Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh/Archive 1

Underestimation of the difficulties of managing...
The lead section reads...

"In Iran and many countries, Mosaddeq is widely considered a hero of anti-imperialism and victim of imperialist greed, although many historians believe his downfall can be credited to his underestimation of the difficulties of managing Iran's oil industry and his loss of Shia clerical support because of his dependence on Iran's communist party."

I detect weasel. What does "underestimation of the difficulties of managing Iran's oil industry" mean exactly? Nothing in the main body supports the existence of this one particular paragraph as it currently stands, so I'm moving it here until the ambiguity is pressed out. smb (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"In Iran and many countries, Mosaddeq is widely considered a hero of anti-imperialism and victim of imperialist greed, although some historians believe his downfall can be credited to his underestimation of the difficulties of managing Iran's oil industry and his loss of Shia clerical support because of his dependence on Iran's communist party" --Alborz Fallah (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a well addressed quote. If weasel apply here, please mention the exact part that is a weasel. Do you think if we change the "many" to "some", the sentence would be correct?


 * That's only one part of the problem. Their opinion should be made explicit in the main body, providing it's notable. What do these historians say exactly - that Mosaddeq dug his own grave opposing U.S.-British policy and asserting national independence? Are they implying incompetence? The present wording is not sufficiently clear. Please summarise their work accurately and clearly so to avoid confusion. And instead of saying "...some historians..." perhaps naming each of them individually is better (both of them). Once that's done, something can be said of it in the lead section. smb (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove the whole paragraph? Is not
 * although many historians believe his downfall can be credited to ... his loss of Shia clerical support because of his dependence on Iran's communist party."
 * adressed in the main body? For example:
 * The withdrawal of support for Mossadeq by the powerful Shia clergy's has been regarded as having been motivated by their fear of the "chaos" of "a communist takeover."[23] Some argue that while many elements of Mossadeq's coalition abandoned him it was the loss of support from Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani and other clergy that was fatal to his cause, reflective of the dominance of the ulama in Iranian society and a portent of the Islamic Revolution to come. "The loss of the political clerics effectively cut Mossadeq's connections with the lower middle classes and the Iranian masses which are crucial to any popular movement" in Iran.[24]
 * So I'm putting back the deleted sentences minus the difficulty of management part. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing the oil passage doesn't solve the problem - are we now expected to believe there are historians who contend oil played no part? In addition, "downfall" (failure that results in a loss of position) is also prejudicial language. The logical implication is again one of mismanagement and incompetence. Mosaddegh was illegally forced out of office; he didn't simply fall from power. I can't attempt something better myself not being familiar with the work cited. smb (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * changed to  a major factor in his overthrow  --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't address the main points above. smb (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Understand too, that the people you cite are not historians in any objective sense. smb (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Another edit war
Hi can we get a request for mediation and protection on this page for a while and can somebody step in between BoogaLouie and CreazySuit? Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with user CreazySuit: there's too much emphasis on what is a minority point of view. smb (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits of the lead
Latest edit by AlexanderPar says in the edit summary "what Stephen Kinzer actually says"

Is this article Mohammed Mosaddeq or Mohammed Mosaddeq according to Stephen Kinzer? The lead is now, at the very least, inaccurately cited since none of the cites 8,9, and 10 ... agree with AlexanderPar's POVing: since the CIA and the British helped to undermine Mossadegh's government through bribery, and libel that Mossadegh was close to the communists, even though Mossadegh was as anti-Soviet as he was anti-British. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, Norton, (2006), p.124
 * Review by Jonathan Schanzer of All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer (note this a review of Kinzer's book)
 * Mackay, Sandra, The Iranians, Plume (1997), p.203, 4

Disputed paragraph in lead
Is this:

''In Iran and many countries, Mosaddeq is widely considered a hero of anti-imperialism and victim of imperialist greed, although many historians believe that a major factor in his overthrow was Mosaddeq's loss of Shia clerical support because of his dependence on Iran's communist party. ''

Did Mossadeq lose support of some Iranians after taking emergency powers?
I propose changing the paragraph to the following: ''In Iran and many countries, Mosaddeq is widely considered a hero of anti-imperialism and victim of imperialist greed, although a number of scholars and historians believe that a major factor in his overthrow was Mosaddeq's loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class as a result of their fear of a communist takeover. ''

Evidence
Because this is such a controversial subject I've gone to the trouble to type out text from several sources to answer the question:

Quoting Amin Saikal: ''The British blockade of Iranian oil and that country's intervening actions for Mossadeq's downfall resulted in serious economic hardship and polarization of Iranians into pro- and anti-Mossadeq forces. The anti-Mossedeq forces were centered around the monarchy, which had the support of a large section of the armed forces. The situation worsened when, amid increasing unrest inside and outside the Majlis, Mossedeq attempted to take over the constitutional position of the Shah as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, rule by emergency powers legitimized by a referendum and bypass the reponsiblity of the Majlis. He thus isolated himself from some of the close colleagues, including Seyyed Abol Qazem Kashani, the speaker of the Majlis, and laid himself open to criticism of dictatorial rule, inviting a direct confrontation between his government and conservative forces." (Saikal, Amin, The Rise and Fall of the Shah, Princeton University Press, 1980, p.43-4)

Quoting Ervand Abrahamian: "The easy success of this coup can be explained by two factors, the widening gap between the traditional and middle classes within the National Front; and the increasing alienation of the whole officer corps from the civilian administration." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.273-4)

''"... Mossadeq, confident that he had defeated the shah and thrown out the British, pressed ahead for fundamental social changes. When he gave the Ministries of Interior, Agriculture, and Transport to leaders of the secualr Iran party, the Ministry of Justice to Abu al'Ali Lufti, and anticlerical judge who had helped Reza Shah reorganize the judicial system, and the Ministry of Education to Dr. Mehdi Azar, a university professor from Azerbaijan sympathetic to the Tudeh party, Qonatabadi and other clerical leaders of the National Front expressed guarded fears for the future. When the minister of transport proposed to nationalize the bus companies of Tehran, Makki warned that such an act would open the way for the state to take over all small businesses, even groceries:

''"We would end up like the Soviet Union where the state owns everything and citizens nothing. Anyway, we all know that our bureacrats are incompetent businessmen." ''When the minister of economics tried to reduce food prices by opening new bakeries, the bazaar guilds - encouraged by Kashani - protested that the government had no right to interfere with the free market. When the minister of communications recommended that the country's telephone companies be nationalized, Kashani solicited petitions from shareholders, and Haerzadeh proclaimed that `Islam protects private property and prohibits expropriations.` When Fatemi complained that the prohibition against the sale of alcohol reduced government tax revenues and increased the consumption of pure alcohol, [Shams al-Din] Qonatabadi [a preacher and leader of the Society of Muslim warriors, which was a member of the National Front] exclaimed, ''"I cannot believe my ears. Here is an assistant minister who considers himself a Muslim and represents a Muslim country proposing to legalize what the shari'a has clearly made illegal." ''When Mossadeq's advisers proposed to enfranchize women on the grounds that the spirit of the constitution treated all citizens as equals, the `ulama, supported by theology students and guild elders, protested that `the religious laws undoubtedly limited the vote to men.` Kashani stressed that the government should prevent women from voting so that they would stay home and perform their true function - rearing children. ... One demonstrator was killed and ten were seriously wounded as theology students in Qum took to the streets to protest the proposal of extending the vote to women." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions'' by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.275-6)

''The conflict between the traditional and modern wings of the National Front reached a climax when Mossadeq asked Paliament from a 12-month extension of his emergency powers. Opposing the request, many of the clerical deputies left the National Front and formed their own Islamic Caucus (Franksium-i Islam). Kashani denounced the emergency powers as `dictatorial`; informed foreign journalists that true democracy in Iran needs a faithful implementation of the shari'a; and told Behbehani, the royalist ayatollah, that Mossadeq's `leftist advisers were endangering national security.` Qontatabadi claimed that the ministers of justice and education were replacing good Muslim employees with Kremlin-controlled atheists`; that he had always suspected the Iran party because of that party's alliance with the Tudeh in 1946; and that the `government's dictatorial methods were tranforming Iran into a vast prison.` Another clerical deputy suddenly discovered that Mossadeq's doctoral dissertation, written 35 years earlier in Switzerland, contained strong secular and anticlerical views. ..." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions'' by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.276-7)

Quoting Vali Nasr: Despite modernization in Iran in the 20th century, "One are where the ulama could still make their weight felt was the struggle against imperialism. Clerics supported both the nationalization of Iran's oil industry in 1951 and the popular movement that it created. ... While many in the Shia ulama supported Mossadeq's goals, at the end of the day the most senior clerics backed the restoration of the monarchy because they badly feared chaos and a communist takeover." (Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, Norton, (2005), p.124)

Quoting Nikki Keddie: "The coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred." (Keddie, Nikki R., Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, 1981, p.140)

Quoting Sandra Mackay: "The loss of the political clerics effectively cut Mossadeq's connections with the lower middle classes and the Iranian masses which are crucial to any popular movement" in Iran. "It was Ayatollah Kashani who quietly inflicted Shiism's mortal wound on Muhammad Mossadegh." (Mackay, Sandra, The Iranians, Plume (1997), p.203,4)

Quoting Abbas Milani  "It was the clerical establishment’s animosity towards Mossadegh that laid the groundwork for his ouster. A broad swath of clerics--Islamists like Ayatollah Abolgasem Kashani, a mentor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini--had initially supported Mossadegh. But, by late 1952, the clerics turned against him after he bucked their demands. The Ayatollah Kashani unsuccessfully pressed Mossadegh for the right to appoint key ministers. Another top cleric called on the prime minister to purge the civil service of Baha’is--a bane of Shia clergy. The clergy’s allegiance to Mossadegh weakened further as he allowed the communist Tudeh Party to gain ever more power, despite his own personal abhorrence of communism. Once Mossadegh squandered the allegiance of the clergy, the inevitability of his fate became increasingly clear. (He had also alienated the middle class, increasingly weary of ideological warfare; and the army had pleaded for his ouster.)"

