Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 12

The lead
This article's lead is way too long and loaded. It needs to be shortened substantially and remove all the quotes, as it resembles a POV-pushing miniature article in it's own right. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Democratically elected
How many instances of the descriptive phrase "democratically elected" should appear in the article? Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You should not begin an RfC when there is no discussion on a topic. You can make changes yourself and see if they are challenged or recommend changes and see if you find no disagreement.  I suggest you cancel the RfC.  TFD (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The thread above this one is Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état The discussion is there; the RfC stays up. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Offhand, like the Tootsie-Roll owl, I would say, three. Once for the introduction, once for the description of the election itself, and once for the controversy/criticism about the election and its aftermath.  Otherwise, like any descriptor, it becomes burdensome and repetitive.  It should be clear from the writing which governments achieved their power which way, and once established, it doesn't need re-mentioning unless the topic substantially shifts or the issue is directly at hand. Ocaasi 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how it is now anyways. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Not true. The version up right now has three instances in the lead, two more in the "Internationally" section, and one more completely unnecessary one in the references. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reducing the five article body instances of "democratically elected", per Ocaasi, myself, and common sense. Ocaasi recommended three, one instance occurring in the "Election" section, but there is no such section at this time. Thus, I am reducing the number to two, one in the introduction, one in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undone your edit. All those instances are needed for context in their own paragraphs. You should stop being obsessed with down-playing the fact this government was democratically-elected, you're going against academic consensus here. However, I did change one of the "democratically elected" mentions in the lead to "democracy" for better flow.  Kurdo777 (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing one instance of "democratically elected" to "democracy"; I think that is a good compromise. However, the RfC we have undertaken here trumps any notional "academic consensus" that you pull out of thin air. You went against wiki consensus when reverting my edit. I am restoring the essence of my work.
 * You have no business telling me what I should stop being obsessed with. Have you heard of the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"? You have placed the phrase "democratically elected" into the supposed title of an untitled web page, the one from www.cryptome.org. This instance of "democratically elected" is a complete fiction, as there is no such phrase in the webpage. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the RFC did not generate broad response, and the one editor who responded did not support you, there is no consensus. Your removals are altering the contexts of the paragraphs, in one case you're actually tempering with a direct quote from a source. This is unacceptable. Bottom line is, you have no consensus to remove an established fact supported by vast majority of historians and academics. Just look up "1953 coup + democratically elected" or "1953 coup + democracy" on Google books or scholar, and see how many results you get.  Kurdo777 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC is what it is. It determines our course of action here. I am not going to go out and find reasons to repeat the phrase in a poorly written English fashion. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I already answered you about RFC. I was trying fix cryptome.org error, when you reverted (your 3rd revert in almost 24 hours), that's the only acceptable part of your edit, the rest qualifies as POV-pushing against academic consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you already mentioned your interpretation of the RfC, and I understood it. That it did not generate a broad response is not my concern. It generated one response, favorable to reducing the instances of "democratically elected", and I think you can see the benefit on a purely compositional basis, using English in the best way possible. I think we are making progress here, as we have allowed "democracy" to replace one of them. However, one of the biggest headaches of the article is that it has two instances in the same paragraph, the first paragraph. This is very poor composition. We either move the French news quote to somewhere else in the article, or we remove or modify the first instance of "democratically elected". Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the CIA actually did not overthrow Mossadegh
This article pretty much ignores the fact that the CIA's original plot was a complete fiasco and the only reason it actually worked in the end was because the military decided to side with the Shah. According to Reul Marc Gherect: "The coup succeeded only because Iranians who were neither on the American or British payrolls nor under foreign control or guidance seized the initiative to topple Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh." 

71.65.71.145 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are advocating a fringe theory, please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The vast majority of the sources do not agree with that assessment. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is virtually no information in this article on the coup action itself, so if it is a fringe theory perhaps someone could add details so we actually know what exactly happened on August 19, 1953. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Improving the article
I have been blocked for months but yesterday the Ban Appeal Subcommittee called for Khoikhio's block to be  immediately unblocked without restriction and so it has. I hope to participate in the improving the article and have asked Binksternet for ideas.

Despite the fact the article is rated "High-importance" by  WikiProject Iran, it has had four tags (including "neutrality is disputed") for several months. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article has been pretty stable and has been steadily improved by neutral editors since you were last here. FYI, looking at your talk page, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has not magically cleared and erased your previous blocks for disrupting Wikipedia, it seems that you were given the "benefit of the doubt" for the time being, and only your indefinite block was reversed. Otherwise, you're still an editor with a pretty hefty block log. I hope you learn from your mistakes this time and become a more constructive Wikipedian. Good luck. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept of "stable" being connected to the concept of "good" is a complete farce in this case—the article has (in its supposed stable version) been carrying a stack of ugly tags for poor neutrality, poor accuracy, inappropriate citations and a need of general cleanup. It has been wrong and bad for months. Stable? That concept stopped being connected to a positive connotation some years back when the essay WP:STABLE was shut down and held as a historical curiosity. Today, we understand that articles are in flux if they reflect the living world. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just your personal opinion, and you're entitled to it. Otherwise, neutral editors have tried to improve and clean-up the article in the last few months, in a drama-free even-handed manner. Aggressive POV-and-agenda-driven editing always creates a backlash and halts any progress towards the improvement of the article. An editor even added a line about the Communist fear to the lead, and it stayed there untouched, because the language and the tone of his edit was neutral, fair, and balanced. That's something you and BoogaLouie could learn from. By the way, what inappropriate citations are you talking about? I have removed the tag for citations, you need to provide solid proof that the current version of the article contains such citations, before restoring the tag. List these alleged "inappropriate citations" here one by one, so that we can substitute them with in-line fact tags or other sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not my tag; I was merely reporting on its presence, reporting that the so-called 'stable' version was severely flawed and deserved no fond nostalgia from us. It can slide away into the past without shedding a tear. The improved version is in the future. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we both have hefty block logs, and I will endeavor to improve the article with out edit warring. As to who is doing "Aggressive POV-and-agenda-driven editing," I'll let others decide. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid not. Yours is twice as hefty as mine. Based on your history of disruption in Wikipedia, you are on a very thin rope, and you can end up getting in serious trouble, if you pick up where you left off and repeat the same mistakes again. And that is not just limited to edit-warring, and includes recycling and copy/pasting of the same old arguments over and over, fishing and canvassing like-minded editors, misinterpreting sources, misrepresenting the wider academic take on an issue by cherry-picking selective material. You know, tendentious editing in general. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are mistaken in (at least some of) these allegations and I think you are guilty of some of the abuses you mention above. But why don't we drop the accusations try and stick to the current issues of this article.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary into Lead suggestion - National Geographic
The August 2008 issue of National Geographic had this to say about the coup:
 * Oil was at the root of a 1953 event that is still a sore subject for many Iranians: the CIA-backed overthrow, instigated and supported by the British government, of Iran's elected and popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had kicked out the British after the Iranian oil industry, controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP), was nationalized, and the British had retaliated with an economic blockade. With the Cold War on and the Soviet bloc located just to the north, the U.S. feared that a Soviet-backed communism in Iran could shift the balance of world power and jeopardize Western interests in the region. The coup - Operation TP-Ajax - is believed to have been the CIA's first. (Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., Teddy's grandson, ran the show, and H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Persian Gulf war commander, was enlisted to coax the shaw into playing his part. Its base of operations was the US Embassy in Tehran, the future "nest of spies" to the Iranians, where 52 US hostages were taken in 1979). Afterward, the shaw, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was returned to power, commerical oil rights fell largely to British and US oil companies, and Mossadegh was imprisoned and later placed under house arrest until he died in 1967.

I think that this would be a nice summary for the intro section. It includes/combines the diverging views on this page - the argument that only the oil was responsible and the argument that Cold War mentality was to blame. So, I think it's a nice compromise and would be my suggestion as this is really, in my opinion, how the majority of the historians view the events of the coup. --RossF18 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "the shaw"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no question to me that the intro is too long. It needs trimming. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

edits of 10-29-10
Kurdo's latest edits have a couple of problems.
 * tags questioning it's neutrality and factual accuracy were removed with no discussion (and the assertion that "no evidence to support either tag")
 * A number of references to the controversy over the constitutionality of Mosaddeq's referendum (giving him the legislative power of the Iranian parliament's) were deleted:
 * "Despite lacking constitutional authority to do so, and while controlling the voting, Mosaddegh submitted to voters a referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law ..." The italics words were deleted (with the criptic summary "rv POV edits")
 * Prime Minister's dismissal while he still had the confidence of the Parliament, following the conventions of the Westminster System; however, the Iran Constitution of 1906 then in force only formally prescribes "ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King... ART. 49. The issue of decrees and orders for giving effect to the laws is the King's right, provided that under no circumstances shall he postpone or suspend the carrying out of such laws". 

I'm sure the wording of these passages could be improved and repetition removed but the issue is important to the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not title discussion page headers in a way that's directed at another editor. This is considered incivil, and you have been told this by several admins in the past. Please do not do it again. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your false claim that "tags questioning it's neutrality and factual accuracy were removed", the dispute here has always been about the neutrality of the article, and the appropriate neutrality tag remains untouched. Factual accuracy tag is a different animal, and has no place on this article, as the basic facts (ie there was a coup in Iran in 1953) are neither inaccurate nor disputed. As for the rest of you comment about the legality/constitutionality of Shah's dismissal of Mossadegh or Mossadegh's referendum, this issue was discussed in details in the past. We will not repeat ourselves here, this game that you like to play ,ie "I will just repeat/copy-paste the same stuff/arguments every week hoping/fishing for a better reception from the community", is not going to work. Every time you do that from now on, you will simply be referred to the the archives. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not title discussion page headers in a way that's directed at another editor. This is considered incivil, and you have been told this by several admins in the past.
 * Well you make the edits, did you not? Where does wikipedia say it is uncivil to mention the name of the editor in a header refering to the editors edits?
 * As for your false claim that "tags questioning it's neutrality and factual accuracy were removed",
 * My mistake. It was the citecheck tag and not the neutrality tag that was removed by you. Why did you remove the citecheck tag?  --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did explain why the "false citations" tag is not appropriate for this article. Please pay more attention to what others have to say as well. These discussion pages are for a dialogue, not a monologue. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you at least test a few citations to check their accuracy and then say "I found nothing wrong so I removed them"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on the person placing the tag in the article. If the article does indeed "contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text", please list them one by one, and we'll either substitute the sources, or replace them with an in-line fact tag.  Kurdo777 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you Kurdo can't place tags on articles without proof of their flaws? :-)
 * Here are some bad citations I've found so far, three in the lead and one in the rest of the article. They are pretty bad. Totally wrong or dishonest, not just sloppy.
 * The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. Source given: Kinzer, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), p.166
 * but page 166 makes no mention of whether Mossaddegh's regime was democratic or if "intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States"' were the ones that over threw the regime. It's only five lines long and just gives a small part of the narrative of the coup talking about Colonel Nasiri's coup failing and CIA agent Roosevelt deciding "to try again".
 * The crushing of Iran's first democracy launched 25 years of dictatorship under Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi, who relied heavily on U.S. support to hold on to power until he was overthrown in February 1979. Source given: ref>Charles Kurzman, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran,(Harvard University Press, 2005) ISBN 978-0674018433 p.122 ''.
 * page 122 describes a December 1978 demonstration and says not one word about the coup (The book cited mentions 1953 coup twice very briefly in passing).
 * With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup. Source given:  ref>U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah: Building a Client State in Iran by Mark J. Gasiorowski (Cornell University Press: 1991) p. 74.
 * But a search of the book via google books http://books.google.com/books?ei=cYjZTITnFc-Snwe81b3rCQ&ct=result&id=JE3PYfjBStAC&dq=U.S.+Foreign+Policy+and+the+Shah%3A+Building+a+Client+State+in+Iran+by&q=churchill&safe=active finds no hits for Churchill, no mention of Eisenhower's role in the coup, and no mention of Eisenhower on page 74.
 * In the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minster's dismissal without Parliament's consent. source Elm, Mostafu (1994). Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath'', p 333. Syracuse University Press
 * This is stated as a fact, but the source simply states that this was Mosaddeqh's argument against the procescution at his post-coup trial.  http://books.google.com/books?id=VoU4AI-yq7UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Oil,+Power,+and+Principle:+Iran's+Oil+Nationalization+and+Its+Aftermath&hl=en&ei=I4bZTI7WI6rvnQfzgdmcCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=constitution&f=false


