Talk:Mohammed Mosaddeq/Archive 1

Citing?
"In October 1952 Mossadegh declared that Britain was "an enemy"," - There is not citing of such an statement by Mossadegh and as I recall, Mossadegh NEVER considered Britian "an enemy", but saw the British company (not the country) an exploitative force that unfairly hindered Irans natural oil reserve. This was his view through out his struggle to nationalize Irans oil resources. Please provide a valid source otherwise it will be removed. --87.194.3.182 00:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy
Just reading this article reminded me why we are told NOT to cite wikipedia in our university. This article looks like a piece of abstract art that is drifting in all directions. I will be tidying up this article heavily, based on the recently released CIA clandestine service history "Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran" by Donald M. Wilber, which was leaked to the NY Times. I think you can still read most of the extracts at www.nytimes.com. I will also cite "Oil, Power and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and its aftermath (Syracuse, N.Y.), Mossadegh's own speech at the UN, Winston Churchill's speeches and also his notorious will to invade Iran to fix the problem, "Britian and the overthrow of the Mossadeq Government" Gasiorowski, Mark J and Byrne. So please familiarize yourself with these materials so as to not be surprised when changes are made. Let me also remind everyone else, this is not an newspaper article so please use an unbiased tone when delivering changes. This is not an place to express inner opinions and feelings by cleverly using tonal words.

You are not here to rewrite history, as alot of the wikipedia content is turning out to be doing.--87.194.3.182 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't feel this article is written from a NPOV at all. The "Plot Against Mossadegh" section makes a number of assertions that do not appear to have references and uses phrases such as "dirty work" which make clearly what the author's position is. As it currently stands, it does not read like an entry in an encyclopedia. 84.70.159.152 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus the "Legacy" section is not neutral. The phrase "the now fundamentalist theocratic regime doesn't approve of him" is clearly putting forward a point of view. While this point of view may or may not be valid it has no place in an encyclopedia. 84.70.159.152 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Coup a more accurate representation of what happened in 1954 than "plot"
I'm just a bit confused about the heading of this section. All the sources that I have read including "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinser and a New York Times article seem to indicate that the Eisenhower administration along with Churchill's government orchestrated a Coup to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh. So shouldn't we reflect this by providing a more appropriate and accurate heading?

-I (another person than the one who wrote the above comment) disagree. A coup is, by definition, a plot anyway, so I don't see an issue here.

–– Hmm, to me a coup is a plot that succeeded. A plot, when not executed, stays a plot.Efrasnel 07:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

69.196.106.158 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Kinster

--

reference to plot "orchestrated" by British and US intelligence services
The self-congratulatory claims of Messieurs Wilber and Kim Roosevelt, with respect to their roles in the events of 1953, which led to the ousting of Dr. Muhammad Mossaddeq from his position as Prime Minister, need to be viewed with due caution. Serious historical analyses have found contradictions, gross exaggerations and blunt lies in the portrayal of their roles. Numerous pundits have felt compelled to proliferate (unreflectedly) the tale of the "CIA" coup, e.g. The Iranian activists in the uprisings as well as counter coup instigation are minimized unrealistically to bit-part players, while it is undisputed from a rational point of view and factual eyewitness accounts that two foreign individuals can have hardly steered a few thousand (conservative and mostly xenophobic) Iranians, in the narrated fashion. For example, Kim Roosevelt's claim that he supposedly communicated with General Fazlollah Zahedi in German, is mere nonsense, as General Fazlollah Zahedi spoke only Russian and Turkish, beside his native Persian (Farsi). Others cite the "memoirs" of General Fardust, which have been written by the Mullah Regime, based on propagandistic diction. The CIA today claims to have lost its entire documented coverage of the events of 1953 in a FIRE! It is easy, therefore, to claim anything in anybody's fancy, without documented facts backing those claims.

--Actually the CIA did NOT loose all of the documents. The still have many a fair amount. They have continually refused to declassify them under popular pressure as well as a lawsuit brought against them under the FOIA i believe in 2000. I believe Wilber was quoted as saying something like - if the planners of the bay of pigs would have read my archive on Iran there would have been no bay of pigs.

--To the original post, can you be a little more specific, either the US and the British secret intelligence were or weren’t involved in “orchestrating” the removal of the Iranian PM. Your column suggest that you have no idea what your are talking about (actually writing).

