| Revision as of 05:41, 29 October 2010 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers493,948 edits →Improving the article: the death of WP:STABLE← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:39, 29 October 2010 edit undoKurdo777 (talk | contribs)5,050 edits →Improving the articleNext edit → | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| : Actually, the article has been pretty stable and has been steadily improved by neutral editors since you were last here. FYI, looking at your talk page, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has not magically cleared and erased your previous blocks for disrupting Misplaced Pages, it seems that you were given the "benefit of the doubt" for the time being, and only your indefinite block was reversed. Otherwise, you're still an editor with a pretty hefty block log. I hope you learn from your mistakes this time and become a more constructive Wikipedian. Good luck. ] (]) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | : Actually, the article has been pretty stable and has been steadily improved by neutral editors since you were last here. FYI, looking at your talk page, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has not magically cleared and erased your previous blocks for disrupting Misplaced Pages, it seems that you were given the "benefit of the doubt" for the time being, and only your indefinite block was reversed. Otherwise, you're still an editor with a pretty hefty block log. I hope you learn from your mistakes this time and become a more constructive Wikipedian. Good luck. ] (]) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::The concept of "stable" being connected to the concept of "good" is a complete farce in this case—the article has (in its supposed stable version) been carrying a stack of ugly tags for poor neutrality, poor accuracy, inappropriate citations and a need of general cleanup. It has been wrong and bad for months. Stable? That concept stopped being connected to a positive connotation some years back when the essay ] was shut down and held as a historical curiosity. Today, we understand that articles are in flux if they reflect the living world. ] (]) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC) | ::The concept of "stable" being connected to the concept of "good" is a complete farce in this case—the article has (in its supposed stable version) been carrying a stack of ugly tags for poor neutrality, poor accuracy, inappropriate citations and a need of general cleanup. It has been wrong and bad for months. Stable? That concept stopped being connected to a positive connotation some years back when the essay ] was shut down and held as a historical curiosity. Today, we understand that articles are in flux if they reflect the living world. ] (]) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::: That's just your personal opinion, and nothing more. By the way, what inappropriate citations are you talking about? I have removed the tag for citations, you need to provide solid proof that the current version of the article contains such citations, before restoring the tag. ] (]) 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:39, 29 October 2010
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 20 days  |
 | Iran B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 19, 2007 and August 19, 2009. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
|
Collected resources |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Summary into Lead suggestion - National Geographic
The August 2008 issue of National Geographic had this to say about the coup:
- Oil was at the root of a 1953 event that is still a sore subject for many Iranians: the CIA-backed overthrow, instigated and supported by the British government, of Iran's elected and popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had kicked out the British after the Iranian oil industry, controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP), was nationalized, and the British had retaliated with an economic blockade. With the Cold War on and the Soviet bloc located just to the north, the U.S. feared that a Soviet-backed communism in Iran could shift the balance of world power and jeopardize Western interests in the region. The coup - Operation TP-Ajax - is believed to have been the CIA's first. (Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., Teddy's grandson, ran the show, and H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Persian Gulf war commander, was enlisted to coax the shaw into playing his part. Its base of operations was the US Embassy in Tehran, the future "nest of spies" to the Iranians, where 52 US hostages were taken in 1979). Afterward, the shaw, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was returned to power, commerical oil rights fell largely to British and US oil companies, and Mossadegh was imprisoned and later placed under house arrest until he died in 1967.
I think that this would be a nice summary for the intro section. It includes/combines the diverging views on this page - the argument that only the oil was responsible and the argument that Cold War mentality was to blame. So, I think it's a nice compromise and would be my suggestion as this is really, in my opinion, how the majority of the historians view the events of the coup. --RossF18 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- "the shaw"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
democratically elected?
