Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/Archive 1

Glosses over
This entry glosses over the direct involvement of the US in the propping of the Shah...anyone care to expand on this?

Bad title?
I think the title is unnecessarily long. This should be moved to "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi" instead, since there is no other Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of another country, is there? Roozbeh 21:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * All monarchs get "of " appended to their titles in Wikipedia. It's part of the naming conventions meant to keep from making duplicate articles. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi redirects here, so you can link using just that. - Nunh-huh 21:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Titles
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi

>>holder of the deferential title Aryamehr ("Light of the Aryans") etc...

I don't believe any kind and compassionate ruler would like to be given or be associated with differential titles so as to alienate him/herself from his/her subjects. the ruler's subject may in their awe decide to give such a title, but one must remember that this is a factual site not a site to promote ones own political agenda.

if any would like to disagree please do so...


 * Hello, The word 'deferential' is not meant with regards to people, but to the other Shahs before him. Just as some are called 'The Great', e.g. Cyrus the great. So in my understanding this does not mean 'alienation' or something like that. Nicknames of this kind, or deferential titles, as somebody has written here, are quite common among kings, also elsewhere in the world. I think it should be included, not because of anyone's political agenda, but because the fact that this - very often used - title belongs to this Shah, and people looking for info about him should be able to find that out here. As to whether it was given by the people, well we may argue a lot. Some found and still find it a good thing and some don't. Likewise it is about Khomeini and 'Imam'. I would never use that word when refering to him, but I think in a complete article in wikipedia that should certainly be included.


 * It seems 219.93.174.107 is more interested in reverting rather than discussing anything. 82.210.117.149 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)shervink

The constitution
This is in response to user:Melca’s refusal to accept the former constitution of Iran as a valid source for this article. It is a continuation of the discussion under "POV edits by Shervink", which has become long enough to justify a separate title.

