Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh/Archive 2

Democratic?
From Proquest Historical New York Times. ''"In Iran Plebiscite on Majlis Ouster" by Kennett Love, p.1 ''Teheran, Iran, Aug. 3 - Premier Mohammed Mossadegh won about 99.9 per cent of the votes cast today in the first phase [Tehran district] of a plebiscite to express the `will of the people` as authority for dissolution of the Majlis. The proportion of the victory surprised few.

''The ballot was not a secret one. Separate polling places were provide for those voters favoring dissolution and those against, and the voter had to give his name, his address and the number and place of issuance of his identity card.

......

The opposition has charged the plebiscite was Premier Mossadegh's final step to a full dictatorship .... --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot base the democratic intentions of Mosaddegh's leadership on the ballot not being secret. BoogaLouie continually argues the democratic nature of the election and other votes over this point[read above]. The separation of the voting locations cannot be deemed an undermining of democracy unless you can prove that it intentionally done to have an effect on the outcome. The only support you provided is the landslide vote which "The proportion of the victory surprised few". Maybe they weren't surprised cause all their peers supported it. As for the election of Mosaddegh, his popularity among Iranians is a much more probable reason for the landslide there and his popularity alone would likely have won him office. Without concrete evidence for the argument I could just as well say Mosaddegh may have done it that way with the intention of avoiding violence at the voting booths or to compensate for the rampant illiteracy. Secret ballots are great, unless you can't read. Centralized voting is great, until a riot breaks out.

As for giving your name, address, and ID at the voting booths.... I have to do that when I vote too. It's to prevent people from voting more than once not to undermine democracy.

I think Mosaddegh's rule was not a very traditional sense of democracy but it was a very good start in a country that never saw the likes of it before. A start that US and British intelligence agencies purposefully ended to control Iran's oil. Isn't one of the traditional principles of democracy to spread democracy? Mosaddegh's reforms of implementing unemployment compensation and ending slave labor are things that US leaders have been honored for. Democracy is for the people by the people. Mosaddegh's leadership definitely showed the for the people trait. If you want to argue by the people on him you might as well agrue for the people in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.102.15 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just different from the way Westerners do things?
Is it true that ''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.''? (quoted from editor Alborz Fallah, above )

From Proquest Historical New York Times. ''"Mossadegh Voids Secret Balloting : Decrees `Yes` and `No` Booths for Iranian Plebiscite on Dissolution of Majlis" by Kennett Love, p.6 ''Teheran, Iran, July 28 - The institution of the secret ballot, inviolate since the Iranian Constitution adopted it in 1906, was swept aside by a Cabinet decree published today. .... ''According to the directives of the decree, each election district will have two marked polling booths, ... In addition each ballot must be clearly inscribed with the full name of the voter and the number and place of issue of his identity card. ''The legality of the plebiscite iself has been questioned. Premier Mohammad Mossadegh has said a favorable vote would be regarded as authority for the dissolution of the Majlis on the ground that the `will of the people is above the law` despite the consitutional amendment specifically reserving to the Shah the power of dissolving Parliament. Although there is no provision in the constitution for a plebiscite such as the one proposed, the Constituion stipulates that the election of deputies must be `direct and secret.` --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, secret ballot was part of the 1906 constitution. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaban Jafari
Based on the discussion taking place at Talk:Abadan Crisis timeline, I am restoring one sentence of scholarly cited text to this article, the sentence offering the minority viewpoint that Shaban Jafari was in jail on 19 August 1953 and did not lead street riots that day. One sentence does not violate WP:UNDUE, and the cited sources are from scholarly imprints; among the best possible sources per WP:SECONDARY. Here is the sentence: "Jafari has also been reported as being in jail during the coup." Very simple. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Following the RfC at Talk:Abadan Crisis timeline, I am once again placing the single sentence of scholarly cited text into this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no WP:consensus to do so. The RFC has not yield any conclusive results. In light of the irrefutable photographic and scholarly evidence posted on Talk:Abadan_Crisis_timeline, and the fact that even your disputed partisan sources do not report what you're claiming as a verifiable fact, you're basically re-introducing a false claim to Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Death
I'm afraid that Mosaddegh was dead in Ahmadabad, in exile, not in Tehran. --Cloj (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, but I believe he was transferred to a hospital in Tehran for medial attention before he died. But feel free to make the appropriate corrections, citing a WP:RS. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

April 3 edits
I've reverted a bunch of recent edits as some are quite contentious and am not sure they are backed by reliable sources. I'm going to go through them and unrvt edits that seem OK. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is a pretty big mess with duplicating text and lacking sources. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks the editor Kurdo777 was trying to hide the royal ancestry of Mosaddegh, hide his involvement in ousting Reza Shah in 1941, hide his political machinations in calling for a referendum, hide his seizing extra power and dissolving the Parliament. All this political maneuvering was put into the passive voice, removing Mosaddegh's strong interest advocacy.


 * However, Kurdo777 was correct in adding the information about Mosaddegh weakening the landed aristocracy. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But look here --
 * ''"This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector.
 * Mosaddeq also weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran’s centuries-old feudal agriculture sector ...."
 * Kurdo added what was already in the article. The problem is sloppiness, not just partisan POV editing. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You two need to be civil and assume good faith with other editors. The edits in question, were all constructive improvements to the page, which were blindly reverted in a bad-faith fashion. I've restored the edits. --Wayiran (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad revert, Wayiran. No problem with a lack of good faith was shown by BoogaLouie or myself. The problems with the changes were pointed out and are still being discussed. They were not blindly reverted, a term more aptly applied to your own action. I am reverting you, but I am reworking the French TV bit to include what I assume to be Kurdo777's intentions. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't appreciate your rude accusatory tone. My edits were mostly maintenance-related edits (removing a citation tag from the lead etc), or reverts of random IPs who had been adding WP:OR to the page, like Mossadegh supporting the abdication of Reza Shah. I also restored some deleted info about feudal agriculture sector, and reworked the referendum section in line with the main article, to tone down the POV language, and replace outdated editorial commentary with academic sources. BoogaLouie's mass revert is unacceptable and disruptive. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no rude tone from me, just a discussion of the edits. You changed the article to a point of view you hold, one I do not hold. Simple as that. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You were making baseless bad-faith accusations- my edits have improved the article. You're restoring WP:OR (who says Mossadegh was involved in Reza Shah's abdication?), an out-of-place tag in the lead (who puts citation tags in the lead, which is the summary of the article, in front of an obvious fact discussed in details in the article?), an outdated primary source, while removing an academic source (Abrahamian), among other things - just because the edits were made by me. This is unacceptable behavior. You have a problem with my edits, you discuss them one by one in a civil manner. Blind mass-reverts will not be tolerated. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of my discussion was not taking your edits one-by-one? I said that your edits served to hide various parts of Mosaddegh's history, and they did. That is not any kind of assumption of bad faith. I have no problem with you; nor have I blindly mass-reverted as Wayiran did. I assessed the various changes and determined that calling the 2003 TV show French was just fine. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's called a baseless bad-faith accusation. You didn't address my points one-by-one, so I'm going to ask again: who says Mossadegh was involved in Reza Shah's abdication? Why are you introducing WP:OR to the page? Why are you putting a fact tag in front of a well-sourced fact in the lead where citations are not used? Why are you replacing a modern academic source (Abrahmian) with an outdated primary source (TIME news item from Aug. 17, 1953)? Why are you violating the relevant Wikipedia polices on sourcing (WP:RS, WP:Primary). style (WP:LEAD) and original research (WP:OR)? Kurdo777 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Binksternet, WHY? I'd like to know as well. --Wayiran (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither Binksternet nor BoogaLouie have answered my detailed content-related questions above. BoogaLouie has made yet another blind revert, compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, by re-introducing falsehoods/WP:OR (Mossadegh being involved in Reza Shah's abdication) into the article. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

fight over edits
I think we need to step away from the overheated rhetoric and look at the article and the recent edit history. Kurdo made a series of edits April 3 which I rvted as there was not a consensus and they seemed problematic. I made a second edit keeping some of Kurdo's changes and toning down some of the old text that (it seems to me) Kurdo was objecting to. I left a talk message about it at the beginning of this section (April 3 edits.) IOW I did not "blindly reverted in a bad-faith fashion ... constructive improvements to the page." and did not "compromis[e] the integrity of Wikipedia, by re-introducing falsehoods/WP:OR (Mossadegh being involved in Reza Shah's abdication) into the article", as that's one of Kurdo's changes I included in my edit as you can see here.

Anyway, WayIran rvted what I did and the fight insued.

My two main concerns with Kurdo's edits were

A) repetition here -- "This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector. Mosaddeq also weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran’s centuries-old feudal agriculture sector ...."'' Kurdo added here Which he has since fixed here and

B) eliminating all mention of the highly controversial non-secret ballot voting in the referendum Mosaddeq called for giving himself legislative powers, specifically these sentences  The referendum vote did not have a secret ballot but separate polling places for yes and no voters. Mosaddegh won "99.9 percent the vote" in the Aug. 4, 1953 referendum. According to the New York Times, on or around Aug. 16, Mosaddegh "overreached, playing into the C.I.A.'s hands by dissolving Parliament", and Mosaddegh's emergency powers were extended.

... which kurdo calls "an outdated primary source." Maybe the TIME magazine source is a problem but there are plenty of other sources criticizing the balloting, such as:

Kinzer. "Mossadegh announced that he would hold a referendum on the question and pledged to resign if voters did not vote to oust the existing Majlis. The referendum, hurriedly convened at the beginning of August, was a disastrous parody of democracy. There were separate ballot boxes for yes and no votes, and the announced result was over 99% in favor of throwing out the Majlis. The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill. Mid-August found Roosevelt and his team of Iranian agents in place and ready to strike." (Kinzer, Stephen, All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, Stephen Kinzer, John Wiley and Sons, 2003, p.165)

Abrahamian reflects on how Mosaddeq had changed and become more radical by mid-1953: "Mossadeq, the constitutional lawyer who had meticulously quoted the fundamental laws against the shah, was now bypassing the same laws and resorting to the theory of the general will. The liberal aristocrat who had in the past appealed predominantly to the middle class was mobilizing the lower classes. The moderate reformer who had proposed to disenfranchize illiterates was seeking the acclaim of the national masses. To ensure victory at the polls, positive and negative ballot boxes were placed in different places. As expected, Mossadeq received an overwhelming vote of confidence, winning over 2,043,300 of the 2,044,600 ballot cast throughout the country. (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.274)

Gasiorowski calls the referendum "blatantly rigged" and "causing a great public outcry against Mosaddeq" in his 1991 book U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah, Building a Client State in Iran, Mark J. Gasiorowski (Cornell University Press, 1991) p.75, but by the time of Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, (published 13 years later) he described it only in terms of a political mistake. "Mosaddeq's decision to conduct a controversial referendum to close Parliament gave the CIA's precoup propaganda campaign an easy target, probably helped persuade the shah to support the coup, and undoubtedly turned some Iranians against Mosaddeq." (Gasiorowski, Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.266)

In any case there is still no consensus on Kurdo's edits. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

propaganda
Even if the CIA supported these events, in this article you get the impression, that the CIA or the USA was the main actor behind everything. This kind of conspiracy propaganda used in order to delegitimate the Shah, but it has little to do with the truth. Do also not forget that the western mainstream media in Europe esp. the left has supported the 1979 revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.32.19 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

date of an aide's execution
In this Wikipedia article, I find:

> The minister of Foreign Affairs and the closest associate of Mosaddegh, Hossein Fatemi, was executed by order of the Shah's military court. The order was carried out by firing squad on October 29, 1953.

