Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Artaxerex

Melca's comments
I would like to thank Melca for taking the time to write his/her view. I would only like to clarify two things here.
 * Firstly, if Melca or Artaxerex care to remember harsh words of mine directed at Artaxerex in the past (which have been rare, but of which I most certainly am not proud), they should also have the fairness to realize how many times I have apologized for those (I have done so at least three times in the past couple of days). This can be easily checked on the talk pages of the related articles. These actions of mine, which I admit were wrong, are however not comparable to the systematic disruptive behavior and personal attack and defamation campaign directed at me. I do not see how Melca as a long-time editor does not realize the magnitude of the wrongdoings of Artaxerex. Systematic harassment of this kind is not something to be taken lightly and is definitely not something to be endorsed by a serious editor.
 * Moreover, Unlike what Melca stated, this is not a dispute between me and Artaxerex. It is solely Artaxerex's problem, as he seems to attack anybody disagreeing with him. See the monarchist gang accusations for instance.
 * About the rest of Melca's accusations I'd better say nothing, since anybody reading the links in that comment can judge themselves whether Melca's conclusions follow from it, and whether my behavior has ever been in any way comparable to that of Artaxerex. Shervink 22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that the user Melca, as with the "Artaxerex", has shown very poor knowledge of this subject and both users' statements show that their editing behaviour is driven by extreme and unexplained hatred rather than enriching the Pahlavi articles. The huge amount of propaganda being posted by these users is largely nonsensical and is used simply to confuse third party people who have attempted to resolve this in the past. We need to establish the extreme, and repeated dishonesty, fraud hatred and plagurism of "Artaxerex" once and for all so that this issue can finally be put to rest - ALL EDITORS ARE IN CONSENSUS ABOUT THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF "ARTAXEREX" AND ONE MEATPUPPET - I PROPOSE REMOVING THE "DISPUTED" LABEL ON THE PAHLAVI ARTICLE ONCE THIS USER HAS BEEN FINALLY BANNED.Mehrshad123 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

SG
I have not been an active participant on the actual article pages for neither Reza Shah nor Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in several months. I have sporadically returned to their respective talk pages, though.

Now, regarding Melca's response. Melca is solely using Shervink as an example, stating that the latter has essentially ignored Artaxerex' sources. However, I, as well as several other editors, have reused much of Artaxerex' contributions to rewrite the article in a proper fashion. However, there is absolutely no way in hell that any self-respecting editor can read Artaxerex' edit and tell me that it contains a neutral, properly-written and coherent structure and lead.

Back in March, I collaborated with a few users and we came up with an idea to rewrite the article more efficiently without interruption (see Shervink's talk and my talk -- this would later be the basis for an accusation against us, calling it a plan for major vandalism, even though I announced it at the article talk). I contributed for over a week on the new article. I'd say the lead I wrote was at the bare minimum worthy of Good Article status. This edit was the result.

Artaxerex butchered that article, and introduced statistics which contradict my stats sourced from Amnesty International (even though he keeps BOTH in there). The lead at one point says that Amnesty International claimed Iran had 25,000 to 100,000 political prisoners in 1976, while later on, it says "as many as 2,200" in 1978 (that's the real number that I found). There is no way in hell the Shah released some 35,000 political prisoners (based on an average between 25000 and 100000) in under two years. If we assume a 24-month span, that's almost 1,500 per month! If that were true, this information would most certainly be widely available in historians' accounts of the Shah's rule.

