Talk:Darioush Bayandor

Interview by Fariba Amini

• http://www.iranian.com/main/2010/jun/beyond-conspiracy-theories

The above URL links to an article written by Fariba Amini for Iranian.com in June 2010. Amini interviews Bayandor about his new book. I think this interview is worthy of inclusion in the article, that it has direct responses by Bayandor in answer to interesting questions about his motives. Fariba Amini is the daughter of a man who was mayor of Tehran and served as Mosaddegh's attorney. She is co-founder of the Alliance for Defense of Human Rights in Iran, and president of the Foundation for Educational Progress. She has been writing for Iranian.com for three years. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Iranian.com is not a WP:RS. Fariba Amini or Iranian.com are not reliable secondary source. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

could you (Kurdo) provide some admin decision on the alleged unreliability of Iranian.com? The Wikipedia article makes it sound pretty good. But I don't see anything about what "editorial oversight" it has or has not. The interviewer of Darioush Bayandor sounds at least plausibly notable:

Fariba Amini holds a BA from George Mason University in Sociology, an MA in history form the Sorbonne and a cerfiticate in Business administration from Georgetown University. She has been active on Human Rights issues and was co-founder of the Alliance for Defense of Human Rights in Iran.

She is currently writing her father's biography who was the mayor of Tehran and personal attorney of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. she is the President of Foundation for Educational Progress, a non-profit organization which collects and sends educational materials to Afghanistan and other Farsi speaking countries. She lives in the suburb of Washington, DC. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that Iranian.com is a self-publishing tool, and not a reliable and verifiable source by Wikipedia standards. I am not saying this without precedent, I have seen administrators remove citations to Iranian.com on Wikipedia for this very reason. If an entry there is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and free of any factual errors, it would have already been published in a noteworthy journal or newspaper. An item hosted on Iranian.com is not different or better than an item uploaded to blogspot or GeoCities. I could publish an article on Iranian.com instantly, if I wanted to. That's not a reliable/verifiable source. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you confirm this for us? I have seen administrators remove citations to Iranian.com on Wikipedia for this very reason. Can you provide a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs)

The fact that Bayandor himself appears in the interview holds great weight in the determination of what kind of source this is. It is not a writer shooting from the hip, publishing her own opinion, it is the article's subject responding to hard questions from an Iranian who does not agree with his politics. This is no puff piece promotion. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A publisher's promotional material

A publisher's promotional material (resume, blurbs, forwards etc) is not considered an independent, reliable, verifiable secondary source by Wikipedia standards, and therefore can not be cited to make exceptional claims about an author or his work. Such material will be deleted, if added again. If the subject is notable enough, there shouldn't be any problems finding independent sources about his "achievements". Kurdo777 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally individuals are considered to be reliable sources for non-controversial information about themselves. However the use of this information should be limited. It is better to use a third party source because individuals may be selective in their biographical material. I notice that some of the details from the publicity for the book repeats information already in the first paragraph. TFD (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added "a former diplomat in the pre-Khomeini government who went on to work for the United Nations before retiring to Switzerland" from http://www.economist.com/node/16103846 --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can pick freely from the publisher's material as long as it does not lean to promotion. For instance, I see no need to use their word "humanitarian" to modify the UN; the UN is what it is, sometimes humanitarian and sometimes not. The fact that the publishing house is a scholarly imprint helps to reassure us that this bio is free from gross errors. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No we can't use the author's own word as for grand claims like teaching at Beheshti University when there is no record of him on Beheshti university's website. A self-submitted resume/bio reprinted by one's own publisher, is not a proper source for such claims. If these claims are true, you should cite independent sources with an author, which can be verified. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true, I also checked http://www.sbu.ac.ir/, and there is no record of this guy having ever been a lecturer at Shahid Beheshti University. This is why auto-bios are not a reliable source for info. --Wayiran (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your original research fails WP:NOR. It's possible he was a guest lecturer without having been listed, but the point is that Macmillan says he was and you have no reliable source for rebuttal, only an absence of evidence. The Macmillan publishing house biography of Bayandor is perfectly fine for our purposes. Binksternet (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Macmillan bio is neither an independent source, nor does it have an author, it's most likely written by Bayandor himself. The burden of proof in on you to provide independent verifiable sources for such claims. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no burden of proof here. I agree that the bio was likely written by Bayandor but it was just as likely approved by his editor(s). Nothing in the bio is an extraordinary claim. There should be no concern about the information presented. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong about Bayandor not deserving the word "humanitarian" in relation to his UN role. He was definitely a UN Humanitarian Center representative. One source says he was, "en 1997, le délégué du Hcr en France – Darioush Bayandor" and another says "As early as 1999, UN Humanitarian Coordinator Darioush Bayandor claimed that war fatigue had already set in..." Here's a press release from Bayandor in his official function as UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Democratic Republic of Congo. In June 1999 he wrote an opinion piece printed in the The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune entitled "Look Away From Kosovo to See the Crisis in Central Africa". This UN press "briefing" from November 1999 says Bayandor was "the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator and Regional Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Kinshasa". Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The new material you have introduced to the page, clearly violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLOG. You can't cite a blog by Bayandor , and say he wrote X or Y. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to include these claims, you need a secondary independent source that says that for you. You can't write your own description of a primary document or blog post, and then cite it on Wikipedia. It's not our job to cite a document or a blog, as "proof" that X wrote Y. This is not a weblog, it's an Encyclopedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. At WP:PRIMARY we are asked to base the article on secondary sources to establish notability, which we have done. Beyond that, to fill in more interesting details about the subject of the biography, we can use primary sources such as a simple listing of written works without attempts at analysis, which is what I did. At WP:PRIMARY, it says "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." We have completely satisfied that requirement.