"None of this is to defend America’s role in the coup. But it was hardly the only or even the decisive factor in his fall. ..." ("The Great Satan Myth, Everything you know about U.S. involvement in Iran is wrong" by Abbas Milani tnr.org, December 8, 2009

Did Mossadeq have the support of the communists? NO, certainly not at first.
To clear up this issue:

"As the the Tudeh gradually reemerged as a major force during 1951-1953, the party leadership was confronted with the inevitable question: whether of not to support the Mossadeq administration. Not surprisingly, the leaders where sharply divided." Older members of the Central Committee "favored an alliance" Newer members did not. "The debate was won by hard-liners."

''The Society of Democratic Youth sponsored teachins to "expose the conspiracy between the shah and his prime minister." (October 1951) ... The Tudeh press constantly portrayed Mossadeq as a feudal landlord, a devious old-time politician, and a stooge of the United States..... In 1951-2 the Tudeh supported the National Front only during the July uprising, when the danger from the shah appeared imminent." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions'' by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.323)

What was the association of Tudeh (communist party) and Mossadeq?
Mossadeq helping Tudeh ''"The election of Mossadeq helped the Tudeh even [more than the liberalization under Razmara] for the new prime minister accelerated the pace of liberalisation. Although he neither repealed the 1931 law nor formally lifted the 1949 ban, he believed that police controls violated civil liberties and the constitutional laws. He argued that the royalists smeared social refomers as communists in much the same way as the Qajars had labeled their opponents `heretical Babis`. And he realized that he needed all the public support he could get in order to oust the British from the oil industry and expel the shah from politics." (p.318-9)

Tudeh helped the Nationalization fight and become stronger as a result. Comment of Hussein Fateh, ''"the anticommunist leader of the defunct Comrade's party":

"''One must admit that the Tudeh was a major force participating in the struggle to nationalize the oil company.`... although diverse elements participated in the July uprising, the impartial observer must confess that the Tudeh played an important part - perhaps even the most important part. .... If in the rallies before March 1952 one-third of the demonstrators had been Tudeh and two-thirds had been National Front, after March 1952, the proportions were reversed. [Panjah Saleh-e Naft-i Iran (p.320)" "Arsanjani, writing on behalf of Qavam, argued that the Tudeh was the chief force defeating the Shah. And Kashani, the day after the riots, sent a public letter to the pro-Tudeh organizations thanking them for their invaluable contribution toward national victory." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.320)

If anyone has reason for us to believe this is not evidence that Mossdeq lost domestic support prior to the coup and that the Tudeh was not strengthened by the events supporanding the natoinalization, let us know because otherwise I'm going to put the revised paragraph in the lead. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over cause of coup

 * Examine the paragraph again. The second line has zero relevance to the first. It's really a non sequitur in need of a punctuation mark. I propose we break it up. smb (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So we break it in two sentences and you have not problem with it? The sequitur is why he was overthrown. The first sentence implicitly gives imperialist greed as the reason for his overthrow, the secound sentence loss of domestic support.
 * New paragraph: In Iran and many countries, Mosaddeq is widely considered a hero of anti-imperialism and victim of imperialist greed. However a number of scholars and historians believe that a major factor in his overthrow was Mossadeq's loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class, brought on by Mossadeq's increasingly radical and secular policies and by their fear of a communist takeover.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The sequitur is why he was overthrown." No, you have it backwards. Mossadegh was overthrown because he opposed foreign control of internal affairs. We shouldn't seek to soften the reality, by ignoring two years of American and British subversion. Please see User:CreazySuit's objection above and below. smb (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mossadegh did not lose domestic support prior to the coup, this is a minority view and nonsense advocated by the Iranian  monarchists and people with similar agendas like Abrahamian and Nasr. The whole paragraph by BoogaLouie, gives undo weight to and puts undo emphasis on a minority apologist view advocated by those who wish to downplay the role of US and UK in the coup. It's well-documented that Shia clergy were provoked against Mossadegh by the CIA through media and other means, the CIA even bombed some Mullah's house and blamed it on Mossadegh. So to claim that the clergy and their supporters feared Mossadegh and were a major factor in his overthrow, without mentioning who had put those fears into their minds, and who had provoked them, is a  dishonest assertion to say the least. The whole paragraph should be revised or removed from the lead, but I'll wait for others' input first. --CreazySuit (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The 'some people consider Mossadegh a hero of anti-imperialism', however 'scholars and historians believe...' is misplaced, and gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. smb (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence to you have that Abrahamian and Nasr have agendas ? What evidence do you have that this is a minority viewpoint? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Smb said it best, your paragraph gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. You're essentially editorializing the article, synthesizing material to demonstrate the validity of your own POV conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance your position. The whole paragraph should be revised or removed from the lead, but I'll wait for further input from other editors, before taking the initiative myself. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You have the wikipedia jargon down pat. "... undue weight ... minority viewpoint ... editorializing ... synthesizing material ... POV conclusions ..." all you need now is some facts. I've given the judgements of some serious scholars that the coup involed more than CIA bribes, what evidence to you have this is a "minority viewpoint"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're editorializing, simple as that. You're cherry picking sources, synthesizing them and putting them together, to advance a nonconservative minority point of view on several articles. The paragraph in question has to be re-written or must go, it's contradictory with the mainstream scholarly accounts of the coup.--CreazySuit (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you'll need facts not assertions. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did he just say "neoconservative"? Yes, he did. The universal title of leftist contempt has now been placed upon you. Now who is pushing POV? (I have NEVER heard ANYone call themselves a neoconservative. It is used as a generalized stereotype and a sign someone is about to package up all their anger at the right and hurl it squarely at one person, justified or not)I thought I'd step in and point that out, sorry. Batvette (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More dispute over the Coup
"Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This is a false/loaded statment, do you have another source for this beside Avrahamian? Does Vali Nasr make a similar claim? --CreazySuit (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I don't have another quote about this issue in the election. That and the fact that it is a controversial subject is why I preceded the statement with "According to Ervand Abrahamian ...". Abrahamian is a reputable scholar and his book Iran between two revolutions is a major work of Iranian history. He is also a lefty and generally sympathetic to Mossadeq's goals. You can't just assert that it is "false" because it makes Mossadeq look less than perfect. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I can assert that it's false, so long I can refute it with another source. Remember, fringe views do not belong on Wikipedia, if there is any truth to that statement, then other scholars would have mentioned it, huge claims and liables need more than one source. Also, I disagree with you that "Abrahamian is a reputable scholar", he's a former Marxist, and a very political person. What I am saying is that he clearly has an agenda.--CreazySuit (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie"


 * well if you have a source its not an assertion, but where are your sources? A fringe view is one denied by the mainstream. What evidence do you have that other historians deny there was any manipulation of the election by Mossadeq?  What evidence do you have that Abrahamian  was not a reputable scholar? Who has questioned his scholarship?
 * alonng with various Nationalist, Islamist, and socialist parties and groups What groups? The National Front was a coalition of such groups, were there more outside of it? If so, who were they? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I didn't remove Abrahamian's false claim, until I'll dig up the exact details of the elections (Press reports, first-hand historical accounts etc) to refute Abrahamian's false claim, which should also discredit him as a source in general, just like his friend Amir Taheri. For now I am disputing the claim, but if there was any "manipulation of the election by Mossadeq" (this is a HUGE claim and liable by the way), it would have been reported by other scholars and sources. Extraordinary claims like election fraud, should be supported by more than one source. Abrahamian's claim is regarded as a fringe view unless reported and supported by several reputable sources. Also, National Front at that time was coalition a few liberal/nationalist parties like the Iran Party plus Kashani's Mojahaedin, it did not include all the Islamist or socialist groups, there were even nationalist groups who were not formally a part of National Front such as the Pan-Iranist Party, but were allied with NF nonetheless, Tudeh was not a part of NF either.--CreazySuit (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of unsourced statements in this article without a peep from other editors. Now I have sourced material to expand the article but since it points out that Mossadeq was human being with imperfections like anyone else, we have a lot of talk about "false claims" and discrediting a scholar "as a source in general, just like his friend Amir Taheri".
 * I'll ask you again, who says Abrahamian was not a reputable scholar? Who says his a fringe view?
 * I put it to you that "manipulation of the elections" in a society where elections are a relatively new phenonemum, and not a tradition of government, is not a huge claim but something that has happened and does happen all over the world - not that that makes it alright. Mossadeq's opinion was that the voters in the provinces were predominately illiterates who voted as the local aristocrats and notables told them to vote, and so should not have had the right to vote. He wanted to pass legislation preventing illiterates from voting but didn't have enough support.
 * Another question: Yes, "National Front at that time was coalition a few liberal/nationalist parties like the Iran Party plus Kashani's Mojahaedin." But wasn't Kashani's Mojahaedin an Islamist group? What other Islamist groups or socialist groups of any significance (that could draw a crowd in the street) were there active around 1951-53 that weren't in the NF? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to hold off expanding until I can add material from All the Shah's men --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read Verifiability: "claims... which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs." This is a case of Abrahamian going against the mainstream assumption that Mossadegh was a democrat who held free and fair elections. If there was any truth to Abrahamian's exceptional claim of election fraud, it would have been mentioned by the other source who have extensively covered Mossadegh and the events of 1951-1953, at least a few of them. Don't you think that it's odd that such an important detail about the elections has apparently  escaped the attention of every scholar and historian expect for Abrahamian who hadn't even been born yet? As for the anti-Shah groups who supported the protests and strikes, besides the pan-Iranists, the Fadayiaan Islam was another group that was not a part of  NF, and had even tried to kill Dr. Fatami, but supported those particular protests/strikes nonetheless.--CreazySuit (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to be based on what reputable sources say. we can't just assert that someone is a fringe source and proclaim their statements "untrue". Do we know that no historians or writers besides Abrahamian have talked about irregularities in the vote?
 * How do we know there is a consensus that "Mossadegh was a democrat who held free and fair elections," and thus would never bend electoral rules? Says who?  --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no secret that Mossaddeq used dictatorial tactics, and resorted to vote rigging. See, e.g. this book: (p. 65) http://www.amazon.com/Eternal-Iran-Continuity-Chaos-Middle/dp/1403962758/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product, which speaks of a "model of vote rigging" stating that Mossaddeq "was ruling as a dictator, contrary to the democratic image projected by his supporters in later years." It also points out the fact the vote in the famous referrendum held by Mossaddeq was not secret. If you don't believe this source, you can find similar statements in newspapers published in those days .Shervink (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a minority view.The dominant view about Dr.Mossaddeq, neither in Iran nor out of Iran , is not as above.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really a very well-presented argument you give here! Anyhow, wikipedia is not about "domination", as you put it. It's about sources, and when there are several reputable sources saying something then it's not a fringe view anymore. But it's high time that considering the sources presented, this article becomes at least slightly less pov. Shervink (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shervink makes a point I should have made. Mossadeq's referrendum used seperate ballot boxes for yes and no votes, i.e. it was not a secret ballot, i.e. it was less than democratic. Even Kinzer's All the Shah's Men points that out. This is not a fringe view. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, even the polling stations for yes and no votes were at different places! Shervink (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And by "dominancy", I mean "mainstream view" that is important in Wikipedia... --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The context of the events is important.Until that time no such "Standard western type ballot" was performed in Iran (and maybe not until now!) ... That means it is not correct to judge with present western standards about a previous middle eastern referendum.