I simply stopped editing both articles some time in late April, early May. I grew tired of acting as a babysitter for the article. I was exceptionally open-minded and kind-hearted towards Artaxerex and all editors involved with the articles, more so than I usually am in my day-to-day life (I'm really quite irritable). Eventually, I just stopped and gave up hope on turning the environment into a more productive collaboration. I have not, and will not attempt to improve the article until Artaxerex stops his revert war. What's the point of spending hours researching sources and writing an article if everything you do is going to be destroyed in an hour? What's the point of attempting to engage in a rational discussion with someone who reverts to sockpuppetry to rewrite an article in the most lopsided way possible? Why waste my time talking to someone who keeps calling me and other editors sock puppets, meat puppets, co-vandals, co-conspirators, monarchists, Shahchis, uncivil, ignorant, yadda yadda yadda... ♠ SG →Talk 23:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Source on Political prisoners
SG, I did give my source. It was Time magazine and it can be found here. There are of course also Persian sources that give the same number. The way Shah reduced the number of political prisoners (under pressure from President Carter) was through re-calssification of them as criminal prisoners. Artaxerex 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The information and Sources In Dispute
Here are the information and references that I feel in some way should be mentioned in the article. The Pahlavi regime was responsible for destruction of a perfectly progressive and enlightened constitution established in Iran in 1907. They bear the main responsibility for today’s condition in the country. 1.	Reza Shah was an autocrat who believed in the supremacy of Persian race. Reza Shah became infatuated with Hitler’s ideology of the Aryan master race, and the Nazis' political system in general. His educational and cultural policies were geared towards promoting Iran's ties with Nazis, and in return German declared Iran a pure Aryan country. On the eve of Second World War, Reza Shah had established close economic and political commitments towards Germany, and Hitler’s  military and political agents were frequenting Iran to agitate against the Jewish population and British economic interests 2.	According to Andrew Terrill, Reza Shah was “impressed enormously with European fascism”. 3.	 Keddi, Melman and Meir Javdanfar, Timmerman and Black report that he started to cooperate with the Nazi Germany from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933   .  4.	Hitler’s agents were welcomed by Reza Shah’s regime, and they were allowed to agitate against the British and the Jewish population not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East. Reza Shah’s educational system was redirected towards accentuating the racial supremacy of Persians as an Aryan race.The most important of the Nazi agents was Fritz Grobba  Hitler's special envoy to the Middle East who envisaged a pro-Nazi  Pan-Islamic state extending from Casablanca to Tehran. The pro-Nazi policies of Reza Shah irritated the British Government enormously. In particular, the fate of his regime was sealed in their eyes when after British forces entered Iraq in June 1941 Iran welcomed German aircrews and the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and provided them with a safe haven to continue to call and operate for the destruction of the Jews and the defeat of the British. This irritation reached its apex in the summer of 1941, when Reza Shah moved from being a partial supplier of the Persian oil to Hitler’s forces in occupied Czechoslovakia and Austria and gave his approval for a total redirection of the Persian oil supplies from the Allies to the Nazis.  5.	After his father’s coup and the seizure of the throne, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the crown prince and was  sent to Le Rosey  school Switzerland. He became Shah of Iran after his father Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced to abdicate by the allied forces occupying Iran during [[World War II. His reign oversaw many important developments in Iran, including the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a series of reforms in the White Revolution, initiated under prime minister Ali Amini  and his reformist minister of agriculture Hassan Arsanjani, which included nationalization of many natural resources, land reforms, and extension of suffrage to women. The first years of his rule seared in his mind the inherent weakness of his position. The country was occupied by allied forces, and he was installed on the throne by the foreign occupiers. The 1947-1952 was an extended period of musical-chair prime ministers that for the most part were appointed by the British government. The young shah was considered by Britain as indecisive and weak to confront the rising soviet agitations. At the same time he had to face the fierce face-off with the nationalist Prime Minister Dr. Mossadegh, who through his eloquent speeches was demanding the re-establishment of the constitutional monarchy. At the same time the Communist Party of Iran  (Tudeh) was supporting the dismemberment of Iran and the break-away of the “Azerbaijan Democratic Republic” and “Kurdestan Democratic Republic”  which were  supported  by  Soviets.  6.	After the departure  of the Allied Forces from Iran in 1947, the  prime minister Qavam  decided to confront Russians, he succeeded by a combination of strategically smart moves,  discreet backing by British, and blunt threat of the Truman Doctrine.  However, Princess Ashraf, the shah’s twin sister, suspicious of Qavam ambitions, arranged for his dismissal by the parliament This enabled the young shah to claim that it was he who freed Azerbaijan and Kurdistan.  According to the US Ambassador  George Allan at the time;  “Despite the fact that the Shah is by far the most powerful figure in Iran today, his power is largely negative in that he can prevent almost any action he does not like, and is unable to do very much of a positive nature.”  