Talk:Kermit Roosevelt Jr.

Fiercely POV
The account of the Iran operation is fiercely POV, relying on a highly controversial book. Should emphatically be revised for neutrality. [unsigned?]
 * Which part? The Roosevelt "tells his own story" or the first section. I'd think those two sections give a nice balance. THe top part describes part of the view, the second part describes the other part. How's that POV? Besides, do you have sources that back up your claim that something (you never did say which book) is a "highly controversial book." Every book is highly controversial in some circles. That doesn't mean that it should be edited out, especially if the book is written by the person himself. Also, sign your posts. (RossF18 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I agree, and had already edited this page when this thread was posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhbrown (talk • contribs) 15:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever put the following in the article:"This brief synopsis is by no means conclusive. It is meant to refute the simplistic and plainly inaccurate assertion above, that the TPAJAX was an entirely economically motivated conspiracy that was orchestrated by John and Alan Dulles. Unfortunately for Mr. Blum’s advocate above, the reality is, as usual, rather more complicated than the conspiracy theorists suggest."


 * should realize the POV of such statement. I've adjusted the paragraph and added a citation request, but make sure to site page numbers for verifications when you label people as being someone's advocate and make comments such as "rather more complicated than the conspiracy theorists suggest." Those statements sound like it's a personal opinion and nothing else.--RossF18 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Ross,


 * Thank you for kindly editing my paragraphs. Let me explain:


 * 1) To somebody vaguely familiar with TPAJAX, the assertion that Britain's sanctions "would probably leave Iran politically and economically crippled" is not a particularly controversial one. Iran’s only significant economic asset in 1953 was oil. Britain stopped Iran trading oil. It’s not a huge stretch to say that Iran’s economy would be crippled, and to be honest, that’s what happened. So I would go so far as to say that it is obvious, and to properly cite it I would need to footnote a pretty substantial bibliography, approaching a library catalogue!
 * Therefore this citation has been removed. I hope this is acceptable, Ross.


 * 2) The citations surrounding Blum's claims are absolutely justified, and I would like to point out that my edit merely addresses the validity (or lack of…) of these claims. I am not making them myself, never having read Blum's book. The original editor of this article needs to add citations, and needs to address how the possible actions of the Dulles brothers have any relevance to Roosevelt. Surely the actions of Roosevelt to make the coup happen, especially in the immediate aftermath of the first failed coup attempt, dispute rather than buttress Mr Blum's already shaky argument? Did Kermit also have a link to Standard Oil? If not, why is this conspiracy theory even mentioned in this article?


 * 3) Can somebody who uses Wikipedia often please sort this out? It seems that I have to do a lot of work to refute an unreferenced and apparently irrelevant argument.


 * Sincerely, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhbrown (talk • contribs) 09:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to the previous poster, thank you for a letter format addressed to me. However, my comments where not meant specifically for you and were not meant to attack you or anything. Please see Wikipedia policy about original research [WP:OR]. It doesn't matter how "absolutely justified" someone's claims are. You have to [c]ite it.
 * An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:


 * It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
 * It introduces original ideas;
 * It defines new terms;
 * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
 * Source: No original research


 * We all appreciate your research and analysis, but if it's your analysis, it usually doesn't belong on Wiki unless you can site it and the fact that it would take you a lot of time to do so is really not an excuse to not do so. It would prompt a tag. --RossF18 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mate, what are you talking about? Did you read my post? I never said that Blum's arguement was 'completely justified', to the contrary I said that the citation requests were justified because I think Blum's arguement is a load of rubbish! I'm giving up on this and going back to work! Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.16.27 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aah, personal attacks. Gotta love them. But they have no place at Wikipedia. First, I didn't say anything about Blum in my own post. Second, even if I did, how about discussing the point at issue, instead of trying to nit pick a post. Oooh, someone made a mistake or a mis[s]tatement in a post. That's not the point. The issue is what we're actually discussing so please let's limit discussion to that and not resort to exclamation points. --RossF18 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of emphatic language is not synonymous with content being a personal attack. The two editors were speaking past each other, and were not able to see it in the moment. Both had valid points, neither of which made it into the article (and so the article was unimproved, by virtue of the failure in communication). 71.201.62.200 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant material
The information below has nothing to do with Kermit Roosevelt.""One controversial argument which has been put forward by William Blum in his 2003 book the book Killing Hope suggests that a conspiracy organized by the Dulles brothers was the main motivation for US involvement in Iran. The Dulles brothers had worked for Sullivan and Cromwell, a prominent law firm that represented Standard Oil of New Jersey. Standard Oil had wanted to gain oil interests in Iran for many years; but the AIOC had a monopoly on the region. The Dulles brothers saw a chance to give Standard Oil the ability to set up operations in the region, when the British asked about a coup. The British, no longer the dominant power, knew they could not remove Mossadegh without the US, which meant that the US would be entitled to a portion of the Iranian Oil, which they were ok with, because 60% is better than nothing. After the Coup, 40% of Iranian oil was owned by US oil companies.

