Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/Archive 2

message: NPOV dispute [Controversy and Criticism] A figure as controversal as the Shah must have a discussion of the criticisms of his reign in order to be impartial. As it is, it is hagiographic. A new section e.g. Controversy and Criticism should be added. 66.10.26.253 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute: ignores Controversy and Criticism 

message: Something has gone wrong with the styles infobox; it's added some random text. I tried a copy/paste from another monarch but that didn't help either. Can anyone fix it? Yanksta x 21:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical problem

message: I'm removing this from the Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations page because:
*lead is too short, and isn't structured
*lack of references (and inline citations)
*WP:CONTEXT states that years without full dates should not be linked
Thanks, AndyZ 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: STYLES ARE NOT USED ON WIKIPEDIA. STOP RESTORING HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY.
:You are incorrect - styles are allowed so long as they are identified as styles. Also see WP:CIVIL and remember to sign your posts. SouthernComfort 05:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again styles are allowed so long as they are clarified as being styles. SouthernComfort 13:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, you are not removing the styles but taking out the disambiguation term "styled." Therefore your edits are not only confusing, but inconsistent with your claim that you are opposed to styles. SouthernComfort 13:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore you should read up on WP guidelines, since they do not support your contentions. SouthernComfort 13:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your concerns have been addressed before many times - check the archive. SouthernComfort 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That box is specific to the monarchs of the UK. There is no overwhelming concern to also use it here. SouthernComfort 13:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:CIVIL. I've already made my points. SouthernComfort 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no WP policy or guideline which supports your contentions. Back up your claims with a guideline or policy and then we'll talk. In the meantime, stop reverting. Also, you should leave edit summaries whenever you make an edit or revert. SouthernComfort 09:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked for evidence in the form of WP guidelines or policy, my friend. SouthernComfort 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I have found the wording there to be subjective as well. The UK monarchs infobox is inappropriate since there are two additional styles (other than HIM) used for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi such as Shahanshah and Aryamehr. Personally, I see no need for any infobox since the styles are disambiguated as such. If others see a pressing need for an infobox, then one specifically for Iranian monarchs (and their specific styles should be started. SouthernComfort 05:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "style" - please see Style (manner of address). SouthernComfort 12:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: Please work out your differences here instead of edit warring. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anybody please care to raise specific concerns - if there are any - so that the issue can be settled? Shervink 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Page is now unprotected. Thanks. El_C 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The article has been protected for a week now, and I will be unprotecting it tommorow or the next day (leaving a day or two for comments on this note). It is unfortunate that the protection achieved the opposite of what it intended to accomplish: instead of the talk page being used to address the dispute, the discussion effectively ended with the protection. With respect to this dispute, I want to make one thing very clear: The article needs to follow the historiographical consensus among specialists in the field. Hagiography —which this article suffers from— is not sustainable and the views of critical scholars, such as Fred Halliday, and so on, must be represented accordingly in the article. Thanks. El_C 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page is now unprotected. Thanks. El_C 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: These are wikipedia guidelines:
Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchial title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria. 
No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article.
If people continue to disregard Wikipedia guidelines i will have this art. blocked! (Couter-revolutionary 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This article's layout is absoulutely horrific now. (Couter-revolutionary 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, User:Bnguyen added that Reza Cyrus Pahlavi is his successor in the monarch box, for no apparent reason. I added the house properly, which is something he was attempting to do. Nevermind. I don't see a reason to add the house; he retains his last name (Pahlavi), so the house is already given. I was also thinking of adding another entry to the monarch box, "Pretender: Reza Cyrus Pahlavi," but decided against it. I'd rather just keep it simple. Any thoughts? ♠ SG →Talk 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Shouldn't the section on the controversy about application of the term "Coup" to the 1953 coup be moved to the article on Operation Ajax? Jack Waugh 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in its entirety, but it does deserve a mention on both articles. ♠ SG →Talk 22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of "'Coup' Controversy" Section 