Due to the enormously controversial nature of the Iranian/Western relationship, it is perhaps a little bit deceptive to refer to Mossadegh as the "democratically elected" prime minister without also pointing out the the previous "democratically elected" prime minister had just recently been assassinated. A cursory reading of the article could leave the reader with the impression that Mossadegh had been elected by a some kind of ground-breaking general plebiscite, which was not the case, as he had been elected by a majority parliamentary vote, as had likewise the late (pro-Western) prime minister Ali Razmara. After the parliamentary vote, Mossadegh's position had to be ratified by the Shah, and subsequently had to be again - after Mossadegh's deposal and reinstatement. Pontificateus (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
- You've had no response for two months, as there are POV-pushing editors here who will not tolerate having anything in the article but the story of a pure and saintly Mosaddegh who was martyred to British and American greed for oil. In their version, the democratic nature of the election must be emphasized over and over, like voices getting louder in argument after reason has quit the scene. For instance, in this version of the article, the phrase "democratically elected" appears five times in the article body, and twice in references. In my version, it appears three times in the article and once in the references. Truly, your observation that the election results should be compared to previous ones is apt. And your comment about the tone of the article giving an incorrect impression is dead on. Too much emphasis on "democratically elected", too little discussion of the context.
- To Kurdo777: I am not edit warring over the words "democratically elected". Edit warring is simple reversion with no discussion. I am discussing why it is that the words are too much emphasized when the facts are questionable and the tone is overstated. When I looked at the article on August 17 I found seven instances of "democratically elected" and I removed one which was in very close proximity to another. Two days later, User:Wayiran reverted me without discussion and without an edit summary. That is what edit warring is, Kurdo. My next two edits sifted through the article with a finer comb, looking for a better way to represent the phrase "democratically elected". I found three instances of it in the first paragraph which are two too many, so I removed two of them. I also found that Barack Obama was quoted on the same subject twice, from the same keynote address made at one Cairo appearance. I see no reason why we need to have redundant information, so I removed one of the Obama quotes and kept the longer, more inclusive one that had more context. Clearly this is improvement of the article—a simple copyediting of the work to make sure it flows correctly and does not repeat itself overmuch. I did not attempt to address Pontificateus's concerns as expressed above, as I did not have the proper references at hand.
- On my talk page you say "there is nothing redundant about using democratically-elected as an adjective in one sentence and then mentioning that it was the first democratically-elected government in the next sentence." I disagree, based on the English composition lessons I learned at 12 and 13 years of age. Good writing avoids unnecessary repetition. However, repetition can be used to good effect to establish a rhythm or make a point, but an artful rhythm is not the primary goal of a contentious summary-style encyclopedia article about Iran's history. It appears from your pushing for so many instances of the phrase "democratically elected" that you wish to make a point, but that point is a flawed one. There are expert observers who do not consider Mosaddegh to be the first democratically elected prime minister, and there are expert observers who do not think his election was a fair gauge of public opinion, that it was rigged. The repetition seems to me to be a crude attempt to shout down reliably sourced interpretations that are at variance to your idea of how the government was formed. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- After seeing no response, I am returning the article to its non-redundant version, with fewer instances of "democratically elected". Three instances appear in the article, and one in the references. This is quite enough to satisfy those who believe the elections were legitimate. It's not like I am trying to get rid of all of them, to erase the mention. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so I see that Kurdo777 has responded twice on my talk page rather than here. This is what has been said on my talk page:
- Once again, you're edit-warring against or without a consensus. We have gone over this issue before. There is nothing redundant about using democratically-elected as an adjective in one sentence and then mentioning that it was the first democratically-elected government in the next sentence. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is totally redundant to say it so many times, and twice so quickly in the lead paragraph. It is bad writing, and it is POV-pushing to try and emphasize that aspect. All that needs to be said is that it was the first democratically elected government of Iran, then the subsequent quotes can fill in the next few instances of "democratically elected". Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- No , it is not. What is POV-pushing is your petty attempt at undermining the fact (supported by hundreds of sources) that the government in question was democratically-elected. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