There is a link provided for Wikipedia article for Hossein Fatemi, and in it it says he died 10 Nov. 1954 (executed). Please explain the date discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable Deviations from the Coup article
I can't believe the same unbelievable fight which is occurring on the coup page is also taking place in this article. Wikipedia is no place for fringe theories. Yes, Milani and a handful of other revisionists (mostly former regime officials who first denied the US was ever involved) are making a lot of noise on this issue. However, they are still only a handful of scholars on this subject matter presenting a fringe conspiracy which greatly deviates from mainstream scholarship. The notion that their views should be presented is debatable. The fact that it should be given equal weight is questionable. The notion that it should dominate (such as removing "democratically elected" from Mossadeq's lede; or claiming there was no coup at all; or calling it a "counter-coup"), is absolutely unacceptable.

Wikipedia has one page for the Sept 11 attacks, and another page for related conspiracy theories. If you would like to make an "Operation Ajax Conspiracy Theory" page where fringe theories are presented, go right ahead. But please stop adding them here. This page should more or less reflect the same information as the Coup page, which is the main reason why Mossadeq is even notable. Poyani (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Elected/Appointed Controversy
I already made my point clear in the RFC but I want to post something to settle this issue once and for all.

First, regarding semantics (which should not even be relevant since it is Original Research, but seem to keep coming up by the crowd opposed to "democratically elected":

Please note that "democratically elected" and "appointed by parliament" with the consent of the monarch are not actually contradictory statements. The Prime Ministers of Canada, UK, Israel, etc are all appointed by parliament in the exact same manner as Mossadeq, by being appointed by an elected parliament and signed off by a Queen (UK), Governer General (Canada) or President (Israel). Even the US system has similar mechanisms. Each state elect what are called "electoral colleges" which then appoint the president. The scholarly work on this issue is not divided.

Second, regarding reliable sources:

Please also note that at best, the notion that Mossadeq was not democratically elected is a fringe theory within a political community, not represented in peer reviewed scholarly work. Even the sources cited by those opposed to the wording "democratically elected", do not actually contradict the statement. They state (correctly) that Mossadeq was appointed by parliament. This is not a contradiction (as noted above). The Prime Minister of Canada is democratically elected by being appointed by parliament. Same as the UK. Same as Israel. All are appointed by parliament. All are democratically elected.

Last, regarding notability:

Please note that reviewing discussions of Mossadeq today in scholarly sources and news organization reveals that he is only relevant and notable today for being Iran's (and possibly the entire Middle East's) one and only democratically elected head of state, whose overthrow has produced significant consequences. This fact is relevant today because it has serious implications regarding the theories as to why western governments interfere in the middle east (benevolent intervention vs opportunism). I assume that this is why many editors have such a sticking point to purging the factually correct and relevant description of "democratically elected" from the article. But as noted above, that would deny the article of one of the most fundamental reasons why it is even notable in the first place and subject of discussion. Hence removing this reference to "democratically elected" may actually be a very negative and destructive decision, reflecting very poorly on the article.

To sum up, for the reasons noted above, removing "democratically elected" from the article is against the fundamental principles used for editing Wikipedia including but not limited to WP:NOR WP:RS, WP:NN and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it will significantly reduce the value of the article and is factually incorrect. I hope this ends the issue once and for all since in my opinion this discussion was a ridiculous non-starter from the beginning. Poyani (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to everything I listed above, please also note that the idea that Mossadeq is not democratically elected requires belief in a conspiracy which goes up all the way to the president of the United States.

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government."

Poyani (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody questions whether Mosaddegh ran a government that was legitimate and authorized—he did. Nobody doubts that the parliament was properly elected. However, the parliament that nominated and approved Mosaddegh as prime minister did not "elect" him; there was no other candidate, just like every time before. After the shah signed the document that made Mosaddegh prime minister, Mosaddegh selected the members of his cabinet. Each of these men was also confirmed/approved by the parliament. The whole sequence was part of the democratic process, so we can certainly say that Mosaddegh's government was the result of a working democracy. However, none of the specific steps bringing Mosaddegh and his cabinet to power included an election. "Democratically empowered" is more accurate, "duly appointed" is a commonly used phrase that fits this situation. Respected scholar Abbas Milani describes the "democratically elected" version of events as part of the mystique that arose around Mosaddegh because of the decades of terror under the Shah's authoritarian regime, not because of how the events unfolded at the time. Milani describes this narrative as being first promoted by Mosaddegh himself, then strengthened by the self-serving "leaked" "official history" of the CIA (Milani uses scare quotes here.) Milani notes that Madeleine Albright has expressed the wording of this narrative, and we know that other politicians have used it. Politicians speaking to crowds do not erase scholarly research. What we have is one popular but inaccurate narrative that lionizes Mosaddegh, and we have another which describes the situation in more accurate and more balanced terms, one that is based on scholarly research and multiple scholarly sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. What you describe is precisely what it means to be democratically elected.  Look up the article on Barack Obama.  It states that "He became the first African American to be elected president".  This is despite the fact that Barack Obama was appointed president by the Electoral College.  What makes Mossadeq notable is precisely the fact that he was the only democratically elected head of state in Iranian history.  If Milani is actually arguing that Mossadeq was not elected basedon your "appointment" argument (which I am not sure he is) then he is making a very serious yet basic error.  That is how Prime Ministers are elected in every single democracy that has the position.  In Canada, an election was held last year where members of parliament were elected to the House of Commons.  The House met and appointed Stephan Harper the Prime Minister.  They also appointed his cabinet.  That means that Stephan Harper is the democratically elected Prime Minister of Canada.  Poyani (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly urge editors to read this article to understand what it means to be "democratically elected" in a government. Note that Mossadeq was elected using the third method listed.Poyani (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephan Harper was elected in a nationwide vote of popularity in all three elections. The nation voted for him each time among other candidates like the US election, nothing like Mossadeq. The parliment apointed the only candidate available which is even less democrtic than apierthied south africa where 15% of the population voted among multiple candidates. 88.104.208.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. You don't know what you are talking about.  I am a Canadian living in Richmond Hill, and during each of our election period Stephan Harper was not even an option on my ballot. In fact, of all the 308 electoral ridings in Canada Stephan Harper was only listed in 1, Calgary Southwest. In the last election the names on our ballot were "Bryon Wilfert (Liberal", "Costas Menegakis (Conservative)", "Adam DeVita (NDP)" and "Cameron Hastings (Green)".  See here. Costas Menegakis (Conservative) was elected here.  He and the other elected MPs appointed Stephan Harper as Prime Minister.  Mossadeq was elected in the exact same way.  He was democratically elected to the Majlis along with other members, and then the members of the Majlis appointed him Prime Minister.  That is the very definition of being democratically elected.


 * Stephan Harper personally received the vote of 42,998 people in Canada, which is roughly 0.29% of the popular vote and 0.17% of those eligible to vote. Poyani (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is Stephen Harper was head of the party when Canadians voted for his party three times, so basically there voting for him and what you said about Barack Obama is completely false, he was elected nominee for his party and then he was elected by the nation. Don't over complicate these elections. In most countries you either vote for a single man or a party who has already decided there candidate, so in all cases you are basically voting for a single man. i may be wrong on Stephen Harper because you do live there but regarding places like the US, UK and France that is how it happened. 88.104.208.74 (talk)


 * Stephan Harper's party has never, in its entire history, gotten even 40% of the votes. He is prime minister because the elected Canadian parliament appointed him Prime Minster.  Mossadeq was also the leader of a party which won Iranian national parliamentary elections.  Mossadeq was the elected leader of the National Front (Jebhe Melli).  The prime minister of United Kingdom is elected in the exact same way I described above.  Same in Israel.  Same in many other places.  And yes, same in the US.  In the US, voters elect what are called "electoral colleges" which then appoint the president.  The president does not win by getting the most votes.  In fact, in 2000, George W Bush won the presidency despite the fact that he got less votes than Al Gore. Look up the number of votes yourself here. According to the official results, Bush received 50,456,002 votes whereas Al Gore got, 50,999,897 votes.  Al Gore had half-a-million more votes than Bush.  Bush won because despite getting less of the popular vote, he had the support of more electoral colleges (electoral votes) who appointed him President. I am not complicating anything.  You are just totally ignorant about the topic in question.


 * I would one more time implore you to look into what it means to be indirectly elected. Click on the link and read the material.  Note that US presidents are elected as per the first item listed.  Mohammed Mossadeq, Stephan Harper, David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu were elected as per item #3. Poyani (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you should note that the US president is "elected" because the choice is between several candidates. For Mosaddegh as prime minister of Iran, there was only one candidate. The vote was an approval vote: yes or no. If the answer was no, another candidate would have to be nominated and approved. Also, at the end of the process, the Shah could have refused to sign the paper certifying the appointment, but he did not. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. That is how Prime Ministers are elected.  It is called a vote of confidence. Look up how Gordon Brown became Prime Minister of the UK.  Or how Kim Campbell became Prime Minister of Canada.  Or how Shimon Peres became Prime Minister of Israel.  I am going to mention this one more time.  Every single Prime Minister in the world is elected using the exact same mechanism.  Every single one.  Without exception.  In every country that has that position.  EVERY ONE! EVERY TIME! Poyani (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarkozy, Obama, Harper and Netyanahu. All of these people were head of there party when nation wide elections among multiple candidates happened and they all got a majority of votes or states depending on that countries rules. Mossadegh was head of his party in 1947 which was the most popular party but he was not prime minister in 1947 because they did not do it like that. The largest parties head was not by default the prime minister of Iran. He was not made leader like any of these guys. He did not face nation wide elections nor did he compete against anyone (unless sources can prove otherwise). You cannot equate them. If he was elected like Sarkozy or Harper, he would have been prime minister of Iran in 1947 when the national front won the legislative election and he was head of the party then. There was no nation wide elections in 1951 for him or his party that year, so he was not elected like them. Also his predecessors gained power in the same way he did by being approved by the parliament. 88.104.213.81 (talk)


 * What you are saying, besides being irrelevant, is also untrue. Gordon Brown became the democratically elected Prime Minister of UK without leading his party in elections.  Same is true of John major. Shimon Peres on numerous occasions became the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel, without ever leading his party to election victory.  Paul Martin became the democratically elected Prime Minister of Canada, a year before facing elections.  Kim Campbell also became the democratically elected Prime Minister of Canada without leading her party in any election. I could easily list another 100 examples. The reality is, as I mentioned before, Mossadeq was elected Prime Minister using the exact same system used in any Parliamentary Democracy in the world. Poyani (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And for the record, Netanyahu did not become prime minister of Israel because his party won the most votes in a general election. It didn't.  His party, Likud, came second in the elections. In case you are wondering why he became Prime Minister, it is because he was appointed by the Israeli parliament (Knesset) in a vote of confidence (i.e. yes/no vote). Poyani (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These guys all became head based on that countries rules which were more democratic than Iran back then. Gordon Brown and John Major became leader after the resignation of there predecessors, so they were not elected. CBA discussing all of these guys, they all became leaders in there own countries way. I cannot be bothered researching it more.

Are you not denying what I said about Mossadegh though. Then the way he became leader was not like these other countries elections usually. He became premier like all other Iranian prime ministers at the time. Was mossadegh not chosen by the Shah and aproved with no opponents. Neither he or his party faced elections that year. This is not like every Parliamentary Democracy in the world. 88.104.213.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Iran's rules were identical to those countries at the time of Mossadeq. Gordon Brown (for example) became Prime Minister when Tony Blair resigned.  The British Parliament (which is democratically elected) then voted him as the new Prime Minister.  The Queen rubber-stamped the process.  In Iran Mossadeq became Prime Minister when Hossein Ala resigned.  The Iranian Majlis (which at the time was democratically elected) then voted him as the Prime Minister.  The Shah rubber-stamped the process.  This is exactly the same as every other constitutional monarchy in the world.  100% exactly the same.  That is how every demcoratic country selects the next Prime Minister when the previous one resigns. That is how it happened.


