Jump to content

Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

No giant quotes

The Amy Goodman – Ervand Abrahamian quote is too large. The Manuchihr Farmanfarmaiyan quote is too large. Neither of these should go in the article in their full forms—the points they make should be summarized, with much smaller portions pulled out to use as quotes. Farmanfarmaiyan can say "People were angry—but not at Mossadeq." Abrahamian can say "If Mosaddegh had succeeded in nationalizing the British oil industry in Iran, that would have set an example and was seen at that time by the Americans as a threat to U.S. oil interests throughout the world, because other countries would do the same." These very short quotes can be presented in the context of the whole truth as these observers saw it. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree also, let us not go too far with any single quote; as far as F&Farmaiyan may go, I may have a COI, because I may have known them, or at least, some of them, but, no matter, because I will not speak for them. So, take your COI and please put in a convenient place, this is Wednesday night, after all. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Military commanders

I removed a list of state leaders from the commanders section of the Template:Infobox military conflict. That section is for battle commanders, officers, usually, who commanded fighting units. Only for wars does that section show state leaders. This coup was a battle, and Zahedi led one side. I do not know the names of any officers who fought against him, so right now I left him listed alone, battling against nobody. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nolo contendre. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The coup and cia records

In the section titled "The coup and CIA records", the following quote from the secret CIA report is given :

By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the Mosaddegh government in Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested Western countries; was reaching a dangerous and advanced stage of illegal, deficit financing; was disregarding the Iranian constitution in prolonging Premier Mohammad Mosaddegh's tenure of office; was motivated mainly by Mosaddegh's desire for personal power; was governed by irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakened the Shah and the Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Iran....

It was the aim of the TPAJAX project to cause the fall of the Mosaddegh government to reestablish the prestige and power of the Shah; and to replace the Mosaddegh government with one which would govern Iran according to constructive policies. Specifically, the aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party.

Clandestine Service History Overthrow Of Premier Mossaddeq of Iran: November 1952 – August 1953 by Donald Wilber


The full quote (ie adding back what was left out with the ...) is:

By the end of 1952, it had become clear that the Mossadeq government in Iran was incapable of reaching an oil settlement with interested Western countries; was reaching a dangerous and advanced stage of illegal deficit financing; was disregarding the Iranian constitution in prolonging Premier Mohammed Mossadeq's tenure of office; was motivated mainly by Mossadeq's desire for personal power; was governed by irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakened the Shah and the Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the Tudeh (Commmunist) Party of Iran. In view of these factors, its was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East. No remedial action other then the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs.

It was the aim of the TPAJAX project to cause the fall of the Mosaddegh government to reestablish the prestige and power of the Shah; and to replace the Mosaddegh government with one which would govern Iran according to constructive policies. Specifically, the aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party.

Wilber, Donald (March 1954). "Summary" (PDF). CIA Clandestine Service History, "Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, November 1952-August 1953. NY Times via The Iran Declassification Project at George Washington University. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

I'm not sure why the editor left out the sentences In view of these factors, its was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East. No remedial action other then the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of affairs. Before adding them back in (and providing a better formatted reference), I thought I would ask.--Work permit (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've traced the addition (with the omission) to this edit by Skywriter (talk). Wp:AGF, I see its possible the initial edit was to bolster the statement that the purpose of the coup was to bolster the shah, hence the deletion of the statements regarding the cold war. However, if that were the case I'm not sure why the first paragraph would have been added at all. What was the purpose of keeping the the sentences regarding the cold war? Is there a reason for keeping the two sentences out of the article now? I thought we should discuss it. I understand the omission may have also just been an oversight.--Work permit (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to respond, Work permit. I appreciate the civility.
I left it out because it is redundant. I added that viewpoint early in the article in the voice of [1] Louisiana State political scientist Mark Gasiorowski, who is also a U.S. state department adviser and whose book, named after the coup, is based largely on interviews he conducted with former CIA agents who carried out the coup.
In line with WP:PSTS, Gasiorowski, as a secondary source, is preferable to Donald Wilber, a primary source. Wilber had an axe to grind in justifying what he and his CIA colleagues did. Nowhere does he say what the Soviets or Tudah Party were doing that gave rise to U.S. fear.
Wilber did say quite a bit about what the CIA did to cause the Iranian public to believe there was a "communist threat;" The CIA paid thugs and terrorists to pretend to be communists. For example, we can as easily quote from James Risen's summary of the Wilber [2] version of history. (Risen was the first reporter to obtain and write about the long-hidden Wilber history.)

In early August, the C.I.A. stepped up the pressure. Iranian operatives pretending to be Communists threatened Muslim leaders with savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh, seeking to stir anti-Communist sentiment in the religious community.

In addition, the secret history says, the house of at least one prominent Muslim was bombed by C.I.A. agents posing as Communists. It does not say whether anyone was hurt in this attack.

The agency was also intensifying its propaganda campaign. A leading newspaper owner was granted a personal loan of about $45,000, in the belief that this would make his organ amenable to our purposes.

But the shah remained intransigent. In an Aug. 1 meeting with General Schwarzkopf, he refused to sign the C.I.A.-written decrees firing Mr. Mossadegh and appointing General Zahedi. He said he doubted that the army would support him in a showdown.

What was real? U.S. fear of Iran allying with its neighbor, the now former Soviet Union, or the CIA cooking up street riots to make it look like the Tudah Party was a threat? Wilber's version describes some of what the CIA did and nothing on what was underlying the alleged fear.
In Overthrow, (p. 197), Kinzer writes, "No historical evidence has ever emerged to support the Americans' conviction that they (the soviets) were planning to subvert or seize Iran in the 1950s." Other historians echo that question, asking where is the evidence? that the Soviet Union was a threat in Iran in 1953, or, for that matter, in Guatemala in 1954 when the CIA also overthrew that country's democratically elected government.
Again, thanks for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to reply. Skywriter (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Moving forward without trying to analyze editor actions, I expect that we should simply insert the text which was skipped over. Its presence is essential to the full quote. We can explain its context as necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:PSTS states that use of secondary source, where available, is WP policy and preferable to using primary source document. I have made it so in that section. The links to the Wilber CIA version were broken so that section goes out the window on those grounds.Skywriter (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, OK, the full quote works for me. But in thinking about the issue, when were American actions ever considered beyond what they appeared to be at the time? Any and every country reacts to what it perceives as the crisis at the time. That is much different than what historians get to say 50 years later, with the chronological back-up, that most others consider a Monday morning re-hash of what happened in last night's game. The first is the motivation, the second reading is the proffered excuse; while similarly valid, it tends to have considerably less credibility concerning decisions at the time. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dulles law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell

I just took out a paragraph from the lead, one that began:

  • "Dulles commissioned his old law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, to reallocate Iran's oil wealth."

Two reasons I took it out: 1) The paragraph broke the rule that a maximum of four paragraphs can be in the lead section. 2) The paragraph introduced a subject which was not discussed later in the article body.

Both of these guidelines can be seen at WP:LEAD. Let us familiarize ourselves with good writing for the lead section. In practice, the lead section writes itself—after the rest of the article is written. So, instead of adding rich material to the lead, let us add it to the body of the article, and then echo that bit in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are factually mistaken as to introduction of subject. John Foster Dulles is mentioned several times in the article. Are you disputing his importance and relevance to this coup?
In the interest of comity, specifically in not deleting other people's work (which has the effect of discouraging constructive edits), would you consider moving the section you deleted to another part of the article? Thank you. Skywriter (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Dulles is mentioned, but not Sullivan & Cromwell, nor anything about Dulles' law firm connections. Per WP:LEAD, we do not mention in the lead section anything that is not discussed in further detail in the article body. I will let you re-position your contribution as I assume you are the best judge of where it is best placed, except not in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Dulles is very important, but some sources describe him as "duller" than most. This comes, in part, into the major scholarly debate about who was in charge, and who was the President vs the Sec of State, and whether those US actions were a change of policy, or whether they were just a continuation of Truman's previously-set policy. Most RS scholars agree that it was the cold war, but debate whether the actions were a change or whether they were just a continuation. I believe that the new debate about the coup just being the simple stealing of third-world resources is a newly concocted reasoning, initially proffered in a dedicated Marxist scholarly journal. Shouldn't that be mentioned? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not possible to reply to your claims, CasualObserver, because you cite no sources. Your personal opinions are noted. Skywriter (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead section hiatus

Let us resolve not to add anything to the lead section until we agree that the article body is completely satisfactory. After we achieve this, the lead section will write itself, in summary style. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea. --Kurdo777 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree--Work permit (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Me too, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is badly written and does not reflect the details of the 1953 coup in Iran. I do not resolve to limit what I write based on the imposition of this un-Wikipedia hiatus. I draw special attention to the actions of the editor who asks for this hiatus: repeatedly blanking factual contributions to this article in the course of the last month. Blanking activity --which comes in the form of deleting other people's work-- discourages constructive edits and demoralizes editors who would otherwise make useful contributions. Skywriter (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: George Lenczowski as reference

Is George Lenczowski a suitable reference for this article?

In his life, Lenczowski was a junior diplomat from Poland who assisted at the 1945 Tehran Conference, an American author who wrote articles, essays and books, a professor of political studies at the University of California, Berkeley and a lecturer who traveled around the world to deliver speeches. He was the founder of Berkeley's Committee (later Center) of Middle Eastern Studies. He did not live to write about the leaked CIA papers having to do with Iran in 1953, but his previous works have been cited by other scholars writing after the CIA leak.

Works with Lenczowski as author or co-author
  • "The Communist Movement in Iran", from Middle East Journal, 1947, pp. 29–45
  • Russia and the West in Iran, 1918–1948: a study in big-power rivalry (1949) 383 pages
  • The Middle East in World Affairs (1952, 1956, 1962, 1980) Cornell University Press Edition 4 in 1980 held 863 pages.
  • Russia and the West in Iran, 1918–1948: a supplement (1954) 44 pages
  • Oil And State In The Middle East Cornell University Press (1960) 379 pages
  • The Political Awakening In The Middle East (1970)
  • "United States' Support for Iran's Independence and Integrity, 1945–1959", pp. 45–55 in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volumes 399-404. (1972)
  • Soviet Advances in the Middle East, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1972, 176 pages.
  • Political Elites in the Middle East (United States Interests in the Middle East) (Jul 1975) 227 pages. ISBN 0844731641
  • "Middle East Oil in a Revolutionary Age", Issue 10 of National Energy Study, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1976, 36 pages. ISBN 0844732052
  • Iran Under the Pahlavis (Hoover Institution publication) (Dec 1978) ISBN 0817966412
  • American Presidents and the Middle East. Duke University Press, 1990. ISBN 0822309726.
Lenczowski cited by others

Despite this body of work and mass of scholarly notice, some editors have insisted that Lenczowski must be kept from the article, saying he "is no authority on this subject", that he is too close to his sources, skewing his point of view, and that his coined phrase "counter coup" puts him on the fringe, outside of mainstream.