My answer is that a simple nay-saying negation is not an argument. How can you complain that the article does not fairly represent the "democratically elected" position when it states it FOUR times? Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
One further observation is that I do not need a consensus to edit the article. The article cries out for improvement, with its prominent tag saying that it has multiple issues, which it has. Are you saying that the article should continue in its flawed state? Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The issue of "democratically-elected" has been discussed many times before, the overwhelming majority of the sources refer to the government in question as democratically-elected. You opinions, synthesis of sources to prove a point that the goverment was not democratic etc, or attempts to undermine this crucial fact by calling it "repetitive" etc, have no merits, and go against scholarly consensus, and the previous consensus of the editors here. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You forget that four instances of "democratically elected" remain in the article in my version. Do you think I am wiping it out, as perhaps Pontificateus might argue? You think I am undermining it? No, not me, not this time; I do not have the references about me to attempt that. What I have is good English sense, good writing sense. Your arguments do not cover that aspect at all, and your reversion has no merit. The only thing I am trying to do is prevent the article from pathetically flogging the issue, boorishly and loudly, as if there were no firm basis for it and sheer volume must replace cool logic. I am looking forward to your explanation of this reversion of yours which once again sets a wholly redundant paragraph containing Barack Obama's Cairo speech into the article to mirror, weakly, the existing section in which Barack Obama speaks in Cairo, saying the same exact thing in greater detail. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The issue of "democratically-elected" has been discussed many times before, the overwhelming majority of the sources refer to the government in question as democratically-elected. You opinions, synthesis of sources to prove a point that the goverment was not democratic etc, or attempts to undermine this crucial fact by calling it "repetitive" etc, have no merits, and go against scholarly consensus, and the previous consensus of the editors here. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Democratically elected
How many instances of the descriptive phrase "democratically elected" should appear in the article? Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- You should not begin an RfC when there is no discussion on a topic. You can make changes yourself and see if they are challenged or recommend changes and see if you find no disagreement. I suggest you cancel the RfC. TFD (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- The thread above this one is Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état#democratically elected? The discussion is there; the RfC stays up. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Offhand, like the Tootsie-Roll owl, I would say, three. Once for the introduction, once for the description of the election itself, and once for the controversy/criticism about the election and its aftermath. Otherwise, like any descriptor, it becomes burdensome and repetitive. It should be clear from the writing which governments achieved their power which way, and once established, it doesn't need re-mentioning unless the topic substantially shifts or the issue is directly at hand. Ocaasi 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's how it is now anyways. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC))
- Not true. The version up right now has three instances in the lead, two more in the "Internationally" section, and one more completely unnecessary one in the references. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's how it is now anyways. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC))
- Offhand, like the Tootsie-Roll owl, I would say, three. Once for the introduction, once for the description of the election itself, and once for the controversy/criticism about the election and its aftermath. Otherwise, like any descriptor, it becomes burdensome and repetitive. It should be clear from the writing which governments achieved their power which way, and once established, it doesn't need re-mentioning unless the topic substantially shifts or the issue is directly at hand. Ocaasi 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I am reducing the five article body instances of "democratically elected", per Ocaasi, myself, and common sense. Ocaasi recommended three, one instance occurring in the "Election" section, but there is no such section at this time. Thus, I am reducing the number to two, one in the introduction, one in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have undone your edit. All those instances are needed for context in their own paragraphs. You should stop being obsessed with down-playing the fact this government was democratically-elected, you're going against academic consensus here. However, I did change one of the "democratically elected" mentions in the lead to "democracy" for better flow. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for changing one instance of "democratically elected" to "democracy"; I think that is a good compromise. However, the RfC we have undertaken here trumps any notional "academic consensus" that you pull out of thin air. You went against wiki consensus when reverting my edit. I am restoring the essence of my work.