 * What you said about the Shah selecting him as PM is false. The Shah specifically did not want him as PM.  He was forced because as per a constitutional monarchy, the King is not supposed to interfere in the political process.  The democratically elected Majlis is supposed to elect the Prime Minister.  That is how it is done everywhere.


 * This event took place once and only once in Iran. During the election of Mossadeq. When a person is elected by a democratically elected parliament, that is called an Indirect election and is considered part of the democratic process.  All the people I listed above, including Mossadeq, were democratically elected via indirect elections. You are confusing election of Members of Parliament with elections of Prime Ministers.  The two are not actually directly related.  They are indirectly related, in every constitutional monarchy on earth, in every single instance a parliament is elected. The members of parliament vote for a Prime Minister.  Whether the parliamentary elections were last week, or last month, or last year is simply unimportant. As long as the constitution is not violated, the leader can change countless times before the next election. Poyani (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Mossadegh may have risen to power like Gordon Brown but remember most Prime ministers in the UK were head of the party that won nation wide elections whereas he only became leader because Tony Blair resigned. All Iranian prime ministers of the time became leader in a similar way to Mossadegh whereas Gordon Brown did not win his term like prime ministers usually do. He was not democratically elected by the nation as he never won a nation wide election unlike Tony Blair. Iran's rules are not identical to those countries. The rules for election leader of Britain are not the same as the ones in 50,s Iran. I am not confusing election of Members of Parliament with elections of Prime Ministers.

If you have this Info could you add it. Did he face competition? How did he get chosen? Or just any more info on his approval or election because it is quite vague like all Iranian prime ministers aswell. Also CBA with this discussion anymore. 88.104.213.81 (talk)

Constitutionality of the Decree dismissing Mossadeq
The article currently states that the decree dismissing Mossadeq was constitutional. First of all, this is actually controversial. Some sources say it was constitutional. Other say it was not (because the decree required a parliamentary vote-of-confidence, which it did not get). Even assuming the first position, I think the recent change makes the article worse, not better. The sources which state the dismissal was constitutional state that the Shah granted himself the power, in a 1949 (just a few years before Mossadeq's election) constitutional amendment under martial law. That is what the previous revision said. The current revision seems to state the same thing, but in a much more confusing (for example, refers to the dismissal of prime minister by the Shah as "an act"; it is not "an act"; it is a power) and sanitized (does not mention the leading role the Shah played in giving himself the power) matter.Poyani (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would actually suggest we get rid of everything and just state the simple statement "... formally dismissed the Prime Minister in a written decree. The constitutionality of the written decree is disputed." Poyani (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything in politics is disputed. There's no need to say that one of the elements of the 1949 constitution was disputed if it was not actually fought or overturned. The Shah used that part of the constitution without it ever having been challenged.
 * When I read about the 1949 changes to the constitution I see that observers primarily point out the Shah's new ability to dismiss the Majlis. His ability to dismiss the prime minister is not usually mentioned, leading me to conclude that it was not very widely remarked upon, let alone controversial or disputed. Another change in 1949 is that the Senate, a legislative body that was allowed in previous constitutions but never assembled, was finally put together for the first time, the Shah choosing half of its membership. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Democratically elected"
Richard Cottam writes, "Modern Iranian history has more than its share of mythology", a notion that applies very strongly to Mosaddegh and the 1953 coup. Regarding the phrase "democratically elected" to describe Mosaddegh taking the position of prime minister, there are some sources that use it, and a great many that do not. The actual "election" of Mosaddegh to the position of Prime Minister was the approval of him by the Iranian Parliament in late April 1951, an approval that was made official by the Shah's signature. There was no popular vote of the people of Iran, as you must be aware.


 * Foreign policy expert E. A. Bayne in his book, Persian kingship in transition, writes, "After General Razmara's assassination in March 1951, I continued as adviser to his successor, Dr. Hussein Ala, until the virtual acclamation by the Iranian parliament of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh as premier later that spring."
 * Alexander Hopkins McDannald in the 1952 Yearbook of the Encyclopedia Americana says about Mosaddegh, "on April 29, 1951, after the resignation of Premier Hussein Ala, he was named the new premier."
 * The American University wrote in its 1964 Area Handbook for Iran that the "Majlis put pressure on the Shah to appoint Mossadegh as head of the Cabinet. Mossadegh's premiership lasted from April 1951..."
 * Parviz Kambin wrote in his 2011 book, A History of the Iranian Plateau: Rise and Fall of an Empire, that "the shah recommended that Dr. Mosadegh be appointed the next prime minister. The shah requested that he form a new government and select his cabinet members as soon as was possible."
 * Ambassador Henry F. Grady indicates that Mosaddegh was "chosen as prime minister".
 * Alan W. Ford writes in The Anglo-Iranian Oil Dispute of 1951-1952 that on April 27, 1951, Hussein Ala's government fell, and the next day "Mossadegh accepts prime ministership after Senate and Majlis agree to his program of immediate eviction of AIOC."
 * Francisco R. Parra writes in Oil Politics: A Modern History of Petroleum that "Mossadegh became prime minister at the head of a coalition of secular nationalist and religious parties."
 * Ambassador John W. Limbert writes in his 2009 Negotiating With Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History that in late April 1951, Prime Minister Ala "stepped aside, and with the approval of both the parliament and the shah, Mosaddegh became prime minister with a mandate to implement oil nationalization." In an earlier book, 1987's Iran, at war with history, Limbert wrote, "When Hosein Ala, the new prime minister, refused to implement the new law, the Majles nominated, and the shah named, Mossadegh—then chairman of the joint parliamentary oil committee directing the government's negotiations with the British—prime minister on April 29, 1951."
 * The magazine Newsweek wrote in 1952 in Newsweek's history of our times Volume 3, that "The good-willed but weak Shah, who was equally preoccupied with his beautiful new wife and his appendicitis, had to comply. He made Mossadegh Premier on April 29, 1951."
 * Diplomat and scholar George Lenczowski wrote in 1978's Iran under the Pahlavis: "In an atmosphere of mounting excitement, the Shah was obliged to accept Dr. Mosaddegh as prime minister on April 29 and to sign his bill for the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on May 2." In the same book, discussing Prime Minister Ala: "He was replaced by Dr. Mosaddegh, whom the Majles had voted to request the Shah to appoint."
 * Néstor Rivero Silva writes in Spanish in his book Imperio Tricefalo Petrolifero Corporativo, that Mosaddegh "assumed" the prime minister position: "...el presidente de su comité petrolero, Mossadegh, asumió el cargo de Primer Ministro."
 * Patrick Clawson and Michael Rubin write in Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos: "Hussein Ala resigned after less than seven weeks in office. The shah next offered the premiership to Mussadiq... Mussadiq shocked everyone by accepting the premiership. Within three days of assuming his post..."
 * Manucher and Roxane Farmanfarmaian wrote in Blood and Oil: "Word had gotten out that the Shah's next candidate for prime minister was the old eccentric Seyyed Zia. He was the British government's choice as well. To indicate how serious it considered the situation, AIOC abruptly cut wages in Abadan, igniting riots; two British frigates then moved into the Gulf, ostensibly to restore peace. Without mentioning nationalization Ambassador Shepherd let it be known that any further talks with AIOC would be conditional on Seyyed Zia s appointment. Seyyed Zia went to the palace—as was usual for the candidate about to be named premier—to wait with the Shah for Parliament's ratification of his appointment. In the Majles Jamal Emami, a prominent member of the right wing, faced a quandary. On the one hand was the powerful Mossadeq, whose enmity toward Seyyed Zia had already been played out once in Parliament with tears and finger-pointing. On the other was the Shah, whose candidate few trusted. How could he prevent an ongoing confrontation between these two that would permanently hobble the Majles at this critical cime? Public shame, Emami decided, was the best tactic. And so with a saturnine scowl, he took the podium and accused Mossadeq of hindering all parliamentary action he did not like. Mossadeq had brought the Majles to a standstill, Emami complained. He only criticized; never constructed. If he was going to set the course of the Majles and its oil policy, he should serve as prime minister. Emami's taunt was not a recommendation for Mossadeq's candidacy. Mossadeq had always disdained holding office, maintaining categorically that the only way to serve the people was as a deputy. He had never accepted previous offers of the premiership, and Emami was sure he would not accept this one. Emami was wrong. In a surprise move Mossadeq accepted and on May 1, 1951, it handed the Shah a fait accompli. It was a historic moment. For the first time a prime minister had been elected without the Shah's approval. The Shah had no option but to accept. It was a humiliation he would never forget."
 * Mohammad Gholi Majd writes in Resistance to the Shah: Landowners and Ulama in Iran: "On 27 April 1951, the British closed the refinery in Abadan, and Ala resigned. Mossadeq became prime minister the next day..."
 * Sociologist John Foran writes in A Century of Revolution: Social Movements in Iran: "On April 29, 1951, Musaddiq's premiership was recommended by the Majlis and received royal confirmation."
 * Hellmut Braun, writing the chapter "Iran in the 19th and 20th Centuries" found in the book Muslim World: "A few weeks later, at the request of the Majlis, the Shah appointed him prime minister."
 * CIA analyst Stephen C. Pelletière writes in Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf: "On April 28, 1951—since no one wanted the prime ministership—Mosadeq's name was proposed, and he accepted; the shah (with great misgivings) agreed to the appointment."
 * Historian Fakhreddin Azimi writes in The Quest for Democracy in Iran on pages 141–142, that "Mosaddeq's premiership followed the revival of the 'vote of inclination'—the practice of expressing prior parliamentary approval for prime ministerial candidates—which the Shah had disregarded since November 1948, but which Mosaddeq demanded."
 * Abbas Milani writes in The Shah that on April 26, 1951, Mosaddegh accepted a nomination to the position of prime minister, the nomination made "by Jalal Imami, a member of the Majlis known for his close ties with the Shah." In Eminent Persians, Milani notes that "According to Dr. Mossadeq, Reza Shah, too, once offered to appoint him as prime minister; it is not clear how serious the offer was." (This was earlier in 1951, before April.
 * Heidelberg University professor of Political Science Marc J. O'Reilly writes in Unexceptional: America's Empire in the Persian Gulf, 1941-2007 that "Mossadeq came to power" in April 1951.
 * Mark Gasiorowski writes in U.S. foreign policy and the Shah: building a client state in Iran: "In late April the Majles nominated Mosaddeq for the premiership and then voted to nationalize the oil industry."
 * Gholam R. Afkhami writes in the The Life and Times of the Shah, "On the 28th, the Majlis endorsed Mosaddeq as the next prime minister, and the shah appointed him to the post the following day. In fact, Mosaddeq's becoming prime minister was encouraged, if not engineered, by the shah."
 * Historian and Iranologist Elton L. Daniel writes in detail in his The History of Iran: "Unable to control the Majles, Razmara's successor as prime minister, Hosayn Ala, resigned. It was rumored that the shah and the British were planning to bring back Sayyed Zia for the post, but this was preempted in an unusual way: One of the exasperated conservative members of the Majles, Jamal Emami, suggested half-facetiously that since Mosaddeq was responsible for pushing the legislation, he should also be the man to implement it as prime minister. Emami apparently thought that Mosaddeq was a chronic obstructionist who liked to criticize but would never take responsibility for anything and would fail if he did. To his surprise, Mosaddeq accepted the offer and the Majles quickly requested the shah appoint him, thus making it difficult for the shah to follow the normal procedure of offering a nomination himself. Yielding to the inevitable, but never forgetting or forgiving the slight, the shah accepted Mosaddeq as prime minister on April 29 and signed the nationalization bill on May 2."

