Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Resolving differences - try again? Editor assistance? Mediation? Arbitration?

I support the current version of the lead as its stands for the reason that the only other draft that has been put forward has deliberately excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page.

Skywriter could you specify succinctly what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored." I realize you have masses of text on this page but it has been my experience they do not demonstrate your point. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there is not much activity here and the lead is still seriously flawed, I've posted messages to Skywriter, Binksternet, Kurdo and SnowFire (Snowfire has not posted in over a week however and may not be coming back). --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're ready for mediation. Regarding Snowfire, and other editors, don't count somebody in or out. Just accept their current contributions for what they are. We are all volunteers. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Right.

So next step Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabal. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are the two of you ignoring the suggestion on the table at the end of [[1]] The suggestion is to open the article to editing one sentence at a time. Three people have responded affirmatively. Neither of you have responded at all. Why not? Skywriter (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have overlooked it, but I find your posts painful to read. I can't think of any reason to not open the article to editing one sentence at a time.

Perhaps you could reply to some of my questions, namely `could you specify succinctly what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored." I realize you have masses of text on this page but it has been my experience they do not demonstrate your point.` --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

... and will you participate in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation?

PS I've started reading Mohammad Moaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran and found it contains a great deal on the cold war and pretty much nothing on the dividing up of shares in the NIOC consortium. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The relevant texts are:

• "Oil, Power and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath." by Mostafa Elm (Syracuse University Press, 1994) ISBN 9780815626428
• Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA By Tim Weiner (Doubleday 2007) ISBN 9780307389008
• The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power by Daniel Yergin(Simon & Schuster 1991) ISBN 9780671502485

Skywriter (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If these issues require additional editors for input, BoogaLouie, feel free to make an entry on my talk pasge and I'll contribute as I can. I just came across this article (I have a few comments in the Mossadegh talk page from some time back) and it's apparant there is a steep slant in the way this is being presented. It's an insult to millions of intelligent, proud Iranians to assert that Kermit Roosevelt took a satchel of money and gathered up a group of prostitutes and pimps (thugs?) and subverted the will of millions of Iranians. Think of the implications, the Iranians wanted democracy so bad, and supported Mossadegh with such conviction, that we bought off a few of them with what, five, six figures and their oil revenues were forgotten? I think something else is going on, that doesn't insult all Persians as pathetic, weak patsies. I'd like to inject another aspect to this story I think has been overlooked, and the best way to do that is usually to take a talking point of one who would be your most formidable adversary, agree with him on it, and guide him to expand that point. To wit-

"The search for answers will have to wait at least until more of the documentary record is available in both Iran and the United States. Unfortunately, a portion of the record on the American side will never be recovered because CIA operatives, according to former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, destroyed them in the 1960s. The surviving files remain locked away from public view on the grounds that their declassification, even 46 years later, would damage the national security. Because of the obvious public interest value and historical significance of these materials, the National Security Archive in May 1999 filed suit against the CIA to demand their release. The suit is still pending. Skywriter (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)"

Would suporters of the article likewise believe all CIA accounts from the era, taken at face value?

The way I understand this issue is this- We tried to oust Mossadegh and get our man the shah back in. We didn't have near the manpower in the country to get the job done. Mossadegh's policies were a disaster, even he admitted this later, they broke they country. His policies angered the people to do what we couldn't. Yes, we had a role. However Mossadegh's actions were as questionable as ours, and he wasn't democratically elected in any sense that we think.

Back to the CIA, the early 60's saw Bay of Pigs and strong suspicion of their role in JFK's death, put them under such negative scrutiny Congress was seriously considering their complete dissolution. At the time the Shah of Iran was "a shining success story" of middle east policy because the world view was shielded from seeing the death squads, they saw him keeping peace in the region. Why do you think all that paperwork detailing their actual activities was first called too sensitive to release.... then later they claimed was lost in a fire? I'll tell you why, because Woolsey, and the players, were lying. Most of the story was embellished or falsified outright because their head was on the chopping block, and the way they told it convinces Congress and a Washington press wanting to run them up a flagpole over JFK, that we can't lose these vital assets in the cold war. They took credit for what they did not, and could not, have done. A decade plus later their PR coup turns on them, but it worked when they needed it most. C'mon, prostitutes, thugs- have you seen the accounts of circus jugglers and acrobats? PLEASE. Kermit's story sounds so wild you couldn't write fiction that crazy. Oh, yes they could, and that's why it sounds like a cartoon story.

If the agenda is to hate how the CIA ****s with our world, you don't have to rethink that. Just add that we here in America, with the additional aspect of what I'm telling you, (not my belief alone, more below) have also been ****ed by these hijinx. And so has Iran, who cannot come to grips with their own internal politics while they can blame someone else.

Finally i seee a glaring omission in General Zahedi's son's rebuttal which was printed in the NY Times soon after their story. It will describe much of the above. The mossadegh article used to have a link, it expired, but the article is posted in its entirety in this discussion-[2] about halfway down the page. Batvette (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Batvette, watch for WP:Civil and WP:Talk, this is not a forum for your WP:SOAPing. Sorry for being skeptical about your "expertise" on this subject, but you do not even know the simple fact that Iranians aren't Arabs [3], and have a history of making uncivil, racially-charged soapboxy comments within this topical area.[4] As per mediation, it's too early to go into mediation, we haven't exhausted all the other options. BoogaLouie, do you or do you not agree with the proposal by me and Skywriter to get the page unlocked and edit "one line" at a time? A simple YES or NO would be sufficient. If you do, lets try that, and if it failed, then we'll request mediation. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your wikilawyering does not impress, amuse or intimidate me, thank you, and it's largely baseless as there was nothing at all uncivil about that entry-if you took it that way it's probably because it challenged your preconceived notions on the issue. I would offer your reply was not even in good faith as you sought to discredit me with an entirely false claim- that I EVER called Iranians Arabs, I did not, you cannot find the word Arab in my reply at all, and in the link you provide it was referring to a remark about Ron Paul and US foreign policy, and didn't state or imply anything of the sort.

So you had nothing to say about a single topical issue I raised, the entire gist of your reply was to dismiss my person as racist and ignorant and you used dishonest references to do so. If you don't want to discuss the issues about Operation Ajax or how the truth of this issue could make a better article, at least expend the efforts to ensure your Ad Hominem attacks are competant. Anything less is a further personal insult. Have a nice day. Batvette (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready to try one-line-at-a-time editing. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has no legitimacy if it refuses to acknowledge Ardeshir Zahedi's rebuttal.

Which can be found right here- [5] I offered it above but one of the editors of this article thought it more relevant to attack my person. The NY Times story is considered the basis of much of the version of the events told here, Zahedi directly responded to that article at the time, and the NY Times printed his rebuttal. Ardeshir Zahedi, and of course his father, were principals in this event, it is irresponsible to not include, much less consider as factual, his side of the story here.Batvette (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We have consensus

Except for the person who winningly refers to other editors as thugs and prostitutes we have agreement by all participating editors to open the page to editing one sentence at a time. I have taken the liberty of copying each of these points of consensus to this section. I have asked the admin who blocked the page to unblock it. A/c to the article history, that admin is (cur) (prev) 12:12, June 22, 2009 Nishkid64 (talk | contribs) m (57,066 bytes) (Protected 1953 Iranian coup d'état: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) Skywriter (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The statements of consensus by the contributing editors follow.

