Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Lead Sentences

In an effort to keep the edit process moving and in order to avoid bogging down in any one section, I think it's best we put some heated debates on pause and return to them a bit later with a few days, at least, of rumination. But, in the meantime, how about these sentences:

The ejection of Western oil companies from their Iranian refineries triggered the Abadan Crisis and nearly caused a war. Britain accused Mosaddeq of violating the legal rights of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged Iran into financial crisis.

There are several possible points of dispute in these two sentences. First, did the ejectment trigger the Abadan Crisis (fairly easy answer in my opinion), but as far as nearly causing a war, that's something that will have to be discussed. Second sentence might just be in need of sources, for everything seems alright - although possible points of dispute might involve the wording "violating the legal rights," "worldwide boycott" and "financial crisis" - unless of course we all agree on the appropriate nature of the wording. Here's hoping. --RossF18 (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please propose an alternative wording? Thanks. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the lead. My version is the version that's already there. I'm just trying to move the discussion along seeing that most other editors seem to have big problems with the lead (yet once the article was unblocked, there was no discussion regarding the lead), leading to the constant reverts in the past. I was not involved in that edit war and was just trying to get the article unblocked. So, if the lead is fine by you, it's fine by me and I won't attempt to facilitate any peaceful discussion anymore. Sorry.--RossF18 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again thanks for your trying to move this along. The problem I have (here is a part of it) with the lead mostly involves parts other than what you've quoted above. I think the sentence

“The ejection of the British staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company from the Iranian refineries triggered the Abadan Crisis and nearly caused a war.”

could be made clearer with something like

“The ejection of the British staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company from their refineries [or perhaps "the formerly-AIOC refineries" or "the now nationalized refineries" or the "the formerly-AIOC, now nationalized refineries"]) in Iran triggered the Abadan Crisis and nearly caused a war”

:::and I'm not sure about the phrase "nearly caused a war". It may be true but I don't have time to do the research just now. So maybe we should add a {fact} tag after "nearly caused a war". --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "nearly caused a war"

From All the Shah's Men by Kinzer, 2008

Foreign Secretary Morrison ... marched to the House of Commons and took the floor to declare ... that the Royal Navy was `lying close to Abdan` and would be ordered into action `should the Persians fail to discharge their responsibilities.` " (p.98)

Proposed revised version:

“The ejection of the British staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) from the now nationalized refineries in Iran triggered the Abadan Crisis, bringing the the UK and Iran close to war. Britain accused Mosaddeq of violating the legal rights of the AIOC and mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged Iran into financial crisis.

Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave a few days for objections. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Next lead sentence

OK, next how about this sentence/paragraph in the lead - the first one:

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.

My suggestion is to add (refered to as 28 Mordad 1332 in Iran) to the sentence and add another sentence to the paragraph ("The coup has been called ...") explaining why the coup was important

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état (refered to as 28 Mordad 1332 in Iran) deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. The coup has been called "a critical event in post-war world history", the first covert operation by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) against a foreign government, and is thought to have contributed to the 1979 overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi and his replacement with the anti-Western Islamic Republic.

The 2nd sentence is sort of a summary of text which appears later in the current lead:

The anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced Iran’s post-monarchic, native, and secular parliamentary democracy with a dictatorship. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western monarchy with the anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran.

Reason for the changes:

• the lead is quite long and
• takes out a citation from an unsigned essay "BUZZFLASH READER REVIEW" http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/08/25_shah.html (not exactly WP:RS) and
• it is not true that the coup replaced Iran’s 'post-monarchic' ...parliamentary democracy, because there was still a monarchy during Mosaddeq's tenure, in fact Mosaddeq never talked about creating a republic even after the shah fled. [see: Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.73, 87.
  • "the Tudeh Party's increasing advocacy of a `democratic republic` following the events of August 16, 1953, barred most Mosaddeqist from seriously considering a republican alternative to the monarchy." (p.73)
  • "Some Mosaddeqists, notably Ahmad Zirakazdeh, Fatemi, and Razavi, favored radical measures such as establishing a republic, a move strngly advocated by the Tudeh Party... Mosaddeq wanted to steer a more cautious course." (p.87)] --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

moderate the dispute

My suggestion is that someone moderate the dispute so that a consensus can be achieved because this really isn't going anywhere. Both parties need to list exactly the parts of the article that are being disputed, starting with the major ones, and then working from there, and backing everything up with proper sources. This needs to be resolved because we can't have an important article like this tagged forever. IranianGuy (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, if we had a good moderator. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We did have a step-by-step thing going with the lead but I couldn't get anyone to participate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(Most of) the part of the lead I'm disputing is here, but the article has numerous problems. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So the dispute is about the lead sentence of the article? No one has any objections about the rest of the article? IranianGuy (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"lead sentence"? No, I meant I went into some detail on the problems of part of the lead ("the lead" being the intro to the article before the sections ("Background") begin. It's about 19 sentences long! Too long) but the whole article has many problems. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem with the article right now is there is almost nothing about what happened during the coup. I think we should create a fork article on Prime minstership of Mohammad Mosaddeq (or Mohammad Mosaddeq's term as Premier of Iran or something). It's a very important issue that both the coup article and the article on Mosaddeq the person can refer to. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is data here about Mossadegh that is original to this article, then a new article expanding on his premiership would be a good idea. However, if the data is repeating what's already in the Mohammad Mossadegh article, then I'd suggest not doing that. Anything that is not relevant to the coup should be removed without prejudice. And since there is so much contention about almost every point of the article, then I'd suggest that everyone involved start from the beginning of the article, finding those points where there is disagreement and work their way down. Here's the problem: in order to resolve this, there has to be regular active participation. If one person in the dispute drops away for a few days or weeks this is never going to be resolved. If it's not possible for both parties to resolve this, I'd suggest that those who are able to edit the article regularly work together in cleaning it up, sourcing what needs to be sourced, removing any unsourced speculation, and so on. IranianGuy (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, after looking at how things are, the Mohammad Mossadegh article is in even worse shape than this one. IranianGuy (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the likelihood on us agreeing to accept moderator's verdict or to find one that's sutable?--RossF18 (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's better than nothing. WP:Mediation Cabal might help --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Iranguy I will try to hang around, though I'm gone tomorrow --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Restarting the editing - Lead sentences

In an effort to keep the edit process going, etc. here is a proposal for editing another sentence in the lead - the first one. The changes are not controversial, and I think it makes sentence to work on the non-controversial stuff first before calling in a mediator, as mediation is bound to be slower.

This is pasted from above, where it was forgotten.

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.

My suggestion is to add (refered to as 28 Mordad 1332 in Iran) to the sentence and add another sentence to the paragraph ("The coup has been called ...") explaining why the coup was important

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état (refered to as 28 Mordad 1332 in Iran) deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. The coup has been called "a critical event in post-war world history", the first covert operation by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) against a foreign government, and is thought to have contributed to the 1979 overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi and his replacement with the anti-Western Islamic Republic.

The 2nd sentence is sort of a summary of text which appears later in the current lead:

The anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced Iran’s post-monarchic, native, and secular parliamentary democracy with a dictatorship. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western monarchy with the anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran.

and would replace that text.