In addition to relying on entirely circumstantial evidence, this theory ignores several key factors outlined below. First, the idea of ousting Mossadegh had been formed in preliminary stages by the Truman administration long before the Dulles brothers came into their positions as Secretary of State (JF) and Director of Central Intelligence under Eisenhower. Steve Marsh's article The United States, Iran and Operation 'Ajax': Inverting Interpretative Orthodoxy points out key policy continuities between the two administrations, arguing that the change in administration was not the key factor in the acceptance of the coup. Second, it ignores the most basic goals of British foreign policy in Iran. To say that Britain was no longer the dominant power in the Middle East is accurate, but to assume that this was understood by the people and governments in power is not. The subsequent events in Suez show that even after the fall of Mossadegh, Britain still felt it had a right to overseas possessions. Moreover British policy did not show willingness to compromise. In fact, the blockade and sanctions imposed on Mossadegh’s government represented a successful unilateral policy that could have crippled Iran and, in the long term, been successful in reestablishing the dominance of the AIOC, or at the very least destroying Iran’s political stability entirely thereby sending a message to the world that nationalization of private property was not acceptable, and that the sanctity of contract endured.

A major factor that made this plan unacceptable to the new superpower was that it would probably leave Iran politically and economically crippled. The cold-war mentality in the US viewed this possibility as extremely dangerous, as it could result in communist takeover. This (probably unrealistic) fear of communist takeover was played on by the British and Iranians to encourage US support. Eventually, Churchill prevailed and convinced the Eisenhower administration that they would better contain the communist threat by removing Mossadeq. These arguments were meant to refute the assertions that the TPAJAX was an entirely economically motivated conspiracy that was orchestrated by John and Alan Dulles with the help of Kermit Roosevelt.""



Therefore I've removed it.

If anyone has any citations linking Roosevelt to the supposed Oil related motivation of the coup, please feel free to post this back up. Or it could be incorporated into the existing TPAJAX article. Matt


 * [Also] Somebody accidently put up this:"There is some speculation that Kim Roosevelt may have been part of a British plot to maintain an anglophile alliance with the United States. The British company AIOC (Anglo Iranian Oil Company) had a full monopoly on Iranian oil, but by 1951, Prime Minister Mossadegh had nationalized oil and removed British interests in the region. The British contacted the Truman administration to set up a coup, but they were not interested, as Mossadeq had been an anti-communist, and kept the Tudeh Party in place.  However, in 1953 a new administration came to power and contacted MI-6 (British) to give their support for a coup.  John Foster Dulles (secretary of state from 1953-1961) and his younger brother Allen Dulles (CIA Director) came up with Operation Ajax, a plan giving a million dollars to Kermit Roosevelt to create a coup.  Roosevelt began giving money to General Zahedi, who in turn distributed the money among his soldiers to ensure their loyalty.  In 1953, Zahedi led tanks into Tehran and closed the Majlis (legislature) and removed Mossadegh from power."


 * ...[w]hich is simply repeating what is stated (and cited - please cite the claims you make) above. If this information is important, please add it to the AJAX section as it is clearly a summary of TPAJAX.


