![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I support the current version of the lead as its stands for the reason that the only other draft that has been put forward has deliberately excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page.
Skywriter could you specify succinctly what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored." I realize you have masses of text on this page but it has been my experience they do not demonstrate your point. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are the two of you ignoring the suggestion on the table at the end of [ [1]] The suggestion is to open the article to editing one sentence at a time. Three people have responded affirmatively. Neither of you have responded at all. Why not? Skywriter ( talk) 16:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The relevant texts are:
Skywriter ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Which can be found right here- [5] I offered it above but one of the editors of this article thought it more relevant to attack my person. The NY Times story is considered the basis of much of the version of the events told here, Zahedi directly responded to that article at the time, and the NY Times printed his rebuttal. Ardeshir Zahedi, and of course his father, were principals in this event, it is irresponsible to not include, much less consider as factual, his side of the story here. Batvette ( talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Except for the person who winningly refers to other editors as thugs and prostitutes we have agreement by all participating editors to open the page to editing one sentence at a time. I have taken the liberty of copying each of these points of consensus to this section. I have asked the admin who blocked the page to unblock it. A/c to the article history, that admin is (cur) (prev) 12:12, June 22, 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs) m (57,066 bytes) (Protected 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Skywriter ( talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The statements of consensus by the contributing editors follow.
I agree that the article should be unblocked. I have never seen an article blocked for as long as this. The editor who showed up suddenly and reverted countless times in a short period has shown no current interest. That was the immediate cause of the block by an editor who is not participating in this discussion and has not suggested ways to mediate. I propose that people make changes sentence by sentence. If someone objects to a particular sentence, we can take it here and thrash it out. If there's no agreement, then take it to mediation as Kurdo suggests we might be headed. ...Boogalouie, are you on board with unblocking and editing one sentence at a time? Skywriter ( talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Skywriter writes: I support the current version of the lead as its stands for the reason that the only other draft that has been put forward has deliberately excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page.
But there is no reply to the question I asked: Perhaps you could reply to some of my questions, namely `could you specify succinctly what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored."
(Here's the other draft that allegedly "excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors")
Kurdo writes: As per mediation, it's too early to go into mediation, we haven't exhausted all the other options.
The editors Skywriter, SnowFire, Binksternet, Kurdo, and myself have been arguing about this article since 21 June 2009 at least. Naturally if you prefer the status quo article to changes offered, you're happy to not go to meditation, what I see on the page is much repetition, unanswered questions, and editors (SnowFire) dropping out. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
... It will be in the news and a lot of people will be viewing this article to get more information. What will they see?
The lede doesn't mention the date of the coup, what happened on that day and the failed attempt a few days earlier. The two officers who executed it.
Following the lead are two long sections that would embarrass a party school undergrad's term-paper. Big blockquotes of wild accusations "Iranian fascists and Nazis played prominent roles in the coup regime." Several lines of ranting about the tangential subject of the CIA destroying records. Sloppy claims of "re-installed the pro-American Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to the throne" (had Iran become a Republic?) "... the all-powerful monarch installed in the coup" (the long blockquote only says that the CIA wanted to strengthen the shah), an advertisement for Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men (but hardly any information from it).
My good people, this is not a pretty sight. It's going to be an embasrrassment for wikipedia, and for the people who've spent hours and hours of their time trying to make wikipedia respected. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, thank you for sharing your personal opinion, yet again. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, one sentence at a time means one sentence a time. That is the text of the entire agreement. Why did you sign the agreement then not honor your word? Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, why are you trying to substitute your personal point of view for the writing of award-winning historian Masoud Kazemzadeh? If you want to contend that Kazemzadeh's research is sensationalistic and an exaggeration, please do the hard work of coming up with a secondary source to say that. We like you bunches, Boogalouie, but original research is not going in this article. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, instead of treating us with dollops of your personal POV, why not say something factual and constructive like, "OK to add the date of the coup to the lead sentence?" You would get quick agreement that way and piss off far fewer people. Or you can go back to the old way of playing victim, then going on sly attack. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose changing:
The British and U.S. spy agencies replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.
to
The British and U.S. spy agencies, in what became known as Operation Ajax, replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.
-- RossF18 ( talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The term originated with the CIA. Therefore, how about-- in what the CIA called Operation Ajax--? Skywriter ( talk) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The British and U.S. spy agencies, replaced the government of Prime Minister Mosaddeq with Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.