Saying this case isn’t possible because Iranians are xenophobic is just outrages, and shows a low level of intellect because even if this was the care there would be millions of ways to get around that...like hiring people (actually thats what they did), but that statement is just plain racist and bigoted. Sounds like you are just another American who doesn’t want face the music of what your government is up to around the world.

If you know anything about Iran and its relation to the west you would of known that they had a great relationship before this Coup espec with the US.....  Trying researching a little!!!!!

Just wondering if this confused anyone?
"After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on March 15, 1951 the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry, and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Prime minister General Haji-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. He was assassinated on March 7, 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam. A while later, the Majlis voted for Mossadegh as new prime minister. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets."

In this paragraph i found myself wondering who the young shah was. Now im assuming father and son had the same name and when the elder abdicated in 1944 the younger one took over?


 * "British-Owned" < nothing was British owned... The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was a joint venture by a British company with the Persian Government. Britian did not and never owned anything in Iran. A British "company" should NOT be mixed with Britian the "country". They are two different entities.--87.194.3.182 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"British-owned"_

(It is true that the government of the UK owned the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Iran.     (The Uk government owned all sites, machineries, pipe lines, refineries, oil (wells, buildings, housings, offices, transportatios...etc in Iran. They purchased all     (of these from William Knox back in the early part of 20th century. Read the history. (The government wanted to use the Iranian oil and its products for its Royal Navy.      (I hope this little clears your mind.(This correction is made on 10-22-2008)

Interestingly enough the AIOC was 51% British government owned from 1913, with the final minority stake (BPby that point) privatised by Thatcher in the 1980's. It is therefore factually incorrect to say that "Britian [meaning the govt. or Crown] did not and never owned anything in Iran" except in the very tenuous sense that it only owned a majority of shares in a London-listed company that owned significant assets in Iran. In my opinion that's a bit mealy-mouthed and doesn't reflect the real or indeed theoretical situation. I am not sure of the exact ownership structure in 1953, but as it was a partly (British) nationalised company and fulfilled a strategic military role for the British government (supplying the Royal Navy and the other armed forces), 'British-owned' or 'British-controlled' would seem to be perfectly justifiable descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.127.208 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if this confused anyone?
The "Young Shah" was indeed the son of the previous one, Reza Shah Pahlavi. But he succeeded his father in 1941, not 1944.

--206.246.81.183 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Alee 06/19/05

Assisting the Head of State defend against violent overthrow is not a "Coup".
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was named head of state, i.e Shah, of Iran in 1941 and remained head of state (Shah) until the revolution of 1979. As the article states, Mohammed Mossadegh attempted to overthrow him in 1953 but his attempt failed (with or without help from the CIA). The curious thing is that since 1979 or 1980 the Shah's efforts to thwart Mossadegh and retain his position has been labelled a "Coup". In fact it was Mossadegh's actions that was the coup, or attempted coup. This reverse-speak was given official sanction by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000 when she referred to President Eisenhower's support of the legitimate government of Iran as a "Coup".


 * The overthrow of Mossadegh was a "Coup" as it was executed in violation of legality and against the will of the Iranian people - organized through a democratically elected parliament. You are wrong, the legitimate government was not represented by the Shah.  You should read up on Jefferson.  Mossadegh was the head of the Executive branch, the majlis represented the legislative branch.  The Shah was the legitimate head of State, as Juan Carlos is in Spain for instance, but not the head of the Government.


 * I am curious as to how Mossi's actions were a Coup or violent. Does our poorly versed Iranian scholar know anything about how the Pahlavi's came to power in the first place?

--206.246.81.183 15:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)Alee 06/19/05