I agree that the article should be unblocked. I have never seen an article blocked for as long as this. The editor who showed up suddenly and reverted countless times in a short period has shown no current interest. That was the immediate cause of the block by an editor who is not participating in this discussion and has not suggested ways to mediate. I propose that people make changes sentence by sentence. If someone objects to a particular sentence, we can take it here and thrash it out. If there's no agreement, then take it to mediation as Kurdo suggests we might be headed. ...Boogalouie, are you on board with unblocking and editing one sentence at a time? Skywriter (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as no major changes are made at once, and we go one sentence at a time (with adequate time in between new edits/additions to allow a discussion), with a gentleman's agreement that if an addition/edit is reverted, the other editor does not revert back, to avoid getting the page locked again. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable. P.S. I'm not sure whether the admin who froze the page will consent absent a consensus though as indicated in one of the posts above, I think. --RossF18 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to not open the article to editing one sentence at a time....--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready to try one-line-at-a-time editing. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, unprotected. Keep it under control, guys. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Too early for mediation?

Skywriter writes: I support the current version of the lead as its stands for the reason that the only other draft that has been put forward has deliberately excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page.

But there is no reply to the question I asked: Perhaps you could reply to some of my questions, namely `could you specify succinctly what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored."

(Here's the other draft that allegedly "excludes and ignores the viewpoints of the other editors")

Kurdo writes: As per mediation, it's too early to go into mediation, we haven't exhausted all the other options.

The editors Skywriter, SnowFire, Binksternet, Kurdo, and myself have been arguing about this article since 21 June 2009 at least. Naturally if you prefer the status quo article to changes offered, you're happy to not go to meditation, what I see on the page is much repetition, unanswered questions, and editors (SnowFire) dropping out. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, you lost me when you admitted you don't read my comments because they are too painful. That comment shows a closed mind not even making a pretense of seeing a point of view different from your own. I see nothing to mediate. We are done arguing. The page was opened yesterday for editing one sentence at a time. You signed onto that agreement and are now trying to change it? Perhaps you will consider holding yourself to your word. Honest dealing is always the best policy.Skywriter (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

By painful I meant long, repetitious, bombastic, changing-the-subject, and most of all not-to-the-point (I didn't want to get personal but since you asked ...) Where did anyone say that "the editing one sentence at a time" was mutually exclusive with mediation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean you will not answer (succinctly) the question what "viewpoints of the other editors who have contributed quite a bit to this talk page" has been "deliberately excluded and ignored"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anniversary of coup is in two weeks

... It will be in the news and a lot of people will be viewing this article to get more information. What will they see?

The lede doesn't mention the date of the coup, what happened on that day and the failed attempt a few days earlier. The two officers who executed it.

Following the lead are two long sections that would embarrass a party school undergrad's term-paper. Big blockquotes of wild accusations "Iranian fascists and Nazis played prominent roles in the coup regime." Several lines of ranting about the tangential subject of the CIA destroying records. Sloppy claims of "re-installed the pro-American Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to the throne" (had Iran become a Republic?) "... the all-powerful monarch installed in the coup" (the long blockquote only says that the CIA wanted to strengthen the shah), an advertisement for Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men (but hardly any information from it).

My good people, this is not a pretty sight. It's going to be an embasrrassment for wikipedia, and for the people who've spent hours and hours of their time trying to make wikipedia respected. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some reorganization is in order, like moving the background section as the first section after the lead and having the section about the actual operation and the coup and blockback after so that the readers first read the context behind the coup, so to speak.--RossF18 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a new topic and has been moved for that reason.

The agreement in place is for editing this article one sentence at a time. Honor the agreement. Concrete suggestions are welcome. Lectures are not. Skywriter (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone today added a phrase that mentions Kermit being related to Teddy Roosevelt. BoogaLouie complains about the section supported by the following footnotes. I see no sound basis in this complaint except that what is contained in the fn should appear in the article itself and not the footnotes. That Zahedi had been detained as a Nazi is as much a part of his story as Kermit's history.

footnote-- " The Day Democracy Died: The 50th Anniversary of the CIA Coup in Iran by historian Masoud Kazemzadeh". Archived from the original on 2009-06-20. http://www.webcitation.org/5hg3LWN5W. Retrieved on 2009-06-18.

footnote-- Kinzer, pp. 6, 13. In addition to the secret $5 million dollars CIA delivered to Zahedi, the US government sent another $28 million in September 1953 to assist Zahedi in consolidating the coup regime. Another $40 million was delivered in 1954 as soon as the regime signed the oil consortium deal giving Iranian oil to American and British oil companies. See Ervand Abrahamian, "The 1953 Coup in Iran," in Science & Society, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Summer 2001), p. 211. See also Habib Ladjevardi, "The Origins of U.S. Support for an Autocratic Iran," in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (May 1983).

I do see the need to improve this article. Boogalouie's patronizing remarks offer divisiveness but no solutions. Skywriter (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not accuse me of divisiveness. I'm not patronizing, I'm agonizing. The article is horrible.

Here are some solutions. Do as RossF18 suggests and moving the background section as the first section after the lead (like any other article in Wikipedia. If we say we can only move "one sentence at a time" it will take a 100 years to fix the article. Why can't we move sections if everyone agrees? Lines like "Iranian fascists and Nazis played prominent roles in the coup regime," are sensationalist and exagerations. Fazlollah Zahedi wasn't in the SS, he was siding with Nazi Germany against the UK - not the only Arab or Persian nationalist to do so I might add. We should replace the embarrassaments like "The Day Democracy Died" with something from a regular journalists or scholar Kinzer or Gasiorowski (http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran, Mark J. Gasiorowski] 1998-08-23. accessed 2009-June-17) The info about money sent by the US should be chronological. put in the aftermath --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Boogalouie, thank you for sharing your personal opinion, yet again.Skywriter (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Boogalouie, one sentence at a time means one sentence a time. That is the text of the entire agreement. Why did you sign the agreement then not honor your word? Skywriter (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Boogalouie, why are you trying to substitute your personal point of view for the writing of award-winning historian Masoud Kazemzadeh? If you want to contend that Kazemzadeh's research is sensationalistic and an exaggeration, please do the hard work of coming up with a secondary source to say that. We like you bunches, Boogalouie, but original research is not going in this article. Skywriter (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Boogalouie, instead of treating us with dollops of your personal POV, why not say something factual and constructive like, "OK to add the date of the coup to the lead sentence?" You would get quick agreement that way and piss off far fewer people. Or you can go back to the old way of playing victim, then going on sly attack.Skywriter (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Change

I propose changing:

The British and U.S. spy agencies replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.

to

The British and U.S. spy agencies, in what became known as Operation Ajax, replaced the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq with an all-powerful monarch, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.

--RossF18 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The term originated with the CIA. Therefore, how about-- in what the CIA called Operation Ajax--? Skywriter (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that reads better.--RossF18 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we skip the editorializing and stick to the facts?

The British and U.S. spy agencies, replaced the government of Prime Minister Mosaddeq with Mohammed Reza Pahlevi who ruled for the next 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.