"The easy success of this coup can be explained by two factors, the widening gap between the traditional and middle classes within the National Front; and the increasing alienation of the whole officer corps from the civilian administration." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions, by Princeton University Press, 1982, p.273-4)
"The coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred." (Keddie, Nikki R., Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, 1981, p.140)
"... a wide array of Iranians also made crucial contributions, either by steadily undermining the prime minister's position or by bringing about the overthrow itself. General Zahedi and his supporters, the shah, the growing crowd of defectors and other opponents to Mosaddeq, the Tudeh Party, and even the National Front loyalists and Mosaddeq himself, through their mistakes, were essential to the coup's success." (Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Ed, by Mark j. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004 , p.xx)
RossF18, if you'd like to move paragraphs around, and place the new draft on this talk page for discussion, I support that. And I'll help. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
To move the editing forward, here's the question - does the firt sentence of the lede lead need to change? The only objection I can see that some people might have is with "democratically-elected". Does anyone think that the "democratically-elected" need to be taken out or changed? If not, then the first sentence is good. If yes, let's discuss the changes to the first sentence. --
RossF18 (
talk)
02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Several years earlier, Mossaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, had angered Britain with his argument that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves instead of allowing profits to continue to flow to Britain through its control of Iran's oil industry.
-- RossF18 ( talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the following though others may have ideas too.
In mid-April 1951, the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, passed a resolution nationalizing the oil industry and on April 28, the Majlis chose Mohammed Mossadegh as the new Prime Minister. The leading foe of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., which was controlled by the British government, Mossadegh was charged with executing the nationalization law that had been signed by the Shah and that went into effect May 1. [1] [2]
Skywriter ( talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Mossadegh was charged with executing the nationalization law that had been signed by the Shah and that went into effect May 1. Wait I'm confused here, who is this Shah guy who signed a law during or before the time Mossadegh led the country? The only Shah I know of is some guy the US installed after we removed Mossadegh. You're implying that this Shah guy, whoever HE is, was in a position of leadership all along. Just trying to make heads or tails of the story. Batvette ( talk) 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The very first reference in the first sentence in this article is to something (I don't know what) by Kevin O'Reilly. It reads as follows (without some of the formatting so we can read it here.)
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. cite book|last=O'Reilly|first=Kevin|title=Decision Making in US History. The Cold War & the 1950s|publisher=Social Studies|date=2007|pages=108|isbn=1560042931|accessdate=2009-03-03
O'Reilly is also the proposed lead reference here-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Rebuilding_the_lede
I tried to find this book on Amazon and it's not sold there. I tried to find it also at http://isbn.nu/ by name, author and finally by the given ISBN number and it's not there either. That site searches numerous retail sites.
My questions are What is this listed as a key reference in this article? Who is Kevin O'Reilly? Skywriter ( talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If no one wants to take credit for adding the O'Reilly book to the lead in this article and Boogalouie decides not to comment why it appears in the version he proposes, it is logical that the reference should be deleted. Anyone disagree? Last call. Skywriter ( talk) 23:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This may have been discussed previously, but how distinct is the Abadan Crisis article from this. It seems to be the same series of events with the Abadan Crisis perhaps being in the background section of this article since it's fairly short or at least a subsection that directs to the abadan crisis article. BoogaLouie contribued a little to that article too, so perhaps BoogaLouie may also want to comment. -- RossF18 ( talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Skywriter ( talk) 10:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently I've reverted a change to the tiny 3 sentence section - 1950s. Originally and to what I reverted, this was the language:
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. The vote did not use a secret ballot, and Mosaddeq's royalist opponents alleged that it was rigged. [3] [4]. The royalists also alleged that there were some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election. [5]
User:Jacob Lundberg changed it to:
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. It was rigged[53] with 99 percent of votes supporting the proposal[54]. There were also some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election.[55]
Any thoughts to which version we should keep or to any improvement of the section - or if we need to merge it with any section above or below since it's only 3 sentences. It would be helpful is someone can actually verify the language of that 1953 New York Times article, since it's not available on the internet, at least nowhere I could find that was free. -- RossF18 ( talk) 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That it is not findable for free is not the issue. It is also not available in the paid archive either and it was not among the key articles from 1953 [10] the NYT republished in 2000 with the release of the sanitized CIA files. Skywriter ( talk) 23:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The relevant context is p. 134-7 of the 2003 (revised) edition ( ISBN 9780470185490) of All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. The relevant text is at bottom of p. 136 and top of 137-- "Mossadegh was legally entitled to take this step as long as the eighty seated members did not veto it, which they did not. He could also claim a measure of moral legitimacy, since he was defending Iran against subversion by outsiders." Skywriter ( talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to express the `will of the people` to dissolve the Majlis and give law making powers to the prime minister, himself. It was approved by 99 percent of votes cast, [6] but has been called `rigged'. [7] Opponents complained the seperate voting booths for `Yes` and `No` votes violated the 1906 constitution provisions for secret ballots. [8] Opponents also complained that the 1951 parliamentary election count was cut short to prevent opposition deputees from being elected. [9]
This reference to unfinished draft http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html appears already four times in the article. The questionable "rigged" quote is also in the article. How many more times do you plan to repeat it? Skywiter
This article mentions democracy or dictatorship six times in the lead. As a comparison, Invasion of Grenada does not once mention the fact that the US reinstated democracy there. Many editors to this article seem to be obsessed with making the US look as bad as possible.