- You have no business telling me what I should stop being obsessed with. Have you heard of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"? You have placed the phrase "democratically elected" into the supposed title of an untitled web page, the one from www.cryptome.org. This instance of "democratically elected" is a complete fiction, as there is no such phrase in the webpage. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, the RFC did not generate broad response, and the one editor who responded did not support you, there is no consensus. Your removals are altering the contexts of the paragraphs, in one case you're actually tempering with a direct quote from a source. This is unacceptable. Bottom line is, you have no consensus to remove an established fact supported by vast majority of historians and academics. Just look up "1953 coup + democratically elected" or "1953 coup + democracy" on Google books or scholar, and see how many results you get. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The RfC is what it is. It determines our course of action here. I am not going to go out and find reasons to repeat the phrase in a poorly written English fashion. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I already answered you about RFC. I was trying fix cryptome.org error, when you reverted (your 3rd revert in almost 24 hours), that's the only acceptable part of your edit, the rest qualifies as POV-pushing against academic consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you already mentioned your interpretation of the RfC, and I understood it. That it did not generate a broad response is not my concern. It generated one response, favorable to reducing the instances of "democratically elected", and I think you can see the benefit on a purely compositional basis, using English in the best way possible. I think we are making progress here, as we have allowed "democracy" to replace one of them. However, one of the biggest headaches of the article is that it has two instances in the same paragraph, the first paragraph. This is very poor composition. We either move the French news quote to somewhere else in the article, or we remove or modify the first instance of "democratically elected". Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I already answered you about RFC. I was trying fix cryptome.org error, when you reverted (your 3rd revert in almost 24 hours), that's the only acceptable part of your edit, the rest qualifies as POV-pushing against academic consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- The RfC is what it is. It determines our course of action here. I am not going to go out and find reasons to repeat the phrase in a poorly written English fashion. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, the RFC did not generate broad response, and the one editor who responded did not support you, there is no consensus. Your removals are altering the contexts of the paragraphs, in one case you're actually tempering with a direct quote from a source. This is unacceptable. Bottom line is, you have no consensus to remove an established fact supported by vast majority of historians and academics. Just look up "1953 coup + democratically elected" or "1953 coup + democracy" on Google books or scholar, and see how many results you get. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The lead
This article's lead is way too long and loaded. It needs to be shortened substantially and remove all the quotes, as it resembles a POV-pushing miniature article in it's own right. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Technically, the CIA actually did not overthrow Mossadegh
This article pretty much ignores the fact that the CIA's original plot was a complete fiasco and the only reason it actually worked in the end was because the military decided to side with the Shah. According to Reul Marc Gherect: "The coup succeeded only because Iranians who were neither on the American or British payrolls nor under foreign control or guidance seized the initiative to topple Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh."
71.65.71.145 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are advocating a fringe theory, please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The vast majority of the sources do not agree with that assessment. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There is virtually no information in this article on the coup action itself, so if it is a fringe theory perhaps someone could add details so we actually know what exactly happened on August 19, 1953. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Improving the article
I have been blocked for months but yesterday the Ban Appeal Subcommittee called for Khoikhio's block to be immediately unblocked without restriction and so it has. I hope to participate in the improving the article and have asked Binksternet for ideas.
Despite the fact the article is rated "High-importance" by WikiProject Iran, it has had four tags (including "neutrality is disputed") for several months. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the article has been pretty stable and has been steadily improved by neutral editors since you were last here. FYI, looking at your talk page, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has not magically cleared and erased your previous blocks for disrupting Misplaced Pages, it seems that you were given the "benefit of the doubt" for the time being, and only your indefinite block was reversed. Otherwise, you're still an editor with a pretty hefty block log. I hope you learn from your mistakes this time and become a more constructive Wikipedian. Good luck. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- The concept of "stable" being connected to the concept of "good" is a complete farce in this case—the article has (in its supposed stable version) been carrying a stack of ugly tags for poor neutrality, poor accuracy, inappropriate citations and a need of general cleanup. It has been wrong and bad for months. Stable? That concept stopped being connected to a positive connotation some years back when the essay WP:STABLE was shut down and held as a historical curiosity. Today, we understand that articles are in flux if they reflect the living world. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's just your personal opinion, and nothing more. By the way, what inappropriate citations are you talking about? I have removed the tag for citations, you need to provide solid proof that the current version of the article contains such citations, before restoring the tag. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- The concept of "stable" being connected to the concept of "good" is a complete farce in this case—the article has (in its supposed stable version) been carrying a stack of ugly tags for poor neutrality, poor accuracy, inappropriate citations and a need of general cleanup. It has been wrong and bad for months. Stable? That concept stopped being connected to a positive connotation some years back when the essay WP:STABLE was shut down and held as a historical curiosity. Today, we understand that articles are in flux if they reflect the living world. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)