Please indicate Support if Lenczowski merits inclusion as a reliable source or Oppose if he does not. Explain your position—this is not a vote, it is a consensus. To comment on the positions of others, please use the Comments section below. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

  • Support as nom. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The narrow question is “whether any work by Lenczowski is a-priori not wp:RS for this article.” The simple answer is no, his work should not be rejected out of hand. His analysis should not be considered wp:fringe, his friendship with the royal family does not raise serious wp:coi issues. However, as with any source, the specific work and citation must be analyzed for it's appropriate use when used to support a specific statement.--Work permit (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons given above. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, he has years of Iran experience: just look at what he has written. How much weight he should be given is another question. But since his views have been widely supported by other RSs, he should be given much more weight than he has been given so far. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, I didn't read the article and only read the RFC. It appears to me that while a number of people don't like the person's opinions on the issues that he is in fact someone knowledgeable about the subject and a worthy of being a source. RonLawHouston (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Oppose

  • Oppose You should not ask if a writer is a good source, but ask if a specific book or article is a good source. Academics often write popular or polemical works that fail to meet standards of high reliability. Generally these works do not enter academic discussion so we have no way of knowing how reliable they are. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The problem is not weather or not George Lenczowski a suitable reference in general. The question should be weather or not George Lenczowski's book "American Presidents and the Middle East" , an outdated non-academic work whose subject is not even about this topic, and only mentions this topic in passing, is a suitable reference for this article. The answer is no. For three reasons:
(A) Mr. Lenczowski was neither a historian, nor an expert on this topic. The book in question is not about the 1953 coup. The book's main topic is American Presidents, and the 1953 coup is only discussed briefly in one chapter.
(B) Mr. Lenczowski's personal friendship with the main culprit of the 1953 coup, the Shah of Iran, and usage of a controversial royalist neologism like "countercoup" to designate the coup in question, indicate an "extreme minority" viewpoint, and raise many WP:REDFLAGs. As the aforementioned policy clearly states "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions" are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Lenczowski's claim that 1953 coup was a "countercoup" is a perfect example of what this policy is talking about, as such fringe claim has never been made by any reputable scholar or historian.
(C) There are hundreds of books, journals, and other published sources about this topic, by qualified academics and historians who have written extensively on this topic. There is no necessity or justification to give priority to Mr. Lenczowski's book, when there other more qualified sources available.--Kurdo777 (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Binksternet's premise for this RfC is based on a false premise and false fact. Bink's RfC states: "some editors have insisted that Lenczowski must be kept from the article". This is not true. On these talk pages, mostly one editor has opposed the use of a Lenczowski citation. I support the use of informed resources specific to the 1953 coup in Iran. Each resource must be weighed on its merits and whether it sheds particular light on the coup. Until the facts of the coup are in place in this article--and they surely are not-- broad opinions ought to be kept to a minimum. Skywriter (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose He doesn't have a neutral point of view in his works, and is a supporter of Shah. Also he is not a historian, and his calling of the coup an "anti-coup" (!) , makes him a fringe theorist. --Wayiran (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Comments

This entry is so far off-topic, it wastes our time. What possible relevance does either Ben-Zvi book have to the 1953 coup in Iran? John F. Kennedy and the politics of arms sales to Israel Is inclusion of this a joke? The books by Alessandro Brogi and Michael Tracy Thomas are equally off-topic. Please respect WP:talk page guidelines. The topic is 1953 Iranian coup, not whether a Berkeley professor held a wide range of views on a medley of events that occurred long after 1953 and are unrelated to the 1953 coup. The Berkeley professor's general credentials are not at issue and, in any circumstance, this talk page is not the venue for that discussion, or for bringing up other works that cite his opinions on other subjects. The Berkeley prof has not been discriminated against. He is not a victim. The topic, 1953 coup in Iran, is the victim of this off-topic RfC. Please Focus. Skywriter (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet wrote: 'All of these authors thought that Lenczowski's 1990 book was still worth citing more than ten years later, after the release of the CIA papers about the coup.
I take no position on whether Lenczowski is fringe or popular. I do, however, take a muscular position on the credulous claim that the named authors "thought that Lenczowski's 1990 book was still worth citing." A listing in bibliographies that are 20,30 or more pages long is not a citation. It is a broad listing of the literature. None of the listed books are 1953-Iran-coup specific. The two books listed by the author Abraham Ben-Zvi that link to page numbers are plainly off-topic, and I question why they are even brought up on this talk page and in this RfC, the sole topic of which is the 1953 coup in Iran. Can we focus? Skywriter (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Other authors citing Lenczowski's book in popular works, does not make the book in question anymore academic. (A) Lenczowski was a diplomat and a politician, not a historian. A historian is someone who is recognized as a historian by his peers in academia. (B) Lenczowski may not be fringe character, but his labeling of the coup, a "countercoup" is certainly suspect, and an obvious fringe theory. If the majority of academics were in agreement with Lenczowski, then this page would be called "1953 Iranian COUNTERcoup". (C) Abrahamian is a recognized Iran historian, Lenczowski is not. Abrahamian has written several peer-reviewed journal entries on 1953 coup, Lenczowski has not. Abrahamian has several books dedicated to the topic of 1953 coup, Lenczowski does not. Abrahamian's works are recent and up-to-date, Lenczowski's works are outdated. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
You say without reference that Lenczowski was not a historian, but, whoops!, scholars say he was. I cannot understand how you consider him a politician—he did not run for nor hold political office. He was a doctor of law, taking his Doctorate in Juridical Science in Lille, France, in 1937. He fought with the Free Poles in the Siege of Tobruk under Montgomery. He studied at Johns Hopkins University, then became a professor at Hamilton College in New York. After that he came to the University of California at Berkeley where he achieved tenure, and stayed for a half a century. After his death in 2000, Political Science professor Andrew C. Janos wrote: "His scholarship was characterized by the accumulation of massive amounts of data, most of which he collected in the course of personal encounters on field trips. In his scholarship he was aided by the mastery of a great number of languages: Polish, English, French, German, Russian, Arabic, and Farsi." Also: "he raised a generation of scholars who, in 1985, acknowledged their debt to him by publishing the volume, Ideology and Power in the Middle East: a Festschrift in Honor of George Lenczowski." This is not the profile of a politician who is not a historian. Scholars say he was a scholar. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet, we do not doubt your fondness for Lenczowski or of his many good works for mankind. But that is not the subject of the 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Absent from your analysis (and RfC) is what is pertinent. What is the specific detail on this topic you wish to add? I could wax on at length about Mark Twain or Joseph M. Williams but not here. He's not relevant to this article. Your comments are unfocused. Whether one editor argues that Lenczowski is or is not a scholar is off-topic. The only relevancy is what does this man's writing bring to this article? Everything else is baloney.Skywriter (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
My fondness for Lenczowski? I had no idea who the man was until I saw his name at this article. I'm not a student of Middle East politics. Until Kurdo777 insisted each time his name came up that nothing from that man should be in the article, I did not know he was important. After seeing such an avowal by Kurdo777 I investigated and found Lenczowski to be nothing like Kurdo described. It appears to me from my brief research that anything Lenczowski ever wrote about Iran could be considered a reliable source, depending on context. This is precisely the reason for the RfC: my demand that each of Lenczowski's writings on Iran be considered at face value, not thrown away because he wrote them. The situation before this RfC was that Lenczowski was not allowed a voice when it has become clear to me that his voice carries weight and has relevance. Baloney? I prefer mortadella, if given the choice. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is with Kurdo, not "some editors" as you have written in the RfC. I don't know what Lenczowski wrote about Iran (or anything else) and take no position on your demand that "each of Lenczowski's writings on Iran be considered at face value" because it falls into WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I would take interest if this RfC focused on what he wrote about the 1953 coup in Iran. Unfortunately, it does not. Skywriter (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In my talk entry above, I used Kurdo to stand in for Alborz Fallah, WayIran, yourself and himself. As can be seen in this archive thread and in this one, in January 2010, the subject came up several times and Alborz Fallah said Lenczowski was POV and "not all the scholar's view". Kurdo777 wrote "George Lenczowski is neither a historian nor an expert on 1953 coup" and "George Lenczowski is no authority on this subject". WayIran wrote "Lenczowski is basically legitimizing the coup, by calling it an "anti-coup", a terminology that even the most right-wing commentators have avoided. That's the very definition of a a fringe theory." You agreed with these editors, defending their positions. You wrote that Lenczowski had a conflict of interest, and that using him as a reference was "misplaced". You said, "This is not about Lenczowski, Bink." I think it is about Lenczowski when the man himself has been labeled fringe, non-historian, non-expert, non-authority, conflicted. Again, this is why the RfC is not focused on any one of Lenczowski's works—he was being denied a voice because of who he was. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
In the two instances quoting me that you cite, I would repeat today what I said because it is spot on --and the theme of all of my comments today. In January, I wrote:
If Lenczowski was indeed a friend of the shah's family, then your attempts to place his opinion in the lead of this article is entirely misplaced. Placing this reference in the lead is wrong and, by any measure, fraught with conflict of interest.Skywriter (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not about Lenczowski, Bink. It is about this article. One scholar's view can be an outlier. That does not mean it is the view accepted by experts in the field. The attempt here is to make this the dominant viewpoint: the lead that is supposed to fairly summarize the historical viewpoints. To restate: Using mainstream sources AND PAGE NUMBERS from recognized historians, journalists or academics who are expert in this subject, please show that this was THE single primary motivation of the US government. Skywriter (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
May I remind you that in the last month I added a clip from Blood & Oil: A Prince's Memoir of Iran, From the Shah to the Ayatollah to the article and you summarily removed it in its entirety. You deleted it. You did not summarize its essence. The author, Manucher Farmanfarmaian, was much closer to the Shah than the Berkeley professor you want to, not only quote, but to place in the lead of this article. Farmanfarmaian had a front row seat to the 1953 coup in Iran and to what transpired after the coup in Iran because he was Pahlevi's oil minister. His observations added breadth and detail to an article that is sadly bereft of both. The fellow's observations-- that you want to add --are a generalized viewpoint lacking in detail. They add not a scintilla of factual detail. I suspect that is the reason the edit raised concern among the four or five editors you mention, some of whom have not been invited to comment on this RfC. My stated concern was with putting Lenczowski in the lead of the article WP:weight and your not using a page number in the reference. Your attempt to paraphrase whatever was the Berkeley professor's opinion was, at the time, not verifiable and that is what prompted my two comments. At no point did I delete what you wrote, or argue or support an argument for excluding the Berkeley professor's viewpoint. Binksternet's claim that Again, this is why the RfC is not focused on any one of Lenczowski's works—he was being denied a voice because of who he was. He was a Berkeley professor. He was denied a voice because of who he was? That argument is not persuasive on its face. Berkeley professors are widely quoted. This RfC is off topic to the 1953 coup in Iran. If you are saying the Berkeley prof was denied a voice because he was a "friend of the Shah", then you weakened your own argument (and lost my support) by deleting the viewpoint of the Shah's oil minister, Manucher Farmanfarmaian. And don't tell me the quote was too long unless trim is not in your Vocabulary of Constructive (Not Destructive) Editing.Skywriter (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(Re-indenting to preserve the flow of following thread entries.) Skywriter, nobody needs to be invited to the RfC; everybody can participate, and they will see talk page activity on their watchlist if they care about the article.
I am saying he was being denied a voice by four editors who attacked the man, not the source. Nobody attacked him for being a UC Berkeley prof; they attacked him as a non-expert, non-historian, POV, conflicted person.
Regarding my removal of your giant 1.8k quote from the lead section: my reason has already been explained as being 100% contained in WP:LEAD—whatever else you read into it is not my concern. If you care so much for your Blood & Oil contribution, fix the problem. It should be relatively easy, once you eliminate the unencyclopedic sob story from the Farmanfarmaian quote. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Destructive edits by Binksternet are not limited to deleting the viewpoint of the Shah's oil minister. Bink is not winning friends and influencing people because he retaliates against five editors' opposition to putting a Berkeley professor's marginal viewpoint 'in the article lead back in January. He uses passive-aggressive reverts and deletions, including this one[3] to retaliate. Bink can spend all day saying his blanking of constructive edits are not retaliatory but then he'd be wise to stop whimpering about an argument lost three months ago. Bink could have taken the advice to move the Berkeley professor out of the lead-- because that is what this RfC is about-- and he could have moved it to another section. Instead, he decides on retaliatory maneuvers, to destroy, unilaterally, the constructive additions of focused text that come along later. This is dysfunctional activity. Now, enter Booga and Casual Observer to defend Bink's honor. (Or Bink enters to defend Booga honor.) That's what has been happening in this article since June and that's why this article does not improve. Or Booga POVs about other editors "always wanting to make the United States look bad" and Casual Observer and Bink leap in with "Me too-isms." Will it ever stop? Skywriter (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't consider Wikipedia editing to be destructive, even when a giant quote is deleted rather than trimmed. The full version is still there in the article history, so it is not lost. My edits are constructive—you cannot build a solid house with bad timber. I pull out lumber which is unsuited, in this case I pulled out a giant quote which did not belong in the lead. So what? It is not the crime you think it is. I followed the guidelines at WP:LEAD, and you are completely free to take your contribution and refactor it for some location in the article body, a task I did not presume to take from you.
This RfC is not about putting Lenczowski in the lead section, it is about having anything by Lenczowski in the article. This RfC is not about retaliation, it is about reliable sources. With reliable sources, the wood is good, the house can be built with confidence. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
So long as we are going down the trail of requesting help with this article, which is not a bad thing, the central dysfunction, imo, is described at this link.