Reason for the changes:

• the lead is quite long and
• takes out a citation from an unsigned essay "BUZZFLASH READER REVIEW" http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/08/25_shah.html (not exactly WP:RS) and
• it is not true that the coup replaced Iran’s 'post-monarchic' ...parliamentary democracy, because there was still a monarchy during Mosaddeq's tenure, in fact Mosaddeq never talked about creating a republic even after the shah fled. [see: Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.73, 87.
  • "the Tudeh Party's increasing advocacy of a `democratic republic` following the events of August 16, 1953, barred most Mosaddeqist from seriously considering a republican alternative to the monarchy." (p.73)
  • "Some Mosaddeqists, notably Ahmad Zirakazdeh, Fatemi, and Razavi, favored radical measures such as establishing a republic, a move strngly advocated by the Tudeh Party... Mosaddeq wanted to steer a more cautious course." (p.87)] --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC) [this was posted September 22, 2009]

So no objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I say go for it. You've suggested a version of these few sentences a number of times with no apparent objections. --RossF18 (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, edit has been made. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Next sentence

Problem in Lead:

• It's too long

• Chronology goes back and forth. It starts with Britain and nationalization, from around 1951 ("Mossaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, had angered Britain ...") then goes on to the 1953 coup and Mossaddeq's overthrow, then back to British boycott, ("The economic and political crisis in Iran that began in early 1952 with the British-organized world-wide boycott of Iranian oil,") then ahead to after the coup (“the Consortium Agreement of 1954”), (The last edit help this problem a little)

Suggestion: Having summarized the coup, start in with background of the coup.
Suggested next sentences:

In 1951, Mosaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, nationalized the British government-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), so that Iran could profit from its vast oil reserves

previously controlled exclusively by the AIOC.

Britain accused Mosaddeq of violating the legal rights of the (AIOC) and mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil, pressuring Iran economically.

BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections by Sept 29 I'll go ahead and make the edit. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes made. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Next edit

Suggested next sentences:

In March 1953, after failed negotiations, the British government successfully enlisted the support of the United States in planning and executing the coup, the American Eisenhower administration fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The British and U.S. spy agencies persuaded Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to order Mosaddeq's dismissal, while paying and organizing anti-Mosaddeq politicians, clergy and Iranian army officers, and a campaign of anti-Mosaddeq propaganda.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The agreement was that you get a consensus for each and every edit. Your monologue with yourself here, does not mean consensus. I have restored the last version before your changes. This time, try getting an actual consensus, before making changes. --Kurdo777 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Monoloque with myself? Was the talk page hidden?? Anyone interested could read it!!!

Do you have any specific complaints for reverting the changes? Any reason besides there wasn't "a consensus"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a request on the talk page of every editor who's worked on this article in the past months or so appealing for ideas. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with BoogaLouie on this one. I agreed with all his edits up to this point so there at least 2 editors to support an edit. I hope that Kurdo doesn't think that there could only be a consensus if he's among those who agrees. And there is such a thing as an agreement by silence. Having given my initial agreement with the edit of the first 2 sentences, my indication was that if there was really a problem, someone would protest the second edit made. There was no protest. And even Kurdo is not actually protesting the actual content on the edit, just that he wasn't specifically asked to comment although Booga's proposed edits were here for awhile. And if Kurdo's only point for reverts now will be that every edit has to have a consensus of some unditerminable number of editors, and then keeping away from the edit page to provide such a conesus, well, that's more indicative of Kurdo's desire to keep the article as is, then anything else. If Kurdo's point with reverts is in fact that the article was better without the recent edits by Booga, well, I would disagree. However, while we did agree that there should be a consensus, such an agreement is not to be used as a tool to keep the article forever stagnated. If only one or two editors choose to actually continue to participate, other editors should not come back every once in awhile to protest that they weren't consulted. --RossF18 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Which " 2 editors" supported BoogaLouie's edits? Nobody, but Bogga, had even commented on this talk page since mid September. The edits are POVish, and he is slowly implementing his POV on the page by moving/removing sources and repeating/recycling himself on the talk page. In short, BoogaLouie's strategy is to tire everyone out by repeating himself, hassling the editors on their talk pages (aka forum shopping), so that he can get his way eventually. That's not going to work here. He has already managed to turn away Skywriter and other long-time editors of this page by his antics. That's just not how wikipedia works. One editor can not hijack a page, and force his will on others by being a persistent, repetitive, and stubborn. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Me and Booga = 2 editors. Check my earlier post agreeing to the first edit. If you're not going to participate or get too tired, well, you don't get to complain. If you, Skywriter, and these "other long-time editors" you're referring to really agree on something, that's a consensus and Booga wouldn't be able to do anything. Majority would rule. The point however, is that you yourself and Skywriter haven't been able to agree on anything either. I'll support a rational majority argument, but don't pretend that there was anything like a majority on any one single point. You, Skywriter, and Booga, the only editors who really participated, don't seem to agree with anything between one another. If Booga is really all alone in his proposed edits, than you and Skywriter would have had no problem long ago editing this article given that the two of you would have had the majority. So, why haven't you done that? Just because of one single editor's protests. Come on. Booga may be "hassling," something that I disagree with, but if you truly have a majority on your side, what's the problem? The problem is that you don't have a majority on your side. You just have your own opinion, Skywriter has his/her, and Booga has his. If the past discussions taught us anything, is that you really don't have a moral high ground here. Neither does Booga, but let's not pretend like you're a martyr for the cause. Come on. If you disagree, speak up. The point is that you haven't spoken up. You gave up. That's not a problem. You're entitled to it. But, how's that our problem? You choose to take your ball and go home. If we choose to move the article along while you've given up, well, the article moves along and you don't get to delete sourced information just like Booga didn't just add things out of the blue. --RossF18 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry , but you and Booga agreeing on something does not mean consensus. You had not even commented on this page in two weeks, before Booga canvassed you on your talk page. The agreement we had in place, before you started to edit here, was that to propose an edit, and get a consensus for it, and then implement it. That does not mean that you propose something, and then wait 1 day, and if nobody has said anything, you call your monologue with yourself a "consensus". Some of us here, have lives outside of Wikipedia, we don't edit Wikipedia on daily basis, because we are not paid editors who work for lobbies and think-thanks and edit every business day during the business hours. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken as far as my participation. Check the dates. As far as consensus, how many editors would be a consensus according to you? Three, four, or 25. Maybe a consensus just has to include you. Nothing that Booga did is contrary to the consensus. He waited at least a week, not a day as you said, for every edit. Everyone has their own lives and it's folly to presume that you somehow are the only one with "lives outside of Wikipedia." You've not edited anything or commented with any suggestions on how to improve the article in over a month. So, while we all have lives outside of Wikipedia, not just you, others have actually found a few hours in a whole month to participate. Acting all high and mighty does not support your point of view. It's kind of funny. And I don't know where you're pulled the assertion that someone here is paid or in a lobby. That's just more of jumping to conclusions.--RossF18 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo777: I'm not hassling anyone. I waited several days to edit the article after each proposed change. No lobby or think-tank or anyone else has paid me dime to edit on wikipedia. And there was one response to my proposals by another editor (RossF18 as he says). As I said at the beginning of this latest attempt to edit, I was trying to implement non-controversial changes for the article before getting a mediator to work out the controversial edits. Finally, you yourself have rvted non-consensus edits despite my protest, maintaining they were the "last good version." --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

... and you still haven't said what is wrong with the substance of the edits! --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And then he accuses you of "tir[ing] everyone out by repeating himself, hassling the editors . . . so that he can get his way eventually."--RossF18 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kurdo. I think you are a great neutral editor RossF18, but you're mistaken here. I have observed BoogaLouie's behavior and pattern of editing on Iran-related pages for a long time, he is clearly a problem editor with a strong POV. It may not come across as such to naked eye, and to those who are not familar with these topics, as he is very smart, and knows how to game the system so to speak. --Wayiran (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm gaming the system? Is that why every edit I make is reverted by Kurdo? Is that why you had nothing to say to the suggested edits above when I asked for objections and gave anyone who wanted several days to make a comment, suggestion, complaint, revision, etc. ??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment Wayiran (it's nice to be appreciated), but at this point, I don't really care about Booga's past doings. He may have been the most terrible editor in the past, but the edits he made in the past month or so are at issue here and as to those edits, I'm not mistaken as they have been properly cited. If you have a point of dispute regarding his recent edits, please share them with us, but your comments about Booga's past doings are really not relevant to just his edits in the past month as far as I can see. If, on the other hand, you're saying that his edits in the past month are in line with his general POV behavior, I guess I missed that.--RossF18 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Incoherency of arguments

