Talk:Iran-Contra affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran-Contra affair article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Iran-Contra affair is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

^{Date: 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)}

This page is listed on the bounty board

Quadell has pledged to make a donation of $15 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Cold War WikiProject
	Iran-Contra affair is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Past Political Scandals and Controversies WikiProject (Rated B-Class)
	This article falls within the scope of the Past Political Scandals and Controversies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scandals and political controversies. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

WikiProject Central America (Rated B-Class)

Latin America Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Drug Policy
	This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Archives
/Archive 1

1 title change
2 ?moderate Iranians
3 Neutrality Dispute
4 GA revert
5 Weapon Condition
6 GA Review
- 6.1 Friendly Suggestions

[edit] title change

should "affair" in the title of this article be capitalized? is there a capitalization convnention at work here? tried to move but redir iran-contra affair already exists Phil E. Transplant '08 13:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support move per Wikipedia:NAME#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Shouldn't it be Iran with a capital "I"? -- Nudve (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should haha. I've changed it. Happyme22 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ?moderate Iranians

the term "moderate iranians" is used throughout the article, starting at the beginning, but there is no citation which gives any real insight as to who these people were. without context "moderate" is a meaningless statement.192.12.69.203 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in this instance, "moderate" is attributed to those opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni, who was more of the extremist when it came to advocating Islamic values. Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

Anyone else see this as a problem? This line in particular: 'Reagan was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that motivated his support for the arms initiatives" - maybe this is what he said, or what people said, but no one can pretend to know his thoughts.

That, coupled with the frequent mention of "moderate" Iranians seems to create a clear slant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.13.25 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The piece about Reagan being committed to releasing the hostages is directly from his autobiography, so they are his words. The 'moderate' Iranians mention is necessary, as it distinguishes those opposed to the Ayatollah from those supporting him. It was the moderates that Reagan's administration supported, but it deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme. Happyme22 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The words should be quoted and cited then. This is not neutral text. Also, iirc, "moderate" Iranians popped up later as an excuse/apology post factum and in fact the US negotiated with the staunchest Iranian Islamic revolutionaries, who had the power to deliver. When Tower went on national television he surprised the public by claiming to have achieved "damage control" (his words) in the Iran-Contra crisis, and to have protected the president from the fallout. Also, if someone is working on making this into a readable article, the Contra side of the equation is in dire need of treatment. The one sentence that touches upon their role is entirely unclear, as if they were raising money by selling arms to Iran. They were the cocaine terminus, the CIA was running guns and cocaine. This is generally very well known, documented, verifiable etc. Leaving it out is anti NPOV. Good luck with your quest for admin Happyme22, don't ban me for being right :) Hypatea (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article states Reagan's lack of involvement as a fact in one paragraph. Then another paragraph simply states that Reagan appointed a commission to investigate the matter, and they (surprise, surprise) didn't find proof of his involvement. It seems extremely slanted to declare he didn't approve or even have knowledge of what was going on while 11 members of his administration were convicted and then pardoned by his former Vice-President. There may not be proof of his involvement, but there certainly is no proof that he was totally clueless either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.30.155 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good argument IP 76.107.30.155, and as a result, I have removed the phrase "nor was he aware that funds were being sent to the Contras". Reagan was never found to have possessed any knowlege of the divert-to-Contras part of the scheme, but you are correct in saying that there isn't any proof that he was completely out of the loop. I hope that helped, and thank you for your comment. Happyme22 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA revert

This article's GA nomination was passed without a review, so I have reverted it. I would also like to point out that the last line of the "Tower Commission" section and the first two paragraphs of "Convictions, pardons, and reinstatements" need to be sourced, as they are potentially controversial and contain quotations. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for doing that. I did not know that it had been passed without a review, which is not good. And the fact tags only help us in getting this article up to GA! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weapon Condition

Weren't the missiles we sent them defective? I don't remember where I heard that. Anyone know what the condition of the SAM's and what was wrong with them? Smaug99 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you provide a reliable source, we can certainly take that into consideration. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iran-Contra affair/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am still reviewing this article, but I do notice one issue that should be fixed. Many citations to web pages are missing the "|accessdate=" field. This is highly recommended, so that if/when the URL is no longer valid the content can be more easily retrieved from a web archiving service.Dave (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I will go through those that don't have an |accessdate= parameter and add one, provided the citation is reliable. Happyme22 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added in the parameter on all citations lacking it, as all were indeed reliable and beneficial to the article. Happyme22 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is mostly well written. I have identified some awkward sentences that could use a re-write in the "friendly suggestions" section below. WP:MOS violations: There are no major violations of the MOS, However there are several minor violations of the MOS listed in the Friendly Suggestions section below. Most of these are where the 2nd or 3rd mention of a term is explained or wikilinked, whereas the 1st mention of a term should be wikilinked and/or fully explained and other mentions abbriviated. While one or two instances of this can be overlooked, at least some of the friendly suggestions below need to be incorporated to cut down on the MOS violations.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Major Issues: There is a sentence tagged with ^{[citation needed]}. This must be addressed before the article can reach GA status.

Done I've removed the uncited statements per WP:V because I cannot find citations for them. Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are two statements that appear to be WP:OR and must be corrected before this article can pass:

"Reagan was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that motivated his support for the arms initiatives." If I understand the talk page correctly this is a quote from Reagan's bio. So how about, In his biography Reagan stated that...? That makes it clear why the words "deeply committed" and "compassion" are used. Words like this must be attributed or cited for use in an encyclopedia article.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This claim must be sourced or removed: The "Teflon President", as Reagan was nicknamed by critics," The word teflon does not appear in the source listed at the end of the sentence, making this statement misleading.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The linkchecker used for GA and FA reviews is questioning 4 links, however from a manual check these appear ok. You may wish to fix the ones that the linkchecker is complaining redirect to a different website, just so you don't get dinged for this again if you want to take this article to WP:FAC

I am not familiar with these sources, and am unsure or doubt about their suitability. Please explain the appropriateness of these sources:

Done Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://members.aol.com/megxyz/megan.html - This appears to be a personal website and if so is not be acceptable as a source. Even if its not a self published source, by its own admission it is a transcript of a high school newspaper. Not exactly a scholarly reviewed journal.

