User talk:Louis P. Boog

.

Reverts

Before I see any more reverts from you, KneeJuan, and Dchall1, I want to see some serious attempts to discuss the content that is being reverted. Please see WP:DISPUTE to understand what I'm talking about. Users may be blocked for edit warring even without technically violating the 3RR, and I am warning all three of you before this gets out of control. Please discuss your edits as opposed to reverting. Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that you should be sticking to the content. I applaud your efforts to take the issue to the talk page, but in order for there to be a healthy discussion, stick to the content and content only. Your talk page headers for example are counter-productive and only make things more personal, which is not what we need right now. Please go back and change them to something that addresses the conetnt, not the other user. Khoikhoi 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

question

When I ad information to a page, how do I ad a reference source link?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

<ref>put the author, title, page, link, stuff like that in between these two things</ref> --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

BoogaLouie, as a compromise between us, I wouldn't object to using likes of Ganji, Millani, Sadjadpour etc, as long as their opinions are not presented as facts, and their quotes are clearly attributed to the author, like "Akbar Ganji believes that..". Do you agree to this solution? --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Leftist guerrilla groups of Iran is done. I'll get to the rest of them, on Sunday. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

1953 coup in Iran

BoogaLouie, you keep placing totally disputed tags on this article but are not saying what it is that you dispute. Would you let us know what that is and/or add what you think is missing. Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Booga, get a WP:consensus for your edits on 1953 coup, you're engaged in edit-warring again. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences at what, I thought, was the invitiation of another editor. ("So why don't you source it and put it in there?" Skywriter) You had not been involved in the discussion on the talk page.

Now you've deleted them along with my POV tag. How can you accuse me of edit warring? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Help watching

Hey man. Long time no see. Anyway, I could use some help watching Anwar al-Awlaki. Guy's got a lot of terror ties, and I'll probably put up the sections from the 9/11 commission report about him, but in the meantime he has a lot of fanboys constantly blanking out the sections on his funny business. If you or anyone else interested in the topic of fundamentalism could just keep an eye out (I don't log in very often now), that would be great. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran/Provincial templates

Help is needed to translate the Iranian province templates into english so they can be used in the main articles!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing one section of old version of 1953 coup in Iran

Hi BoogaLouie, You have referenced this link several times http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=264350953&oldid=264350720#Cold_War and I have written that it is irrelevant and unnecessary expansion of the article. Let me make clear that I think the following paragraphs are not necessary especially when primary documents are quoted (the Wilber document, the NSA document, along with comments from secretaries of state Dulles and Acheson), which put forward the "commies are a threat and, therefore, this is justification for overthrowing somebody else's elected government" argument. These are the paragrpahs you want to re-insert.

Among the controversies involved in the coup is the importance and/or legitimacy of American and British fears of Communist influence in Iran. In the decades following the October Revolution, Iran's very large northern neighbor, the Soviet Union, had expanded its domain to rule over tens of millions of Muslim in Central Asia, and following World War II over much of Eastern Europe. [23] On June 26, 1950, as the movement for oil nationalization was gathering momentum in Iran, communist North Korea, with Soviet approval, crossed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea beginning the Korean War. [24] Three years later, just before the coup d'état in Iran, the Soviets crushed an uprising of strikes and protests in East Germany. [25] In Iran itself, the well-organized, pro-Soviet Tudeh (Communist) Party, greatly exceeded the National Front in the sized of its rallies as the crisis became worse.[26] (this is an unfocused jumble unrelated to Iran)

In the view of American mainstream public and elite opinion, the crisis in Iran was a part of the conflict between Communism and "the Free world," rather than a nationalist struggle against Western colonialism.[27] Consequently, what the mainstream thought is not ascertainable. Who is the elite?

the United States, challenged by what most Americans saw as a relentless communist advance, slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge. who is to say what most Americans saw? This also ignores the controversy of Joe McCarthy and anti-communism, issues that spoke not to what most Americans saw but as the anti-Red crusade de jour. Whether or not Americans viewed Iran as a nation with unique history is beside the point. Iran was a country with a unqiue history.