[4] This is not a personality dispute; it is a content dispute and a POV dispute. Three editors, named above, are adamant in their viewpoint that criticism of the United States must be minimized in this article, and to accomplish that, they demand inclusion of ancillary references that speak both generally and favorably about the US role in the Cold War but are not specific to the coup itself and are not histories focused on the details of the coup. These three editors, or two of them at least, are intent on keeping the U.S. at the center of this article. IMO, this is wrong-headed. The U.S. played a role but this history ought not be told from the perspective of the U.S. government (though it should and is included) and this article certainly must not adopt the role or function of apologist for the activity of the U.S. government. That is not the role of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. This article will keep on getting it wrong until it refocuses on the subject matter. Iran. Coup. 1953. When there was an attempt to get back to what was going on in Iran in 1953, Bink obliterated it, or as he calls it in the comment above, the unencyclopedic sob story from the Farmanfarmaian quote. Sob story? No, it was an evaluation of how the British-enforced world-wide boycott of Iran affected Iran's population. That resonates more than Bink's dubious claim that Lenczowski's work—was being denied a voice because of who he was.

I do, however, appreciate your revealing your personal opinion that the description of the post-embargo condition of the people of Iran in 1953 is a sob story. That you emote for a Berkeley professor, because he was anti-communist, or a friend of the Shah, and dismiss how ordinary people were treated in the midst of a grab by two imperial super powers says a lot about your values and your editing. The editors who share your WP:POV want the article to claim it was fear that caused the United States to overthrow Iran's government but it was not. The U.S. operated from the position of power. Fear was not the motivator, and I can prove it using a RS vetted by all of us. It was not fear: it was a policy change.Skywriter (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the motivation of fear that the powerful feel—certainly you understand the lesson of the Sword of Damocles: the most powerful man lives under constant fear. President Richard Nixon, with Kissinger at his side, famously said to the Shah at the conclusion of their 1972 talks "Protect me."
You do not know me or my motives. I do not have the viewpoint "that criticism of the United States must be minimized in this article". I have the viewpoint that the reliable sources must be acknowledged, even when they do not agree with each other. I have the viewpoint that the various sides of the story should be told. The story takes place in the U.S., in Britain, in Iran, and in a number of other countries involved to a lesser degree. We are here to tell all of those sides, not just Iran's viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet wrote: Lenczowski's supposedly unscholarly book American Presidents and the Middle East was cited by Marc J. O'Reilly in his 2008 work Unexceptional: America's empire in the Persian Gulf, 1941-2007.
As the young scholar, Marc O'Reilly, explains[5], his first book, Unexceptional: America's empire... is a broad study of empire. It is not Iran specific and definitely not 1953-coup specific. While O'Reilly's work might be an appropriate citation for more general articles about U.S. empire, it is not useful in determining what weight to attribute to Lenczowski with regard to the 1953 coup in Iran.Skywriter (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to the claim that "Academics often write popular or polemical works that fail to meet standards of high reliability" and that "the book is not academic" in regard to the book American Presidents and the Middle East, (i.e. not just to the general question of "Should we establish a policy that George Lenczowski's writings, any of them, be kept out of this article?")
Found on JSTOR database, "trusted archives for scholarship" http://www.jstor.org/stable/2537529?cookieSet=1
Review of the book in Journal of Palestine Studies, 1992 University of California Press. Review by Fouad Moughrabi.
"This is a timely and important book for the layman, the scholar, the political practitioner, the journalist. It should also be carefully read by everyone, .... "
Not academic? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I rest my case. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a timely and important book about American Presidents, not the 1953 coup. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • We should not establish a policy about any writer. We should use high quality reliable sources and if there are academic writings by Lenczowski then WP:Weight determines how they may be presented. Book reviews in academic journals do not establish academic acceptance. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Kurdo, since you state: 'There are hundreds of books, journals, and other published sources about this topic', please provide the involved editors with just ten sources that state/indicate that Lenczowski is full of bull. That alone might help your case. Please do not provide us with just what you may think, please provide us with what RSs think, and we can all move on to more productive pursuits. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That is the essence of my point - when writers like Lenczowski do not submit their theories to academic scrutiny, the academic community takes no notice of them and do not publish papers reviewing their theories. So we have no way of knowing how prevalent the views are or if they are totally off the wall. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The Four Deuces has it absolutely right. A popular work can not be called an "academic" work, when it hasn't been scrutinized by the academic community. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Didn't JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/2537529?cookieSet=1 , Journal of Palestine Studies, and Fouad Moughrabi take notice of him? I found the review in a search of the one book, not Lenczowski in general. Google scholar gives 808 hits for "George Lenczowski" in quotations, and 55 hits when you limit the search to "American Presidents and the Middle East" in quotes. How can you say the academic community has taken no notice of him? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A book review is not peer review. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Kurdo and Deuces, please discuss what ‘theory’ of Lenczowski’s you are questioning. What are you talking about; he has presented no new theory. His use of the phrase ‘counter-coup’ is nothing new. Kermit Roosevelt uses the same term, and was deeply involved. He is presenting nothing new; he discusses the various points that other acedemics do, and he generally sides with those that say the Cold War was an important aspect, but that there was continuity between the two administrations’ policy. Truman had already made decisions and Eisenhower worked with the situation as it developed. Others say the two admins were totally different and Ike presented a white to black change. There is nothing new in that, no new ‘theory’.
I do not accept that the broader general nature of Lencz’s book somehow makes it unacceptable for this article. American presidents are mentioned throughout; we even have a section on ‘motives’; he seems exceptionally able to provide a solid ref for those aspects. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Kurdo states There are hundreds of books, journals, and other published sources about this topic, by qualified academics and historians who have written extensively on this topic. There is no necessity or justification to give priority to Mr. Lenczowski's book, when there other more qualified sources available. Please provide, say, just one hundred sources of the quality you mention. I'm most interested in your research on journal articles. If you could provide just, say, twenty peer reviewed journal articles that would great. Please don't debate. Just supply the sources. Please provide all the peer reviewed journal articles you have found. --Work permit (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • While Four Deuces and I "voted" in opposite ways, I believe we basically agree, and are saying the same thing. Our difference in "vote" is just a different interpretation of the question. I agree, whole heartedly, that You should not ask if a writer is a good source, but ask if a specific book or article is a good source. This is basically what I said, as with any source, the specific work and citation must be analyzed for it's appropriate use when used to support a specific statement. I also agree that, in general, any book is more suspect than a peer-reviewed journal article, be it by Lenczowski or otherwise. I think we agree that any work by Lenczowski is not, a-priori, to be rejected, since it does not bring up fundamental issues such as wp:fringe or wp:coi. Just a question of semantics, Four Duces says "it should not be accepted out of hand", I say "it should not be rejected out of hand" --Work permit (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me add we have only two sources cited above in the list of references that are peer-reviewed journal articles. One by Gasiorowski published in International Journal of Middle East Studies, and one by Abrahamian published in Science & Society. I happen to have dug up both, though other editors may have independently found those two sources in the past. We should, in addition, discuss the journals themselves. It's my opinion that Science & Society, which is a Marxist journal, should not be used to establish mainstream academic consensus. This is not to say that a Marxist framework is not a legitimate framework for historical analysis, however, it is not mainstream. I pose the following question: How much weight should we place on an article published in International Journal of Middle East Studies vrs one published in a Marxist journal. If I am mistaken, please provide specific peer-reviewed journal articles below.--Work permit (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • While academic, peer reviewed articles are preferred, I don't think this article should be limited to using academic, peer-reviewed articles. Do we all agree on that? If not, as I said, there are only two sources. In this case, we need to build the article using only peer-revewed articles. I think that's going to be tough. However, if we do agree that books are acceptable as well, we should discuss the books under question. Are books published by established academics preferred to, say, books published by former senators? How should we weight passages in books by a former Fed Chairman? Or a TV reporter? Going beyond books, how much weight should we place on a television interview of an academic? A-priori, I don't understand why Lenczowski's book would be rejected, while a television interview of Abrahmian is acceptable. As stated above, You should not ask if a writer is a good source, but ask if a specific book or article is a good source. Why is a book by Alan Greenspan regarding Iran acceptable? Why is a book by former senator Robert Byrd given more weight? Or a book by Ted Koppel. Or a testimony by a retired Colonel who is not an expert on Iran. Please enlighten me. Please limit discussion to the book or source in question. --Work permit (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree on that ... and with your other points. In particular I think it would be a bad policy in general in articles such as this to exclude journalists, who while not writing in peer-reviewed journals, have been to Iran and interviewed relevent figures. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In response to your Rfc, I think in general we should err on the side of inclusion, and let readers see more rather than fewer points of view, and not act as gatekeepers to information. That being said, I have no idea whether or not the assertions of this particular author are worth including or not. That would be based on factors like, was he there? Was he personally involved in the events being described in the article? If not, does he have expertise in this field? Is he a spokesperson for a an unpopular point of view that is widely discussed or which should be represented? Is there any evidence he is spreading disinformation? I would say err on the side of inclusion, and if you think his assertions are not credible, balance his assertions with referenced material from other sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Lenczowski knew the Shah, who was (needless to say) a major figure in the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Factually, the Shah was a major figure AFTER the coup. His cowardice is widely documented-- even in the document by the CIA agent Donald Wilber. That document, released in 2000 to the NYT, serves as the CIA's expurgated history of the 1953 coup. Before the coup, Shah Reza Pahlavi ran away from Iran; the U.S. chased him and brought him back. Using various avenues of personal pressure, the US persuaded Pahlevi to sign the documents, which US agents had written, firing Mossadegh and installing Zahedi as prime minister. Skywriter (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Many articles are based on less than high quality sources using popular books, encyclopedias, newspapers and magazines. When information is non-controversial no one challenges the sources. However it becomes problematic when these sources are used for controversial claims, which is why high quality sources are preferred. If Lenczowski's views are notable, then we would be able to find them in academic sources and would be able to determine the degree to which they have been accepted. If they do not appear there they then are fringe and should be ignored. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This RfC would be useful if it listed the precise quote the editor wishes to add to this article. Evaluating Lenczowski's overall value and general capabilities as a human being is a topic best left to his bio page. I searched this page for the exact wording the editor wishes to add and it is absent or was deleted from earlier talk. It is not possible to blindly evaluate subject matter in the abstract. Whether Lenczowski had fans is beside the point. Whether he was a good man is off-topic. How esteemed he was as a scholar is off-topic. Whether he knew the Shah is of peripheral interest. The issue is--what does Lenczowski bring, that no one else has, to the topic, the 1953 coup in Iran? Why are we spending so much time outside of the specific subject matter of this article? This RfC is so far off-topic, it reaches absurdity though this RfC's status-- outside the periphery of the article's topic-- does suggest reasons why this article is of such low quality in explaining what the coup was and details of what happened and why. There is a basic disconnect between some editors and the subject matter, apparently due to an inability to focus on the specifics of the topic, 1953 coup in Iran. Skywriter (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Countercoup

I was wondering whether the 1953 coup d'état had been called a countercoup (anti-coup, counter coup) by anyone other than George Lenczowski in American Presidents and the Middle East and Kermit Roosevelt in his sloppy, self-serving Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran. I found that some authors use the term casually, acknowledging it in passing as one mainstream viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is typical of the far right to throw terms back. During the Falklands war, prisoners taken by the UK were called the "disappeared" or the "tortured". Modern fascists accused of hate speech call themselves "free speech advocates". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I assume your example of the UK was not meant to imply that the UK government was "far right", but in fact to illustrate that everyone throws back terms. The favorite of the far left is counter-revolutionary. In any event, do you have wp:rs that state the term "counter-coup" is the reactionary comment of counter-revolutionaries ;) ?--Work permit (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I was not referring to the UK government but to the Argentinian military dictatorship. They committed atrocities against their own citizens which were called disappearances and torture by their opponents. During the Falklands war they cynically used these terms to refer to Argentinian conscripts who were taken prisoner by the UK. WP should only use this type of terminology if it is widely accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm reading through the article, and can find no action by Mosaddegh that could be considered a coup. The legality of nationalizing the National Iranian Oil Company may be debated, but certainly that act was not a coup. The shah fled Iran "after government forces stopped an attempt by officers of the Imperial Guard to oust Premier Mohammed Mossadegh". [6]. The shah wasn't forced out by Mossadegh, he (voluntarily) fled when his aborted coup attempt failed. Without getting into a great debate, is there any action by Mossadegh that could even remotely be interpreted as a coup? If not, what do these authors mean by "counter-coup"?--Work permit (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
What's your point, Bink? Want to change the name of this article? There are two sentences at the top of this talk page that say: "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." Skywriter (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing whatever right-wing or far-right connection that the term countercoup is supposed to have.
The purpose? Legitimate questioning of assumptions made here on the talk page. I would like to understand why some authors use this term, and why some do not. I would like to know why the term has been deprecated by some editors related to its use here. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you looked for an explanation in the books you reference? Kermit Roosevelt used Countercoup in the title of his book and you provided your opinion of that book here yesterday.