The material I'm refering to has been published by the government of Iran. It is the constitution. My source is not the website, the only reason I brought that up is because I thought you do not have access to the original persian text of the constitution so it was intended to help you and save your time. If you cannot believe that this is indeed the text of the constitution, it is your responsibility to find another original copy and read it. I will, however, never base my opinion upon dubious translations when I can clearly see what the original text is saying. I absolutely insist that the current article is wrong and violating any sound reasoning, research, and historical fact and we have to solve the dispute. I will, however, wait at least 24 hrs before reverting the article again after each post in the talk page, so as to give you enough time to respond. Shervink 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I dont refuse the former constitution of Iran as a valid source. I do however refuse your interpretation of it. I understand your standpoint but the wikipedia policy's i referred you to are very clear. As you can see, if your interpretation has not been published already by a reputable source it is considered Original Research and Not Verifiable. Edits of this kind are not allowed and can be deleted at anytime. This is also the reason your edits at Mohammed Mossadegh are being reverted by others.
 * I suggest though that, if you can find scholars and researchers that share your interpretation, to make a new article with their viewpoints and reasons for their disputes against the more accepted consensus and link to it from this article and the Mohammad Mossadegh article. But remember to explicitly list which researchers have those viewpoint, otherwise it is considered Weaseling Melca 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not only my interpretation, and essentially it is not a matter of interpretation because the constituttion is very clear on the rights the shah does, and the prime minister does not have, leaving no room for interpretations. Anyhow I referred to an interview with a very well known Iranian law professor, as well as two high ranking diplomats intimately familiar with the events. Those links however fell victim to your revert-no-matter-what attitude. I tried to include both points of view in the way that I wrote it this time, and I expect you to expand on this rather than revert if you think your views were not emphasized enough. The notion that your view is the "more accepted consensus" is misleading and wrong. It might be so in the US mainly because of the NY Times reports and the related books, but it is by no way true in the case of Iran. Fact is that there is no consensus. Also, your reverts removed the changes I had made to include the important role of Shapour Bakhtiar in the events of the revolution. Why do you remove such important information to make the article weaker? Shervink 06:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Only references to published work can be used as source (see Reliable source). Homepage posts, blogs etc., such as your three references, are not acceptable as sources. I also removed your changes about the revolution because they are not consistent with the main article Iranian Revolution. --- Melca 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The New York Times and ISNA as well as the online journal I referred to certainly qualify for that, I can also give you hundreds of other sources. These are neither personal home pages nor blogs nor anything of that kind, and: They are not even pro-monarchy sites. As for the revolution edits, they are undisputed widely known facts. Your possible ignorance of them does not justify deletion. The other article you mentioned possibly also needs revision, but let's start from here. Shervink 22:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * First of all the article by Ardeshir Zahedi has never been published by the New York Times but hosted on his homepage which is pro-monarchy. Ardeshir Zahedi is also not a reputable source since his father was part of the CIA coup against Mossadeqh (i have told you this before). And if that isn't enough, he is even married to the shahs daughter!
 * Second Mahmood Kashanis father (Ayatollah AbolQassem Kashani) was also on the CIA pay role and part of the CIA coup as well and is again not reputable. The second person to speak on radio Tehran announcing and celebrating the overthrow of Mossadegh was Ayatollah Kashanis sons! As for the webpage entry (or journal or whatever you want to call it) at Iranian.com by Hovaida; It has not been published and therefore not valid as source. His father was by the way prime minister during the dictatorship of the shah. Out of the hundreds of sources you claim you can refer to, do you think you can find one that is reputable and independent of the shah and the coup?
 * And for future references anyone can have their aticles posted at Iranian.com. The only criteria is that the owner of the site finds it interesting. Melca 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The article, as you can see yourself, was published by the NY Times on May 22, 2000. The fact that there is a scan of it on Zahedi's personal home page does not make it less valid!
 * 2. Ardeshir Zahedi was probably the most high ranking diplomat of Iran in the last century. The fact that his father was the first prime minister of the post-Mossadegh era is something you do not need to tell me. But if quotations of the CIA officials who claim to have been involved in the so-called coup can be regarded as reputable and valid, Zahedi's words can be as well.
 * 3. Zahedi "was" married to princess Shahnaz, he is not any more. They got divorced long before the revolution. Since you claim to be so familiar with the subject you should know that.
 * 4. Amir Abbas Hoveyda was "elected" in exactly the same manner as Mossadegh was, i.e. by parliament. Moreover, Fereydoon Hoveyda is his brother and a former Iranian diplomat, not his son.
 * 5. Dr. Kashani is the late Ayatollah's son. So what? He is one of the most respected law professors in Iran, and the fact that his father had a major role in Mossadegh's initial succes is undisputed. That clerics would not support Mossadegh's fancying the communist party is clear.
 * 6. Iranian.com is an online journal and you can publish in it if the editors deem it appropriate, exactly in the same manner any other newspaper or journal works. You could say the same thing about NY Times or the Wall Street journal as well. By the way, Iranian.com is an outspokenly non-royalist, even at times anti-royalist medium.


 * To sum up: Please do not contribute to articles if you have no expertise on the matter. The fact that you lack even a basic understanding of Iran's history and politics is obvious from your comments. Shervink 09:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Who cares if Zahedi is or was married to the shah's daughter or if Fereydoon is Amir Hoveydas brother or son. That's not the point. The point is that all your sources have close ties to the coup and are therefore not reputable. And Zahedi's article is not a scan from the New York Times. If you do a search in their archive you will se that he has never published an article there (The archive goes back to 1981). Melca 00:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares? In a few sentences you make two such grave mistakes about the most prominent politicians of the Shah era! Maybe you should get back to reading instead of editing articles. That the sources I qoute are related to the coup does not discredit them, considering that your sources also mainly rely on the CIA operatives claiming to have played a role in the plot and on their reports. Since you are so eager to look at published work in the form of a book, I suggest Zahedi's memoirs, part of which deals with the 1953 events. I can tolerate your version of the story standing in the article as well, but as there is no single established "fact" on which everybody agrees, we should arrange the article in a way to include both views in an impartial manner. My intention with writing the present version, which includes your references, your view, and the word "coup", has been exactly this. I have, however, also added the other version. You should start from this and make changes if you deem necessary, rather than reverting. Shervink 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)shervink

POV edits by Shervink
This is in response to user:Shervink’s edit as of 17:03, 26 October 2005

The reason i reverted your edits is because you dont give any refrences to your statements, and your edits serve the purpose of making the shah seem as a saint when infact he was a dictator (after the coup anyway).