As for your link to WP:BLOG, that is the link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging, so I don't know what point you were trying to make. Please expand. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is very problematic, For starters, blogspot is not a verifiable source of info. Then there is the issue of COI and using the author's own claims as facts. --Wayiran (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What information are you referring to, from blogspot? The fact that Bayandor published a poem translation on his own blog is obvious to anyone who looks at it. It is only the fact of the poem's existence that the reference supports, not any analysis of it.

What specific conflict of interest are you suggesting? I see none.

My additions to the biography article are in line with those found at the articles about Fariborz Shamshiri (includes self-published bio text), William Gibson (featured article which includes Gibson blog site pages), Jenna Jameson (featured article which includes Jameson blog diary page), Meghan McCain (includes archived and current blog pages by McCain), Omid Reza Mir Sayafi (includes a reference link to archived versions of his blog), Massoud Behnoud (blog post biographical references), Mohammad-Ali Abtahi (references to his blog writing) and Mehdi Jami (includes references to his blog). Clearly, once a person has been established as notable by secondary sources, we can, with care, bring in blog post information published by the subject himself. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you going in circles? Material uploaded on a free hosting site like blogspot, is neither reliable nor verifiable to be used as a primary source. As for using the publisher, we already established that you need independent secondary sources for grand claims like being an academic at a renowned Iranian university. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no such grand claims. Bayandor's Palgrave Macmillan bio says he lectured at these universities; he could have been asked to appear once as a guest lecturer under the auspices of another professor, a situation which would not necessarily show up in your search of the university's records. The claim is modest, not grand—he does not claim he had tenure, or held a high position at university.

Why are you going in circles? Once a biography is established as notable using secondary sources, primary sources can be brought in to expand the article, using care. Care is exactly what I used, as I took something found on his blog (a translated poem) and said that it existed. This is not any kind of grand claim, either. All it does here is make the biography more interesting, more human.

This is the kind of biographical writing I employ all over Wikipedia. I have written a bunch of biographies, and I know what is allowed and what is not allowed. I have developed 15 biographies to GA or FA level. The encyclopedia style of biography is what I do well. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Darioush Bayandor doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. Only one of his books has received a few reviews, mostly from right-wing revisionist circles. Other than that, he is not a notable author or academic. Notability would need to be established by independent third party sources. Otherwise, this page should be deleted. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777, you immediately responded with an explosive negative when I proposed to use Bayandor's book at the 1953 coup page. If he was not notable, you would not know who he was, or hate him so much for his politics.

