Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/Archive 4

message: The actual article is currently locked. This is effectively stonewalling the advancement of the issue at hand, so I have created a temporary page where we may all collaborate together: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/New. It is a copy of the article's state right now. I am now archiving the older topics on this talk page, so that we may begin focusing on improving the article.
Start from the top (beginning with the lead) and we'll slowly move on through the article. How does this sound to everyone? ♠ SG →Talk 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite 

message: Looking at this article about Qajar order: Nishan-e-Aqdas, would this order not have made Reza Khan a noble?  I am not sure how much of a noble versus commoner class Iran had.  I think the commoner statements are not sourced and should be removed. Azalea pomp 06:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commoner claim

message: Guys, please use the talk page to discuss, not edit summaries. What exactly is the problem here? And why is "there is evidence that the assassin was not a Tudeh member, but a religious fundamentalist" being changed to "According to Stephen Kinzer..."? This is a well-known fact. I have even added another source to support this as well. I can add more if necessary. Khoikhoi 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did anyone actually read my comment? Khoikhoi 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did. And I agree. That's why I didn't re-introduce the "Stephen Kinzer" thing. The point is that Artaxerex, who has been puppetmaster of several sockpuppets, and has been banned repeatedly for it, and with whose ideas and harsh tone almost nobody agreed on the discussions we previously had here, is simply avoiding using the talk page and only trying to disrupt the article by adding his points of view into it. If he has something to say which is different from his already stated (and mostly rejected) points of view, then he should be the one to start discussing it here. By the way, it seems that he somehow miraculously escaped being banned for his third (and severest)act of sockpuppetry.Shervink 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: Shervink, Houshyar, Aghanader and the rest of Iranian (group)! Please do not delete sourced materials and references contributed by other editors. There should be a concensus to delete these historical facts. If you want to balanced these facts with other sourced materials you are welcome to do so. You can say e.g. "Smith disagrees with this statement" and give references. This way you can create a NPOV tone. If you are interested only a particular POV the you should look at other places on the net. There are already many articles with your particular POV tone by Iranian B-loggers. Artaxerex 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! Really?!! Why are you afraid of discussing these so called "historical facts" in the talk pages??! Be advised that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Perhaps you may want to use blogs or other forums for your purposes. I am afraid you do not have an accurate understanding of wikipedia's NPOV policy. You may want to read that too. Give yourself some time until you digest the concept. Sina Kardar 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Artaxerex, there should be a consensus to include points of view which are as controversial as these. As you fail to discuss your proposed changes in a proper manner, and have instead repeatedly resorted to sockpuppetry and uncivil behavior, you should not be surprised that your views are not well received here. You need to discuss them properly, present them neutrally, and convince others that you have learned from your many previous mistakes and intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Shervink 09:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Artaxerex, please write in this section one of the facts you want to include along with a reference, and we all will find a way to present it neutrally.  To others, I suggest that if he puts something here that has a decent source but you don't like (also written "controversial"), try to find a source that either responds or directly contradicts it.  For example, Milani responded to Edwin Black's article, but unfortunately we are never able to include this because people always censor out Black's information in the first place.  Finding a balance will be difficult - we must look into many good sources so as to avoid placing undue weight on certain views.  However that does not mean that we necessarily need to exclude them - this should be determined on a case-by-case basis.  The Behnam 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Starting with one thing at a time and getting to a result is certainly better than what's going on now. Regarding the Black/Milani thing, I think it is obvious that an opinion article by a non-expert and lacking any references is simply a very bad source especially when it contains largely controversial or previously unheard-of material which is discredited by direct evidence presneted by a well-known expert like Milani. This is why others and I have opposed the inclusion of those claims. BTW I still think that Artaxerex simply needs to adopt a more appropriate tone when posting here. Repeatedly calling other people's edits vandalism, refraining from constructive discussion, accusing them of setting up gangs, and his many previous wrongdoings (e.g. sockpuppetry), are probably the reasons that nobody around here seems to have the energy to deal with him anymore. Shervink 11:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, reconsidering the Black issue I must agree that it would be serious WP:UNDUE to place his fringe views on the page.  However there were some other controversial things that we never resolved ("Terrill" for example).  Also, some elaboration wasn't even controversial, such as that about the big feast/party, but was placed in the wrong part of the article.  Unfortunately, everything is removed because everything is added together.  So please, let's take things one at a time right here on the talk page.  The Behnam 20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Hello all,
It looks as if there is a major conflict here, which I have been monitoring for some time, as I have this page watchlisted. Might I suggest informal mediation at the Cabal?
Yours,
The Rhymesmith 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation, anyone? 

