Talk:Timeline of the Abadan Crisis

Fixing timeline

This timeline needs work and I will be working on it in coming weeks. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with article

The same problems endemic to 1953 coup in Iran are rampant in this article. Facts are selectively chosen to push a particular ideology, a POV, making this article as untrustworthy as 1953 coup in Iran. Skywriter (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What facts? Where? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(below is reposted from village pump post Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 74#Drive-by tags)

Here's one example among many. Defections reduce Mosaddeq's ability "to organize crowds in the streets." [44] You have distorted what p. 233 states. Like so many items in this timeline, you have added your spin and twisted words to a non-neutral viewpoint. I am not going to go through this article and fact-check all of your spin. If you want the tags removed, you must work toward transparency and verifiability. What you include must accurately be reflected in the sources that are quoted. (User:Skywriter, pasted from Village pump (policy) 13 April 2010)

How is it distorted? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This raises another question ...

"I am not going to go through this article and fact-check all of the spin inserted by this particular editor who has a long history of doing this sort of thing. If the editor wants the tags removed, the editor must work toward transparency and verifiability."

Are you saying that because I contributed a lot to this article, you don't need to know exactly what is wrong with it - there just must be problems with accuracy, neutrality, quality because of the person who did the edits?

Or that until I change my unspecified "transparency and verifiability" to your satisfaction, you won't say where exactly (you feel) the problems with accuracy, neutrality, quality are in the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't start explaining what is wrong with the article by tomorrow morning I will delete the tags. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He already explained what is wrong with the article. You've turned this page into a POV fork of your desired version for 1953 coup. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rvted the tags and will pursue dispute resolution. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide more information than just assertions. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False statement/attribution: National Front and Mosaddeq's "main source of strength" is in "the streets" not in its parliamentary numbers.^[1] Please fix it or it will be removed. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I had the wrong page. provided link to the google books Iran Between to Revolutions.

Now, any other problems? Otherwise the tags go. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article still remains a POV-form, presenting half-truths and disputed theories as absolute fats. It needs to be re-written in a neutral and balanced fashion. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you need to say what specifically is wrong with the article. "The burden of proof is on the person placing the tag in the article. If the article does indeed "contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text", please list them one by one, and we'll either substitute the sources, or replace them with an in-line fact tag. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)" --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this timeline at Stanford University? Examining the URL it appears to be related to The New York Times reporter James Risen who wrote State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. On the same server is Risen's "The C.I.A. in Iran - A special report: How a Plot Convulsed Iran in '53 (and in '79)"... all apparently hosted by Professor Robert B. Laughlin of Stanford. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Abrahamian, 1982, p.55-6

Shaban the Brainless in jail August 19

I am returning the bit about Shaban Jafari being in jail during August 19 when other sources report him leading street protests. This information is an important minority viewpoint which should be presented to comply with WP:NPOV where it says we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The sources here are perfectly reliable. The guideline also states, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." If a bunch of sources say that Jafari led crowds of street protesters, and a few reliable sources say that he did not, we have a seriously contested assertion. In the face of this conflict we cannot state that one viewpoint is absolutely true. Instead, we give the opposing view and he attribute it to sources. Our sources are these:

Afkhami, Gholam Reza (2009). The life and times of the Shah. University of California Press. p. 178. ISBN 0520253280.
Bayandor, Darioush (2010). Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-230-57927-9.
Sarshar, Homa (2002). Shaban Jafari (in Persian). Beverly Hills: Naab Publishers. ISBN 0-9661291-9-9.

Gholam Reza Afkhami is a former Iranian diplomat, Darioush Bayandor is a former Iranian diplomat and United Nations regional coordinator for humanitarian relief, and Homa Sarshar is a journalist and author cited by other Iran scholars such as Abbas Milani for his book Eminent Persians. None of these people are fringe, all three are reliable. All three say that Shaban Jafari was serving a one-year jail sentence for ramming a jeep into the gate of the prime minister's house in February 1953, and was not on the street on August 19, 1953. By March 1954 he was back in action, the subject of "Not Painless Is 'Brainless' ", a write-up in Life magazine. None of the expected photographs of Jafari leading street protesters on August 19, 1953 can be found because he was in jail.