If we are going to mention democracy this much, the least we can do is point to the problems in pre-1953 Iranian democracy. I have shown with "Mohammad Gholi Majd (2000), Resistance to the Shah: landowners and ulama in Iran (University Press of Florida), p. 29" that Mossadeqh won 99 percent of votes in the referendum, which in itself rules out any possibility that the vote was free and fair. Fair referendums are never won with 99 percent of the vote. In addition to this fact, I have supplied a link to an article that states the obvious: that the referendum was rigged. Jacob Lundberg
This guy is not an academic, and certainly not a neutral, or reliable source. He looks like fringe theorist, with a strong POV, and a bunch of sensationalist books on fringe topics like "The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia" and "Great Britain and Reza Shah: The Plunder of Iran, 1921-1941", and "The Great American Plunder of Persias Antiquities, 1925-1941 ". --Kurdo
COMMENT--That NYT article is suspect as it is not in the NYT archive. I suspect it is error or problematic in another way. Somebody would have to go look at microfiche to determine its value and then it still would not be usable on Wikipedia because that would constitute original research based on a primary source. See WP:RS which is especially relevant in this article because of the revelations made public in 2000 that the CIA, in carrying out the coup, manipulated Western and Iranian news reporters and the stories they wrote. That is likely the underlying reason that article is not quoted in any of the major books (secondary sources) written about the coup. Once the CIA-related facts of the coup became clear, even if only from the narrow, self-promoting view of the CIA agent who orchestrated it, then the last-minute (July 1953) attacks on Mossadegh being undemocratic that may have appeared in the NYT take on a whole new character. Keep in mind that http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html is an early draft of an unpublished article by Gasiorowski from 1998. His view changed quite a bit after the CIA released Wilber's report to the NYT. The Gasiorowski/Byrne book was published several years later. Gasiorowski wrote tough criticisms of Mossadegh in the book he edited with Byrne and for which he himself wrote several chapters. Being undemocratic two weeks before his government was violently and corruptly overthrown by the CIA was not among those criticisms. Skywriter
Here is what Kinzer has to say about the referendum: "By the time Kermit Roosevelt entered Iran on July 19, the country was aflame. Mossadegh's supporters in the Majlis had voted to remove Ayatollah Kahani from his position as speaker, and the resulting clash led more than half the deputies to resign. Demonstrations demanding dissolution of the Majlis shook Tehran. Mossadegh announced that he would hold a referendum on the question and pledged to resign if voters did not vote to oust the existing Majlis. The referendum, hurriedly convened at the beginning of August, was a disastrous parody of democracy. There were separate ballot boxes for yes and no votes, and the announced result was over 99% in favor of throwing out the Majlis. The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill. Mid-August found Roosevelt and his team of Iranian agents in place and ready to strike." (from: All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, p.165) I have zero problem using the above in context and many problems leaving out the lead-in sentences. Skywriter ( talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to express the `will of the people` to dissolve the Majlis and give law making powers to the prime minister, himself. It was approved overwhelmingly - 2,043,300 yes votes to 1300 no votes [11] [12] - but has been called `a disastrous parody of democracy`. [13] Opponents complained the seperate voting booths for `Yes` and `No` votes violated the 1906 constitution provisions for secret ballots. [14] Opponents also complained that the 1951 parliamentary election count was cut short to prevent opposition deputees from being elected. [15]
The above comment takes the above event out of context and is unbalanced for that reason. See earlier documentation pointing to the pages on Google books. There is no excuse for this except blatant agenda-pushing.
