Talk:Iran/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Some recent history

I had a quick look at the last fifty edits.

• [1] three unexplained and somewhat serious edits (mildly disruptive)
• [2] unexplained revert of three unexplained edits (mildly disruptive but understandable)
• [3] revert of that revert, citing "unexplained revert"--which is silly/disruptive given that the original edits were unexplained

Then, I suppose, the fun starts. VwM makes some edits, which Sharab reverts saying "restored sourced content"--but nothing happened in Vwm's edits pertaining to sources. Restoring Buyid dynasty to Buyid empire, for instance, means nothing since the latter is a redirect to the former. VwM reverts, citing "someone else made this edit--but that doesn't mean it's any good. And then everyone gets in on that action, but edit summaries in those edits say nothing about content. And then Kingerik starts fighting over one tiny thing, further raising tension, and drops it after not gaining traction on the talk page--so this was pretty useless. Then the edit warring over authoritarian vs. totalitarian starts, which is something that should have been handled on the talk page from the get-go--but VwM seems to enjoy reverting.

Then this--Mehrdad making a huge revert that isn't explained well and contains some strange elements. Why is the White Revolution left out? Why is the note about the monarchy being pro-Western and authoritarian left out? Why is one of the citations to Farsi Wikisource? "Rv to stable version" is invalid if it's from a month ago or earlier, and it's obvious that there was no vandalism. Of course Mehrdad's "plagued by Zionist hate propaganda" is unacceptable. The last revert is Wikaviani's, and while it is true that one (one single one) citation is to YouTube, that citation is to a panel discussion at Georgetown U, but that is only one citation for the "world's bottom countries" for women's rights. Wikaviani's revert also erases a bunch of minor improvements in links and especially citations--but they were lucky enough to make it just before Ymblanter's protection.

So, all of y'all have really made a bad showing here; you're all much too eager to hit revert and to throw accusations around. MehrdadFR, if I see more of those unacceptable edit summaries, and if you get into more edit warring, I will consider blocking you indefinitely. Maybe you should be under a permanent 1R restriction; maybe this article should be under 1R. Wikaviani, your revert and your request for protection could be justified, maybe they were good faith edits and requests--but the edit itself was lousy even without looking at the status of sources and statements. Kingerikthesecond, your edits in the last month in this article have not been helpful, to put it mildly--you've participated in an edit war in a way that makes me wonder if you were just tag-teaming.

In the discussion above, there's talk of fringe sources and POV comments and what not (and the accusation that the lead is written by Iranian PR consultants?), but I really see nothing that discusses, in some kind of depth and with recourse to the sources, individual items in the reverts that make up the recent war. No progress will be made until you do that, and all of you will be liable to various sanctions if you continue in this way. Everyone: do better. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not intend to tag-team. The Azerbaijan thing was stupid of me, and I deeply regret that already, but the single revert I made recently was because I thought the content that I reverted to was the stable one, and the one that was reached by consensus. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi and thanks for taking the time to review this mess. About your above remark and my edit, i already confessed that my edit may have removed some legit content, but i decided to make it in order to fuel the discussion here on the talk rather than with edit-warring. Second, if you still have doubts about my revert, take a look at my edit summary, since actually i intended to remove this blog too : but i failed doing so because the version i reverted to already contained it. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies The thing about Wmv edit is that he said this in the edit summary Becoming an Islamic republic was part of the Islamic Revolution; "Iranian" redundant and changed the Iranian Revolution into Islamic Revolution in the info box you can check his edit, considering the fact that most reliable sources call it the Iranian Revolution (since the article name is Iranian Revolution) that means it is sourced by default that it's mostly called in reliable sources "Iranian Revolution" not "Islamic Revolution." What he did was something like this [[Iranian Revolution|Islamic Revolution]] plus he didn't provide a source for his opinion in the edit summary. I also reverted that edit just one time and I didn't want to start any edit war or even a discussion because it was obviously timesinking. He also changed the republic of Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan which I also didn't find it justified.

The reason for the revert without an explanation was because I accidentally clicked ok without writing an edit summary I would have said "unexplained edits" and then after I got reverted I didn't revert again because I felt I was wrong (although later realised I wasn't). I sometimes feel that no body is watching this article except me. I believe this article should be under an active community sanction or something instead of sanctioning all of us(as you suggested). This article is strongly related to Israeli-Arab articles and also very strongly related to Syrian civil war. Should I start a proposal to put this article under these sanctions? The Israel article is under a sanction I fail to understand why isn't this article under an active community sanction?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I also watch this article (just like thousands other articles). As to the sanctions, i only edited this article one time in recent days (my previous edit was on february 22th), therefore i don't think i'm concerned by Drmies remark about sanctions. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wikiaviani. I felt that I am the only one who is watching this article because I feel like I am almost the only one who revert controversial and unsourced edits and usually I don't get support by other editors when I get reverted so I just leave it until some day someone start noticing the mistakes in this article(it happened today). Unfortunately there are anonymous editors and editors with accounts who think Wikipedia is a battlefield where they can discredit their opponents and support who ever they support. IMO the best solution would be to put this article under active community sanction.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani, I saw that edit summary, but I do not believe it really warranted/explained the revert. One of the problems--and I see this actually in all the responses--is that if you have a problem with one or two or even three things it's not really valid to remove the whole thing. SharabSalam, "Iranian" or "Islamic" is all the same to me, but if it's not all the same to you, then I'd expect to see a "(0)" in the edit summary, because they have the same number of letters. You understand what I mean: why revert the rest?