Alright, I don't know what the hell the problem here is, but look - whatever dispute you guys are having with each other, at least make it possible for others to understand what's up, because from what I've been reading here, it's difficult to follow what the problems are exactly. These types of one-on-one disputes have got to stop. IranianGuy (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion page? The disputes seem fairly easy to follow and I don't think there is any discussion that just one-on-one. If you're referring to personal attacks, then, yes, those must stop, but otherwise, I'm not sure which one-on-one disputes you're referring too. The problems are clearly labled. Each paragraph is up to debate and we're labelling the discussion sections for each edit.--RossF18 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Observation

I'll tell you what the issues are, Iranian Guy. BoogaLouie has an agenda and that is to dispute factual information. He sees it as his duty to try and show the United States in the most positive light possible even if that means concealing facts. The most recent revert by Boogalouie reinstating false information is a really good example. He took out of the lead the fact that the CIA oganized the coup. WP:RS all concur that the CIA organized and paid for the coup, but as BoogaLouie says on this page and in messages on individual editor talk pages, he is mainly interested in seeing that the US looks good (facts be damned apparently). Unfortunately, this is not Wikipedia policy. There are no policies requiring editors to cover up for US foreign policy but BoogaLouie has introduced that value into this article and that's why it continues to be a big fat mess. He recruits people who support that viewpoint. In his most recent revert, he also changed the facts. He tried to insinuate that Mossadegh ousted the Brits from the oilfields. That's wrong. The Majlis did. Amazing. He reverted what was factual to a lie! To me, that is felonious dishonesty. BoogaLouie has made no secret of his dislike for Mossadegh, perhaps under the illusion that showing Mossadegh in a bad light deflects from US actions in Iran in 1952-53. So that's why there are revert wars for this article and that's why the arguments are incoherent. You've got one editor and his recruits who are not interested in what's true, and who are not interested in following Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. They are interested solely in protecting the historical image of the US, even when the CIA itself documents its own role in overthrowing the government of Iran. Once you understand where BoogaLouie is coming from, the incoherency and factual inaccuracies come into focus. For a very long time, I tried hard to assume good faith; then Boogalouie himself revealed his own motive several times in several different places. Then I stopped engaging with him. Hope this helps. Skywriter (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's another issue here. I answered BoogaLouie et al. in detail on many occasions on this talk page as its history will show. And in each case, I provided links from mainstream reliable sources, books written by the most prominent academics writing in this topic to buttress facts. And then Boogalouie got around to mentioning that he flat out does not read anything I put on the Talk page. He actually said that. So I've given up on this talk page and I will make changes to the article based on WP:RS and if it gets taken to another level, that's OK. I made changes last week and Boogalouie came along and wholesale reverted. YET AGAIN. That's what prompted the DISCOURAGED thread on this page. And then he reverted facts to lies today. BoogaLouie won't get far with his obscure sources and he won't get far with his desire to be a public relations spokesperson for US history in Iran. There are a lot of reliable, well-written articles on the Internet about the 1953 coup. This isn't one of them because of the agenda-pushing described above. Skywriter (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He took out of the lead the fact that the CIA oganized the coup. WP:RS all concur that the CIA organized and paid for the coup,

I believe that shows as much bias and agenda pushing as what you're accusing Boogalouie of. Just because you can find an endless supply of synchophant sources also doesn't make it an absolute fact that needn't be balanced with a more objective view, which is that the US played a significant, even vital role in the deposing of a prime minister with controversial policies which did not work out nearly as well as he thought they would, and at the same time he was making some questionable moves to retain power as far as constitutional validity. Saying the US "organized" the coup, and PAID for the coup, marginalizes and insults the Iranian people as dupes, patsies and cheaply corrupt as if their political will could be bought for a pittance. I've met more than a few Iranian expatriates who are deeply insulted by YOUR agenda pushing message. Furthermore I'm not sure who you are referring to when you mention "recruits" of Boogalouie but that is an insult meant to marginalize and discredit in itself. My interest in this subject can be noted in the Mossadegh article quite some time ago, I do poke my head in these articles from time to time when I see some rabid anti-American agenda being pushed. My input does indeed appear as playing yes man but that is merely because I see Boogalouie being dismissed because he is just one editor and not a consensus. Others share his views, and I did notice your claim about him stating that view turns out to be a distortion on your part. If you need to do that to support your position maybe that position is not as solid as you present.I will finish by commenting, if you are such a balanced and objective editor, why is it you never bothered to address General Zahedi's son's rebuttal to the Times article? Batvette (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, again please follow Wikipedia:Civility and refrain from personal attacks. And most especially please do not accuse me of things I have not done. To repeat myself from above I never said that I want to make certain nothing critical is said of the United States. And there is all sorts of material critical of the US on my proposed rewriting of the article.

I have reverted edits by you (two I think) like this last one not because it was critical of the US, but (as I told you on your talk page because the lead is already long and this made it even longer. I want to make corrections in the lead but discussing them and sorting it first on the talk page. Isn't that better then having a mess in the article?

I have not recruited anyone to this page. I do not have a dislike for Mossadegh

I did not say that I don't read what you (Skywriter) wrote, I said I found your posts painful to read (and so sometimes skip over them. Some, just as this one, say things that are just not true).