What is the story line and how does it match up with what the secondary source book histories of the coup say? It appears that Jacob Lundberg is engaging in original research and giving WP:undue weight to a particular article because it supports his POV. That article is a primary source that is not referenced in ANY of the major histories of the Iranian coup. The histories are preferred as secondary sources. See WP:RS for discussion of this, which you both continue to ignore. BoogaLouie also is giving WP:undue weight to a fleeting incident without offering context for the story line, and ignores all argument to the contrary as if those arguments were never made. BoogaLouie attacks other editors for bringing in sources documenting the U.S. role in Iran in 1952-53 and is one-sided and unbalanced in his criticisms of Mossadegh, always wanting to show his weaknesses while ignoring that Mossadegh is viewed heroically in Iran and throughout the Middle East. You both want to use an obscure article by Kennett Love. Use it over my objections. We will also use this video and text, which goes to the heart of attempts to make the coup all about defeating the prospect of a communist takeover. Kennett Love says it did not happen that way, and here is proof. Listen to him say it and read his words. [12] The second set of proofs is in the book Endless Enemies -- The Making of an Unfriendly World(Congdon & Weed, New York, 1984) by the late, great Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny
As to this (which is tagged on to the end of BoogaLouie's comment above)-- "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." Kinzer (2003), All the Shah's Men p. 137 -- please check your source as you are conflating two different events, treating them as though they are the same. Skywriter ( talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In several posts above from yesterday the ~~~~ wikisignatures were messed up when Skywriter forgot to add a </ref> after a citation. (I'd give him a good scolding but I'm prone to stuff like that too! :-) ) Posts after that did not get the ~~~~ turned into a signiature. I added the </ref> and have tried to add names of editors to their posts. Hope I haven't missed anything. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Jacob Lundberg keeps re-inserting a bunch of disputed and questionable material/sources already under discussions here, namely an outdated primary source, a fringe source and an unpublished article, to push a point of view in clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Primary, WP:Fringe, and WP:UNDUE. If he reverts again without a clear consensus on talk page, I will request page protection, as there was an agreement by all parties here to discuss edits and gain a consensus, before implementing new changes, and this user is disrupting the process. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me just point two things out:
I think this discussion is going nowhere. We have been at it since June and hardly any progress has been made. Does anyone else want to take this to Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, Booga. The following, quoted verbatim from what now appears in the article, does indeed conflate two entirely separate events. Mossadegh's opponents have alleged that there were some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." Kinzer (2003), All the Shah's Men p. 137
Please refer to the book. p.137 is purely a discussion of the time period around the July 1953 referendum. There is no mention of 1951 and therefore that line is misleading. Problematic also with that one-sentence abstract is that it lacks context. Notice also that the line quoted above was revised in the 2008 edition and that is the one we should be using. Between the two editions is this one among many subtle revisions on that page: 79 members changed to 80. The ISBN for the revised edition is 9780470185490 Skywriter ( talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. your fn is 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2003) p.137
I count 12 references in the existing article to the 2003 edition of All the Shah's Men. These references cause this article to be unreliable. Everyone should be sourcing the 2008 revised edition ( ISBN 9780470185490 ) Consider updating the references. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. [ fn 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2003), p.137]
In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." [ fn 21 1/2 ---Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, (Princeton University Press, 1982), p.268-9] This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. [ fn 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2008) p.136-7]
I stated a plan to work on rewording and cutting the long quote and now am discouraged by Booga's kneejerk revert. He's wrong about the conflation but does not read the text carefully enough to know it. The ball is now in the Booga court to add constructive material or to do nothing except to continue whining and demanding that mediators come in and right some perceived wrong. Alternately, we can hang a sign out saying this article is destined to suck not because the subject is not interesting and important but because of distrust. I'm going to go ahead and tag this article because there is too much in it that is factually wrong, a real embarrassment to Wikipedia. -30- Skywriter ( talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have undone BoogaLouie's revert, don't let him discourage you. We can not allow one disgruntled editor halt the article's development. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I support the current version of the lead as its stands for the reason that the only other draft that has been put forward has deliberately excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page.