Kurdo777 took out this bit about Jafari with an edit summary referring to WP:UNDUE. At that guideline it says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." With only one sentence saying Jafari was in prison, the minority viewpoint cannot be said to be given too much weight. That guideline also says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". We have Afkhami, Bayandor and Sarshar who are reliable and prominent. The single sentence inclusion here follows both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to the letter. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were already told by several editors that Bayandor's claims are WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE. Afkhami or another Royalist source quoting or echoing Shaban Jafari's self-serving claim that he was in jail, has no relevance either, as Shaban, a street thug, has no credibility, and there are hundreds of academic sources and declassified documents detailing Shabans role on that day. [1] A subject's unverifiable claims about himself should be treated with caution. This is a WP:UNDUE issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable? Show me verifiable photos of Jafari leading street protests in August and we will have something. I imagine that your phrase "told by several editors" refers to the noticeboard thread at WP:FTN#1953 Iranian coup d'état where you and Khoikhoi called Bayandor fringe (with arguments I thought were very poor), but I and Rocksanddirt said Bayandor was a reliable minority viewpoint. That thread did not result in confirmation of your assertion that Bayandor is a fringe source.

Jafari was proud of his violent involvement in helping Mosaddegh win elections (during the time Mosaddegh and the Shah agreed on things) and just as proud of his violence against Mosaddegh when he went against the Shah. There is no self-serving element in Jafari's statement that he was in jail during the coup—he would have been much more self-serving in acknowledging the leading role given him by other sources such as Kinzer. Jafari's claim is not unverifiable, it is substantiated by Bayandor and Afkhami. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdo, the link you provided with the claim of "hundreds of academic sources and declassified documents detailing Shabans role on that day," is just a list of books from a Google Book search of the terms "shaban iran 1953". Many of them agree with what you've claimed but not all, few "detail" it. The first book might seem to collaborate your view except it's footnote refering to the semi-autobiography by the "notorious criminal" Jafari. The third book states, "the notorious mob organizer Sha'ban Ja'fari also likely played a role" in the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

Should the minority viewpoint be included: that Shaban Jafari (Shaban the Brainless) has been said by some reliable sources (Gholam Reza Afkhami, Darioush Bayandor and Homa Sarshar) to be in jail during the August 1953 coup? Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed description of the dispute: Most historians and academics like Hamid Dabashi, Mark Gasiorowski, Gholam-Reza Sabri-Tabrizi, Afshin Molavi, Stephen Kinzer , Homa Katouzian, Malcolm Byrne , Richard Cottam, Fariba Adelkhah and Ervand Abrahamian indicate that Shaban Jafari (Shaban the Brainless), an infamous Iranian gangster, played a major role in the 1953 CIA coup in favor of the Shah. [2]. Shaban 's role is documented in CIA's declassified documents, as well many first-hand accounts of the coup by reporters on the ground. Despite this, Shaban Jafari is quoted in a semi autobiography written by Homa Sarshar that he was in jail during the August 1953 coup. This claim from Shaban's biography, is also cited by Gholam Reza Afkhami, and Darioush Bayandor (two former officials of Shah's government) in their own books about the coup. Should this self-serving claim that contradicts the scholarly historiography of the coup, be given any weight? Kurdo777 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

"Self-serving"? No. Jafari would have found it very easy to just say 'yes' that he was the leader of street riots in August 1953. That easy route would have been more self-serving, helping to cement his reputation as being a pivotal figure at a crucial time. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a self-serving claim. Shabon be-mokh was a hated figure in Iranian history , for his role in the 1953 coup. His name has become synonymous with political thuggery in Iran. The biography was an attempt to "clear his name" so to speak. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come back after reading the book, where Jafari talks about beating up and stabbing people in service to the prime minister and to the Shah, many times over. This is not the signature of a man trying to mitigate a bad reputation, to clear his name. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change anything. The man has no credibility. He is trying to downplay his role in the coup, for many self-serving reasons, which include, but are not limited to, his attempt to cast himself as a "patriotic" hero who would not have served the CIA , his continued loyalty to the Shah and his family who detest their return to power being associated with a character like Shabon Be-mokh. There are actually video footage and images of Shabon Bi-mokh from that day. He also personally stabbed Dr Fatemi. At the end of the day, this issue comes down whose word more authoritative, credible, and verifiable, a character like Shaban bi-mokh who was a notorious criminal, or all the aforementioned historians, reporters and academics who have written on this topic. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The man's story has been believed by the respected Iranian diplomats Bayandor and Afkhami who see in it no self-serving motive. If you have "actually video footage and images" where are they?