 * It is not about "present" standards. As you can see in NY Times articles of that time, for example (links provided above), the methods were very much criticized back then as well. Moreover, as far as I know, having separate polling stations was by no means a common procedure, even in those times! Shervink (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in those times in which place? As Pahlavi's and Islamic republic never performed standard elections many years after that ... Is there any such standard election in whole Iranian history?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that having separate polling places or ballot boxes, election results that give 1300 no votes out of 2,043,300 votes, and which was criticized not just by historians but at the time it happened ... is simply an "alternative" way of holding elections? Just different from "present western standards"? It eliminates the secrecy of the secret ballot, a very basic element in any free election. And it would seem to be more trouble to have two polling places, so shortage of resources couldn't have been the issue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead
I've tried to clean up the lead, editing out factoids about the assassination of his predicessor and how many times he was appointed as prime minister and adding bigger issues such as the fact that he was a major figure in modern Iranian history --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over coup edits
To Crazysuit: Please do not revert sourced material
 * Iran had soviet oil concessions in the north that were not nationalized.
 * "taking advantage" of a situation does not imply anything sinister or devious. Politics is all about taking advantage of a situation. mossadegh had massive support he used it. He took advantage of it.
 * The National Front was a coalition of groups, nationalist, socialist oriented, islamist. The NF had supporters who were not members. I have not found any mention of other groups outside Tudeh that historians found worth mentioning involved in Iranian politics supporting mossadegh at that time. If you have, show us the source.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Crazysuit has given as a source for the contention that the National Front had "various Nationalist, Islamist, and socialist parties and groups" worth mentioning in support of it the book. MOSSADEGH: The Years of Struggle and Opposition by Col. Gholamreza Nejati, p761
 * Problem: it's not available in English and only a available at a handful of libraries in the English speaking world. Thus it is not verifiable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"agenda ... minority apologist view", etc.
From editor CreazySuit: Mossadegh did not lose domestic support prior to the coup, this is a minority view and nonsense advocated by the Iranian monarchists and people with similar agendas like Abrahamian and Nasr''. The whole paragraph by BoogaLouie, gives undo weight to and puts undo emphasis on a minority apologist view advocated by those who wish to downplay the role of US and UK in the coup. It's well-documented that Shia clergy were provoked against Mossadegh by the CIA through media and other means, the CIA even bombed some Mullah's house and blamed it on Mossadegh.''

So is Abrahamian an apologist pro-Shah, spouting nonsense, etc.? Here's what Stephen Kinzer, of the CIA expose All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror has to say:   "A small but dedicated group of scholars has devoted considerable effort to uncovering the truth about events surrounding the 1953 coup. Most persistent among them is Mark J. Gasiorowski, who has become the group's unofficial dean. Other who have accompanied him on his mission of discovery include Erband Abrahamian, Fakhreddin Azimi, James A. Bill, ...." etc. (p.xi) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another endorcement: "Iran between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian (Princeton 1982), [is] by far the fullest and most professional treatment that we have of Iranian history from the turn of the century until 1978." Roy Mottahedeh, The Mantle of the Prophet : Religion and Politics in Iran, One World, Oxford, 1985, 2000, p.391)

I hope everyone, especially Creazysuit, will bear in mind it is possible for Mossadegh to have been a great man, an Iranian hero, a victim of foreign conspiracy, and at the same time to have made mistakes, to have done things that were less than democratic and less than wise. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

no matter how you decid to cut it, iran has not had a true national government since the time of the hakhamaneshid. neither the shah or mossadegh or the bastard mullahs have any sense of national pride. mossadegh wasnt elected by the people for the people of iran are divisable by too many different groups. in contrast mossadegh cant possibly have been a nationalist for all he cared for is rebellion against western imperialism. at least the shah tried to redeam national pride by collection money for the national product. he denounced all turkish mongolian arabic thought and followed through with aryan white thoughts so that he can gain power in the global field. his argument was were starters of the western thoughts, they created themselves based on what we achieved what happend to those ideas they use and are forgotton by us. the man began gaining power and raising prices on the imperialist and they had him killed and we all sit here calling mossadegh a nationalist. the opposers of the shah are nothing but turkish and mongolian savages that ate raw meat up untill 6 century. as muslim idiots glaze themselves in praying to a god thats interpreted himself in three different religions, the shah was on the verge of denouncing islam as the official religion and having the religios figures killed since they control all the savage turks and mongols that exist in the country sides of iran. for a someone so accredited as mossadegh you would think he would sit down and coexist with the shah but his views of islam had him thinking that socialism is the way..... capitalism wins, and no matter how you cut it nothings stronger then a mans greed. that was the downfall of all controllers of iran except for koroush e kabir and darush e bozorg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.9.147 (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling: Mosaddeq, Mossadeq, Mossadegh, or Mosaddegh?
Google search survey:


 * 40,700 for Mohammed Mosaddeq
 * 86,000 for Mohammed Mossadeq
 * 78,400 for Mohammed Mossadegh
 * 2,010 for Mohammed Mosaddegh


 * 21,800 for Mohammad Mosaddeq
 * 157,000 for Mohammad Mossadeq
 * 71,800 for Mohammad Mossadegh
 * 4,950  for Mohammad Mosaddegh

Proposed name change
I propose changing the title of the article to Mohammed Mossadeq --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm the best person to comment about it (I'm not good when it comes to liguistics), but let me say I'm surprised. As this is an Iranian person, I expected "Mohammad" to be used for his first name, not "Mohammed" (which is the way Arabs write this name in English). Then again, as there is a tashdid on the "d" of his family name, I expected "Mosaddeq" or its variants to be used more commonly.
 * I guess my predictions are wrong, because most of the tens of thousands of times his name was found by Google belong to texts written by non-Iranians who don't know the exact Persian pronounciation of his name.
 * A valid resolution to this debate could be to check how his name was spelled in his passport but I don't think there is access to it (easily).
 * Anyways, it appears that the proposal is based on good grounds, but I'm not sure if we should proceed with it. huji— TALK 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * After doing more google searches I hereby revise my title change to Mohammad Mossadeq --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with almost all statements by Huji. In particular "Mohammed", as opposed to "Mohammad", is just utter nonsense as the name of an Iranian; no living being in Iran recognises "Mohammed" as name of a human being. As for "Mossadeq", Huji is absolutely right. I think for the time being we can rely on the spellings used by two of the top experts on Mosaddeq, namely Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne who use "Mohammad Mosaddeq". See here: . I say 'for the time being', because it remains to be determined whether one has to use "q" or "gh". --BF 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Through most of the article, his name is spelled "Mohammad," but in the title it is spelled "Mohammed." At the very least, this inconsistency should fixed. -- 24.147.190.194 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed last name stay-the-same
I just noticed that the US Library of Congress also uses Mosaddeq, Mohammad, so I hereby withdraw my proposal to change the name of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Change from Mohammed to the proper Mohammad
The name of this article should be changed from the incorrect Mohammed to the proper Persian pronounciation Mohammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.118.214 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"... loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class"
From the lead:

''Among many in Iran and abroad, Mosaddeq is known as a hero of Third World anti-imperialism, and victim of imperialist greed for Iran's oil. However a number of scholars and historians believe that alongside the plotting of the UK and US, a major factor in his overthrow was Mossadeq’s loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class,

I propose the "dubious" label be removed.