7.	In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh  came to office, committed to re-establish the democracy ,constitutional monarchy, and nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry. From the start  he erroneously believed that the Americans, who had no interest in Anglo-Iranian Oil company, would support his nationalization plan. He was buoyed by the American Ambassador, Henry Grady. In the events, Americans supported the British, and fearing that the Communists with the help of Soviets are posed to overthrow the government they decided to remove Mossadegh from the office. Shortly before  the 1952  presidential election in the US the British  government invited Kermit Roosevelt  of the CIA  to London and proposed  that they cooperate under the code name “Operation Ajax” to cause the downfall of Mossadegh from office. .  8.	The American Embassy in Tehran was reporting that Mossaedgh had near total support  from the nation and was unlikely to fall. The prime minister asked Majles to give him direct control of the army. Given the situation , alongside the strong personal support of Eden and Churchill for covert action, the American government  gave a go-ahead  to a committee, attended by the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt,  Ambassador Henderson, and Secretary of  Defense Charles Wilson. Kermit  Roosevelt  returned to Iran  on July 13 and on August  1 in his first meeting  with the shah. A car picked him up in the midnight and drove him to the palace. He lay down on the seat and covered himself with a blanket as guards waved his driver through the gates. The shah got into the car and Roosevelt explained the mission. The CIA provided $1 million in Iranian currency, which Roosevelt had stored in a large safe, a bulky cache given the exchange rate 1000 rial = 15 dollars at the time.  .  9.	Mossadegh nationalized  the oil industry and within a few months his government  was in direct conflict with the shah.   The Communists staged massive demonstrations to hijack the prime minister’s initiatives. The United States had announced its total lack of confidence in him; and his followers were drifting to indifference. On August 16, 1953, the right wing of the Army reacted. Armed with an order by the shah, appointing General  Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister, a coalition of mobs and retired officers close to the Palace, attempting what could be counted as  a coup d’etat. They failed dismally. The shah fled the country in an humiliating haste.  Even Ettelaat, the nation’s largest daily newspaper, and its pro-shah  publisher Abbas Masudi, published negative commentaries on the shah .  10.	In the following two days the Communists turned against Mossadegh. They roamed Tehran raising red flags and pulling down statues of Reza Shah. This frightened the conservative clergies like Kashani  and National Front leaders like Makki , who sided with the shah. On Agust 18, Mossadegh hit back. Tudeh Partisans were clubbed to be dispersed .  11.	Tudeh had no choice but to accept the defeat. In the meantime, according to the CIA plot, Zahedi appealed to the military, and claimed to be the legitimate prime minister and charged Mossadegh with staging a coup by ignoring the shah’s decree. Zahedi’s son Ardeshir acted as the go-between for the CIA and his father. On  August 19th  the thugs organized with $100,000 of the CIA  funds finally appeared, marched out of south Tehran into the city center, other mobs joined in.  Gang with clubs, knives, and rocks controlled the street overturning Tudeh trucks and beating up anti-shah activists. As Roosevelt was congratulating  Zahedi in the basement of his hiding place the new prime minister’s mobs burst in and carried him  upstairs on their shoulders .  That evening  Ambassador Henderson suggested to Ardashir that Mossadegh not be harmed . Roosevelt furnished Zahedi with $900,000 left from the operation Ajax funds. The shah returned to power, but never extended the elitism of the court to the technocrats and intellectuals who emerged from Iranian and Western universities. Indeed, his system irritated the new classes, for they were barred from partaking in real power.  12.	The Shah was judged by many observers as a megalomaniac dictator with limited leadership ability, total disregard for human rights, who possessed vain attitudes, and was amenable to corruption and racism. It is  argued that  because of his innate suspicious of the ambitions of others and the lack of highly-qualified persons to assist him he was not well served by advisers, either in government or outside it. He was susceptible to exaggerated flattery and wanted to be told by his advisors what he wanted to hear. .  13.	He was a despot whose secret police did use torture, as he once admitted to Time magazine, and who eventually earned the passionate hatred of his nation. Amnesty International in the 1970s described his regime’s methods of torture: electric shock, burning on a heated metal grill, and the insertion of bottles and hot eggs into the anus. According to 1976 Amnesty International  estimates 25,000 to 100,000 political prisoners were being held in Iran. The Shah's own figure was 3,000 to 3,500. Anne Burley, an Amnesty International researcher, was shown by the government a SAVAK file that she deems authentic, containing pictures of victims who had been tortured to death. Several were women, she testified, and "in each case the breasts were mutilated." William J. Butler, a New York lawyer who investigated SAVAK for the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, spoke to Reza Baraheni, an Iranian poet who was held for 102 days by the secret police in 1973. Baraheni told of seeing in SAVAK torture rooms "all sizes of whips" and instruments designed to pluck out the fingernails of victims. He described the sufferings of some fellow prisoners: "They hang you upside down, and then someone beats you with a mace on your legs or on your genitals, or they lower you down, pull your pants up and then one of them tries to rape you while you are still hanging upside down." Baraheni himself was beaten and whipped, and released only after agreeing to make a statement on television condemning Communism. Many other SAVAK victims were tortured briefly and then released, after the secret police satisfied themselves that they would no longer oppose the Shah. Did the Shah know? He told TIME in 1976 that "we don't need to torture people any more," implying that torture had in fact been practiced earlier. In any case, as an absolute monarch he obviously was responsible for the actions of his own security forces.  