride comment. Ben Harel

I completely agree with this comment. Being a student of military studies, I also find that for the most part, the article is overwhelmingly Pro-Iranian, not an unbiased report on Iran's military institutions and capabilities. Details, range estimates, clear, academic writing is what should govern this page, not what I can only imagine to be Iranian propoganda.

L Diaco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.79.93 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Praying Mantis link

ArmanJan, threats are a poor substitute for reasoned arguments. Why do you object to the photo link? I believe it is relevant; it adds to the resources immediately available to the reader of "Military of Iran," which is hardly detailed enough. And, as long as I'm asking, why did you add the Eagle Claw link? PRRfan 00:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, however it is not relevant to add these pictures on the main site of the Iran military. The link to these pictures is already on the operation page. If extra links and pictures of everything is added the page would look very different. If people are interested about the operation, they will go to that link and check the pictures, but not on Iran's military page. User:ArmanJan

Yes, you keep saying that. But a) the page is not very long, so any more information would seem to be useful at this point; and b) you yourself have included a link (Operation Eagle Claw) with less apparent relevance than photos of an action that actually involved the Iranian military. Why do you think that the Military of Iran page needs less information than presently presented? PRRfan 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you go back in the history of that page you will see that the page was very long, with a lot of information. However, it was then divided in many pages, and the Iranian military page links to them all. This is how we would like to keep it (those who attend to the iranian military pages). I added Operation Eagle Claw because I see it as just as irrelevant as the other operations. Someone feld it was needed to also add the small battles, so here you go. User:ArmanJan

Well, if the battle has already been fought to slim the page down, then I won't try to bulk it back up. (Not sure about your reasoning on the last point, tho.) Cheers. PRRfan 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. User:ArmanJan

[edit] Eagle Claw & Mantis Photos

I agree totally with ArmanJan: The mantis photos should not be on this page as they are a minor point on one of the following pages. Additionally, eagle claw as nothing to do with the Iran Iraq war - it was a botched hostage rescue that didn't even involve the Iranian military because it failed too soon.

[edit] Major Changes

I suggest we turn the Millitary of Iran page into a summary page for all the armed forces of Iran and allow them to each have their relevant sections. Any takers?

No, it has made the page really ugly and incomplete.

I liked the setup used for the US Army. The lead page provides an overview and covers cross branch military issues such as entry, overall leadership, budget etc. Then each branch (Marines, Navy, USAF, Army...) has its own section in significant detail.

[edit] Nuclear Technology

Where is there mention of Iran's attempt to obtain nuclear technology?

Iran has already obtained nuclear technology, however this has nothing to do with the Iranian military. It is only in the imagination of the U.S. that Iran uses it for weapons. As can be read in the latest report (GOV/2006/15) of the IAEA "the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".

The above anon statement smacks of POV. However I imagine that until such time as Iran produces a working nuclear weapon and that weapon is handed to the military that mention of it should not be put in this article. NickD

I agree with the Anon statement above. Very much to the point...

However, perhaps we should put a link to Irans Nuclear Programme with the above explanation in the Weapons of Mass Destruction area.

I don't think that Iran's nuclear program should be lumped with WMDs. There is, so far, nothing to prove that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. All we have right now are the Bush Administration claims that Iran is pursuing WMDs, and these claims may turn out to be like the claims regarding Iraqi WMDs. Talmakian 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What does does nuclear technology have to do with the military? Canada has nuclear technology, is that mentioned under their military bio???

-G

[edit] Reserves?? And Other Issues of Contention

Why is the table listing troop stats lacking reserve numbers?? According to List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops Iran has about 350,000 troops in reserve... bringing their total numbers up to just over a million... a difference of almost 33% in capacity.

There's also very little here in the way of analysis of capabillity. Considering current trends and events, it's important for someone to take hold of this and improve this article as I am sure many like myself are researching Iran's capabillities to try and envision the implications of a conventional war if one were to erupt as a result of current tensions.