67.184.14.87 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Most people know the overthrow as Operation Ajax, at least in U.S. So it should be mentioned in the lead, and that's the best place for it.--RossF18 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that version isn't realistic as it implies no internal forces desired the ouster of Mossadegh, as well saying the government was replaced is inaccurate. That implies the entire system was thrown out. A prime minister was replaced with another. There WAS an internal power struggle, but to say WE replaced him disrespects the people of Iran by implying they are weak and gullible. Batvette (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research is irrelevant, Batvette. Please read WP:OR and WP:CS This page is not a forum for opinion or debate.Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Skywriter (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad Wikilawyering is not a good deflection of factual points presented, I don't appreciate the patronizing suggestion I go review the most basic fundamentals of wikipedia. Especially mentioning Original Research- that pertains to an article entry, not input to a talk page describing why a passage of an article is inaccurate. As for that inaccuracy, get real. There were plenty of Iranians that were not happy when Mossadegh's policy plans were implemented. I guess Iranians wanted to be poor just so they could tell the world they had a "Democracy" and we ruined it all? No, that is not the case but I can see from your entries here you have no interest in any facts which don't fit your agenda.I brought a link to a piece by Zahedi, which is NOT original research and details the struggle between IRANIANS internally but you had no comment, instead trying to discredit me above. As for This page is not a forum for opinion or debate, in your case obviously. it's your way or no way.Batvette (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I'm not really too versed in the 1953 coup, but it seems unlikely that such a coup could be pulled off without at least some internal support. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Verse yourself. The Prize by Daniel Yergin is a good starting point as is "Oil, Power and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath" by Mostafa Elm. The central government was weak, CIA allied itself with the monarchists and reactionary segments of religious opposed to the secular Mossadeq; spook agencies liberally bribed news outlets & military at a time of grinding poverty and economic collapse brought on by the British-led worldwide boycott of Iranian oil. Not one drop of oil passed through Iranian seaports 1952-4, according to IMF chart that appears in "Oil, Power and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath." Iranians were united in one thing and that was hatred of foreigners; Mossadeq was popular because he led the movement to kick out the Brits. Only one thing really united the country--hatred of foreigners, and, in particular, the British... Part of the hatred of Anglo-Iranian (later BP) was fueled by the battle over the oil rents. Between 1945 and 1950, Anglo-Iranian registered 250 million pounds profit, compared to Iran's 90 million pounds royalties. The British government received more in taxes from Anglo-Iranian than Iran did in royalties. To aggravate matters still further, a substantial part of the company's dividends went to its majority owner, the British government.. p. 451 Chap 23 " 'Old Mosssy' and the Struggle for Iran" in Daniel Yergin's The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (Simon & Schuster 1991). Skywriter (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you professor but there are a number of sources that agree that the coup could not have been "pulled off without at least some internal support"

"The easy success of this coup can be explained by two factors, the widening gap between the traditional and middle classes within the National Front; and the increasing alienation of the whole officer corps from the civilian administration." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions, by Princeton University Press, 1982, p.273-4)

"The coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred." (Keddie, Nikki R., Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, 1981, p.140)

"... a wide array of Iranians also made crucial contributions, either by steadily undermining the prime minister's position or by bringing about the overthrow itself. General Zahedi and his supporters, the shah, the growing crowd of defectors and other opponents to Mosaddeq, the Tudeh Party, and even the National Front loyalists and Mosaddeq himself, through their mistakes, were essential to the coup's success." (Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Ed, by Mark j. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004 , p.xx)

Getting back to operation AJAX, what would people think of adding that in the opening sentence as is done here --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter admits as much when he acknowledged that monarchists supported the coup. Presumably, the monarchists were Iranians, right?

Why even mention "democratically elected" in the opening sentence? Sounds like POV-pushing to me. "democratically elected" can be explained in the article body. What's important is that one government was replaced by another government.

BTW, New World Encyclopedia and History.com seem pretty good and might be good to use as examples for our article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The New World Encyclopedia article looks strikingly like the wikipedia article and I'm not sure whether it can be said that's its an independent encyclopedia. As far as including Operation Ajax in the lead sentence as proposed by BoogaLouie, that would seem to indicate that the entire 1953 Iranian coup d'etat was called Operation Ajax instead of the actual CIA mission for the overthrow. I think the coup d'etat was the rsult of Operation Ajax and was Ajax's main goal. The actual coup d'etat is just that, a coup d'etat, not Operation Ajax - unless I'm missing BoogaLouie's point. And I think there is a reason while Operation Ajax redirects to here, as opposed to being titled Operation Ajax - namely because this article discusses the reasons for CIA's Operation Ajax that lead to the coup d'etat. But, unless I'm totally missing something, the coup d'etat itself wasn't called Operation Ajax, but just the mission that facilitated it.--RossF18 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm basing my suggestion on the idea that the CIA called the coup Operation AJAX. I had assumed they had, but if they distinguished between Operation AJAX (as, say, just their plan for the coup) and the coup itself, I withdraw the suggestion. I suspect some of you do know the answer to that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not that familiar with New World Encyclopedia but they appear to be a closed Wiki-based encyclopedia with editorial oversight.[6] Their article is a rewrite of our article.[7]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring

RossF18, if you'd like to move paragraphs around, and place the new draft on this talk page for discussion, I support that. And I'll help. Skywriter (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As we said, this article needs a lot of work by sentence. I was merely suggesting that the background section can come before other sections, with no other alterations at present - so just the order of sections, not even mentioning the content of each. I just think that perhaps clarity can be improved merely from the moving of section at present before we even get to per sentence edits. The lede provides an intro and then we'd have the background, and then we'd have the section about Operation Ajax and the certain sections can come last, like any sort of cover-up. As it stands, the background section is a bit toward the end of the article. So at the very least, my suggestion was to just make the background section first after the lede.--RossF18 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If your suggestion is to move everything in 3. ahead of 1. and 2., that is clear. It makes sense and I support that. Skywriter (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant.--RossF18 (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First Sentence of the Lede lead

To move the editing forward, here's the question - does the firt sentence of the lede lead need to change? The only objection I can see that some people might have is with "democratically-elected". Does anyone think that the "democratically-elected" need to be taken out or changed? If not, then the first sentence is good. If yes, let's discuss the changes to the first sentence. --RossF18 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue in length in the past, Mossadegh's government is characterized by most academic sources as democratically-elected, and it was a duly and democratically government (Look up democratically-elected + Mossadegh on Google books), anything other description would be a violation of original research, NPOV and fringe view. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He was electd by the elected members of the Majlis, Iran's Parliament, much as the US president is elected by the Electoral College. Both are systems of indirect democratic representation.Skywriter (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, so that's done. Now on to second sentence:

Several years earlier, Mossaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, had angered Britain with his argument that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves instead of allowing profits to continue to flow to Britain through its control of Iran's oil industry.

--RossF18 (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the following though others may have ideas too.

In mid-April 1951, the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, passed a resolution nationalizing the oil industry and on April 28, the Majlis chose Mohammed Mossadegh as the new Prime Minister. The leading foe of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., which was controlled by the British government, Mossadegh was charged with executing the nationalization law that had been signed by the Shah and that went into effect May 1.

Skywriter (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, the suggested line seems to assume knowledge of things that the reader just reading about it for the first time might not know: i.e., what's a Maijlis, Anglo_persian Oil Company, etc. So, perhaps this is where we expand the sentence by putting in parentheticals.--RossF18 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, add any further parentheticals. Skywriter (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mossadegh was charged with executing the nationalization law that had been signed by the Shah and that went into effect May 1. Wait I'm confused here, who is this Shah guy who signed a law during or before the time Mossadegh led the country? The only Shah I know of is some guy the US installed after we removed Mossadegh. You're implying that this Shah guy, whoever HE is, was in a position of leadership all along. Just trying to make heads or tails of the story. Batvette (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is Kevin O'Reilly? What is his expertise? Why are we quoting him?

The very first reference in the first sentence in this article is to something (I don't know what) by Kevin O'Reilly. It reads as follows (without some of the formatting so we can read it here.)

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. cite book|last=O'Reilly|first=Kevin|title=Decision Making in US History. The Cold War & the 1950s|publisher=Social Studies|date=2007|pages=108|isbn=1560042931|accessdate=2009-03-03

O'Reilly is also the proposed lead reference here--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Rebuilding_the_lede

I tried to find this book on Amazon and it's not sold there. I tried to find it also at http://isbn.nu/ by name, author and finally by the given ISBN number and it's not there either. That site searches numerous retail sites.