Regarding the March 13, 1954 arrest and assault of Fatemi, what relevance does that have in whether Jafari was out of jail or not? Even Life magazine showed him out of jail by March 1954. The March 14, 1954 story by Associated Press says that three soldiers with bayonets kept Jafari at bay while Fatemi was being questioned, that Fatemi's two stab wounds were from an unidentified bystander who "fell upon" him in the street. In the Sarshar biography Jafari says he beat up Fatemi but did not stab him. Even the March 22, 1954 Time magazine article about Jafari does not identify him as the person who stabbed Fatemi. Instead, it says "Fatemi was hauled off to jail, but on the way he was stabbed superficially by someone in a howling street mob." If Time knew that Jafari had stabbed Fatemi, they would have printed that in the article as it would have been exceedingly relevant to the article. Kennett Love of The New York Times, a reporter who knew what Jafari looked like, wrote that Fatemi "nearly was killed when a mob rushed his police guards and stabbed him and beat him with nail-spiked clubs." Love would have mentioned Jafari by name if possible.

And none of the Fatemi stabbing has any effect on the point of this RfC about the minority viewpoint from reliable sources, the one stating that Jafari was in jail August 1953. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance, is Shaban's character. He has no credibility as a witness. His words has zero relevance or credibility. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Afkhami felt that Jafari displayed a simple but compelling sense of javanmardi (chivalry) which bound him to honesty regarding his role in the coup. Bayandor takes this assertion and weighs it against the value of other reports about Jafari's whereabouts and concludes that no other source is strong enough to place Jafari on the street on August 19. All other reports are hearsay, or from people who could have misidentified a large man, and there is no photographic evidence. Jafari's credibility has been judged suitable enough by Afkhami and Bayandor to place him outside of direct involvement in August. Certainly he would have had indirect influence—his zurkhaneh was still active. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In line with opinions expressed on this page (so far) I am returning the single sentence to the timeline, saying "Jafari has also been reported as being in jail during the coup." Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has been in jail until 12am . After his release there are several pictures and documents that shows him participating in mobs activities . I can't trust anything that Shaban himself says , but he was in jail in that day until midday . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So please show some published information describing this, some photographs and documents. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an example , this picture : [3] . The footprint in Persian is (28th Mordad, In memory of Mehrdad Sakhi Yosefi).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That photograph is from a blog, not a reliable source. Anybody could write any kind of blurb underneath it. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "photograph is from a blog". It's an officially dated, stamped and watermarked photo from http://iichs.org/ The Institute of for Contemporary Iranian History Studies which is a scholarly source. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph's URL shown above is from a Quebec-based discussion forum, www.andishehaa.com. Where is the URL of the photograph which shows it coming from iichs.org? At the Shaban Jafari biography page on iichs.org, Jafari is said to have been active in street riots on 19 August (repeating the mainstream viewpoint) but no photographs are there to prove it. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original source of the picture in question, from iichs.org. [4] There are several more dated pictures of Shabon taking part in various activities on the coup date, listed here [5] This is irrefutable evidence. Your have been proven wrong. It's time for you to move on. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photographic evidence is strong but it is not "irrefutable". Bayandor and Afkhami have refuted Jafari's presence on the street. It is still in keeping with WP:NPOV that we tell the reader the mainstream view and any significant minority views. One sentence does not violate WP:UNDUE. In their scholarly books, Bayandor and Afkhami represent the minority opinion that Jafari was not on the street. The one image you show of Jafari does not have him on the street—he is inside a room with venetian blinds on a window. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afkhami and Bayandor are both questionable sources for this topic. But that's besides the point here. Neither one of them has "refuted Jafari's presence on the street", they're simply quoting Jafari's own claim that he was in jail during the coup. This is not a case of minority view point, as "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". Two Shah partisans quoting a street thug clearly represents a "tiny minority view" that contradicts dozens of scholars, documents, and photographic evidence. By the way, check that page again, there is another dated/stamped photo of Shabon attacking Mossadegh's residence. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody questions the fact that Jafari attacked Mosaddegh's gates by ramming a jeep into them, on 28 February 1953. Your dated picture of that event does not prove anything here. That event is the crime for which Jafari was sentenced to a year in prison, the sentence he was serving on 19 August. Your "Shah partisans" have weighed all available evidence; they are not simply taking Jafari at his word. Bayandor and Afkhami have published their conclusions in peer-reviewed books. Whatever partisanship you accuse them of does not make them unreliable as sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about February 28th? Check the image gallery again, there is a picture of Shabon and his gang attacking Mossadegh's house on on August 19th. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Jafari is not among those people. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know that, there are dozens of peoples in that picture. The assertion that "Jafari is not among the people" is simply your WP:OR, in light of the fact that the caption, which is from a WP:RS clearly says "Jafari and his gang attacking Mossadegh's house on August 19". That's what we go for, what the source says, not your personal observations and original research. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jafari is not indicated in the photo, a factor Bayandor certainly took into account as he weighed his sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your WP:OR. Your opinion has no relevance, when the source clearly says Jafari is in the photo. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reliably sourced photo caption below an image that does not include Jafari changes nothing regarding this RfC. We are discussing the presence of two scholarly sources, former diplomats, men of wide experience, who weighed the relative importance of various sources and chose to write against the mainstream about Jafari. Such decisions are not to be taken lightly, and the authors weighed the available evidence before printing their opinions. The photo in the page you link to is simply one more voice echoing the mainstream view without solid evidence. We are not debating the fact that the mainstream view places Jafari in the streets on August 19. We are debating whether to put the minority view into the article, the one which says Jafari was in jail. We still have not seen photos clearly showing Jafari taking part in street riots on August 19. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am returning the disputed text to the timeline as there is not a sufficient argument against it but there are scholarly sources in support of it. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Most scholarly sources detail Shabon's role during the coup. You have no WP:consensus] to include Shabon's claims, which are a violation of WP:UNDUE, as a fact on this article. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus to remove minority scholarly opinions stated in one sentence so as to keep within the bounds of WP:UNDUE. This RfC was to determine whether the removal of such information was an editor consensus, and it is not. The addition of this information is covered by WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY and WP:NPOV, so adding it is not something requiring consensus—taking it out is! I am going to add the sentence again with attribution this time, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus looks very clear to me. The 'no' !votes do not have the majority and they do not have the more engaging argument. The 'no' votes draw upon some scholarly sources including Gasiorowski who is unsure about the question. The 'yes' votes draw upon other scholars who hold a significant minority opinion. The single sentence is returned to the list. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:: You have no WP:consensus The RFC has not produced a conclusive result. And in light of the irrefutable photographic and scholarly evidence posted on this section that Shaban was active in the streets on on August 19th 1953, and the fact that even your disputed fringe partisan sources (Afkhami and Bayondor) do not report that Shaban was in jail as a fact, you're basically re-introducing a false claim to Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