Furthermore, there is little mentioned about the basij, although it does link to it's respective article. Perhaps more should be noted on how these 11 Million paramilitary fighters play into the larger scheme of Iranian capabillities. Also, what about Hezbollah?? Or for that matter, Islamic Jihad... which is also heavily backed by Iran. Though these don't really figure into the army per se, they surely have some clandestine capabillities in terms of force projection that could loosely be directed by Tehran, making it logical to at least give mention to these quasi-military components and their impact on any conceivable armed engagement.

Also, lastly, why is the table with stats down in its current position? Shouldnt this be up higher as it contains essential data that could likely be the whole reason someone is visiting this article??? I think this should be right on top and prominently displayed... and also expanded to include reserves, and (if possible) equipment numbers (numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, etc) for comparison. Thelastemperor 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Basij don't play a significant role in the military. They are more a case of political 'rent a crowd' at government rallies etc. That is fact, personal opinion follows: if anything were to happen i dont think many of them would do anything drastically different from what most iranians would do. The Hezbullah etc. is a different case. I am not aware of any proven iranian backing for islamic jihad, but i may be wrong.

You are absolutely wrong Databot, without the basij Iran would have been completely destroyed during the Iraqi imposed war. You have no idea what are talking about. The basij is a fully trained paramilitary. Even kids get trained until they grow up. Iran would be in serious trouble without them. They are in fact the backbone of our nation. ArmanJan

During the Iran-Iraq war i agree totally with you. They were instrumental and they saved the country- at that point many regular volunteers were incorperated into the basij. Today is another issue alltogther - and i dont think some stick weilding hezbollahi 17 year old who happens to be a basiji yelling abuse at my girlfriend for not having totally perfect hejab then taking a bribe is very symbolic of a fully trained paramilitary. They are more like the curse of our nation.

POV, it is not reality. User:armanjan

[edit] Budget

First, the sentence was ridiculous. A country does not have a strong military because it spends less. Obviously, you meant something else, but that is not what you wrote.

Second, to know whether Iran has the strongest conventional military is a simple comparison of equipment and personnel. We know that Iran vastly outnumbers and out equips any of its neighbors. One plus one is two, Iran has the strongest military. User:ArmanJan

Training is also very signigicant. Its not all about numbers and hardware. Unfortuntely, Iran suffers from poor training (conscription service is a joke) for the larger part. Tototom 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Iran has a profession army, which means everyone joins voluntarily. Secondly, you have no idea how Iran's military training is. Iran’s military training is kept secret, and the last information that is available is from the Shah’s period, during which time they were training by the American method. User:ArmanJan

PRRfan, why do you not use your brain instead of asking for citations? This is like asking for citations about whether Germany is stronger than Holland or Belgium. User:ArmanJan

ArmanJan, citations are somewhat more persuasive than insults. If it is so obvious, it should be a simple matter to cite a reference. PRRfan 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you have your citation --> User:ArmanJan. We do have brains you know? Who do you think runs all those websites? People like you and I.

Question on this quote: "Still, Iran has one of the strongest conventional militaries in the Middle East because it keeps costs low by manufacturing many of its weapons instead of buying them abroad"

Doesn't make sense to me. It is an interesting fact that they manufacture themselves, but why are costs lower when manufactured instead of bought? Common sense says it should be the other way around (Division of labour) 15:40, 8 Aug 2006 (UTC)

It may be that it is less expensive for Iran to produce its weapons domestically rather than for it to import weapons. It is, after all, subject to a trade embargo from the U.S., so it may be that it is difficult to go "bargain hunting" for weapons. Talmakian 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