My questions are What is this listed as a key reference in this article? Who is Kevin O'Reilly? Skywriter (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one wants to take credit for adding the O'Reilly book to the lead in this article and Boogalouie decides not to comment why it appears in the version he proposes, it is logical that the reference should be deleted. Anyone disagree? Last call. Skywriter (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add it, but you shouldn't delete it since it's fairly easy to find the book. See here: http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/1560042931. Who is O'Reilly, he's an author of several books, you can search for him on google or amazon. He apparently has several books out. So if you're going to delete anything, it shouldn't be because you couldn't find the book, which is not to say the source is quality, just that you'll need a better reason than it's not a book on amazon.com --RossF18 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it is a high or junior high school text. It should be deleted from the lead as to lead with it suggests original research by this school teacher.Skywriter (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there is any policy in place that prevents a high school text from being in the lead and if by original research you mean that the high school teacher was unlikely to have gone to Iraq to do research by looking through documents or to the Pentagon or Library of Congress to do researh and just researched various books available, well, that, in itself, can be research and would provide a nice synopsis of everyone's books for the lead. There is nothing inherently wrong with using his book in the lead as long as his book is not the only one that exposes a particular view. But if you want to find other sources to support his claims, that's fine or even to replace his book as a source with other sources. But if you just delete his book because you don't find his book worthy and don't replace it with anything, that might prompt deletion of the sentence you've left without a source. If the choice is between no source and his source, then there is no other source and his book is original research done by him - otherwise where would he have gotten the information. Unless I've totally missed your point.--RossF18 (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only is that book not on Amazon, which taps and uses the most widely used book databases, it is also not listed in isbn.nu which is in Baker&Taylor's database. BT is the second largest book distributor in the US. The book can exist in the reference section of this article as a tertiary source if anyone cares to add it. But it is inappropriate to use this as the initial reference, which suggests that people should go read it for in-depth information about the subject, which the O'Reilly book clearly is not. It is instead a fun and games Q&A learning helper. The sources used in Wikipedia articles should be widely trusted secondary source as described in the guidelines.[[8]]Skywriter (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin just called, he wants to know who you are. Apparantly he's written quite a few books. [9] And since we know that school district curriculum reviewers will buy any old rag knowing that each kid's parents won't come and dispute gross factual errors contained within, (you're damned right they do) we can just dismiss him.Batvette (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin just called? Skywriter (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Abadan Crisis

This may have been discussed previously, but how distinct is the Abadan Crisis article from this. It seems to be the same series of events with the Abadan Crisis perhaps being in the background section of this article since it's fairly short or at least a subsection that directs to the abadan crisis article. BoogaLouie contribued a little to that article too, so perhaps BoogaLouie may also want to comment. --RossF18 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Abadan Crisis is central to the 1953 coup. Not a drop of oil left Iran after the Majlis nationalized this, the world's largest oil refinery at that time, until the UK boycott ended in 1954, after the 1953 coup, and with the redistribution of the oil giving a large chunk of Iran's oil to US companies.Skywriter (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's central, then it should play a larger role in the article. There is a section now titled Abadan Crisis, but perhaps that should be expanded if it's central by someone more familiar with it. I was just pointing out that being central to the coup does not necessarily mean that the Abadan Crisis should have it's own article since the crisis seems important mainly due to the fact that it helped lead to the coup and wouldn't be that particularly important by itself. Plus, the entire Abadan Crisis article is a little more than two paragraphs and is little more than what is described in the Abadan Crisis section in this article. So, that lends it to being merged into here.--RossF18 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this section needs work. Failure to place the Abadan Crisis in proper context is the central flaw in this article. Without that context, it is impossible to understand what happened and why it happened.

The relevant texts, findable at most public libraries, are:

• "Oil, Power and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath." by Mostafa Elm (Syracuse University Press, 1994) ISBN 9780815626428
• Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA By Tim Weiner (Doubleday 2007) ISBN 9780307389008
• The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power by Daniel Yergin(Simon & Schuster 1991) ISBN 9780671502485

Skywriter (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1950s section

Recently I've reverted a change to the tiny 3 sentence section - 1950s. Originally and to what I reverted, this was the language:

In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. The vote did not use a secret ballot, and Mosaddeq's royalist opponents alleged that it was rigged.. The royalists also alleged that there were some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election.

User:Jacob Lundberg changed it to:

In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. It was rigged[53] with 99 percent of votes supporting the proposal[54]. There were also some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election.[55]

Any thoughts to which version we should keep or to any improvement of the section - or if we need to merge it with any section above or below since it's only 3 sentences. It would be helpful is someone can actually verify the language of that 1953 New York Times article, since it's not available on the internet, at least nowhere I could find that was free. --RossF18 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That it is not findable for free is not the issue. It is also not available in the paid archive either and it was not among the key articles from 1953 [10] the NYT republished in 2000 with the release of the sanitized CIA files. Skywriter (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of the sources shows the "was rigged" version to be the better choice. I don't see where 99% election results is supported, though. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Kind of wish we'd discuss before making changes. Which "was rigged" version - both passages have "was rigged" in them, but the only difference is one says "was rigged" like it's universally assepted versus allegations from royalist opponents, who might claim it's rigged even if it wasn't. That's not to say of course that it wasn't in fact rigged, but that's our own value judgement and if the source actually says that it was claimed by opponents that it was rigged, than we should follow the source and say that the opponents claim that the election was rigged and not make our own conclusion as to whether it was rigged or not. We ourself don't know if it was in fact rigged and nowhere in the source does it seem to actually blatantly say with any definitiveness - yes, it was rigged - at least none that I could see. If it does, well, then no complaints as far as putting it in - but that's something I would actually quote directly to avoid any confusion regarding possible editorializing.--RossF18 (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All I did was line the article text up with our source, which states flatly that the vote was rigged. If you want to describe who was saying the election was rigged, then we need to have another source. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm am just trying to prevent edit waring - if the changed line is more in line with the source, namely exactly as the source or too similar for comfort, it should be in quotes because quotes often enable us to avoid the "he said, she said" arguments as far as which side of the argument claims what. Like you said, the source flat out says that it was rigged, so we should put it in quotes and be done with any argument that something is not in the source or we're trying to misintepret the source. When it's in quotes, especially for a possibly contentious point, then at least we eliminate the argument that we're misstating the source and just have the productive arguments as far as whether something should come in or out of the article, generally. So, yes, I think your edit better represents the source; I'm just trying to cushion disputes at least. --RossF18 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The relevant context is p. 134-7 of the 2003 (revised) edition (ISBN 9780470185490) of All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. The relevant text is at bottom of p. 136 and top of 137-- "Mossadegh was legally entitled to take this step as long as the eighty seated members did not veto it, which they did not. He could also claim a measure of moral legitimacy, since he was defending Iran against subversion by outsiders." Skywriter (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's directly contrary to it being rigged if he was legally entitled to do so - at least it seems that way to me. So, the phraze "it was rigged" should be put in context.--RossF18 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So, the cite should contain references from both sides that support a text description such as "on one hand these people... on the other hand those people..." Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is incumbent on Binksternet to show why the line about it being rigged is not wp:undue weight for these reasons

1. What Binksternet insists should be included is a draft of an article, not the final version. It was presented as part of a discussion in 1998 at University of Toronto and not repeated in any of Gasiorowski's subsequent articles or books on the subject.

That suggests Gasiorowski did not place much importance on that first draft or that he changed his viewpoint in later iterations.

2. The idea that democracy is the fundamental problem with the brief period Mossadegh was in office as prime minister is not the widely held opinion among academics and secondary sources. Rather, the opposite is true. Mossadegh is remembered as the Iranian promise of democracy crushed in its cradle. If Binksternet or anyone else wants to claim otherwise, please point to those widely accepted secondary sources so that we may all go look.Skywriter (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mossadegh is remembered as the Iranian promise of democracy crushed in its cradle.