Skywriter could you specify succinctly what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored." I realize you have masses of text on this page but it has been my experience they do not demonstrate your point. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are the two of you ignoring the suggestion on the table at the end of [ [1]] The suggestion is to open the article to editing one sentence at a time. Three people have responded affirmatively. Neither of you have responded at all. Why not? Skywriter ( talk) 16:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The relevant texts are:
Skywriter ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Which can be found right here- [5] I offered it above but one of the editors of this article thought it more relevant to attack my person. The NY Times story is considered the basis of much of the version of the events told here, Zahedi directly responded to that article at the time, and the NY Times printed his rebuttal. Ardeshir Zahedi, and of course his father, were principals in this event, it is irresponsible to not include, much less consider as factual, his side of the story here. Batvette ( talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Except for the person who winningly refers to other editors as thugs and prostitutes we have agreement by all participating editors to open the page to editing one sentence at a time. I have taken the liberty of copying each of these points of consensus to this section. I have asked the admin who blocked the page to unblock it. A/c to the article history, that admin is (cur) (prev) 12:12, June 22, 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs) m (57,066 bytes) (Protected 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Skywriter ( talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The statements of consensus by the contributing editors follow.
I agree that the article should be unblocked. I have never seen an article blocked for as long as this. The editor who showed up suddenly and reverted countless times in a short period has shown no current interest. That was the immediate cause of the block by an editor who is not participating in this discussion and has not suggested ways to mediate. I propose that people make changes sentence by sentence. If someone objects to a particular sentence, we can take it here and thrash it out. If there's no agreement, then take it to mediation as Kurdo suggests we might be headed. ...Boogalouie, are you on board with unblocking and editing one sentence at a time? Skywriter ( talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Skywriter writes: I support the current version of the lead as its stands for the reason that the only other draft that has been put forward has deliberately excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page.
But there is no reply to the question I asked: Perhaps you could reply to some of my questions, namely `could you specify succinctly what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored."
(Here's the other draft that allegedly "excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors")
Kurdo writes: As per mediation, it's too early to go into mediation, we haven't exhausted all the other options.
The editors Skywriter, SnowFire, Binksternet, Kurdo, and myself have been arguing about this article since 21 June 2009 at least. Naturally if you prefer the status quo article to changes offered, you're happy to not go to meditation, what I see on the page is much repetition, unanswered questions, and editors (SnowFire) dropping out. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
... It will be in the news and a lot of people will be viewing this article to get more information. What will they see?
The lede doesn't mention the date of the coup, what happened on that day and the failed attempt a few days earlier. The two officers who executed it.
Following the lead are two long sections that would embarrass a party school undergrad's term-paper. Big blockquotes of wild accusations "Iranian fascists and Nazis played prominent roles in the coup regime." Several lines of ranting about the tangential subject of the CIA destroying records. Sloppy claims of "re-installed the pro-American Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to the throne" (had Iran become a Republic?) "... the all-powerful monarch installed in the coup" (the long blockquote only says that the CIA wanted to strengthen the shah), an advertisement for Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men (but hardly any information from it).
My good people, this is not a pretty sight. It's going to be an embasrrassment for wikipedia, and for the people who've spent hours and hours of their time trying to make wikipedia respected. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, thank you for sharing your personal opinion, yet again. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, one sentence at a time means one sentence a time. That is the text of the entire agreement. Why did you sign the agreement then not honor your word? Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, why are you trying to substitute your personal point of view for the writing of award-winning historian Masoud Kazemzadeh? If you want to contend that Kazemzadeh's research is sensationalistic and an exaggeration, please do the hard work of coming up with a secondary source to say that. We like you bunches, Boogalouie, but original research is not going in this article. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Boogalouie, instead of treating us with dollops of your personal POV, why not say something factual and constructive like, "OK to add the date of the coup to the lead sentence?" You would get quick agreement that way and piss off far fewer people. Or you can go back to the old way of playing victim, then going on sly attack. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose changing:
The British and U.S. spy agencies replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.
to
The British and U.S. spy agencies, in what became known as Operation Ajax, replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.
-- RossF18 ( talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The term originated with the CIA. Therefore, how about-- in what the CIA called Operation Ajax--? Skywriter ( talk) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The British and U.S. spy agencies, replaced the government of Prime Minister Mosaddeq with Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.