The subject matter experts, Gasiorowski, Byrne, Kinzer and Abrahamnian call it a coup as does Stephen Dorril.

  1. Gasiorowski, Mark J., Editor; Malcolm Byrne (Editor) (2004). Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0815630180.
  2. Gasiorowski, Mark J. (August 1987). "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran". International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (3): 261–286. http://www.jstor.org/stable/163655.
  3. Kinzer, Stephen (2003). All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-26517-9.
You wrote: I would like to know why the term has been deprecated by some editors related to its use here. Your question could be directed to the subject matter experts and not some editors here who cite the subject matter experts--the historians who have delved into the detail of the 1953 coup in Iran.Skywriter (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did "countercoup" come from?

I think this is were the issue came up ... usage of a controversial royalist neologism like "countercoup" to designate the coup in question, indicate an "extreme minority" viewpoint, (point (B) by Kurdo)
Work permit -- I'm reading through the article, and can find no action by Mosaddegh that could be considered a coup. -- I think the answer to your question is here in the timeline: Colonel Nasiri flies to Ramsar on the Caspian Sea to get the Shah's signature on royal decrees dismissing Mosaddeq and appointing Zahedi in his place as prime minister.[61]
followed by Failed coup attempt. Late at night "Colonel Nasiri of the Imperial Guards arrives at Mosaddeq's doorstep" with a number of Imperial Guards and "a royal decree replacing Mosaddeq with Zahedi as premier". Tipped off by the Tudeh's military network, a pro-Mosaddeq army contingent surrounds Nasiri and the coup fails.
I think the counter coup idea is that the Shah was within his constitutional rights to dismiss Mosaddeq, so that the arresting of Nasiri and his men by Mosa's men was a coup. Dispite its importance, I've never read a discussion of the consitutionality of the firman or the dismissal of Mosaddeq in books on the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

At that time, Shah's role was ceremonial rather than political, he was not "within his constitutional rights" to dismiss or appoint a PM, without electoral or parliamentary mandate. Fact remains that only a few extreme right-wing commentators and pundits use the neologism "countercoup", the term is not commonplace in academic discourse. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
At the time there was no parliament because Mosaddeq's referendum had disolved it and he was ruling by decree. Fact remains that only a few extreme right-wing commentators .... How do we know it's a fact? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad you brought this issue of "counter-coup" up. I think the article could use some mention of the legality of Mosaddeq's dissolving of parliament, his referendum, the shah's dismissing him, and his dismissal of the dismissal (using of course scholarly sources). From my perusal of non-scholarly sources, it appears Mosaddeq's actions were legal, and the shah's were not. Interestingly, I also found that in the UK, it would be within the queens prerogative to dissolve parliament on her own, though such prerogative has not been exercised since Charles I :)--Work permit (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
We'll all be interested if you can find more about this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

More on the "countercoup" and the Shah's firman's (decrees) dismissing Mosaddeq

From Gasiorowski, Mark J., U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah, Building a Client State in Iran, (Cornell University Press, 1991), p.77

"On the night of Saturday August 15, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri, the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddeq the firman dismissing him. Mosaddeq, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Tudeh party, denounced the firman as a forgery and had Nassiri arrested."

"Zahedi was brought to a CIA safehouse .... Roosevelt's team then made several diverse and uncoordinated efforts to trigger a coup. The first of these was an attempt to publicize the Shah's decision to dismiss Mosaddeq and replace him with Zahedi, which Mosaddeq had not publicly announced. On Sunday, August 16, CIA officers made copies of the firmans announcing these decisions and had Nerren, Cilley [code names of two Iranian assets of the CIA], and two American newspaper reporters distribute them throughout Tehran. The two reporters were also taken to meet Ardeshir Zahedi at the home of one of the CIA officers. He told them about the firmans and characterized Mosaddeq's attempt to arrest his father as a coup, inasmuch as his father had legally been appointed prime minster. This information was quickly published in the New York Times and elsewhere." (Gasiorowski, Mark J., U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah, Building a Client State in Iran, (Cornell University Press, 1991), p.77

Some reactions: If arresting Nassiri was a coup, then overthrowing Mosaddeq must have been a countercoup (to Zahedi supporters). Use of the "two reporters" is perhaps an example of CIA manipulation of US press ignorant of Iranian constitutional law. On the other hand, if the Shah had no constitutional power to dismiss Mosaddeq, why didn't Mosaddeq just say so. "These Firman's have no validity!" instead of denouncing them as a forgery? If Mosaddeq had no fear of the Firman's why did he not "publicly announce" them as ... the clumsy attempt of the cowardly shah to interfer in democracy ... or something? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From: Eminent Persians: the men and women who made modern Iran, 1941 ..., Volume 1 By Abbas Milani:

".... without a Majlis, Mossadeq's allies told him, the shah would have the constitutional right to dismiss and appoint a prime minister. There had been at least eighteen such recess apointments in the past. Mossadeq's retort was that she shah would not dare dismiss him. Events proved him wrong." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Background

I've added my first edit to the article. First, I just fixed the formating of the reference citation to Gasiorowski's peer-reviewed journal article. this is the following edit. Obviously not controversial. Next, I provided the full quote, which I think gives a balanced view and a good overview. I'm ok with whether he comes first or last. If you're going to flame me, please provide wp:rs to back up your flame or just don't bother. If you feel the entire section needs to be restructured or merged with the "US motives" section, lets talk. As an addendum, I think the peer reviewed Abrahmian article should be used in this section, rather then the interview. As discussed above, peer reviewed journal articles have more weight then other articles. --Work permit (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there should be one section on motivation, gathering together all of the viewpoints. Skywriter (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It is done, Work permit. Thanks for working on this. I trimmed some of the long quotes and put it into chronological order. The section still needs work. Gasiorowski's book, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran explores motive in much more detail. I will add that soon. Skywriter (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Ideally, we could fix the subsections in the background section, then finally give a high level summary to replace, what was, just a "US motives" section in disguise.--Work permit (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. I'm also thinking of merging the CIA section with U.S. motives section and giving it a new heading. That will be a way bringing the U.S. material together. What do you think? Skywriter (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The CIA section is an unmitigated disaster of a section, while US motives section is starting to look like a section on, well, a section on Us motives :) What would the new section be titled? I thought we'd eventually merge the CIA section with the Operation Ajax, but I'm all ears.--Work permit (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
How about something simple: Role of the United States in the coup
CIA and the foreign policy (motive) section belong together and yes, Ajax too. Albright thingie can be tightened, doesn't need to be pullout quote. Justice Douglas can go. Or not. Kermit pumping his own self up with the Shah loves me quote can prolly go because only his mother would care. I want to add something, though, from John Prados' Secret Wars. He's got Kermit sneaking into the White House to receive the National Security Medal, the highest decoration by the United States for intelligence work. Eisenhower secretly awarded it to Kermit for toppling the Iranian government. "The medal "was not only secret, it was special. Kermit Roosevelt was only the fourth person to receive it.' p. 91.
Later. Skywriter (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow Now that's really bold. You mean treat the coup as a sub-article on Iran, rather then a sub-article on the United States? I like it. I like it very much. So much of what happened in Iran, to Iranians, is lost in all the global machinations in this article. When reading this article, I'd like to learn about the shah's role before the coup, and after. I'd like to learn about the concept of Iran as a republic, how the left was fearful of this and fearful of the tudeh. I'd like the article to work seemlessly with the article on Mosaddegh. Now that's bold.--Work permit (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
As an example, Mosaddeq's dissolving of parliament, his referendum, the shah's dismissing him, and his dismissal of the dismissal is buried in passing references. I think if we lighten up on all this US/UK centric content, we can devote a section to the dynamic between the Shah and Mosaddegh. My cursory glance through the web tells me there is alot of content here. We centralize all the Ajax/US content to a section. If it gets too big, split it off and make it it's own article. Keep this article centered on the coup in Iran. The more I think about this, the more I like it.--Work permit (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could also mention Mosaddeq's ouster and the brief government of Ahmad Ghavam es Sultaneh. But first things first. Centralize all the "US centric" content in one section. As far as I'm concerned, lose the Albright references or tighten her up for a spinoff. I will refrain from making the obvious jokes.--Work permit (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Work permit, Albright's comment was significant in that it was the first by a top U.S. official that there was something seriously wrong with the U.S. role in the coup. It should be reinstated. I will find the citation that points out that fact.

Chronology is an effective method for telling this story. Be cautious about attributing too much importance to Mossadegh dissolving the Majlis weeks before he was driven out of office by the CIA and held prisoner for the rest of his life. Mossadegh had been prime minister for only 28 months and for all of that time, M16, the British spy agency, representing British oil interests, was organizing the coup that the CIA eventually carried out. Mossadegh knew that tribal chiefs, members of the press and Parliament were being bought off by CIA and M16, and he had the legal right to dissolve Parliament as well as the legal authority to stop vote-counting when he knew the votes had been purchased by foreign powers. I will reply to your other comments as time allows. All of the mainstream historians hold this view. Skywriter (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing Misquote

Someone added this: In the view of American mainstream public opinion, the crisis in Iran was perceived as a part of a Cold War conflict rather than as a nationalist struggle against Western colonialism.ref>Kinzer, All the Shah's Men (2003), p.84/ref>

It is removed because Kinzer does not mention "In the view of American mainstream public opinion" (How can anyone know that? Did the editor who inserted it intend to portray the views of the U.S. government? Kinzer does not mention "American mainstream public opinion", and neither should Wikipedia.

"...the crisis in Iran was perceived as a part of a Cold War conflict rather than as a nationalist struggle against Western colonialism." These are not Kinzer's words. He does not mention Western colonialism and neither should Wikipedia.

The subject of pp. 83-84 is June 26, 1950, three years before the coup when the U.S. was engaged in war on the Korean peninsula and Iran was worried that British troops might invade Iran.

If we are going to quote it, stay faithful to the facts without inserting original research.

The Iranian part of this history was left out and it is clearly explored on pp. 84-84 of the Kinzer book. This is part of the ongoing problem of centering this article on the United States without regard to Iran or its history. Skywriter (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert of edits

Skywriter please develope a consensus before making major changes in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One of your edit summaries reads replaced false Kinzer quote with what he actually wrote. But you can find the alleged "false Kinzer quote" in the online book!

Another problem is the terrible writing. in your version the US Motives section starts out with some detailed on US-UK relations with no introductory explanation of why it's important.

  • In August 1952, Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh invited an American oil executive to visit Iran and the Truman administration welcomed the invitation. However, the suggestion upset British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who insisted that the U.S. not undermine his campaign to isolate Mosaddegh: "Britain was supporting the Americans in Korea, he reminded Truman, and had a right to expect Anglo-American unity on Iran."[37]

How about a summary of US motives?!