To sum up, we see various sources describing Mosaddegh's gaining of the premiership as an appointment, as a selection, and as a result of a vote or acclamation of the parliament. In all cases the selection of Mosaddegh was ratified by the Shah. Mosaddegh was nominated and approved as prime minister through parliament and royal actions, not voted in by the Iranian people. The phrase "democratically elected" gives the false impression of a popular vote; it is a call to emotionalism, a grab at sympathy, the kind that we do not use in an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Kurdo777 when your additions are reverted you should be discussing the issue on this talk page and trying to get consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't put X and Y together, even if they're sourced, and make new conclusions based on that. Doing so is a violation of WP:OR. The only thing that matters as far as the phrase "democratically-elected" is concerned, is the direct application of that phrase in academic literature, or direct rebuttals saying clearly "not democratically elected", which none of your sources do. Your own interpretations of what is democratically elected or not, has no place in this discussion. Being named prime minster by the elected parliament does not contradict being democratically-elected. He was an elected member of an elected parliament, and Iran was a parliamentary democracy back then. Here is "Mossadegh+democratically-elected" on Google books, you'll that here are literally thousands of academic sources backing this assertion. So this is the widely-accepted position of the vast majority of academics, that Mossadegh and his government were democratically elected regardless of the various technicalities of the elections or the ceremonial signature of the Shah. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no. Your "literally thousands" of hits are mainly unreliable websites, blogs, mirrors of Wikipedia, school papers based on Wikipedia, and redundant mentions of the same few sources. Some are even referring to other governments such as those of democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz, and democratically elected socialist president of Chile Salvador Allende, who are compared to Mosaddegh because they were all overthrown by CIA coup. You are belittling the actual process of how Mosaddegh became prime minister: he was appointed by parliament and confirmed by the Shah. Was Winston Churchill elected Prime Minister of England? No, he was appointed, just like every other Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister of Iran is similarly appointed, selected or chosen. You can see in the sources I listed above that there was no popular vote to put Mosaddegh in office. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "democratically elected" has a relative meaning : comparing to the non popular and monarchy chosen past prime ministers of Iran, this one was different and was appointed in a democratic process of parliamentary election . The argument of Churchill was not elected Prime Minister of England is useless because we are not searching for absolute literal accuracy , but we are doing our best to reflect a summery of the reliable sources ( that may be right or wrong ) . In this case "democratically elected" + Mossadegh does not shows " websites, blogs, mirrors of Wikipedia, school papers" but that shows many BOOKS that use this phrase  ( that is Google Books , not regular Google search). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that Mosaddegh's government was legitimate, that it was authorized, that it was established in a way that was acceptable to the Shah and to the members of the Parliament. The sense that the 1953 coup brought down a legitimate government is true and valid. However, the "relative meaning" you specify is not so defining of Mosaddegh: previous prime ministers of Iran had been approved by parliament before their names were sent to the shah for confirmation. Ebrahim Hakimi and Abdolhossein Hazhir were the last of a long series of prime ministers chosen first by the parliament. Then from November 1948 to April 1951 there was a short-lived change in procedure—the Shah insisted that it was his prerogative to nominate each prime minister candidate. When the parliament nominated and approved of Mosaddegh without the Shah having suggested him, they were merely returning to the practice of 2.5 years earlier. It was not a radical change.
 * We should not be using a phrase that is so charged with emotion and misunderstanding. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is kind of a Historical revisionism . Mainstream views of the scientific community use the phrase "democratically elected" . By Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR, you need a set of very strong sources ( I mean written by established scholars of the field ) to omit a point of view that is the present scholarly consensus .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The scientific community use it? How are they relevant. We should be looking to the community of historians. You may have also missed the very large list of sources above. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the fact that there was never more than one candidate for prime minister in front of the parliament. When the parliament voted, it was either yes or no; it was an approval vote, not an election involving two or more candidates. This is just like many other governments which require an approval vote from the legislature for appointments to high office, for example any candidate for the United States Supreme Court. We know that Mosaddegh was nominated by Jamal Emami, approved by the parliament, and officially appointed to the position by the Shah. The word "appointed" is the key, here. An appointment is specifically not an election. Sociologist and Middle East expert Misagh Parsa writes in his book, Social Origins of the Iranian Revolution, "Mosaddegh, who had led the nationalist opposition, was appointed prime minister at the end of April 1951." He continues on the next two pages with a description of how Mosaddegh resigned the position in July 1952 after which the Shah appointed Ahmad Ghavam as PM. Parsa says that widespread protests and popular support for Mosaddegh "finally forced the Shah to back down and re-appoint Mosaddegh." Similarly, Law professor William Michael Reisman writes in Regulating Covert Action, "...the shah was persuaded to appoint the popular nationalist, Mohammed Mossadegh, as prime minister." Other words such as "named" indicate the same idea as "appointed". In the above sources, McDannald, Parra and the Farmanfarmaians use this term. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Professor Bahman Baktiari writes in Professor Bernard Reich's book Political Leaders of the Contemporary Middle East and North Africa, "The shah had little alternative but to appoint Mossadegh as prime minister in April 1951." Professor Santosh C. Saha writes in Perspectives on Contemporary Ethnic Conflict, "The National Front (NF) was instrumental in the monarch Reza Shah's appointment of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh... as Iran's prime minister in 1951." Professor Richard Crockatt writes in The Fifty Years War, "...Muhammad Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minister." Dr. Zhand Shakibi writes in Revolutions and the Collapse of Monarchy, "Mossadegh had been a deputy in the Majles for a decade before the shah reluctantly appointed him prime minister in 1951..." In the reference work An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Conflict and Conflict Resolution, the entry on Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, says "In April 1951, he appointed Mohammad Mossadegh to be prime minister." Historian Stephen E. Ambrose wrote about Mosaddegh in Ike's Spies: "Reluctantly, the Shah appointed him Prime Minister." All of these references to "appointed" are in direct opposition to "democratically elected". Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A brief history of the dispute about "democratically elected"
In this article, Ed Poor first added the phrase "democratically elected" on June 9, 2010. Within a few minutes, Claritas reverted him and then TFD reverted Claritas. Two weeks later on June 25, I reverted TFD. That same day Wayiran restored the phrase with more sources, the poorest of which I removed. This lasted for 18 months until Deposuit removed the phrase on December 31, 2011, as part of a larger series of changes. This lasted for 7 months until Kurdo777 restored the phrase yesterday.

At the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article, the phrase has been a contentious one for a very long time. The very first talk page entry was concerned about the phrase eight years ago in June 2004: Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 1. Further discussion were conducted:
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2 – April 2006
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2 – December 2007
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2 – January 2009
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2 – February 2009
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 6 – See posts by Batvette and A Quest For Knowledge, August 2009
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 6 – August 2009
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 7 – October 2009
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 8 – December 2009
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 9 – March 2010
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 10 – March 2010
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 11 – June 2010
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 12 – September 2010
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 13 – March 2011
 * Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 14 – June 2011

It's high time to address the issue once and for all, to determine how, where and if the phrase "democratically elected" should be introduced to the article. I hold that it cannot be given in Wikipedia's voice but that it should be attributed to those who use it. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it has been contentious for so long the best way foreword is perhaps to arrange for an RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty burnt out on the 1953 coup/Mosaddeq articles but will try to stay involved. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not that bothered if someone changes it or not as there has been alot of debate regarding this of which I have not been involved and there are sources on this page saying he is democratically elected but that term usually applies to someone who was voted in by the citizens of that country as opposed to just the parliament like he was. Is that not correct? Why not just say he was voted in by parliament in the intro instead. Say parliamentary elected as opposed to democratically elected. 88.104.208.74
 * Because a prime minster who is elected by an elected parliament, is democratically-elected. There is no contradiction there. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democratically elected requires this. Anyway the word elected is dubious becuase it implies they chose him among multiple candidates. He was the only candidate and all they had to do was approve him. He won an election unopposed. The parliament had no choice. 88.104.208.74 (talk)
 * And that is all your WP:OR. The vast majority of the sources use the term "democratically-elected" and that's all that matters in Wikipedia. Your or my opinion and analysis has no weight whatsoever. It all comes to what the sources directly say about this issue, and they say democratically-elected. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wether he was democratically elected or not is not a judgement call from some but a factual one and should be based on facts like him not being voted by Iranian people, not on because what some sources say. What i said was not OR as it is true and already sourced on this page. Sources do say he was democratically elected but many say he wasn't, so reliable sources contradict each other on this. Writing he was parliamentary appointed is fact and sourced. 88.104.208.74 (talk)
 * Please note that using your reasoning, the heads of state of US, Canada, Israel, UK, etc are not democratically elected. They are also appointed in the same manner as Mossadeq. Poyani (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. The president of the US is "elected" because there are multiple candidates from which the voter selects. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Please take part in the RfC discussing this issue at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The result of that RfC is as follows: "Per a request at WP:AN/RFC to formally close this discussion. WP:NPOV is clear that "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." There are two sourced viewpoints presented as an either-or choice when Wikipedia policy states that we should be using both. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC) By request, I've been asked to clarify the above. There is no consensus to include either the "appointed" wording or the "democratically elected" wording. Until such a time as consensus exists, I would suggest that neither wording should be used. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)"

The takeaway is that there are two options open to us: we use both "democratically elected" and "appointed", or we use neither. Any article with only one of them should be changed to both or neither. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of democratically-elected
A user, possibly a sock-puppet, had once again unilaterally removed the academically-sourced phrase "democratically-elected ", introducing some original research into the article about the prime minister's indirect election through the elected parliament as "proof" that he wasn't "democratically-elected " which goes against what the majority of academic sources say about this issue. This issue has been discussed already numerous times here and elsewhere, and there was clearly no consensus for such removal. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is clear consensus at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état that we will never say in Wikipedia's voice that Mosaddegh was democratically elected. Instead, we should explain the two viewpoints: that some people say he was democratically elected, and others say he was appointed. Of course, we explain why. A simple statement of fact, one way or the other, is now closed to us. That's why the lead section cannot say he was democratically elected. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no such consensus. The policy in question does not apply in this case, as there is no "two contradictory view points" and one could be appointed Prime Minster and still be democratically elected. An overwhelming number of academic sources characterize Mossadegh's government as democratically elected. You failed to bring even one notable source that directly disputed this by expertly saying "he wasn't democratically elected". Also, consensus is formed by the community and you had no such consensus to remove this phrase. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but consensus was reached at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état, and the position you describe was not endorsed. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the consensus was 7 to 3 against your proposal, as your proposal relied on your own interpretation of what democratically elected means, and that's against WP:OR policy. For there to be "two competing viewpoints" amongst scholars, you need to first establish that a good number of scholars DIRECTLY DISPUTE that Mossadegh was "democratically elected" by saying he wasn't. Your list of references saying Mossadegh was "appointed" or "indirectly elected", has no relevance, as neither of those descriptions actually contradict democratically elected nature of his government which is what at issue here. Bring sources that say explicitly "Mossadegh was not democratically elected" instead of making your own interpretation of sources and we will weight them against the vast majority of the academic sources that say "Mossadegh was democratically elected", and then we can talk about "two points of view". For now, there is a fringe point of view, advocated by you and like-minded editors, and has been rejected by the Wikipedia community, and a scholarly point of view that's prevalent in academic sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this issue, and looked at the discussion from an uninvolved party's point of view. To my reading, there was no consensus in the debate Binksternet points to. So I disagree with him when he says "there is clear consensus", I don't see even "a" consensus there, let alone a "clear consensus". To me, saying "there is clear consensus" is an exaggeration and inaccurate. Farmanesh (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the previous discussion was that WP:NPOV exists as policy. (And that each of the participants thinks their view is the neutral one.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not the consensus of that discussion. Bunksternet proposed that we remove the words "democratically elected".  3 agreed and 7 opposed.  His interpretation is that since 3 agreed with him, then there is a divide, and hence we should do what he proposed. It's absurd! Poyani (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, why do you keep pushing this crap? Every few months you try to remove the word "democratically elected" from this article and every time it boils down to the same two arguments which you make again and again.