Yes, as backed by Darioush Bayandor and Gholam Reza Afkhami in their recent books, and as recorded by journalist and author Homa Sarshar, who published a Jafari biography in 2002 based on extensive interviews with the man. None of these people are unreliable fringe sources. All of them hold significant minority viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Per npov other views should be provided is backed by RS and not Undue. In this case it seems so to mention at least part of the view if editors dont think it should be as long-winded.(Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Yes, I agree that "one sentence saying Jafari was in prison" is not undue weight.

A couple of points. I can't agree that the two books (by Afkhami and Bayandor) violate "scholarly historiography." Historiography changes as new facts are made known, it's not set in stone. Both those books are quite recent compared to any of the ones mentioned by Kurdo777 that I recognize (and this assumes those books do, as he claims, say that Jafari was active in the coup.) This means

A) Afkhami and Bayandor have had a chance to weigh the evidence provided in the older books by Gasiorowski, Abrahamian et.al., against what they, Afkhami and Bayandor, have found, but the verse is not true,

B) the large number of books agreeing with Gasiorowski, et.al., version of events rather than Afkhami and Bayandor can be explained by the fact that most of the books on Kurdo's list (example: the first one) didn't do original research on the coup, they cited works that did and which were around to cite when they were written ... which was before 2009 and 2010 when Afkhami and Bayandor's works were published.