Another problem (with the article in general and not with recent edits), and why the article is so frustrating to some of us is this sentence: According to The Guardian newspaper, the principal motive for overthrowing Iran's elected government was US and UK refusal to accept the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the business agreement between the Imperial British and the Iranian civil governments.[43]
But that's not what the Guardian article says at all! It says

  • The prime minister and his nationalist supporters in parliament roused Britain's ire when they nationalised the oil industry in 1951, which had previously been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
    and that
  • when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, cold war ideologues - determined to prevent the possibility of a Soviet takeover - ordered the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government

IOW the UK was angry over Mosa's "refusal to accept the nationalisation" but the US was motivated by Cold War fears! --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your claim another problem is the terrible writing. In your version the US Motives section s based on what you linked to and see nothing wrong. You spend massive quantities of time harping, booga, but make no constructive edits. This article is and has been in very bad shape for a long time. The first section is especially poorly written, once it gets past the first paragraph.People are making changes for the better, and the rest of the article is badly constructed. Will you stop harping and either help or sit back and see what happens. You can and will of course do as you please.Skywriter (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
re: replaced false Kinzer quote with what he actually wrote.-- yes. thanks for the correx. that line is in there AND it is not particularly helpful as purple prose never is. It is now replaced with factual writing.
I'm OK with taking out the Guardian reference in favor of subject matter experts. There are more than a few errors of fact in that article. I left it in -- in deference to you, thinking you had added it.
you wrote: re: How about a summary of US motives?! Reply. Yes. I'm all for it. Since it is your idea, would you like to write that summary and I will add to it.
Revert wars are proven not to work. If you have tweaks, or other constructive edits, please make them. Blanking what other editors contribute is not a winning strategy as the history of this article for the last year proves.Skywriter (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made some bold edits and restructured the "motives" section. I agree, lets not blank each others sourced additions. Lets build on them. I also agree we need to check sources.--Work permit (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
p.s. with regard to haunting and terrible legacy-- A redundancy, it was removed a few days ago from the lead and today removed also it from the body. It has been in the article in two places over the last year, and adds nothing special to reader understanding. Skywriter (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems

The new sentence in the lead
"For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests."
is not quoted but is taken directly from the source --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Where has Mark Gasiorowski said "there is considerable merit to the argument that U.S. policymakers helped U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production after the coup (with the help of the Wall Street law firm of the brothers, John Foster Dulles, and Allen Welsh Dulles)"? Show me a quote or I'm deleting this sentence. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"The three questions posed in the introduction to this study can now be answered. What motives led U.S. policy makers to overthrow Mosaddeq? It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production.(68) On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favorable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers' law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40 Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British.
While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having "lost China." Once in power, the new administration quickly sought to put its views into practice: the State Department was purged of homosexuals and suspected communists, steps were taken to strengthen the Western alliance, and initiatives were begun to bolster the Western position in Latin America, the Middle East, and East Asia. Viewed in this context, and coming as it did only two weeks after Eisenhower's inauguration, the decision to overthrow Mosaddeq appears merely as one more step in the global effort of the Eisenhower administration to block Soviet expansionism. (69)
Moreover, the major U.S. oil companies were not interested in Iran at this time. A glut existed in the world oil market. The U.S. majors had increased their production in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1951 in order to make up for the loss of Iranian production; operating in Iran would force them to cut back production in these countries which would create tensions with Saudi and Kuwaiti leaders. Furthermore, if nationalist sentiments remained high in Iran, production there would be risky. U.S. oil companies had shown no interest in Iran in 1951 and 1952. By late 1952, the Truman administration had come to believe that participation by U.S. companies in the production of Iranian oil was essential to maintain stability in Iran and keep Iran out of Soviet hands. In order to gain the participation of the major U.S. oil companies, Truman offered to scale back a large anti-trust case then being brought against them. The Eisenhower administration shared Truman's views on the participation of U.S. companies in Iran and also agreed to scale back the anti-trust case. Thus, not only did U.S. majors not want to participate in Iran at this time, it took a major effort by U.S. policymakers to persuade them to become involved. (70) [7]--Work permit (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there not a big difference between:
  • "there is considerable merit to the argument that U.S. policymakers helped U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production after the coup (with the help of the Wall Street law firm of the brothers, John Foster Dulles, and Allen Welsh Dulles)"
  • "On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favorable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers' law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40 Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British. While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran,"
The second quote is from Gasiorowski's article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I originally had the entire quote. It got paraphrased by someone. I just changed the paraphrasing. see how you like it--Work permit (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
There was only one other editor editting at the time. Your change is OK but the article is going to end up in need of serious tightening after we are done. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, do we need:

In the decades following the October Revolution, Iran's neighbor, the Soviet Union, had expanded its domain to rule over tens of millions of Muslims in Central Asia, and following World War II over much of Eastern Europe. [49] On June 26, 1950, as the movement for oil nationalization was gathering steam in Iran, soldiers of the North Korean Communist regime with the backing of the Soviets, crossed the 38th parallel to invade South Korea, beginning the Korean War. [50] Three years later, just before the coup in Iran, Soviet tanks crushed an anti-Communist uprising of strikes and protests in East Germany. [51] In Iran itself, the well-organized, pro-Soviet Tudeh (Communist) Party, greatly exceeded the National Front in the size of its rallies as the crisis became worse.[52]

when we already have

First, the climate of intense cold war rivalry between the superpowers, together with Iran's strategic vital location between the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf oil fields, led U.S. officials to believe that they had to take whatever steps were necessary to prevent Iran from falling into Soviet hands. These concerns seem vastly overblown today, ... However after the 1945-46 Azerbaijan crisis, the consolidation of Soviet control in Eastern Europe, the communist triumph in China, and the Korean War - and with the Red Scare at its height in the United States - U.S. officials simply could not risk allowing the Tudeh Party to gain power in Iran.

--Work permit (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of important language

This edit by Skywriter removed On the face of it, from the quote. with the edit summary: Trimmed long Gasiorowski and Abrahamian quotes ...
Skywirter why did you do this? It is misleading at best. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  • According to political scientist Mark Gasiorowski at Louisiana State University, "It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policymakers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production. On the face of it, this argument has considerable merit. The Eisenhower administration was certainly favorable to U.S. business interests, and the Dulles brothers' law firm had often represented U.S. oil companies in legal matters. Moreover, the final agreement worked out in 1954 with the Zahedi government gave U.S. companies a 40% share in Iranian oil production, which had previously been controlled by the British. While this view cannot entirely be refuted, it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring. The Cold War was at its height in the early 1950s, and the Soviet Union was viewed as an expansionist power seeking world domination. Eisenhower had made the Soviet threat a key issue in the 1952 elections, accusing the Democrats of being soft on communism and of having "lost China." Once in power, the new administration quickly sought to put its views into practice."[1]

Become this:

  • However, political scientist Mark Gasiorowski at Louisiana State University, argues that while there is considerable merit to the argument that U.S. policymakers helped U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production after the coup with the help of the Wall Street law firm of the brothers, John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's secretary of state, and Allen Welsh Dulles, the CIA director during the Eisenhower administration, Gasiorowski also said that the U.S.'s Cold War rivalries with the then Soviet Union were a major factor in Eisenhower's decision to topple the Iranian government.[1]
I'll let Skywriter speak for himself, but my guess: I first put the entire quote in the article. Skywriter probably felt it was redundant to have Gasiorowski's quote lay out the entire argument when he goes about refuting it (since the argument is made in the previous paragraphs by Abrhamian, a proponent), he also moved the entire set to the "motives" section from the "background" section, which had plenty of material scattered around. I noticed the edit and made some changes, but missed the qualifier "on the face of it". If I missed the importance of it, I could see Skywriter missing it to. You caught it, and we fixed it. All in all, great teamwork!--Work permit (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Jeepers, booga, your addiction to micromanagement would be admirable to anyone who thinks that's a good quality. Gasiorowski wrote lots more than that one article. I plan to add to that section to shine light on the issue based on his research, which I added to the bibliography section last week, and others. Trimming long quotes is not a crime, not on Wikipedia. In the course of the last few weeks, I have been attacked for adding long quotes AND short quotes. I shorten one long quote and you nag about that. Changes are being made to this article. That's what we do on Wikipedia. If you have a low tolerance for change, try something else. In any case, Get A Grip. For Your Own Sake. Skywriter (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
No it ain't micromanaging or trimming long quotes. This goes to core of what we are arguing about, what motivated the coup - greed for oil or fear of soviet expansion. The original text by Gasiorowski set up the oil argument and debunks it (albiet in a cautious, scholarly way). Your edit, skywriter, makes it sound like the two explanations both are plausible - while there is considerable merit to the argument ... --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The Gasiorowski article is on the web. Why exactly are you insisting that such a long quote be included here? Do you want to summarize it? Or can we just link to it, summarizing what's there?
Last week, an editor deleted a long quote that I thought gave voice to what is absent in this article-- the Iranian viewpoint and how the public suffered when the Brits enforced an embargo on Iran with gunboats. That editor first said it was all about length that it was cut, then later reversed himself saying he didn't like the content, calling it a "sob story."
With this Gasiorowski Web article, I am not arguing about content. I'm fixing to add more Gasiorowski to this article in another area. With the Gasiorowski web article, I'm wondering why WP is lifting such a large chunk from another Web article. So this is an argument for paraphrasing, which I intend to do when I add related Gasiorowski material elsewhere. Are you OK with doing that to the section from the Web article you think should be preserved? I'm asking you, booga, because you seem to have a strong opinion on this and therefore might be the best person to summarize what you think are the key points. (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The article was a peer-reviewed journal article. Rather then paraphrasing it, I just lifted quotes. I did so with the hope that the quotes (as most others) would eventually get paraphrased. Thank you for doing so. We need to do more paraphrasing. Ideally, we would move away from using duplicative "he said/she said" quotes, and state academic consensus as fact and then cite the authors when there are differences.--Work permit (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
One other thing, booga. Did you have a straight face when you questioned my using one sentence from another article (sourced and NOT a copyright violation) in the same breath you demand that lengthy verbatim text from Gasiorowski be reinstated after it was trimmed? Skywriter (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between quoting text and just copying the text with no quotemarks or block? The first is giving credit the second has copyright problems. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
You had not a scintilla of problem tracking the source because I placed it there for everyone to see. That suggests there is no copyright violation, problem or issue. None. A cooperative editor would have added the quote marks in good faith if he'd sincerely thought it necessary. It would have been an easy fix. But that wasn't your choice. You chose to make it a fight on this talk page, to single me out for insult, to create issues where there are none. I have added the quote marks bulking the lead to source the wire agency, not because it is necessary, but in the spirit of cooperation. Skywriter (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Motives section, redux

I think we're making excellant progress on the motives section. I think its still a bit messy, too many quotes, many of which say the same thing. I think that's understandable, as we build up trust (and check each others references), the section will get better still.

I think I've added all relevant sources from the Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Smokescreen section. The citations from byrd, koppel, and greenspan imho deserve only passing mention. Wilkerson doesn't seem to deserve too much weight, and the robarge citation doersn't refelect what he thinks. We probably need to add more citations from the Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Fear, but do so in a way that doesn't just repeat what is already in the article.

I was looking to add material about the switch in policy between Truman and Eisenhower. Am considering these two sources:

"It has long been argued that the Eisenhower administration pursued a more assertive policy toward Iran than the Truman administration did. This interpretative consensus, though, has recently come under challenge. In the Journal of Cold War Studies in 1999, Francis Gavin argued that U.S. policy toward Iran in 1950-1953 became progressively more assertive in response to a gradual shift in the global U.S.-USSR balance of power. This article shares, and develops further, Gavin's revisionist theme of policy continuity, but it explains the continuity by showing that Truman and Eisenhower had the same principal objectives and made the same basic assumptions when devising policy. The more assertive policy was primarily the result of the failure of U.S. policy by early 1952. The Truman administration subsequently adopted a more forceful policy, which Eisenhower simply continued until all perceived options for saving Iran from Communism were foreclosed other than that of instigating a coup to bring about a more pliable government."