Under consolidation of power you write that the shah asked the prime minister to resign and since mossadeqh did not it was in breach of constitution and that this can be viewed as a coup by mossadeqh. Can you give us a reference to which constitution you are talking about? At the time only the parliament had the right to hire and fire prime ministers so im not sure which breach of constitution you are talking about. And even if there was such a constitution, to breach it does not automatically constitute a coup. There are thousands of articles and books that call the shah's and cia's actions a coup. Can you give me a reference to an article from an independent newspaper that calls mossadeghs actions a coup?


 * The prime minister was chosen based on suggestion of the Shah, pending on the approval of parliament. This was also the way Mossadegh, as well as all other prime ministers before 1979 were chosen. Since he was not chosen for a certain period of time, it was also upon the Shah or parliament to change the prime minister, and the Shah had every right in doing so. Don't forget that Mossadegh himself needed the Shah's approval before getting the post of defense minister, and even Mossadegh asked for that approval. This means that minister posts could not be filled without the consent of the Shah. The very role of the King in any constitutional monarchy, including those of today's europe, is to do exactly these kinds of things. As an example, to have new elections in England to this date, the Queen has to resolve parliament and announce new elections. In the Netherlands, the Queen is practically and factually head of the government and participates directly in the choice of ministers. This is to tell you that what the Shah did, although unpopular with you and many, was both legal and absolutely conforms to the norm of royal rule allover the world. That Mossadegh, however, did not accept, was a breach of law. The reason I'm saying (and not only I, you'll find plenty of those comments if you bother to read what monarchists say about the matter) that it was a coup, is that Mossadegh used his control of the military to threaten the Shah to overthrow him, and had previously even exiled his family. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink


 * I did not ask you about the process of how prime ministers were chosen and you are writing your way around my main question. Mossadegh was not pending approval, he was the prime minister and only the parliament had the right to fire him. Mossadegh never used the military to threaten the Shah and he never exiled his family. I don’t doubt that the monarchists are saying the opposite, but that doesn’t make it correct.
 * The main thing here is that these statements and alleged coup by Mossadgeh has not been reported anywhere in the mainstream media (because they are not correct). Therefore if you want it in the article you will have to provide valid references and valid reasons. Melca 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not everything said by mainstream media is correct, and not everything that is correct is said in the media. You know that just as well as I do. Mossadegh exiled the Shah's family, look it up. The Shah constitutionally had the right to fire him. Again look it up. He was making use of one of the most obvious rights of a monarch, which many modern monarchs around the world even have up to this day. No reference is more valid than the constitution of that time, which supports my argument. Shervink 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)shervink
 * Look it up where? Please tell us! If you cant provide references for these statements dont revert the article again. --- Melca 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the constitution of 1906. I do not know of any online link or digital format to send to you. Shervink 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * Look this is getting out of hand and you are wrong. The constitution of 1906 severely reduced the shah's powers and as i have written before only the parliament had the right to fire prime ministers. You can read all this in Stephen Kinzer's book, All The Shah's Men. It's easy to claim something that has never been reported, then refer to a, over 100 year old, document and say that you are right. If you have a hard copy, which you must have since you are almost quoting from it in the article, scan and upload it and prove us wrong. And you still havent provided a reference (an article or a book ex.) that says mossadeqh exiled the Shah. --- Melca 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kinzer is wrong. Article 48 of the constitution says "His imperial majesty can dismiss each of the two houses of parliament or both simultaneously." Nowhere in that document such a right is given to anybody else, including the prime minister. Nevertheless, Mossadegh dismissed parliament. The prime minister in that constitution did not have any power of himself separate from the parliament. Everything he did, and his office itself, had to be approved by parliament, and signed by the Shah. The Shah did have, according to article 48, the right to dismiss parliament, and thus the prime minister it had approved(by the way, on the Shah's suggestion!) Mossadegh did not have a legal mandate after dissolving parliament (illegally) and had to resign. All the Shah wanted him to do, thus, was to act according to the constitution. Shervink 23:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * Article 48 of the 1907 constitution did not say that. You are making it up and/or taking it out of contexts. The shahs powers were only ceremonial in this case and he could not dismiss prime ministers or the parliament without the approval of the Majles. If he had these powers his actions would not be called a coup by the media! Kinzer is a well known reporter and author and he is not wrong. His book is very well researched and referenced. --- Melca 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on!!! I am quoting the constitution word by word. Your reading on the subject is obviously limited only to Kinzer's book, otherwise you would not write that and/or thing, which clearly shows you have never read the constitution yourself. Please do us all the favor, find a copy, read it, and stop spreading false statements on Wikipedia. Shervink 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * You can find an online version here: http://www.sarbaz.org/articles/ghanoon-asasi/ga.htm Please take a look yourself, and note that only the first part is the original constitution signed by Muzaffareddin Shah. The addendum of Mohammad Reza Shah's time is also there, however. By the way, as for Stephen Kinzer's credibility, please look at his page on wikipedia. Media are rarely a valid source for research if not checked against other evidence, see e.g. Manufacturing Consent. Shervink 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Dont blame me of spreading false statements when i have done no such thing! Every thing i have said i have backed up with valid references, unlike yours! And i have read other books then Kinzers. If you read this book Persian Revolution of 1905-1909, which contains an English translation of the 1907 constitution by Edward Brown, you will see that article 48 is totally unrelated to your alleged direct quote. Furthermore you can read article 45 which states that all the decrees and rescripst of the shah has to be cosigned by his ministers! So in no way did he have the power to fire mossadeqh, which is what i have said since the beginning.
 * As for your link to the constitution. It is in no way a credible source. The dubious documents are hosted by an anonymous user on an unknown amateurish homepage, which could be yours for all we know, and are probably made up. If you also check out the rest of the homepage you will see that the site is very pro monarchist, to say the least. If i gave you a link to a similar unknown site that is anti monarchist and hosts a completely different version of the constitution would you not question the credibility of it? And lastly because Kinzer has been criticised for an article he wrote in the New York Times about Nicaragua does not make his book about the coup in Iran in-credible.  Melca 22:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you cannot even read persian, you are not qualified to talk about the matter. The scans on the website are accurate and in accordance with hard copies which you, unfortunately, seem to be unable to read. What you have found in that book, seems to be, as for the quote you make regarding article 45, the ammended version of after 1953. If you could read persian, you would see that as well on that page, because that webpage includes both versions of the constitution. Please do not continue to talk about a matter you don't know about. As for the web page, I don't like most of it either. But the constitution scans are accurate, if you have doubts find a hard copy. And if you cannot read persian get somebody to translate article 48 (of the non-ammended version) for you. I have provided the most valid refernce on the matter anybody can provide: the constitution itself. Shervink 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I do read Persian but since finding Persian books in my local library is not easy i found an English one instead. The article 45 i referred to is a translation from the 1907 constitution and not from the ammended version of 1953. The book is called Persian Revolution of 1905-1909 and has only to do with this period. The constitution on site you are referring to is fake. And by the way what makes you think you are qualified to say if the coup was legal or if mossadeqh was in breach of the constitution when none of this has been reported in the media! Again i repeat, if the shah had the power to fire prime ministers his actions would not have been called a coup! Melca 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The only possibility is that the translation in that book is wrong. You can find that out yourself by comparing it to the scanned text on the website. 2. The website content is definitely not fake. If you think otherwise, it is your responsibility to provide valid proof of that, which in this case only can be another scan of the persian script of the constitution, including its date, etc. 3. The text of the constitution is so clear that no further qualification is needed to judge whether it was legal or not. 4. The Shah constitutionally DID have the right to fire prime ministers. 5. The media are not nearly as reasonable a source as the constitution. What makes a biased american reporter who does not know persian and probably is not even really familiar with the constitution qualified to judge the matter? 6. You clearly are unable to provide any proof of your point of view and keep referring to dubious, questionable sources. Stop reverting.Shervink 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * The translation is not wrong. I could refer you to other books but you would just claim they are wrong as well or that they are not valid because the authors do not speak Persian. The fact is that you edits violate three main wikipedia official polices (if not more) Reliable sources, No original research, Verifiability and you can be banned if you keep re adding them. Please read the policies carefully. Here is a quick recap. As you can see "personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, ...are not acceptable as sources", and "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false". These are the things i have been trying to tell you this whole time. I wish i had been told about these policies sooner so we could have avoided this whole discussion. Melca 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You also write that there is strong evidence that the CIA was involved in the coups, as if this could be proven false. This has to be rephrased since this a fact and the CIA themselves have admitted it, even the white house.