14.	 There is some more direct evidence of the Shah's complicity in executions too. According to TIME, SAVAK agents had testified that the Shah, under international pressure to liberalize his regime and therefore eager to hide evidence of repression, gave the secret police a terse oral order in 1975: "Don't take any prisoners. Kill them." In a confession interspersed with sobs, Bahman Naderipour described how he and other agents, in response to this order, took nine political prisoners out of Evin jail in northwest Tehran, handcuffed and blindfolded them and then machine-gunned them. He and another agent, Fereydoun Tavangari, said that SAVAK murdered other prisoners in their cells, then turned their bodies over to police medical examiners with an explanation that they had been killed in gun fights while resisting arrest. For all the torture tales, U.S. experts estimated the number of political executions under the Shah at about 150 per year. By far the greatest bloodshed under the Shah occurred in the demonstrations that convulsed the country in 1978 and early 1979. The Shah's troops several times opened fire on crowds. One prominent member of the International Commission of Jurists classifies the Shah as in a "second league" of tyrants, below Uganda's Idi Amin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Central African Emperor Jean Bokassa I. .  15.	The Shah had no great regard for women. In 1973 he exploded at Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci: "Does it seem right to you that a King, that an Emperor of Persia, should waste time talking about such things? Talking about wives, women? Women are important in a man's life only if they're beautiful and keep their femininity. You're equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability." --former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon once called him "a nut". The middle class was angered by the lack of political rights and by the corruption and inefficiency of a government system in which top jobs were awarded on the basis of loyalty to the Shah rather than ability (.  16.	The Shaha was notorious for his  murderous acts (e.g the execution of the poet Khosrow Golsorkhi, the intellectual Bijan Jazani and the Foreign Minister Dr. Fatemi as well as the assassination of the journalist Mohammad Masood, among many others), his extravagant expenses (such as the Persepolice carnival or Aryamehr Tennis Tournament in the face of dire poverty in the country), and his socio-economic blunders (for example forced removal of low-income families from the prosperous parts of various cities  to the remote  distict such as Kooye Nohom-e Aban in Tehran which was far away from the economic centre of city where these workers could have found jobs as gardeners, janitors and cleaners. This created a drug-based crime-nourished economy).  17.	Cottam have argued; the longevity of the Shah’s rule was due largely to his success in balancing his security chiefs against each other. Although the shah was clearly willing to utilize instruments of terror to remain in power, he nevertheless was probably  sincere about wishing to bring economic, social, and political reform to his country.    18.	In 1961 the shah wrote “If  I were  a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party  such as Hitler organized”  However, in1975 he announced the establishment of a new single party called the Rastakhiz or National Resurgence Party. All Iranians were expected to join in, as the shah addressed the nation in these blunt words; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t. .. A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal  principles  will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words is a traitor.  Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”. His supporters, however, have credited him with modernizing his country.  19.	In October 1971  the Shah celebrated the twenty-five-hundredth anniversary of the Iranian monarchy. The New York Times, reported that $100 million  was spent. Next to the ruins of Persepolis , the Shah gave orders to build a city covering 160 acres, studded with three huge royal tents and fifty-nine lesser ones arranged in a star-shaped design . French chefs from Maxim’s of Paris prepared breast of peacock for royalty and dignitaries around the world, the buildings were decorated by Jensen’s (the same firm that helped Jacqueline Kennedy redecorate the White House), the guests ate off  Ceraline Limoges china and drank from Baccarat crystal glasses. This  became a major scandal for the contrast between the dazzling elegance of celebration and  the misery of the nearby villages was so dramatic that no one  could ignore it. Months before the festivities, university students struck in protest. Indeed, the cost was sufficiently impressive that the shah forbade his associates to discuss the actual figures.   20.	