"The easy success of this coup can be explained by two factors, the widening gap between the traditional and middle classes within the National Front; and the increasing alienation of the whole officer corps from the civilian administration." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions, by Princeton University Press, 1982, p.273-4)
"The coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred." (Keddie, Nikki R., Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, 1981, p.140)
"... a wide array of Iranians also made crucial contributions, either by steadily undermining the prime minister's position or by bringing about the overthrow itself. General Zahedi and his supporters, the shah, the growing crowd of defectors and other opponents to Mosaddeq, the Tudeh Party, and even the National Front loyalists and Mosaddeq himself, through their mistakes, were essential to the coup's success." (Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Ed, by Mark j. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004 , p.xx)
RossF18, if you'd like to move paragraphs around, and place the new draft on this talk page for discussion, I support that. And I'll help. Skywriter ( talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
To move the editing forward, here's the question - does the firt sentence of the lede lead need to change? The only objection I can see that some people might have is with "democratically-elected". Does anyone think that the "democratically-elected" need to be taken out or changed? If not, then the first sentence is good. If yes, let's discuss the changes to the first sentence. --
RossF18 (
talk)
02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Several years earlier, Mossaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, had angered Britain with his argument that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves instead of allowing profits to continue to flow to Britain through its control of Iran's oil industry.
-- RossF18 ( talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the following though others may have ideas too.
In mid-April 1951, the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, passed a resolution nationalizing the oil industry and on April 28, the Majlis chose Mohammed Mossadegh as the new Prime Minister. The leading foe of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., which was controlled by the British government, Mossadegh was charged with executing the nationalization law that had been signed by the Shah and that went into effect May 1. [1] [2]
Skywriter ( talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Mossadegh was charged with executing the nationalization law that had been signed by the Shah and that went into effect May 1. Wait I'm confused here, who is this Shah guy who signed a law during or before the time Mossadegh led the country? The only Shah I know of is some guy the US installed after we removed Mossadegh. You're implying that this Shah guy, whoever HE is, was in a position of leadership all along. Just trying to make heads or tails of the story. Batvette ( talk) 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The very first reference in the first sentence in this article is to something (I don't know what) by Kevin O'Reilly. It reads as follows (without some of the formatting so we can read it here.)
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. cite book|last=O'Reilly|first=Kevin|title=Decision Making in US History. The Cold War & the 1950s|publisher=Social Studies|date=2007|pages=108|isbn=1560042931|accessdate=2009-03-03
O'Reilly is also the proposed lead reference here-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Rebuilding_the_lede
I tried to find this book on Amazon and it's not sold there. I tried to find it also at http://isbn.nu/ by name, author and finally by the given ISBN number and it's not there either. That site searches numerous retail sites.
My questions are What is this listed as a key reference in this article? Who is Kevin O'Reilly? Skywriter ( talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If no one wants to take credit for adding the O'Reilly book to the lead in this article and Boogalouie decides not to comment why it appears in the version he proposes, it is logical that the reference should be deleted. Anyone disagree? Last call. Skywriter ( talk) 23:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This may have been discussed previously, but how distinct is the Abadan Crisis article from this. It seems to be the same series of events with the Abadan Crisis perhaps being in the background section of this article since it's fairly short or at least a subsection that directs to the abadan crisis article. BoogaLouie contribued a little to that article too, so perhaps BoogaLouie may also want to comment. -- RossF18 ( talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Skywriter ( talk) 10:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Recently I've reverted a change to the tiny 3 sentence section - 1950s. Originally and to what I reverted, this was the language:
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. The vote did not use a secret ballot, and Mosaddeq's royalist opponents alleged that it was rigged. [3] [4]. The royalists also alleged that there were some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election. [5]
User:Jacob Lundberg changed it to:
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. It was rigged[53] with 99 percent of votes supporting the proposal[54]. There were also some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election.[55]
Any thoughts to which version we should keep or to any improvement of the section - or if we need to merge it with any section above or below since it's only 3 sentences. It would be helpful is someone can actually verify the language of that 1953 New York Times article, since it's not available on the internet, at least nowhere I could find that was free. -- RossF18 ( talk) 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That it is not findable for free is not the issue. It is also not available in the paid archive either and it was not among the key articles from 1953 [10] the NYT republished in 2000 with the release of the sanitized CIA files. Skywriter ( talk) 23:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The relevant context is p. 134-7 of the 2003 (revised) edition ( ISBN 9780470185490) of All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. The relevant text is at bottom of p. 136 and top of 137-- "Mossadegh was legally entitled to take this step as long as the eighty seated members did not veto it, which they did not. He could also claim a measure of moral legitimacy, since he was defending Iran against subversion by outsiders." Skywriter ( talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to express the `will of the people` to dissolve the Majlis and give law making powers to the prime minister, himself. It was approved by 99 percent of votes cast, [6] but has been called `rigged'. [7] Opponents complained the seperate voting booths for `Yes` and `No` votes violated the 1906 constitution provisions for secret ballots. [8] Opponents also complained that the 1951 parliamentary election count was cut short to prevent opposition deputees from being elected. [9]
This reference to unfinished draft http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html appears already four times in the article. The questionable "rigged" quote is also in the article. How many more times do you plan to repeat it? Skywiter
This article mentions democracy or dictatorship six times in the lead. As a comparison, Invasion of Grenada does not once mention the fact that the US reinstated democracy there. Many editors to this article seem to be obsessed with making the US look as bad as possible.