Argument 1You keep trying to argue, based on your own illogical arguments, that he was not democratically elected because in your view indirect elections are not democratic (despite the fact that Canada, UK, US, Australia, etc all use indirect elections to select their leaders). We keep explaining to you that even if you were right (which you are not) that would constitute original research.

Argument 2You keep claiming that a handful of scholars (like Milani) dispute that he was democratically elected. We keep reminding you that a) these scholars actually DO NOT dispute his democratic election and b) even if they did it would be a fringe theory.

Why are you bringing this up again? Are you hoping that have stopped watching this page? Please stop it!Poyani (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't know how many times of arguments is considered as sufficient ? I think it's reasonable only to remove the "democratically elected" if a plenty of new sources say so, until then , please don't change it .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is unreal. Am I the only one here who can read English and understand the results of an RfC? The closing editor, Nathan Johnson, quoted NPOV, writing, "...Wikipedia policy states that we should be using both" the wording about reliable sources saying Mosaddegh was democratically elected and about him actually being appointed, per other reliable resources. Today, Nathan Johnson re-stated his position, emphasizing that there is "no consensus" to use the term "democratically elected" wording, or the "appointed" wording. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's my reading of the RfC also. The fact is that reliable sources report that Mosaddegh was appointed, and we should either mention this in addition to the "elected" or nothing, rather than to imply a falsehood about the nature of Mosaddegh's government. Shrigley (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Johnson's "suggestion" is just his opinion. He is just another user who volunteers to close RFCs, otherwise as he has said himself, he neither has a "mandate" to declare what the consensus was a content dispute, nor is has much familiarity with this topic. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * His closure of the RfC was appropriate; it followed correct procedures. If you have problems with the closure, find the correct venue for challenging it. Otherwise you must abide by the closure as it stands. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very obvious to anyone who reads this discussion or the RFC discussion in question, that you do not have a consensus to remove the well-sourced characterization of Mossadegh's government as "democratically elected", using your own original research as rational. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any consensus to remove democratically elected at all. Mossadegh was democratically elected in a way used by many other states. Going on the logic of Binksternet we would have to go around wikipedia removing claims that the leaders of various states including the UK,Aus and even the USA were democratically elected. I have read a few sources on this subject and all of them state that he was democratically elected. It looks like the editor is trying to rewrite history.Kabulbuddha (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Months of wrangling over this useless debate with no end in site, just because Binksternet doesn't understand that "he was democratically elected" and "he was appointed" are not necessarily contradictory statements. I'm going to express this one more time. There are no reliable sources stating Mossadeq was not democratically elected. Not one. You only have some writers stating he was "democratically elected" and some stating he was "appointed by parliament with the consent of the Shah". Those are not contradictory statement. That is how Prime Ministers are elected in nearly all democratic countries. Poyani (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That turns out not to be the case. The process of appointing is absolutely different than the process of electing. Any of our sources saying Mosaddegh was appointed is a source in contradiction to his being elected. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all very silly.He was elected like many other leaders in the world.The Prime minister of the UK is appointed by his party but he is considered democratically elected by the people of the UK even though only people in his own constituency vote for him directly as an MP.Mosaddegh was democratically elected to the Iranian parliament and chosen to be Prime minister just like David Cameron.He got the blessing of the Shah just as Cameron got the blessing of the Queen,no difference whatsoeverKabulbuddha (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, it's common knowledge that the Iranian government was democratically elected-- top of my head, Obama has said this in the cairo speech.
 * Fresh eyes

Whatever discussion you had that led you to think it wasn't democratically-elected, your reasoning has reached an erroneous conclusion; Re-examine your assumptions and your logic.

"appointment" is separate matter that I won't speak to. It doesn't affect whether there was a democractic election or not. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you are unsatisfied with the results of the RfC at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état If you are unwilling to study that argument, to weigh the evidence for "appointment", then I don't think your objection will be seriously considered. At any rate, the matter is settled. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The matter is anything but settled as can be seen here Mass deleting of a well-sourced statement.Kabulbuddha (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That noticeboard is for problems with user behavior. My behavior is appropriate in that I have been aligning various articles with the results of the RfC. Why would somebody have a problem with that? The noticeboard does not comment on content disputes, which this is. Kurdo777 and like-minded editors have expressed opposition to the RfC's conclusion, but until there is another conclusion or another RfC the question is answered. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We will let the noticeboards decide whether your behavior has been appropriate. In my opinion it has been destructive, as you seem to have been hell-bent on damaging a well-sourced article based on nothing but your own inability to understand very basic facts.  Facts such as the elementary notion that being "appointed" and "democratically elected" are not contradictory.Poyani (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the Rfc notification states that there is no consensus and until there is consensus then the terms should not be used.The consensus in that debate sure looks like democratically elected should be used. So shall we have a vote for consensus on this talk page and if consensus is met then we can carry on with printing the actual truth on wikipedia. Anybody want to start a new section for consensus?Kabulbuddha (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether it is the truth or not is not relevant. It is the unanimous position of the reliable sources.  There is not a single published work which has ever questioned that Mossadeq was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. That is exclusively the domain of Binksternet. Poyani (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse political legitimacy with being elected. Mosaddegh was the legitimate prime minister of Iran but he was not elected, democratically or otherwise. The phrase "democratically elected" applies to the parliament members who confirmed his nomination, not Mosaddegh himself, and not the cabinet of Mosaddegh. The concept of "appointed" is directly contradictory to the concept of "elected". When we see some references that say "democratically elected" and some references that say "appointed" then we have a contradiction. The "appointed" references are precise, the "democratically elected" references are subjective and emotional. People feel that Mosaddegh was democratically elected because he was popular and because a massive demonstration in support of Mosaddegh on 16–21 July 1952 forced the Shah to re-appoint him prime minister on 21 July 1952. The people had "voted" by protesting but not by formal elections. This does not erase the precise method, the fact that the Shah appointed Mosaddegh, just as before. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He was democratically elected just like the UK Prime Minister,no getting around that no matter what you state.People elected in this way are what the world consider to be democratically elected and just because you disagree with it is not going to make everyone else wrong and you right.Kabulbuddha (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What "democratically elected Prime Minister" means
This is another attempt to explain why being "appointed" and "democratically elected" are not necessarily two separate concepts (as some here believe):


 * Refer to the Wikipedia article on the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. It states that that one of the key characteristics of such a system is that "while a head of government (or head of the executive), known as the prime minister (PM), premier or first minister is **appointed** by the head of state, the constitutional convention is that the person **appointed** must be supported by the majority of elected Members of Parliament."
 * Refer to Wikipedia article on Prime Minister. It states that in many democratic countries "including  Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia, India and the United Kingdom" Prime Ministers enter office via "**appointment** by the head of state" while in practice they "are the leaders of the largest party in parliament, technically the **appointment** of the prime minister is a royal prerogative exercised by the monarch or the governor-general."
 * Refer to the Wikipedia article on the Prime Minister of Australia. It clearly states that  "the Prime Minister of Australia is **appointed** by the Governor-General of Australia under Section 64 of the Australian Constitution".  Likewise, the article for the Prime Minister of Canada clearly states that "The prime minister, along with the other ministers in cabinet, is **appointed** by the governor general on behalf of the Queen".

This should be more than sufficient to prove to all parties that being "democratically elected" and "appointed" are not mutually exclusive. Hence, presenting references which qualify Mossadegh as "appointed" in no way contradicts other sources which state (more precisely) that he was "democratically elected". Mossadegh is primarily notable because his government is considered the first democratically elected government which was overthrown at least partially due to the actions of the CIA. Removing the words "democratically elected" greatly damages the article, by removing one of the most important pieces of context. If a user wants to argue that the wording should be removed because he was not "democratically elected" they must present some reliable sources stating outright that he "was not democratically elected". Presenting sources which state he was "appointed" will not suffice since most democratically elected Prime Ministers are "appointed". Continuing this logic, it is evident that there are plenty of reliable sources which clearly state Mossadeq was democratically elected, and not a single one which state that he was not democratically elected.

I am sure the issue of the recent RFC will also come up. User Nathan Thomas, in his closing remarks noted that he "suggest(s)" neither wording be used. On his talk-page he further clarifies that his suggestion "is not binding in any way whatsoever". So I would suggest any user attempting to use his non-binding suggestion to forcibly jam this removal of important, notable and sourced wording down everyone's throat, without any consensus to think again.