 * Kurdo can you give any reason why the tag should not be restored?  --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hearing no reply and given the high number of bad citations I've found after checking only the lead a small part of the rest of the article, I'm going to put the tag back. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 book Iran and the CIA
A new book by Darioush Bayandor must be incorporated into the article. The book, Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited, analyzes the coup in frank terms, and examines in great detail the unfolding historiography of the coup, how different versions, different truths and myths came into being over time. He describes how new information reached observers, each time reshaping the appreciation of what happened.

Bayandor is, according to his publishers, "currently an Iranian analyst and scholar living in Switzerland. Born Iranian, the author served as a diplomat in senior capacities in New York and Tehran in 1970s. He was the director of the regional bureau for Americas in the foreign ministry and served two Iranian prime ministers as foreign-affairs advisor. In 1980 he joined the United Nations where he headed several UN humanitarian offices in different countries in Asia, Europe and Africa. He has contributed articles to newspapers, journals and other publications in US and France." He is a reliable source, an expert source.

The book was reviewed 13 May 2010 in The Economist and 15 June in Iranian.com. It was reviewed in July/August 2010 World Affairs. It's a notable book. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Is it reliable as fact, or is it only reliable as a source for Ardeshir Zahedi's points of view ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it must NOT be incorporated into the article. Darioush Bayandor is a royalist, who worked for Shah's regime as a deputy prime minster and acting foreign minster as well as "the regional bureau for Americas in the foreign ministry". Such partisan character who fled Iran along with Shah (and for all we know, was probably a CIA asset or agent too) is by no means a neutral observer or source on this topic. No Shah or Mossadegh minster/deputy minster should be used as a source on an impartial article. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not agree with your assessment. We as editors have to be neutral but our sources do not. Your dislike of Bayandor does not reduce his notability or expertise in the matter of the coup. I will be bringing Bayandor's viewpoint into the article as appropriate per WP:WEIGHT without replacing other viewpoints. I will be following the guideline at WP:NPOV which states that conflicting expert opinions must be not be represented as facts, that each opinion must be attributed to those who hold it. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Darioush Bayandor was the Condoleezza Rice of Shah's regime. Using him as a source here would be equivalent to using a book by Condoleezza Rice as an academic source on the Iraq War article. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kurdo. Darioush Bayandor was a paid agent of Shah's regime. We should stick with neutral sources with no bias or conflict of interest. --Wayiran (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it does not matter the dislike you may have for Bayandor. His highly placed positions as senior diplomat and foreign affairs adviser in and for Iran make him an expert source. This article will follow WP:NPOV to the letter, and conflicting expert opnions will be attributed. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't he be identified as a "former diplomat under the Shah" or something similar? Is anyone who worked as a diplomat or equivalent level in the Shah's government a "paid agent of Shah's regime"? Was Hossein Fatemi a "paid agent of the Mosadegh regime"? As for the Condoleezza Rice analogy, Darioush Bayandor was not as high level as her, but if Rice had 30 years of post-Bush experience as an analyst and working in non-partisan areas like the UN I don't think she would be disqualified as a Reliable Source for an article on some element of American foreign policy. BoogaLouie (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is fine - it is published by Palgrave MacMillan. While the author is not neutral (no author is), we can expect based on the publisher that the facts would be accurate and complete and that it would provide a good summary of the various interpretations of the events as well as explaining the degree to which scholars have accepted different views.  We must not however give undue weight to his own interpretations.  Since his book is new and challenges previous interpretations, we must wait and see what acceptance if any his views receive.  The Rice example is poor - it is hard to imagine her writing a scholarly book about events in which she participated.  She would have to explain how her actions were perceived by informed opinion, and find a rational argument to defend her actions that would pass peer-review.  Here is a link to the book at Amazon.  You can read the beginning and see that it could be useful.  TFD (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said, we use discretion when using sources. Using a regime official as a source on an article about that regime, is something not done anywhere else in Wikipedia. There are multiple policy issues here, like Neutrality, Conflict of Interest, Fringe Theories (given his revisionist/apologist point of view) etc. A book by Darioush Bayandor or any other Pahlavi regime official doesn't book belong here, just as a book by a former Nazi regime official, does not belong an article about Nazi regime on Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was all too easy to find regime officials used as references on Wikipedia articles touching upon that regime. Albert Speer's books are quoted in discussions about WWII operations such as Operation Chastise, Transport Plan, Operation Bellicose, and in articles touching upon Nazi war production such as synthetic fuel and the Oil Campaign of World War II. Speer is referenced in the first paragraph of the article Greater Germanic Reich. The neutrality and conflict of interest policies you quote apply to Wikipedia editors, not reliable expert sources. The concern about Bayandor being viewed as fringe will be addressed, though no one actually calls him that. He has been called a revisionist, but none doubt the accuracy of his research. Revisionism is, according to James M. McPherson, "the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful." Bayandor's revisionism is scholarly, reliable and verifiable. He is an excellent source, especially on the topic of the historiography of the coup, a sub-topic not yet touched upon here in this article. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the book is "revisionist" means that we must be careful in including the conclusions reached. We must not represent them as the agreed interpretation, and must present them using proper WP:WEIGHT.  The nature of the publication however means that it is a reliable source for facts and for a description of how historians interpret the events.  If there are errors and omissions in the book then they can be addressed on a case by case basis.  However, most high quality sources are written from a unique view.  Scholars usually write books to present new opinions.  TFD (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is not reliable as neutral point of view, but it can be mentioned on a new section with title of revisionist view or pre-revolution governmental view . Due to WP:SOURCES , a peer-review in Economist magazine shows this source is either of alternate or controversial theories, Here: . So it is not WP:SOURCES.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed crucial parts of WP:SOURCE which are met by Bayandor's publisher: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The Palgrave Macmillan imprint is a very high quality one with peer review, a scholarly source. It is one of the best available to us. Wikipedia's rules about neutral point of view have no bearing on the neutrality of the sources. Bayandor supplies a myriad of facts which can be woven into the article bit by bit, and he supplies his revisionist analysis, saying that the CIA was not so crucial to the coup in the final four days between the complete failure on August 15 and the 180 degree turn on August 19. Binksternet (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't find the review to be overly critical of Bayandor's book apart from suggesting he could have gone further, a possible over-reliance on a source, and suggesting that the incident did not lead directly to the revolution. The word revisionist doesn't even appear until near the end. It does note that "[his] scepticism is a useful antidote to Roosevelt’s self-aggrandising, which some later writers have mimicked uncritically, among them Stephen Kinzer", and "Some accounts have been too glib in portraying Mossadeq as a democratic paragon when his instinct was to concentrate power in his hands, glossing over his failure to negotiate a solution to the nationalisation crisis when there was still an opportunity to do so.". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be confusion about the nature of peer-review. During the process, independent scholars are asked to review a manuscript to determine whether the facts are accurate and complete.  Book reviews by "peers", even in learned journals, are not "peer review".  It must also correctly acknowledge how scholars interpret the events, even if the author is arguing against them.  We can expect the facts will be the same regardless of the viewpoint of the writer.  The term historical revisionism can also be misunderstoood. While it is used to desribe falsified history, in this case it merely implies a new interpretation that has not gained acceptance.  We must be clear that we are using this book as a reliable source for facts and are not endorsing the opinions presented in it.  Also, we must be careful about the use information from the controversial new source used in the book.  Until other scholars corroborate it, we cannot consider it to be factual.  TFD (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Economist : "All in all, Mr Bayandor’s account may be over-reliant on one of the last surviving coup-makers, Ardeshir Zahedi, son of the general who seized the premiership after Mossadeq’s arrest, who resists depictions of his father as an American stooge.""Mr Bayandor is less wise to dismiss another axiom out of hand: that the 1953 coup, by removing the last effective stay on the shah’s power, led indirectly to Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution."
 * The facts are peer reviewed. The analysis and synthesis of Bayandor are as well, but those will be introduced with attribution, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and with proper weight given to them so as not to replace or overbalance mainstream opinion. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead
(I've crossed out complaints outdated by Colipon's Nov 14 edits)

too long and unencyclopedic
The lead is one of the longer leads I've seen in wikipedia and ... reads as though it was an essay titled, "Why the 1953 coup was unjust and predatory", rather than being an encyclopedic summary of the coup in general.
 * For example, AIOC's "Iranian workers were poorly paid and lived in squalid conditions." Did the poor working conditions contribute to the coup?
 * "Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953." Do we need to know the exact date of his execution in the lead?

repetitive writing

 * about the Democratic-ness of the government ...
 * was the overthrow of the democratically elected government
 * crushing of Iran's first democracy
 * underhanded methods to overthrow a democratically elected government
 * ... about the importance of the AIOC ...
 * the British government's single largest overseas investment
 * Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset,

bad organization

 * Lead talks about significance of the coup in two different places -- at the beginning ... "For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhanded methods to overthrow a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests", the Agence France-Presse reported. ... and at the end:   The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western royal dictatorship with the anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran.    ... why not in the same place?


 * With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup. Bad writing. This is the only mention of Truman in the lead. And why all the shouldn't mention of the boycott in the lead explain its connection to the coup? Did it make the coup easier? How? Could it have been by hurting the economy and undermining domestic support for Mosaddegh? Could it be there's no mention of this because it would suggest there were other reasons for the success of the coup besides CIA bribes an lies?