message: Shervink (or Dfitzgerald!!) Once again I urge you to refrain from deleting sourced material. This is Vandalism pure and simple. So what's so difficult for you and your co-vandal compatriots to understand? The facts that you vandals are trying to censor and suppress  are expressed in the following references:
* Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf,p.22 and p. 27
* The New York Times, October 12, 1971, 39:2
* R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran P.329
* Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mission for my Country, London, 1961, page 173 
* Fred Halliday, Iran; Dictatorship and Development, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-02.2010-0)
* Paul D. Mayle, Eureka Summit:  Agreement in Principle and the Big Three at Tehran, 1943 (Newark, DE:  University of Delaware Press, 1987), pp. 40-59; 
* W. Andrew Terrill, Regional Fears of Western Primacy and the Future of U.S. Middle Eastern Basing Policy, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, December 2006 
* Nikki R. Keddie  Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, ISBN O-300-02606-4 AACR2 – Page 110 
* Stewart. Richard A,, A sunrise at Abadan – The British and Soviet Invasion of Iran 1941, New York 1988
* Buckley, Christopher , Five ventures, London, 1977
* Edwin Black Holocaust nothing new in Iran: Ties to Hitler led to plots against British and Jews, San Francisco Chronicle,  Sunday, January 8, 2006
If you can rebuttal these facts through a reasonable argument supported by valid references please do. However, given the intellectual level of your discourse I strongly doubt that you have the slightest idea of fathoming the importance of this. Nevertheless, sooner or later like your Pahlavi heroes you will be led toward what's inevitable. Artaxerex 05:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy that User:Artaxerex decided to act CIVIL. Concerning his long time edits to show that the Iranian Kings were basically supporters  of Nazi ideology:
The references provided either do not support the User's claims or are unreliable. I can comment on each reference in more detail if you are interested. I have already commented on some of them in the past. People like W. Andrew Terrill are some minor strategists with no expertise on Iranian history of 20th century. I wonder why the user put down the scholarly sources that are available around and use some weird "sources" to make statement about a head of a state. 
Concerning other conclusions (unrelated to Iran-Germany relation), these references are mainly American pov and can not be treated as facts. You can at most say that Amercian A claimed X or made some allegations. Any American source needs to be balanced by an Iranian source. 
PS: I have not got any reply to my former extensive comments. 
Sina Kardar 20:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the following references are vandalism 

message: This is really too much. Artaxerex, you cannot simply go on calling everybody vandal around here. I hereby announce that I refuse to engage in any discussion with Artaxerex so long as he does not drop his hostile tone towards me and other editors. I also demand a full apology on his part to demonstrate his good faith (That he did not act in good faith so far is proven beyond doubt by his many personal attacks and repeated sockpuppetry). So long as the apology and change of behavior is not there, I will simply assume that he has not learned from his past mistakes and is still acting in bad faith. Shervink 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact is that you were not banned for your latest sockpuppetry. In any case the fact that I again started discussing here with you shows that I'm interested to get things done (I'm the only one among perhaps a dozen or so editors who is still giving your ideas a chance), and I don't know what you want to achieve by posting the above comment. In any case I will not post anything here anymore unless you apologize for your insulting behavior. Although I have never done anything that comes even close to your insults, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks, as a token of my good will I do apologize if I have at any point hurt your feelings. Shervink 07:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Shervink on every point.  In any event, the article must keep a neutral encyclopedic tone and be concise as would any article found in any major encyclopedia.  There has been a consensus with most editors of this article what it should and should not contain and the article follows wikipedia guidlines. Azalea pomp 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement

message: * Shervink you have defined vandalism in here(which reads:
Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.   Shervink 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, now you are really grabbing at straws. You had to go back FOUR months to find a vandal warning against Shervink? And even then, the edit for which he was given a warning has since become the correct page content after consensus. Now, go ahead and declare that there is a conspiracy or a "gang" with the sole purpose of opposing you and your absolutely unbiased facts. ♠ SG →Talk 01:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, you've amused me. I'm going to take a stab at your list:
#That isn't Shervink's definition. That's a template.
#Oh, I see. So I guess you calling us "co-religonists" in #4 isn't name calling. Nor is associating us with something called "Iranian B-loggers", saying that we are trying to glorify our "Aryan hero", grouping us into some sort of "compatriot-gang", implying that we are effectively mentally retarded, calling us "co-vandal compatriots", and the list goes on.
#Uh, huh. I did exactly that a few months back, it included a well-written and clean introduction paragraph, and the rest of the lead contained Pahlavi's successes and failures, including the number of political prisoners he had at the time of the revolution. Then you came skipping along and rewrote it like the awesome dude you are.
#See #2.
#I did. Didn't we try mediation a while back, as well? Boring. You are much more entertaining.
#By the way, please consolidate your edits. You're making a mess of the talk page history. And Shervink can post on your userpage all he likes, just as I can join in on any fucking conversation I desire. Don't tell me to go away. This is Wikipedia, not your personal web page. ♠ SG →Talk 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shervink please stop posting on my user page 

message: * Please familiarize yoursel with the following Wikepedia policies on Consensus, verfiability and NPOV
1.Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it.
2.Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable.
3.The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. 
4.In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses;5. The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.
6. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. 
7. In NPOV, background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.
* Based on the above policies I will now return to edit. 
* Please note that removing content by other editors is considered vandalism.
* I am hopping that at some point an admin will intervene to stop an unproductive revert war.
 Artaxerex 07:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Policies That should be adhered to 

message: I have already apologized twice to Artaxerex for that comment  and I'll do it a third time here. However, I cannot understand his sensitivity to this (admittedly unacceptable) comment of mine when he has been directing dozens of personal attacks at me and others without any sign of remorse. Since the main problem here seems to be the uncivil and counter-productive behavior of Artaxerex, from which he has not backed off even the least bit, I think the best thing is that we start a RfC on his conduct. I hope everyone agrees with that. Shervink 07:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I find it curious that you use Sanasarian's book, Religious Minorities in Iran for the Reza Shah article, but not here. While the claims you are making in Reza Shah with this as a source are outrageous themselves (the book doesn't even come close to using your wording), I can see why you didn't use it here. The book is filled with praise for Mohammad Reza Shah and how he helped Jews and other minorities prosper in Iran, though it takes a more negative tone about his father in the 1920s-1930s (p. 46).
Stop playing these silly games. Use proper, neutral sources. Sanasarian is one, she is a very knowledgeable professor who annotates and references everything -- yet you refuse to use sources properly, and instead you take out the facts that YOU like from them. ♠ SG →Talk 08:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop cherry picking your references

message: * Greetings Behnam;  Given the putative notability of Pro_Nazi sentiments, as is indicated on the lead for Edward WIII which says : "but after private accusations that he was pro-Nazi, was moved to the Bahamas as Governor and Commander-in-Chief". I propose the following statement for the lead:
:: The Shah has been accused of propagating the Nazi-inspired pro-Aryan race sentiments
Best Regards, Ataxerex 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I need a lot more information about the sources and what they say for this statement.  Show me how you would reference it and what specific statements from the sources back the sentence.  The Behnam 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Suggested Statement for the Lead 