 * Thanks, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.16.27 (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Style
This article is horribly riddled with run-on sentences! Don't mind me, just posting as a bookmark to remind me to come back to this page.--Jersey Devil 09:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kermit Roosevelt Jr had a son named Kermit Roosevelt Jr. As tradition would have it, when the senior dies, the junior may drop junior, so that his son with the same name becomes the new junior. Thus the current Kermit Roosevelt Jr may drop the junior if he so wishes. He graduated from Groton School in the class of 1956. He should not be confused with Kermit Roosevelt III, who was born in 1971. De Forest 16:13, 13 Aug 2006 (UTC)


 * What is up with this line: "There is some speculation that Kim Roosevelt may have been part of a British plot to maintain an anglophile alliance with the United States. He remained convinced that the coup had been just and noble until his death in 2000."
 * I mean, I remain convinced I am the best wikipedia editor EVER, until I die... I think that line was written to make it seem on his deathbed he recanted that the coup was just and noble. PeterP 66.31.222.89 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Information
Isn't this guy notable for anything in his long life other than the coup that put the Shah back on the throne? Thats how the lead sentence and almost the entire article is taken up with it. Certainly it was important, but is that the only thing about him worthy of mention?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He was a spy, so aside from this, it's likely all secret or unimportant. He wasn't a politician or a reporter or even a writer (aside a few writings on his role in the overthrow). He was just someone you could say worked for a living.--RossF18 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His operation may be considered one of the main sources, if not the main source, of present Middle East terrorism, and of course the Mullah Regime. Talk to any Iranian, they will know obout this operation. And always bear in mind the Law of Unintended Consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_law_of_unintended_consequences. Ontologix (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

First Economic Hitman
John Perkins calls Kermit Roosevelt the first economic hitman in his book confessions of an economic hitman. I feel like that should be mentioned somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.106.181 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First? consider selective enslavement of African rice farmers. Or Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation for the Constitution of the United States.

both could be considered crimes equal due to scale to "hits" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E02:9580:D1D8:F84:B8B9:E66F (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this a JOKE??
I know Wiki articles should be taken with a grain of salt, but this... really?

We have these things called "Editors"; check them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.108.232 (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Article tagged for persisting POV and emphasis issue
As it stands, this content is mistitled. This article is most substantially an article about Operation Ajax.

Because of this misguided, redundant presentation of that other article's focused material, again here, this article fails to provide readers with an adequate picture of the title subject—who he was, his life, training, public service, etc., as a notable historic, public figure. Simply put, the article fails as encyclopedic content.

As such, three tags were placed,
 * one to state that the lead (which focuses on Ajax to the exclusion of all else) does not reflect whole of the man's life, even to the poor extent the current article captures it (e.g., no mention of involvement in the debate on the partition of Palestine which is briefly covered in the article),
 * one to state that the article focuses, in essay fashion, on single event rather than whole of man's life, and
 * a third, to say that the presentation of that single event, which should only appear in limited fashion here, from choice of its sources to its presentation, is not neutral in WP:POV.

Please feel free to discuss, but it appears that these issues are longstanding, and by tagging them, perhaps we can bring in newly interested editors, and so move the article toward being encyclopedic, and so a good WP article. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Most recent edits
First, in the section on Roosevelt writings, I replaced a URL-only source with the complete citation, including a link to a reliable reprint of the actual Pamphlet. Note, I removed the description of the pamphlet as "an anti-Zionist pamphlet" because this is an opinion/analysis that is WP:OR coming from an editor, and needs a source for such a description to appear in the encyclopedia.

Second, in the "Early career" section, a quote regarding the IAAA pamphlet attributed to Roosevelt was simply in error. The quote that appeared was not from Roosevelt (as indicated), nor in the source indicated, but was rather a statement appearing at the archive site of the Roosevelt pamphlet, and made by anon. archive.org archivist. Moreover, there is no Foreign Affairs article as suggested—based on searching, it appears Roosevelt never published in this periodical, and the quoted text does not appear in that periodical either. Hence, THE EARLIER APPEARING JOURNAL WAS INACCURATE AS A STATED SOURCE, AND THE ROOSEVELT LINK WAS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION APPEARING (QUOTED OR OTHERWISE). Simply put, the sentence as a whole had no basis that could be found, in the earlier cited link/source, or otherwise. It was replaced by similar descriptive text that is now accurate to the sources. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The "democracynow.com" subsection: Changing tags to get editorial attention
First, note, that labeling a subsection based on its principle sourcing is non-standard and unacceptable; I was the one who did this, and expect its being edited out when the reality changes—when the section is newly sourced by an array of reliable, balanced or otherwise unbiased sources. Until the sourcing and balance are in line with wikipedia policy, I ask that this heading remain. (When it is not exclusively a "democracynow.com" perspective, change the subsection title, by all means.)