Bias and inaccuracy
The worst problem with the lead is in the substance:


 * The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.   The Coup was an overthrow "by", rather than "orchestrated by" or "organized by".  It makes it sound as though CIA agents were driving the tanks and shelling Mosaddegh's house. They weren't. Is there a reliable source that uses the naked by for CIA etc. responsibility? The use of this little preposition makes a huge difference in the article.
 * The verb Kinzer uses is "staged" ("coup d'etat staged by the Central Intelligence Agency", p.ix, All the Shah's Men, )
 * Gasiorowski uses "sponsored" ("the United States-sponsored coup d'etat in Iran of August 19, 1953 has emerged as a critical event in postwar world history" "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran" International Journal of Middle East Studies, Mark J. Gasiorowski, Page [261] of 261-286) ]
 * David Syvan and Stephen Majeski use "sponsored " ("... The classic example of a coup attempted under thse conditions is Operation TPAJAX, the CIA-sponsored otherthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in Iran) (US Foreign Policy in Perspective : Clients, enemies and empire, by David Syvan and Stephen Majeski, Routledge, 2009, p.185)


 * The U.S. spy agency tried to persuade Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to dismiss Mosaddegh, and at first he refused. The Central Intelligence Agency pressured the weak monarch while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.     [Pressured the weak monarch ... So what did the "weak monarch" do? Did he give in? Presumably the Firman edict appointing Zahedi is how the Shah did give in to the CIA - so why no mention of it? Could it possibly be because that might make the coup sound more legitimate, more constitutional?


 * At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of August 15–16, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On August 19, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.  The mob overthrew Mosadegh? No. The mob was fought off by guards at Mosaddegh's home, it was the pro-coup military that broke Moss's defenders and made the coup successful. Abrahamian talks about he tanks led by Zahedi that won the battle at Moss's house and dismisses the mob as providing "acoustical effects" for the coup.


 * In the wake of the coup, Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the next prime minister of a military government, and Shah Pahlevi made the appointment but dismissed him two years later.  Not true. According to Kinzer: "A goodly number [of mid-ranking officers supporting the coup had been persuaded to join the coup by the authority of the firman naming Zahedi as prime minister." (p.180), i.e. Zahedi was designated Prime Minister before the coup took place: And BTW, why no mention of the firman?


 * "Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. .... The source for this is Kinzer's book (which is short on sources I might add. I believe it says: The triumphant Shah (Pahlavi) ordered the execution of several dozen military officers and student leaders who had been closely associated with Mohammad Mossadegh."''). But the Iranian-born and Iranian-speaking scholar Abrahamian says: "With the exceptions of Fatemi, who was executed, and Lufti, the justice minister, who was murdered, the other National Front leaders received lenient treatment - often prison terms no longer than five years." why no mention of this? A small matter perhaps, but it adds to the bias.


 * The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth  Was this a motive of the US for the coup? If so, says what WP:Relable Source? If not, why is this in the lead?


 *  ... as well as resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.Who says there was a "the slim possibility" or that this "produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat"? No source is given but  Here are 12 sources talking about fear of communism as the US motivation for the coup. One historian that I know of - Abrahamian - has questioned the seriousness of the threat. And is quoted at length in the article.

Rest of article
Concerning the article in general I haven't had time to go through the whole thing but there are ...

Omissions
The 1953 Iranian coup d%27%C3%A9tat section talks about Anglo-Soviet invasion/occupation "In 1941, after the Nazi invasion of the USSR, the British and Commonwealth of Nations forces and the Red Army invaded Iran, to secure petroleum (cf. Persian Corridor) for the Soviet Union's effort against the Nazis on the Eastern Front and for the British elsewhere"  ... but in the Post World War II section (imediately following) no mention is made of how the occupation ended, i.e. with the Iran crisis of 1946 where Kinzer says: "'Tudeh's growing power tempted the Soviet Union to make a daring strike against Iran. During World War II, the three Allied powers had agreed that they would withdraw their occupation forces from Iran six months after the end of hostilities, but when that deadline came in early 1946, Stalin ignored it. Citing vague threats to Soviet security, he declared that the Red Army would remain in Iran's northern province of Azerbaijan. When Tudeh activities there proclaimed a People's Republic of Azerbaijan, he ordered his troops to prevent Iranian soldiers from entering the province to reestablish their authority. Soon a local militia emerged, flush with weapons from Moscow. For a time it seemed that Azerbaijan might secede entirely, perhaps to join the Soviet Union or serve a jumping-off point for a Soviet move against Turkey. But Azerbaijanis remembered Reza Shah and rebelled at the prospect of another dictatorship. Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam, an exceptionally talented statesman, traveled to Moscow and managed to persuade Stalin to step back from the brink of confrontation. He withdrew his soldiers as General Schwarzkopf's gendarmes marched into Tabriz, the provincial capital. ... Jubilant Azerbaijanis celebrated by summarily executing all the Tudeh leaders they could find.' (p.65-66 All the Shah's Men)"

--23 November 2010, BoogaLouie (talk)

Lead has been trimmed
It took me so long to write this critique that at least the too long complaint has been in large part outdated by Nov 14 edits by Colipon --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ayatollahs secured the victory over Mosaddegh
Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Hossein Borujerdi and future Grand Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani were critical to the August 19 victory over Mosaddegh, according to Darioush Bayandor in his 2010 book. The Shi'ite clerics urged their supporters into the street en masse on August 19 in the same manner that they had done several times previously in the 20th century, and as they would do again in 1979 and 2009. Bayandor shows in his book that the CIA had no plans to deal with the failure of their coup on August 15, and that they did very little to promote the waves of pro-Shah demonstrations. Bayandor describes how the clerics were certain that Mosaddegh was leading the country into irreligion; he quotes Borujerdi saying Mosaddegh's "religious indifference" was bad for the nation. Bayandor details the events of August 18 and 19 to show that demonstrations in front of his summer home pushed Borujerdi into action. Bayandor says that the top clerics were fearful that Mosaddegh had arranged for the Shah to leave the country and never come back, a situation which would open the country up to Turkish-style secularism, breaking down traditional religious social structures and bringing Islam in Iran to its knees. Bayandor says that the Shi'ites acted to stop the apparent banishment of the Shah by Mosaddegh, rising up popularly against him on August 19. It's a pretty big break from orthodox thought, but Bayandor's assessment takes into account all the facts, judging each for its provenance and likelihood. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles on those two clerics say that they supported the shah, so Bayandor's account does not appear controversial. However we need to be careful not to imply that this necessarily meant the Muslim cleric leadership or Muslims in general supported the shah.  TFD (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Muslim clerics were against a secular republic such as was instituted in Turkey, and against the one which Mosaddegh appeared to be creating in Iran. They were in favor of keeping the traditional royal house because it was seen at that time as a bulwark against change. There was a great deal of popular affection and support for the Shah in 1953, encompassing all Iran. He had not yet begun his authoritarian crackdown. Top cleric Borujerdi said "the nation must have a king" when he was asked his views about the Shah leaving the country August 15 after the failed CIA coup on August 14. This was not at the level of a fatwa, not a demand for holy war, but it was just enough authority for clerics underneath him to spring into action and instigate street riots to stop Mosaddegh's changes. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * here are some quotes from authors talking about the coup and Mosaddeq's loss of support among Iranians. (Kurdo is trying to raise alarm against my collecting the quotes but I hope others find them useful). Much of it refers not to loss of support by clerics but by "the traditional middle class", as in "the widening gap between the traditional and middle classes within the National Front". Bear in mind one of the distinguishing features of the this traditional middle class was its Shia piety, i.e. support for Marja like Borujerdi. So to say influential clergy turned away from Mosaddegh is pretty much the same as saying the pious middle class withdrew their support.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Result parameter in infobox
In the military conflict infobox, I changed the result parameter from the first to the second example:
 * Results = The overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower, and replacement by Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi on 19 August 1953.
 * Results = The replacement of Mohammad Mosaddegh with General Fazlollah Zahedi as Iranian Prime Minister

Kurdo777 reverted this change, accusing me of "POV-driven removal".

The problem I had with the previous version was that it led the reader to conclusions not shared by all experts. Per WP:NPOV, we cannot state as fact anything that is significantly challenged. The assumption that Eisenhower's administration was successful in replacing Mosaddegh is an assumption which has been seriously challenged by Darioush Bayandor.

At Template:Infobox military conflict, the instructions regarding the 'result' parameter recommend saying nothing if there is differing opinion about the results. The instructions say to link to a section in the article which describes the outcome, or simply leave the parameter empty. I will be leaving the parameter empty, as the whole article discusses the outcome. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ayatollah Kashani's son
I removed a bit about Ayatollah Kashani's son, supposedly the "the second person who spoke on Radio Tehran announcing and celebrating the overthrow of Mosaddegh". The bit was offered as a contradiction to Kashani's assertion that Mosaddegh, the British and the Americans worked against him to undermine the role of Shia clerics. His son on the radio proves nothing; furthermore, the article text was supported by primary sources supposedly hosted at Cryptome (taken from the NYT secret files release), not secondary sources analyzing it for importance and relevance. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The attitude of Kashani and his son is dealt with in the Historical viewpoint in the Islamic Republic section. Needless to say the official IRI line (the coup against Mosaddegh was an imperialist plot but Mosaddegh was a Western stooge) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Article organization
The way the article reads at the moment, I miss a sense of the chronology of the coup. What I feel is missing is a single section that takes the reader through the steps of the coup. The chronology seems scattered between sections. At the same time the background to the coup seems overly large and could a bit more trimming reduce the number of words used to give the history of foreign interests and involvement in Iran in the preceding years. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct sir. Hope you can spare the time and patience to help fix it ... or if you can't at least side with those who are trying to fix it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * GraemeLeggett, you have done a good balanced job on this article. Good work. But please be mindful of the usual solicitations for  "siding" by the agenda-driven folks who are record calling this a "battle between good and evil", which needs to be "fixed" (read  "whitewashed"). Kurdo777 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Graeme, I think that the article needs to be made more readable by the beginner, put into plainer language, with clearer sections. This article has been on my radar for 18 months now—from the first I thought it was missing a clear chronology. CasualObserver'48, Work permit and Skywriter expressed this concern repeatedly in talk page discussions. Others have resisted this step. Me, I think it is important to have a good timeline structure, and I am getting closer to the point where I feel confident that I can wade in and fix the problems. All the involved editors will have to help, of course. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * perhaps a simple timeline of the coup and a bit either side could be constructed on a subpage which could then act as a guide for editors to hang the prose off. It could have dates with brief statements eg "dd/mm/yyyy: firmans signed by Shah" "dd/mm/yyyy: Troops put on readiness" "dd/mm/yyyy: national radio reports ...." GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea; that would be a great study aid. Binksternet (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have, out of personal interest, been reading some contempoary reporting of the events to get a flavour of the times. My library card gives online access to The Times archives. Interesting stuff - on the 20th the Times reported reports of Dr Fatemi being "torn to pieces" by a mob; that there were 9 hours of fighting in the streets with estimates of 300 killed; that "Dr Moussadek" (note spelling in UK papers) residence had been fortified; General Zahedi going on the radio to promise better wages and free medicine for the poor. I may be able to use some of the news reports to start a timeline, though they will need checking against post coup sources to see how much they were mangled in the telling. For the timeline might I suggest a subpage: 1953 Iranian coup d'état/timeline resource once it has fulfilled any use it can be deleted as superfluous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This Abadan Crisis timeline was created a while back and includes the events of the coup. It could also be called 1953 Iranian coup d'état Timeline as the 1953 Iranian coup d'état timeline redirects to it. "Abadan Crisis" was the name given to the AIOC nationalization and the angry British reaction to it that led up to the coup.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * the Abadan Crisis timeline looks a trifle flawed at first sight with the "significance" column c.f. Timeline of the Cuban Revolution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan to work on it after I've finished digesting the Bayandor book. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Some December 6 edits by Kurdo777 have some problems:
 * This adds "The formation of a military government under Shāh and headed by General Fazlollah Zahedi". Was the Shah not monarch of Iran when Mosaddeq was in power? He was. So wasn't Mosaddeq under the shah also?
 * This deletes "organized" in the sentence   ...  the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. (allegedly one of my "POV edits")   As I said above, the sentence the overthrow of ... Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States, "makes it sound as though CIA agents were driving the tanks and shelling Mosaddegh's house. They weren't. Is there a reliable source that uses the naked by for CIA etc. responsibility? The use of this little preposition makes a huge difference in the article." It may be that we want to rewrite that whole sentence in light of the Bayandor book but for now "organized" should be in the sentence.