According to Sam Falle, a young British diplomat at the time of the coup,

1952 was a very dangerous time. The Cold War was hot in Korea. The Soviet Union had tried to take all Berlin in 1948. Stalin was still alive. On no account could the Western powers risk a Soviet takeover of Iran, which would almost certainly have led to World War III[28] (Why is this in here at all? How insightful is a young diplomat? Stalin was still alive is a non sequitur. A lot of people were still alive. Hell, I was still alive. What does who is still alive have to do with anything, esp. the 1953 coup in Iran?Skywriter (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that you have failed to answer the questions posed above. I note also that you seem unwilling to compromise on any issue pertaining to the 1953 coup in Iraq. Skywriter (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

your posts are difficult to answer. The original text you are criticizing is mixed together with your assertions and questions, and the citations you complain about (e.g. [26] (this is an unfocused jumble unrelated to Iran)) are missing.

I'm not sure how to answer some of your questions - what the mainstream thought is not ascertainable. Who is the elite? - Yes, and what is truth? and how do we know that the universe exists? Much time could be spent in inquiry into these and many other questions but this is an encyclopedia so we take standard definitions and do our best.

You are very annoyed by mention of the Cold War: (Why is this in here at all? How insightful is a young diplomat? Stalin was still alive is a non sequitur. A lot of people were still alive. Hell, I was still alive. What does who is still alive have to do with anything, esp. the 1953 coup in Iran?

... But bear in mind the cold war and the American (and Western) fear of an expanding and tyranical Soviet bloc was raised by the author and the book (Kinzer, All the Shah's Men) you thought so crucial to the history of the coup you wanted to mention them in the lede. In fact it was Kinzer who quoted the "young diplomat" and talked about Stalin still being alive.

Come to think of it almost every source you have used the importance of the cold war is raised.

I hope that helps answer some of your questions. Have a nice day. :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why delete questions on talk page?

You should explain why you deleted this.

Why does obscure reference dominate this proposal?

Why is this obscure 20-year-old resource [1] referred to below as Mohammed Amjad. (( http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/AFD%252f.aspx "Iran: From Royal Dictatorship to Theocracy‎"]. Greenwood Press, 1989. )) being used as the main source for this proposed lead when one the title and subject matter of the book is 1979 and not the 1953 coup and two Several excellent and widely reviewed books have been published much more recently on the 1953 coup in Iran, and three the governments of the US and UK have released information that sheds light on the coup and tends to discount this proposed lead?

This appears to be agenda-pushing at its worst. This kind of agenda pushing is what is keeping this article blocked for lack of consensus.

Skywriter (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did not delete. moved it to the other criticism below --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

76.173.244.75 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)been tracking yr comments on the acid attacks page and i can't believe how keen contributors are to delete or exclude stuff. it's like they're way more motivated to delete than deliver information to the reader. why has this disease taken hold on wikipedia?

Mesbah-Yazdi

Great work cleaning up this article. Sections that were previously poorly written are now decently sourced and less biased in tone. I just wanted to let you know that your tireless contributions are not unnoticed. riffic (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

1953 Coup

Have you time to return to 1953 Iranian coup? The RossF18 editor is still waiting for the page to unlock. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to move on to dispute resolution in the 1953 coup article --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an outstanding suggestion to edit 1953 coup in Iran one sentence at a time. Three editors favor this solution. We await your response. Thank you. Skywriter (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't await my response, look on the article talk page where the response was posted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Iran coup

Terribly sorry, been busy. I read "All the Shah's Men" weeks ago back at the beginning of July, and since it seems you read it as well... yeah, I don't know what book the others read. If anything it was too frustrating as it made the point we two were making all the more obvious, as were Kurdo's own links. Unfortunately to comment more directly on the thread would require reading through their arguments and links, which at this point I'm less interested in because I felt I was cheated - interesting book as it was, it in no way backed up the tack they were going for. Sigh.