Bayandor meets general notability guidelines because his book has been reviewed by third party sources, not promotional ones. He meets the WP:AUTH requirement for his book to have received "significant critical attention". Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicking

Kurdo, you have stripped the article down to four sentences, one dismissing Bayandor's book:
His [1][2] The book has been criticized as "revisionist" and according to Washington Times "A careful reading of Mr. Bayandor's book, along with the CIA history and Mr. Roosevelt's memoir, shows that there is a very thin element of truth in his revisionist theory". [3].

However two other reviews have been more complementory:
Bayandor’s Iran and the CIA proves an essential read along the path toward a new diplomatic future. (worldaffairsjournal.org) and
Mr Bayandor’s scepticism is a useful antidote to Roosevelt’s self-aggrandising, which some later writers have mimicked uncritically, among them Stephen Kinzer ..., (economist).
Is this not Cherry-picking of sources? something you've accused others of? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Even the more complementary reviews still call it revisionist. The first line you have quoted is a general blurb, and reads like a slogan. Not encyclopedic at all. The second line is more detailed and on point, and I have added it to the article to make things more balanced. Now there is due weight given to both the criticisms and complements, one line from each category. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Bayandor’s Iran and the CIA proves an essential read along the path toward a new diplomatic future, "a general blurb" and "unencyclopedic"? And "revisionist" is a criticism? How is it a criticism any more than calling something "structuralist" or "modernist" or some other adjective used to describe a work of history or literature or whatever? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a blurb, a peacock line with no substantive information (why, how etc), meant to advertise the book. This is an Encyclopeda, not the a movie poster, or the back of a book. There is already two reviews quoted anyways, this article is about an author, not a book. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

a peacock line with no substantive information is your POV. It is part of a review in a journal. You have no reason to revert it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I do, when it violates WP:Undue, WP:Peacock, and WP:Cherry. We are creating a neutral Encyclopeda here, not a movie poster. I can find a review that says X is the "most awesome" or the "best" ____ in the world, it doesn't mean, that exact quote/sound-bite belongs on an Encyclopeda. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Quoting one sentence is WP:Undue, and WP:Cherry??? As for WP:Peacock, I'll quote the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) page:

"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". This is NOT used without attribution. It's quoting a sentence from a RS!! --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My take on the phrase "an essential read along the path toward a new diplomatic future" is that it is not as powerful as if it were preceded by more of Hakakian's explanations. Perhaps we could condense Hakakian enough to deliver the essence of her message without taking over the biography. How about this:

Roya Hakakian of the World Affairs Journal wrote about the book: "Bayandor's thesis runs against the tides of a narrative—American meddling in sovereign Iran—whose power is growing precisely because it seems to offer the West an easy explanation for the regional wrath of the Middle East. ... Both sides in the current equation ... are bound to resist Bayandor and the myth he debunks. ... Bayandor's Iran and the CIA proves an essential read along the path toward a new diplomatic future."[1]

I think something like this will help the reader understand how Bayandor's book has been positioned by critics. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, the World Affairs review under dispute here is considered scholarly enough to appear in google scholar --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a very positive affirmation of the review! Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as orphan

I just removed the orphan article tag per WP:Orphan where it says to place the tag only if there are no links to the article. There is now a link from Bayandor's father's bio page, and there will soon be links from the 1953 coup page and related pages such as Mosaddegh's bio, the Abadan crisis, etc. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"revisionist book"

Several times Kurdo777 has inserted the phrase "revisionist book" to put down the Bayandor book Iran and The CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited. The book is a history book which has been described by some reviewers as presenting a revisionist interpretation of universally acknowledged facts. The facts in the book are not revisionist, the interpretation is. Saying the book is a "revisionist book" belittles it, and is not neutral. I will take out any sense of belittling the book, any NPOV treatment of it. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Pahlavi regime"