Evidence for loss of Mossadegh support among Iranians
Because this is such a controversial subject I've gone to the trouble to type out text from several sources to answer the question:

Quoting Amin Saikal: ''The British blockade of Iranian oil and that country's intervening actions for Mossadeq's downfall resulted in serious economic hardship and polarization of Iranians into pro- and anti-Mossadeq forces. The anti-Mossedeq forces were centered around the monarchy, which had the support of a large section of the armed forces. The situation worsened when, amid increasing unrest inside and outside the Majlis, Mossedeq attempted to take over the constitutional position of the Shah as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, rule by emergency powers legitimized by a referendum and bypass the reponsiblity of the Majlis. He thus isolated himself from some of the close colleagues, including Seyyed Abol Qazem Kashani, the speaker of the Majlis, and laid himself open to criticism of dictatorial rule, inviting a direct confrontation between his government and conservative forces." (Saikal, Amin, The Rise and Fall of the Shah, Princeton University Press, 1980, p.43-4)

Quoting Ervand Abrahamian: "The easy success of this coup can be explained by two factors, the widening gap between the traditional and middle classes within the National Front; and the incraseing alienation of the whole officer corps from the civilian administration." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.273-4)

''"... Mossadeq, confident that he had defeated the shah and thrown out the British, pressed ahead for fundamental social changes. When he gave the Ministries of Interior, Agriculture, and Transport to leaders of the secualr Iran party, the Ministry of Justice to Abu al'Ali Lufti, and anticlerical judge who had helped Reza Shah reorganize the judicial system, and the Ministry of Education to Dr. Mehdi Azar, a university professor from Azerbaijan sympathetic to the Tudeh party, Qonatabadi and other clerical leaders of the National Front expressed guarded fears for the future. When the minister of transport proposed to nationalize the bus companies of Tehran, Makki warned that such an act would open the way for the state to take over all small businesses, even groceries:

''"We would end up like the Soviet Union where the state owns everything and citizens nothing. Anyway, we all know that our bureacrats are incompetent businessmen." ''When the minister of economics tried to reduce food prices by opening new bakeries, the bazaar guilds - encouraged by Kashani - protested that the government had no right to interfere with the free market. When the minister of communications recommended that the country's telephone companies be nationalized, Kashani solicited petitions from shareholders, and Haerzadeh proclaimed that `Islam protects private property and prohibits expropriations.` When Fatemi complained that the prohibition against the sale of alcohol reduced government tax revenues and increased the consumption of pure alcohol, [Shams al-Din] Qonatabadi [a preacher and leader of the Society of Muslim warriors, which was a member of the National Front] exclaimed, ''"I cannot believe my ears. Here is an assistant minister who considers himself a Muslim and represents a Muslim country proposing to legalize what the shari'a has clearly made illegal." ''When Mossadeq's advisers proposed to enfranchize women on the grounds that the spirit of the constitution treated all citizens as equals, the `ulama, supported by theology students and guild elders, protested that `the religious laws undoubtedly limited the vote to men.` Kashani stressed that the government should prevent women from voting so that they would stay home and perform their true function - rearing children. ... One demonstrator was killed and ten were seriously wounded as theology students in Qum took to the streets to protest the proposal of extending the vote to women." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions'' by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.275-6)

''The conflict between the traditional and modern wings of the National Front reached a climax when Mossadeq asked Paliament from a 12-month extension of his emergency powers. Opposing the request, many of the clerical deputies left the National Front and formed their own Islamic Caucus (Franksium-i Islam). Kashani denounced the emergency powers as `dictatorial`; informed foreign journalists that true democracy in Iran needs a faithful implementation of the shari'a; and told Behbehani, the royalist ayatollah, that Mossadeq's `leftist advisers were endangering national security.` Qontatabadi claimed that the ministers of justice and education were replacing good Muslim employees with Kremlin-controlled atheists`; that he had always suspected the Iran party because of that party's alliance with the Tudeh in 1946; and that the `government's dictatorial methods were tranforming Iran into a vast prison.` Another clerical deputy suddenly discovered that Mossadeq's doctoral dissertation, written 35 years earlier in Switzerland, contained strong secular and anticlerical views. ..." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions'' by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.276-7)

Quoting Vali Nasr: Despite modernization in Iran in the 20th century, "One are where the ulama could still make their weight felt was the struggle against imperialism. Clerics supported both the nationalization of Iran's oil industry in 1951 and the popular movement that it created. ... While many in the Shia ulama supported Mossadeq's goals, at the end of the day the most senior clerics backed the restoration of the monarchy because they badly feared chaos and a communist takeover." (Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, Norton, (2005), p.124)

Quoting Nikki Keddie: "The coup could not have succeeded without significant internal disaffection or indifference, but without outside aid it would not have occurred." (Keddie, Nikki R., Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, 1981, p.140)

Quoting Sandra Mackay: "The loss of the political clerics effectively cut Mossadeq's connections with the lower middle classes and the Iranian masses which are crucial to any popular movement" in Iran. "It was Ayatollah Kashani who quietly inflicted Shiism's mortal wound on Muhammad Mossadegh." (Mackay, Sandra, The Iranians, Plume (1997), p.203,4)

Quoting Sepehr Zabih on Growth of Tudeh support and loss of Nationalist support:

"Perhaps the most critical miscalculation concerned the erosion of support for the [Mosaddegh] nationalist regime and the related problem of the Tudeh party's activity. As the regime became increasingly isolated from its traditional sources of support, a de facto alignment with the Tudeh supporters emerged. It mattered very little whether the government or the Tudeh party had initiated this de facto alignment. Since both were forced to fight a common enemy, i.e., the Shah and his various old and new allies, the emergence of that alignment appeared inevitable." (p.135)

"In July 1952 the forces of the nationalist parties overwhelmingly outweighed those of the Tudeh and its sympathizers. but in August 1953 this relationship was almost completely reversed by the gradual desertion of some of the more active supporters of Dr. Mossadegh, and the neutralization of others, as the crisis continued to erode their enthusiasm and resources. In the absence of this support and in view of the danger of a possible Tudeh takeover, active public resistance to the August army Royalist coup was limited in scope and fervor." (from Zabih, Sepehr The Mossadegh Era : Roots of the Iranian Revolution, Lake View Press, 1982, p.136)

"In 1953 a significant segment of the politically active populace of the country stood aloof to witness the collapse of a government which for such a long time had symbolized the new phase of Iranian nationalism. On this occasion, too, the critical reason for inaction seemed to be the public sense of an imminent threat to national independence on the part of the Tudeh party." (from Zabih, Sepehr The Mossadegh Era : Roots of the Iranian Revolution, Lake View Press, 1982, p.137)

''Richard Cottam, in one of the first studies of these events, writes about `Behbahani dollars,` alluding to the payment made to the Royalist mob by the anti-Mossadegh clerics led by ayatollah Behbahani. This, however, he believes was not the only reason for the successful assemblage of the anti-Mossadegh crowd. Equally important was the prospect of a Tudeh takeover, which terrified other Iranians into joining that crowd without monetary reward." (p.124) Cottam, Richard W., Nationalism in Iran, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh of Pittsburgh Press, 1964, p.227 from Zabih, Sepehr The Mossadegh Era : Roots of the Iranian Revolution, Lake View Press, 1982