You guys have done an excellent job of expanding this series, but I think a couple of things are still missing. First, what about the pre-revolutionary combat history of the army? Didn't they successfully beat back a Soviet offensive in the north in 1946? I know this isn't the place to go all the way back to Nadir Shah, but it would be nice to include at least the rest of the twentieth century. Secondly, you did a great job with the rank insignia tables, but it would be nice to add the Persian spelling. Speaking of that, when I look at the Persian page, it has the lowest rank as سرباز دوم, which would transliterate as sarba(a)z do(o)m; however, the English version calls that rank sarbaz yekom. The Persian page has that word (سرباز يکم) next to the corporal's insignia. Which is correct? Overall, you've done a great job, but please check out issues I've mentioned. --Jpbrenna 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Expenditures

Just incase PRRfan's slow mind deletes my work again. 6.2 billion of $561.6 billion GDP is 1.1% military expenditure. [1] User:ArmanJan

[edit] Iranian Military Industry Development

Armanjan claims (with no backing) that prior to 1979 Iran had NO military industrial capability whatsoever. He/she might not aware of the fact that before '79 iran was embarking on a significant development programe - it just never had a chance to truly come to fuition.

Can ArmanJan explain the existance of Project Flower to me, as well as why G3, and MP5 rifles were produced in Iran under licence of H&K.

[edit] The dictator

I can site a billion and one websites, encyclopedia's, books, and what not to show you that the King's of Iran (especially the last two) were the worst kind of dictators. What proof do you have to call the title "dictator" a POV? Which such a stance calling Saddam would also be a POV because of course, there were people that had it good under him and never had any kind of suffering. If you change it one more time I will complain about your vandalism. User:ArmanJan

I find this one the most interesting one because it is from the most respected journalist in the world: The CIA has also been directly linked to torture training in the Middle East, where the agency for two and a half decades reinforced the repressive state of Shah Mohammed Pahlevi, the dictator of Iran. Shortly before the Shah's overthrow in 1979, New York Times journalist Seymour Hersh reported that "a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak [the Iranian secret police] on torture techniques." Jesse J. Leaf, a former head Iran analyst for the CIA, told Hersh, "I do remember seeing and being told of [CIA personnel] who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the U.S.A." Seymour M. Hersh, "Ex-Analyst Says CIA Rejected Warning on Shah," New York Times, January 7, 1979, p. A3. User:ArmanJan

Arman. No-one is saying he wasn't an autocratic/absolute ruler. However, it is more common to refer to kings by their 'title' of king/shah etc. that to call them dictators.

Please read the existing wiki article on Dictator, so that you can understand that the terms dictator and monarch mean:

Dictators often seize and control power through a coup d'état, or by suspending the existing constitution. Ordinarily democratic nations may temporarily give dictatorial power to leaders during a state of emergency. The term is normally not applied to absolute monarchs although they generally have the powers of a dictator.

FYI: Mohammad Reza Shah inherited his title and power from his father. His father did obtain power in a coup, but was recognised as the king once the majles/parliment gave him the title and power. His son continued to hold the title. He is globally (but it seems not by you) accepted as Iran's last ruling monarch/shah until 1979.

I will change it back, because keeping the term as shah/king is completely in line with ALL the other wikipedia pages (Iran and otherwise). Please refrain from systematically calling him dictator or tyrant on the other pages as you have been known to do. Tototom 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, here on wikipedia you hide that you are a supporter of the dictator and try to change the title with such a bogus excuse? As most people do not even know who these characters are (apart from Saddam), the title 'dictator' is needed to give more meaning to the support of the U.S. within the whole conflict. I could not care any less about the the dead guy, he is gone and no one cares, his family are drugadicts, one committed suicide, who cares. This is not about him or his family, but of western role in middle-eastern conflicts. His so called title as you refer to it by the way, is not recognized in Iran. He came to power through an illegitimate way, and pronounced himself emperor. User:ArmanJan

Shah is clearly the correct term here. I have no doubt that he was a bad guy - but this is about what he should be refered to in an encyclopedia article. I am reverting. Megapixie 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Compare usage [4] "Dictator of Iran" 300 hits [5] "Shah of Iran" 495,000 hits. Megapixie 11:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Armanjan. Just for the record: I dont believe in the monarchy, but I do think it was far more capable and managed the country far better than the theocratic oligarchs running the country I live in today (iran). I am a nationalist, a patriot, and a republican. FYI- as you imply in your above statement the word "'dictator' is needed to give more meaning to the support of the U.S. within the whole conflict". Dictators don't need US support to be dictators- history can point to a thousands of dictators who existed without any US support. What you could say is 'US backed shah', but even that unnecisarily complicates the matter and reduces the written 'quality' of the article.