Several times Kurdo777 has introduced the wikilink Pahlavi regime which redirects to Pahlavi dynasty, a more neutral description. The word 'regime' is a negative one, used by people outside of the government being described, but Bayandor was inside the government. I will remove any use of the word 'regime' as a violation of NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no NPOV issue with using the term regime to describe undemocratic governments. BoogaLouie, for example, has used the word "Islamic regime" a zillion times on Wikipedia. --Wayiran (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the word 'regime' is a negative one used in negative descriptions of the government. This use of the word is not accompanied by a negative description of what Bayandor did in the government. If you want to say that Bayandor did bad things for a bad government, stand up and say so, with references. Until that time, we will use neutral terms to say he was an official in the government of Iran, under Shah Pahlavi. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the word regime when referring to Pahlavis, Nazis or other authoritarian forms of government. As Wayiran has correctly pointed out, if you have issues with the word "regime", why not be consistent and replace all those 150 or so references to "the Islamic regime" that your friend Booga has inserted in various articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your word 'regime' puts a negative spin on the government which employed Bayandor, but you do not have any citations which lay any negative actions at Bayandor's feet. There's nothing in this bio to suggest that Bayandor was guilty of wrongdoing in connection with his assignments in a totalitarian government. Once you begin to bring such citations to the article, you can use the word regime with its negative connotations in modern usage. Otherwise, the word government is quite satisfactory. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, a search of "Islamic regime" and Iran yields 120 hits in wikipedia, but I think you will find they were NOT all or mostly "inserted" by me. If someone has an issue with the use of that phrase in an article let's discuss it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:COI and Binksternet's relationship with Darioush Bayandor

I am concerned about possibility of an off-wiki collaboration between Binksternet and Darioush Bayandor, given Binksternet's biased edits on this page, which are unencyclopedic and promotional in nature, going as far as calling the subject, a former official of a notorious regime, an "Iranian humanitarian" which is loaded terminology. If Binksternet is in contact with Darioush Bayandor, he should disclose it here, for editorial purposes related to WP:COI, WP:AUTO and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns are utterly unfounded. Thank you, please drive through. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Are you in contact with Darioush Bayandor outside of Wikipedia? Kurdo777 (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I will answer the question that you just asked, the only question that has been asked here: No. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rastakhiz Party category

I deleted a category based on Bayandor belonging to the Rastakhiz Party. No such information is present in the article. If a reliable, verifiable cite is brought here, one that discusses Bayandor's connection to the Rastakhiz Party, we can restore this category. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, unless he was a high ranking member of the party membership would not be notable since all Iranians were required by law to belong to that party during its time of existance. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if he was somehow important to the party, rather than a bit of flotsam on its waters, he would deserve to be in the category. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian category

As Bayandor was the leader of UN Humanitarian aid efforts in Bangladesh, the Congo and elsewhere, I put him in the category of Iranian humanitarians. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources which describe Bayandor as the head of UN humanitarian regional aid centers include:

• Palgrave author bio – "He joined the United Nations in 1980 where he notably headed several UN humanitarian offices in different continents, stretching over a twenty-year period."
• Legitimising rejection: international refugee law in Southeast Asia, by Sara Ellen Davies. Bayandor is listed as the source for two references which name him as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative in Kuala Lumpur of humanitarian aid for the Vietnamese boat people (January 1984).
• OCHA News, March 1999 – "New Humanitarian Coordinator for the DRC: Mr. Darioush Bayandor has been appointed as of 9 March."
• Center for International Disaster Information – "The current humanitarian situation in the DRC is characterised by chronic low-intensity problems related to the country's long-term socio-economic decline, compounded by acute localised humanitarian emergencies arising directly from the war, UN Humanitarian Coordinator Darioush Bayandor told IRIN on Wednesday." (April 1999)
• Center for International Disaster Information – "As world attention has focused on Kosovo, the 'tragedy that engulfs' the DRC has been all but forgotten, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the DRC, Darioush Bayandor, has warned." (June 1999)
• UN Press release hosted by U of Penn – "...the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] Mr Darioush Bayandor, following a visit to Eastern Congo." (October 1999)

Clearly, the man was in charge of regional offices of the UN humanitarian arm during the 1980s and 1990s. He self-reports a 20-year span in that career. As UN Humanitarian Coordinator, Bayandor was responsible for identifying the proper humanitarian response to refugee and other emergency population problems. He coordinated food distribution, housing and clothing solutions and he engineered political answers to difficult population integration questions. His being the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in the Congo is quite enough to place him in the category of Iranian humanitarians. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Category Pahlavi dynasty

I do not think the article should have the category "Pahlavi dynasty". Darioush Bayandor was not, as far as I know, part of the Pahlavi royal family. If he was, and sources could be brought to support it, I would of course support the category. Otherwise, it doesn't fit.