Shaban may very well be a no-goodnik but that does not mean he was lying about his role or lack there of in the coup. From 1954-1978 admitting/claiming/bragging about your involvement a coup that restored the ruler of Iran to power would have been "self-serving" in mainstream Iran, a definite plus in dealing with the powerful government. After the Shah fell it was a definite minus ... but in Iran. In Terangeles, where Jafari "mostly" lived, talking about the good old days under the shah is like praising Batista in Miami. In any case, a wikipedia article should be made up of accurate information, not information that makes bad people look bad. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No

No it's undue weight given to self-serving claims of a questionable character. More details are given here. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Persons such as Gholam Reza Afkhami, and Darioush Bayandor can not be considered neutral for this matter as they were officials of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and in addition they had and have relationship with the royal family.--Aliwiki (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the two men do not have to be neutral to be considered reliable sources. At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity, the guideline says "when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so." Both men wrote in their books that Jafari was in prison. Both of their books are peer-reviewed, from scholarly imprints. Both men were diplomats of Iran; they came across a lot of information in their lives. Being a diplomat tends to give a man a lot of objectivity. Together, they hold a significant minority viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beside the WP:COI issues with these two writers, you keep repeating the false premises that Afkkhami and Bayandor "wrote in their books that Jafari was in prison" as if they had reported this as fact. They're simply quoting Shabon's own claim that he was in jail, without verifying it. This is all a moot point now, as irrefutable photographic evidence from a scholarly source has been provided under the discussion thread, showing Shabon free on August 19th, that makes this claim a extreme fringe theory. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photographic evidence does not include any photograph of Jafari taking part in street riots on August 19, so your 'irrefutable' goes out the window. The two writers evaluate Jafari's claim as printed by Sarshar, and they weigh it against other evidence. Your assertion that they parrot Jafari without verification is unfounded. Fringe, as defined by WP:FRINGE, does not include a pair of peer-reviewed scholarly books printed by a pair of internationally known diplomats. You are seeking to bury these books because they do not fit your world view, but they are perfectly suited to our purposes at Wikipedia. Stop trying to force your personal POV on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Binksternet: According to Wikipedia:Independent sources and Wikipedia:Fringe theories: Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. For sure, Afkhami and Bayandor can't be considered independent for this matter.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is wrong. Afkami and Bayandor are authors of peer-reviewed scholarly books, so they do not fall under the WP:FRINGE. The guideline at Wikipedia:Independent sources is mainly concerned about authors (sources) who are writing slanted text in order to push a product or help a cause. The text in the books of Afkhami and Bayandor has been peer-reviewed, and is far past worries about slanted writing by authors who are not independent. At WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources and neutrality, it says "Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to simply to present what the reliable sources say." I think our mandate is clear: we must dedicate a sentence to the minority view that Jafari was in jail August 19. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the sources are not reliable. I am asking you, do you consider their view in this specific case independent or no?--Aliwiki (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's independent in the sense that he's not writing on behalf of the shah (dead) or imperial government (no longer in existance). Why all this waste of time in an effort to keep "one sentence saying Jafari was in prison" from the article? It would be a minority view. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I also mentioned on Fatemi talk page, Wikipedia policy of independency tells us that a third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject.--Aliwiki (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No On side has presented the viewpoints of full professors while the other side brings books by two writes with no academic relavence. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Full professor" Mark Gasiorowski is not sure that Jafari was on the street on August 19. Gasiorowski writes "The notorious mob organizer Sha'ban Ja'fari also likely played a role." That statement is not at all an absolute one; Jafari could have played an influential role from behind bars. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it looks more like the opinion of other full professors than the two non-professor authors you are citing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No1-due to several photos from a official historical reference . 2-Shaban himself said he was in jail until the day of the coup , that does not roll out the possibility of participating in the activities in the end of the day . He was in jail in the morning , in the coup in the evening!This explains why he does not considers himself as a figure in whole process , because almost all act was done without him and he was a mere bad-man in the scene , but still a landmark of that event in Iranian minds .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions are not borne out by cites to reliable sources. The "several photos" of Jafari do not contain visual confirmation of the August 19 date. Certainly in Iranian minds Jafari is a landmark figure in the coup, but if we cannot prove it, if even Gasiorowski is uncertain, then we must say so. We say "this is the mainstream thought" and we say "this is a significant minority thought which contradicts the mainstream". Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Abrahamian,_1982,_p.55-6-1] Abrahamian, 1982, p.55-6

[1]