Anyone can check my talk page to see if they can find where you have "answered in detail on many occasions" on my talk page "provided links from mainstream reliable sources, books written by the most prominent academics writing in this topic to buttress facts," ... or just not made much sense. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Batvette, thank you for sticking up for me ... though we may not agree on all the issues involved in the coup. I hope you will stick around and edit and sort this out, but I think we have to include sources such as Kinzer and Gasiorowski as "mainstream reliable" version of the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, please honor the mutual agreement we had prior to page's unlocking. You reverted the page twice within the last 24 hours, this is unacceptable. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss something? An edit was made with no discussion, let alone concensus, and I reverted it. I thought the mutual agreement was for agreement before editting. Let's discuss it on this talk page as I asked Skywriter to do earlier. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I got a message from BoogaLouie saying "If you have time could you take a look at this dispute and see if you think I am out of bounds, or who is ?" Well, if you insist. I think we need to stop the childish bickering and the tacking of support as if the kids are in the fight and they're trying to get the parents on their side. In the end, both of you, Booga and Skywriter are out of bounds because you keep fighting - as far as I'm concerned, both of you keep bringing up the same old perceived and/or ultimately unimportant slights that the other editor allegedly did to you. Booga, so Skywriter accuses you of things, so what. Skywriter, so Booga says that he doesn't want to bother reading your posts. So what. You are not the only editors here and if you can't get along, you don't have to. There are other editors who will agree or disagree and in the end you need to agree to go the middle road. You have opposing views - fine. In the end, we'll need to find the middle ground or this article will not go anywhere. If you can agree just to go the middle ground, everything will be fine. But if you keep up this slap fight and constant "no you are, no you are, no you are, no you are," well, then don't expect to get other editors to discuss anything with both of you or even come back to edit this site at all. No one wants to eat in the restaurant with a couple of petulant kids fighting all the time. Grow up and stop being insulted by everything. This is not about you. This is about making the article better and if you proposed something, stop and wait for discussion from someone other than the opposing party so to speak. Yes, it will take longer, but you (both of you) can't be changing things without at least someone to support your edit. And when an edit is made by a consensus of more than a couple of people, guess what, the other opposing person needs to live with it because this was a consensus. If the opposing person has new edit suggestions, that's fine and we'll decide on that too, but once an edit is decided on by editors, just because you find it diplorable, that doesn't give the write to change it. And as far as Batvette's comments: Yes, US bashing is bad, but when US behaved like a bully, well, there is no need to suger coat it. The point is that with all of Iranian leader's faults and all of his alleged attempts to hold power, US and Britian did overthrow the guy who was elected, period. They did finance it and bribe Iranians and even if there were Iranians who opposed their current leader and wanted him out, the push, according to Kishner (sic) was coming from US and Britain. There is one thing to disagree with the leader of a country, it's another to get the people displeased with him to go and overthrow him. I hope that Batvette isn't suggesting that this was some sort of popular uprising with US just providing financial support. There is no evidence of that in respected sources. This was anything but a popular uprising, no matter the degree of support in some quarters of the Iranian society that US found and used. If that can be explained, then I don't see what's the problem. If there is no arguing with some editors, well, then I will not argue with them. What's the point? Life's too short. --RossF18 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have annoyed you so. But my question is really pretty simple. Wasn't there some kind of agreement after the edit bloc was raised that there had to be at least some kind of discussion on this page before edits were made to the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If your entire dispute with Skywriter is that there was an agreement to discuss before edits were made, then yes, there was an agreement to discuss before edits and if Skywriter made edits truly without discussion, something that I'm not aware of, then you would have a valid point only in that regard at this moment.--RossF18 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You're "not aware of"? But that's the whole issue! Here are the edits They were made September 1. Do you see any discussion about them (about "Correcting factual error: the Majlis nationalized the oil industry and then elected Mossadeq prime minister," about adding to the lead) prior to the editting? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Will be gone until sept 8. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rossf18, you're rather inconsistent with your argument. Here you say: to get the people displeased with him to go and overthrow him. while above that you said US and Britian did overthrow the guy who was elected, period. So did the US and Britain over throw him or did we get, or as your source cites, "give a push" for those opposed to him to overthrow him? This inconsistency carries on with even if there were Iranians who opposed their current leader and wanted him out, vs There is one thing to disagree with the leader of a country, it's another to get the people displeased with him to go and overthrow him. that makes no sense at all as on one hand you admit people wanted to overthrow him but then you claim the push to overthrow him came solely from us. You also say This was anything but a popular uprising,, why? Are you saying it is wholly uncharacteristic of the Iranian people to take to the streets and forcefully depose a leader they disapprove of? I think the Shah would disagree! No evidence of what I say in respected sources, hmmm.... care to read Ardeshir Zahedi's rebuttal to the times and comment? You're not the first here to suggest I am only pushing my own original research yet ignored I brought a reference and even made a section on it above. Batvette (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I've said was inconsistent because I've never committed myself to one view or the other. I was just outlining the various possibilities of arguments that other editors seem to take. You seem to misunderstand my conjecture throughout the various posts with me saying that I actually subscribe to a particular view. I've never actually said which side I believe side was more in the wrong, although I was leaning toward US and Britain. I never said that Iranians were unable to have a popular uprising. I don't know where you're getting that from. I don't know how saying that this was not a popular uprising, as seemingly implied by some editors, is the same as saying that Iranians can never in their history can have a popular uprising. I've always leaned to the opinion that the US and Britian planed the coup and pushed factions of Iranian people to support their coup. I'm sorry if this was unclear. Again, that's not an insult to the Iranians and is not saying that they couldn't have all disliked their government at that time. But history doesn't bear that out. It appears that more historians do think that without US and British involvement, Mossadegh would not have been overthrown, at least not that year. He may have become a horrible ruler, and have been overthrown by a popular uprising. Certainly, Iranians are more than capable, as anyone is. But all I was saying that this was not the case here. Mossadegh wasn't even given a chance to fail. He was overthrown with outside powers pulling the strings. I don't think that was unclear. If it was, then let the record be set clear now. And I don't think all sources or all historians carry equal weight. This is not a game where score is kept by how many sources you can score that support your point of view. Respected sources and accepted historical context takes precedence over fringe historians and ideas. And before you again jump to conclusions, I'm certainly not suggesting that Zahedi's fringe, not having read his book, but if other editors have read the book and all agree that his ideas are not accepted by majority of accepted historians, then by your insisistance that he be included as a source, you are pushing your own original research. Again, I've tried my best to stay on the peripheral of this argument, not discussing the actual content but merely trying to move the process along and trying to highlight the various points of debate. This might be why you were not able to figure out what I thought - I never came out for or against. But, if you'd like, that's my reasoning. As always, take it in good faith. Remember, attacks on your views by other editors don't mean personal attacks on you, so take it easy. --RossF18 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ross, no other editors read or commented on Zahedi's account of this event. Not even YOU, obviously, because the link I furnished was to the direct rebuttal he wrote to the NY Times article, a scant 2-3 pages, not a "book". You call it a fringe view but don't know what the view is? Was it really that much work to click on a link and see where it went, before you sat down for a lengthy comment? Never mind the absurdity of calling it MY original research? WTF? Really,this is like the Wiki twilight zone. How about those historians who do not accept his "fringe" view. Can you provide a reference for that?Batvette (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Batvette. When will you actually read my posts? I specifically said above "And before you again jump to conclusions, I'm certainly not suggesting that Zahedi's fringe." How you went from that to then say that I called Zahedi's view fringe, I have no idea. You keep wanting to call me out for some reason, while it seems it's the other editors who don't actually agree with you. I have no idea as to who actually read Zahedi's article so I can't comment on the fact that, as you claim, "no other editors read or commented on Zahedi's account of this event." If you think that Zahedi's view is the mainstream one, well, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'm just saying that from reading your posts, if Zahedi's article is in line with your posts, then given that your posts seem to me to be in the minority opinion as to the causes of the coup, then Zahedi also advocates the causes of the coup that place him in the minority. Which is not to say that he shouldn't be included, but that's something that needs to be discussed as far as how much his article actually departs from other historians' theories. And I hope you don't think that I'm ignoring other questions in your post - it's just that most of them stem from the assumption that I called Zahedi's article fringe, which I did not, so I can't really answer those follow up questions without admitting that I've said something that I didn't. I will only say that other posters did provide sited information that is the root of this dispute - information that if it wasn't contrary to Zahedi's article, well, they wouldn't have a problem with you adding the article. The problem that other editors seem to be having with Zahedi's article either stemms from not having read it, as is your opinion, or actually thinking that they provided adequate sources that disagree with it. If you disagree with their insistence, well, I wouldn't dare stop you. Oh, and I promise to read the article, if I can find the link.--RossF18 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's pretty funny, how DID that word fringe get attached to the Zahedi article issue if you meant something else? You must think I'm stupid. You're just parsing words by saying typing Zahedi's fringe does not mean you are labelling his view on the event as fringe. I don't appreciate the insult to my intelligence. Additionally you said this- but if other editors have read the book and all agree that his ideas are not accepted by majority of accepted historians you again imply a fringe viewpoint and also imply you know some other editors read his "book". Who ARE these other editors who are so clueless they thought a rebuttal submitted by Zahedi to the NY Times to their article, was a "book"? When did they all agree? Can you show me the names of these editors and in what forum of discussion this agreement was made? You were flat out lying there if you can't. Batvette (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All I got to say, is that from a neutral third party, Ross certainly seems to have the stronger case. He's discussing relevant things, does not argue about points without demonstrating their relevance, and seems to be making logical points that I can agree with. Perhaps he's wrong, but it certainly doesn't seem to be for any of the reasons claimed here. I'm not sure why other editors want to discuss irrelevant things like whether someone read a link or not (who cares, doesn't change anything, its your burden to establish its relevance and appropriateness, stop shifting the burden of proof) or whether it is a quality of the Iranian people to depose leaders they dislike (relevance to the article not demonstrated, and had nothing to do with the disputed points, seems to be a straw man argument). Ross at least seems able to adhere to some standards of logic and relevance, and for that reason his arguments seem persuasive.--Δζ (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving on

I see no intrinsic historical issues with the first couple of paragraphs as it exists today. I deleted the brink of war claim as there is no evidence that the Mossadeq government had military strength of any significance. It would, instead, have been a military invasion by the Brits, a threat that disappeared when the Churchill government organized the blockade of Iranian seaports to stop Iran from engaging in commerce.Skywriter (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But Kinzer says it did bring the UK close to war with Iran. Who are we going to believe - Kinzer or your judgement over whether "the Mossadeq government had military strength of any significance" (and BTW, why would that preclude a war? It would have been the UK that was going to start the war). --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's is more evidence: "After the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on May 2, 1951, he [Herbert Morrison, UK foreign secretary] took the lead in urging British retaliation by launching an expeditionary force to seize the island of Abadan. In an operation planned under the code name `Buccaneer` the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, and the army assembled a virtual armada, ready for attack." Attlee squashed the plan. (Louis quoted in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.133)

Shouldn't you at least look up the citation given in the article (Kinzer's in this case) before deciding it's not so and deleting it? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is detailed and revealing: "After the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on May 2, 1951, he [Herbert Morrison, UK foreign secretary] took the lead in urging British retaliation by launching an expeditionary force to seize the island of Abadan. In an operation planned under the code name `Buccaneer` the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, and the army assembled a virtual armada, ready for attack." Attlee squashed the plan. (Louis quoted in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, ... I support the inclusion of these facts as this item does not gloss over, as the previous iteration did, that any bellicose activity would have been initiated by the Brits.