The fact of the mattter is I didn't find any historian who said Mossadegh didn't lose support. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let us take what e.g. Vali Nasr says, namely "at the end of the day the most senior clerics backed the restoration of the monarchy because they badly feared chaos and a communist takeover." Now, the entire coup d'etat of 1953 hinged on spreading the very fear amongst the population that Vali Nasr refers to -- the organizers of the coup sent, e.g., paid up agents posing as communists to the Tehran Bazaar talking (i.e. supposedly murmuring amongst themselves, but in a way that others could hear and take note of) about what nasty things they supposedly would do in the event of Dr Mosaddegh succeeding; other paid-up agents, some posing as communists, began attacking and fire-bombing the homes of some well-known clergy. In short, the whole coup was initiated and forced through by a very strong component of fear-mongering amongst various sections of the society! We cannot put the cart before the horse and use the fact that at some point in time some sections of the Iranian society became apprehensive as an argument that there were no coup d'etat; this would amount to an unforgivable falsification of the history. As an aside, Ayatollah Kashani, who did the greatest damage to Dr Mosaddegh, was later in life very regretful for having stabbed Dr Mosaddegh in the back. (There is a very long and complicated story about Ayatollah Kashani that I shall not go into; I suffice to say that over some period of time he was quite intoxicated by the idea that he wielded the real power in Iran - his interviews of this period are very revealing about him and his mental state; they show that he was suffering from some acute form of narcissism.) --BF 04:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * all these book quoted above were published after news of the techniques of the CIA were disclosed. (For example Zabih, Sepehr The Mossadegh Era : Roots of the Iranian Revolution, published 1982 quotes Roosevelt's dirty tricks) Why would all these scholars still credit the judgment of the Shia clerics and the traditional middle class if the blame rested only with the dirty tricks of the CIA? What reason do you have to believe Vali Nasr didn't know about the CIA activity?
 * The "fundamental social changes" Mossadeq started to institute and that the Mullahs so opposed, e.g. government-owned bakeries that competed with bazaari private bakeries, were not part of the CIA coup.  They were Moseddeq policies.
 * Same with the "12-month extension of his emergency powers", the referendum with sepearate voting polls for yes and no, that freaked out the mullahs.
 * Even the author of the popular CIA expose All the Shah's Men, Stephen Kinzer, says that by March 1953 "partly through the efforts" of British agents the Rashidian brothers "prominent figures who had been part of Mossadegh's coalition began to turn against him.(Kinzer, All the Shah's Men, p.159) Partly thru the efforts. Both the CIA dirty tricks, and'' the loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class, should be mentioned as causes of the coup.
 * an indication that Mosaddeq himself acknowledged extremism was a problem in his movement is his reply to a question at his trial in the fall of 1953 on why he had not accepted a seemingly moderate temporary oil formula, which would have eased greatly Iran's economic problems: `my fanatics back home would not have allowed me to do so with impunity.`"  (from Mohakemehe Tarikhi [The Historicy factal of Dr. Mossadegh] Tehreran: Roshan-Fekr, 1954, p.108-9] quoted in (Zabih, Sepehr, The Mossadegh Era : Roots of the Iranian Revolution, Lake View Press, 1982,p.156) It seems unlikely the fanatics he was referring to were CIA agents!!
 * as for the "very long and complicated story about Ayatollah Kashani" and his alleged "acute form of narcissism", please give us some varifiable facts, not folklore. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * BoogaLouie, I am very sorry but I have no time to go into details (not right now any way). For now, suffice to mention that there is a revisionist tendency amongst a new breed of historians/amateur-historians who dabble in the history of Iran; they are all mistaken (as for Kinzer, I am familiar with his writings, but he is by no means an authority in the history of Iran in the true sense of the word -- even in the space of a short commentary that he writes for newspapers with regard to Iran one encounters several minor and major errors; as for Vali Nasr, it is too complicated to go into the details here - you could gain some insight into his thinking by looking into his family background). As for Ayatollah Kashani's narcissism, it is a widely-known fact (only those who know things through two or three popular books on the subject matter are likely to be unaware of this historical fact); later in life even he himself became concious of this very fact (you should realise that it was not my intention to shed negative light on Ayatollah Kashani by calling him a narcissist; the people who knew him at close quarters truly noticed a sudden change in his character and behaviour for a certain period of time; in this period he came to see himself as the most important and the most powerful person in the land, and that was his undoing). You should realise that Dr Mosaddag is by far the greatest political figure (for a variety of reasons, two of which being 1. his deep humanity and 2. his genuine respect for the rule of law) to appear on the Iranian political arena for centuries. Lastly, as for the "fanatics back home" of Dr Mosaddeq, to which you refer, the coalition that Dr Mosaddeq was leading was indeed very broad; in fact this has always been true about Jabhe-ye Melli (you may think of the two prominent figures of this party: Dr Bazargan and Dr Bakhtiar, the former was very religious, and the latter very secular; in fact one became the first PM of the Islamic Republic, and one would do anything commensurate with his principles to prevent Iran from becoming a theocratic State). If you think about Iran's history of the past couple of centuries (and take into account that Reza Shah had been utterly contemptuous of Iran's written Constitution and that Iran had greatly suffered during the two World Wars), then you will realise that the broadness of the coalition that Dr Mosaddeq was leading was a historical necessity - he was the only hope that the hapless Iranian people had at the time. --BF 13:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ps: Regarding the above-mentioned narcissism of Ayatollah Kashani, the following account is very revealing. At the time the Time Magazine had published an article about Ayatollah Kashani, accompanied by a photograph of him. Even despite the fact that this magazine is in English, he had at the time ordered, if my memory is not failing, several hundred copies of the issue in question and handed them out to all and sundry who happened to visit him. Just like a child, he appeared to be pathetically proud of an English-language publication having given prominence to him. To me, this just reveals a pathetic and puerile psychology of a man who at a critical juncture in the history of an ancient nation was to play a vital role. Of course, you are free to draw whatever conclusion that you may wish from this historical fact. Incidentally, Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda, who also is one of the truly great sons of Iran (many people are not aware what major role he has played in Iran's Constitutional Revolution - for a long period he lived with the knowledge that every moment he could be assassinated, and in fact he foiled one of the assassination plans himself - he was to be beaten up to death in a public place by a gang of mercenaries), was a good friend and colleague of Dr Mosaddeq, to the degree that he was believed to be the secret deputy of the latter after the coup d'etat of 1953 (for a while after this coup d'etat he was treated very badly by Shah's security and army personnel). I am personally not aware of any private or public record in which Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda would have uttered even a single critical word about Dr Mosaddeq. --BF 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's no good; however impressive your research the pro Mosq people will continue to assert that all critics of his are 'paid by Britain' and that all his misdeeds were really done by 'agents of Britain'. The article will be edited accordingly. Better get used to it. 69.228.196.252 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To the person hereabove: You should address your grievances to the people who make the claims that you assert they make. I certainly never called people names. Insofar as I am concerned, 'paid by Britain' and 'agents of Britain' are terms injected by you into the discussioin, not by me or any other person I know of. Is that not odd, to say the least, that you first invent things and ascribe them to people and subsequently attack them on the basis of your own invention? --BF 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BF, wikipedia depends, especially in a controversial high passion topic like this, on reliable sources, preferably notable historians of Iran. It's not enough to assert Kashani doesn't count because was proud of an article in a foreign magazine, or that the sources I've provided above are "a new breed of historians/amateur-historians" so they don't count. Scholars published by major academic publishers are pretty the gold standard for sources for a history like this. What they say should not be excluded from wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BoogaLouie, the opposite of the thing that you are asserting here is true: Wikipedia articles should contain things that are not controversial. That is why "original research" has no place in Wikipedia. Incidentally, the statement that "Kashani doesn't count" is not mine, but entirely yours! Please read once more what I wrote about him and in which context. As for "a new breed of historians/amateur-historians", to the best of my knowledge, the claims that we are discussing here were first made by Ardeshir Zahedi (son of the Fazlollah Zahedi, the Iranian front of the 1953 coup), in an interview that he gave, through a satellite link, to Voice of America. In that interview, he claimed that in a book that he was in the process of writing he was showing that the 1953 coup d'etat was not a coup d'etat but a popular uprising in support of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Remarkably (and this is very telling), in an interview that he gave last year to BBC (again from his home in Switzerland), it appeared that he had never heard of the relevant CIA documents pertaining to the 1953 coup d'etat having been made public! Given Mr Zahedi's very advanced age, it is conceivable that he does not realise that in today's world even ordinary people can get access to the informations that, let us say, 10 years earlier were available only to a select group of people. If interested, you should visit the website of CIA where there is a huge corpus of formerly secret documents pertaining to Iran that since some time have been declassified and made available to the general public. They make a fascinating reading.


 * I propose that we end this discussion here and now, as I do not believe that it will take us anywhere. Kind regards, --BF 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC).
 * "Kashani doesn't count" is a parafrasing of your position that he was a dup of the imperialists. I think he does count as he had a significant following at the time. Ardeshir Zahedi is not amoung the authors/historians I quoted. What reason do you have to believe that any of them (abrahamian, etc.) were copying Zahedi without checking the facts?
 * I purpose a complete airing of historians' views on Mosaddegh be included in the article. I'm sure some of are sick of this arguement but the article will not be NPOV or arcurate until they are included. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BoogaLouie, you had paraphrased me incorrectly (certainly I never had uttered a word as to the size of Ayatollah Kashani's following, and many other similar things). As for the "airing of historians' views", in my opinion that should only be done in a separate section with a clear heading indicating that they concern minority views (often born out of party-political partisanship or ignorance, or a combination of both). An appropriate heading would be "Mosaddeq in historical novels/fictions", or something similar. --BF 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Let's not get sidetracked on Kashani. To quote you Kashani "was suffering from some acute form of narcissism." I'd like to add to the lead the sentence: However a number of scholars and historians believe that alongside the plotting of the UK and US, a major factor in his overthrow was Mossadeq’s loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class (Kashani being the major Shia cleric in question), you do not. right?
 * I beleive I've asled this before and I'll ask it again: what evidence do you have the five authors mentioned are "minority views (often born out of party-political partisanship or ignorance, or a combination of both)"?
 * These (Vali Nasr, Ervand Abrahamian, Amin Saikal, Nikki Keddie,  Sepehr Zabih) are academics and academic historians published under major university presses. An appropriate heading [for their views] would be "Mosaddeq in historical novels/fictions"? Are you joking? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BF, your assertions about Ardeshir Zahedi being some johnny come lately revisionist historian are in ignorance of the fact that he fired off this rebuttal to the NY Times just days after they published their article- as usual, those who would promote their anti-American agenda choose to ignore his testimony on the matter, this rebuttal was only given a reference link at the bottom of this article to a dead link. In reality any article about Operation Ajax or its relevant issues should give prominent mention of this. Batvette (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How Reliable is Stephen Kinzer?
Stephen Kinzer author of ‘All the Shah’s Men’ promotes a widely accepted but delusional view of Iranian history. The story goes that the great "reforming" "democratic" leader of Iran Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown by the evil CIA in the 1950s and put in place the "evil" "autocratic" and "unpopular" Shah who was overthrown in 1979 by the masses of Iran yearning to be free.

Pity but most of it is not true.

Mohammed Mossadegh was not a democratic politician. He was a gangster whose power was based on sending mobs into the streets to intimidate anyone that opposed him and gunning down the opposition. He was never popular in Iran and nobody in Iran shed a tear for him when he died.

The real chronology is as follows:

- (March 1951) Haj Ali Razmara, Iranian Prime Minister, and in the way of Mossadegh is gunned down in Tehran, at his order.

- (Late 1951) Mossadegh, sensing he will lose the parliamentary elections, stops the election after a quorum of his supporters are elected.

- (July 1952) Mossadegh, after being constitutionally blocked by his opponents resigns and sends mobs controlled by himself into the streets to riot until he is given what he wants.

- 1952 - Mossadegh is restored and given the unconstitutional power to make laws by decree for six months.

- (January 1953) - Mossadegh's power to make laws by decree outside of the constitution is extended for a further 12 months. He issues a land reform decree which gives him the power to confiscate the entire property of anyone in the country who opposes him. Mossadegh, due to his autocratic unconstitutional rule and a collapsing economy, becomes progressively more and more unpopular.

- (1953) - Mossadeq unconstitutionally dissolves the parliament, abolishes the secret ballot and calls an unconstitutional "national plebiscite" which had an obviously fraudulent result of 99.93% in favor of his dictatorship. - (1953) - Mossadeq suspends parliament indefinitely and rules as an unconstitutional autocrat.

It is at this point that Mossadeq is deposed and overthrown.

And this is the fraud of the book. The history I've presented above can easily be verified and what it shows is that rather than being the great democratic reformer that this book and the associated mythology want to make Mossadeq into, he was a thuggish unpopular dictator who had personally destroyed every aspect of democratic constitutional government in Iran.

The morality of the CIA plot to depose Mossadeq can be questioned, but questioning the right of outsiders to intervene to overthrow a dictator is not the same as making Mossadeq into a democratic hero. The truth must be respected.

The other truth that needs to be told is that the 1979 revolution in Iran wasn't a struggle for democracy or human rights, nor yet was it launched in opposition to the loss of democracy in 1953. The people who launched the Islamic revolution in Iran held democratic government and human rights in utter contempt. The question nobody wants to ask is how it could, following the script, that Iranians who found the Shah's regime so brutal and intolerable in the late 1970s that they took to the streets could within a few years contentedly accept a government that was far more brutal, more autocratic and abused human rights more than the Shah ever did.

Stephen Kinzer suffers from all the normal faults of reporters at the New York Times. He is more dedicated to the "official" national view of history as expressed by the New York Times than the truth. He gets almost everything about Iranian history wrong but he gets it wrong in the same way that many American academics also get it wrong.

1953 wasn't the great event in Iranian history that American and British historians want to make it. What the British did in the early 1900s was far worse. When the British militarily illegally occupied Iran in both world wars, that was worse. And for most Iranians the issue that focused anti-American attitudes wasn't 1953, it was in the 1960s when the Shah passed laws putting American soldiers in Iran beyond the reach of Iranian law.