Thoughts (or edits) appreciated--Work permit (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, says Gasiorowski, there was a sharp change in U.S. foreign policy as soon as Eisenhower was elected. Gasiorowski sez Ike's transition team began planning the coup as soon as he was elected (and that Truman's people danced out the door warning against it. The coup plan was put into effect within two weeks of Eisenhower's inauguration. The change in foreign policy came after Eisenhower campaigned against Democrats for dragging out the war against communists in Korea and for not being anti-communist enough, in general. (Two years later, he introduced his New_Look_(policy)). Gasiorowski and other historians talk about how CIA and State department analysts said Mossadegh was a strong nationalist and that he was anti-communist. They argued there was no danger of Iran going red but were overruled at the top by the Dulles brothers who had Ike's ear. The CIA dropped that nugget that I added today that Ike left no fingerprints on the governments his administration overthrew. Iran was only the first in a series.
Dorrill's MI6 has the details of how, thanks to Herbert Hoover Jr. and the Dulles brothers, the oil companies became "the effective instrument of US policy in the region."
So, Work permit, give me a little time to summarize this, then you can work your magic. It won't be until tomorrow, or if I don't finish, then next weekend. I appreciate your hard work and cooperation. I don't think Marsh and Gavin nailed it, nor did Kinzer. Skywriter (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Look forward to it. The sources I cited are clearly revisionists. We need a clear statement of the why Eisenhower switched policies before we introduce "the alternate view" that he really didn't.--Work permit (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added some of the references from Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Fear. Need to add the rest, in the style I've used. I think we should also add some "pop" references, to balance the "pop" references for the oil theory. Needless to say, Abrahamian is the only academic cited in support of the "oil" hypothesis. Half his citations come from a peer revewed article (in a marxist journal), the others from a television interview. The "fear" hypothesis is backed up from a peer reviewed article and a properly sourced/footnoted book by Gasiorowski. Passing references for the fear hypothesis are from much stronger sources then those for the oil hypothesis. Before flaming these additions, please note the beginning sentence in the section states "Historians disagree on what motivated the United States to change its policy towards Iran and stage the coup." It is perfectly valid to state cite historians view in passing.--Work permit (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Usage of cherry picked quotes to advance a position

From what I see Work permit has been doing a good job, making the motives section balanced to give equal weight to all valid points of views. BoogaLouie on the other hand, has taken advantage of the , to push his POV, and dump all the cherry picked quotes he had gathered on his userpage, into the article at once. This is unacceptable, and he doesn't have a WP:consensus for this. Not only are Booga's edits making the section unbalanced in favor of one viewpoint, and violating WP:UNDUE in the process, they also violate WP:SYNTH in some cases, as he is putting together out of context quotes and one-lines to advance a position, or put a qualifier on sourced statements. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting together a line about the October Revolution, with a line about North Korean Communist regime , a line about the uprising of 1953 in East Germany, and a newspaper clip from 1953 (a primary source) about Tudeh supporters, in order to advance a position that the world was being taken over by the communists. Come on, this is getting really silly. Stick to what the peer-reviewed sources say, don't make up your own hypothesis by mixing together cherry picked quotes/facts/lines. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing cherry picked here. See my previous comment Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Problems In the problems section. I think there is duplication on setting the background for motives. Gasiorowski sets a backdrop for the motives, which is provided as a direct quote, BoogaLouie provides sources for much of the same thing, many of which are from books specifically about the event. When we trust each other more, we can go beyond direct quotes and merge statements to general themes. Lets not make accusations, what specifically do your sources dsagree with in this section? Or do you just agree with me, the section contains duplicative statements?--Work permit (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:SYNTH, one can not put together 4 sources (one of which is a primary source) about 4 different unrelated events in 4 corners of the world, to make a point or advance a position. We should stick to what the peer-reviewed sources specifically say about the motives, in a balanced manner which gives equal weight and coverage to all valid viewpoints. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Some were synthesized, some were not. They are also, largely, duplicative with the previous quote from Gasiorowski, which is why I've left your deletion in tact.--Work permit (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll add that, imho, a back round on the cold war should just be hyperlinked. The first mention is by Abrahmian, which is where I should have done it. But somehow I felt Gasiorowski "deserved" the first link, so I left t blank. Also, thanks for the compliment, as well as the sharp eyed view that it was the Shah's government that "claimed", not "revealed" the number of Tudeh in the military.--Work permit (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no way this is WP:SYNTH, they are all related to cold war fears of soviet expansion explained by Kinzer. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

BoogaLuise has added an out-of-context line about Mossadegh's referendum and the criticism it had supposedly received, to the lead, as some sort of a POV qualifier or justification for the coup. Besides the fact that we had agreed not to change the lead for now, the criticism of Mossadegh's referendum and similar details about the political struggles between Mossadegh, and his opponents, do not belong in this article, let alone the lead. The lead is suppose to be a summary of importnat facts which are directly related to the subject! This is also a WP:SYNTH issue, as BoogaLuise is attempting to directly connect the referendum to the coup, something that the cited source does not do. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I agree, I stuck the staement for now in another section. The entire "background" section needs rediting. I agree the lead will follow from a better article.--Work permit (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The statement itself is also flawed , redundant and out of context. It combines two different sources, to make a point, that's a violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also redundant, as it's discussed in more details and within the proper context, in the next paragraph. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I fully admit to have just stuck it there. It's out of context, but closer in conext to any other section. In the spirit of skywriters comment, "don't revert, build" can we build up around the sourced statement? Perhaps around the related comment Counter-coup discussion?--Work permit (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Give me until tomorrow, I'll re-check what those two cited sources actually say in details about the issue, and will re-add the extended version, beyond the cherry-picked buzz words, to the third paragraph where the issue is already discussed. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
All the time in the world. Thanks for checking sources--Work permit (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


  • BoogaLuise has added an out-of-context line about Mossadegh's referendum

how is it out of context? Here are the complete quotes. How is the context different?

  • Besides the fact that we had agreed not to change the lead for now

There have been major changes to the lead with the massive edits in the last 24 hours! Why didn't you touch them?

  • criticism of Mossadegh's referendum and similar details about the political struggles between Mossadegh, and his opponents, do belong in this article, let alone the lead [sic]

I assume you mean don't belong in the lead. Well why not? Why have a huge lead packed with a four line sentence on "underhanded methods to overthrow a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests," details about percentages of oil royalties and ownership of AIOC and who violating the 1913 Qajar era agreement and how Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery but then didn't seize it ... but nothing on a less-than-democratic referendum that gave Mossa great power and enfuriated his enemies?

  • BoogaLuise is attempting to directly connect the referendum to the coup, something that the cited source does not do

Nothing in the sentence says the referendum caused the coup. But one of the cited sources does [8]: "The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill". Well if anti-Mosaddegh people were executing the coup, isn't that relevant to the coup? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV

The page where you gathered data, boogalouie, [9] and cite in the paragraph above is the single most biased page on Mossadegh I have ever seen and I have tried to read and take notes, over the last few years, on many of the books written on the topic of the 1953 coup in Iran. On that page which you compiled, you try, in countless ways, to make Mossaddeq out to be a despicable person, corrupt, pro-communist and worse. You fail, because your cherry-picked quotes are so one-sided, so cloddish, your WP:POV is transparent. To put it ever so mildly, what you advocate is unfair and in clear violation of Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Nobody who knows anything about the subject would trust your original research in this matter, except to say it quite obviously supports your personal viewpoint though not the facts of history. In fairness, the authors you quote did what you did not do, and that is give balanced views of Mossadegh; each of them examined his weaknesses and his strengths, which is what we are supposed to be doing. You pour your heart out on that page trying to prove he was evil. You fail in that your bias leaves out the positives that every single one of the authors you cite documented.

Is this one-sided viewpoint the result of your intent, which you prescribed [10] Watch for the need to cleanse the article of anything that suggest the coup was more than a struggle of good and evil. I want to include such information.

At least now, boogalouie, we don't have to wonder whether you are an evangelist for cleansing this article for whatever it is that you perceive as good and evil.

We now can see, in your own words, that you have self-identified this as your mission. And, you have presented us with a page that is the result of that skewed and non-neutral posture.

In your selective and out-of-context quotes, you ignore all that went on in the days leading up to the referendum. The authors you cite certainly do not do that, and that is why we have a balanced view of Mossadegh in context, and certainly not from the page of out-of-context quotes you selected, but from the secondary sources themselves. Over these last several years, I never before quite grasped the hostility with which you hold Mossadegh, though your championing of the coup itself has been quite clear-- and now seen in the context of your perception of good and evil. While you are entitled to your viewpoint, you are not entitled to inflict it upon what is supposed to be a balanced article.

You prescribe violating Wikipedia neutrality. I can not support that. Skywriter (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Watch your civility, please.
I do not see the horrific problem you are reacting to. I do not see the hostility. I see a page which seeks to show the faults of the prime minister, one which exists solely because of the lack of such portrayal in this article. You cry for a balanced viewpoint, but have not yet delivered it, hence the effort by BoogaLouie to shine light on that side of the opinions of experts, a side which has not been represented fully. You are correct in that the cited sources, in general, describe Mossadegh's strengths and weaknesses, but we do not. I think BoogaLouie's research page is useful. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Skywriter is certainly correct in observing that Boogalouie has been engaged in what is commonly refereed to as "POV pushing" by the Wikipedia community. He is in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRY, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and various other policies. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet,
Neither Mossadegh's strengths nor his weaknesses, have anything to do with the subject of this article, the 1953 coup. Only those who are trying to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK, and whitewash the coup, would care about the "the faults of the prime minister" or his "portrayal" one way or the other. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A "balanced viewpoint" should be properly understood. This is not CNN where we would present a pro-Mossadegh and a pro-Pahlavi view. Instead, we present the views of experts. The Four Deuces (talk)
Kurdo777, I agree the article is about the 1953 coup. The coup was Mossadegh's greatest test as a statesman, and he failed it. It was an open book test, too; he asked for and received expert advice in the weeks leading up to his being deposed. Decisions made by Mossadegh were pivotal to the outcome of the coup. Naturally, the story of the coup will have quite a lot of Mossadegh's actions and decisions in it, and his motives, where known. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This article has been bogged down for several years largely because of BoogaLouie's dominant and assertive presence relentlessly objecting to the inclusion of viewpoints that differ from his own, which is essentially that anything critical of the U.S. role is reverted. Now we learn there is a strategy here of being vigilant in cleansing the article of anything that suggests the coup was more than a struggle between good and evil. That smacks of the intolerance reflected in the domination of this article by sympathy and excuses for the U.S. role. There is plenty in the literature that explores other factors, and I have had enough of this "cleansing" on the basis of what one person claims is "good" vs. "evil" as my edits have, over the last several years, been directly affected by this evangelism; I have watched as other editors have been driven away due to this "cleansing" activity.
I want it to stop.
There are many other factors to this story, aside from defense of what the Eisenhower administration did. There were disagreements between the US and Britain beginning in 1951 over how Iran's oil should be divided. This article does little in the way of describing the details of that or the coup itself, or what led up to it, or even what particular factions in Iran were doing at critical times. Except for the first paragraph, which I worked on last week, and Boogalouie immediately attacked, the entire lead section skims over the history in a most unreadable fashion, making it sound not as important as it is in the way the Middle East began viewing the U.S. after the coup.
So much is crammed into those leading paragraphs it is unreadable. I want the "cleansing" activity to stop and I want it to stop right now. And even today, after announcing his "cleansing" activity, he is carrying it on by adding peripheral material that makes sense in the context of a book length manuscript but certainly not in an encyclopedia article. The book explores many of the relevant issues, but places undue weight on defending and explaining what the U.S. did, to the point of distorting what the secondary source, Stephen Kinzer wrote. In the section, boogalouie added today, [11] from page 84 of All the Shah's Men, Boogalouie manages to leave out what Kinzer said about the concerns of Iranians and skipped to the part about what concerned the U.S. government and even uses ellipses to skip the part about the US and Soviet Union being allies during the war, along with the explanations that both Britain and Soviet Union occupied Iran during the war in order to get Iran's oil to the Soviet Union. In this article that is supposed to be about the 1953 coup in Iran, part of BL's cherry-picked defense of and excuse for the US overthrowing an elected government that "In 1949 the Soviet Union successfully tested a nuclear weapon" neglecting to mention that the United States, even now, is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons, two in fact, decimating two civilian populations. So, here we have a fresh example of cherry-picked "facts" largely irrelevant to the focus of this article that we have to spend time discussing on this talk page because Boogalouie, in his missionary zeal, is fighting the forces of "good" and "evil" in an encyclopedia article where those kind of assertions have no place.
Here's another view: the US and Soviet Union were the winners of WW II and together divided the world between them into spheres of influence. That is what the Cold War was all about. Countless populations, including in Iran, suffered directly because of the fight between the superpower winners of WWII. Several million Vietnamese paid the price of the US "fighting communism." Few of the countries taken over by either the United States or the Soviet Union benefited from being clients of either superpower. The job of this article is not to defend one superpower or another. They both committed a litany of serious crimes in their competition for world domination. The job of this article is to describe what happened in Iran and to faithfully reflect what secondary sources have said about the coup. That's it. Our job is not to take sides (for one nation, or person, or another) or to use ellipses to leave out inconvenient facts (that don't support our personal viewpoints). And our job is certainly not to "cleanse" the article of what any one of us perceives does not favor our personal view of what is either "good" or "evil". In all cases, we are supposed to let the facts speak for themselves as stated by secondary sources but I don't see that happening in this article. I see it being destroyed by a proponent of a particular ideology, and I think that has to stop.
Each and every editor has a viewpoint. Not one of us would spend time trying to improve these articles without a viewpoint. The trouble starts when the personal viewpoint guides what goes into and is left out of an article such as this. And the real trouble starts when the views of the secondary sources are distorted and deliberately misrepresented, as happened today in this article with BL's quite obviously biased edits based on leaving facts out that did not further his prescribed vision of "good" and "evil." This is exactly the kind of distortion that drives honest editors away. It becomes not worth the trouble to keep fighting relentless missionary zeal. Though I have been editing here since 2006, and mostly for lack of time, I have not engaged in any of the administrative actions that are supposed to put a lid on the absence of neutrality or the deliberate skewing of articles. So I don't know what to do next. I do know I want the cleansing to stop. I suspect BL doesn't realize that what he is doing violates the central tenet of Wikipedia neutrality. Or maybe he does and doesn't care because he's on a mission. Skywriter (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
"Mossadegh is remembered as the Iranian promise of democracy crushed in its cradle." These stirring words are from Skywriter, in the archive Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état/Archive_6#1950s_section, showing a strong pro-Mossadegh bias. Also from Skywriter in Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état/Archive_6#More Referendum: "BoogaLouie [...] is one-sided and unbalanced in his criticisms of Mossadegh, always wanting to show his weaknesses while ignoring that Mossadegh is viewed heroically in Iran and throughout the Middle East." Yes, BoogaLouie has been one-sided, but it has been in response to your own one-sided pro-Mossadegh bias. In your above talk entry, you wrote "The trouble starts when the personal viewpoint guides what goes into and is left out of an article such as this." Might this observation apply to yourself as well as others? Yes. BoogaLouie has not been the only editor with "dominant and assertive presence relentlessly objecting to the inclusion of viewpoints that differ" from his own. The two of you have paralyzed this article by an unwillingness to allow negative views, from experts, to make your champion look bad. We are not here to ensure that the reader takes away a heroic view of Mossadegh and a vile attitude against Britain and the U.S., or the reverse; we are here to tell the story in all its ugliness from all sides. Mossadegh had weakened the country to the edge of economic collapse, with his failure to make money from the newly nationalized AIOC, and his hero-worshippers should be reminded of this fact. The U.S. and Britain conspired to oust him, and the readers should understand the depths of the conspiracy. Right now, after 27 edits by Skywriter, the article is supremely critical of the U.S. but has nothing about Mossadegh's strategic and tactical mistakes and his failure to see Iran in its place on the global stage. What we have now is not neutral—exactly the complaint you level against BoogaLouie. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll ignore the personal attacks in your comment for now. There is no bias Skywriter's comment, he made a factual statement about how Mossadegh is viewed today by the general population in Iran. Stephen Kinzer has made the same observation. Your comment on the other hand that "Mossadegh's failure to see Iran in its place on the global stage" is a clear violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. There was a coup, and the coup had its perpetrators and beneficiaries, those are the undisputed facts. We are not here to rewrite history, and excuse the actions of the coup's perpetrators, by turning the page into a WP:COATRACK. What some people are advocating here, is no different than turning an article about a murder case into an essay about how the victim deserved to be murdered, saying "we are here to tell the story in all its ugliness from all sides". This is absurd. You're all free to advocate anything you want, but this page is not a blog entry, it's an encyclopedia entry that should remain neutral and encyclopedic. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
There were no personal attacks to ignore. Skywriter showed bias in BoogaLouie's editing history, and I showed bias in Skywriter's. This is not a murder trial, it is an article about history, an article about a coup against a weakened state leader. How did that state leader become weakened? All sides, man, all sides—from expert observers. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT)No, Bink, you did not identify NPOV in my edits, which removed not one word about Mossadegh. You are mistaken. No material pertaining to Mossadegh was removed in last night's edits that brought logical sections together so that redundancies can more easily be weeded out, and the holes in the story more easily identified.