If there was a category for Pahlavi government officials, that category would be appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability (continued)

From above: Only one of his books has received a few reviews, mostly from right-wing revisionist circles.

I'm starting to read Iran and the CIA and was a little surprised to read in the Acknowledgements (p.xii) Bayandor's thanking of "Professor Mark Gasiorowski" who "was kind enough to patiently read an early draft and make comments,... and Professor Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College (CUNY) who in spite of reservations on certain points, recommended its publication. Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment was most generous with his time, encouragement and support." So it would appear that Bayandor has recieved attention beyond "right-wing revisionist circles" and is not exactly outside the pale of Iranian scholarship. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. This is not a wild-eyed fringe character writing his mad screed. This is a sane re-evaluation of the weight of facts that everybody knows combined with a careful analysis of disputed facts, with a measure of new facts thrown in, taken from Bayandor's own investigations and experiences. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"revisionist book"

I've changed "revionist book" to "describe as revisionist". The two sources given say "Mr Bayandor might have cast his revisionist net even wider." ( http://www.economist.com/node/16103846 )and "A careful reading of Mr. Bayandor's book, along with the CIA history and Mr. Roosevelt's memoir, shows that there is a very thin element of truth in his revisionist theory." ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/how-the-shah-came-to-power/ )

So I think "described as revisionist" is more accurate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Favorable review

A search of "Iran and the CIA" by Bayandor on the Proquest Discovery database from a library website finds this hit:

Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited
Steven Simon. Survival. London: Oct/Nov 2010. Vol. 52, Iss. 5; pg. 237
Abstract (Summary)

Simon reviews Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited by Darioush Bayandor.
Indexing (document details)
Subjects: Book reviews, Nonfiction, Middle Eastern history, International relations-US, Prime ministers, Coups d etat
Locations: Iran, United States--US
People: Bayandor, Darioush, Mossadeq, Mohammad
Companies: Central Intelligence Agency--CIA (NAICS: 928110, 928120 )
Author(s): Steven Simon
Document types: Book Review-Favorable
Publication title: Survival. London: Oct/Nov 2010. Vol. 52, Iss. 5; pg. 237
Source type: Periodical
ISSN: 00396338
ProQuest document ID: 2193396141

So I'm going to add Survival to the list of positive reviews of Iran and the CIA. (the bold print for Book Review-Favorable was mine not Proquest's) --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't cite the indexing of "Proquest Discovery database" from a "Library website" as a reference for this kind of stuff, you need to cite the actual journal's content in a verifiable manner. For all we know, you could have been the one who entered that data on Proquest Discovery or the library's website as an employee. An author-less database can't be used as a source. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh), is there nothing you won't do to stonewall anything positive about Bayandor?

Proquest is a company that "creates specialized information resources and technologies that provide the most successful ways for people to search, find, use, and share information," mostly providing databases (like Discovery) to libraries. i.e. it's not a blog. You can find information on it (like the Survival journal) not available on the internet. But you need to get it from a library website and have a library card. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "citing the actual journal's content in a verifiable manner", how do we know, "Homa Katouzian, a historian and political scientist, dismissed the book as `political`"? The source is in Persian and the google translation to English certainly doesn't verify your claim. And aside from that it isn't a book review, and Katouzian doesn't even seem to mention Bayandor's name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes

I have made the following improvements to wording, content and clarity:

• "...a former Iranian diplomat and official who served under the Pahlavi dynasty, during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 1970s." changed to "...a former Iranian diplomat and official who served under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi."
  • The point is that if Bayandor is serving during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi then of course he is serving under the Pahlavi dynasty. His connection to the Shah's father has no importance in the article, so the dynasty link is superfluous. The "in the 1970s" is unneeded because it is presented later in the article.
• "Bayandor served as a senior Iranian diplomat of Shah's government in New York City and Tehran in the 1970s" change to "Bayandor served as a senior Iranian diplomat in New York City and Tehran in the 1970s".
  • The phrase "Shah's government" should be removed because it can too easily be mistaken as referring to Reza Shah who is mentioned earlier in the same sentence. The phrase is also redundant, since it is already stated that Bayandor served under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
• "...foreign-affairs adviser to two prime ministers of Imperial State of Iran" to "...foreign-affairs adviser to two prime ministers of Iran".
  • The link Imperial State of Iran is not needed since the prime ministers are part of Iran's legislative government, not the Imperial State, and anyway the link redirects to Pahlavi dynasty in which Bayandor did not play a role: He did not serve any other king than Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, so he cannot be associated with the dynastic father-son sequence in this sentence. Finally, the Pahlavi dynasty is linked at See also, so there is no need to have multiple links.
• Restoring Category:Iranian humanitarians. Bayandor served the UN for two decades as a leader in humanitarian aid. This occupation puts him in the category.
• Removing Category:Pahlavi dynasty because Bayandor is not part of the Pahlavi bloodline. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • • The full name of the Iranian state under the Pahlavi regime was Imperial State of Iran, just as the full name of Iran under the current regime, is Islamic Republic of Iran. In diplomatic or political context/circles, the full name of the state is always used. Bayandor served the Imperial State of Iran, just an Iranian diplomat today serves the Islamic Republic of Iran, and an American diplomat serves the United States of America.
    • Bayandor shortly worked as a bureaucrat for UN agency, a paid job. That does not make him a "Humanitarian". The word "Humanitarian" implies that he is like Mother Teresa, somehow credited and recognized as a "Humanitarian". Hardly a fitting description for a former official of a repressive regime. No to mention that, no reliable source labels Bayandor, a "Humanitarian".
    • You haven't provided a proper rational for replacing "during the reign of" with "under" and deleting "In the 1970's".

Kurdo777 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Per BLP and OR, you need a source that he's a humanitarian. I don't see huge problems with the other edits, but I likely don't have the necessary context to appreciate the problems. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Navy commander not father

In my biography the name of my father has wrongly been mentioned as "Gholam-Ali Bayandor" the famous admiral who was Reza Shah's Navy commander and got killed in action on the first day of Anglo- Russian invasion of Iran in August 1941. While flattered I must humbly request that this part be edited. Sincerely Darioush Bayandor

Thank you for your note. I have removed the incorrect information. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview for Italian scholarly journal

In the EAST - Europe and Asia Strategies journal in October 2010, writer Sabahi Farian (PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, a lecturer on Islam and democracy at the University of Turin) interviews Bayandor about his book. Two links will get you to the interview, one HTML from the publisher and one PDF from the writer:

• Sabahi, Farian (2010). "Who Really Ousted Mohammad Mossadeq?". EAST - Europe and Asia Strategies (32): 92–99. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Sabahi, Farian (2010). "Who Really Ousted Mohammad Mossadeq?" (PDF). EAST - Europe and Asia Strategies (32): 92–99. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

In the interview, Bayandor emphasizes that his focus "on the internal opposition and dynamics" in 1953 Iran is in no way an endorsement of "the claim by the late Shah and his imperial regime that the fall of Mosaddeq was the result of a qiam’e melli, or a spontaneous national uprising." He continues, "I argue that the demonstrations of August 19 were the result of manipulation, but not the way the current literature assumes." Bayandor makes it clear that the coup came about on August 19 because the Tudeh were "vigorously" campaigning "for regime change. This campaign was the main factor why the clerical establishment in Qom got alarmed", why the Grand Ayatollah gave his assent for more activist clerics to initiate mass protests to fight the Tudeh in the streets, to depose Mosaddegh and to make sure the Shah stayed in power. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Pahlavi dynasty

I am removing the See also link to Pahlavi dynasty. Bayandor is not represented on that article page, and his interaction with the dynasty on this page is limited to his working under one Shah. If the Pahlavi dynasty link is to be considered worthwhile, some proof of its connection should be shown.

Kurdo777 has written that Bayandor has appeared on U.S. Voice of America radio where he has called for a return of the Pahlavi successor to the Peacock Throne. I looked for but did not find any source to cite. If such a source is found, the See also link will still not be needed as the VOA appearance can be written about in the article itself. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)