As for his immense wealth gathered through his corruption,  Shah's own figure for the size of his fortune, given to Barbara Walters of ABC, was $50 million to $100 million. Even that would represent a spectacular increase over the years. Much of the Shah's wealth was funneled into the Pahlavi Foundation and several others, established ostensibly to fund charitable activities, like aid to the handicapped. In his book, Iran: The Illusion of Power, British Journalist Robert Graham published a 3½-page list of holdings of the Pahlavi Foundation that he was able to track down as of the end of 1977 and that he estimated to be worth $2.8 billion to $3.2 billion. They included total ownership of Bank Omran, one of Iran's largest banks; 80% ownership of Bimeh Melli, the nation's third largest insurance company; and full or partial interests in auto factories (10% of GM Iran), cement plants, sugar mills, housing projects and a string of hotels, including the Tehran Hilton. Indeed, Graham estimates that the Shah, through the foundation, once owned 70% of all the hotel beds in Iran. Whatever the size of the Shah's personal fortune, According to TIME he ran a corrupt government from first to last. Foreign companies frequently had to pay "commissions" to government officials or members of the royal family to get any kind of contract in Iran. One example: between 1973 and 1975 the Bell Helicopter division of Textron Inc., which was selling choppers to the Iranian air force, paid a $3 million commission to a company that turned out to be secretly owned in part by a brother-in-law of the Shah. The Shah indirectly acknowledged the corruption by periodically announcing drives to root it out, but he never succeeded in doing so—if, in fact, he ever really tried.  21.	Author Graham believes that the Shah's motives in tolerating the corruption, and in guiding the network of investments of the Pahlavi Foundation, were less personal aggrandizement than a desire to retain tight control of the Iranian economy and win the loyalty of subordinates by lavish financial favors  . 22.	Nonetheless, the Shah in power lived very well, to put it mildly. He shuttled among five palaces in Iran. Journalist Fallaci, interviewing the Shah in 1973 in one of them, noted that "almost everything in the place was gold: the ashtray that you didn't dare dirty, the box inlaid with emeralds, the knickknacks covered with rubies and sapphires." The ruler's sisters also basked in opulence. Princess Ashraf Pahlavi owns two town houses and a lavish triplex coop apartment in Manhattan. Princess Shams is said to have bought a seaside showplace in Acapulco and to have once planned a gold-domed palace overlooking Beverly Hills, Calif.  23.	In 1978, the political unrest against his rule boiled over into a revolution. According to William Sullivan the last U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Jolted by the populous unrest the shah summoned his military commanders to the palace and held a long meeting on September 7 1979. The city and the country awoke the next morning to the announcement  that martial law had been declared. A demonstration had been organized and scheduled for September 8 in Jaleh Square. In short order the demonstrators who had gathered there and the troops who were brought in to disperse them were meeting face to face. A melee soon developed  and shoving took place on both sides. After a few minutes of this, the troop commander called his forces back to a firing line and ordered to fire their weapons . .. The massacre was a shock to both sides. The opposition seemed sobered by the force of military action; the government – and particularly the shah – seemed astounded by the number of casualties. Later, Sullivan  received a message asking him to see the shah and inform  him that the United States government felt it was in his best interest and in Iran’s for him to leave the country. ..The shah listened to him state it simply and gently  as he could and then turned to him, almost beseeching, throwing out his hands and saying, “Yes, but where I will go?” The ambassador  asked, “Would you like me to seek an invitation for you to go to the United States?” The shah leaned forward almost like a small boy, and said “Oh, would you?”  24.	In January 1979, the Shah left Iran, officially for a visit to Egypt. Prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar's attempts to avoid a full collapse of the political system, however, could not stop the eventual success of the revolutionary forces under Ayatollah Khomeini, who returned to Iran from exile in February 1979. The Shah became persona non grata in all the Western democracies, searching for a safe country to accommodate him, he stoped in Marocco, the United States (which he was allowed for a short stay for his medical condition), and Panama, he settled in Egypt, where he died of cancer in July 1980.Artaxerex 06:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Artaxerex, may I remind you that this is not a place to discuss the article. This page is not about a content dispute, it is an RfC on your conduct. It is meant to discuss your behavior on wikipedia, not the proposed content of a specific article. Shervink 07:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have received a request from the Behnam to refrain from editing the Palavies pages, pending the outcome of ths RFC. I intend to do so out of my respect for him. I am hopping that the outcome of this RFC would provide a clear direction for inclusion of the above historical facts in the article -- albeit with a more balanced tone (if the tone is indeed deemed unbalanced). I also hope, this RFC provide a guidance as to how to react to a group of editors that form a majority block and vote to delete the sourced materials that are from academic sources. Artaxerex 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Artaxerex, I'm glad you decided to stop the edit war that you started on those pages, for whatever reason it is. But there is something you really need to understand here. This RFC is not about the best way to edit that article. This would have belonged on the talk page or on an article RFC. This RFC is only about your behavior during that process, which was so counter-productive that it led to several active editors leaving that article altogether. The problem, the reason, in fact, why I do not want to restart a discussion with you there is that I think it is useless unless you realize your past behavior was wrong. You cannot simply go on insulting people