Talk:1921 Persian coup d'état

Correct title

Based on books, articles and other historical materials from that time, the proper term is: 1921 Persian coup d'etat, not Iranian Events of 1921. Some sources for examples:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20661161?uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102523704787

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=MEX19080610.2.51.1

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/66639640

http://www.rsaa.org.uk/journals/article/aa_25-2_68-snipe-and-a-revolution-the-pe

http://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/sac.1921.1945.htm

Bburgersjr (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Split proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested split. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the split proposal was: no split.GreyShark (dibra) 17:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

---

We are speaking of a number of events in Iran during 1921, which can be summarized as "1921 Iran crisis" (previous title of this article was "Iranian events of 1921"):

One of those was the notorious 1921 Persian coup d'etat

Another was Persian Socialist Soviet Republic crisis (and the related Russo-Persian Treaty of Friendship (1921))

The third was Simko Shikak revolt in Western Iran which sporadically lasted from 1918 and escalated in 1921-2.

A number of additional lesser importance events occurred throughout Persia in 1921.

Many refer to Persia in 1921 as a failed state [1], and a single article on the coup itself is not enough to describe it. I herewith propose to split 1921 Iran crisis as an overview article of all events in 1921.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think given the cultural and literary documentation available that the title should stay. It is appropriate in its current form. Dr. Persi (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing the title is not wise

Hi there, changing the title to "1921 Iran crisis" is not correct because the world called Iran before 1935 officially Persia and all articles/news pieces, etc about this issue have been recorded as "1921 Persian coup d'etat". Various references/documents have been already mentioned by one of the users. --Khafesho (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Iranians have always called their country for Iran, not Persia, which was only used in the west. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear HistoryofIran, Iranians have not "always" called their country 'Iran'. In Achaemanid era they used to call it "Parsa", the name Iran was used since Sassanian era. The International term of Persia was/is not just popular in the West, the Russians, Japanese, and many other countries in the East also use that. The fact is outside Iran, most people used to call it officially PERSIA until the middle of 20th century and the term is still popular specially when they are going to talk about the history and culture of the country. Good luck. --Khafesho (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Khafesho. I also think this page should not be split. It is proper the way it is now. Dr. Persi (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Qajars?

Shouldn't the Qajar's be on the infobox?Beejsterb (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As what exactly? Both belligerents were within Qajar dynasty framework, as well as the post-coup government. Pahlevun (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory information in the lede and background section.

The lede says: "The precise level of British involvement in Reza Khan's coup remains a matter of historical debate, but it is almost certain that Edmund Ironside provided advice to the plotters.

In background it says this: "On 14 January 1921, the British General Edmund Ironside chose to promote Reza Khan, who had been leading the Tabriz battalion, to lead the entire brigade. About a month later, under British direction, Reza Khan's 3,000-4,000 strong detachment of the Cossack Brigade reached Tehran."

Seeing as how the lede has more sources (though I cannot determine whether they are *better* sources) and it states that there is uncertainty, I would think that the paragraph under the background section shouldn't be stated so unequivocally.

Regardless, I'm far from an expert in this subject matter so my assumption could be way off base - however it would be nice if someone who is an expert or at least closer to one can remove the contradictory information in well cited way.

Cheers! 162.154.240.33 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Found another part that contradicts the lede in the aftermath section.

From Aftermath: "One General, Sepahbod Amir Ahmadi, tried to stand up against the establishment of a new monarchy, but on a visit to his now imprisoned brother-in-law, General Heydargholi Pessian, who had been one of the leaders of the coup that defeated the Qajar dynasty, Amir Ahmadi confessed that his efforts to prevent Reza Khan being made Shah and the monarchy reinstated were being thwarted by the British."

This is not cited (I also added a citation needed tag) and even though it isn't a quote, it is still saying that someone said something (quite important if true, I would say) which needs citing. I'm fairly new to wikipedia so I don't know if this should be just removed outright since it is a big claim that is unsourced and contradicts other more well sourced parts of the article, but I'll leave that to a more experienced editor to decide. 162.154.240.33 (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)