Mossadegh is one of the worst leaders in Iranian history. Had he survived, he would have led Iran down the road that Iraq travelled in the 1950s into personal dictatorship and autocratic rule. He could have been Iran’s Saddam Hussein. He did inherit a functioning constitutional government and utterly destroyed it.

It’s time to put the mythology of Mossadegh into the trash where it belongs and start telling the truth about Iranian history. -Mark Bennet 69.228.196.252 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that Mark Bennet 69.228.196.252 (talk offers not one source, not one reference, means that his remarks can be dismissed as WP:POV.Skywriter (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that you think the NYT is an awful source proves more about /your/ bias, not Kinzer's. 155.188.247.7 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to enter into any discussions with you (incidentally, not a word of the present Wikipedia entry is due to me &mdash; you are barking at the wrong tree, perhaps because barking is what you do best). I suffice only to mention that clearly you are devoid of reason and any sense of proportion to call so rudely one of the greatest political figures of Iran, at least since Amir Kabir, a "gangster" (I stopped reading your above scribblings on reaching this insulting word). It tells volumes about you and your personality that you even have not had the decency to spout your venom on this page as a registered editor of Wikipedia &mdash; from some place in Texas (from all places on Earth), USA, you are exposing your deep animosity towards a man whom you seem to have decided to hate (incidentally, in Texas there seems to be only one "Mark Bennett", and no "Mark Bennet", the former being a criminal lawyer, working together with "Jennifer Bennett" &mdash; in short, nothing seems to be real about you, including your views). What private reasons you may have for this animosity is your own business, of course. I notice however that you have had solely five contributions to en.Wikipedia, four of which on this and the related main page. What could possibly have attracted you to this place? --BF 08:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark Bennett posts a commentary on the issues, you post a commentary on Mark Bennett, and even detail how you tried to track down who and where he was, and even mention his (we assume) wife, and make a thinly veiled insult on the state of Texas. I would have just deleted that entry but will let it stand as its own self rebuttal of your allegations against HIS credibility. As for his allegations about Mossadegh, it is my understanding they are all common knowledge and easily verifiable, except the part about him ordering the assasination of the previouis Prime Minister. No such link as I know can be found, but the unconstitutional manner of his actions while in office are beyond questioning. Batvette (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the specific reasons this article is tagged?
There does not appear to be any debate at all on this talk page about specific wording in this article. Does anyone object to removing the tag? If you do object, please state precisely and succinctly where there is a disagreement. Please quote from the article showing what is wrong, biased or otherwise objectionable. Thank you.Skywriter (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead is biased. see this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag should be removed, it's been there for a year. One single editor can not stall the editing process like this, and please an indefinite tag on a page, because he or she does not like parts of a page, against the WP:consensus of others. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is "the consensus"? Three editors (Skywriter, BehnamFarid, Kurdo777) want to delete any mention of the Iranian opposition to Mossadegh? And how am I "stalling the editing process"? Any time I add text about domestic opposition to Mossadegh it gets deleted. as Kurdo777 did a few hours back. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Compromise wording"
The edit summary for this edit was "restoring the compromise wording". Who was doing the "compromising"? Why was sourced material being deleted? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The following is a replica of the edit summary BoogaLouie references and complains was deleted--
 * Reply from Skywriter to BoogaLouie's question
 * In Iran and many countries, Mosaddeq is known as a hero of Third World anti-imperialism and victim of imperialist greed. However a number of scholars and historians believe that alongside the plotting of the UK and US, a major factor in his overthrow was Mossadeq’s loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class, brought on by his increasingly radical and secular policies and by their fear of a communist takeover. 

The reference to the 383-word book review is not acceptable as a source for facts. It is a source for opinion only. Does anyone want to argue that should be reinstated as a factual reference to establish facts about the life of Mohammed Mosaddeq?

As to the rest of the wording, and to resolve this dispute, this too is unacceptably vague: a number of scholars and historians believe that alongside the plotting of the UK and US, a major factor in his overthrow was Mossadeq’s loss of support among Shia clerics and the traditional middle class

The above construction is problematic because it is vague, imprecise (a belief is not the same as fact), and contains poor and historically inaccurate wording. Which book said what concerning either the clerics or 'the traditional middle class.'? Who made up the 'traditional middle class' in Iran in 1951? Who says there was a 'traditional middle class'? Did the three books cited all make the same point in the same words? The lack of specificity causes this pile-up of references to be suspect. The 383-word opinion piece by Schanzer is a red flag.

Kinzer in All the Shah's Men and essayists in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran (edited by Mark Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne) make the point that Iranian clerics were concerned about secularism. The National Security Archive [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB78/essay.htm U.S. Propaganda in the Middle East - The Early Cold War Version National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 78. Edited by Joyce Battle. December 13, 2002] establishes with documents that the United States engaged in a protracted and often dishonest propaganda campaign to oppose communism in Iran in the early 1950s. For example, in Battle's summary is this: ''Points of view to be presented in such films were to be controlled, if possible: the State Department was advised to approach an American film distributor to ensure that "pro-Russian" movies (like "Red Star", a World War II-era film about Nazi occupation of a Russian village) were not shown in "critical areas," such as Iran. [Doc. 12]''

Deleting sourced material is not the same as deleting a pile-up of references to support vague and inaccurate wording.Skywriter (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * a pile-up of references? You mean several references citing a point you don't agree with? You don't like the word "believe" ("a belief is not the same as fact")? How about "argue" or "state"? Why does the whole statement have to be deleted? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue has been hashed out before on this page. You will find details of the references here Please do some basic research before attacking the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who made up the 'traditional middle class' in Iran in 1951?
 * If you had knowledge of Iran you would know 'traditional middle class' are bazarri or other people in traditional entrepreneurial professions, as opposed to the salaried, educated, "modern middle class" of teachers, bureaucrats, etc. I strongly suggest you educate yourself about the subject before start aggressively deleting. BoogaLouie (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Any weight in the CIA/NY Times version should be balanced by Ardeshir Zahedi's rebuttal
which can be found here: Batvette (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(no title)
God bless Dr.Mossadegh, he is a national hero and was way ahead of his time.

Can anyone please post any quotes attributed to Dr. Mossadegh on wikiquote? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) --Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved on Dec 15 to intermediate title, then moved again. See discussion immediately below. —  æk Talk 06:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Mosaddeq → Mohammad Mossadegh — Mohammad Mossadegh is the way Iranians spell his name, including his online biographer. NO ONE spells his name the way the title of this article does. The article used to be under this name but was moved without discussion. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Chuck Hamilton: Not true! The emphasis is on "d" (it is "Mosad-deq", or "Mosad-degh") so that Iranians pronounce the word as "Mosaddeq", or "Mosaddegh", precisely as I have just written, and not as you suggest (in the Persian script, the Tashdid stands on "D" and not on "S" &mdash; مصدّق, to be distinguished from مصّدق). For completeness, please have a look here and note the "DD". Incidentally, we have had this discussion earlier --- the entry's title was originally "Mohammad Mossadegh", and after discussion was renamed into what it is now (naturally, then I supported the change). Kind regards, --BF 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC).


 * I missed the discussion, so I'll not argue that point, at least not at this time. I would lke to point out, however, that this article is one of two hits that come up for the spelling "Mossadeq", which suggests that your assertion is very much a minority.  Now, why do you insist on mispelling the given name?  Iranians spell the name "Mohammad". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had not noticed "MohammEd", which is indeed incorrect -- it must be "Mohammad". Incidentally, I had never consented to "MohammEd", only to Mossadegh → Mosaddegh. So, if you wish to effect the change Mohammed → Mohammad, please go ahead without delay. Incidentally, my personal preference is for the ending "gh", instead of "q" (naturally, I remain to insist on "dd", for the reason I have explained above). --BF 07:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC).