For now, I have revised the wording to a compromise that most people agreed with in the RFC. The compromise noted that we call Mossadeq's government "democratically elected" while not commenting on the position of Prime Minister. However, this is in my opinion not sufficient. The wording is very awkward. It should state outright that he was "democratically elected" in line with every reliable source on the topic. Poyani (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your explanation and believe that the article should be restored to what it was. The other articles that have been edited have been reverted/edited back to what they were.This is very much a biased game by one editor I feel who has gone around wikipedia to about 40 articles and deleted sourced material and even part of the actual sources in an attempt to wipe out any mention of Mohammad Mosaddegh or his government being democratically elected.Kabulbuddha (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Its interesting how a fringe POV of one user has been taken so seriously here. As another user puts this, it is "a false dichotomy of appointed/elected" and seems to me enough has been said here on this topic. Farmanesh (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Poyani meant well but in linking to Westminster system and Prime minister and of course Prime Minister of Australia, he must have seen that those articles fail to prove his point, the point being how Iran conducted its government in the early 1950s. His continued effort to equate "democratically elected" with "appointed" cannot bear any fruit—the two methods are distinct.
 * There is little to be gained by comparing Iran to other countries if Iran is not the same as them. Rather, we should look at books describing how Iran conducted its government. In Iran before the 1979 revolution, the shah appointed the prime minister. The Majlis (parliament) approved/endorsed the man and then the shah appointed him. We have many references to the shah of Iran appointing a prime minister:
 * Senior scholar Gholam Reza Afkhami writes in The Life and Times of the Shah: "On the 27th the shah appointed Hoveyda prime minister... Hoveyda's appointment was initially regarded as temporary, honoring Mansur and providing the shah time to appoint a more experienced statesman." Afkhami also writes, "On the 28th, the Majlis endorsed Mosaddeq as the next prime minister, and the shah appointed him to the post the following day." Furthermore, Afkhami explains, "The Constitution [of Iran], as we have seen, gave the crown and only the crown the power to appoint or dismiss the ministers... and made him [the Shah] the head of the executive branch... and a partner in legislation. The parliament (the National Consultative Assembly, or Majlis) could cause the dismissal of a minister or cabinet by refusing to give a vote of confidence; but it could not appoint ministers. However, over the postwar years [after WWII] it had become accepted practice for the shah to ask the Majlis to express its preference before he appointed a prime minister." This is quite definitive! Afkhami continues by describing how the Shah felt that he could not dismiss Mosaddegh if the standing parliament approved of him (which was quite wrong, according to the Constitution) but that he could dismiss the prime minister if there was no standing parliament. When Mosaddegh dissolved the Majlis in mid-1952 the Shah used his power to dismiss Mosaddegh.
 * Social anthropologist Massoume Price writes in Iran's Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook: "The last prime minister appointed by the shah" was Shapur Bakhtiyar, an early supporter of Mosaddegh, on 3 January 1979.
 * Iranian scholar Cyrus Ghani writes in Iran and the rise of Reza Shah: from Qajar collapse to Pahlavi rule: "Ahmad Shah, who had never cared for Vosouq (for reasons which will be discussed later), appointed the Bakhtiari tribal leader Samsam al Saltaneh as Prime Minister." Ghani also says that Mohammad Shah appointed Hajj Mirza Aghasi to the position of "First Minister", the 19th century form of prime minister.
 * Biographer William Shawcross writes in The Shah's Last Ride that "the Shah appointed Ali Amini, the former Iranian ambassador to Washington, prime minister of Iran." Shawcross also writes that the Shah appointed other men to the position of prime minister: "General Gholamreza Azhari", and "Dr. Mossadeq". The only times that Shawcross writes the word "elected" in his biography is in regard to Margaret Thatcher being elected prime minister in 1979, and in regard to the Shah writing in his own memoir that he felt he had "truly been elected by the people" in the 1953 coup.
 * Political scientist Leonard Binder writes in his classic 1973 Iran that the original post of prime minister of Iran, supported by a cabinet, was established by Naser al-Din Shah Qajar in the 19th century. The shah was to appoint and dismiss the prime minister. Also, the shah was to appoint the cabinet ministers, with advice offered by the prime minister. This formation was carried forward from the 19th century into the 20th, without much adjustment. Binder writes: "The constitution of Iran [of 1906–7] mentions the cabinet and the prime minister but twice each, and then only in passing. It refers to ministers who appointed and dismissed by the shah." Binder says that there is a "clause providing for the dismissal of the cabinet or an individual minister, should the majlis or senate be dissatisfied with either." Binder says that the regent Nasir al-Mulk was the man who started "the practice of consulting the majlis before appointing a prime minister" during his reign of 1910–1914. Binder says that with the beginning of the Pahlavi dynasty, the various parts of Iranian government "all came undone" including the premiership. "One prime minister might cooperate with the shah, another might not; one prime minister might dominate his cabinet, another could not; one prime minister might receive the majlis' vote of preference, another did not and still acquired a vote of confidence; but no cabinet long enjoyed the support of the majlis." Binder says of Mosaddegh that "he sought to realize his own legal interpretation of the constitution of Iran without regard for Iranian practice, but with the firm conviction in French constitutional theory." Finally, regarding Mosaddegh, Binder notes that "even at the height of his power he was unable to elect his own majlis." This is interesting because it means that the parliament under Mosaddegh was not fully his own.
 * Molloy College professor Kristen Blake writes in US-Soviet Confrontation in Iran, 1945–1962 that the Shah appointed Ali Amini prime minister in May 1961 after Ja'far Sharif-Emami resigned the post, then when Amini resigned, he appointed Assadollah Alam. Before that, says Blake, the Shah appointed Sharif-Emami. In July 1952, the Shah appointed Qavam prime minister after Mosaddegh resigned. Then, says Blake, Qavam resigned and "Musaddiq was confirmed prime minister by the Majlis for a second term. The Shah reluctantly agreed to Musaddiq's appointment as prime minister to prevent the country from falling into chaos." In August 1953 at the coup, Blake writes, the Shah "dismissed Musaddiq and appointed General Zahedi" to the premiership.
 * Princeton professor Mohammad Gholi Majd writes in Resistance to the Shah: landowners and the ulama in Iran: "In particular, parliament deeply resented the shah's appointment of Hosein Ala as the titular prime minister..." Majd says the Shah appointed Amini prime minister in May 1961. Majd says about the July 1952 fracas: "On 19 July, the shah dismissed Mossadeq and appointed Ahmad Qavam to be prime minister." Majd uses the phrase "democratically elected" not to describe the government of Mosaddegh, or Mosaddegh's own position, but to describe the wartime Fourteenth Majlis which was "considered to have been the most free and democratically elected Majlis during the Pahlavi era." Mosaddegh served as the deputy from Tehran during this session of the Majlis, so naturally he was democratically elected to the parliament at that time. Majd never says that a prime minister of Iran was elected.
 * Hoover scholar Abbas Milani says that the Shah appointed his prime ministers, every one of them, though several of the appointments were performed under political pressure. Examples of the latter include Ali Amini's appointment in May 1961, and Mosaddegh's appointment in July 1952 ("in April 1951, the shah reluctantly appointed him the prime minister.") Milani writes: "Since the Premiership of General Zahedi (1853–55), the Shah has generally appointed loyal and docile Prime Ministers."
 * In June 1963 the American Bar Association published its journal. Inside it, constitutional scholar Eric Daenecke wrote about "Constitutional Law in Iran": "The Shah's powers and prerogatives are those exclusively mentioned in the Constitution; the appointing and dismissing of cabinet members... He... may act without reference to the Parliament in appointing or dismissing prime ministers." Daenecke continues, "The Prime Minister gets his appointment from the Shah and upon receiving the seal of office, the former establishes a Council of Ministers, or Cabinet, introduces the members to the Shah and to the two Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister then requests a vote of confidence, and when it is received, he and his Cabinet take over the administration of the government." This is definitive. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What you have failed to even state is anything about the actual elections as that would put a damper on your argument.Mosaddeq was elected to the 16th Majlis,the Majlis nominated Mosaddeq as Prime Minster and the Shah rubber stamped it,he had no choice either just like the Queen of England rubber stamps the Prime Minister there. The Shah if he was so powerful to appoint as you claim would have liked to appoint Sayyid Zia in line with British policy but he did not.The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran."Mossadegh was only 21 years old when the people of Esfahan elected him to the Majles (Iranian Parliament) as their representative. However, because he did not meet the legal age requirement, he withdrew his name from consideration. During the constitutionalist movement of 1905-1911, Mossadegh actively participated in the events which led to the establishment of a Constitutional Monarchy in place of arbitrary monarchial rule." "Mossadegh was elected with overwhelming support to represent Tehran to the 14th Majles in 1944, Mossadegh was nominated for the position of Prime Minister, which he won by votes of nearly 90% of the representatives present." Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh Biography. It sure looks like he was elected by the Iranian people a few times and that makes him democratically elected,he was put forward as Prime Minister by the Iranian parliament who were also democratically elected by the Iranian people. The Shah had no choice but to rubber stamp the Majlis choice just like the Queen does in the UK for British Prime Ministers.Kabulbuddha (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but getting elected to parliament is not the same as being appointed to the premiership. Your source, a webpage that we hope is a true representation of Mark Gasiorowski's 1987 article called "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran", says that Mosaddegh's government was "democratically oriented" which, of course, it was, to a degree. Gasiorowski does not say "democratically elected". I must accept Gasiorowski as an argument for my point, that Mosaddegh was appointed, with the stipulation from Gasiorowski that Mosaddegh's government was known for its democratic orientation. Other authors, however, point to some problems Mosaddegh created because of novel interpretations of law, and problems stemming from his populism. He was not entirely democratic during his premiership, per Binder and others. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He was democratically elected, you know when the people vote you in. That is what happened.He was elected by the people to the Iranian parliament and then the democratically elected Iranian parliament voted in a huge majority to have him as Prime Minister and the Shah rubber stamped it even though he did not want to.It is a process that we in the west call democratic and do a whole load of scholars on the subject.Kabulbuddha (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your uncited discussion points do not take away from the very fine sources I have provided that establish the fact that the Constitution of Iran specifies that the shah appoints the prime minister. Mosaddegh was chosen prime minister in the normal way; nobody says otherwise. There are no sources that say Mosaddegh got the premiership in a manner contrary to the constitution. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Your entire argument boils down to the notion that "elected" and "appointed" are distinctly different methods of assigning Prime Ministers. I have shown above, with more than enough examples, that this is wrong. Or as others have explained, you have created a "false dichotomy" between "elected and appointed". This has been more than sufficiently established. After months of talk, I am not interested in discussing your original research anymore. Just drop it.

If you want to discuss the specifics of his selection process, do it in a subheading within the content, not in the lead. Poyani (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Binksternet has failed to provide any source that the Iranian Prime Minister was not democratically elected,his own thoughts on the matter are not evidence at all,so until such time as he can provide sources that specifically state that he was not democratically elected it stands that he was as many many scholars say so.

Here are a list of sources that specifically state that he was democratically elected.
 * The Ford Presidency: A History By Andrew Downer Crain.1.
 * Iranians In Chicagoland By Ḥamīd Akbarī, Azar Khounani.2.
 * Social Justice: Theories, Issues, and Movements By Loretta Capeheart, Dragan Milovanovic.3.
 * Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism edited by Alexander Anievas. 4
 * Spies, Wiretaps, and Secret Operations: An Encyclopedia of American Espionage edited by Glenn Peter Hastedt, Steven W. Guerrier. 5.
 * Making Law: The State, the Law, and Structural Contradictions By William J. Chambliss. 6.
 * Iran By Andrew Burke, Mark Elliott.7
 * The CIA on Campus: Essays on Academic Freedom and the National Security State By Philip Zwerling.8
 * Nation Building, Or Democracy by Other Means By Hamid Karimianpour. 9.
 * A Political Odyssey: The Rise of American Militarism and One Man's Fight to ... By Mike Gravel. 10.
 * Passionate Uprisings: Iran's Sexual Revolution By Pardis Mahdavi.11.
 * Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State, from Christian ...By Mark Juergensmeyer. 12.
 * Essentials of Sociology By David B. Brinkerhoff, Lynn K. White, Suzanne T. Ortega.13
 * Rethinking Foreign Policy Analysis: States, Leaders, and the ...By Stephen G. Walker, Akan Malici, Mark Schafer. 14
 * Perils of Empire: The Roman Republic and the American Republic By Monte Pearson. 15.
 * Background Notes: Mideast, March, 2011 By U.S. Department of State. 16.
 * Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium By Ronald Findlay, Kevin H. O'RouRke. 17.
 * Never Ending Wars By Ann Hironaka. 18
 * Criminological Theories: Traditional and Non-Traditional Voices and Themes By Imogene Moyer. 19.
 * God's Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics By Monica Duffy Toft, Daniel Philpott, Timothy Samuel Shah. 20 Kabulbuddha (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources that say the government was not democratically elected?
Let's focus on the phrase: "democratically-elected government" to describe the government of Iran at the time Mosaddegh was PM. Above I see many sources that say it was a democratically elected government, notably US President Obama.

Now the onus fall to others. Are there any reliable sources which say "the government [of Iran at that time] was not democratically elected"? ---HectorMoffet (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Any source that says "appointed" is in direct opposition to "elected". The two are not the same. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been more than sufficiently explained to you that they are the same in many circumstances, including this one. You need to find a source which specifically says he was "not democratically elected" if you want to remove the reference. Poyani (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's your original WP:SYNTH, not a WP:RS. I repeat my question: Is there any reliable source that says "the government was not democratically elected."? --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding another echo to the echo chamber is not going to help move your point forward. "Hatched" is different from "born". "Driven" is different from "walked". "Appointed" is different from "elected". It's just simple English. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So, no? You know of no sources beyond yourself that explicitly say "the government was not democratically elected"?  Because, we have lots that explicitly say it was democratically elected.   Case closed for now then?  --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Binksternet has not got any sources that state he was not democratically elected and therefore his argument fails,it was a non starter from the beginning anyway.Kabulbuddha (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "'Appointed' is different from 'elected'. It's just simple English." That is not simple English.  That is your incorrect understanding of English.  For proof, see above regarding the democratically elected governments of Australia, Canada, UK, etc. This case is closed! Poyani (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You know what would end this discussion once and for all? I am trying to find Milani's email address so that I can ask him if by stating Mossadeq was "appointed" he was implying that Mossadeq "was not democratically elected".  Once he answers the question with a resounding "no" that should end all this bickering with Binksternet.  Unfortunately, finding the guy's email address is proving to be very difficult. Poyani (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since when has the statements of Obama had any authority? It was he who stated Egypt was not a US ally, despite US laws saying that Egypt is an ally.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The "democratically elected debate" and Abbas Milani
After a long search I finally found Abbas Milani's email address. Given that Binksternet keeps bringing him up to push his position, I emailed Prof Milani at his Stanford email address and asked him about the issue at hand. This is what I wrote:

"I am a Wikipedia editor and right now there is a debate about the Mossadeq articles, with some editors arguing that in your book you argue that "Mossadeq was not democratically elected". I was within the camp which argued that others are misinterpreting and misrepresenting your work and that when you stated that he was "appointed" you were not necessarily arguing that he was "not democratically elected".  My question is not so much about history as much as trying to understand specifically what you intended to say in your book.