I suspect that much of the ongoing interpersonal bitterness among the editors of this article would abate if attention were directed to the details of this history, such as cited in this instance, rather than editorial personalities. Skywriter (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone object to this, which is a rewriting based on the quote BoogaLouie's suggested? As I am traveling, I don't have access to the book and hence the page number.

"After Iran nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company May 2, 1951, Britain assembled an armada made up of its Navy, Air Force and army to seize the island of Abadan in order to reclaim control of the oil refinery but Prime Minister Clement Attlee declined to attack, choosing instead to enforce an economic boycott against Iran.

If no one objects (modification is OK to make it better), it can be inserted into the article.Skywriter (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No objection as it appears to be a summary/improvement on the quote suggested by BoogaLouie.--RossF18 (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, do you have that page number? Skywriter (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Beware WP:OWN

To Kurdo: Please do not revert wholesale edits I spent a fair bit of time considering. If you have issues, please discuss them honestly and straightforwardly, one edit at a time. Your behavior, which suggests that you don't consider any edit on this page legitimate unless you have agreed to it, is contrary to WP:OWN. Ray^Talk 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss changes and get a consensus when altering an article with a controversial topic. Overall your changes alter the tone of the article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain which, if any, of my edits are in any way controversial, on an individual basis. That I alter the "tone" of the article amounts to "you don't like it." Consensus on Wikipedia requires a good faith engagement between editors, not a wholesale rejection of carefully made good faith edits by other editors. I still have not heard any substantive objections to any particular edit, which amounts to removing pov statements, correcting awkward/imprecise phrasing, and the like. Ray^Talk 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple check of the articles edit history and edit summaries provides you with a clue as to why your edits have been reverted. It is not my position to spell out the problem of each change to you. It is however your position to attempt to reach a consensus regarding controversial additions to any article if requested to do so. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And apparently someone thinks you do not need a consensus so I am moving on... - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted inflammatory wording to neutral wording in accordance with RayAYang's considered changes. Bringing up the article history is not a valid defense against an article edit which turns biased wording to neutral. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Myself and others disagree which is why I pointed to the edit history and edit summaries.. I am simply looking in from a neutral position and saw that. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Myself and others disagree." Well, User:4twenty42o I urge you to speak for yourself as it appears that at least in this discussion, two users disagree with you while there have been no comments by anyone else to support your point of view. "A simple check of the article edit history and edit summaries provides a clue" - having checked, would you please clarify as to what points you're referring to. I, myself, support User:Ray's edits. They appear to be well thought out and go a ways to making this article neutral. WHat neutral position are you looking in from if you're suggesting to edit out neutral edits. If you're referring to an agreement between editors to get a consensus between editors before edits are made, having participated in the discussion, that referred to the lead and to major changes to the article that shifted the article from either Western-centric or Iran-centric. With neutral wording changes, the problem appears to be minimal and if you're supporting the reverts merely on the point that the consensus should have been reached, it has been reached now by three editors.--RossF18 (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And you can see how heartily and long I argued the case, eh? Leave it alone. I accept the changes due to consensus. What do I have to do strike all my comments? I happen to be big enough to know when to back off.. To know when I am wrong.. I do not agree and simply stated as much. Are you trying to change my mind? Or just here to take sides? - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was unlocked with a provision that major edits need to be discussed for days, and implemented only when there is a consensus about it. Binksternet is well aware of this, and had agreed to this provision. The academic consensus is that Mossadegh's government was a democratically-elected government, we have already discussed this issue ind details in the past. so read the archives if you must, but do not remove that and other well-sourced statements under the pretext of neutrality. Doing so is actually POV-pushing. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you, Kurdo, have any specific and substantive objections to my edits? If so, please list them specifically. Otherwise, I shall restore my edits. I regard your statement about Mossadegh's government being democratically elected as a non sequitur, as it does not bear on my edits. If you think it does, again, please quote the specific part and state your specific objection. No editing restriction imposed upon edit warriors can be regarded as giving edit warriors ownership privileges over an article as regards uninvolved newcomers. Ray^Talk 22:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This page has a troublesome history, so there was a community consensus that all edits on edits need to be discussed ONE by ONE PRIOR to implementation in order to avoid edit-warring. You failed to do this, and you have also tempered with, and removed well-sourced material. So your edits and the subsequent revert are totally unacceptable, and contrary to the agreed-upon framework of this page. You need to propose your edits here, one by one, and get a consensus for each and every one of them, before they can be restored. If you continue edit-warring, I will request full protection for the page --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your agreement amounts to a claim of prior restraint on all editing, which constitutes ownership of the page, clearly in contradiction to well-established Wikipedia policy. I have no objection to discussing my edits here on an individual basis, and have indeed implored you to do so. You have thus far refused, leading me to believe you do not believe your point of view would prevail on the merits. Is this the case? Ray^Talk 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it was a community-based decision in line with WP:consensus. You can't just jump in the middle of a highly-disputed topic, and make several major POVish edits under the pretext of "neutrality". But you want specifics, I will give you specifics. (1) Mossadegh's government is characterized by most academic sources as democratically-elected, and it was a duly-elected and democratic government (Look up democratically-elected + Mossadegh on Google books), any other description would be a violation of original research, NPOV and fringe view. Therefore, you can not remove "democratic" and "anti-democratic" adjectives with the false pretext of neutrality, when it's a fact supported by most academic sources. (2) Your change of "mutinous" to "sympathetic" is POVish, and implies that the whole army was sympathetic to the Shah, as oppose to the rough elements who carried out the coup. (3) Your change of "all-powerful monarch" to "placed in control" is white-washing the undisputed fact that Shah became an absolute monarch after the coup. (4) Your removal of Professor Kazemzadeh's quote is unjustified, the quote is in quotation marks, so NPOV doesn't apply here. (5) See Savak, they are called were a feared and hated secret police, and characterized as such by by every source out there. (6) Your removal of "implemented" and "The story is detailed in Stephen Kinzer's..." are actually good edits that I agree with. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo777, that was almost three months ago, and since then the page has recovered its normal momentum, unrestricted by anything except the normal guidelines of Wikipedia. For my part, I saw RayAYang's changes as righting a wrong—he took out incendiary wording and replaced it with neutral wording. Here are the changes he made:

• "...the U.S. enabled Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to become an all-powerful monarch, who went on to rule Iran with an iron fist for 26 years..." became
  • "...the U.S. placed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in control; he went on to rule Iran for 26 years..."
• "...the Shah's feared and hated secret police..." became
  • "...the Shah's secret police..."
• "...given its blowback, it is now considered a failure..." became
  • "Given its blowback, that assessment is no longer generally held..."
• "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, under the direction of CIA and MI6, and with the help of high-ranking Shia clerics, anti-democratic military officers, and paid mercenary mobs composed of prostitutes and thugs from Shahr-e Nou (Tehran's red light district) attacked our democratic government and replaced it with a brutal tyranny." became
  • [Out completely]
• "The anti-democratic coup d’état..." became
  • "The coup d’état..."
• "...destroyed Iran’s secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as absolute ruler, replacing an elected native democracy with a pro-foreign monarchic dictatorship." became
  • "...replaced Iran’s secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as absolute ruler."