If we are going to mention democracy this much, the least we can do is point to the problems in pre-1953 Iranian democracy. I have shown with "Mohammad Gholi Majd (2000), Resistance to the Shah: landowners and ulama in Iran (University Press of Florida), p. 29" that Mossadeqh won 99 percent of votes in the referendum, which in itself rules out any possibility that the vote was free and fair. Fair referendums are never won with 99 percent of the vote. In addition to this fact, I have supplied a link to an article that states the obvious: that the referendum was rigged. Jacob Lundberg
This guy is not an academic, and certainly not a neutral, or reliable source. He looks like fringe theorist, with a strong POV, and a bunch of sensationalist books on fringe topics like "The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia" and "Great Britain and Reza Shah: The Plunder of Iran, 1921-1941", and "The Great American Plunder of Persias Antiquities, 1925-1941 ". --Kurdo
COMMENT--That NYT article is suspect as it is not in the NYT archive. I suspect it is error or problematic in another way. Somebody would have to go look at microfiche to determine its value and then it still would not be usable on Wikipedia because that would constitute original research based on a primary source. See WP:RS which is especially relevant in this article because of the revelations made public in 2000 that the CIA, in carrying out the coup, manipulated Western and Iranian news reporters and the stories they wrote. That is likely the underlying reason that article is not quoted in any of the major books (secondary sources) written about the coup. Once the CIA-related facts of the coup became clear, even if only from the narrow, self-promoting view of the CIA agent who orchestrated it, then the last-minute (July 1953) attacks on Mossadegh being undemocratic that may have appeared in the NYT take on a whole new character. Keep in mind that http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html is an early draft of an unpublished article by Gasiorowski from 1998. His view changed quite a bit after the CIA released Wilber's report to the NYT. The Gasiorowski/Byrne book was published several years later. Gasiorowski wrote tough criticisms of Mossadegh in the book he edited with Byrne and for which he himself wrote several chapters. Being undemocratic two weeks before his government was violently and corruptly overthrown by the CIA was not among those criticisms. Skywriter
Here is what Kinzer has to say about the referendum: "By the time Kermit Roosevelt entered Iran on July 19, the country was aflame. Mossadegh's supporters in the Majlis had voted to remove Ayatollah Kahani from his position as speaker, and the resulting clash led more than half the deputies to resign. Demonstrations demanding dissolution of the Majlis shook Tehran. Mossadegh announced that he would hold a referendum on the question and pledged to resign if voters did not vote to oust the existing Majlis. The referendum, hurriedly convened at the beginning of August, was a disastrous parody of democracy. There were separate ballot boxes for yes and no votes, and the announced result was over 99% in favor of throwing out the Majlis. The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill. Mid-August found Roosevelt and his team of Iranian agents in place and ready to strike." (from: All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, p.165) I have zero problem using the above in context and many problems leaving out the lead-in sentences. Skywriter ( talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to express the `will of the people` to dissolve the Majlis and give law making powers to the prime minister, himself. It was approved overwhelmingly - 2,043,300 yes votes to 1300 no votes [11] [12] - but has been called `a disastrous parody of democracy`. [13] Opponents complained the seperate voting booths for `Yes` and `No` votes violated the 1906 constitution provisions for secret ballots. [14] Opponents also complained that the 1951 parliamentary election count was cut short to prevent opposition deputees from being elected. [15]
The above comment takes the above event out of context and is unbalanced for that reason. See earlier documentation pointing to the pages on Google books. There is no excuse for this except blatant agenda-pushing.