 * True. The role of the CIA is irrifutable in the matter. The way it is written now, however, completely ignores the active role of the military members loyal to the Shah, which is not very balanced. We should think of a better choice of wording. Also the word "handpicked" for Gen. Zahedi is completely inappropriate. "Chosen" would be a better word, maybe. allow me to say that such wording also represents POV and is not neutral. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink


 * I dint know "handpicked" was considered POV. I have changed it to "chosen". Melca 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Which evidence is it that you are quoting which says "a strong popularity of the Shah among his people was a main reason for the succesful completion of the plan"? Please give us a reference.


 * It is hard to give references when you keep deleting them. Read this this, and look at the numerous people, books, etc. which he is quoting. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink


 * I didn’t delete any references. There were none. I actually let your version stay on the main page for a while but since you were busy and didn’t replay, i reverted it. Ardeshir Zahedi's is by no means neutral in this case since his father was part of the coup. This is pretty evident from what he writes. Melca 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This part of you edit is, by the way, not consistent with Operation Ajax or Mohammed Mossadegh.
 * Then maybe they should be changed as well. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink


 * BTW, look at the references in Zahedi's article as well. Shervink 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * The Zahedi article doesnt provide any references except to the New York Times article written by James Risen which contradicts what you are stating. --- Melca 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He is quoting Richard Helms, Barry Rubin, Garry Sick, and Amir Taheri, as well as refering to the constitution of 1906. Shervink 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)shervink

Under Exile and Death you changed the line: The compromise was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement, which were against the United States' years of support of the Shah's totalitarian rule, and demanded his return to Iran to face a trial.

to: The compromise was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement, which demanded his return to Iran to face a show trial and certain execution.

What is wrong with the first version? and its POV when you write show trial. The same could or could not be said about sadam's trail in iraq.
 * The reason I changed it is that the revolutionary movement, by and large, was never concerned about democracy. The main figures were hardline Islamists, such as Khomeini (well, we see what he created!), communists, and the terrorist mojahedin-e-khalq. "were against the United States' years of support of the Shah's totalitarian rule" is thus complete nonsense. They were against good relations with US and Israel, against free-market economy, against reviving ancient Iranian culture. But they were not against dictatorship. And, "totalitarian" is something very different from "dictatorial". The former certainly does not apply to the Shah, which is one more reason to remove that sentence. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink


 * The revolution was a popular one and did not mainly consist of Khomeini, communists, and the terrorist. You are trying to undermine the revolution. The Iranian revolution like most revolutions would not be possible without popular support and was about democracy, although i agree it didn’t end well. Key personnel such as oil refinery workers, central bank employees and the military were among those who withdrew their labor and services and yes they were against US support for the dictatorial/totalitarien Shah. Are you saying they weren’t? Totalitarian does apply to the Shah. Look up the definition (Totalitarian): "They maintain themselves in power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, and widespread use of terror tactics". The shah did all this, with the help of SAVAK. Melca 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Trying to 'undermine' the revolution??? You are sounding like Ahmadinejad! I cannot feel anything good for a revolution, popular or not, which has destroyed everything good that was in my country, has spread terrorism and hatred around the world, completely shattered the image of Iranians as civillized people, and brought my country into the miserable current situation. It was, whether supported by people or not, a revolution for Islam, for communism, for extremism, for terrorism, against modernization, against women's rights, against tolerance towards foreign cultures, and against the Iranian culture. It WAS NOT about democracy. Shervink 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * Lets not get emotional here. As i said it did not end well, but initially it was about democracy. The Islamic/terrorist revolution, as you call it, was only the second phase of the revolution. Dont get those two mixed up. --- Melca 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes you conclude that initially it was about democracy? None of the major political groups leading the revolution were interested in democracy. Neither Khomeini nor his followers, nor the mujahedin, Nor the communists. The revolution had never anything to do with democracy. It was anti- absolute monarchy, but the alternatives offered were all other, most often even worse, forms of dictatorship. Shervink 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * I don't see what the relation to Saddam's trial is. If the Shah had been tried, it would certainly have been a show trial, as exemplified by the trials of his many government and military members, e.g. A.Hoveyda. Shervink 17:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink
 * It's POV to write show trial. Not all people se it like that. You never know since he wasnt tried. He could have gotten a fair trail. Mossadeghs trial by the way is also considered a show trial by many, but it does not say that in the article. Melca 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It would CETAINLY have been a show trial. It is absolutely clear from the show trials which led to the execution of hundreds of people just after the revolution. Shervink 01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)shervink