What of these do you think is not a change from inflammatory to neutral wording? Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree with Binksternet. If anything, RayAYang's changes removed inflamattory POV language and made the passages steral, which is welcome for this article (e.g., (1) "all-powerful monarch" - yes, that's technically true, but why not just "monarch" - making him sound like Darth Vader is not helping things - so the edit to just "in control" makes sense; (2) "feared and hated" - well, yeah, secret police are feared and hated, but again, that's undue weight on their evil nature; (3) The quote I think should remain, unless it's inclusion hammers the point home so strongly that its inclusion becomes POV; (4) the issue with "anti-democratic" - the article goes on to say that his government was democratically elected, so the overthrow of a democratically elected government is by definition anti-democratic - no reason to say it twice - and by saying it twice, we're making a point in of itself). Kurdo777 - the version you suggest we go back to seems very much POV. And if your argument is still the lack of consensus before edits, well, I think the consensus is becoming apparent currently and the edits should stand. --RossF18 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote is not helpful. Nobody seriously thinks that "paid mercenary mobs" which were made up of prostitutes from the red light district would have been able to take over the government. All this does for the article is give voice to one very angry person without giving voice to the other side. See how non-neutral it is to have the quote? Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You should study the topic further, before making such naive assumptions. One of the key players in the take-over of Tehran, was a mobster by the name of Shaban Jafari (Google him) who organized thousands of mobsters, thugs, and prostitutes by paying them 100-dollar bills, to attack the pro-Mossadegh crowds with knives and sticks, and keep them off the streets, while the army took over the governmental buildings and attacked Mossadegh's house. As a matter of fact, Shaban Jaffari, or Shaban Bi-mokh (Shaban the thug) as he is commonly known in Iran, is the face of the coup in popular culture. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What you call "inflamattory POV" (sic) are actually facts supported by academic sources. And no consensus is becoming "apparent" here, two editors vs. three editors is not what you call a "consensus". As per the specific issues in dispute, (1) Shah was not just a monarch, he was an absolute monarch who ignored the constitution, this is an undisputed fact. If you want to change "an all-powerful monarch" to "an absolute monarch" , that's fine with me. But white-washing Shah's role as absolute monarch, by using rosy words like "in control" are not acceptable. The "iron fist" part, should be removed. (2) Again, Savak wasn't just another secret police, it was a notorious one, describing it as "feared and hated" is 100% factual. That said, I can live with removing this bit. (3) A quote is a quote, nothing POV about it, when it's properly attributed in quotations marks. (4) The adjectives are needed for context in other paragraphs, and there is an academic consensus on this issue, refer to my previous post. Was Shah's government anti-democratic? YES - that's an undisputed fact, not a point of view. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo777, could you explain what you mean by "the adjectives are needed for context in other paragraphs." If other paragraphs mention the democratically elected government and how the coup overthrew a democratically elected argument, what's the specific reason for including it in the lead other than you feel it should be included (while other editors do not). As far as a quote - not all quotes are created equal, even if sourced. A sourced quote by a fringe historian shouldn't be included, if the quote is truly fringe that is. Including a quote by a fringe view is undue weight violation. And as far as I can tell, you're the only one opposing these changes with any reasoned arguments. Also, perhaps we should finally determine what you think a consensus is. At times, it seems a consensus is enough when a person just says that they agree, while giving no additional reasons - 4twenty42o, for example and if you count him as the other person supporting your point of view, provided no reasons and while noting that people shouldn't take sides, took sides and provided no arguments for deletions. And the other argument is that consensus is only by those editors who actually give reasons or make valuable contribution to the discussion. I'm hardly the one to talk as I subscribe to the view that mere agreement is enough for a consensus, but if that's what you think consensus is also, at least we know what it'll take to build a consensus.--RossF18 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. There are few things in life that's undisputed facts. Death is one of them. The fact that there are various historians with different takes on this event in history makes your statements regarding "undisputed facts" a bit silly and zealous. After all, for some people the existence of God is an undisputed fact - and they will kill to make sure you agree too. While clearly this is hyperbole on my part, statements such as “this is an undisputed fact” is not an argument, but an assertion. We need references.--RossF18 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) The issue is self-explanatory, I don't see how I can further explain it to you. (2) The quote is from a respected scholar of Iranian studies, who says he is a "fringe historian"? (3) What I know, is that 3-2 is not what you call a consensus. 4twenty42o's argument was completely valid, but even 3-1 is not a consensus when someone is objecting with reasons and rationals. Also, not all the editors here, are online 24/7, so a "consensus" does not develop within a few hours, you discuss the issues, you propose something, and then you allow sufficient time, perhaps a few days, for input from the various editors who have edited this page. Two or three editors can not gang-up on a page, and then declare a "consensus" within a few hours. P.S. If you want to prove Shah's government was not anti-democratic, and he was a liberal democrat, contrary to what all the sources say, then I say good luck to you. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes are selected for their ability to bring the article into greater clarity. This particular quote with the ridiculous part about prostitutes is not going to help anybody get a clear picture of events. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the quote and compare the changes . The prostitutes and mob indeed had a great and clear place in the coup events . Every single leader of prostitutes ( like Aghdas Char Cheshm , Pari Boladeh and etc ) and mobs (like Shaban Bi Mokh , Asghar Jegaraki and Tayyeb ) were - and are - very famous in Iranian mind and the source pointing to that may not be deleted . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see proof that the prostitutes and thugs were significant to the coup. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the wording as to the "prostitutes" - you mean women who sell their bodies to men? And are you saying their leaders in Iran helped with the coup? What leaders? Women leaders or do you mean their pimps? Even if that's the case, what would the prostitutes gain by bringing back a conservative monarch? Perhaps the quote could be kept if it's put into context as to why the thugs and prostitues supported the coup. Without any background, the quote is like a throw-away quote put in the article, but not adding anything substantial.--RossF18 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kurdo's points. I also agree that we should not portray the last Shah, a liberal democrate and conseal the fact that Mosadeq was a demoraically elected primeminister--174.91.225.34 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:174.91.225.34 - I don't think anyone's talking about potraying the Shah as a liberal democrate or about concealing the fact that Mossadeq was a democratically elected prime-minister. The article is clear on these points - i.e., that Mossadeq was democratically elected prime-minister and that Shaw was a monarch. The issue being discussed is more nuanced - namely how despotic should we describe the Shah without citation and how often should be repeat that Mossadeq was democratically elected leader.--RossF18 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears there is some misunderstanding of certain usages and terms in the English language, and of Wikipedia. For the benefit of such editors who are not familiar with the English language or Wikipedia policy, I shall elucidate.

