Talk:Fajr decade

Edit warring etc.

@FreeatlastChitchat: I think you like edit war. I said to you add your comments in the talk page and after conclusion we can edit the article. Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V. what comments can I add? The sections I removed are 100% WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. How can you prove that they are not? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: It is your idea about this edited text. We must answer another user. Mhhossein and H.dryad please say your idea about FreeatlastChitchat comment.Saff V. (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V. why should I answer to another user? If you have no arguments then why did you revert? Are you a five year old child who has no arguments of his own? This is the most imbecilic bad faith revert I have ever seen, you revert, have no arguments and then ping someone else? WTF? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V. why are you reverting me? What rationale and arguments can you provide against the WP:COATRACK and WP:OR claims? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The current version is better and you have claim this is OR. You must convince me.Saff V. (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: - please can you explain why some parts are not properly supported by reliable citations, and some parts are not really relevant (coat rack). Please do this part by part.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V.: - please can you address the issue that the article contains almost nothing about its subject: Fajr decade national holiday. Instead it deals almost exclusively with the events that the national holiday celebrates. We do not need a WP:Content fork article about the Islamic revolution of 1979.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Toddy1 Nothing except the first two lines discusses this "holiday". Hence the Coatrack. Once we remove the coatrack, we can discuss the remaining sources. But @Saff V.: seems to think that removing this coatrack is uncalled for so he should give arguments. And by arguments I mean something other than the tirade of a petulant child when he says again and again "you must convince me". What exactly do I have to convince him of? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

He/she is not being petulant. He/she speaks Farsi; he/she understands English with great difficulty. As you probably know, computer translation between Farsi and English is extremely bad at carrying the sense of what is written. Please could you remove the words "the tirade of a petulant child when he says again and again". This would make it possible for him to understand what you mean.

What you wrote said that there were two problems:

• Original research WP:OR. This might be right. But it is hard to understand why.
• Most of the article is about a different subject OR:COATRACK. This is absolutely correct. But you needed to explain this so he understood.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Toddy1 FML, why can't he just ask for the persian translation? I am fluent in farsi, I even corrected his translation mistakes an hour ago. Anyway in order to keep the discussion coherent for all users I will just open a new section this one has gone to dogs to be frank. Gimme a minute. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

FML is not a suitable term in the Wikipedia society.Saff V. (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1: How can we separate events of a decade from the decade? What's "Fajr decade" if it's not a complex of events occurring during the decade? Mhhossein (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Saff V.:Well, what we have here is another mass removal by FreeatlastChitchat without making enough notifications on the talkpage and discussing it with others. Although from a strict viewpoint, I see that " The start of the celebration..." could be removed because it's not supported by the cited source, FC's disruptive behavior including committing edit war and using an irritating language ("Are you a five year old child...", "tirade of a petulant child when he says again and again and "WTF?") is not acceptable and/or tolerable (as he has shown enough cases of such behaviors). However, I'm not endorsing Saff V.'s reverts (three times, the same as FC), I can't ignore the topic he made on the TP. Anyway, I'd like to emphasize that the article is about a decade everyday of which coincided an important event. ّFinally, Thanks to Toddy1 who is trying to build a consensus, I think Drmies would better be invited to the discussion to check the case. Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• I hate to say "not my job", but "not my job". I think someone should report this at WP:ANEW and ask a real admin, like Bbb23 or EdJohnston, to look into the edit warring business. I did, however, block Freeatlast for their word choice, for 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• FWIW: I think Freeatlast has a point (that timeline is unnecessary and inappropriate--like, completely off the mark in this article), and I think that Saff V. is guilty of edit warring as well. Sure, BRD and all, but Saff V. isn't even trying to argue their point. I note that Toddy1 seems to agree on the matter of content, and Mhossein has hesitations as well. BTW, I had to look up FML--is that supposed to mean "fuck my life"? What a stupid expression, and how immature and illogical--but not a violation of any code here, IMO ("in my opinion"). Drmies (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Title of the article

The title of the article is not suitable. The current title is meaning of the Fajr decade. Also, there is Fajr decade in the article's references. So, I changed the title. Saff V. (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Saff V.: You should support your claim using reliable sources. Which one is more common? Mhhossein (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fajr decade or Dahe-ye-Fajr is common and sources mentioned dawning of new age as meaning of the term. Please see 1 and 2.Saff V. (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

While I usually am a fervent supporter of WP:ENGLISH titles, I think this case calls for a WP:COMMONNAME approach. That is to say, I favour "Dahe-ye Fajr" over its awkward translation "Fajr decade". You have to realise that in English, a decade means "10 years", not 10 days. Also, in being WP:CONSISTENT with most foreign holiday page titles (e.g. Islamic holidays like Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha), I think "Dahe-ye Fajr" is preferable. This is all of course only the case, if the main subject of this article is the holiday and not the historical events upon which it is based. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Saff V. - thank you for the Google books searches, but I think the terms need to be in inverted commas i.e. ". Also adding the word Iran to the search eliminated lots of false positives. Here are modified versions of your search:

• [1] "dawning of new age" iran - 13 hits
• [2] "Fajr decade" iran - 9 hits
• [3] "Dahe-ye Fajr" iran - 6 hits
• [4] "Daheye Fajr" iran - 4 hits
• [5] "Dahe Fajr" iran - 1 hit

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Saff V.: do you have any objection to HyperGaruda's suggestion of "Dahe-ye Fajr"?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Public holidays in Iran

@Saff V.: How does this festival fit into Public holidays in Iran?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

wax on wax off

As we have all done the hard work of discussing the removal. I think it is time to remove the WP:COATRACK. All those in favor say Aye! Saff V., Mhhossein, Toddy1, HyperGaruda any objections? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section marked "Appellation" should be merged into the "introduction". The section marked "Events of February 1979" should be deleted. Where the article says "decade" this should be changed to "ten days", since "decade" means ten years in English not ten days.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think, "Those ten days" are not separable from the "the ten days of Fajr", so we should not delete "Events of February 1979". Perhaps we can chose another title for that section, if it's not suitable. Mhhossein (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: what do you think the article about? (a) Is it about the events of 1-11 February 1979? (b) Or is it about the Iranian national holiday that celebrates this? FreeatlastChitchat, HyperGaruda and I believed that the topic was (b). Have we got it wrong?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Both of them! Those ten days in which some incidents happened are regarded as holiday in Iran. By the way, if the events are omitted, then how can the significance of the holiday be transmitted? In fact we can't just say that those ten days are celebrated and refrain from answering the question "Why" they celebrate it and what had happened on those days! (see articles like Bastille Day). Mhhossein (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If the article is about the holiday, then the significance can be transmitted through a wikilink. In the article on Bastille Day, the tale of events in 1789 forms less than 10% of the article. The same is true of the article on Victory Day (9 May); in the article on Victory in Europe Day the proportion is even smaller. In the articles on Armistice Day and Trafalgar Day, the historic events are described in one sentence. The description of events in 1979 occupies more than 50% of the article currently name "Fajr decade".

If you think that there needs to be an article on the ten days in 1979, then let us split the article into two article:

• On the holiday.
• On the events of 1979.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC) modified -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A step forward, so you agree that "the tale of events" must be there, aren't you? All your examples are about a specific day, while our subject is about "ten days". Moreover, I think there are other points other than the "events" adding which will balance the article. Mhhossein (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleaning, which often helps me to find new ideas. Of course some background is relevant, but what this article really needs is some more information on the holiday as it is celebrated nowadays. What do people do during the modern celebrations? And how are their actions related to the historical events from 1979? The descriptions of the individual days are of course going to look WP:COATRACKy without such information. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You just hit the nail on the head HyperGaruda. "Some more information on the holiday as it is celebrated nowadays," Is needed as I also said above. Mhhossein (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda and Mhhossein so we all agree that without contemporary mention linking the events to this "holiday? festival?" the entire mention of "events" is basically coatrack. ok with you guys? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not actually, I said nothing about "coatrack" or such things, neither did I say any thing about "linking the events...". My concern is on the fact that the article lacks information on "how the holiday is revered in Iran" nowadays. Mhhossein (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Scrap the timeline: this version has plenty of it. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• As I understood, the time line (tale of events) is relevant, if more info (as explained above) is added. Mhhossein (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein if you can add relevant info, fine with me. If you cannot add info, lets keep it off wikipedia till then as per WP:COATRACK. Do you have any concerns with this rationale? i.e We remove it until additional sourced info is added FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a belated comment after your edit war. Mhhossein (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@MhhosseinThis is the most relevant comment so far. So let me repeat it. Do you have any arguments against the consensus established by Drmies, me, HyperGaruda and Toddy1 that We remove it until additional sourced info is added FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

For now I would say: act like this is a case of WP:BURDEN, but instead of a burden on the restoring/adding editor to provide sources, the restoring/adding editor should provide direct relevance. If not, such content should not be restored. In other words, ditch the detailed timeline until a connection between historical events and modern celebrations is given. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

HyperGaruda:Although I assert that more info is required here (as I said above), I also believe that "the events of those ten days" are not separable from the article. Don't view it just as a holiday and don't ignore the historical aspect, please. Anyway, to get more views, I'd like to open a RFC. Mhhossein (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: our article on Bastille Day contains a good deal of historical background on the storming of the Bastille and the revolution, even though we have separate articles for the Storming of the Bastille and many other events / timelines in the French Revolution. Our article on Independence Day (United States) has less material on the historical background and focuses mostly on the celebrations. Both models are viable templates for Fajr decade but neither indicate that should scrub the history of the ten days from this article. -Darouet (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the events be removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The ten days of Fajr (dahe-ye fajr) is from 1 to 11 February and is annually celebrated in Iran because those ten days changed Iran. Now, should we remove the events of those days? Mhhossein (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• ridiculous attempt to go against consensus Four editors are against this already. You have given ZERO reasons for inclusion. You seem to have serious competence issues here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• remove subheadings - There's not enough notable events during these days to warrant a listing day by day. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