during discussions, make accusations, and continue to claim that you were blocked illegitimately (whereas your sockpuppetry was confirmed). Once you realize that what you did was wrong, there can of course be discussion. But so long as you do not show a change of attitude and continue with your personal attacks most editors will think it is a waste of time to talk to you. Shervink 08:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * shervink, This is an RFC. Would it not make more sense that we wait for the comments, instead of you as the plaintif here be giving the verdict as the judge?!! I am glad that Melca has contributed here, since in all honesty I had thought that he was banned as a sock puppet. He has shown that you have committed all the wrong-doings that you accuse me of in this RFC. In other words, you have written POV articles. You have written Original Research for which there are no sources and which goes against all the extant reliable academic sources (which are fortunately many), you have been uncivil to the point of using vulgarity on many occasions (even in your above message; 'But there is something you really need to understand here'), You have used your bodies to vote down my edits despite the fact that Wikepedia is not a democracy, You and your cronies started an edit war with me (speaking of being counter productive indeed!), and so on and so forth. Who is in the need of a real change of attitude then? I have always maintained that if you provide a sourced material I will be open to change. You have always refused to do so, because your ideas belong to a fringe group. That is why when Behnam invited us to stop the edit war and asked us to join the discussion you claimed that your feelings are hurt since you are a 'self-respecting individual' and then invited all your bodies to vote down the sourced material suggested by an 'A****'. Of course, you apologized when I confronted you but this is because you want to be successful in this RFC. A genuine apology is simply for you to engage in a discussion of those sourced facts, and to allow that some balanced form of those facts see the light of the day in a reasonable time frame. With all due respect Artaxerex 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope this apology would allow us to return to the content in dispute -- and to do so in a civil manner, reaching a Wikipedia defined concensus. I hope also that you, Behnam, would play the role of a mediator. I hope you would show us the best way to present the important sourced facts in an NPOV style. Respectfully yours Artaxerex 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason that I did not directly engage in a new discussion with you is the same reason that has made several (previously very active) editors leave that page altogether: namely, your hostile attitude and lack of civility. What do you mean by "giving the verdict" and "judge"? Where have I been "vulgar" in my above message, or ever before? Assuming even that "three times apologizing" for "one comment" is still not enough, then how come you find it so totally acceptable to still claim you were on the right side during your months of systematic harrasment, creating at least six sockpuppets, calling me racist, fascist, nazi-sympathizer, pipsqueak, wishing me the plague, going on and on about my so called gang, group, company, accusing me of sockpuppetry, directing your attacks at me when responding to other editors, etc etc etc? Do you or do you not understand the magnitude of your wrongdoings? Are you seriously claiming you were the one interested in a dialogue? Then why do you keep insulting me? Is making a personal attack your idea of starting a constructive discussion? I cannot and will not start any discussion with you unless you realize that you have been, and still are, violating several wikipedia guidelines and policies, not to speak of simple good manners. It is simply a waste of time talking to you as long as you don't change your attitude, and I will only return to editing that page if you realize how terrible your behavior has been. By the way, it was you who started an edit war, in which I largely did not even engage. And as for Melca, the last time I recall I had come to a consensus with him/her regarding the article we had been working on, but your systematic harrasment simply leaves no time and energy for me to get any work done around here. Shervink 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it the case that this fellow is always ready -- perhaps too ready -- to get into a discussion about his rant, but avoid any discussion of of the sourced materials?? Beats me.Artaxerex
 * Artaxerex, he is talking his concerns with your behavior because this page is about your behavior. And I don't think that you are helping yourself by calling his concerns a "rant" - this kind of incivility is the last thing that you should be showing at a page that places your conduct under scrutiny.  While I'm satisfied that you've stopped the edit war, I'm concerned that you continue to treat other users disrespectfully.  As I've said before, what you need to do is stop being disrespectful.  A apology would also be nice, though you shouldn't give one unless you mean it.  Somehow I feel like you don't really see why the edit warring and incivility was wrong.  Do you?  The Behnam 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Behnam, Admitedly my desire to balance the Mohammad Reza Pahalavi and Reza Shah pages got the better of me, and my frustration caused me to react in a deplorable anger towards fellows such as shervink. I thought that the fact that these indivduals were deleting sourced historical facts would justify my anger, particularly when they were calling me various names. However this justification was, of course, left a lot to be desired. I should have focused on the contents, and for this I genuinely apologize. The last thing in the world I'd be eager to do would be to be disrespectful of others, and to those who feel I was disrespectful towards I offer my apology.