1. While there may exist certain languages where certain descriptive adjectives about an event are incorporated into the event's name and used all the time, this is not common English usage. English style prescribes that adjectives only be used where they are helpful to the point made by the sentence. For example, it is known that Pope Innocent III was hated and feared (as most effective popes were). However, it is inappropriate to refer to Pope Innocent III as "the feared and hated Pope Innocent III" every time he should come up - that is, to English readers, an expression of bias and an attempt to prejudice the reader by repeated emphasis on facts which are peripheral to the purpose of the sentence at hand. Indeed, it does not matter whether such adjectives are correct, only that their usage is prejudicial and introduces bias in sentences not relevant to the situation. Similarly repeated use of such adjectives serves a similar purpose.
2. The phrase "all-powerful" is not part of common English usage, except when referring to omnipotent deities (indeed, "all-powerful" means in possession of all powers) in a religious context. In political discussion, it is only used to exaggerate beyond what facts can support. Thus, it is inappropriate under any circumstances to use it in the narrative voice of Wikipedia to refer to a political leader (an exception being made for fictional political leaders undergoing apotheosis). Terms such as "authoritarian" are more commonly used to refer to leaders who are not constrained by law.
3. The term "absolute monarch" has a precise historical and structural meaning (see Absolute monarchy). It is used to refer to a situation where in theory the ruler's powers over the subjects' lives are absolute -- that is to say, there is no constitution, charter, or other legal restraint, even in theory. Where there is a constitution, such a term cannot be legitimately used, even if the constitution is consistently in a state of crisis. Hence, despite the very great powers given to the Tudor kings of England or the Valois kings of France, the term "absolute monarch" is not used in reference to them. In discussing French history, it is only used in reference to the late Bourbon monarchs (Louis XIV-XVI in particular) following the dissolution of the Great Nobles' power under Louis XIV. Given that Iran had a constitution under the Shah, and there were alternate (indeed, very vibrant) centers of power such as prerogatives given to religious teachers, it is inappropriate here.
4. The term "dictator" similarly has a precise meaning, despite whatever abuses it may suffer in political rhetoric. It refers, either in the narrow sense to a specific magistrate elected by the Roman Republic in emergencies to supercede the consuls, or in the broader sense to autocratic rule without heredity. Since the Shah was a hereditary leader, "dictator" should not be used here (see Dictatorship).
5. There appears to be a misconception that the WP:NPOV policy does not apply to quotations. This is incorrect, indeed, it is even more restrictive: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Even a cursory review of Dr. Kazemzadeh's essay reveals that it is full of impassioned political rhetoric and makes not attempt at a neutral or impartial tone. His quote should be excised.
6. The word "mutinous" judges the legitimacy of actions undertaken, since mutiny means action in defiance of lawful authority. Thus, declaring army officers "mutinous" is a factually dubious, as well as non-neutral. The term "sympathetic," in context, clearly refers to officers sympathetic to the Shah, and, in contrast, does not attempt to prejudice the reader.

Ray^Talk 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the grounding in English usage. I always forget to remind other English-as-a-second-language editors about the points you have made simply because of my being steeped in English all my life. Yes, I agree that we should not use the word "mutinous" in describing the military figures who helped in the coup, nor should we use the word "dictator" to describe Shah Pahlavi. "All-powerful" has no place in this article, nor does "absolute monarch." The quote from Kazemzadeh is anything but impartial and should never have been inserted into the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As previously, I reassert my agreement with both RayAYang and Binksternet per linguistic conventions of the language. Yes, I'll second Binksternet's thanks to RayAYang for such a clear, to the point, and common sense post that exhibits the patience for clarification sometimes lacking in posts from other editors.--RossF18 (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you 3, are even slightly familiar with the details of this coup. Case in point, your amusement at the fact that prostitutes and gangsters were involved in the street clashes, when another editor named Alborz Fallah and I even knew the names of these prostitutes and grandmasters, because unlike some of you (I won't name names), who either regard this page as a hobby or are military enthusiasts/patriots who just care about downplaying your country's role in the overthrow of another sovereign country's democracy, some of us here are experts on this subject. So instead of patronizing the other editors who are actually more familiar with this topic than you are, about language and such silly stuff, and calling them "English-as-a-second-language editors", which is very low of you, why don't you propose new alternative wordings for "all powerful" and "mutinous", and no "in control" and "sympathetic" is not going to do it, I already explained why, we are not here to white-wash and pretend that Shah was just another head of state "in control". --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What does your alleged knowledge has to do with it? This is not your article and if you're adding things based solely on your own knowledge, well that's against policy. Mere fact that you've said something before does not in fact make what you've said agreed to or even valid. Yes, you've already explained your opinions, but the majority of editors do not agree with you on these points. That's plain and simple and just a fact. What amusement? Any and all requests from clarification of your points have been met with scorn by you and refusal to clarify. You enterpret everyone's efforts to improve the article as a personal attach on you, for some reason - and then turn around and attack other editors, without giving any further clarification. You may be a genius, but saying something is so obvious that it doesn't require any effort on your part is no way to edit an article. No one here is trying to white wash anything or downplay anything, but neutrality is neutrality and definition of a word is a definition of a word. Absolute monarch has a definition and the Shah was not an absolute monarch regardless of your insistence. We've noted your disagreement with the changes and we know that we will not convince you, but the fact remains is that you're in minority on this point and wikipedia is built on democracy, not a dictatorship of one editor. Democracy means you have to accept other editors' edits even if you continue disagree with them. If something is as truly obvious as you seem to make your points out to be, then have no fear, you'll get support in time. For now, however, you do not. --RossF18 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My use of the descriptive phrase "English-as-a-second-language" was not meant in any way to be low or cutting or belittling. All I intended was that the use of English words was in question here, and RayAYang's explanation of his position on the English words was appropriate for this international subject as it is portrayed by English words. The word "mutinous" doesn't satisfy as a description of the military people who backed the coup—these people weren't just mutinous characters casting about for a chance to abuse any authority figure, they were military men were sympathetic to the coup, so much so that they felt the need to establish a new authority. "Sympathetic" is the perfect word. Nobody here is trying to white-wash the Shah. What works better than saying "all-powerful" is describing what powers he seized. More words are needed. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

@RossF18 - My alleged knowledge about the topic has nothing to do with it, your lack of it, does. And who said anything about "adding things based solely on your own knowledge"? It's you guys who are removing well-sourced material, saying "it can't be true", this is not how Wikipedia works. Also, stop throwing around words like "majority", what majority? First of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Secondly, more editors here have agreed with me than you guys, so where is this majority you are speaking of? Just because your guys talk more, and keep repeating yourselves, does not mean you're the majority here. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