So then, the question boils down to the following:

''In your book you stated that Mossadeq was "appointed". Is it correct to interpret that as "according to Dr Milani, Mossadeq was NOT democratically elected"? Or is that a misrepresentation of what you have said?''

I would highly appreciate any clarification on this issue."

This is his response (emphasis mine):

"''It would be a gross misrepresentation of my position in the book on the Shah, and other places where I have written about Dr Mossadeq to say that in saying he was "appointed" by the Shah I meant he was not democratically elected. If by "democratically elected" we mean, as we should, that a person has followed both law and tradition in achieving a position, then Dr Mossadeq was democratically elected because according to the Constitution at the time, a prime  minister takes his position (and it was he then only) only after the parliament has given a vote of inclination, and the shah appoints the man chosen by the parliament. As I wrote before, the appointment is performa--as is the appointment of the prime minister by the Queen after the election. When the Majlis is in session, as it was when Mossadeq was appointed, the Shah can neither appoint a prime minister or dismiss him without the prior vote of the Majlis. Incidentally, you may share this note with other editors if you see fit. A''"

I can present this email to any interested party. I hope this ends this debate. Poyani (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work-- way to go the extra mile for an article.  I'd call this solved.--HectorMoffet (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work Poyani. I guess that clears that up then. I think we should give you an award for outstanding contribution.Kabulbuddha (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. My apologies (especially for you Binksternet) if I engaged in too much SOAP on this issue.  I got frustrated when it took too long. Poyani (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done. Farmanesh (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In spite of Mr. Millani's clarification, Binksternet has once again restarted his disruptive campaign to remove the well-sourced academically-accepted phrase "democratically-elected" and replacing it with "legitimate" which is once again his own WP:OR. In light of Millani's explicit clarification, the latest round of reverts by Binksternet is becoming more and more a user behavior issue and borderline disruption of Wikipedia, which has little to do with content. I've given him a formal warning, but if he refuses to abide by the scholarly position, the best way forward is to file a user conduct RFC on Binksternet and have him banned from all 1953 Iranian coup-related articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If we trust that Poyani has correctly represented Milani's email reply, then we know that Milani says "democratically elected" is when "a person has followed both law and tradition in achieving a position". Both of those descriptions are imprecise, however; they apply to several different methods of achieving a leadership position. The spirit of "democratically elected" is that the leader has gained the position legitimately. The letter of "democratically elected" is that there was an election, which of course was not the case for Mosaddegh. In order not to confuse our readers I think that the spirit should be represented by the word "legitimate" and the possible confusion between spirit and letter should be removed. (Other editors apparently prefer the confusion because it confers a greater sense of legitimacy. I prefer precise wording and an appropriate sense of legitimacy.) This is not a purposely disruptive campaign, it is a good faith attempt to remove a point of confusion, to settle the difference between spirit and letter. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And that, as usual, is your own original research based on your own take and interpretation (or misinterpretation as it's been proven now), and hence has no validity as an argument against reliable sources that explicitly and firmly characterize this government as "democratically elected" without any shadow of the doubt. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "democratically-elected government" is established by all sources.  Any future campaigns to scrub it from Wikipedia should be regarded as vandalism and if needed, any uninvolved admin should step in to stop edit warring on this point.   It's now a conduct issue, not a content one. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia strives for precision and brevity. A summary statement such as "legitimate prime minister of Iran" is exactly the sort of wording that allows the encyclopedia to avoid the easily misinterpreted and imprecise phrase "democratically elected" which can be mistaken for an actual election. The spirit of "democratically elected" is that Mosaddegh's premiership was legitimate. I am retaining the broad spirit and throwing out the possible confusion. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources indicating that the phrase "democratically elected" when applied to Mossadegh is "easily misinterpreted" or "imprecise"? A lot of reliable sources use that phrase. Poyani (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not established by all sources. Historical sources, rather than modern propaganda and speculation, show that he was appointed as a result of a virtual coup, having cancelled elections that he was losing.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also affirm that in the light of recent clarifications, further change in "democratically-elected" is more a conduct issue based on personal POV, rather than a real issue-driven matter. I am amazed that this user's POV has been prolonged to this extent.Farmanesh (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Be amazed. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's above comment to Farmanesh, is further proof that he's just WP:Trolling at this point. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Having read the discussion and the email of Prof Milani I do not understand the conclusion drawn from the email of Prof Milani. The interpretation of Prof Milani "that a person has followed both law and tradition in achieving a position" can be claimed by all prime ministers of Iran. Then why the phrase "democratically elected" is attributed to Mossadegh and only to Mossadegh? --Wvk (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but the main difference, of course, is that only one of the prime ministers was toppled by coup. The emphasis is that the coup took down a leader who was legitimate, not one who had gone against law and custom in his push for power. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He explained it in his email by noting that "according to the Constitution at the time, a prime minister takes his position (and it was he then only) only after the parliament has given a vote of inclination, and the shah appoints the man chosen by the parliament". Keep in mind that this is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what we think about Mossadeq.  The only thing that matters is what the Reliable Sources say.  Many reliable sources describe Mossadeq as being "democratically elected".  Absolutely ZERO reliable sources dispute this.  Poyani (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A clarification for Wvk about what Milani said (which is again - unrelated to our discussions): Milani noted that according to the constitution the prime minister was to be appointed by the Shah if and only if "after the parliament ha(d) given the vote of inclination" which in effect makes the Shah's appointment "preforma (sic)" meaning it was just a rubber stamp.  He notes that at the time "(it was he(Mossadeq) then only)", meaning it was only applied during Mossadeq's election.  Subsequent prime ministers were appointed by the shah without first obtaining the vote of inclination from an elected Majlis as per the constitution.  That is the point he is making.  Once again, this is not really relevant to the discussion.  Milani's email is not a published source and cannot be cited in the article.  I just wanted to show Binksternet that he was misinterpreting Milani's work in a way the author never intended, which Milani himself confirmed. Poyani (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, Milani's interpretation of the Iranian Constitution as of 1953 is countered by others who say that the shah had full powers of appointing the prime minister. Leonard Binder says there was never a settled practice, that the shah's right to appoint the prime minister was resolved in various ways from 1906 to the 1960s, that sometimes the Majlis was asked for a recommendation and sometimes not. Eric Daenecke wrote that "The Shah... may act without reference to the Parliament in appointing or dismissing prime ministers." Thus we see that Milani is relating one of several interpretations of the not-very-precise Iran Constitution of 1906, specifically the one that the 1953 Shah himself felt was most appropriate. We know that British and American diplomats advised the Shah to dump Mosaddegh but he would not do it while the Majlis was in session. This is what Milani refers to. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles on the Majlis
Some details of the election process of Mossadegh might help:


 * 14 Tir 1331 (5 July 1952) the speaker of Majlis Mr. Emami informed the Shah that the newly elected 17. Majlis is ready for the opening session. Mossadegh and his cabinet resigned the very same day. Majlis vote for a prime minister proposal to the Shah: 52 pro Mossadegh (Majlis has 115 seats). The Senat vote: 14 pro Mossadegh 19 against (Senate has 36 seats).
 * 19 Tir: The Shah appointed Mossadegh.
 * 22 Tir: The Majlis in a private session discussed Mossadegh's request for full power (to sign any law without approval of the Majlis bypassing the legislation process of the parliament). The request was denied by the majority of deputies.
 * 25 Tir: Mossadegh resigned.
 * 26 Tir: Majlis vote to propose Qavam: 40 pro Qavam; 2 against.
 * 27 Tir: Shah appointed Qavam.
 * 30 Tir: Qavam resigned after turmoil in the streets of Tehran.
 * 31 Tir: Majlis proposal vote: 61 pro Mossadegh. The same day the Shah appointed Mossadegh.
 * 7 Mordad (29. July 1952): Majlis vote of confidence of prime minister and cabinet: 68 pro Mossadegh. Vote of confidence in the Senate declined by the majority of deputies.
 * 12 Mordad: Majlis approved Mossadegh's request for full power to sign any law without approval of the Majlis in the upcoming 6 months.
 * 16 Mordad: the speaker of the Majlis Mr.Emami resigned and wrote a letter to the Shah that Mossadeghs government is dictatorship, against the principles of mashruteh, against the separation of legislative and executive power. New speaker: Kashani.
 * 1 Aban 1331 (23. October 1952): the Senate voted against the full power of Mossadegh.
 * 5 Aban: Mossadegh dissolved the Senate.
 * 5 Aban: Mossadegh dissolved the Senate.

Information extracted from the minutes of the 17 Majlis. --Wvk (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is excellent information. We really should start a page about each individual Majlis similar to the way wikipedia has pages for each parliament in Canada or the UK.  I am not sure though how this affects the discussions at hand.  If Wvk is arguing that perhaps Qavam was also democratically elected, I would agree (although his actions in 1952 are a side-note in history). If he is arguing that Mossadeq at times engaged in very questionable behaviour then again I agree.  That does not change the fact that he is referred to as "democratically elected" in the bulk of the reliable sources and that there are no sources which state that he was "not democratically elected". It also doesn't change that the fact that he was a "democratically elected" leader overthrown (at least partially) by Americans for geopolitical interests adds a great deal of notability to his administration and makes him a very important subject of study reflecting American government interests vs rhetoric regarding the Middle East today. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If "democratically elected" means that there are four steps of the election process 1-proposal by the majlis, 2-appointment by the Shah, 3-vote of confidence by the majlis 4-approval by the Senate then neither Mossadegh nor Qavam were democratically elected. If we omit the approval voting of the Senate then Mossadegh was democratically elected; if we omit the confidence vote of the majlis then Qavam and Mossadegh were democratically elected. Was Mossadegh democratically elected? May be, may be not. The constitution of Iran does not say anything about the election of a prime minister. The constitution does not even mention the position of a prime minister. From the legal point of view the appointment by the Shah appoints a person as prime minister but without a vote of confidence by the majlis and the Senate this prime minister will not be able to pass any law. I aggree with Poyani that WP should start a page about each individual majlis to provide more valuable information about the political system of Iran. --Wvk (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wvk - do you know some RS about an individual notable Iranian majlis which we could use to get this started? Poyani (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See: Mozakerat-e Majlis-e Shora-e Melli http://www.ical.ir/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2379&Itemid=14 --Wvk (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with many others pointed out we should have articles on each Majlis, just as we do with other nation's assemblies. See Template:Iranian_Majlis, 1st Iranian Majlis,17th Iranian Majlis.    Lots more to work to be done here.   --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting sidelines
In the CIA article of wikipedia it says that the CIA removed Mossadegh at the request of Churchill. I would believe that after reading the memoirs of Sattareh Farmanfarmaian "Daughter of Persia" and CIA funded Brian Crozier "Free Agent" which describe the events. They don't mention Churchill but it would figure.

There is also an interesting timeline here to relate to these events and Churchill: 6th February 1952 died King George VI and Elizabeth became Elizabeth II, but her coronation was 2nd June 1953. In that period a lot would have flown under the radar as people were busy. Elizabeth II was also quite young and old Churchill could have pulled the wool over her eyes easily. 'By late 1952 the US position shifted' - did Churchill finally convince people to send in the CIA? There was an early June 1953 meeting in Beirut, just when all eyes were on the coronation. In March 1953 also Stalin died and many people would have occupied themselves with that topic.