Again this is very POV and has to be removed: "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's times are faced with mixed feelings in today's Iran, a strong component of which is nostalgia. He is often referred to by Iranians as "Khoda-biamorz" (meaning "God's blessings be upon him"), practically as a substitute for his name."

Im pretty sure a big component is also resent and hate for his dictatorial rule. And how often is often? Just keep to the facts please.
 * I am Iranian and well, from what I see in Iran, don't be too sure about that resent and hate thing. God Bless Him is something you can be sure to hear whenever the issue comes up. And well, how could I give you a reference for that? If you want me to give references for the Shah's popularity, same could be demanded for that of Mossadegh, which you would claim. Both is correct, but neither has been officially documented. Sometimes, such is history. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink
 * That’s the point! You cant give me a reference and therefore it does not belong here. Anyway it depends on your social circles. If you hang out with royalist of course this is what you are going to be hearing. And you have to ask yourself what purpose does it serve in the article other then make the shah look good? Melca 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wives and children

Again i need a reference when you write: "but most noteworthy due to severe personal differences". How do you know this?
 * Forget about it. They did, you could look up a lot of books on it. They were not a good match in any respect, which is why they divorced even though she could bear children. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink

Again its POV when you write that Soraya Esfandiary Bakhtiari is still beloved among many of both Iranians and Germans. How many is many? Has there been a poll ?
 * No poll. Ask Germans. If you don't like it, forget about this as well. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink

I hope we can resolve this as soon as possible. --- Melca 15:58, 27 October 2005
 * Sorry for the very late response, but I was kind of extremely busy these days. And thanks for taking your time to write the comments. Shervink 17:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC) shervink

Royal consorts and monarchs
hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free cheers Antares911 00:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speculation?
An anon user added the following content:


 * A account by a British diplomat who served for many years in Iran told how the Shah had compalained to him that he was unable to get reliable accounts of what was really happening in his country from his own countrymen. They were too interested in telling the Shah what they though he (the Shah) would want to hear.

Well, the first part of it needs references, and the last sentence is speculation. I hope the anon user would come up with the appropriate references. Thanks. --Ragib 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if reference to the above is not provided, I don't see any reason to keep a speculation in the article. Thanks. --Ragib 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo?
Any reason why the photo was deleted?


 * I assume the reason is that the photo matched the new speedy deletion criteria: Images with no copyright information. --Ragib 00:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why is it still there in other languages of the text?


 * Huh? What do you mean by that? --Ragib 18:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Look at this for example: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

I just think it doesn't make sense. also look at this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Theshah.jpg It seems to be public domain, so ...

Block for protection from vandalism
Because of the vandalism and repeated reverts of an anonymous user, I suggest to 1.Edit the Pahlavi-related articles to an agreeable form together and then 2.Block them for editing for a while to protect them from this improper behavior. Shervink 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

I agree, all edit warring parties should come to a consensus. If the cycle of reverts continue, I'd be forced to protect the article, and that is not at all a good thing for an article. Both sides, please come to a conensus through discussion. --Ragib 04:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's easily said, but it seems that 219.93.174.105 is not at all interested in a consensus. Otherwise they would make some reasoning for their behavior on the discussion page. I think the matter is very clear. It is personal hatred towards the person this page is about. I completely understand thtat he is a politically controversial figure, but personal hatred is not a proper motivation for editing pages. Shervink 11:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * The reverts are now originating from User:220.73.107.241. Please continue to invite him to register, and to discuss issues on this page by leaving messages on the talk page for his IP, like this one User talk:220.73.107.241. It might also help to wait some time (say 30 minutes) before removing his changes to reduce incidence of revert warring.--inks T 02:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I left him a message. I also agree with Tony Sidaway below. By the way, it seems the same user has also become interested in the Farah Pahlavi page. Shervink 10:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

I really don’t see what the fuss is about and why it is necessary to have his title in the article, since many articles on royalty in wikipedia omit them. But if people really insist I suggest we change it to "Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi..., styled His Imperial Majesty, was the last reigning Shah of Iran to...". This is similar to what has been written in the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article.