Speculation about what could have been in an alternate reality of paths not travelled has no factual basis to be in a historical accounting. You want others to produce widely accepted secondary sources, for what? To dispute speculation? We can see that when Iran attempted something resembling Democracy, under Mossadegh, there were problems. No matter their cause, it is a fact. You are implying that everything WOULD have been hunky dory under Mossadegh had he continued, there is no evidence of that.Batvette (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It sound like there are two issues - the referendum vote and the 1951 parliamentary election. Please take a look at earlier discussion of the referendum vote. It explains where the New York Times article was found. I propose we change the sentences to

In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to express the `will of the people` to dissolve the Majlis and give law making powers to the prime minister, himself. It was approved by 99 percent of votes cast, but has been called `rigged'. Opponents complained the seperate voting booths for `Yes` and `No` votes violated the 1906 constitution provisions for secret ballots. Opponents also complained that the 1951 parliamentary election count was cut short to prevent opposition deputees from being elected.

Better still we could replace the beginning of the 1950s section with an expanded history of what went on the mosaddeq era aside from oil and its nationalization. As RossF18 says, the current section has only a couple of sentences. While we are at it we might trim the nationalization section, which rambles away from the subject of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

re: this-- Opponents complained the seperate voting booths for `Yes` and `No` votes violated the 1906 constitution provisions for secret ballots.

A couple of questions:

1) What evidence do we have that the word `rigged` was "not repeated in any of Gasiorowski's subsequent articles or books on the subject"?

2) If it is true that most scholars consider the Mossadeq era a democratic era, does that mean we should exclude any mention of anything Mosaddeqh did that doesn't sound democratic? Or does that mean we should include cites and maybe even quotes by scholars saying something like the mosaddeq era was democratic and was tragically cut short? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply 1) Evidence is that claim is not repeated anywhere. What is your affirmative evidence that it is repeated?

2) Follow the guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

3) Those 1953 articles are inappropriate primary sources a/c to WP:RS

Skywriter (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A 1950's Cold war era propaganda/editorial is hardly a secondary reliable source, even if it's from New York Times. I won't remove it though, but vote-rigging etc are allegations made by Shah's supporters, and can not be stated as a fact per WP:NPOV. I have also removed lebanonwire.com, as it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. --Kurdo777 (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is from the "newspaper of record". Why do you say it is "a propaganda/editorial"? It was a news article, not on the editorial page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Context is needed for the events of July 1953 because it transpired several weeks before the coup and all the pressures that were brought to bear on the government of Iran by the failed coup attempt and then the successful coup. To repeat-- The relevant context is p. 134-7 of the 2003 (revised) edition (ISBN 9780470185490) of All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. The relevant text is at bottom of p. 136 and top of 137-- "Mossadegh was legally entitled to take this step as long as the eighty seated members did not veto it, which they did not. He could also claim a measure of moral legitimacy, since he was defending Iran against subversion by outsiders." If you don't have the book, these pages are online in Google books. (Skywriter)

Maybe he was entitled to hold a referendum, but how does this entitle him to hold elections with separate polling places for yes and no votes? (what Kinzer called "a disastrous parody of democracy")?

Question for BoogaLouie

This reference to unfinished draft http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html appears already four times in the article. The questionable "rigged" quote is also in the article. How many more times do you plan to repeat it? Skywiter

Repeat what? use the article as a citation? It's (the article) on the internet so its a good source. Why do you call the article an "unfinished draft"? -- BoogaLouie (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading this more carefully, I realize I was wrong. This article [11] was published in the Journal of Middle East Study No. 19 (1987). Therefore, it is OK to use it, and it is also understood that the release of the CIA files in connection with the coup and subsequent books on the subject will modify the viewpoint if editors choose to reference it. Skywriter (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Referendum

This article mentions democracy or dictatorship six times in the lead. As a comparison, Invasion of Grenada does not once mention the fact that the US reinstated democracy there. Many editors to this article seem to be obsessed with making the US look as bad as possible.

If we are going to mention democracy this much, the least we can do is point to the problems in pre-1953 Iranian democracy. I have shown with "Mohammad Gholi Majd (2000), Resistance to the Shah: landowners and ulama in Iran (University Press of Florida), p. 29" that Mossadeqh won 99 percent of votes in the referendum, which in itself rules out any possibility that the vote was free and fair. Fair referendums are never won with 99 percent of the vote. In addition to this fact, I have supplied a link to an article that states the obvious: that the referendum was rigged. Jacob Lundberg

Are you again referring to the 1998 article? If so, why do you ignore the arguments showing why that is not usable?

Why are you attacking your co-editors? WP:GOODFAITH You seem uninterested in sticking to the facts.

For example, why do you insist on ignoring and underplaying the role of the US in bribing Iranians to bring down the Mossadegh government? p. 162-3 All the Shah's Men. "while+iranian+agents+spread+these+lies,+thugs"&source=bl&ots=zXGrgcIqIT&sig=xq_xiqt_jZr4GpsmCAMwanER544&hl=en&ei=W-SLSsY7h6iyA5TD2b4J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%22while%20iranian%20agents%20spread%20these%20lies%2C%20thugs%22&f=false Please read this and explain why you wish to ignore the US role? Thanks

You are quoting two sentences from an entire chapter that is devoted to the US role in overthrowing the government of Iran. You want us to ignore 99 percent of the chapter in favor of what you cherry picked? Skywriter

I don't think we should ignore anything. Using a few sentences to describe an important referendum is not fringe view or undue weight. I think we should all go out and find out other sources about this referendum. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BL now points out that the 99 percent claim also appears in Kinzer. I have put this fact back into the article. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Gholi Majd

This guy is not an academic, and certainly not a neutral, or reliable source. He looks like fringe theorist, with a strong POV, and a bunch of sensationalist books on fringe topics like "The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia" and "Great Britain and Reza Shah: The Plunder of Iran, 1921-1941", and "The Great American Plunder of Persias Antiquities, 1925-1941 ". --Kurdo

The article is using him to show that the referendum was won with 99 percent of votes, nothing else. This is hardly a fact that he could make up, especially since it occurs in two different sources. If he did not win the referendum by 99 percent, by how much? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

More Referendum

COMMENT--That NYT article is suspect as it is not in the NYT archive. I suspect it is error or problematic in another way. Somebody would have to go look at microfiche to determine its value and then it still would not be usable on Wikipedia because that would constitute original research based on a primary source. See WP:RS which is especially relevant in this article because of the revelations made public in 2000 that the CIA, in carrying out the coup, manipulated Western and Iranian news reporters and the stories they wrote. That is likely the underlying reason that article is not quoted in any of the major books (secondary sources) written about the coup. Once the CIA-related facts of the coup became clear, even if only from the narrow, self-promoting view of the CIA agent who orchestrated it, then the last-minute (July 1953) attacks on Mossadegh being undemocratic that may have appeared in the NYT take on a whole new character. Keep in mind that http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html is an early draft of an unpublished article by Gasiorowski from 1998. His view changed quite a bit after the CIA released Wilber's report to the NYT. The Gasiorowski/Byrne book was published several years later. Gasiorowski wrote tough criticisms of Mossadegh in the book he edited with Byrne and for which he himself wrote several chapters. Being undemocratic two weeks before his government was violently and corruptly overthrown by the CIA was not among those criticisms. Skywriter

Reply: The article was found by me on Proquest Historical New York Times, a subscription database available at many if not most libraries in the US.

When you go to WP:RS you will find this sentence: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, Is not the New York Times a "mainstream news organization"? You will also find on another wiki guideline article Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

So what I propose is that the secondary sources be Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran - the "Gasiorowski/Byrne book [that] was published several years later" - and Kinzer's book.

On page 244 of his book Gasiorowski writes: "Mosaddeq then staged a referendum on August 4 in which Iranians voted overwhelmingly to dissolve Parliament. There were separate polling stations for yes and no votes, producing sharp criticism of Mosaddeq." (Yes, it is true he doesn't use the word `rigged` in that chapter.)

Here is what Kinzer has to say about the referendum: "Mossadegh announced that he would hold a referendum on the question and pledged to resign if voters did not vote to oust the existing Majlis. The referendum, hurriedly convened at the beginning of August, was a disastrous parody of democracy. There were separate ballot boxes for yes and no votes, and the announced result was over 99% in favor of throwing out the Majlis. The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill. Mid-August found Roosevelt and his team of Iranian agents in place and ready to strike." (from: All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, p.165)

Context is important.