message: Should this not be titled "Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran" rather than "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi"? Though Pahlavi certainly is the surname the family adopted in the early 20th century, per Wiki standards (and by official standards when the imperial house was in power), he was known as Mohammad Reza Shah (or somesuch variant), without the surname. (The use of Pahlavi, officially, is and was used solely by the younger sons and daughters of the monarch, with the distinction of Prince and/or Princess, ie H.I.H. Princess Shams Pahlavi.) A comparable, I think, comparison would be Prince Rainier of Monaco; everyone knows the family's surname is Grimaldi but I don't think we would title his article "Rainier Grimaldi". Any thoughts?Mowens35 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thought re article title 

message: Some prankster has added "Damagh" to his name, which means "nose". This is probably a joking reference to his big nose, but either way should be deleted. I'm not sure how to do it, so i'll leave it to one  of you.
Done.--Couter-revolutionary 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name, Big Mistake 

message: What happened to the quotes section?
*What are you talking about? The quotes section is still there. ♠ SG →Talk 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Why is it in this entire article dedicated to shachi vatan foroosh gholamrezah shah-kissing? Where are the talk of atrocities and massacre/torture of Iranians who wanted Iran ran by IRANIANS not Britain or America? Where is the justice in which my grandfathers brother was tortured by Savak with electric shock in Iran for wanting Iran to be free, yet this article speaks of him as if he descended from the sky as an angel?
This guy was worse than Saddam. Haramzadi 17:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights issues and torture 

message: It would have been Khan, not Pahlavi, given that he was born in 1919, when his father was still Reza Khan, as he was from birth. Any discussion about how to handle this? Pahlavi was not adopted by Reza Khan until well after his son's birth.Mowens35 14:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see my latest edit summary for Reza Shah's page. "Khan", "Mirpanj", and the like, were only titles, they were NOT surnames. It was Reza Shah himself who later on introduced surnames in Iran. "Khan" is not a surname, and is definitely not applicable to his son. The only "family name" he or his father ever had is "Pahlavi". Shervink 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what should he have been at birth????? That remains the question. He was not BORN Pahlavi; that was adopted later. So therefore, what was he at birth? Check out the genealogical link ... His father's last was Khan, as were his siblings. He didn't adopt Pahlavi until later in life. How do we handle this? It has to be handled properly and not ignored.Mowens35 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  His father's last was not "Khan". There was no last name before Pahlavi. Nobody in Iran had a last name before Reza Shah's ascension to throne and his choice of the name Pahlavi. "Khan" is not a surname of Reza Shah nor of anybody else in his family, and has never been one. Shervink 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname at birth

message: There should be information in the article about the two assassination attempts on the Shah. I can add information, cited of course. What do you guys think? Agha Nader 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're absolutely right. Go ahead Agha Nader! Shervink 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some sources that I found on the web. But I also have some sources from the Shah's memoir Answer to History, a book by Farah Pahlavi, and a book by Ashraf Pahlavi. All three books cover the assassination attempts in detail. I am not sure they should be included since they are not independent sources. But this topics isn't very controversial. Are they allowed? Agha Nader 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Agha Nader. As far as I know they are ok if no independent sources are available, but please make sure to state clearly who said what and what was claimed by who, etc., so that the source of every statement is exactly known. Shervink 12:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination Attempts 

message: Pardon, I don't know English, but is here apparent variance. In guidepost is date of birth 26. A in article 16. In mine wells - book - is that a 26.--Ervinpospisil 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation - birth date?? 

message: User Faranbazu has removed a sourced quote of the Shah and replaced it with an excerpt of a transcript of an interview. If user Faranbazu wishes to add the interview, then it should be added in the section titled "Video clips & interviews". Agha Nader 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rayis dear, where are you?!--Gerash77 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes and Interviews 

message: Reza is not his middle name. Mohammad-Reza is his first name. In Persian, it's written as "محمدرضا", not "محمد رضا". Jahangard 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Agha Nader. In the writings that I was able to find, he is credited without a hyphen in his name, as "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi". ♠ SG →Talk 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi"

message: I propose moving the videos to external links. Having external links to videos in a separate section does not seem to be the norm. A-rated articles usually don't have such media sections. For instances the John F. Kennedy article provides the videos in the external links section. Agha Nader 03:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I wouldn't be surprised if the manual of style specifically recommended that external links be placed in the external links section.  Also, we should check to see if these Youtube videos are copyright violations themselves.  The Behnam 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Video and interview" section