What is the story line and how does it match up with what the secondary source book histories of the coup say? It appears that Jacob Lundberg is engaging in original research and giving WP:undue weight to a particular article because it supports his POV. That article is a primary source that is not referenced in ANY of the major histories of the Iranian coup. The histories are preferred as secondary sources. See WP:RS for discussion of this, which you both continue to ignore. BoogaLouie also is giving WP:undue weight to a fleeting incident without offering context for the story line, and ignores all argument to the contrary as if those arguments were never made. BoogaLouie attacks other editors for bringing in sources documenting the U.S. role in Iran in 1952-53 and is one-sided and unbalanced in his criticisms of Mossadegh, always wanting to show his weaknesses while ignoring that Mossadegh is viewed heroically in Iran and throughout the Middle East. You both want to use an obscure article by Kennett Love. Use it over my objections. We will also use this video and text, which goes to the heart of attempts to make the coup all about defeating the prospect of a communist takeover. Kennett Love says it did not happen that way, and here is proof. Listen to him say it and read his words. [12] The second set of proofs is in the book Endless Enemies -- The Making of an Unfriendly World(Congdon & Weed, New York, 1984) by the late, great Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny
As to this (which is tagged on to the end of BoogaLouie's comment above)-- "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." Kinzer (2003), All the Shah's Men p. 137 -- please check your source as you are conflating two different events, treating them as though they are the same. Skywriter ( talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In several posts above from yesterday the ~~~~ wikisignatures were messed up when Skywriter forgot to add a </ref> after a citation. (I'd give him a good scolding but I'm prone to stuff like that too! :-) ) Posts after that did not get the ~~~~ turned into a signiature. I added the </ref> and have tried to add names of editors to their posts. Hope I haven't missed anything. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Jacob Lundberg keeps re-inserting a bunch of disputed and questionable material/sources already under discussions here, namely an outdated primary source, a fringe source and an unpublished article, to push a point of view in clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Primary, WP:Fringe, and WP:UNDUE. If he reverts again without a clear consensus on talk page, I will request page protection, as there was an agreement by all parties here to discuss edits and gain a consensus, before implementing new changes, and this user is disrupting the process. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me just point two things out:
I think this discussion is going nowhere. We have been at it since June and hardly any progress has been made. Does anyone else want to take this to Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, Booga. The following, quoted verbatim from what now appears in the article, does indeed conflate two entirely separate events. Mossadegh's opponents have alleged that there were some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." Kinzer (2003), All the Shah's Men p. 137
Please refer to the book. p.137 is purely a discussion of the time period around the July 1953 referendum. There is no mention of 1951 and therefore that line is misleading. Problematic also with that one-sentence abstract is that it lacks context. Notice also that the line quoted above was revised in the 2008 edition and that is the one we should be using. Between the two editions is this one among many subtle revisions on that page: 79 members changed to 80. The ISBN for the revised edition is 9780470185490 Skywriter ( talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. your fn is 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2003) p.137
I count 12 references in the existing article to the 2003 edition of All the Shah's Men. These references cause this article to be unreliable. Everyone should be sourcing the 2008 revised edition ( ISBN 9780470185490 ) Consider updating the references. Thanks. Skywriter ( talk) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. [ fn 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2003), p.137]
In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." [ fn 21 1/2 ---Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, (Princeton University Press, 1982), p.268-9] This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. [ fn 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2008) p.136-7]
I stated a plan to work on rewording and cutting the long quote and now am discouraged by Booga's kneejerk revert. He's wrong about the conflation but does not read the text carefully enough to know it. The ball is now in the Booga court to add constructive material or to do nothing except to continue whining and demanding that mediators come in and right some perceived wrong. Alternately, we can hang a sign out saying this article is destined to suck not because the subject is not interesting and important but because of distrust. I'm going to go ahead and tag this article because there is too much in it that is factually wrong, a real embarrassment to Wikipedia. -30- Skywriter ( talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I have undone BoogaLouie's revert, don't let him discourage you. We can not allow one disgruntled editor halt the article's development. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)