Bink, you are entitled to your personal opinion that Mossadegh is a "failure" but that is not the balanced view held by reliable sources identified in the reference section and in footnotes. Your personal opinion is, overwhelmingly, not the viewpoint held by scholars and journalists who have identified Mossadegh as representing the aspirations of the Iranian people to nationalize oil. Oil is Iran's most valuable natural resource and it had been exploited for half a century by the Brits who were widely seen in Iran as the source of most of Iran's problems. Whether the Brits were the source of most of Iran's problems is a separate issue. Mossadegh's personal negotiating style-- from his bed, in his pajamas, in French, while denouncing Britain as the source of all Iranian problems while sending his grandchild to private school in Britain -- is nothing less than hilarious. And yet, it is indisputable that Persians saw Britain as the source of all that was wrong in their country, and they wanted Britain out of Iran. Also indisputable is that the Iranian people correctly viewed Mossadegh as the leader who promised he would nationalize Iran's oil and he was the leader who made good on that promise.

Also indisputable is that Britain viewed Mossadegh as a threat to its continued control over Iranian oil. The Brits did not want to negotiate with Mossadegh-- even after the United States cautioned Britain that it needed to adapt to the new world order, and that is the fifty/fifty splits that were newly in place with Venezuela and Saudi Arabia by 1950. In the throes of losing its empire (India and Pakistan were newly gone and other colonial client states were falling), Britain bickered with the United States in opposition to fifty/fifty split, and eventually after the coup, was disgruntled yet had to go along with much less in Iranian oil revenue than it could have received in 1950 when fifty/fifty was on the table with Iran. Britain learned to share Iranian oil revenues with the United States, one of the world's two superpowers, a fact that followed the re-alignment of power after WWII.

There's more but I need to be working at my real job. Try to focus on the story as told by scholars. Mossy wasn't hard to topple because the government was weak and there were competing interests. The embargo enforced by Britain did enormous damage to Iran and weakened the central government. (I did trim the footnote to the Mary Ann Heiss article that appeared in the book Gasiorowski edited because the footnote used ellipses and distorted her viewpoint.) In Client States Gasiorowski explores how the embargo weakened Mossadegh and resulted in widespread instability and unemployment throughout Iran. That instability made it easy for Kermit Roosevelt to buy support for the unpopular monarch with rent-a-thug crowds. It also made it easy for Kermit to spread dollars among clergy who opposed the secular government.

Personal viewpoint is not supposed to guide what goes into the article. Booga established his personal viewpoint with his Mossy page and now you are telling us to focus on the simple tale of Mossy, the failure. The story is more complicated than that, Bink, and I think you know that. Skywriter (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, Bink. I raised the economic issues two weeks ago by adding text[12] which you labeled "a sob story." Unfortunately, you deleted a valid viewpoint --the economics-- though you were right in saying the full text didn't belong in the lead. With the new structure, I think it will be easier to add a section on the effects of the embargo on Iran and also a section on pre-coup Iranian politics. A review of the economic conditions in Iran during the years of the embargo and the politics is germane to why the coup succeeded, and it can be a readable section. Skywriter (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am saying do not select against reliable sources that show Mossadegh's weaknesses. Dr. Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wrote in March 2004 ("The Paradox of Anti-Americanism in Iran") that "Mossadegh's overthrow came in no small part because of his increasing isolation on the domestic political scene." Clawson says that in the days leading up to the coup, the influential cleric Kashani turned away from Mossadegh, the National Front which had supported him fractured, and "dozens of deputies resigned". This weakened Mossadegh severely. Clawson wrote, "Mossadegh may have God-like status among leftist foreign intellectuals [today, in 2004], but, as Rubin noted, 'In the days after Mossadegh's removal, the shah and Zahedi [the new prime minister] seemed as popular as the National Front leader [Mossadegh] had ever been.'" It is precisely this "God-like status" that I do not feel is appropriate for the article. Clawson describes how "there can be little doubt that many Iranian nationalists were profoundly disappointed at Mossadegh's failure and that, as the Shah became more authoritarian, memories of the bad parts of the Mossadegh legacy faded as a legend of a golden age grew." We do not need to further any legends—we are free to describe the events as precisely and accurately as our sources allow. Some of Clawson's observations could be inserted into the article for balance. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The journal that Patrick Clawson wrote for, Middle East Review of International Affairs, is not peer-reviewed and therefore it is difficult to determine the notability of his views. An appropriate source would be a neutral peer-reviewed journal like the Middle East Journal[13] The Four Deuces (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

what was meant by "cleanse the article"

Watch for the need to cleanse the article of anything that suggest the coup was more than a struggle of good and evil. I want to include such information. from my post to Work Permit.
I should have been more clear in what I meant perhaps. I am most definitely not "an evangelist for cleansing this article for whatever it is that [I] perceive as good and evil." I was refering to what appears to me to be attempts by some editors to make sure there is no nuance in the article - only a struggle betweeen good (i.e. Mosaddeq) and evil (i.e. US and UK), and any information that might make Mossy look in any way flawed in his judgement or whatever, or the US/UK look sympathetic, was to be deleted. The information I want to include are the shades of grey that keep being deleted.

I undestood you to mean that we have to go through sources and be viligent in cleansing statements that are in contradiction to the what the sources say. There have been many examples of the need of such viligilance inthis article, from all POV's.--Work permit (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Work Permit had posted me, I think trying to encourage me (" I think we need to go beyond personalties, and just discuss edits and sources, and fix them quickly and dynamically") and I wanted to explain to him why I was less optimistic about his attempts to work on the article in current conditions.

PS I've made a complaint about incivility against Kurdo and Skywriter. I've been ignoring it but I've had enough. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my comment, "I think we need to go beyond personalties, and just discuss edits and sources, and fix them quickly and dynamically." I felt just like you did on when, on The coup and cia records the quoted section that was deleted made just the opposite claim. wp:agf took alot of effort on my part (because I happen to have independtly found it), but in fact Skywriter did explain the edit. And that's the real point. wp:agf really works! He had a prefectly understandable explanation. And look what's happened next. A really well balanced section on the origins, with contributions by ALL the editors who have actvely been involved in the past. The latest edits I've made are mostly grammer.--Work permit (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"relentlessly objecting ...intolerance ..."

This probably a waste of time but I have to reply to Skywriter said about me personally because ... well, it's the opposite of what's happened to the article.

  • This article has been bogged down for several years largely because of BoogaLouie's dominant and assertive presence relentlessly objecting to the inclusion of viewpoints that differ from his own,
    I don't have any assertive presence. I barely have a presence. I complain on the talk page and and hope for arbitration but virtually all the edits I've made to the article have been reverted by Kurdo and Skywriter. example
  • This article does little in the way of describing the details of that or the coup itself, or what led up to it,
    For a long time the article said little or nothing about who actually executed it, in what time frame, etc. because the dominating editors thought it wasn't important! The important thing was who got what percentage of the oil consortium! See the old article version here, my complaint here, and Kurdo's reply that "It's all about context. Zahedi and Nassiri were minor players in a bigger game. Their role is already covered sufficiently. They were instruments, not the main perpetrators." --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Now we learn there is a strategy here of being vigilant in cleansing the article of anything that suggests the coup was more than a struggle between good and evil.
    I was talking about you Skywriter. I'm more than happy to have in-between.
  • have watched as other editors have been driven away due to this "cleansing" activity.
    Name one.
  • Except for the first paragraph, which I worked on last week, and Boogalouie immediately attacked, the entire lead section skims over the history in a most unreadable fashion, making it sound not as important as it is in the way the Middle East began viewing the U.S. after the coup.
    I add one thing to the lead - this sentence deleted by Kurdo later (I asked why, but as usual got no reply.)
  • Boogalouie manages to leave out what Kinzer said about the concerns of Iranians and skipped to the part about what concerned the U.S. government and even uses ellipses to skip the part about the US and Soviet Union being allies during the war,
    He's talking about this edit. It does leave the article mentioning that "the United States, ... slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge", ... but the edit is in the U.S. motives section. Fear of soviet expansion is a motive for worrying about/overthrowing the Mosaddeq regime, the fact that the US and Soviet Union both fought Hitler is not.
  • The job of this article is to describe what happened in Iran and to faithfully reflect what secondary sources have said about the coup. That's it.
    Well no, it's also our job to describe why the coup happened as far as WP:Reliable Sources have been able to understand. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where cherrypicked quotes used in deleted sentence?