It would be a lot easier to jump in revert what Kurdo does with a edit summary saying "rvt Kurdos POV edits") but I'm spending a lot of time on this explaining, trying to persuade, trying to do it by the (wikipedia) book. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Image text
I changed an image text from POV to neutral:
 * The CIA paid thugs to riot in Teheran to make it appear as though the CIA coup had popular support, according to the CIA account of the coup. August 19, 1953
 * Pro-Shah demonstrators in Teheran, August 19, 1953

The truth of what is shown in the photograph cannot be summed up by only the CIA account. There are more views than that, disputed versions. A neutral text is best for this photo. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who cares about CIA's own account, those in the picture are obviously just regular folks on the street who happen to be wielding knifes and clubs. [/Sarcasm} Kurdo777 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The are reasons why the text "The CIA paid thugs to riot in Teheran to make it appear as though the CIA coup had popular support, according to the CIA account of the coup." is not an acceptable caption.
 * the picture is of a newspaper photograph so therefore omits a possible context - that it is POV reporting of the event, rather than a recording of the event itself.
 * the picture does not show rioters, but (so far as I can tell) soldiers and armed civilians on a tank (possibly a Sherman, or related, from that front hull) in a urban setting: the individuals could be pro- or anti-coup.
 * the caption presents a single interpretation of the action, according to a single source: that those depicted are paid demonstrators.
 * even if true, the caption is clumsily written, 3 instances of CIA and 2 of coup: even (especially?) in disputed material readability should be an objective.
 * So I suggest it's time to find a consensus on a suitable caption for that image GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no context. The people shown in the picture are hired armed mobs/thugs, and led by Shaboon be Mokh. Those who are familiar with the topic, can easily recognize this. If you think the caption is clumsy, please propose a better one. But the part about the individuals in the picture being hired mobs, is a fact that will not be censored. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * References which support the paid character of these men will be required. Do you know the date of the photo? Do you know who paid them? They could have been paid by Shi'ite clerics, a possibility mentioned by Bayandor. Do you know where in Tehran this is? Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Shaboon be Mokh was leading the people in the picture. He was in the slammer at the time of the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring over this image continues, with no further participation by Wayiran or Kurdo777 on this talk thread. The CIA documents that assert 3000 paid thugs would start a demonstration on the streets of Tehran on August 19 have specifically been countered by Bayandor who says that this is a conflation of the intent to have thugs on August 15. Bayandor analyzes CIA traffic at the time and compares it to CIA records drawn up later. He concludes that the later version with footprints of Kermit Roosevelt was a self-serving promotion for the CIA who found it convenient that a similar sized crowd gathered on August 19. He cites CIA traffic which testifies to the CIA being surprised by demonstrations on the 19th, and he notes CIA leaders in the immediate aftermath writing analysis of the 19th who, astonishingly, take no credit for any of the uprising and overthrow.

Furthermore, it is not the place of image text to put forward opinions about what may have happened, if those opinions are challenged by experts such as Bayandor. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is still a bone of contention among the editors here. I have now moved the disputed image text into the body of the article where it belongs. The image itself should only be described neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, in this page protection request from Kurdo777, he asks for protection "to allow sufficient time for a resolution, through consensus on the talk page." Kurdo777, what resolution are you aiming for if you do not answer the points raised here by BoogaLouie about the main thug being in prison and by myself about the image text box not being the place for article text which is challenged by experts?
 * At Manual of Style (captions), the guideline says the image caption should be descriptive of the image itself. The image in this case shows unknown armed men and soldiers with a tank, as printed on the front cover of a Tehran weekly paper. Conjecture about the men being paid mobsters bought by the CIA is not appropriate to the caption, especially since the image has no direct connection through its source to that kind of analysis. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments requested
Should the 1953 Iran coup-related image at right include in its caption any text about CIA-paid demonstrators? Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No

 * No. The image comes to us without an explanation of what is portrayed, beyond the fact that the framing of the image is the front page of a Tehran weekly newspaper named Mosavar. The image source carries no assertion that CIA-paid men are pictured. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Doing so would be ORIGINAL RESEARCH and SYNTHESIS.  If secondary sources, or the newspaper the image is contained in, state this specifically about this image, then it would be fine.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Agree without a secondary source explaining the image its not possible to know exactly what is being shown. They could be pro-Shah or pro-Mossadegh. They could have been photographed any time in the events of the preceding week. I note also the image is cropped - would there have been a caption or headline with the original? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear who is who in this image. But if that's your concern, we could always replace the image with a more clear image depicting the leader of the mobs "Shaban Beemokh" or "Shaboon Bi Mokh"  whose role and activities are covered in many secondary source on this topic.  Or we could perhaps use this image  which comes with a caption from the photographer.   Kurdo777 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pretty clear" is an unverifiable opinion—you'll need some cites to make it clear to the rest of us. It's hard for me to believe you would question books from Palgrave Macmillan but then turn around and offer unverifiable photos from blogs. Regarding Shaban the Brainless, you are talking about a man who Gholam Reza Afkhami says was in jail during the August coup. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was not addressing you. The image is the front page of a famous Magazine, not some "image from a blog". As for Shaban Jafari, there are hundreds of sources documenting his role in the coup. He was in jail before the coup, not on the day of the coup when he was on the streets of Tehran handing out CIA's 100-dollar bills, and terrorizing the residents. He is literally the face of the coup. Afhami's claim is irrelevant. Besides the fact that he is another Royalist personality, and former official of  Shah's regime, the claim that Shaban was in Jail on August 19th is irrelevant, because it's a tiny minority viewpoint contradicting 99% of the academic sources.  Kurdo777 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So where are the photos of Shaban on August 19? There are none as he was in prison. There is no misinterpretation—in interviews Shaban was very open about the violent role he played in bringing down the prime minister. He was very truthful, too, says Afkhami, with his strong sense of javanmardi or chivalry; Shaban said he knows nothing about how the coup day progressed in the streets because he was in jail on the 19th. This assertion has been given weight by Darioush Bayandor, Gholam Reza Afkhami and Ardeshir Zahedi, so three highly placed Iranian diplomats agree. This is not a fringe viewpoint to be swept under the rug but a minority viewpoint to be relayed to readers. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, there are hundreds of academic sources documenting Shaban's role on that day. Shabon's unverifiable claims about himself, echoed and quoted by other Royalists like Afkhami or Zahedi, have absolutely no value, when all the historians say otherwise. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I am quite aware of the sources saying Shaban Jafari was on the street. You are wrong in your assertion that being in jail is an unverifiable claim by Jafari; it is substantiated by Afkhami and Bayandor. The fact that these two Iranian diplomats served the Shah does not alter their reliability. Instead of having "absolutely no value", their viewpoint has the value of two highly placed Iranian government figures, quite enough value to qualify as a significant minority viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The book Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in Iran (Gasiorowski, Byrne) the third of the books [ the link] delivers me to only says "also likely played a role", others say he was instrumental but not that he was personally on the street (may be a limitation of the googlebooks preview). One notes he was capable of putting the same "demonstrators" out for different factions on different days. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that perhaps this difference of opinion comes from differences as to what the purpose of the image is. To me it illustrates a breakdown in normal life; disruption of law and order. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this particular image is to illustrate the documented facts on the ground on that day, not to white-wash it with vague captions . Kurdo777 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The image does ilustrate armed men and soldiers on the streets - which were events of the day. It does not as provided identify a particular group. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a case WP:OBVIOUS. The cover is dated August 23, what "particular group" of armed men and soldiers do you think were on the streets proudly wielding their knives on a tank on that day? Kurdo777 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. When there is a dispute about a caption based on poor or nonexistent information/sources, we default to a neutral caption.  That a dispute about a caption has gone to RfC, tells me there are more serious problems to deal with here. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, there are more serious problems at root here. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes

 * Yes The caption is needed for context. According to CIA's own account of the coup, as well as the majority of academic sources on this topic, CIA-hired armed mobs/thugs were brought out to help the military execute the coup. The people in this picture are obviously not regular folks or civilians. They are clearly armed with knifes and clubs, and assisting the military. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak yes The image shows mobs hanging from the military equipment (tank) . Although the original picture's caption does not include the meaning of the image (due to the difficulties of saying so in that condition ), but when the image shows the thugs playing with heavy armed vehicle of army, the caption is clear .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * again weak yes - though the article deals with it, images are eye-catchign enough to have some important details. aLTHOUGH jsut the breif mention of 3-4 words. (perhaps cite the image caption too as an acomodation)(Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