I don't find a lot of animosity here right now, which is good. You all should talk these things over, and if necessary set up a bunch of RfCs. Now, Ymblanter fully protected the article, but it's sad that it has to be that way. The last revert was this one. Let's see what we can do--let's discuss a few items below, running down the page, so we can get some kind of (quick) agreement and we can unprotect and fight over the other things later. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: The reason that VwM.Mwv gave in the edit summary was a pure opinion and as I said his edit was like this [[Iranian Revolution|Islamic Revolution]] he claimed in the edit summary that the term Iranian Revolution is wrong this what made me revert his edit. The other thing which was also in his previous edits is that he deleted some established events that are coups saying this removing coup as it didn't change the nature of the regime per se. from what I know the established events are key events in the history of the country. coups are definitely one of them. I also didn't agree with removing republic from Azerbaijan name. I saw that there were a lot of wrong things that he did so I reverted I admit that I reverted some good edits but that was unavoidable for me I couldn't only select his wrong edits and fix them. I asked for discussion as that's the best solution I found I didn't do any revert after that except for the Azerbaijani thing and it was with another editor who we discussed the issue with and we got into a solution. I also want to say that I had an edit war with user VwM.Mwv before all of this in this article. it was regarding women's rights and at that time VwM.Mwv was still new in Wikipedia he added an information with no source (although he wrote things in the talk page which were also not sourced) and I reverted while asking for a source then he reverted and said no room for sources and then I reverted asking again for sources then he reverted and added a source. The sources he gave didn't say exactly what the statement in Wikipedia says it was SYNTH. I didn't revert anymore to not break the 3RR.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: To be honest, i did not have a problem with only one, two or 3 things, i checked the sources removed/added and saw that there was no consensus about these changes, let aside the fact that some of the new entries (blog, Youtube links) were poor references, this is why i reverted the whole stuff to a pre edit-war version in order to fuel the discussion here on the talk page. Judging by the number of comments since Ymblanter protected the article, this was quite a success, in my opinion for the least. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

T or A

• totalitarian or authoritarian? Discuss, including sources (I think that whole "In the book" section needs to go: it's a dead link, POV-y, poorly written, and vague content, and how it is referenced (with the dead link) is entirely unclear). Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• A The current one is much better than the previous one. It is detailed and well sourced by scholar sources. I am talking about this ((de jure:

Unitary Khomeinist presidential ::Islamic republic

de facto:

Theocratic-republican ::authoritarian[3][4][5] unitary ::presidential republic subject to ::a Supreme Leader[6])) So that would be A?--SharabSalam (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering the fact that I was the one who added authoritarian with the same sources as now, I obviously support maintaining it. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused as to where this discussion is taking place... Drimes wrote And what about "anti-Western and totalitarian"? Is that a big deal? They seem verified and true, and they are not used earlier ("autocracy" is, but that's not the same). in another section, but now it seems it's being discussed here. Anyway, I, too, support "totalitarian". In addition to the Islamic Revolution sources, here are some that describe the current regime as "totalitarian" as well (perhaps even worse than in 1979) [4] [5] [6]. M . M 12:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:VwM.Mwv, it's not complicated: these are individual sections for individual discussions. But your "I, too,..." is misplaced: the previous two editors supported Authoritarian. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ebrahim Raisi or Sadeq Larijani

• Which one? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• OK Ebrahim Raisi it is. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

dynasty or empire

• Basically, the order under Buyid dynasty or Buyid Empire? Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Dynasty and I believe this discussion is completely unnecessary--SharabSalam (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • SharabSalam, you may believe that, but if there's edit warring, there needs to be a decision. And I don't just mean the one word, I mean that entire set of "successions"--this version or Mehrdad's version. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Dynasty per the name of the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikaviani (talk • contribs)
• Dynasty yeah, it's pretty unnessecary. But this is what happens when people revert multiple edits at once. M . M 12:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• OK, that's one little thing out of the way: [7]. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

White Revolution

• Should the section starting "A far-reaching series of reforms" be in the article yes or no? And what about "anti-Western and totalitarian"? Is that a big deal? They seem verified and true, and they are not used earlier ("autocracy" is, but that's not the same). Personally I believe the Farsi source "politicalsystem" should go: if y'all want to improve the article, find a published, secondary source, preferably in English--this is the English wiki, after all. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References