Done Nice catch! Happyme22 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sandford.org/gandercrash/investigations/majority_report/html/_i.shtml This appears to be a Self Published Source as the website is sanford.org and the publisher is listed as copyright Jamie Sanford. However, this may be a copy of a government record. If so, this should be explained and it should be noted how it can be established this is an accurate transcription of the government record. I would advise checking the website for the Canadian Government Agency that supposedly wrote this document and seeing if we can't use the primary source.

Done My searches cannot seem to find the primary Canadian document. So I've replaced the source. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.crisispapers.org/guests/hucul.htm - No credentials listed on site, possibly WP:SPS

Done Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1889.html - No credentials listed on site.

Well at the 'about' page of the website it says it is a work of Online Highways , which appears to be a travel guide organization. Happyme22 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0609-29.htm - This one is unacceptable. This website claims to be republishing a Guardian/UK article (a copyright violation), while linking back to the original. Why not just use the original, it's available on the web also.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation 61 needs publisher and author details listed

Done Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Vern, Asleson is listed as a source, yet no inline citations refer to this name. Same for Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair and several others.|}}

It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.

No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

One image is from a non-government museum but is claimed public domain. However the museum's website does state that all content is "public information" so I believe this is ok. All others had PD, GFDL, or CC licenses.
Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Thank you for taking the time to research and write this article. This was a very interesting read. There are issues with this article. By my count there are three issues with the article that are cause for a quickfail. However, as I think this is a mostly worthy article, well written, and the problems can be easily fixed, I will place the GAC on hold and will re-evaluate the article. Just tell me when you are ready, but do advise the 3 quickfail worthy points should be fixed ASAP.Dave (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Suggestions

These are not required for GA status, but are friendly observations. Some of these are minor violations of the WP:MOS. Though individually these are minor, collectively they add up to the point that some of these must be addressed for me to vote to pass the article:

There are several instances where 2 wikilinked terms are placed next to each other throughout the article. Though not banned in the MOS this is discouraged as it can appear to the reader as a single wikilinked term. I fixed a few, but will leave the rest for you. As an example Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and anti-communist rebel. Suggest re-wording the sentences so the linked terms are not next to each other or just de-link them. In the case of anti-communist rebel, just delink rebel. The article on Contra's defines what they are without the need for the word rebel anyways. In the case of a government official and their title, the article for the government official should have their title in the lead paragraph.
The citations are not consistent in listing of authors. Some are Lastname, Firstname others are Firstname Lastname. Citation 58, 63 are examples of two that are reversed.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hostage taking in the Middle East did not end there, however." This sentence is rough, how about "This was not the end of hostage taking in the Middle East"?

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly this statement is rough: Reagan allowed McFarlane to meet with the Israeli intermediaries because, according to him, establishing relations with a strategically located country, thus preventing the Soviet Union from doing the same, was a beneficial move.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"and a portion of the proceeds would go to Contras, or Nicaraguan guerilla fighters opposed to communism, at a markup" should have some wiki-links. This is the first mention of the words Contra and Nicaragua outside of the lead.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The acronym TOW is first explained on the 3rd instance (in the "First arms" section). This should be moved up. Acronyms should be explained in the 1st instance.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

but also legislation passed by Congress, known as the Boland Amendment. This is the 2nd mention of the Boland Amendment in the "The affair" section. The explanation and wikilink is not necessary. Important terms should be explained or wikilinked on the 1st mention of each major section.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

involved in Iran and Contra operations. Contra should be wikilinked. This is the first mention of these terms in the "Discovery and Scandal" section.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

wikilink first instance of "Freedom of Information Act".

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO There is overlinking on the dates. Though not stated in the MOS, in my opinion only complete dates should be wikilinked. The last paragraph in the "Discovery and scandal" is especially overlinked IMO. The dates are also inconsistent and should use a common format. Example of one date mention that does not match the other is under "Convictions, pardons and reinstatements" under Charles E. Allen, where August 2005 is not wikilinked or set apart with commons, where similar date mentions in other sections are.

I presume you are reffering to the 'November 21, 22, or 24' in the 'Discovery and scandal' section. And normally I would agree with you, however in the paragraph directly preceding it, a phrase reads, 'November 21 and November 25, 1985'. It would be odd to wikilink only November 25 because it has a '1985' attached to it. Happyme22 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Discovery and Scandal section the acronym CIA as the Central Intelligence Agency is explained in the 2nd instance, not the first. Also delete the wikilink for the 2nd instance.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

De wikilink Nicaragua in the last sentence of Discovery and scandal. This is about the 15th mention of Nicaragua in the article. If somebody hasn't figured out what Nicargua is by this point in the article, there's trouble afoot =-)

Done haha! Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First arms sale - this section is too short. Suggest merging with the "Arms transaction" section above.
(in his autobiography, An American Life, Reagan does acknowledge authorizing the shipments to Israel[47]) - The Parenthesis are not necessary, this is an important statement, not a footnote or clarification.

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some wordy or redundant sentences that could be shortened. The best example of this is "The report published by the Tower Commission~~, known as the Tower Commission Report,~~"

Done Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Run-on sentence in the Tower Commission section: "National Security Council staff;[1] it heavily criticized Reagan" Break into two, "staff. The report heavily criticized Reagan"