Solicitation of changes of opinion by editors of this article
After giving a considered opinion, I was subsequently solicited at this diff by an editor from this article. This is not appropriate behaviour, it is rude, and it is WP:CANVASSing, a civility issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not cool. The flawed youtube TV program he linked for you emphasizes the opinion of Kennett Love, a New York Times reporter who is not referenced at all here in this article. A broader view of the question would include Ardeshir Zahedi's take on it, or Richard Cottam's, or Darioush Bayandor's. These men believe the CIA did not pay the August 19 street crowds. Per WP:NPOV, we cannot state as fact anything which has been seriously challenged, with expert observers in conflict. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo, thank you for clarifying that contacting an editor who has already commented on a RFC for a follow-up, is "s rude, and it is WP:CANVASSing". I'll make sure to bring that up, next time I see an editor from this page, doing it.
 * Binksternet. CIA hiring of the mobs is well-sourced and well-documented, nobody denies it, except the likes of Ardeshir Zahedi, who the Economist calls "one of the last surviving coup-makers from the 1953 coup". Kurdo777 (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are well-sourced and well-documented accounts which are in conflict with each other. Ardeshir Zahedi is an expert source. All the sources agree he was there on the spot, involved, an active observer. Later, he served as Iran's ambassador and diplomat to the US and UK. The man cannot be wished away, and his conclusions cannot be ignored. The Economist quote does not remove him as an expert source. Because of Zahedi and others who hold the same beliefs, per WP:NPOV, the supposed fact of street mobs on 19 August being paid by the CIA cannot be stated absolutely, it must be stated with attribution to the sources and with the other significant versions (Zahedi's) given the appropriate weight with attribution.
 * Fifelfoo's response to the RfC was perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's synthesis guidelines, per WP:NOR, and was one that did not need to be challenged on his talk page out of view of this forum. Here is where the issue is being decided, and your entry on his talk page was not collegial, was not helping build a case for your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're pushing Ardeshir Zahedi as an "expert source"? Ardeshir Zahedi is as much of a reliable source on this topic, as Joseph Goebbels would be on a topic dealing with Nazi war crimes . Kurdo777 (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to do better than that to take out the opinion of an international diplomat. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but Tariq Aziz is also "an international diplomat", and he is on death row for crimes against humanity. Being an international diplomat of a repressive regime is neither something one would want to advertise on his resume, nor does make one a reliable source on Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Zahedi is not on death row, so what are you trying to say about him that has any application to Aziz? Being a diplomat from a repressive regime does not stop a man from being an expert source. Being in prison doesn't dismiss an expert source, either. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who designated Zahedi an "expert source" or historian to begin with? One of the reasons why it's so difficult to accommodate you, is that you regard your own opinions as facts without even being aware of it. Zahedi is neither an academic, nor a historian. Not to mention that Zahedi was one of the architects of the very coup we are discussing here. Using Zahedi as a reliable source on this topic, would be no different than citing the Shah himself. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were writing about a famous building, wouldn't the architect's own thoughts about it be useful to the article? Yes, they would. Zahedi's position in relation to the coup is not questioned—he was right there in the thick of it. His observations are useful, and scholars who comment upon his observations can be used as well. The whole picture is what is needed here, not the absolutist version you want, the version where there is only one version. Such a method of article construction goes against NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And why not quote the Shah? Why not quote Mosaddegh? Why not quote anyone involved? They may have said interesting things, and scholars can comment on the quotes. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Emerging consensus
In the face of what appears to be a 'no' consensus on the RfC, I am addressing the issue at the article. I am moving the image text into the article, with its reference, so no substance is lost. I am replacing the image text with a neutral description. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the caption issue seems to have been resolved, shouldn't the RFC request be de-listed? Kurdo777 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Mossadegh-moussavi image text
I changed the image text underneath the image of Mosaddegh and Moussavi because it was putting too much text into the image box, text which should be put into the article body. I changed the text from the first version shown below to the second version:
 * Protesters displaying pictures of former prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh alongside the Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi during anti-government demonstrations in Iran. Mohammad Mosaddegh's is one of the visible symbols of Iran's opposition movement, also known as the Green Movement. Stephen Kinzer notes that Mosaddegh for Iranians is " the most vivid symbol of Iran's long struggle for democracy" and that for protesters carrying a picture of Mossadeq today means two things: "We want democracy" and "No foreign intervention".
 * Protesters displaying images of Mosaddegh alongside the Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi during demonstrations in Iran. The words above the images translate to "We won't let history repeat itself."

All the quotes in the above versions are from this Kinzer news article from 2009.

My edit moved the Kinzer opinion about "We want democracy" and "No foreign intervention" into the body of the article, directly following Khomeini being quoted about preventing "the influence of foreign powers". It flows better, and can be better understood in context.

In general, I am against trying to put opinion or analysis into image text boxes. Purely descriptive text goes there instead. Analysis may be countered by differing expert opinions, and an image text box is not the place for one conclusion which may differ from others. Here, Kinzer was given a solo platform for his opinion in the image text, but this is not necessary or desired. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome WikiProject U.S. Public Policy
This article has been in an unsatisfactory condition for years, and could definitely use some improvement. Edit warring here has resulted in a number of blocks, and in the driving away of some editors, frustrated that so little progress can be made. If this article is your U.S. Public Policy assignment, take some time to read the talk page archives to gain a sense of the issues. Your questions posed here will be answered fairly quickly—this page is on more than a few watchlists—lots of eyes on it. Best wishes from Online Ambassador Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's been in "unsatisfactory condition for years" why no tags warning the public? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the instructions at Template:POV... it says not to use the tag as a badge of shame, that the tag should only remain in place for a short time. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To do list: Bayandor's viewpoints
Ex-Iran diplomat and retired UN administrator Darioush Bayandor has brought new views to this topic in his 2010 book Iran and the CIA. After a cold look at the evidence, Bayandor concludes that the US-UK coup failed on August 15–16, driving the Shah away from Iran in fear. This action was viewed by many Iranians as the Shah being chased out of the country by Mosaddegh, an action that clerics felt went too far against the established monarchy and against established social patterns. A popular uprising brought mass demonstrations and on August 19 Mosaddegh was arrested—overthrown—replaced by a retired general. The Shah was welcomed back to Iran. Bayandor found no evidence to support the self-serving CIA story that placed CIA operatives in strategic positions following the initial coup failure. From August 16 to August 19 the CIA made no direct attempt to stimulate a second coup; instead, plans were put in motion to concentrate military power 600 km away from Tehran so that an alternate government could be declared later. The events of August 19 took the CIA by surprise.

Bayandor puts a far greater emphasis on internal conflict than on foreign intervention. Certainly, the British were a major factor in Iran's economy and politics, countered in the decade leading up to 1953 by the Tudeh, a leftist political party which was the most powerful one in Iran in the late-1940s. Here is a list of major players on the 1953 scene:
 * Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's prime minister who was making two very great changes: nationalizing the oil industry, and restructuring the government to take power away from the Shah and away from traditional lines of influence. Mosaddegh saw the Shah's court as the hub of conspiracy, not in keeping with an ideal democracy.
 * Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a popular figure, still loved by most people in Iran. His father shook up traditional oligarchic connections and left the new king insecure—his control of Iran's military was the only guarantee of his throne. Mosaddegh carried out maneuvers to wrest control of the military away from the Shah.
 * Activist Shia Islam clerics such as House Speaker Abol-Ghasem Kashani who backed Mosaddegh's nationalization program until July 1952 when Mosaddegh began a radical restructuring of the government. Clerics felt that the royal dynasty was an essential part of the balance of power in Iran, preserving a country in which religious piety was foremost. Mosaddegh and the Tudeh were seen as taking the country into religious indifference or even atheism. As well, Mosaddegh's emergency powers came at the expense of legislative powers held by Kashani and other Islamic politicians.
 * "Quietist" Ulama Shia Islam clerics, senior ones such as Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Hossein Borujerdi who did not want Iran to become a secular republic as Turkey had. Borujerdi gave the nod to more active clerics by saying "the nation must have a king" when the Shah left in a hurry on August 16. Normally quiet clerics joined with politicized, activist clerics to call massive street protests on August 19, the popular uprising which unseated Mosaddegh.
 * Tudeh Party of Iran, leftist political party made up of old communists, new social democrats and leftist intellectuals. The peak of the Tudeh was in 1946; reversals and purges brought the number down in 1949. By 1953 the party was partially restored, with perhaps 100k members and 300k non-member sympathizers. Tudeh warnings and street protests August 15–16 foiled the CIA coup plan.
 * National Front (Iran), Mosaddegh's political party power base, a group formed to nationalize the oil industry. The NF did not take an active role in the coup process in August 1953.
 * Purged pro-Shah military leaders such as Army General Fazlollah Zahedi and Air Force General Hedayatollah Guilanshah. Mosaddegh removed a number of powerful officers from active duty—these officers conspired to regain power, to restore traditional lines of influence.
 * Right-wing politicians, about one third of the Parliament, opposed to what they saw as the removal of the Shah, opposed to restructuring of the government. The political right joined with purged military to plan Mosaddegh's removal.
 * British oil interests wished to take from Iran as much oil as possible with as little expense as possible. Brits organized a world boycott of Iranian oil after nationalization, and plotted to overthrow Mosaddegh. Both the Shah and Mosaddegh profoundly resented British machinations. British agents in Iran helped the U.S. agents with their coup plans.
 * The U.S. government was ambivalent about helping British interests in Iran. Britain was a close ally but also a competitor. State department fears of Soviet influence in Iran turned the Eisenhower administration against Mosaddegh in early 1953. From April 1953 the U.S. CIA worked to destabilize Iran's political scene by bribing politicians and printing opinion pieces against Mosaddegh. The plan aimed to have a large group of legislators take sanctuary inside the Parliament building followed by a vote to unseat Mosaddegh. The Shah did not approve, and because his involvement was seen as crucial, he was blackmailed into agreement by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt. The Shah changed the plan into one of arresting Mosaddegh, dismissing him as prime minister and naming a successor by royal decree. This plan failed when the small force arresting Mosaddegh was stopped by larger Tudeh and military units.

An important part of Bayandor's analysis is a timeline of activities to make sense of the sequence August 15 to 19, 1953. He judges parts of the CIA story bogus such as the supposed connection between the CIA and the 3000 paid protesters who started at around 8 am August 19 in Tehran's bazaar area. Bayandor notes that there is no CIA order for this action, and the protest took the CIA by surprise. He posits the payments as coming from Shia clerics, or elsewhere, and describes this kernel of protest as being quickly subsumed within a mass protest of unpaid pro-Shah demonstrators. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "To do list" perhaps for your personal weblog, as this is all a clear violation of WP:Fringe, and if you try to add any of these fringe theories to the article, it will reverted and reported on the fringe theories notice board. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I am an editor from Fa.Wiki. IMHO, the claim that a well-documnted coup was a "puplar uprising" is clearly a fringe view pointPasitigris1 (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. At WP:FRINGE it says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." for our articles. Bayandor's book has been peer reviewed by exactly the peers who are used here as the mainstream view. The imprint is a well-respected one.
 * Instead, Bayandor's view is a scholarly view which is like some others and unlike many. Per WP:NPOV we must not state as fact any conclusion reached by one group of experts which is in serious conflict with other experts. Bayandor's views are not mainstream but they are not fringe. They must be addressed in the article per NPOV, and we cannot state with certainty anything he challenges. What we do is state all the conflicting views with attribution to the sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bayandor's book is not " peer reviewed". Look up what " peer reviewed" means, before making such grand claims. Bayandor is a Pahlavi regime apologist/former official and a negationist, whose fringe views are at odd with the academically-accepted historiography of the coup, and as a result, will not be given any weight in this article or any other Wikipedia article on this topic, per our polices on fringe views and undue weight. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So much bluster! You make very strong assertions but you have no convincing underpinnings to hold them up. Bayandor's book was published by Palgrave Macmillan, a respected academic and professional imprint, and the book was reviewed by Bayandor's peers. The list of people who reviewed it is impressive: Shahram Chubin at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy; Charles W. Naas, deputy U.S. ambassador to Iran in the 1970s; Houshang Nahavandi, author of The Last Days and former head of the Tehran University; Mark Gasiorowski, a political scientist cited often on these pages; Ervand Abrahamian, another political scientist cited a lot in this article (regarding Bayandor's book, he "recommended its publication"); Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a top think tank analyst of Iran; and Ardeshir Zahedi, former Iran diplomat, the Shah's ambassador to London and Washington. Bayandor thanks the contributions of many more people who read early drafts and provided criticism: Stephen Langlie of USAF MAAG who was eyewitness in Tehran August 1953, Anandi Rasanayagam of the United Nations, Jean Swoyer of the American Foreign Service, and former Bayandor colleagues Iraj Amini, Jamshid Anvar, Said Amirdivani, Bijan Dolatabadi, Dr. Ahmad Minai, Parviz Mahajer, Ali Seirafi and Dr. Ahmad Tehrani.
 * What we have here is a scholar with a differing opinion, one that must be taken into account. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Until the academic community responds to Bayandor's opinions, we cannot provide any weight to them. If we want to cover them in WP, the best way would be to create a separate article about the book.  Just as we may rely on this book to explain the views of scholars about the coup, we must wait for subsequent books and articles in the academic press to determine what weight this new view should receive.  TFD (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To do list: fix long standing problems
What about the glaring inaccuracies in the lead that I've been trying to draw attention to for over a month? Two pick two of the worst from my post above:
 * The first sentence: The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.   The Coup was an overthrow "by", rather than "orchestrated by" or "organized by".  It makes it sound as though CIA agents were driving the tanks and shelling Mosaddegh's house. They weren't. Is there a reliable source that uses the naked by for CIA etc. responsibility? The use of this little preposition makes a huge difference in the article.