Wikipedians Please Provide Comments

 * Now I bseech you Wikipedians! "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them". I beseech you to provide comments on this RFC, so that the current misleading information in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi page can be corrected. My focus is on the content. The disputed points are listed above. Each and evry point is referenced to a valid source satisfying Wikipedia criteria. Further sources can be provided if it would deem necessary.Artaxerex 15:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mehrshad123
I certify that I have spent many months dealing with and cleaning up false information and outright vandalism posted by user Artaxerex (misspelling of Artaxerxes I believe) numerous times in the past. Artaxerex, through sockpuppetry, plagiarism, falsification and repeated and vicious personal attacks has established that he has extreme personal hatred against the Pahlavis particularly Reza Shah as well as ALL editors that have attempted to deal with this issue.

The user has been banned, and proven to be a sockpuppeteer in the past while BLANKING, and vandalizing the article.

The huge blocks of text being repeatedly posted by Artaxerex have been examined by ALL editors and largely discarded as false. The user has very poor knowledge of this subject and is driven solely by a mysterious and vicious hatred. His declaration on the disputes page is vague and highly dubious and does not establish him as a reliable authority on any related subject other than to state that he really hates the Pahlavi family. The same can be said for the user Melca who has displayed the same level of hatred in this dispute.

All editors and netural parties that have attempted to settle this dispute in the past are in agreement on the content as well as their opinions of this user's repeated violation of policy, personal attacks etc. I suggest removing the Article In Dispute label from the Reza Shah article since this is clearly a case of THE WORLD AGAINST (the misspelled) "ARTAXEREX".Mehrshad123 18:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Misspelling of A User Name!!
Dear Mehrshad123, Since a number of times you have raised concern about the spelling of my name I thought you may let go of this if I provide you with an explanation. Of course a user name is just that a user name and it is quite rare that somebody objects to any particular spelling of a Username. But is the spelling of my name is wrong. It is of course if I wanted to do a translitration of my name from Greek to English. However, I have presented the Avestan pronanciation, Artaxerex, is composed of three sectons 1. Arta == meaning honor, splendor and eminence. 2.Taxe == Meaning, glimmer, glow, ray, and Rex == meaning Sun, king. Of course,in the Avestan pronanciation, Artaxe meaning splenor ray, would be the closest interpretation. I hope this will be of some use. Please note Avestan language is one of my specializations Thanks, Artaxerex 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comments by The Behnam and the apology of Artaxerex
I am glad that Behnam finally added his remarks on this issue to the RfC, thanks. I also think that he has come under somewhat undeserved attack regarding these issues over the past few days (here and in other talk pages), which is very unfortunate. Regarding the user Artaxerex, I am very glad to see that he has stopped the edit warring, and it is also nice to finally see him make an apology for his months of uncivil behavior. I would like to make clear that I do not share Behnam's optimism about Artaxerex's commitment about not performing such violations in the future (it has appeared before as though he was going to improve, only to discover otherwise shortly after), and the absence of personal attacks is at least partly attributable to the lack of any discussion on the concerned articles. Nevertheless, I am going to assume good faith and accept the apology. However, as I am not the only one harrased and attacked by Artaxerex in the past, I will wait for comments by the other concerned editors before making any observations about the conclusion of this discussion.Shervink 12:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Shervink
Dear Shervink, Thank you so much for your magnanimity in accepting so graciously my apology. Your astonishing altruistic character that so benevolently can forgive a retched soul like me humbles me. I am absolutely sure that from the rigorous tone of this apology you will detect how embarrassed I am of my past preposterous behaviour towards you. My sincere hope is that you can now apply your generosity of spirit towards the disputed points in Reza Shah, and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi articles. So that a balanced and NPOV version of these sourced historical fact will be presented in the article.

As for all the other editors, whom you are so concerned about their feelings, emanating from my very hideous and atrocious harassments; I offer my utmost earnest admission of guilt, and apology. I am desperately hoping that these fair-minded group of scholars, thinkers, and intellectuals would also accept my apology so that we can speedily return to the content dispute.

I also hereby pledge most humbly that from hereto forth I never ever get into any discussion with you and any of these noble and distinguished editors, and would concentrate only on the improvements of the disputed articles by providing sourced materials and seeking the advice of neutral editors for presenting them in an NPOV tone. Artaxerex 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what can I say, you exaggerate in your praise as you exaggerate in your condemnations. I hope you are sincere. As I said, the other concerned editors will probably talk for themselves, and the RfC's results will depend on that. For the moment, given your newly found insights and enthusiasm for civility, I think we can give it a shot and slowly and carefully start a discussion again on the Pahlavi talk pages. But please, let's do one thing at a time, starting with one article and going really point by point, to see if we can make any progress. Shervink 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, what is this about then?! Shervink 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look at its date. It was sent one day before receiving those re-assuring emails from Behnam on RFC, when I thought I needed help. Nevertheless, I humbly bseech you to accept my apology for this as well, and please let us go to the disputed content. Artaxerex