message: I've deleted a section on the coup that ran as follows:
"There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh neither was purely military in nature nor led to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country. It over-turned the referendum under which Mossadegh had suspended certain aspects of the constitution."
Firstly, the use of the word "coup" does not require that an "overthrow" be "purely military" in nature. If we take the use of "coup" on this page to be the French word signifying a blow, a hit, a strike, it would only require that the "overthrow" occur somewhat rapidly or unexpectedly. However it is obviously more likely that the use of "coup" here refers to the expression "coup d'etat", and this phrase too fits perfectly well. Merriam Webster defines a coup d'etat thusly: "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group". I fail to see how this substantively differs from the 1953 events. Then to argue that the events did not lead "to a change in the form of government" is simply equivocation and shows the bias of the contributor.
Secondly, the links used as citations simply don't support the argument. Of the seven links provided, one is an article written in the New York Times by the son of the CIA's Iranian contact General Zahedi and this article fails to mention the word "coup" once. One citation links to Amazon.com and fails to include page numbers where this claim is supposedly made. One article actually uses the word coup to describe the events. The remaining four citations link to articles in Farsi and are therefore unverifiable by vast majority of the English wikipedia readership.
pomopaulrevere
:You are correct, the sources don't support the claim.  Perhaps the paragraph is an original claim that attempts to use those pages to support its argument even though they explicitly say nothing about it.  The view that it wasn't a coup is fairly non-notable - I know that the respected Iranica calls it a coup , as do many other RS.  In any case, the current sources don't support that paragraph, either because they simply don't talk about it or the writer is not a notable voice on the topic.
:As for the Persian sources, I think that they should not have used unverifiable sources for a controversial/fringe view.  I will ask another editor to take a look and tell us if the sources are appropriate for the claim.
:Unfortunately, your removal was undone by Dfitzgerald with the mysterious edit summary "rv POV".  What does that mean - that Dfitzgerald reverted to restore POV? I ask this because that is what it looks like.  I encourage Dfitzgerald to participate in the talk page (and use better edit summaries in the future).  The Behnam 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that it wasn't related to the ArbCom issue at all, but needed to be resolved.  The Behnam 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It needs to be resolved of course, but I don't think we can get anywhere so long as Artaxerex is around, since his presence keeps a lot of editors away.Shervink 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for starters, what is your opinion on this thing? It seems fairly straightforward to me, except for the Persian language sources, which I suspect don't support that claim as well.  The Behnam 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, I'll join the discussion once the ArbCom is finished. Hope you understand.Shervink 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who aren't directly involved in the ArbCom should continue to improve the article without hesitation. About the coup section, it is in severe need of rewriting. Back when I first created the to-do list for this page, rewriting the coup section was the first thing that came to mind. A lot of the article needs to be rewritten, but that part ranks the highest. The revolution section has a bit of work to go, and the corruption section is based on two sources -- a single, largely unsourced article in Time and Oriana Fallaci. Rather than writing in a way that the reader should take everything with a grain of salt, it is provided as pure unbiased fact. This applies to much of the article. But, as you guys have started to do, it is best to focus on one section at a time, and move along chronologically as soon as each section is completed. ♠ SG →Talk 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of biased/improperly sourced section 

message: This is one of the blatantly slanted articles I've ever seen, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Especially the first paragraph, which I think speaks for itself. Josh 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme bias 

message: Artaxerex, if youre going to mass-revert the article the way you did, at least please fix the typos.  I see at least six typos that had been fixed previously by other editors but were now just reintroduced into the article because of your reversion.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  artaxerex 

message: Editors (like me) aren't going to stop trying to clean this page up (its what Wikipedians do).  Artaxerex isn't going to stop reverting those edits, and DFitzgerald isn't going to stop reverting Artaxerex.  Its all getting quite ridiculous.  Perhaps its time for this article to be fully protected so that NO ONE can edit it. What do y'all think?  --*Kat* 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought: 

message: :Image:Imperial stamp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Imperial stamp.jpg