 * Motivation for US involvement in the coup described as the:  ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.Who says there was a "the slim possibility" or that this "produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat"? No source is given but  Here are 12 sources talking about fear of communism as the US motivation for the coup. One historian that I know of - Abrahamian - has questioned the seriousness of the threat. And is quoted at length in the article.

If there's no reaction this time I'll poll all editors who have been active on this page for the last few months, and if there's no interest I'll ask for a 3rd opinion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your points are certainly valid. Fear of communism was the turning point for US involvement, Eisenhower's administration would not have considered it otherwise. Bayandor agrees; I gather you have been reading the book? Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the academic sources discussing the 1953 coup, use the term "overthrown by", which means the overthrow was led, organized, and executed by X. As for the motive, the issue has been discussed a lot in the past, and I don't know who added the line in question which seems to be an attempt at a compromise by a conservative editor, as most of the other editors here, including myself, have been opposed to any mention of the "communist" excuse on basis of WP:undue, as that theory is outdated and has been pretty much dismissed as a smokescreen, as result of the recent declassification of the records and the subsequent academic material written on the topic by notable historians such as Abrahamian.  Kurdo777 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Most" is putting too strong an emphasis on the sources. Many use the phrase "overthrown by" in regard to the CIA in Iran, in Chile, in Guatemala, etc., but most and certainly not all. Others use phrases such as:
 * "...overthrown by forces who reestablished the autocratic power of the Iranian monarch..."
 * "However, four days later, Mossadegh was overthrown by a counter-coup planned and supported by the CIA and MI6, and the Shah was restored to power."
 * "Mossadegh was overthrown by a coup arranged in part by British and American intelligence services."
 * "Three days later, Mossadegh was overthrown by a coup backed by the Tehran police and some military officers..."
 * "was overthrown by a CIA-sponsored coup in 1953."
 * "...overthrown by a mob of paid hoodlums led by officers of the royal guard..."
 * "Mossadeq himself was overthrown by a CIA-inspired coup d'etat..."
 * "In August 1953 he was overthrown by a military coup, aided and part-funded by American agents with some British support..."
 * Clearly we can rephrase the sentence to accurately reflect the dynamic rather than leave the specifics up to the reader's imagination. We do not have to use the simplistic construction "overthrown by the CIA" which is open to misinterpretation. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Replies
Yes Binkster, I've read Bayandor's book and am cooking up ways of adding it to the article. And yes, I agree that Bayandor states that cold war fears motivated the US, though he seems pretty dismissive of it as a neurosis and not serious rational fear.

Most of the academic sources discussing the 1953 coup, use the term "overthrown by" [the CIA etc.] <BR>Kurdo, can you name one? Now that I mention it, have you EVER provided any evidence to back up your assertions on this page? I can't remember a single time. <BR>"most of the other editors here, including myself, have been opposed to any mention of the "communist" excuse on basis of WP:undue. <BR>I put it to you that the reason the lead reads the way it does is not because of what most of the other editors here want, but because you are willing to edit war more than the editors (such as myself) who have taken the trouble to read the sources. And again, can you name one Reliable Source (scholarly) other than Abrahamian that poo-poos US fear of the Soviets as a motivation for the coup? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed polling question I'm going to be asking editors
I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue revising two sentences in the article lead.
 * Changing the first sentence from:
 * The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. 
 * to: The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. 
 * (NOTE: a new book (Iran and the CIA) provides some scholarly evidence that this sentence should be changed further but for now this is more accurate.)


 * changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
 * from  ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
 * to: the '' ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The change is discussed here and reasons for the change also here --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just sent the above to Alborz Fallah, GraemeLeggett, and the Four Duces. Hope I haven't missed anyone. --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposed per reasons given in previous discussion. Kurdo777 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat opposed.
 * 1. The current wording for communist motives, is more NPOV/neutral.
 * 2. I wouldn't mind "organized and led by" or "organized and executed by"
 * --Wayiran (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhat pro
 * The use of "organized" or "orchestrated" seems to fit with my understanding of how the coup played out. I'm sure the those particpating the coup did not identify themselves directly with the US and acting directly for its purposes as opposed to their own purposes which happened to be aligned with those of the US. I had a look over some other coup articles to see if there were any similar cases but didn't spot one.
 * No opinion currently on the global-rise-of-communism issue.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhat pro. There is differing scholarly opinion about the role played by CIA and MI6, With Bayandor saying that the coup plan led only indirectly to the arrest and replacement of Mosaddegh. Of the two choices you offer, the second one is the better one. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comment: I welcome GraemeLeggett's suggestion to use the word "orchestrated". But I'd go a step further and propose "orchestrated and engineered" or "orchestrated and planned"? Would that work for you GraemeLeggett? Kurdo777 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * well "planned" logically goes before "orchestrated" but the two together is over-egging the pudding for a lede. "Engineered" would be an alternative to "orchestrated" though it implies more finesse (sophistication?) in the operation than I understand was the case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we be sticking to the verbs the RS's have used: "staged", "sponsored" (here), or "planned and supported," "arranged in part", etc.  (here) --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many RS's have also used "by". I think "planned and orchestrated" is the most accurate alternative. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a coup "staged by", "sponsored by". Who's said a coup "planned and orchestrated by" the CIA or simply a "coup by the CIA ...."? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Orchestrated" is enough—it includes the concepts of "planned" and "initiated". Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Neuter and Opposed.
 * 1.Changing "by the intelligence agencies" to organized ; from one point of view it is somehow giving more weight to the local elements of the coup that is a new concept and is not exactly accepted by mainstream historians . From other point of view, someone may consider the sentence as by the intelligence agencies to be WP:LABEL . So I'm neuter about the change.
 * 2.Changing to "... falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist ..." omits many historical reasons of UK and US in making a coup in Iran such as Iranian oil industry and I don't think is a good change . How can we decrease the motives of large beings such as states to only one reason !? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

... so then, any objections to ...
changing
 * The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. 

to
 * The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.  ("orchestrated" in bold added for emphasis, won't appear in the change.)

I probably shouldn't have combined the two changes (the 2nd change concerning resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union ....). I'll continue with the arguement for the second change later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A question - since the lede should summarise the article text, is the mention of British intelligence giving them undue prominence since the article barely mentions them and gives the credit chiefly to the CIA?
 * A thought - would a footnote explaining the meaning of 28 Mordad be useful while you're at it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the word orchestrated and the deletion of the "slim possibility" bit. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Overthrown by" yields more results in Google Book and Google Scholar than any other alternative. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Replies
GraemeLeggett <BR>
 * question: the UK SSI was active in trying to undermine Mosaddeq long before the CIA started organizing a coup in July 1953. (see Abadan Crisis timeline) It had a much longer history in Iran. It had assets the CIA used. Hense I think it would be better to talk more about UK intelligence in the article than to talk less about them in the lede.
 * comment: Agree that a footnote explaining 28 Mordad is the date of the coup in the Persian calendar would be good.I'll add it now. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo claim: "Overthrown by" yields more results in Google Book and Google Scholar than any other alternative. <BR>My check:
 * Google Books
 * "overthrown by cia" iran - 17 results
 * "overthrown by the cia" iran - 53 results (correction per Kurdo777 post)
 * "CIA-sponsored coup" iran - 364 results
 * "CIA-inspired coup" iran - 61 results
 * "coup organized by the CIA" iran - About 38 results in Google Books
 * "coup orchestrated by the CIA" iran - about 10 results
 * "CIA-generated coup" iran" - 4 results

--BoogaLouie (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar
 * "overthrown by the cia" iran - results 14
 * "CIA-sponsored coup" iran results 143
 * "CIA-inspired coup" iran results 23
 * "CIA organized coup" iran - results 22
 * "coup orchestrated by the CIA" iran - results 6
 * "CIA-generated coup" iran - did not match any articles
 * BoogaLouie is deliberately manipulating the Google and Google Scholar results. For "orchestrated by", which is the option he is supporting, he used "by the CIA" which is the grammatically correct terminology, but for "overthrown by" which he opposes, he used the grammatically-incorrect "by CIA" and deliberately omitted "the" in order to manipulate the results, and make his preferred wording, look like the more academically-accepted option. The true results for "overthrown by the CIA" is 54 on Google Books  and 14 on the Google Scholar, which proves that "by the" is the more academically-accepted terminology. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an honest if stupid and self-serving mistake. I've corrected it above. Even with the correction there are other alternative phrases that yield more results in Google Book and Google Scholar than "overthrown by the cia" --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kurdo777, what happened to your earlier suggestion of "planned and orchestrated"? I think orchestrated by itself is the best word choice; it includes the concept of planned and it includes the concept of directed. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More to do: US motivation in the coup and the article lead
As mentioned above, I probably shouldn't have combined the two changes polled above, so I'm re-doing the polling on the second question (was the US worried about a Soviet takeover) as I think I didn't explain it well the first time. My apologies.

The lead describes the Cold War fears of the US in its motivation in trying to overthrow Mosaddeq as the: '' ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.''

But what does the rest of the article say? <BR> The US motivation section of the article does quote one prominent Iranian political historian (Abrahamian) poo-pooing the idea that the cold war was involved. But it then goes on to mention at length two other books that describe the importance of the cold war in US motivation:
 * Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in Iran (Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski, Malcolm Byrne), a scholarly book writen for the purpose of "presenting a balanced, comprehensive account of how and why Mosaddeq fell," (p.262) has this to say:
 * "it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring." Gasiorowski concludes "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.S. officials to undertake the coup."