Here is what Kinzer has to say about the referendum: "By the time Kermit Roosevelt entered Iran on July 19, the country was aflame. Mossadegh's supporters in the Majlis had voted to remove Ayatollah Kahani from his position as speaker, and the resulting clash led more than half the deputies to resign. Demonstrations demanding dissolution of the Majlis shook Tehran. Mossadegh announced that he would hold a referendum on the question and pledged to resign if voters did not vote to oust the existing Majlis. The referendum, hurriedly convened at the beginning of August, was a disastrous parody of democracy. There were separate ballot boxes for yes and no votes, and the announced result was over 99% in favor of throwing out the Majlis. The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill. Mid-August found Roosevelt and his team of Iranian agents in place and ready to strike." (from: All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, p.165) I have zero problem using the above in context and many problems leaving out the lead-in sentences.Skywriter (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What would people think if we replaced `rigged` with `a disastrous parody of democracy`? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to express the `will of the people` to dissolve the Majlis and give law making powers to the prime minister, himself. It was approved overwhelmingly - 2,043,300 yes votes to 1300 no votes - but has been called `a disastrous parody of democracy`. Opponents complained the seperate voting booths for `Yes` and `No` votes violated the 1906 constitution provisions for secret ballots. Opponents also complained that the 1951 parliamentary election count was cut short to prevent opposition deputees from being elected.

Skywriter, if you e-mail me on lundberg.jacob AT gmail.com I will send you the article. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times of 1953 can not be used a source, given the recent revelations that news reports of that era were manipulated as part of the Operation Ajax. Using an old news clip/editorial also violates Wikipedia:PRIMARY needless to say. The draft of an unpublished article by Gasiorowski, also does not qualify as a WP:RS. I have removed both, Jacob Lundberg needs to get a consensus, before attempting to re-introduce these questionable materials into the article. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the validity of sources, which seems still in process of being worked out, instead of using "opponents" in the passage, perhaps we can actually name the group to take out any perceived bias as to who were opponents and to who were on the right side of history so to speak, which is not something we get to decide. --RossF18 (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be ideal but the sources don't give that level of detail, just The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill and There were separate polling stations for yes and no votes, producing sharp criticism of Mosaddeq, without saying who was working at the mill or making the sharp citicism. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comment takes the above event out of context and is unbalanced for that reason. See earlier documentation pointing to the pages on Google books. There is no excuse for this except blatant agenda-pushing.

What is the story line and how does it match up with what the secondary source book histories of the coup say? It appears that Jacob Lundberg is engaging in original research and giving WP:undue weight to a particular article because it supports his POV. That article is a primary source that is not referenced in ANY of the major histories of the Iranian coup. The histories are preferred as secondary sources. See WP:RS for discussion of this, which you both continue to ignore. BoogaLouie also is giving WP:undue weight to a fleeting incident without offering context for the story line, and ignores all argument to the contrary as if those arguments were never made. BoogaLouie attacks other editors for bringing in sources documenting the U.S. role in Iran in 1952-53 and 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. You both want to use an obscure article by Kennett Love. Use it over my objections. We will also use this video and text, which goes to the heart of attempts to make the coup all about defeating the prospect of a communist takeover. Kennett Love says it did not happen that way, and here is proof. Listen to him say it and read his words.[12] The second set of proofs is in the book Endless Enemies -- The Making of an Unfriendly World(Congdon & Weed, New York, 1984) by the late, great Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny

As to this (which is tagged on to the end of BoogaLouie's comment above)-- "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." Kinzer (2003), All the Shah's Men p. 137 -- please check your source as you are conflating two different events, treating them as though they are the same. Skywriter (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse others of "blatant agenda-pushing" or "attacking other editors". We are talking about mentioning the separate voting places for the referendum. How can that be WP:undue weight? The article mentions how Mossadegh is viewed heroically in Iran and throughout the Middle East by many and no one is talking about deleting that. If an author (Kinzer) that you, Skywriter, have held up as not just credible but worthy of mention in the lead, calls the referendum giving Mosaddeq power to legislate laws in Iran `a disastrous parody of democracy` surely the separate polling places and criticism of them is worth a mention and not censored as "a fleeting incident"! And what is this "context for the story line"? How does the story line prevent any mention of separate voting booths? Do you mean that nothing unflattering to Mosaddeq should be in the article because he is "viewed heroically"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE on SIGNATURES

In several posts above from yesterday the ~~~~ wikisignatures were messed up when Skywriter forgot to add a </ref> after a citation. (I'd give him a good scolding but I'm prone to stuff like that too! :-) ) Posts after that did not get the ~~~~ turned into a signiature. I added the </ref> and have tried to add names of editors to their posts. Hope I haven't missed anything. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you very much, BoogaLouie. The apparent answer to the mystery is my failure to close the reference tag that had been opened. Skywriter (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

User:Jacob Lundberg keeps re-inserting a bunch of disputed and questionable material/sources already under discussions here, namely an outdated primary source, a fringe source and an unpublished article, to push a point of view in clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Primary, WP:Fringe, and WP:UNDUE. If he reverts again without a clear consensus on talk page, I will request page protection, as there was an agreement by all parties here to discuss edits and gain a consensus, before implementing new changes, and this user is disrupting the process. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo, the problem is not about using the source which is absolutely OK. Perhaps you did not see my note that the article posted at the U of Toronto conference on the 1953 coup was published in an approved journal. I think you were misled by my error in stating that article had not been published and that it was a draft. That is wrong and I regret the misleading remark. Jacob's entry needs context and that can be added. Skywriter (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gasiorowski's article is not the only issue though. He is also re-introducing a fringe source (Mohammad Gholi Majd), an opinion piece hosted on an unreliable political website (lebanonwire.com), not to mention the issue of undue weight, in regards to Gasiorowski's allegations. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the unsigned article on lebanonwire is a hatchet job, unsourced opinion unworthy of further discussion. It's out unless someone wants to waste time with a long-shot argument. On Gasiorowski, however, we do not need to agree with a source so long as it is a reliable source. With that as a guideline, Gasiorowski is reliable and therefore not a problem. Context is. And conflation is. That editor tried to conflate two different events that took place 27 months apart as though to make the point central that Mossadegh was a bad actor who needed tossing. That's sleight of hand ignoring the vast bribery in progress with the US spy agency filling the pockets of certain members of the press and the Maglis while stirring up street demonstrations and making it seem as though the commies were doing it and not the CIA. All that activity is being ignored in favor of trashing the prime minister as deserving to be overthrown and jailed, and a monarch installed in his place. If it makes editors feel good to include that line from Gasiorowski, have at it. There's a lot more to be said about Mossadegh, drama queen with a long nose, facts that do not make him any less revered in Iran and throughout the Middle East. We're still going to tell the story of this coup in context and we will use reliable sources to do so. I'm sorry this article was not much improved for the anniversary yesterday. Decently written articles were available elsewhere. This article will move along quickly when there's baseline agreement as to reliable sources. Skywriter (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And I don't know that the user who keeps adding things was actually party to the discussion when it was decided that something would not be changed before discussion, so if anything, restrict the user, not the article. The last thing we need, in my opinion, is to have the article uneditable again because that led to cooling of any constructive discussion - which as you can see started up when the article was unprotected. It's always nice to feel that you're making a direct impact on what will ultimately will be in the article, as opposed to talking in theory about what should be done once an article is unblocked in some unknown future.--RossF18 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just point two things out:

1. A 1953 NYT article is not a primary source. "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."
2. The article in question is no longer used in the article. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Lundberg is clearly POV-pushing and edit-warring against consesus, he is using Kinzer out of context, and he is also giving undue weight to another source, and a few fringe ones too. --Wayiran (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the sourced material but without the lebanonwire and Majd references. The material has a reliable, verifiable source which means it can't be removed. It can be countered by other voices and viewpoints, but not removed. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Once more I have reinstated material using a source we have all agreed is reliable and verifiable. Again: don't remove this text because you disagree with it, find some other expert source that disagrees with it and put that in next to it. The solution is that simple... Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting dispute resolution

I think this discussion is going nowhere. We have been at it since June and hardly any progress has been made. Does anyone else want to take this to Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What would you identify as The Dispute? I see tension but no central dispute. I see comments that condemn editors for using references critical of the United States but I know of no Wiki standard that censors legitimate secondary sources or that demands fealty to any particular government. I see editors who seem to have a visceral dislike of Mossadegh and the mere 27 months he was in office. I see those editors wanting to make Mossadegh look just as bad as they possibly and who want to place the most pleasing PR spin on what UK lobbied for and the US carried out in 1953 in Iran. That is what I have referred to repeatedly as agenda-pushing. I think this article will be straightened out when the editors agree to set aside the agenda pushing and agree to tell a tightly written story based on the premier sources for this article. Four or five great books have been written about this coup and a few great chapters appear in books that cover broader subject matter but that hone in closely on this coup. The first three books mentioned in the very first sentence are not among those great books, that academics, not I, have identified as superior in quality for describing this subject. So in that sense using fringe sources is a problem. What would you identify as The Dispute that you can take to other fair-minded people? Skywriter (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

well then arbitrators will see this "visceral dislike" and "PR spin" and "great books" and you'll have nothing to worry about. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Skywriter, in that there is hardly a need for dispute resolution at this point, unless Booga is referring to the discussion concerning the 1950s section as "THE DISPUTE." The discussion we're having now doesn't appear remotely the same as the one we were having in June. In June, we were talking only about the lead, now we're talking about various sections of the article. Unless Booga means that the dispute is about improving the article, in which case I don't think there is a dispute - we all agree that the article needs to be improved. The main point of dispute, if you like, is, as Skywriter points out, how to allocate "blame" so to speak for the coup - namely did Mossadegh bring it upon himself (was he Hitler or Hussein) or was he just like one of tens of elected officials who have been ousted out of power by foreign powers for whatever reason. And I got to say, most, if not all, current sources look at it from the later point of view. If we can all (or at least the majority of editors) agree that Mossadegh was dipossed with inteference from the West without any sort of moral imperative or high ground from the West, then the next big issue would be whether to stress oil concerns or communism concerns - and here there should be a balance between what the British were worried about (mainly the oil) and what the Americans were worried about (mainly the Soviets). So, I don't think a mediator will tell us an answer to any of these questions. We need to behave and read some books - and then, disagree or agree, we need to write according to sources and leave other things for our blogs. I have a strong urge to grab someone by the ear. Sorry. --RossF18 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannot agree. Who here thinks Mosaddeq was in the same league as Hitler or Saddam Hussein? I haven't read anything that suggests anyone currently participating does. I certainly don't think he was! The dispute I want to take to the some kind of resolution is whether anything that might make Mosaddeq look less than heroic (or his adversaries more than villainous) may be allowed in the article. I'm happy to include factiods that make the anti-Mosaddeq people look bad - murder of General Mahmud Afshartus for example - but the article has been sanatized to the point of inaccuracy.

Was Mosaddeq a hero of the century, victim of imperialist aggression? A flawed giant, a visionary who screwed up? It's not our call. An encyclopedia can only give the facts.

As for the lead, I was gone last week and maybe it was agreed the lead is now just fine. Take another look. I'm sorry if people think that issues in the lead had been cleared up and now I am reopening it, but the lead is .... has many problems. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is one thing to be neutral, it's another to bring in points of view that are expressed by single persons - i.e., periphery points of view. Just because we have not included every fringe point of view about Mossadeq, that doesn't make the article not neutral, quite the opposite - undue weight to fringe points of view would make the article not neutral. So, if Booga can find a consensus of historians who view Mossadeq in a negative light, that's obviously something that comes in. But if a single historian or reporter thinks that Mossadeq (even "research") is a dictator in disguise, that's not something that has to come in since having this in the article wouldn't make it neutral. Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal weight to all possible points of view - neturality is giving equal weight to accepted theories and points of view. If you can prove that it's an accepted point of view that Mossadeq was a person who got caught in the act of doing something horrible, add that in. But I don't hink anyone is maintaing that Mossadeq was a hero o the century, but the accepted point of view that he was in fact a victim of imperialist aggression who was not even given the time to screw up. So, I don't see Mossadeq as a visionary who screwed up because for him to screw up, he had to have been given a chance to screw up and he was overthrown before he even got the chance. Again, if you have an accepted group of historians who actually do view him as someone who screwed up, well, I don't think anyone will argue with that. The biggest problem is thinking that if you find one source to support your point of view that that suddenly gives you a point to argue neutrality. On a separate point, I don't think anyone was arguing that the lead was finished, but we're not discussing the lead now, we're discussing a particular section so to call for arbitration about something we were discussing in June, which was the lead, is not appropriate given that we've put that discussion on hold momentaril and are discussing the 1950s section currently.--RossF18 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying he was a visionary who screwed up. I'm saying the article can't say that (or any of the other descriptions above). We can only give the facts. The rest is reserved for the blog, as you say. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we agree, why do we need dispute resolution?--RossF18 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not disagreeing on what the article should be like (I hope), but on whether the editing is deadlocked. I think we are because of edit warring, false accusations ("That editor tried to conflate two different events that took place 27 months apart as though to make the point central that Mossadegh was a bad actor who needed tossing. ..."), etc. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, Booga. The following, quoted verbatim from what now appears in the article, does indeed conflate two entirely separate events. Mossadegh's opponents have alleged that there were some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." Kinzer (2003), All the Shah's Men p. 137

Please refer to the book. p.137 is purely a discussion of the time period around the July 1953 referendum. There is no mention of 1941 and therefore that line is misleading. Problematic also with that one-sentence abstract is that it lacks context. Notice also that the line quoted above was revised in the 2008 edition and that is the one we should be using. Between the two editions is this one among many subtle revisions on that page: 79 members changed to 80. The ISBN for the revised edition is 9780470185490

Skywriter (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I disagree with you on that point because I think there haven't been edit warring by anyone who agreed to discuss before editing and there is a big difference between an accusation that's true and one that is false. If you're alleging that someone has falsy accused you of doing something, it's up to you to prove that instead of trying to get administrators or dispute resolution involved. A true accusation is just that, true and being offended is just silly. False accusations are easily dispporved by history. So, there is really nothing to get upset about: either disprove something or ignore it: the page history will speak for itself. I don't think that editing is deadlocked, given that we've been discussing this for less than one week and the discussion involved 2 to 3 editors. Most perseived deadlocked comes from repeating the same points over and over again. Once something is stated and the other editor finds it unconvincing, move on to other points -restating the same one point over and over again doesn't make an issue deadlocked, but the editors. And given the issue of the referendum, something either happened or it hasn't. If we agree that something happened, then it's on to the best way to phrase it. And if you can't agree on how to phrase a point, that's more scemantics, than a deadlock on a point. Perhaps you can put perceived slights aside and focus on the article by spelling out in point forms your point of view. Once you've done that, there is really nothing you can do. Other editors will either accept it or not.--RossF18 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. It seems to me there's been a pretty steady flow of accusations, "blatant agenda-pushing" or "attacking other editors", in breach of assumption of good faith beyond "perceived slights". Edit warring? Maybe there isn't edit warring technically, but it looks pretty close to it. And I can't agree "false accusations are easily dispporved by history". In this dsipute they just go back and forth and I've only got so much time to spend on this.