I'll try and stop by and express my general support for your lede this weekend, though, but to do so with a good conscience I figure I"ll have to read another month's worth of commentary. Sigh. SnowFire (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabi

Hi BoogaLouie, you kindly wrote: "I have made edits off and on to the Wahhabi article over the last couple of years and if there is some kind of mediation I would be happy to participate as an interested party."

My apologies for not responding to your generous offer, BoogaLouie. As I say, I'm really "just passing through", but the editors at the article could do with some help, imo, Have added a note to the talk page. Many thanks. Esowteric+Talk 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Titles for Saadah

Perhaps a brief definition of Saadah would be nice. It is mentioned no where else in the article and is pretty scarce in the internet. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Saadah" is the plural form of "Sayyid" in Arabic as stated in the article. In non-Arabic languages people use pluralising forms for Sayyid e.g. Sayyid + "s" (plural suffix in english) = Sayyids instead of the Arabic plural form of Saadah.Al-Zaidi (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed (plural sādah سادة) when I did a "control F" search for Saadah. Would it be accurate to change the section title to Other Titles for Sayyid so the uninitated reader isn't confused? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No because it is not another title it is the same word just pluralised. What you are asking to do is equivalent to saying: "Kings" should be under Other Titles for King, doesn't make sense to do that right :)Al-Zaidi (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

But this is an english language encyclopedia and most readers will not be familiary with arabic plurals. For example it is common even in scholarly english language books to use the word "ulemas" instead of ulema as the plural, even though that makes no sense as an arabic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE on SIGNATURES

In several posts above from yesterday the Skywriter (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 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 Skywriter (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 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) Thanks for the correction. I apologize for screwing up but still don't grasp what I did wrong (though I did eventually give up in frustration when my notes and sigs were not showing up). Is this business about </ref> documented anywhere? Skywriter (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to understand this and I sure don't. Do you know where there's an explanation so I don't again mess it up? thanks a lot. Skywriter (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

see the added </ref> here --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious warning

Please lay off the "New York Post" or "RajaNews"-type character assassinations, rumors, and smears on biographies of living people, this is an encyclopedia, not your weblog or editorial column. Please thoroughly read WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP, I will not warn you about this issue again, next time I see something like this [2] or this [3] > [4], I will just file a RFC about such unencyclopedic editorializations of these biographies of living persons using questionable sources, and you will be blocked for "persistently posting potentially defamatory information about living persons" in line with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the "character assassinations, rumors, and smears on biographies of living people." you are accusing me of? Your links involve two different issues.

There is/are no "character assassinations, rumors, and smears" in my edits to Masoumeh Ebtekar and I will contest your revert.

I made an edit cleaning up a sentence in the Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi article which was deleted on the grounds that the source used was a satrical article. I didn't know the source was satirical and have no problem with the delete. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Newbie Edits

As Mr. Wales suggests, don't bite.

I think, but I'm not sure, that your account will be flagged with my rebuttals to your re-edits and removals on the "Allegations" section of the page on the CIA arming and funding Osama Bin Laden.

I'm pretty sure you will be flagged to the TALK page to read my reasons for including the TIME Magazine source.

Besides comments in TALK, I must challenge you for edits on Sibel Edmunds. Not that the source of the article was Iran, a better source could be found, and perhaps I will do that. Rather, that she is characterized as a discredited former FBI translator, while her bio on Wikipedia carries the opposite connotation, that some anonymous source tried to discredit her in the press, while an official FBI investigation found she had "valid complaints". Further, while she was accused of leaking sensitive information, her bio says that she took her allegations to the highest official levels in the FBI and DOJ, not to the press or some outside body, at least not until (to my separate understanding and to the best of my recollection) the 20-some gag orders placed on her by Ashcroft were lifted. She also approached two or more United States senators who serve on appropriate committees with her story, in that they could (again, my recollection) be considered "safe" outlets in terms of discussing classified information. I think this paints her "leaks" or "attempted leaks" in an entirely different light.