I find the discussion if Mossadegh was democratically elected somewhat unproductive. A foreign installed monarch and autocrat that the Shah was is less democratic than someone who was elected to Parliament. That's wooly thinking, but in politics it's never about right or wrong only about the lesser 'evil'. If we look closely, we will find that all regimes which nationalized were removed, from Iran to Chile, Libya, Iraq, now Syria. Privatisation is the driver behind it - me thinks. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Rigged Referendum in Lead
Binksternet - why did you restore the "rigged referendum" in the lead? It is very misleading. It seems to suggest that Mossadeq was removed because of the the referendum (which is clearly untrue since the preparations for his removal predate the referendum by months). Furthermore, it incorrectly states that he rigged a referendum to dissolve parliament. Mossadeq first dissolved parliament and then ordered a plebiscite to gauge public opinion about his decision (which is widely accepted to have been rigged). I am going to delete it again. If you want it included (which is totally fine) then please put it in its own section in the body. It is totally out-of-place and very misleading. Poyani (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I am not disputing that this information is worthy of mention in the article. I am also not disputing that Mossadeq's dismissal of parliament was constitutionally dubious. I am however strongly opposed to where and how this information is being presented.  If I were to say, "I ate a sandwich and afterwards I felt ill" it follows that I am arguing that the sandwich made me ill.  The information which was added by IP states that "Mossadeq rigged and election and afterwards he was overthrown by the CIA..."  It clearly implies that he was overthrown BECAUSE of the rigged election.  That is misleading.  This information should not be on the lead at all. It should be mentioned in the section about his premiership. Poyani (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the information should be in the article body. I think it is important to the story because the referendum/plebiscite increased public and political distrust of Mosaddegh, removing a number of people from the ranks of those who might support him in combating a coup attempt. Abrahamian says Mosaddegh had changed from the meticulous constitutional lawyer to a populist demagogue. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead put it in the body (between the premiership and the coup). We can even create a special section for it. There were three issues.  One was that Mossadeq dismissed parliament (which may have been constitutionally dubious).  The second was that he tried to use a plebiscite/public opinion survey to justify his action (which is again constitutionally dubious).  And the third is that the result of the plebiscite seem to indicate that it was controlled or the results were tempered. Poyani (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I Missing Something?
I read through all of the talk page discussion so far, and I'm at somewhat of a loss as to the extreme stubborness of the parties involved.

Is this an American thing where one side just wants this guy to be a Democrat, and the other guy doesn't, or something? Cos that's douchey.

If 'democratically elected' is just as good as 'appointed', then why not just call it appointed if it makes no diff?

I should note however, that I had been searching up a few pages before this wiki, and so far it does seem to be a big thing (from Iranians mostly it looks like) that the guy can't legitimately be called 'democratically elected'. (E.g. http://www.policymic.com/articles/28131/argo-fact-check-best-picture-is-full-of-inaccuracies, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/27/what-ben-affleck-s-argo-misses-about-iran.html, http://iranian.com/main/2012/nov/good-cinema-bad-history.html etc, etc)

To say that someone is 'democratically' elected is a description of how he came to office. If it wasn't democratic (i.e. by the people, for the people and all that jazz) then it wasn't a democratic election. That's just English.

If this is contentious and could confuse the average reader, or worse mislead him with false information as to the nature of the appointment of the political leader, then I believe it is a correct course of action to modify it into more informative language so that this encyclopedia can serve its intended purpose of communicating frank information for the conumption of average readers who aren't necessarily historians or political scientists. Like me.

Keep it neutral guys, or make a compromise for a common denomination of information.

Personally, I don't care much about it, I was more dubious at calling the guy secular (Argo movie), but this is my two cents.

131.203.134.73 (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What you are missing is that Mossadeq's democratic qualifications have been a thorne on the side Cold-War era propagandists which often try to frame the cold-war narrative as "good vs evil" or "democracy vs communist" narrative. For that reason they have been going through Wikipedia's articles which negatively affect their historical revisionism and trying to expunge evidence of the opposite.  The removal of a democratically elected prime minister in Iran (and later Chile) are examples of these inconsistencies.  The removal of Mossadeq has literally been described in hundreds upon hundreds of books.  It is universally accepted among scholars that he was a democratically elected Prime Minister which was deposed and replaced by an autocrat (at least partially) by the US government for its own interests.  You will never find a single peer-reviewed article which states that Mossadeq was not democratically elected.  Not a single one.  Mossadeq's democratic credentials are IDENTICAL to those of Prime Minister Kim Campbell and Prime Minister John Turner in Canada (where I live).  Democratically elected Prime Ministers are almost universally appointed (i.e. indirectly elected) and not directly elected.  Your definition of what constitutes "democratically elected" in English is just your own definition.  No scholar on the subject agrees with it and there are no reliable sources which state that.  If your definition of "democratically elected" was even remotely true, then countries such as Canada, UK, Australia, Sweden, Norway, etc would not be considered democracies. Poyani (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mosaddegh was appointed by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as the Prime Minister. During that time the PM was not been elected all were appointed by Shah. Unfortunately it appears that many writers have got it wrong and sited wrongly. There was no election. This need to be investigated, as there is big different between “democratically elected” and appointed. Tzohari (talk)
 * There is no such difference. The Prime Ministers of Canada and the UK are appointed in the exact same manner as Mossadeq and they are likewise considered democratically elected. Poyani (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

About Canada I don't know but in UK PM is elected through election and it is not appointed (Next United Kingdom general election) Tzohari (talk) 4 February 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? Who elected Gordon Brown Prime Minister see Premiership of Gordon Brown? In the UK (much like Canada, Australia and Iran in 1953), the PM is APPOINTED by the constitutional monarch (the Queen)or her representative.  This is done after a candidate is put forward by Parliament.  The position, as per the constitution, is always offered first to the leader of the party with most seats.  In Iran in 1953 the party with the most seats was the National Front, who presented their leader, Mossadeq, to the Shah.  This form of government is called a Constitutional Monarchy and is considered democratic. In the UK in 2007, the leader of the party (Labour) with the most seats was Gordon Brown and hence he was put forward by Parliament after Tony Blair resignation.  Brown was then APPOINTED Prime Minister by the Queen. Poyani (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

But people do not call Gordon Brown as elected PM as he was not. I am not saying that Mosaddegh was not PM, my point is that he was not elected. In that case you have to call all other Iranian PM as elected PM Tzohari (talk) 22:02 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You may look at the text of the constitution of Iran "ART. 46. The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King." (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Iran_Constitution_of_1906#Rights_of_the_Persian_Throne.) Concerning the Ministers: "ART. 67. If the National Consultative Assembly or the Senate shall, by an absolute majority, declare itself dissatisfied with the Cabinet, or with one particular Minister, that Cabinet or Minister shall resign their or his ministerial functions." First: appointment of the Prime Minister by the Shah, second: the Prime Minister presents his cabinet to the Majlis and the Senate to get a vote of confidence. In 1953 Mossadegh passed the vote of confidence in the Majlis but not in the Senate. --Wvk (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that the CIA has openly admitted of their clandestine action to force out a democratically elected prime minister, perhaps the apologists of this American atrocity and crime will be able to restrain themselves from embarking on historical revisionism. I am looking directly at Binksternet, who appears to be determined to cast the US in a puritanical moral light. I'm sorry, but you are too emotionally involved; if need be, we can go to mediation.142.68.199.69 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt you would fare well in a dispute here, what with your recent BLP violations such as this one.
 * You read me wrong, Halifax. I don't think the US should be absolved of guilt, not at all. Instead, I think the CIA bungled the job and thus they should not be given so much credit. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Or the CIA will be given all the credits needed to proof even to the greatest nationalists and fanatists that such organisations should be prohibited by laws. Because they undermine - if not destroy - democracies...since they violate the separation of powers and are a fourth, non -controllable or even desastrous power. Also, they're basically the invisible hand of politics. No good at all. --178.197.224.44 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The summary of the CIA relation of the event at http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-summary.pdf is very informative. It is quite different on many aspects from what is said at http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html (including the reasons for removing Mosaddegh)... and very different from what is said in the Wikipedia page, which appears to be motivated by some political agenda. Correction needed!!! --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

POV
Whether one agrees that Mosaddegh was democratically elected or not, the article at present is very POV, and overtly biased in his favour.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One does not "elect" a prime minister. The position is filled by the leader of the party that wins the most seats in a nation's legislative body. Mossadeqh was obviously elected to something or he would not have a claim on the office. He may not have won a national election, but that insistence shows a definite American bias, since the United States is relatively unique in electing a national leader in that fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2c32:a0d0:a974:6466:5b3d:7322 (talk • contribs) 7 April 2015
 * Your description fits the UK but it does not fit Iran in the 1950s. Iran's prime minister was selected by the legislature voting amongst themselves, and then this selection was suggested to the shah who signed the PM into office. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. There are editors here who seem to think that Mosaddegh's martyr-like legacy must not be tarnished with the whole truth about him. These editors suddenly come together to resist change whenever anyone else seeks to expand upon Mosaddegh's negative political moves, his grab for dictatorial emergency power, his re-interpretation (to his advantage) of the constitution, his loss of support—themes such as that. If you work to add such themes I will support you, but the sheer numbers of opposing editors will be a problem, if the past is any indication. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And you call sources indicating he was democratically-elected 'subjective' and 'emotional'? Read your own post. The irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.124.83 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are "editors" here who are blatant ideologues and their comments drip with it. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Two Issues
1/. No mention of the critical role played by Col. Norman Schwartzkopf Sr.(Father of "Stormin' Norman")in the final overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddegh. I wonder why? It is no secret. I would like to congratulate the author of this fine article, but suggest that the role of Schwartzkopf be incorporated into it. 2/. It is true that initially Pres. Rooseveldt wanted no part on a coup against Mossadegh, correctly viewing it as part of Britain's oppressive "Colonial" policy. But after WW2, the UK convinced Eisenhower that Mossadegh was a communist. Mossadegh had made a working relationship with the Tudeh(communist) party, a politically unsavoury alliance but tenuous needed to stop British predation. However untrue that Mossadegh was a communist, it did raise fears, especially at the start of the "Cold War" when the USA saw "Reds under the bed" everywhere, with some justification, but rigorous intelligence took second place to hysteria. The myth that Mossadegh was a communist persists, I knew very well one of the ministers of the late Shah, and he believed it to the end, probably because of the incursion of USSR forces into northern Iran during the world war, and the massacre of the Russian Imperial family and their supporters.Historygypsy (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I delete the NPOV tag to this article?
The NPOV tag was added here by a user 71.173.14.188 (talk) who has not been active since the time that tag was created and made very few edits during his/her tenure at Wikipedia. I do not see any attempts to improve issues of WP:NPOV by this or other users, or any indications of WP:NPOV except a concern about whether Mosaddegh was "democratically" elected, so I believe the WP:NPOV tag should be removed. Any objection? David Tornheim (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I say 'yes', delete it, because nothing actionable was brought to the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Education and Early Political Career
There are two statements at odds with each other in very close proximity within the article. Under "Education" the following statement is made, "Mosaddegh taught at the Tehran School of Political Science at the start of World War I before beginning his political career."

In the next subsection, "Early Political Career", the following contradictory statement is made, "Mosaddegh started his political career with the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-07." There is no reference to what his politcal career entailed during the Constitutional Revolution, and I don't know which statement is more accurate. I would imagine it could be argued that his political career began at the age of 15 when he was the treasurer of Khorasan, but perhaps that isn't in the spirit of the political career in its pure form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:102:ADD0:25A6:7324:7FB5:C481 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt?
Theodore Roosevelt - alive in 1953? This article seems to think that Teddy Roosevelt was still President in 1953. He died in 1919. Eisenhower was President of the United States in 1953. ````Jerald Cogswell November 19, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoosesWild (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt - alive in 1953? This article seems to think that Teddy Roosevelt was still President in 1953. He died in 1919. Eisenhower was President of the United States in 1953. ````Jerald Cogswell November 19, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoosesWild (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, it now correctly speaks of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., who was Teddy's grandson. Guy Harris (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Any reasons for two hand kissing photos ?
What's the reason for showing TWO hand-kissing photos of Dr Mossadegh ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)