 * Ah, two D's, I missed that specific point earlier. That page may not be taken yet, lemme check; if not then I'll go ahead and change it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Natty4bumpo: Thanks for the change. Following your change, I have now uniformly applied Mosaddeq → Mosaddegh throughout the main text (excluding file names, and book titles). --BF 18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Natty4bumpo: I suddenly noticed that you have used the incorrect name!!! No "ss", but only "dd"!!! It is depressing beyond measure; it is but a simple name. Could you please undertake to correct the name of the entry and of the talk page? --BF 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved to final destination Mohammad Mosaddegh — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'> æk <sup style='color:white'>Talk 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Mossaddegh → Mohammad Mosaddegh — The recent move has been done incorrectly: It must be "Mosaddegh", NOT "Mossaddegh" (single "s" but double "d")! --BF 23:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That page is taken by a redirect and someone who had been an administrator all of five days refused to delete that page so that I could move it there. I checked and the doctor is listed as "Mossaddegh" on several places on the web. I'd be happy to have the page where you suggest if you can get the current redirect space occupying that page removed. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request move, redux
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was Not Moved  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad Mosaddegh → Mohammad Mossadegh — Procedural nomination. I closed the above two requested moves as fait accompli, then discovered that there had been a cut and paste fork of the page history (now fixed). Consensus wasn't reached in the previous discussions about what the name should be, nor are all the available options necessarily made clear. Therefore, I'm reopening a requested move. Please consult the above two discussions. — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'> æk <sup style='color:white'>Talk 07:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Æk, what is your "move" request good for? I have already argued (see above --- my exchanges with Chuk Hamilton) that "Mossadegh", as opposed to "Mosaddegh", is utterly WRONG! (There is no way that "ss", in contrast to "dd", could be correct!!! I would have to hang myself if I were so illiterate as to not know this utter triviality regarding Persian language.) Why are you attempting to restore the wrong name, thus wasting my earlier efforts? Haven't you read my arguments given above, in response to Chuck Hamilton? I stand aghast at the sight of your move request; moving to a WRONG name, in total disregard to all the time that I have spent on the issue in the course of the past week. I appreciate that you intend to do the right thing, following the procedure for moving entries to the letter, but why don't you leave the matter to someone who has a well-founded argument against the present spelling "Mosaddegh"? There was already a consensus between I and Chuck Hamilton and the "move" to the incorrect name "Mossaddegh" (correct "dd", but INCORRECT "ss") had been effected (fully in accordance with the existing Wikipedia rules) on account of the "move" to "Mosaddegh" not being possible because of "Mosaddegh" already existing as a "Redirect" page. --BF 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I became aware of your present "move" request, after writing this to you, in response to your message on my talk page, here. --BF 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Utterly wrong? That is not how English deals with transliterations. It may be unsystematic - it may (like, say, Cyrus) not reflect the intricacies of Farsi spelling, complicated as it is by an alphabet designed for a quite different language - but that doesn't make it wrong. We anglophones write 'Mossadegh and Cyrus'', and that is what other anglophones understand. Wikipedia is not the place to change this; although a sentence or so on the problems involved would be a useful addition to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding "We anglophones" and all that, I suffice only to refer you to the title of this book; the book is written in English and, most importantly, written and edited by world's top experts in the field. As for "an alphabet designed for a quite different language", as it happens the word "Mosaddegh", "مصدّق", is purely Arabic (from the root word "صدق") so that any comparison with e.g. "Cyrus", etc., is utterly irrelevant to the present discussion. Also, Mosaddegh being a person from the relatively recent history, his name has not had to reach us through the Greek and Latin languages; some of those who knew Mosaddegh personally, are still with us and can tell us how his name was pronounced at his time. This very fact makes any comparison of "Mosaddegh" with the name of a person from the ancient history, such as "Cyrus", even more irrelevant. --BF 12:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * According to WP:ENGLISH, reliable sources such as other encyclopedias and reference works should be consulted to determine "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". Encyclopaedia Britannica uses Mosaddeq and The Columbia Encyclopedia uses Mussadegh. Google Books has 1,680 hits for Mossadegh, 325 for Mosaddegh, and 95 for Mossaddegh. (Britannica's Mosaddeq gets 786 hits, and Columbia's Mussadegh gets 310.) Google Scholar produces similar results: Mossadegh 3,150, Mosaddegh 219, and Mossaddegh 35. Regardless of the appropriate transliteration from Persian, the most common English spelling seems to be Mossadegh. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Malik Shabazz, you should read what I have written earlier on the subject matter (last week on this very page). Briefly, in Persian (and we are here discussing the name of an Iranian personality) Mosaddegh (مصدّق) is written and pronounced as "Mosa-dde-gh": there is a Tashdid on "d" (please note the word مصدّق), not on "s"! No matter who says what, what I have just said suffices unequivocally to demonstrate that any transliteration of the name containing "ss" cannot be correct.


 * As for the Google hits, your approach (the like of which I have encountered only on Wikipedia --- committed by those who mistake searching on Google with making scholarly research) is not scientific at all: Google just counts everything indiscriminately; it even takes my text in which I advocate for "s" and "dd" and counts the incorrect "Mossaddegh"s in it, even though I have used this erroneous spelling merely to argue against it. The fact that "Mosaddegh" is encountered on the Internet, demonstrates however that I am not arguing in favour of something invented by myself: there are others who like I correctly believe that the correct Latin transliteration of "مصدّق" is "Mosaddegh" (a Google search would be very decisive if it had shown that there were not incidences of "Mosaddegh" on the Internet).


 * Regarding "gh" and "q", as I have indicated earlier, I am not against "q" per se; I only favour "gh" above "q" and for the following two reasons. First, there are at least two systems of transliterating Arabic and Persian words (both written in Arabic script) into Latin. Of these, one is almost only encountered in academic texts; the other is used mostly in other texts (such as texts of newspapers). The letter "ق" is transliterated as "q" within the former system and as "gh" within the latter. My preference for "gh" is partly for this fact. Second, there is a subtle difference between the way in which "ق" is pronounced by Arabic-speaking people and Persian-speaking people: the former pronounce this letter from the lower part of their throats and the latter from higher up. This subtle difference is preserved by denoting the "ق" in Arabic names by "q" and in the Persian names by "gh".


 * Lastly, but importantly, I should like to point out that unless you have chosen your present Wikipedia name for specific reasons, the word "Shabazz" is a very good example of how incorrect some transliterations from the Arabic script into the Latin one are: the Tashdid in "شباظ" cannot be on "ظ" but only on "ب". From this perspective, I can appreciate "Shabbaz", but not "Shabazz": one has "شبّاظ", "Shabbaz", from the infinitive "شبظ", "Shebz" (which follows the pattern of "فعّال", "Fa'aal", from the infinitive "فعل", "Fe'l" --- this is just one of the most rudimentary aspects of the Arabic grammar, and not a figment of my imagination). I am also not aware of any Arabic word ending with a "z" which is Moshaddad. No doubt, a Google search shows that there are many "Shabazz"'s on the Internet, but does that mean that "Shabazz" were the correct transliteration of "شبّاظ"? --BF 11:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you think I didn't read what you wrote earlier on the page? I dealt with your concerns when I wrote that the proper transliteration of Persian doesn't matter. We're writing an English-language encyclopedia, and our guidelines say we should use the most common English-language name.
 * You evidently didn't read carefully what I wrote. I didn't just look at Google hits. I looked at Google Books and Google Scholar, which include generally high-quality materials (especially Google Scholar).
 * Finally, if you'd like to know about my user name, you can read my User page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What made me think you hadn't read my earlier text? The very fact that "Mosaddeq" that you indicate Encyclopaedia Britannica uses, was the name of the Wikipedia entry until last week! The idea was essentially to correct "MohammEd", making it "MohammAd", and the outcome was, mysteriously, the present "MoSSaDDeGH". Reason given to me at the time was: Oh well, "Mosaddegh" already existed as a "Redirect" file, so we made it "Mossaddegh"!!! I shall not go into further details, but refer you to what I have already written here.


 * Regarding "Shabazz", as I wrote earlier, I am mystified by the "zz" which to me only signifies that the person who has transliterated "شبّاظ" into it has not been qualified for the task. If you re-read my above text, then you will realise that I have no problem with "Shabbaz", and even know its root and meaning; I am also aware of its use as proper name. Please just look at it rationally: what function does the "zz", as opposed to "bb", have in "Shabazz"? What does it signify, or stand for? To me only those who are capable of transliterating "مصدّق" into "Mossadeq" have the rare ability to transliterate "شبّاظ" into "Shabazz"; in both cases, due to a variety of reasons -- ranging from not knowing Arabic, to suffering from some form of hearing ailment --- these persons perceive the emphasis (i.e. the Tashdid) on one letter as an emphasis on a neighbouring letter; in the case of "MosaDDeq", these individuals perceive "MoSSadeq", and in the case of "ShaBBaz", they perceive "ShabaZZ". If what you call the "most common English-language name" is the result of faulty perceptions, then I am all for the least common English-language name; I am opposed to perpetuating the misconceptions of a group of unqualified individuals for the consumption of the entire human race; we better correct our errors, instead of perpetuating them for the sake of conforming with the erroneous practices of our ancestors. Were it not for correcting our errors, very likely right now we were still living in caves; clearly, in such a case editing a thing called Wikipedia would be totally out of question! :)) --BF 18:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying, Malik, is that in spite of the numerous variations of the English spelling of the name of one or two of the foremost Iranians of the 20th century which therefore render the denomination "most common English spelling" all but useless, Wikipedia should impose one of these spellings in the face of accurate information from someone who knows the language and the correct transliteration of the name? How would the man who was one of the foremost American anti-imperialists of the 20th whose name you bear react to that? My point is that given the numerous variations the rational and fair thing to do is to use the transliteration that is correct. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that Wikipedia has guidelines concerning the naming of articles. It is clear that there is a single "most common English spelling": Mossadegh. If you don't agree that it's most common, present evidence to the contrary. As I wrote, the correct transliteration doesn't matter. Not one bit. If you think it does, please find the Wikipedia guideline that says correct transliteration trumps most common English spelling. Keep in mind that we're building an encyclopedia for readers, not editors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Shabbazz: Do what you want, I don't really care a whit! It seems to me that you have decided (for reasons that you must know better than anybody else) not to pay attention to thousands of words that I have already spent on the subject matter and are asking me to waste more of my time on an utterly senseless enterprise.


 * It is an utter mystery to me how people with your intellectual attitude get so high up in the Wikipedia hierarchy (actually, I don't know, and in fact I don't care, how high up you might be). You want to play the boss here, exercising undue power over others (that Google "search" of yours is nothing but a fig leaf for your by now not-so-hidden agenda; why otherwise would you have ignored my repeated reference to this book? --- the Google ranking, incidentally, reflects how utterly stupid some human beings in reality are: they rather choose for what is wrong, than what is demonstrably right), and as far as I am concerned, you may do whatever you wish henceforth. In my considered opinion, you have by your behaviour over the past week demonstrated that you are not being frank with people, neither with me, nor with Æk, nor with Chuck Hamilton; I should have known better after having seen your contrived and disingenuous reasoning, here, as to why you ignored my earlier move request; your further utterly inappropriate and despicable use of the phrase "can of worms", here, in referring to me, must have already more than alarmed me with regard to the kind of personality I was dealing with.


 * Lastly, I should like to end this note with a friendly advice: please consider at least to modify the contents of your Wikipedia page, which, given my experience of the past week, I have come to view as being deceitful; in this connection, I believe this is also Chuck Hamilton's view, as expressed subtly in his note hereabove. While I have no desire to become personal on Wikipedia pages, I hope you will appreciate that your use of "can of worms", in your reference to me in your communication with Æk, to which I referred in the previous paragraph, has entitled me to record here, in the interest of general public, my view on your demonstrated lack of candour in your dealings with others on Wikipedia; in my considered opinion, by your demonstrated and unpardonable lack of ingenuousness, you have indeed shown that you are not qualified for any editorial position at Wikipedia. --BF 06:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In all your thousands of words, have you made a single reference to a Wikipedia policy or guideline? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality issues
The introduction to this article is extremely contentious and biased, favouring a one-sided approach. IranianGuy (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Contentious sentences
This is one example: "Among many in the Middle East, Mosaddeq is viewed as a hero of anti-imperialism, and a victim of imperialist greed for Iran's oil. Clerical dissatisfaction with Mossadeq's secular rule played a role in the coup, fomented by CIA propaganda."