Since no else agrees on trying dispute resolution I won't try to do it yet. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Halting of 1952 majlis election

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, Booga. The following, quoted verbatim from what now appears in the article, does indeed conflate two entirely separate events. Mossadegh's opponents have alleged that there were some irregularities in the 1951 parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." Kinzer (2003), All the Shah's Men p. 137

Please refer to the book. p.137 is purely a discussion of the time period around the July 1953 referendum. There is no mention of 1951 and therefore that line is misleading. Problematic also with that one-sentence abstract is that it lacks context. Notice also that the line quoted above was revised in the 2008 edition and that is the one we should be using. Between the two editions is this one among many subtle revisions on that page: 79 members changed to 80. The ISBN for the revised edition is 9780470185490 Skywriter (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article should make clear the 1952 majlis and election and the 1953 referendum were not the same. I agree the citation whould be p.136-7

The book does say in reference to the spring 1952 majlis (parliament) election

"British agents had fanned out across the country, bribing candidates and the regional bosses who controlled them. ... Aides told him [Mosaddegh] that some of the candidates being elected were under the direct control of British agents. ... In a statement he asserted that since `foriegn agents` were exploiting the election campaign to destablize Iran, `the supreme national interests of the country necessitate the suspension of the elections pending the return of the Iranian delegation from the Hague.` .... Nonetheless the episode cast him in an unflattering light. It allowed his critics to portray him as undemocratic and grasping for personal power."

Skywriter, you excerpted practically a half a page from the book into the article (some of it in blockquote and some of it not) but you excluded the lines "Nonetheless the episode cast him in an unflattering light. It allowed his critics to portray him as undemocratic and grasping for personal power." Why?

This is what I was complaining about. Vast amongs of text about Mossy v. Imperialist Evil quoted in the article. Two sentences that don't make Mosaddeq look so good, removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What's this about 1941? Do you mean 1951? I think I said the majlis election was in 1951. I was wrong, it was in 1952. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

1941 = typo.

As to the lengthy excerpt, I am trying to break the deadlock, put the referendum in perspective based on the facts. Soon as the coffee is brewed, I will return to reword to break up the long excerpt and insert another reliable source.

re: Nonetheless, the episode cast him in an unflattering light. It allowed his critics to portray him as undemocratic and grasping for personal power.

That line is in there. Use browser to search the page and you will find it. No way in hell I would leave it out. Do you think I would want to war? Skywriter (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right I missed it. I apologize.

It goes on and on and then starts talking about the 1953 referendum so I assumed it was done talking about 1952. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for a trimmed down cleaned up version. (The first paragraph deal with the 1952 elction, the fourth and fifth with the 1953 referendum. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Your one-paragraph summary reads:

In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. your fn is 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2003) p.137

Reply-- No, because it's factually wrong and relies on the 2003 edition which was revised in 2008.

p. 136 of the 2008 edition talks about the spring and summer of 1953. Nothing in it refers to 1951. And again, his wording and facts changed in the 2008 edition. See the excerpt of what I just added by looking for these words In June, after 80 candidates had been certified as winners of seats in the 136-seat Majlis, his cabinet voted to halt the elections. In a statement, he asserted that since... Kinzer replaced the words you are quoting from the 2003 edition. He corrected himself. No longer says 79 deputies. It's 80 with added verbiage, etc. Skywriter (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll check the quote against the 2008 ed. and correct the year to 1952 (the majlis election was spring 1952 if I remember right).

see below, I made mistake forgetting to provide a cite. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

References to unrevised edition of All the Shah's Men

I count 12 references in the existing article to the 2003 edition of All the Shah's Men. These references cause this article to be unreliable. Everyone should be sourcing the 2008 revised edition ( ISBN 9780470185490 ) Consider updating the references. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't science, where each revision can bring drastic changes. It's history and it's only been five years between editions. Is the revised edition really so different to put in question all the sources from a previous edition? The key is whether the passages cited to are different and if they're the same, I don't think that the reference to the earlier edition makes anything unreliable.--RossF18 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC):OK, never mind, I read the earlier posts. --RossF18 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear a mistake on my part has caused a false alarm. Above is a blockquote with a proposed paragraph for the article. It has quotes from two different books but I citation from only one of the books. The block reads

In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. [ fn 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2003), p.137]

but should read

In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." [ fn 21 1/2 ---Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, (Princeton University Press, 1982), p.268-9] This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents. [ fn 22 -- Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, (2008) p.136-7]

This means There may not be much difference between the 2003 and 2008 editions of Kinzer's book. They both talk about an election halted after 80 seats not 79.

Where did I get the quote -

"Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected.

It's from Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, (Princeton University Press, 1982), p.268-9

IOWs what Skywriter thought was wording from the 2003 edition (deleted in the 2008 edition) of Kinzer's book was (thanks to me) actually a different book by a different author. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats", was not an error in Kinzer's earlier edition corrected in his later edition, it's Abrahamian's take on the election.

What this means for our purposes is that

I don't think we need consider the article to be "unreliable" on account of the use of an earlier edition of Kinzer's book. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discouraged

I stated a plan to work on rewording and cutting the long quote and now am discouraged by Booga's kneejerk revert. He's wrong about the conflation but does not read the text carefully enough to know it. The ball is now in the Booga court to add constructive material or to do nothing except to continue whining and demanding that mediators come in and right some perceived wrong. Alternately, we can hang a sign out saying this article is destined to suck not because the subject is not interesting and important but because of distrust. I'm going to go ahead and tag this article because there is too much in it that is factually wrong, a real embarrassment to Wikipedia. -30- Skywriter (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, your edit added masses of quotes, but still kept the "conflation" - mixing up the majlis election and referendum.

The section goes along talking about the 1951 or 1952 majlis election,

In June, after 80 candidates had been certified as winners of seats in the 136-seat Majlis, his cabinet voted to halt the elections.

then starts talking about the 1953 referendum election,

In a 1987 article, Mark J. Gasiorowski was sharply critical. He wrote "The referendum was rigged which caused a great public outcry against Mosaddeq.[30]

then goes back to the majlis election. Kinzer, however, wrote that "Mossadegh was legally entitled to take this step as long as the eighty seated members did not veto it,

It's loooooong. it's got too much quoted material. It's a total mess that will confuse readers.

Here is my attempt at "constructive material" to improve the section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Skywriter's effort. We are getting closer to a solution on this issue. More discussion about the Majlis election and the referendum is a good thing to add. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I have undone BoogaLouie's revert, don't let him discourage you. We can not allow one disgruntled editor halt the article's development. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no justification for the revert. There is no consensus on Skywriter's edit and it does nothing about the problem of conflation of the majlis election and referendum.

Skywriter, do you have any response to my attempt at "constructive material" to improve the section? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, setting up private pages is not constructive. You are trying to force other editors to check sources on a private page that is full of error and that contains your previously stated agenda of making certain nothing critical is said of the United States. This is not a Wikipedia policy and you can not enforce a policy like that here or in any other article. I'm not going to argue with you because you have already stated on this page that you don't read what I write. You don't modify. You revert.

Skywriter (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

your previously stated agenda of making certain nothing critical is said of the United States.

Did he really say that? Seems to me he's been trying to provide a balance to the absurd notion that United States influence was the sole reason for Mossadegh being forced from power. Maybe I missed something here. Batvette (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A few corrections. No I never said that I want to make certain nothing critical is said of the United States. And there is all sorts of material critical of the US on my proposed rewriting of the article (for which I will correct any errors other people find and for which no one has to check sources if they don't want).

I did not say that I don't read what you (Skywriter) wrote, I said I found your posts painful to read (and so sometimes skip over them. Some, like the last one, say things that are just not true).

I reverted your edit because the other editors had not agreed on it. Did you see the process RossF18 suggested below? We work on and clean up text on this page and then put it in the article. Isn't that better then having a mess in the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)