 * All the Shah's Men (by Kinzer, 2003), a fairly recent and very popular book written about the coup that expresses considerable affection for Mosaddeq, and noooo love for the Shah or the CIA. It's quoted thusly:
 * "A great sense of fear, particularly the fear of encirclement, shaped American consciousness during this period. ... Soviet power had already subdued Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. Communist governments were imposed on Bulgaria and Romania in 1946, Hungary and Poland in 1947, and Czechoslovakia in 1948. Albania and Yugoslavia also turned to communism. Greek communists made a violent bid for power. Soviet soldiers blocked land routes to Berlin for sixteen months. In 1949 the Soviet Union successfully tested a nuclear weapon. That same year, pro-Western forces in China lost their civil war to communists led by Mao Zedong. From Washington, it seemed that enemies were on the march everywhere. Consequently, "the United States, challenged by what most Americans saw as a relentless communist advance, slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge." [86]
 * The section ends with still more endorsements for the motivation of the cold war:
 * Some historians including Douglas Little,[87] Abbas Milani[88] and George Lenczowski[89] have echoed the view that fears of a communist takeover or Soviet influence motivated the U.S. to intervene.

I have to say the sources in the article certainly jive with other ones I've come across in reading about the coup.

So the problem is that it seems if there is a "slim possibility" in explaining the US motivation it is that the US government was not worried about a Soviet takeover. The "controversy" seems to be among one historian (Abrahamian), and not historians plural. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed polling question #2 I'm going to be asking editors
I'm doing another polling of editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of revising a phrase in the article lead. It's a repeat but I didn't explain it well in the first poll.


 * changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
 * <S>from  ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
 * to: the '' ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". (see question 2.1 below)

The reason for the change is discussed here and is, briefly, that the sentence as is doesn't match the rest of the article, (and doesn't match most of the books that deal with US motivation in the coup). The US motivation section gives only one author (Abrahamian) who thinks the US leadership was not seriously worried about the possibility that Iran might become a communist country, while listing several who thought cold war motivation of the US was important. An even more thorough examination of the sources dealing with issue is here. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

‎BoogaLouie, didn't we discuss this "proposal" already two sections above, and several times in the past? Why are we going in circles here? Asking the same question over and over, hoping for a different result, is is not an appropriate practice. Please read Canvassing. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This question is valid, and is a result of there being no clear consensus established in previous attempts to determine consensus. If there had been clear consensus, we would be going in circles, but we are not. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The polling question has been sent to "editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article" which as far as I can tell includes Xavexgoem, GraemeLeggett, Alborz Fallah, Kurdo777, Binksternet, Wayiran, The Four Deuces. If there is no consensus I'll do a RfC. (I should have added this yesterday) -- BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kurdo777, the link you asked me to read -- Canvassing -- warns against
 * "forum shopping (raising an issue on successive discussion pages until you get the result you want), sock puppetry and meat puppetry (bringing real or fictional outside participants into the discussion to create a false impression of support for your viewpoint), and tendentious editing."
 * Which of these are you suggesting that I'm doing? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The sources cited above mention the FEAR and Anxiety of U.S., so it wasn't certain, and it would be better to call it as a possibility.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Polling results

 * support - I think the second choice with expansionist Soviets is the better choice. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC) (moved by BoogaLouie (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Proposed polling question 2.1 I'm going to be asking editors
Aliwiki (above) and Kurdo777 (here) have both made complaints about the proposed changes that I think have merit, so I'm revising the change so that "Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"[7]", refers to the US administration point of view and not a statement of fact. <BR>The to-be-revised text and revised text are in italics. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Current wording

 * "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup. "


 * "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat."

Proposed change

 * "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". "


 * "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Communist Soviet Union. " --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again the polling question will be sent to "editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article," which as far as I can tell includes Xavexgoem, GraemeLeggett, Alborz Fallah, Kurdo777, Binksternet, Wayiran, The Four Deuces. If there is no consensus by 2-10-2011 I'll do a RfC. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I submit my copyedited versions of the above changes:
 * "Initially, the UK mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott while using Iranian agents to undermine Iran's government. By 1953 both the UK and the US had more conservative governments and the new US Eisenhower administration reversed its predecessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". "
 * "The tangible benefits the US reaped from the overthrow of Iran's government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the prevention of Iran falling under the influence of Soviet communism. "
 * These suggestions have some corrections to grammar, wiki syntax, and some changes in meaning. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Responses
What's the reason to repeat "Soviet Empire" two times? Why one time is not enough?Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Soviet" is mentioned twice (though "Soviet Communist `empire`" is mentioned only once) in the proposed change to the lead, but I hope this section explains that the Soviet Union was a big, big fear to the 1953 American government. (Note I put "empire" in quotes.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Changing wording in the lead on US motivation in the coup
Should the article change wording in its lead on the grounds that it currently does not reflect the rest of the article or the opinions of historians/scholars writing about the 1953 coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Current wording

 * "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott. while using Iranian agents to undermine his government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup. "


 * "The tangible benefits the United States reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat."

Proposed change

 * "Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott, while using Iranian agents to undermine the government in Iran. By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new Eisenhower administration reversed its predecessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". "


 * "The tangible benefits the US reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth as well as the prevention of possibility that Iran might fall under the influence of the Soviet Union. "

Reason for proposed change
The change attempts to make the lead follow more closely the rest of the article and the opinions of historians/scholars dealing with the 1953 coup.

The lead describes the Cold War fears of the US in its motivation in trying to overthrow Mosaddeq as the: '' ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.''

But what does the rest of the article say? <BR> The US motivation section of the article does quote one prominent Iranian political historian (Abrahamian) poo-pooing the idea that the cold war was involved. But it then goes on to mention at length two other books that describe the importance of the cold war in US motivation:
 * Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in Iran (Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski, Malcolm Byrne), a scholarly book written for the purpose of "presenting a balanced, comprehensive account of how and why Mosaddeq fell," (p.262) has this to say:
 * "it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran, and that the involvement of U.S. companies was sought mainly to prevent this from occurring." Gasiorowski concludes "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.S. officials to undertake the coup."


 * All the Shah's Men (by Kinzer, 2003), a fairly recent and very popular book written about the coup that expresses considerable affection for Mosaddeq, and noooo love for the Shah or the CIA. It's quoted thusly:
 * "A great sense of fear, particularly the fear of encirclement, shaped American consciousness during this period. ... Soviet power had already subdued Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. Communist governments were imposed on Bulgaria and Romania in 1946, Hungary and Poland in 1947, and Czechoslovakia in 1948. Albania and Yugoslavia also turned to communism. Greek communists made a violent bid for power. Soviet soldiers blocked land routes to Berlin for sixteen months. In 1949 the Soviet Union successfully tested a nuclear weapon. That same year, pro-Western forces in China lost their civil war to communists led by Mao Zedong. From Washington, it seemed that enemies were on the march everywhere. Consequently, "the United States, challenged by what most Americans saw as a relentless communist advance, slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge." [86]
 * The section ends with still more endorsements for the motivation of the cold war:
 * Some historians including Douglas Little,[87] Abbas Milani[88] and George Lenczowski[89] have echoed the view that fears of a communist takeover or Soviet influence motivated the U.S. to intervene.

I have to say the sources in the article certainly jive with other ones I've come across in reading about the coup.

So the problem is that it seems if there is a "slim possibility" in explaining the US motivation it is that the US government was not worried about a Soviet takeover. The "controversy" seems to be among one historian (Abrahamian), and not historians plural. [pasted from above]

I'd like to thank in advance any editors commenting on the request as this article has been disputed for well over a year now and IMHO needs some outside blood. I've polled (above) editors active on this page but got little response. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Responses
Well, you make a pretty compelling case. My understanding has always been that of course Cold War geopolitics was an important factor (not necessarily the only factor) in the situation. Think of it this way: how could they not be? Of course there were discussions at the highest level of government about the situation - if there hadn't been, the leaders of the US and the allies would have been grossly negligent idiots. And of course the question was raised "Where do the Russians fit in all this"? If the question wasn't raised the leaders would have been grossly negligent idiots.

That doesn't prove anything - the leadership could then have reached the conclusion that Mosaddeq was not going to cozy up the Russians, period, or that Iran was a nothing country and not worth worrying about. But that would have been out of character. These people were hyper-aware of the Russian angle on everything else, and they didn't write off any place. I doubt that they could have been confident that Mosaddeq wouldn't cozy up to the Russians. On what could they have based such confidence? Even today nobody really knows what he would have done.

If it was just the oil, what about Chile (quite a bit later)? They didn't have any oil. Maybe you had to have been around back then - it was Russians Russians Russians all the time, believe me. We fought a whole huge war basically to keep the Russian Navy out of Cam Rahn Bay - the idea of a Russian friendly port on the Persian Gulf would be just the kind of thing to gave Allied leadership the absolute heebie-jeebies. This is how they thought. They thought about the Russian Navy, and the Russian Air Force, and where it might put bases to cut off our supply lines if the balloon ever went up.

And if it was just the oil, what about other countries that nationalized their fields. We didn't overthrow all of them. (None of this is to say that Iranian oil wasn't a factor. I'm sure it was.)

OK, all that is basically my own personal opinion. But I am inclined by my experience to be quite open to the sources that you cite. The whole "slim possibility" thing is way off base. It is wrong, and misleading. So I ...