Right.
You guys must be morons if you think Artaxerex will back down. This is a person who thinks we should list every single negative thing possible in the lead, rather than quickly summarizing his reign. I won't even bother editing the article, just as I have avoided doing so for months. Why? Artaxerex will be doing the same crap a week later. ♠ SG →Talk 02:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear sg, My RFC problems was not emanating from the content, it was basically related to edit warring and incivility. For which I apologized but I pledged that I will try to balance the article. Of course, I do not want as you put it “ to list every single negative thing possible in the lead.” But don't you think that it would be rather strange if the lead whitewashed or remained silent on every single negative attributes.
 * For instance the current lead talks about all those titles of the Shah including Aryamehr, without any indication that this title was a novelty with its double connotation of not only the “Light of Aryans” (which imagine how emarrassing would be if the Queen was to give herself the title of the Light of  Anglo-Saxons), but also with the modern Persian usage of Mehr (meaning feel affection for, or to adore) it was intended as a racial statement against non-Aryans! (If you are interested I can provide you with Persian references including the writings of General Aryana to this effect). The lead then talks about abdication of his father during WWII, but does not give any indication that his father was forced to abdicate because of his close ties with Nazis (although it can be more open and talk not only about Reza shah’s sympathies towards Hitler but also Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s anti-Jewish sentiments as is clear from this video  . The lead talks about him overseeing the nationalization of oil industry under the  prime mister Mossadegh, as if the two man corroborated closely in implementing this policy!! The lead then talks about White Revolution without any reference to the Kennedy administration pressures for reforms in order to prevent the threat of communism (Would you like three or four citation from academic sources?). It talks about the extension of suffrage  to women without any reference to his general attitudes towards women as expressed in TIME and other sources. The only negative point about Shah according to the current lead is lack of democratization as criticized by some of his opponent which is presented with the same footing as the decline of the traditional power of the Shi’a clergy!! (despite the fact that his policies contributed significantly to the establishment of the direct rules by the clergy). Of course, the more important factors in his downfall such as torture,  execution of intellectuals, and other oppressive policies are also important to mention.
 * I wish you reconsider your decison and return to edit.\ Artaxerex 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SG, I do not trust him either, not in the least bit. But I think we can discuss things with him as long as he remains civil. I would appreciate if you could contribute with your knowledge and sources, at least for a few days, to see if we can get anywhere. This is, of course, strictly a test to see how sincere the guy is in his change of attitude and to see if there is a possibility of cooperation.
 * BTW, Artaxerex, the things you are writing about in your latest post are again perfect examples of POV and OR. And the reason I highlighted this above is that you seem to still insist you were not a sockpuppeteer. I suggest that you take a little time to read the relevant policies and guidelines (at least those relevant to your behavior), and clarify your position on this.Shervink 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before I pledge to concentrate on the disputed contents. I refrain from any personal remarks. My hope is that by acting in "Good Faith" an NPOV version of these historical facts would be incorporated in the article. Artaxerex 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Shrvink, I apologize for not mentioning my sockpuppeteering. I wrongly thought that my attempts to balance the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Reza Shah articles, by providing sourced materials about their anti-Jewish sentiments and pro-Nazi policies, would justify this. I was frustrated when I saw there were so many editors who are attacking me by arguments like "Please do not use western sources as main sources for writing Iranian history as you don`t want to use Iranian sources for writing western history and explaining domestic policies of western governments. There are hundreds of books and articles by Iranian scholars around and in English language. They have direct understanding of Iran. Western sources can indeed be mentioned as supplements. Most western scholars have primitive understanding of Iranian modern history and big majority of them are not even familiar with persian language". I now realize that I should have ignored such comments, and focused on the disputed content. Again I apologize for that.

We are Going in Circles Again
I am with SG on this one. After many months of provocation, edit warring, sockpupptery and vandalism, does anyone believe this person's behavior is going to end, because he says so? Again, let me remind everyone that this is a case of "Artaxerex"'s POV against the rest of the world. We were all repeatedly called Aryan supremacists because we tried to revert this jerk's POV edits. We will continue to be "tactfully" given the same treatment, as you can see in this person's comments above, and we will continue to have to log in several times a week to fix vandalism. This is quite embarrasing for everyone and it has gone on for long enough. The large blocks of text being pasted by "Artaxerex" have already been dismissed as largely false; Why do we have to go through this over and over? Let's do the right thing and put an end to this maddness now.Mehrshad123 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After trying to discuss with Artaxerex upon his apparent change of attitude for a few days, he has repeated his uncivil behavior and shows no sign whatsoever of backing down from his POV and OR. I don't think there is any chance anymore of making him understand that his behavior is unacceptable. He has had many chances to prove otherwise and did not use them. If he is not banned from editing those pages (and given his violation of most WP policies, probably also the rest of WP), I for one will certainly leave. This guy has already wasted too much of our time here. Shervink 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Proceeding to arbitration
Since all efforts to convince Artaxerex to change his behavior have failed (see my posts here and here after repeated uncivility by Artaxerex), I think the best thing would be to proceed to arbitration. Please have a look at the corresponding request. I also moved this RfC to the archives. Shervink 09:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)