All the edits I added yesterday have been deleted by Kurdo on ground of cherry picking, synthesis, etc. Here is one he deleted

On August 10, Mosaddeq was given power to dismiss parliament and rule by decree in a referendum in which he won over 99% of the vote,[2] though it was criticized as "transparently unfair" for lacking secret ballots.[3] I've put all the excerpts I could find on the referendum in this section.

Kurdo what evidence do you have that the sentence violated wikipedia regulations in anyway? The lead is supposed to be a summary. Where is it written that do different sources can't be used in one sentence? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is being discussed at Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Lead. --Kurdo777 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussed? That's funny. you haven't answered my question or said a word in reply. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Kinzer and Ervand Abrahamian debating the motives behind the 1953 coup

I was doing some research, and I found this video of a debate between Stephen Kinzer and Ervand Abrahamian about the motives behind the coup, etc. I thought I would share it with other editors who might be researching the topic. It's a good watch. --Kurdo777 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a TV/radio news program, hosted by Amy Goodman. Here is the original transcript [14]. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see, we are now discussing the relative merits of a source characterized as an example of non-fiction popular media (a book) versus that proffered by a peer-reviewed Marxist Journal.
Grrr… this seems to indicate a general lack of progress along lines of various Wiki-shit, which, as I understand, we should be following. Although I may have lessened my involvement, this blind man still perceives that damned elephant in the room. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"Peer reviewed Marxist journal" is an oxymoron (unless it is a journal about Marxism). To which publication are you referring? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"Abrahmian published a rebuttal to the fear theory in a peer reviewed marxist journal, Science & Society." Reviewed by other Marxists I guess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Science and Society "is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal of Marxist scholarship." Marxism is a perfectly valid framework for a wide range of studies. It's valid to note the journal because a Marxist framework is generally not considered mainstream academia.--Work permit (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, kurdo. We've used the published source from this interview, its nice to see the actual interview.--Work permit (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Post-coup dragnet paragraph

Why is this paragraph in the middle of the US motives section? The cited source neither discusses nor relates the arrests to US motives. We, as editors, can not put A and B together, to make a conclusion. If the paragraph was added there as a supplementary observation, or to complete another paragraph preceding it, sort of like 2+2=4, then that would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. If not, then it should be moved to a separate section called "Post-coup arrests and repression". --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

good question. I don't think it belongs either. I think it belongs in another section, yet to be written, about the immediate aftermath of the post-coup iran (outside the US section). Lets not call it "Post-coup arrests and repression", just "immediate aftermath of post-coup". Should include other issues as well.--Work permit (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I just moved the paragraph to the "aftermath" section. That section needs elaboration and rewriting.--Work permit (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Work permit. The info about 4000+ civilians arrested, and their professions, should be restored too. If we gonna list military personals, and their ranks, then we should also list civilians and their professions too.[15] We should also mention that 11 of the arrested officers were tortured to death. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to add it, now that's its in the other section.--Work permit (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
In this article, about the coup, discussion of post-coup events should be relevant to the coup. The bit about the Tudeh military network was relevant in that some National Front people, after the coup, said the Tudeh guys should have banded together and stopped the coup, but it turns out they were not in a position to do so, per Abrahamian. What is the coup relevance of the 4000+ civilians arrested for being associated with Tudeh? Whatever it is, it must be brought into the story. Binksternet (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
All wars, coups, revolts and conflicts have consequences and causalities, which are an importnat part of such events' coverage in history. That's why the post-coup arrests, executions and harassment of dissidents, intellectuals and activists is very relevant to the coup. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but at some point the killings are less attributable to the coup and more to the rule of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi. We draw the line somewhere. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. But we're not talking about Shah's repression in 60s and 70s, we're talking about the arrests, executions and purges that followed the coup. --Kurdo777 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced section (U.S. motive)

Currently, ten paragraphs are dedicated to detailed in-depth (and sometimes trivial) analysis of the "communist threat" theory, while only four paragraphs are dedicated to all the other valid theories on the motives behind the coup. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. We should make the section in question more balanced, and give equal weight to all the significant scholarly viewpoints. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Objectively, the the ratio of 10/4 seems low given the references discussed. The scholarly views in the discussion section is only by Abrahamian. His one peer-reviewed article in that section is in a marxist journal. This is to be weighed against a peer reviewed article in International Journal of Middle East Studies, and two in the Journal of Cold War Studies (neither discussed). We then give equal weight to a radio interview of Abrahamian as we do to books. We give equal weights (in passing) to books by scholars as we do to the popular media (including an op-ed piece). Regarding wp:undue weight, we should add statements from the other peer reviewed articles. The ratio should be higher, not lower.--Work permit (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Having said this, the paragraph by Skywriter that starts "Gasiorowski wrote that each of the superpowers provided arms" is probably the weakest and I'm ok deleting it so I just did. The other two paragraphs "The two main winners..." followed by "Gasiorowski identified Bulgaria" may be the next weakest and could go. But I believe the paragraphs are meant to emphasize how the client/state relationship effected US thoughts. Perhaps they can be replaced by other authors discussing Iran in the context of the policy of containment. The others are very powerful and should not be deleted, IMHO--Work permit (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I just edited to get an 2/1 ratio. As discussed above, objectively too low (should have more on fear then oil) but lays out the arguments without being redundant.--Work permit (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure where you got the 2/1 ratio. But the "references discussed" should not be the parameter by which the scholarly consensus is measured. As another editor pointed out last month[16], the weighting of different points of view should be based on the quantity of peer-reviewed journal articles, and that's only possible when you have a scholar who is doing the research, and has equal access to all articles published on the subject and would examines them all in a neutral manner, not when motivated Wikipedia editors go on cherry picking expeditions. Given that we lack the means of an accurate, objective measurement of all the peer-reviewed articles published on this topic, I got to disagree that we should have more content on "fear" then "oil", since the only thing we can say for a fact, is that both viewpoints are "significant" and neither of them is "extreme minority" viewpoint, so they should therefore be equally covered in the motives section. --Kurdo777 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
you had 10/4. I deleted one pargraph (a sentance) and combined another. That's 8/4=2/1. If you want, delete Abrhamians radio interview quotes, its not equal to the other sources. If you want to only stay with peer reviewed articles (an approach I and othr editors disagree with ) delete citations from everything but the two articles, AND add materials from the other two articles cited above. If you have other peer reviewed articles, add material from them as well. wp:agf, but if you can't, pick some cherry's yourself. We may then debate the quality of the journals cited, as I alluded to above. That is the approach if we are going to stick with peer reviewed articles as the only sources to use here. I suggest we don't go down that path.--Work permit (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we should delete anything, but a little more focus should be given to the other significant viewpoints (not necessarily the "oil" issue), other than the "communist threat" theory. A proper balance should be maintained between the significant viewpoints. --Kurdo777 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you mean there may be something OTHER then knee jerk fear or lust for oil. I think that's what Skywriter is alluding to in those paragraphs I said "may be the next weakest", and may be buried in the other journal articles. The policy of containment. It's a bit more subtle version of "fear". Its the policy of "containing" soviet expansion. From the sovet point of view, its a policy of encirclement. Be that as it may, its a policy of preventing the soviets from increasing their client states, AND in return the US increasing theirs. And if you're going to make a stand on a client state, certainly one that controls so much oil would be high on your list. I have no wp:rs to back this up, but I think there is something there.--Work permit (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 what evidence to you have that the citations and sources have been cherrypicked?
What evidence do you have that "the only thing we can say for a fact, is that both viewpoints ["fear of communist expansion" and "desire to control oil"] are `significant`? Where is the evidence (besides an interview with Abrahamain) that the "desire to control oil" has any support among notable scholars? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he has one, and as I pointed out above neither do I. We'd have to search through more scholarly journals to find it. But how about, "fear of communists taking control of oil, and so we better control it first". :)--Work permit (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For some light hearted humor, I'd like to observe the following. There is one point of view amongst editors, that the Iran coup was just another knee-jerk reaction to the Soviet Union, one that started in Greece and ended in Vietnam. The US has overthrown plenty of governments for no other reason but a fear of communist expansion, why think differently of Iran? In Vietnam, they not only overthrew a government, they even committed troops to a dead end war in a corner of the world with NO strategic or economic value whatsoever, just as a knee-jerk reaction to communism. What makes you think Iran is any different?

Then there is another point of view which says "no, that's not true". Iran's oil reserves were a vital interest to the United States. As soon as it understood that, it took action to protect this interest, and hoodwinked the Brits in the process by taking their slice of the action. The US, in this case, acted with the aplomb and thoughtfulness of a real world power.

Needless to say, both analysis are wrong. The US, all along, really planned to extend itself until it met, what appeared to most, a horrible defeat in Vietnam. This encouraged the Soviet Union to try its own hand at such folly, from Angola to Nicaragua. But when it met it's defeat in Afghanistan, it did not have the resources to recover, and so eventually collapsed. The Soviet Union lost to a cunning US policy, best described as the rope-a-dope strategy.

This is all in light humor, meant to break some tensions. No wp:rs to back it up :).--Work permit (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rope-a-dope! LOL. Muhammad Ali for U.S. Secretary of State! Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What evidence? Even Gasiorowski who advocates the "communist threat" theory, acknowledges that "It is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of US policymakers to help US oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production"[17]. That means that "a desire for oil" is a very significant argument. Otherwise, a scholar like Gasiorowski would not have acknowledged this argument - and written a rebuttal to it. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The Cold War section goes into a lot of detail about the Soviet threat which is not really necessary for the article - readers who want to know if the threat was real can follow hyperlinks. A lot of this can be reduced. The section seems to be trying to persuade the reader that the Cold War theory is legitimate. Also, the views presented by Abrahamian should be drawn from his articles in mainstream peer-reviewed journals or books published by academic publishers. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
A)Kurdo777, you cut short the Gasiorowski quote, similar to Skywriter's tampering with it. He says nothing to indicate "a desire for oil" was a "very significant argument."
B) Disagree. Detail about the Soviet threat in the Cold War section is vital for the article. What needs to be cut is all the blather about the history of oil in Iran which can be found on other wikipedia articles. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to mention Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Cambodia, Iran, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, South Korea, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Greece, Turkey, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Liberia, Zaire, Israel, Jordan, Tunisia, Pakistan, Thailand, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Ethiopia, Japan, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Cuba, Mongolia, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Guinea, Somalia, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea and other countries and numerous Cold War conflicts. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected. You are right about that part and there's lots more in the section that is bloated rambling. I'd have to say, though that US Motives is not the only section that needs to be shortened. -- BoogaLouie (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What did I cut short? I just quoted the relevant sentence to our argument here. And what do you mean Gasiorowski says nothing to indicate "a desire for oil" was a "very significant argument."? He explicitly says that it is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was oil. He doesn't say that he agrees with this assertion, but he acknowledges the fact that oil is often considered as the main motive behind the coup. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. "On the face of it" it is, but not in reality. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That has nothing to do, with what we are discussing here. Nobody here is implying that Gasiorowski argues in favor of the oil motive. But does he or does he not acknowledge that oil is often cited as a motive by others? --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I didn't read you carefully enough. He does say that "oil is often cited as a motive by others." But there is a big difference between acknowledging it's used as an arguement and agreeing it's a sound or "significant argument." --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
He is acknowledging that "oil" is often cited as a motive by many, that means that it's a widely held view and therefore significant, which was the whole point of this discussion. Judging the motives of X or Y is a subjective matter anyways, it's not mathematics or rocket science to to be "sound", one scholar's opinion may differ greatly from another scholar's take on the same issue. Per WP:NPOV, our job as editors is to give equal and fair representation to all the prominent viewpoints, and "oil" fits that criteria given that an opposing scholar like Gasiorowski acknowledges that it's a widely held view. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Besides complaining, what precisely do you suggest to move the section along. Do you have sources you'd like to add? --Work permit (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In any regard, I've removed this tag, since the entire articles neutrality is disputed. This section is in much better shape then any other, and there is no need to tag every section since the entire article is tagged.--Work permit (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Gasiorowski, Mark J (August 1987). "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran". International Journal of Middle East Studies. Vol. 19 (No. 3). Cambridge University Press: pp. 261-286. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help) A version is available for public access at Web publication accesed from Document Revision: 1.4 Last Updated: 1998/08/23. Its is archived at Archived 2009-06-19.
  2. ^ Abrahamian Iran between two revolutions, Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, c1982, p.274
  3. ^ Kinzer, All the Shah's Men (2003) p.165
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état/Archive_10&oldid=1234753784"