On an unrelated note (outside the scope of the RFC) I think this article and Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran should be merged. I feel that Khomeini's return isn't separately noteworthy, so it should probably be merged into this article, or merged into Iranian Revolution. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture:Thanks. However I think separating the events of the "The ten days of Fajr" from the article is not sensible. Those ten days are notable enough as they led to the victory of a revolution. Anyway, your point on the merging would better be discussed in a separate section dedicated to the merger. Mhhossein (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• With or without subheadings, keep information on history of dahe-ye fajr. Called by bot and happy to see Mhossein and FreeatlastChitchat enjoying each other's company again :). I view this as analogous to Bastille Day, a French celebration of independence commemorating the events of the Storming of the Bastille. Most of the content in Bastille Day is organized into these sections:

1 History

1.1 Storming of the Bastille

1.2 Fête de la Fédération

1.3 Origin of the present celebration

1.4 Bastille Day Military Parade

Whether or not you keep a subheading for each day of dahe-ye fajr strikes me as a largely aesthetic decision. Invocations of WP:OR and WP:COATRACK above are wholly unexplained and suggest that editors either 1) don't know what a historical holiday is, or 2) somehow feel that dahe-ye fajr and its events are not notable. If views regarding notability are the real issue here they should be considered and articulated properly. -Darouet (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Darouet, "Invocations of WP:OR and WP:COATRACK" was a hit on the nail's head. Mhhossein (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the information or there's no point; this is a worthless stub without it. We do not need a forest of headings, though. That said, this article should be renamed to Ten Days of Fajr or Dahe-ye Fajr; the present title is misleading and confusing. A decade in English is ten years, not days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep all informatiom: The article and content is about 10 days or a decade in Iran that occurred critical events and changed Iran's government structure. This events begun with returning of Ruhollah Khomeini but this is not all events. Because important events happened after returning of Ruhollah Khomeini. We must to keep chain of Fajr decade's event. It is better to add a section with name of Events.Saff V. (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep information on historical events. The article on the holiday is fairly meaningless without information on the precise (sequence of) events which inspired it and which it celebrates. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

Main page: Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran § Merger proposal

I propose that Fajr decade be merged into Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran. I think that the content in the Fajr decade article can easily be explained in the context of Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran, and the Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Fajr decade will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly Fajr decade, Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran, Iranian Revolution#Bakhtiar's Premiership and Khomeini's return and Ruhollah_Khomeini#Return_to_Iran seems like four articles that cover the same thing. The Fajr decade article could perhaps be expanded with more information about the celebrations, and Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran could be merged into Ruhollah_Khomeini#Return_to_Iran. The only relevant information missing there is that Khomeini could not fly as soon as he planned, because the airports were closed. Merge that in, and Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran can be redirected IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merger per my arguments above: the history of the Storming of the Bastille does not mean that Bastille Day does not deserve its own article. Also, having an article on that history doesn't mean it shouldn't be reviewed in the day commemorating it. However, I also believe that this article should be renamed to Dahe-ye fajr. The current translation is confusing. -Darouet (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. This article should be about government-ordered "festivities". There should be no big sections regurgitating the events of 1979. One can only hope for a repeat of 15–19 August 1953.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The main events that should be "regurgitated" / reviewed are just the ten days, with a little info before and after. And I agree with Toddy1: if we can we should find sources to show that yes, people are not truly celebrating, but are secretly yearning for the return of the Shah, this is a critical component of this holiday and deserves prominent mention. I myself long for the return of British colonial rule in America, celebrate July 4th only begrudgingly, and will find a way of getting that into our article on Independence Day (United States) if I can. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's never going to be in the article about the US Independence Day, per WP:UNDUE; there couldn't be more than maybe 0.000000001% of Americans who think that way. Even if they're unhappy with the present US political situation, everyone realizes that "the return of British colonial rule in America" isn't possible since there is no British Empire establishing colonies any longer. It's just like suggesting that you long for the days of the Roman Empire's rule in Britain. Go write a novel; you can't inject your alternative history fantasies into our encyclopedia articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The celebrations were not ordered by government, because there was no special government by then. Even we can say that, shah's administration were still ruling the country. Mhhossein (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: The subject is notable (as explained above) and it should be kept. Mhhossein (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Merge the other direction: The political holiday is notable and distinct. The notability problem is that Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran is not a distinct topic; that should be merged, in part into the present article, in part into Iranian Revolution#Bakhtiar's Premiership and Khomeini's return, in part into Ruhollah Khomeini#Return to Iran, and perhaps in part into History of Iran and Iran#History, as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose:The main context of the article was deleted, so the main text was different from Ruhollah Khomeini's return to Iran. Also, I said my idea in the RCF section. Saff V. (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio urls

A recent edit saw 22 kB worth of added copyright violation from the websites:

• 2 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/339/default.aspx
• 3 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/340/default.aspx
• 4 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/341/default.aspx
• 5 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/343/default.aspx
• 6 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/344/default.aspx
• 7 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/345/default.aspx
• 8 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/346/default.aspx
• 9 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/348/default.aspx
• 10 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/350/default.aspx
• 11 Feb: http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/351/default.aspx

I have requested the deletion of the affected revisions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: If you are requesting revdels of this, then you should also revdel User talk:M1nhm/sandbox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)