Second, I am changing the "too close to source tag" on this subsection, to a POV tag. I understand that the POV tag will draw editorial scrutiny to the section, and this is precisely what is needed. Cheers. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the section from democracynow.com. No reason to have an entire section dedicated to this non-expert source. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  20:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Kermit III vs Kermit III?
Both the infobox and the "personal" section refer to a "Kermit III". The later *refers* to a Kermit Roosevelt III, born April 7, 1938. The former *links* to a Kermit III who is this Kermit, Jr.'s grandson, although according to his CV (at https://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/krooseve/cv.pdf ), he does self-identify as a "III" — but he was born July 14, 1971, and so is clearly the grandson of this Kermit, Jr., and is specified as so on the Kermit Roosevelt disambiguation page. A little disambiguation might help? Was the first III actually a II, or have there really been two IIIs? MrRedwood (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been two IIIs. The Roosevelt's generally followed the convention that when Sr. dies, everyone else bumps up one. Rklawton (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kermit Roosevelt Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226150246/http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan08192003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan08192003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The 2017 Released Details of Iranian Coup from the CIA

 * http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-iran-tehran-oil/ --87.159.113.90 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Kermit's links with Arabs made to sound un-patriotic
This article should surely be an NPOV account of Kermit Roosevelt's efforts to advance US interests. And yet its replete with statements such as ...


 * After the war, Roosevelt went on to serve on the advisory board of the largely Arab organization, The Institute of Arab American Affairs (IAAA, 1944-1950)

What's that mean? Arab Americans were not putting the interests of the US first? If Kermit had been a patriotic American he'd not have been involved with "Arab Americans"?


 * In February 1948 Roosevelt joined other like-minded individuals—more than 100 individuals—to form a "Christian group" to aid the fight of the largely rabbinical American Council for Judaism to reverse the ongoing partition of Palestine into exclusive, separate Jewish and Arab states

What's that mean? American Jews and Christians had no business protesting what was rapidly becoming the eviction of 5/6ths of all the Christians of Israel?


 * the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME), a pro-Arabist organization often critical of U.S. support for Israel.[8][9]

What's that mean? Americans familiar with the ME were (and presumably are) not entitled to criticise US support for Israel?


 * Historians Robert Moats Miller, Hugh Wilford, and others have stated that from its early years, AFME was a part of an Arabist propaganda effort within the U.S. "secretly funded and to some extent managed" by the CIA,[8][9] with further funding from the oil consortium, ARAMCO.[9]

What's that mean? The CIA and ARAMCO were anti-American engaged in Arabist propaganda, sabotaging US interests in the region? 86.140.150.40 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Terrorism" wording
Manual of Style/Words to watch warns that terrorism is loaded language and should not be used unless explicitly described as such by reliable sources. has asserted that Roosevelt's time in the CIA was a "terrorism career" by the literal definition of terrorism, and that Wikipedia is doing its readers a disservice not describing his participation in Operation Ajax and fomenting other CIA-sponsored coups as terrorism.

This has apparently been implicit consensus by silence as the section title §Cold War and CIA Terrorism and its seven mentions of "terrorism" have survived for over a month, although it was removed from the lead sentence. It is possible for a local consensus of editors to ignore the suggestions of the Manual of Style, or that editors with access to sources can find his actions being described as such.

Should the "terrorism" wording stay or be removed? 93 (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging users with relevant edits or discussions: 93 (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to have a lengthy discussion before rolling back the changes made by our IP friend from Sheffield. The cited sources don't call Kermit a terrorist at all, and they don't pin acts of terrorism on him. This is a simple case of failed verification. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)