 * On the other hand, one may say why omit the title? It implies information which is thus included in the article, but which would be left out if you remove the title. The effort should be put on including such titles in royalty-related articles rather than cutting them out. With your suggestion to make it similar to the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article, I don't disagree. Although I do not see the advantage of that style over this one either. Is it really like that or is it only my impression that something about these styles seems to irritate some people?! And that as a result of this, they simply want to remove them or move them to somewhere they cannot see? Shervink 15:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

My take on this as a sysop
I'm inclined to view the removals as borderline vandalism. Encyclopedias normally describe rulers with the title that protocol prevailing at the time of their rule prescribed. Pahlavi was the Shah of Iran until he was deposed, and the style of address used during his reign should be recorded in the article. --Tony Sidaway Talk 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll lift this now to see if attempts to remove the titles continue. If so, and the editor removing the titles doesn't make responses to the numerous efforts to get him to join in discussion, this will tend to tip my assessment further towards vandalism, though not of a serious enough nature as yet that I think it warrants blocking. I think it's a difficult case and I hope I'm doing the right thing. If he decides to participate I think this would set my mind at rest and I'll feel that we can treat it as a content dispute. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Compromise ideas?
How about using this: Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (in Persian: محمدرضا شاه پهلوی) (October 26, 1919 – July 27, 1980), was the last reigning Shah of Iran to date, ruling from 1941 until 1979. Before he was deposed, he had the titles "His Royal Majesty" and Aryamehr ("Light of the Aryans").

This way, everything stated are facts ... and anyone's objection to the naming is also handled by mentioning that those titles were during his reign. --Ragib 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fair compromise --Melca

Cool! Go for it! --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. The title is "His Imperial Majesty", not Royal or something, because Iran was an empire and the government of which he was the head was called Imperial government of Iran. Likewise, we had a "Minister of the Imperial Court", not Royal Court, etc. The very word Shahanshah means Emperor. So please refrain from using the word Royal instead of Imperial. Moreover, the word Aryamehr is more than a title, and is still very commonly used to refer to him. I think the only compromise can be whether to put the title H.I.M. before or after the name (i.e. styled ...) as Melca suggested before. And I do not see, by the way, why a FACT such as the official title of some person should be a matter of compromise. It is not a matter of opinion, so it is not something to compromise about. All you have to do is to look at history to see what the appropriate titles were. Shervink 22:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * Royal or imperial, whatever. I only suggested the location of the title, not the exact title/wording. Also, the "official" nature of the title ceased to exist once he was deposed, so this is not like Elizabeth II or other reigning monarchs. Anyway, I suggested the compromise as a non-partisan observer to stop the meaningless edit war over the title. --Ragib 22:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Royal or Imperial, both are officially non applicable since the monarch at hand is Dead and desposed of in Egypt. Not only is this an illegal title by current Iranian law, it is a incorrect name for someone who has already passed away and no longer carries the title of Monarch. There is no compromising with Monarchists that cling on to this man. He does NOT carry this title. Be free to correct it whenever its re-imposed.--Paradoxic 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on...
I think this article has a few neutrality problems:

"The exiled monarch had become unpopular in much of the world, especially in the liberal West, ironically his original backers and those who had most to lose from his downfall."

Who wrote this? Ann Coulter?

Shah forced to leave Iran?
I read in his IMDb biography http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0656624/bio and in some other places that he and his family left Iran after over a year of uprising as he didn't want for a civil war to break out in the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irani12 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Media depictions
Where should we mention influences this man has had on fictional culture, such as his portrayal in the series finale of The Spoils of Babylon by Eric Jonrosh? Ranze (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Di'Ques is a black man in the KKK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.87.71 (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)