Further, to my shock and mild horror, the Gibbs article which you generously (not sarcasm) chose to leave standing, included it's own cite of Jane's Intelligence Review, which I posted with a Wikilink and which you removed. I understand if I put too much info regarding Jane's in this article, recognizing a redundancy in me describing what the article on Jane's stated about them. You left Le Monde and other sources for Gibbs' material, but Jane's --- even according to Wikipedia's own articles on the publication and the company --- is seen as a highly qualified source, the DE FACTO source for open source info on military and defense. Cool to remove that description, but why remove the mention of Jane's as Gibbs cite?

The TALK page includes my lengthy rebuttal on removing TIME and a "philosophic" discussion on the practice of citing well-established sources like TIME with only extraneous/related info, to strengthen sources that are less-familiar. Arguably inappropriate for purely FACT based articles, but arguably very appropriate for articles which consist of Allegations and Denials/Rebuttals, especially a topic as murky as the nature and actions of intelligence (spy, covert operations) agencies. It seems laughable (smile!) to me that statements from an agency whose mission is spycraft and deception are generally accepted at face value. We already have "Project Mockingbird" for that. The Mossad has the chutzpah to state "By means of deception ..." in their own motto. I anticipate a remark on the nature of an Encyclopedia, only noting again that the nature of this particular article is a debate on "the truth" about a controversial issue. Historianwbee (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you OK?

At the 1953 Iranian coup page, you are acting as though you are being picked on. You're not. From my corner, you get polite but strong disagreement because, yes, your arguments do appear to be one-sided.

Maybe you need a rest? Skywriter (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Polite? I'm setting "a new low," I'm "cherry picking", I'm "essentially arguing/implying that the rape victim should be blamed for the rape." You're supposed to assume good faith in wikipedia, which by any measure the accusations are not.

I reply to the accusations because I don't want the casual reader to think I don't contest them, not because I'm "wounded" or something by the attack. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, polite. I made none of those accusations. But here, you are sounding wounded, victimized rather than engaging in informed debate. I asked if you believe that Mossy and those who overwhelming elected his slate had an opinion on the motives of foreigners who made personal attacks on Mossy, and were then trying to overthrow his government and seize and divide Iran's oil fields.

Did you get around to answering that?

And yes, you do seem obsessed with labeling Mossy irrational. You do not acknowledge there is more than the Western side to that and other claims some Western official made about Mossy. Finally, you seem to want to force everyone to agree that the coup was the best thing since sliced white, that the West can do and did no wrong in that coup.

You allow for no nuance, Booga, no shades of differences, and that makes editing an article with you very difficult indeed.

Cheers. Skywriter (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

None of what you say is true. No I'm not obsessed with labeling Mossy irrational, in fact I don't label him that. I do acknowledge there is more than "the Western side" to the coup, and I've never suggested the coup was a positive event, let alone a really good one, let alone would I "want to force everyone to agree that the coup was the best thing since sliced white bread."

Get a grip. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1953 coup in Iran

The kind of detailed response/counter-proposal I have in mind, will take hours to write. But due to some real life issues, I only have like 20 minutes for Wikipedia every other day, which I spend doing some minor edits. So be patient, and I'll make my response soon. There is no need to rush anyways, the article is already tagged, and in the meanwhile you can actually go ahead and implement the non-controversial changes from your proposed lead. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Washington Post

Why are you making a false attribution to Washington Post? The post makes no such claims about how Rigi was arrested, they quote a weblog by Jundulahis, that does not mean that the Post is "reporting" Jundulah's claim as a fact. Please be more careful with how you quote and present sources. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)