The book in question is not enough of a reliable source to back the assertion that Mossadegh is widely viewed as a "hero of anti-imperialism" in the Middle East. Stating that as a fact requires more than one reliable source. As it is, this is merely an opinion of a single author, and based on what exactly? In addition, please avoid involving non-neutral buzzwords such as "Third World" - Iran did not consider itself as part of any kind of Third World back then. It was only long after the 1979 Revolution that Iran became a member of the Non-Aligned Movement which is the source of "Third World anti-imperialism". Mossadegh played no part in that movement. IranianGuy (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the passage, which is indeed contentious. The source is just another opinion.  I hope this doesn't lead to another revert war. J M Rice (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Ajax was a joint CIA-MI6 operation
Stating that the coup was led only by the CIA is disingenuous at best. At worst it's misleading and whitewashing the facts. All sources agree that the operation was led by the CIA at the insistence of the British government, with the participation and sanction of the Iranian monarchists and clergy. IranianGuy (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your statement is accurate. Why not make these changes directly to this article?Skywriter (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Republicanism
One element that the article ignores is that the primary reason the clergy turned against Mossadegh was the fear of republicanism. At the time, most clerics were strong monarchists and opposed to republicanism. Unorthodox figures such as Khomeini were still on the fringes and ignored by the orthodoxy in Qom. I would highly suggest that people involved with this article stick to academic sources, since you're not going to find these facts in the popular press (HarperCollins books and such), which are mainly interested in promoting one bias or another. Academic sources are the least contentious and most neutral. IranianGuy (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not make these changes directly to this article? Your knowledge and information could improve this article and also 1953 Iranian coup d'état. Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Title
Mosaddeq is the most common spelling of his name in English texts (or at least as common as Mossadegh which is not consistent with the common transliteration norms). Also, Mosaddeq is consistent with the common transliteration methods for Persian language (for example the ALA-LC romanization). The previous move request (on Dec 13, 2009, by User:Natty4bumpo) was quite misinformed and there wasn't any consensus for that. The page shouldn't have moved in the first place, and the title should be Mohammad Mosaddeq. Alefbe (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alefbe: you are too late! Please read my remarks not only in the above section, but also in the one preceding it. Although User:Natty4bumpo had one point with which I did not agree, his other point (which you seem not to have noticed) was absolutely right: for some reason, "MohammAd" had been "MohammEd": before the first of the recent two "moves", we had "MohammEd Mosaddeq", and the idea (i.e. the consensus between I and Chuck Hamilton, aka Natty4bumpo) was to move to either "MohammAd Mosaddeq" or "MohammAd MosaddeGH", but for some strange reason we got "MohammAd MoSSaDDeGH" (hence the discussions in the above section). My arguments in the previous section on this page are in defence of "MosaDDeGH". As regards "q" versus "gh", I personally favour "gh", for the reasons that I have indicated earlier on this page. Incidentally, I was the person who originally strongly supported the move to "Mosaddeq", which was one of the several possibilities put forward by someone on this page (again for some strange reason, the move from "MohammAd MoSSadegh", which was supposed to be to "MohammAd MosaDDeq", was to "MohammEd MosaDDeq", a fact signalled by Chuck Hamilton only recently). To summarise, I strongly believe that the present name, "Mohammad Mosaddegh", is the best of all possibilities, although as I just said, and said earlier, even though I favour "gh", I have no fundamental objection to "q". So, I propose to leave the matter in peace, or we will get yet another round of back-and-forth arguments which to my best judgement will not prove meaningful (aside from the fact that a possible next "move" might produce yet another misspelling in the name). --BF 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

References: spring cleanup
I am going through references, deleted broken link, removed one that references a movie based on a work of fiction (A Very British Coup), and am looking for more information about the following reference. The Middle East by John Coert Campbell, Arleen Keylin, p. 205. Perhaps whoever added this one will fill in the information such as the ISBN and publisher. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the article?
"In 2000, The New York Times made partial publication of a leaked CIA document titled, Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mosaddegh of Iran – November 1952-August 1953. This document describes the point-by-point planning of the coup by agent Donald Wilbur, and execution conducted by the American and British governments. The New York Times published this critical document with the names censored. The New York Times also limited its publication to scanned image (bitmap) format, rather than machine-readable text. This document was eventually published properly – in text form, and fully unexpurgated. The complete CIA document is now web published. The word ‘blowback' appeared for the very first time in this document."

The article is about Mosaddegh. Who cares if the New York Times also limited its publication to scanned image? This is no longer the case. ''This document was eventually published properly – in text form, and fully unexpurgated. The complete CIA document is now web published.''?

This should be deleted or at least drastically shortened. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Democratically elected ?
It seems quite clear from the article that Mosaddegh was not democratically elected as Prime Minister, as he was elected by the members of parliament, not the people. Hence the statement in the lead is misleading. It is also contentious how "democratic" the election which put him into government was, due to the influence of the Shah. I'd also like to point out that "The Mossadegh Project" clearly fails WP:RS and shouldn't be used to back up statements. Thanks. Claritas § 20:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, and don't worry, I'm completely neutral on whether anyone has been "democratically elected" or not. Salvador Allende came into power through some sort of operation of the congress of Chile, rather than "winning" a direct election. It is the irregularity of his coming into power which forms the basis of the dispute over whether his removal was justified or not, in the 1973 Chile coup.


 * So rather than calling him democratically elected, and giving it a citation, we might write a sentence or two about the dispute over whether his election was democratic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Although Mossadegh was indirectly elected, that does not mean the election was not democratic. The president of the U. S. is not directly elected either, but elected by an electoral college.  In most parliamentary states of course the prime minister is not elected but appointed by the monarch or president on the advice of the outgoing prime minister.  But usually we would say that the governments of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. are democratically elected, since they govern with the support of the majority in parliament.  TFD (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So, how shall we put it? I'm planning to expand the Democratically elected article, especially to give examples of leaders who were "democratically" elected and yet were ousted forcibly - and the reasons given by those who ousted them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should avoid the term altogether. Articles about U. S. congressmen do not state that they are democratically elected.  Readers can look up the process and make their own decision.  In countries without a democratic tradition, we must explain how individuals became prime minister.  Probably best to let the reader decide whether or not it was democratic.  TFD (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For this article, it would probably be more informative to say precisely what mechanism put him into office, rather than to evaluate that process as a claim that he was "democratically elected". But if there are advocates contending over the propriety of his assumption of power we can quote them and describe their reasoning.


 * For example, if a known dictator holds a plebiscite, and he is the only candidate, and he "gets" 99%+ of the vote, few observers (in the West, anyway) would call that an "election" or refer to him as the elected leader. Such an evaluation hinges on the (various) standards for what it means to be democratically elected, such as the ability to form opposition parties, freedom of speech and press, a reasonable lack of fear that opposition candidates will be murdered, etc. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's possible to be a leader elected by a democratic process without being a democratic leader - Adolf Hitler might be an example, although he was only appointed as leader (despite winning the most votes in the 1931 election) due to the workings of the German elite. Mugabe was also originally a democratic leader. However, Ed's reasoning on this point seems sound - the "democratically elected" claim is essentially an evaluation. I apologize if my original wording was a little harsh. Claritas § 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't quote me as a source ;-) My only concern about the phrase "democratically elected" is its use in arguments by advocates regarding whether a particular leader (a) came into power legitimately or (b) was removed from power illegitimately. There is frequently an argument that X is the legitimate leader of nation Y because he was democratically elected, and that faction Z would be wrong to remove him by force (regardless of their motives or purpose), on the grounds that being democratically elected is the gold standard of political legitimacy. As a Wikipedian, I shall continue to try to write neutrally on this rather than to inject my own opinion into articles in the blind faith that 'what I think' is somehow 'true'. --18:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Arash Norouzi and The Mossadegh Project
I have removed the website http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/, called "The Mossadegh Project", because it was founded by a graphic artist with no notable scholarship or expertise in Iran politics. Arash Norouzi is not the subject matter expert that we require for inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mossadegh was ARRESTED TWICE FOR TREASON TO IRAN, Mossadegh is a British Hero, a Traitor to Iran.
Mossadegh was arrested twice for treason against Iran during the reign of Reza Pahlavi I and a third time during the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Pahlavi King, Reza Shah, arrested him for conspiring with the British to destablize and undermine the policies of the new Pahlavi Monarchy. As a result, Mossadegh was commonly viewed in Iran as a British agent and a hypocritical traiter to Iran. Mossadegh is Iran's Ghandi, a British Hero, and a traitor to Iran.

Mossadegh was of royal blood from the Qajar Dynasty. Mossadegh served the British well and as a result has been turned into a hero. Mossadegh is a British Hero, and a traiter to Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.225.13 (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?
From the section "Plot to depose Mosaddegh": "Despite Mosaddegh's open disgust with socialism, Winston Churchill told the United States that Mosaddegh was "increasingly turning towards communism" and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears.[35][36][37][38]" Yet he is included in the Category:Iranian socialists. How can he both a socialist and "openly disgusted with socialism" at the same time? Josh (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much text about overthrow
This article contains too much material in the Mohammad Mosaddegh section. There is a clear link to the main article at 1953 Iranian coup d'état, so all this article needs to do is summarize the overthrow, perhaps filling in extra details specific to Mosaddegh, such as where he was at what time, who he met with, what he was doing personally in relation to the coup... details not included at the main article. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome WikiProject U.S. Public Policy
If this biography article is your assignment under WikiProject United States Public Policy, please study the article 1953 Iranian coup d'état as well. The 1953 coup made Mosaddegh into the a modern symbol of democracy in Iran, and it was a critical part of his life. This biography could be improved by rewriting the Legacy section in a more chronological fashion, tracing the historiography of Mosaddegh over the years: how his role has been viewed by various factions at various times. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

US vs USA
I removed the unneeded "of America" following a wikilink to United States. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Date in image
I am removing the date in the image of Shaban Jafari, as it was not known to be taken on August 19, 1953. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)