Arman- come out of your shell and past all the propaganda they spew out in iran. wake up, do some research, think for yourself. It's not like everything before the Iranian Revolution was evil and everything afterwards was great. Tototom 07:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

"In another case, Iranian UAVs spied on the USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected."

The source for this statement points to an RIAN article which paraphrases the Iranian government only. Is there not a source that includes a response from the Americans? Just seems to me to be a suspect claim that a US Aircraft Carrier would not detect a drone. Perhaps this sentence should be changed to "In another case, Iranian UAVs spied on the USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without, according to Iranian sources, being detected.

Perhaps if you worded it could be worded better? I see your point but id suspect it being correct so wouldn't want it worded to harshly 144.82.192.102 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry for the necropost reply buy you can see the video on youtube

[edit] The 11 million number for basij is bogus.

acually they can only mobilize apprx 1 million troops.. the 11 million number includes kids and grandfathers and in no way represents how many they could truthfully bring to battle. Its very misleading. sorry but IRAN does not have the largest fighting force in the world.

that is not true those 11,000,000 are revolutionary guards ...and i'm sure thats true! ;) Smackmonkey 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure it won't include kids and grandfathers Iran has 70,000,000 people men from age of 18 to 45 are about one fifth of the population and that is 14,000,000

[edit] Changing the format

I propose that the format of the page changed, with a more organized view. I believe that the chemical weapons should be removed to the end of the page and the budget to the beginning. also I dont understand why so many names are present, this is one of the few military pages that I have noticed such a thing. A history is definitely needed- not just history of operations but the history of iranian military. The defense industry section is also incomplete and needs more information on the industry after the revolution- especially in the past few years. Also more important there should be a section regarding iranian available weapons. If everyone agrees it would be nice to make it easier to look at.User:Ali Soltani

Sounds good, the defence industry already has an article of its own here that we always need help with. The new format sounds good though. L0b0t 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys should take a look at the Military of Pakistan. I think that is a good template for the Iranian Military page on wikipedia. I know, I wrote it. ;) Mercenary2k 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] active troops iran

on the military menu there sais iran has got 768,000 troops is this wrong or is the 545,000 wrong? The Honorable Kermanshahi 13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Irans Number

It has recently been proven by VatooVatoo that the Iranian navy consists of 25,600 personel instead of 18,000. This is 7,600 more so I have added this to the numbers and changed the active troops to 552,600 and the total troops to 12,292,600. The Honorable Kermanshahi 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read this thanks --VatooVatoo 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News Content

"In 2006, Iran spied on the American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected before returning safely to its base (video). [8][9]"

the rest is also news when you give dates like "on day/month/year so and so happened", when there are many other facts that could be reported of the same nature if we apply the same standard of selectivity.

The testimony of a foreign General (from Iran's point of view) makes it look like Iran's army cannot stand on its two feet by itself and needs the qualification of external forces (from Iran's point of view) to make it look strong. This is an encylopedia and we want an overview of the Iranian Army, not each recent events. We want to have an idea of the structure of command, domestic industrial capacity in defense, inventory and combat experience. The rest is good for Wikinews. SSZ 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should not bring any news mentions Iran military here but important and relevant news with proper reference should be mentioned as far as they enhance the article. I do not see any principle problem with such usage of news articles to enhance the article based on wikipedia policies. But whether each of those lines that you deleted are proper to be mentioned or not is another point. I am not disagreeing with you on particular changes you made, however I wanted to note that blanket deletation of all news-agancy-refrenced material is not proper.