 * support your proposed changes. Herostratus (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (edited by me (line break, asterisk, bold) for clarity) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User Herostratus, I would like to remind that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy as mentioned here, so you must provide your reasons for supporting or opposing something, and votes alone have no weight. --Aliwiki (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support proposed changes. I copyedited the proposed text for spelling, style, punctuation and overlinking. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support proposed change. As I read it, the proposed change would increase the emphasis on American/British fear of communist take over in Iran.  It would seem as though the RSs offer back the conclusion that that fear was a primary motivator.  I'd confess though that I'm not an expert on this period of history. NickCT (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User NickCT I am asking you a question by giving an example of a period of history that you may be familiar. Let's turn back to 5 centuries ago; I can provide some sources which increase the emphasis that European colonists motivation for mass killing of the American indigenous was that Europeans had the fear of the so-called non-civilized life of indigenous people. Then do you give me the right to increase the emphasis of this motivation, and decrease the emphasis of the motivation of occupation of the fertile land of America?--Aliwiki (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support proposed change for reasons given above. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed per reasons given over and over by several editors, in the past. Not neutral, not factual, and not encyclopedic. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't summarize some of the "reasons given over and over by several editors, in the past" can you at least give a link to them? If my memory serves me correctly the reasons you've given in the past against edits like the current proposed one (i.e. that cold war was a motivator for the US in the coup), is that sources supporting the edit were "cherry picked" ... but you've never provided evidence, never given the non-cherrypicked sources (aside from the one author Abrahamian). If I'm wrong can you correct me ... with some evidence?? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed the proposed changes are POV, and advocate a neo-con world view. --Wayiran (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you can opposed neo-con nonsense and support the edit!!! The Gasiorowski and Kinzer (source authors above) are both highly critical of the coup and other US policies!!! To the very best of my knowledge none of the other sources -- Little, Abbas Milani, George Lenczowski -- have any time for neocons either!!! --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed this matter has been discussed before and I don't know why it's repeating several times again and again. The proposed changes is in fact non-factual, as for example it's exaggerating the role of U.S. fear, instead of reporting what was the situation in reality.--Aliwiki (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you be a little more specific about what is non-factual? Do you consider the sources above to be non-factual? If so, why? What about them is less than WP:RS? They are used throughout the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular edit has not been proposed before (I attempted to change it response to your and Kurdo's earlier criticism actually, but never mind)
 * Let's say there are several parameters and motivation for the coup. Each parameter has its own weight and the weight of these parameters differ from each other. The main problem of new wording is that it's changing the weights of parameters by exaggerating just anxiety of U.S. for USSR to give it more weight that the oil motivation which has the highest weight.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What does the new wording says? Two things: the US government feared "Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"," (empire in quotes), and it gets rid of the phrase "... although the latter motivation [i.e. prevention of the possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union] produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat" (because there was only one historian who thought so).
 * I've provided evidence from reliable sources (WP:RS) that the US government was worried about the Soviets. What factual evidence do you have that they were not? Not that they shouldn't have been worried, but that "anxiety of U.S. for USSR" was exaggerated "to give it more weight than the [more important] oil motivation," (besides the one scholar Abrahamian). This question is key because the claim (that oil, not cold war, motivated the coup) has been repeated over and over but not demonstrated by any scholar I know of who's looked at the coup closely (with the possible exception of Abrahamian who argues it in a short article quoted in the article). --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing and marginalizing a part or some parts of a historical incident, can make a statement non-factual.  By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments and the new Eisenhower administration reversed its predecessor's opposition to a coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist empire. A reader will understand that the motivation of the coup was fear of US from USSR, while surly this was not the only and main motivation.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the "Reason for proposed change" section above. There's an entire book devoted to who/what was responsible for the coup quoted there: "it seems more plausible to argue that U.S. policymakers were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran ..." This book and the others which come to the conclusion that fear of "communist takeover" was the motivation for the coup are in no way excusing the US government or even agreeing the US government was right that Iran would/could have joined the Soviet bloc/"empire" without a coup. We have been arguing about this issue for something like two years here. If I am "Whitewashing and marginalizing a part or some parts of a historical incident" concerning the US motivation WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The fact that the possibility of Iran going over to the Soviet side was, in fact, quite slim does not represent the assessment of the rabid anti-Communist leadership of the United States at the time. Don't forget that in July 1953, the war in Korea "ended" with some 40k+ American casualties and humongous monetary investment, and that war was fought over a country with no major oil reserves.  Certainly oil was a factor, even a major one, but it's all too easy to project the currently insane status of oil in geopolitics inappropriately to a period when it was not as central as it is now. siafu (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess one way to frame the dispute here is whether oil was a motivator for the US government because it wanted US companies and stockholders to have it and profit from it, or because they wanted to prevent the USSR from controlling it and using it geopolitically. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User Saifu, we can't compare Korea situation with Iran's one because five years prior to Korea war, US occupied the southern part of the peninsula and by the beginning of the war US had control of that region, while before 1953 coup, US had no control over Iran. Furthermore, just behavior of the UK soon after nationalization of oil in Iran is enough to prove how important was the role of oil in that era.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're venturing even further far afield here; the real question is, what is the consensus view of the community of historians that have analyzed this issue? AFAICT, it is not that oil was the main driver.  I was merely presenting the Korea analogy because some users seem to have a hard time even believing that the US government could engage in absurd activities based on nothing more than anti-communist sentiment: Korea, Chile, Nicaragua-- these all should bring this into focus for doubters. siafu (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your examples are completely misleading. As I mentioned before, US hadn't intervention in Iran before the 1953 coup while it had long-time intervention in all of the countries you mentioned and US had the anxiety of losing its benefit in those countries. The Korea war began in 1950 while you forgot that the control of the south Korea was with US since 1945!The situation in Nicaragua and Chile were similar. Intervention of US in Nicaragua started in 1909, and in Chile it has much more longer history.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that you seem to have an odd view of history-- it's not as if the United States intervention in Nicaragua in 1909 and the anti-Communist support of the Contras in the 80s are a single continuous intervention (same thing for Chile-- I was referring to the coup of 1973). The truly misleading aspect here is the conduct of the debate: we should not be engaging in OR, but representing the state of scholarly consensus on the matter.  Cite sources, or just stop arguing; this is not a forum. siafu (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The matter is not complicated. US had intervention in Korea, Nicaragua, and Chile and it had the fear of losing its benefits there (and be captured by the other superpower of the era, USSR), but US didn't have intervention in Iran before the coup of 1953. There is no odd view in this simple historical fact.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you really don't seem to be getting it, I recommend you read WP:FORUM. See points #1 and #3.  If this is so uncomplicated, then you should have no problem convincing the rest of us with sources instead of trying to resolve this by direct debate.  siafu (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Claiming that oil was a non-factor, is historical revisionism . For the US,  oil interest was always the biggest factor in this coup, here is proof , starlight from the horse's mouth.  Kurdo777 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed The proposed wording gives too much weight to one theory of motivation, at the expense of others. NPOV says that all important POVs must be addressed here. OK! There was fear of Communism but let's say how much it was serrious. It is not fair to address one POV but not the other.Penom (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see "Reason for proposed change" section above. We've been looking at theory of motivation for the coup in all kinds of books and found only one scholar who doubts the cold war was a serious motivation for the US in the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support but not for the reasons given above. I don't think the first sentence speaks about the USA and UK's motivations, it's trying to say that, although they were heavily motivated by the fear of communism, this fear was misplaced. While true in my opinion, this belongs later in the article. It seems clear to me that the USA and UK really were afraid of Iran aligning with the USSR. Whether or not they were idiots for holding that fear is not germane to whether it motivated them to act. The proposed change is clearer. thx1138 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed the sentence is talking about the US/UK motivations. That how heavy are these motivations is the matter. Oil was the heaviest one, wasn't it? If yes, why should we misinform the readers?--Aliwiki (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is wikipedia. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources ..." (Five_pillars).  If Oil was the heaviest" motivation, where are the "verifiable, authoritative sources" saying so?  --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in that agree with thx1138, the motivations of the US/UK are their motivations whether ill-considered or not. Whether the motivation was to deny the USSR an ally or new satellite or just it's supply of oil. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment has a problem. We are not discussing about which were the motivations, but the main point is that how much each motivation should be considered. Should the weight of US/UK fear be considered more than the oil matter?--Aliwiki (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see "Reason for proposed change" section above.
 * Opposed Wikipedia is a global project, the lead should not be dominated by American conservative POV, the rest of world doesn't see it this way. Acoording to proposer's logic, we should put the lead of Iraq war, that the US motviation to invade Iraq was the fear of Iraq's WMDs.--danghula (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Put something in the lede of Iraq War? Like "Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion". The Iraq war is a complex situation but the lede does mention that the US said it was concerned about WMDs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User Danghula's example is appropriate. In Iraq war, US and its western allies politicians understated their real motivation behind exaggeration of WMDs (which shamefully they themselves gave them to Iraq few year before!). Focusing on this article, exaggeration of a motivation that remained just as fear and understating the real motivation of oil is obvious POV pushing, whitewashing and biasing the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The coup was over 50 years ago. Scholars have had time and opportunity to look at declassified documents, memos, cables, etc. about what Eisenhower, the Dulles brothers, etc., told each other in private about the coup. We don't need to take politicians word's for it about what they were thinking. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed "motivation ", "excuse " , "Fear "  and "Greed " : Can we uncover the reason of any historical change in Wikipedia? Does the historians themselves think they can?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, the historians themselves do think they can uncover some of the truths. What's the point of the study of history if you can't!! See "Reason for proposed change" section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment for Herostratus who said
 * "And if it was just the oil, what about other countries that nationalized their fields. We didn't overthrow all of them."
 * Iran was the first country that nationalized it's oil fields and after Iran, not only oil nationalizations occurred in other countries , but also influenced Nationalization of the Suez Canal in Egypt . Then it was possible that the response to the first nationalization movement was different to subsequent ones .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Alborz Fallah and the fact that this is a disputed exaggerated point.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The previous discussions and archive this talkpage makes me worried about the purpose of the discussions and POV pushing over and over. I oppose because of wp:npov and wp:wdue. Xashaiar (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't a wikipedia article have to follow what reliable, verifiable sources say? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to RfC. First, I cannot believe there hasn't been more comments on "expansionist evil soviet empire". Seriously, wikipedia is not a mccarthyist soapbox. Basically I oppose changing the first sentence, especially the bit about the Truman administration; that was interesting to learn (though I support rewording the beginning "By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative..." for better readability and linking to eisenhower administration as more relevant and consistent with linking to Truman admin). For the second sentence, I suggest "The tangible benefits the US reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth[29] and thwarting any possible Soviet influence.[30]" Simple and to the point. <sup style="color:green;">walk  <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Defending the RfC:
 * Do you have a problem with saying the Soviet Bloc/Empire was "expanding"? If so, why? (For example here). The Soviet Union itself had expanded south (towards Iran) after the Bolshevik Revolution into the Central Asian Muslim countries of Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, etc. Three of these "SSRs" (Turkmenistan, Armeria, and Azerbaijan) bordered Iran. Iran had already seen the Soviet Union refuse to withdraw from occupied Iranian Azerbaijan in 1946 (see Iran crisis of 1946) And the USSR's predessor the Russian Empire (which some believe the USSR resembled more than it would admit) had already taken a large chunk of land away of Iran (present day Republic of Azerbaijan) in the Russo-Persian War (1804–1813).
 * "Empire" is in quotes as an indication of how the Eisenhower administration and cold war America thought of it. It is linked to the wikipedia article Soviet Empire. I also think it justified because of the empirish ("hegemonic" you could say if empire is reserved only for capitalism) qualities of the Soviets which IMHO make alternates (like "Soviet Bloc") a bit misleading. For example the invasions of Hungary and Czecholslovakia, the Brezhnev Doctrine of helping brother socialist countries when hostile forces turn it toward capitalism (i.e. once a member of the Soviet "empire" there is no turning back) and (if I remember correctly) the fact that of the dozen or so members of the Politbureau of the ruling party of the USSR it was customary to have a single (token) non-Russian member, although Russians made up only 1/2 of the population of the USSR.
 * "evil" I cannot defend ... but it's not in the proposed change!! --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "By 1953 both Britain and the United States had more conservative governments ..." What's wrong with this? Who disagrees that both the previous governments in the US and UK -- the Truman and UK Labor Party one -- were less aggressive about Mosaddeq and both further to the left on the political spectrum. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * for better readability and linking to eisenhower administration as more relevant and consistent with linking to Truman admin). For the second sentence, I suggest "The tangible benefits the US reaped from overthrowing Iran's elected government was a share of Iran's oil wealth[29] and thwarting any possible Soviet influence. I think Soviet influence should be more strongly worded  (there was more than Soviet "influence" in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Armenia, Azerbiajan, etc.), but otherwise I think these changes are good. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)