@Binksternet, I don't think "sympathetic" is the perfect word, because there were different factions within the army, and many were not "sympathetic" to the cause, they just followed orders, others did not even do that, and were arrested afterward. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we were only talking about the military people who were powerful enough to choose their fate, the higher-ranked ones, not the underlings who followed (or didn't follow) orders. Otherwise, the word "mutinous" could not possibly describe the lower ranks who acted on orders, nor could the word "sympathetic." Once we get high enough to find officers who chose to back the coup, we can comfortably say they were sympathetic. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If Kurdo would care to offer any substantive reply to my comments, in lieu of his ad hominem attack above, that would be most welcome. If he would care to produce sources consistent with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and offer neutral, appropriate language to back up the more dubious statements that he insists on including, that would also be welcome. Thus far, he has chosen not to do so. I would suggest to Kurdo that, in view of his admitted passionate views on the matter, he may wish to consider that for some of us, 1953 is ancient history, not remembered by our parents, and only dimly by our grandparents. We are only interested in improving the style and tone of Wikipedia here, and Kurdo's insistence on dropping loaded material in the article isn't helping. Really, as far as I'm concerned, the blatant non-neutrality of the language I removed is open-and-shut, we have a consensus, and there is only so long we should be prepared to put up with obstinate immunity to reason. Ray^Talk 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I already did offer a substantive reply, I am not going to repeat myself. The sources are fine, you can't dismiss well-sourced material that you don't like, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And no, you don't have a consensus, two editors have endorsed your edits, while four other editors have opposed it. So you can either work toward a compromise, or keep repeating yourself. "My way or highway" is not going to work here. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, you're just making up numbers now. Which 4 editors supported you in this discussion? The number of editors that you allege support you seem to multiply with each edit you make. If anything, the "my way or highway" is your method as you do not provide any new reasoning after your initial reasons were found inadequate to convince other editors. A compromise - you mean to do what you want and keep things as they are? --RossF18 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not making anything up, it's simple math. 1, 2 , 3, 4, that's four editors who have have opposed Ray's changes. You, and perhaps the other two editors with whom you agree, may have found my rationals to be "inadequate" and "inconveniencing", but I am afraid you do not speak for the majority here. As for compromise, I have been the only one moving in that direction in practical terms from the get go, while certain other editors have decided to resist any move toward a compromise, by refusing to concede any ground, and adopting a self-righteous patronizing preachy attitude. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Those editors have not stuck around, consensus is formed from the preponderant sentiments of editors active in the situation. I appreciate your recent moves towards repairing clearly non-neutral language, and I'll point out that if you had acted this way to begin with, the drama above could easily have been avoided. At this point, I'm going to go ahead and remove other appearances of "all-powerful," and the contested quote. As I mentioned below, I have no objection to your writing a neutral section describing the roles of various groups such as prostitutes in the actions leading up to the revolt. If you cannot find English language sources, Persian ones will do. However, throwing such descriptions randomly out there is prejudicial, and quoting directly from a piece of impassioned rhetoric to substitute for narrative remains problematic. Ray^Talk 14:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I already removed the other appearances of "all-powerful. But I am afraid you have no consensus to remove the contested quote. If you do, your edit will be reverted in line with WP:CON. Who said "those editors have not stuck around"? I am here, Albroz Fallah is here. There is no such a thing as a "more preponderant editor" in Wikipedia, we don't classify editors by how long their posts are, and how often they can repeat themselves. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you are explicitly tying your judgment as a Wikipedia editor to the claim that that quotation to be neutrally worded and appropriate for the article? Ray^Talk 21:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I removed "ruled with an iron fist", and replaced the phrase "an all-powerful monarch" with "an authoritarian monarch", using a citation. I also replaced "mutinous Iranian army officers" with "royalist elements of the Iranian army". If you don't find the changes helpful, feel free to revert them. I am open to new suggestions. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's great to see you taking your own advice. These proposed edits are a good step in the right direction. Any suggestions as to other edits? --RossF18 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A great part of documents about the topic is in Persian . Can we use them as a source for citation?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Bear in mind, of course, that sources in whatever language must still be reliable, and our content must still reflect the neutrality policy. Ray^Talk 13:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Update-section break

I spent a good deal of time fine-tuning certain edits which were lost due to a database error. I might get back to them as life and scheduling permits. Please put further discussion under the section break - the above section is becoming unwieldy. Ray^Talk 14:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Okay, let's go through this again.

1. You can't call this an "anti-democratic coup." That implies the primary purpose of the coup was to destroy democracy. The primary purpose of the coup was aimed against the Communists, or for oil, depending on which source you're reading. In either case, democracy was collateral damage. Further more, the "anti-" construction is awkward and redundant with the second part of the sentence, which notes that democracy was ended. Eschew redundancy and obfuscation ;-)
2. "post-monarchic, native, and secular parliamentary democracy" has way too many adjectives. It is terrible English style to lump together that many adjectives. Pick one or two to keep, get rid of the rest. I don't much care which two, except to note that "post-monarchic" and "secular" are both incorrect. They had a monarch, thus it was not post-monarchic. Secular is incorrect as well, given the especial role given religious establishments and the declaration of Islam as an official religion in the Constitution of that era. I suggest "native democracy" as parliamentary seems to be besides the point of the sentence.

Ray^Talk 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're correct about post-monarchic, as Mossadegh's form government was still a constitutional monarchy. But "anti-democratic" is the adjective used by most scholars, and the alleged intentions of the coup organizers are irrelevant to the terminology, as it's the actions that count, and the fact is that the coup removed a democratically-elected government, and therefore it was an anti-democratic coup, weather you like it or not. I must add that your or my opinions on the matter are also irrelevant, as they violate WP:OR, and the terminology you are opposing is well-sourced, in line with WP:RS. The same thing is true about the term "secular", most scholars classify Mossadegh's government as secular (please look up Mossadegh+secular on Google books), your over-rigid definition of the meaning of "secular" is both incorrect and in violation of WP:OR since the adjective is well-sourced and used by many scholars to characterize Mossadegh's government. Keep in mind that the religious establishment in Iran had had no role whatsoever in the governance of the state since Reza Shah's time. --Kurdo777 (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you secular provided you can find the good authoritative sources (the current cite doesn't use the language) - however, there is a distinction: Mossadegh's government had a secular orientation, but the sentence makes it sound as if Iran's system of government (as distinct from the party in power) had a secular orientation pre-coup, which is the point I'm contesting. I suggest we agree either to describe Mossadegh's government (rather than Iran's parliamentary democracy) as secular (with appropriate sources), or drop the adjective as unnecessarily prolonging the sentence. Similarly, the current reference doesn't use the phrase "anti-democratic," and indeed, could not while staying true to appropriate English usage. I refer you to either the Merriam-Webster dictionary [1] ("opposed or hostile to the theories or policies of democracy"), or the Oxford English Dictionary ("One who is opposed to democracy or to the principles of the Democratic party in the United States"). The coup was not opposed to democracy in general, so much as to one particular democratic government. Indeed, it cannot be said that the planners of the coup had anti-democratic principles. Furthermore, you have not addressed my other objection, which is that the word breaks the continuity of the sentence, prolonging it, and is thus abominable style.

On the more general note - Kurdo, you are misintepreting WP:OR. WP:OR states that any statements of fact (not particular wording) in the article proper must be reliably sourced and cannot be the result of synthesis. However, editors are not prescribed from bringing their own knowledge and research to bear when evaluating the quality of sourcing and the nature of the information presented. It is in that spirit, armed with Strunk and White and a dictionary of the English language, as well as a sense of what constitutes neutral language, that I am talking with you here: I have examined the current language, and find it wanting. Ray^Talk 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The coup was indeed against democracy in Iran, it undermined the people's will, and removed a democratically-elected government. But ff you're worried that the term "anti-democratic" causes confusion with the democratic party, then I'll just remove it. As for the term "secular", system and government are two different things. The system was not changed by the coup, the government was, and Mossadegh's government was a secular government, as was the constitutional monarchy system in practical terms. Formalities and ceremonial titles like "state religion" etc had nothing to do with the secular nature of the system. The Queen is head of the Church of England, that does not mean that the British system of governance is not secular. --Kurdo777 (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish to weigh in on this discussion as it pertains to this statement by Ray on Nov. 4.--1. You can't call this an "anti-democratic coup." That implies the primary purpose of the coup was to destroy democracy. The primary purpose of the coup was aimed against the Communists, or for oil, depending on which source you're reading. In either case, democracy was collateral damage.

This substitutes personal opinion--and zero documentation-- for secondary sources recognized as expert historians on this topic. Those sources offer evidence that Iran was a budding democracy where the constitution empowered the Iranian equivalent of the US congress to elect the prime minister. It elected Mossadegh. The US government was and is also not a direct democracy but a representative democracy broadly similar to the then budding system in Iran in that the US head of state is elected by an electoral college. The US government, then headed by D. D. Eisenhower, made a unilateral decision to overthrow the Mossadegh government, ending the budding democracy in Iran and replacing it with a repressive regime that held no elections and was eventually overthrown precisely because it was so repressive. The US motive was dual. The US wanted to help itself, for the first time, to a major share of Iranian oil; and it wanted to discourage the competition (the then USSR) from involving itself in the politics of its next-door neighbor, Iran. (There is, however, no evidence that the USSR was involving itself in Iranian politics between 1949 and 1953.) In that sense, the US campaign to bring down the Mossadegh government was a preemptive coup d'etat. After establishing the Shah as all-powerful, the US established itself as the Shah's main ally and arms dealer over the next quarter century. As a contributor to repression, the US trained SAVAK the Shah's widely-hated torture task force.

When a person is killed in the course of robbery, murder is not seen as collateral damage. Murder is the most serous felony alleged. When democracy is snuffed out in the course of robbery, the suffocation is not collateral damage; like murder, it is the most serious charge with the larger consequence. Skywriter (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)