On the testimony of a US General however I must disagree with you. It is common practice to evaluate almost everything through eyes of other professionals in the feild. It enhances the encyclopedia to see evaluation of other professionals about Iran army as far as they are referenced and are from respectable sources.Farmanesh 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, But what will happen when a US General will say that Iran's army is weak? Will you report it as well? Do you see my point? SSZ 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. The subtle point here is that when a precevied rival/enemy reliable source gives credit to another group it is notable to mention it, if it was just a preceived rival talking down it would be simply expectable. We have not here mentioned generals from Iran Military saying how great they are which would simply be ignorable. However when a preceived rival like a high ranking USA general gives such a credit to Iran military it is notable.

That said I agree if we mention this possitive qoute from a US general then in same place we should mention the apposit view from another relaiable US general. If another US general with same regional expertise as this general said Iran military is not that great I agree to mention both to be NPOV.Farmanesh 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, please just remember one thing: Iraq was called "the 4th mightiest army in the world" by the Pentagon before the coalition's invasion in 1991. We know the rest.

I just don't see the utility of having such quotes. When facts are reported, it might be helpful to have each sources quoted, like in a completely different subject: "did the World Trade Center collapse because of the melting structure or implosion" as some media and conspiracy theorists have reported. But when it is a blank statement like for this General, I really don't see any purpose to it. What about the UAV espionage case cited above. Is it news or not? Shall we keep it? You see, I have seen that before on Wikipedia in Iranian related topics and I think that over time this hurts the quality of the article because Wikipedia becomes a fighting field for "soldiers wannabees" (I don't say that for you at all) and Wikipedia is not for that either. SSZ 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and I think we should keep wikipedia from it while keeping relevent info (like US general qoute) in it. On particular news articles as I said above I did not dispute your deletation of them based on their content. I disputed your "approach" of deleting all news related material. My content base objection was only on US geenral qoute not other ones.

For those on each news referenced material, there can be seperate discussion on whether they are helping the article or not.Farmanesh 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the news and I do not think it should be removed, it tells about Irans military capabilities. This proves what Irans UAVs are capable of so I think re should keep it. About the US general, that should defenetly be kept because if an enemy reliable source gives credit to another group it should be mentioned, as for if a US general says Iran is weak well Abdolrahim Mousavi said Us army was weak and we don't mention that on the US military page do we? But if an Iranian general would say: the US has the most powerfull army in the world I think that would be worth mentioning.

About Iraq, they did have the 5th strongest army in the world only it was destroyed by the 1st strongest. The Honorable Kermanshahi 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Weapons

"The U.S had been accused of supplying Iraq with chemical weapons, yet an international coalition reported no evidence of such U.S. manufactured weapons after a 2003 invasion of Iraq. This could however be attributed to Iraq disposing of its weapons of mass destruction after the conflict with Iran."

This reeks of POV and bias. I know that there is an ongoing arguement that Iraq may or may not have disposed of its weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, but why does this issue have to be brought up in a section about another country? I asked that it be removed, please, to improve the quality of this article. Thanks.

I'll give till Sunday to have this edited, then I'll do it myself. Thank you for the discussion on this topic.--splashallison

[edit] Military Budget

The information about Irans military budget is out of date, it is from 2005. Can anyone find a source for 2007? The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the CIA World fact book Irans military expenditures are 2.5% of it's GDP and it's GDP is $599.2 Bilion meaning Irans expenditures are $15 Bilion.[6] If anyone can find an other source wich actually states Irans military expenditures as of 2007 please do but I have been unable to find it and the current source is out of date as it is of 2005 and we are 2 years further now. But should we change it to $15 Bilion now? The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ArteshEmblem.jpg

Image:ArteshEmblem.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fajr-3.jpg

Image:Fajr-3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Artesh Logo.gif

Image:Artesh Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iranchemical.gif

Image:Iranchemical.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories: B-Class national militaries articles | National militaries task force articles | B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles | Middle Eastern military history task force articles