 * The unsigned comment is to some extent, true. Dr. Mossadegh was an extraordinary, truly great man and an outstanding politician. His extraordinary patriotism, however, resulted in his making several mistakes. It is really not all wrong to say that it was him, not the Shah, who actually staged a coup. The Shah was, by constitution, head of state, and head of the three branches of government. Thus it is correct to say that he was head of government. One point of caution which is due, is that he made sure this was explicitly added to the constitution after Mossadegh's overthrow, however, it was already common practice, and common understanding of the constitution (which I think was not clear on this), before Mossadegh as well. As you may have noticed, by law, the Shah appointed the Prime minister, who had then to be also approved by the parliament. However, it is clear that a monarch with the power of appointing prime ministers has also the right to ask them to resign, which is what the shah did, few days before he fled Iran in that year. It was Mossadegh, who, having gained -not entirely legitimately - control over the armed forces, refused to resign. Before, by threating Shah with the same armed forces, he had already sent his family to exile, thus it was Mossadegh, not the Shah, who used the military to step-by-step push back the constitution and prevent the Shah from exercising his constitutional rights and duties. The shah's attempt was, at best, a counter-coup, not a coup. That is how I see it. Commonly, however, it is nowadays referred to as a coup, which I beleive is not entirely fair towards the Shah. Mossadegh's moves, although popular at that time, and probably democratically legitimate, were not according to constitution and were illegitimate from a legal point of view. I think he as a great lawyer knew that best of all. It is strange how politics brings two great people to such opposite positions at times. It is in fact sad. Shervink 13:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

By the way, let's not refer to Dr. Mossadegh as Mossi, it is not a very nice nickname. Shervink 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * You are completely wrong and I cant believe you are suggesting that Mossadegh staged a coupe and that the Shah was the victim. It sends shivers down my spine when people, to this day, try to defend what was done. Mossadegh did resign in protest and the Shah gave him and the parliament control over the armed forces as a result. What is "not entirely legitimate" about that? And I am a bit confused. What constitutional rights and duties was Mossadegh preventing the Shah from doing? And dont forget. The Shah was described as a coward by the CIA. He didn’t have the guts or the support to stage the coup himself. The Shah was just a puppet and the coup was done for him by American and British intelligence agencies.

I don't think I am completely wrong. At least in our admiration of Mossadegh (in which I am very sincere) we certainly agree. However, I am a bit more fair than you, I beleive. As I said, it is a matter of point of view, for now at least. And I am making no attempt to reflect my view in the main article either. However, a brief response to your points: - Control of the armed forces, by law, was the Shah's responsibility. And you must see the context as well. Mossadegh's action in demanding that control was a signal to the British that Iran is willing to fight a war with them, which would leave Iranians in hunger and despair and the country in ruins. - That Mossadegh did not resign few days before 28 mordad, when the Shah asked him to, was unconstitutional. The Shah had the right to dissolve parliament and to change prime-minister. That is what I mean when I say Dr. Mossadegh didn't adhere to law, although in good faith. - The Shah was not described as a coward by CIA during that stage (Maybe in 1979, it could be you heard it in that connection). Moreover, Roosevelt's report clearly mentions that they had counted on the Shah's polpular support and that similar things in other countries would not work because their leaders are not as popular as Iran's Shah! - Anyhow, How come we are talking about a coup when military was controlled by Mossadegh? I really don't want to argue this further here simply because such an issue cannot be resolved on a wikipedia discussion page. It is too complicated and our views are probably too far apart. Shervink 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * I doubt that the British or anyone in their right mind believed that Mossadegh would go to war with Britain. That would be suicide since Britain was a superpower at the time.
 * I am referring to the CIA report about the coup written by Dr. Donald N. Wilber, one of the leading planners. Here is a recap from the NYT article that first published the report: "The document shows that the agency had almost complete contempt for the man it was empowering, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, whom it derided as a vacillating coward". The Shah's "popular support" (which was at best very small) had very little to do with the success of the coup. Read the report: http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-intro.html
 * What does control over the military by Mossadeqh have to do with the coup? And for future references if you dont want to argue dont write dubious statements.

Let's be fair. What a great man the Shah was for our (am I right in assuming you are Iranian?) country should, at least by now, be clear to everybody. Same holds, by the way, for Mossadegh. Refering to a NY Times article to suggest otherwise is a bit strange, to say the least. This coward, as you call him, picked up a ruin and, well we saw what he made of it. Let's be fair. just fair. Shervink 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * We need to document his life and achievements. He did an amazing job navigating Iran through treacherous waters considering the condition of Iran and the world.  He also had serious flaws which ultimately lead to his downfall.  In that context, his greatest fault was his belief in his own strategic vision and acumen.  It rather pained me to see him recently on youtube in his last interview lamenting "what happened?"  The Shah absolutely believed in the b.s. that the west was feeding him.  He never recognized that his (arrogant!) comments against the West and his showing up of European Royalty would be a cause for his absolute destruction (it is a vendetta that continues to this day) by the same "friends".  To them he was an uppity w.o.g. and certainly they relished seeing him humiliated.  But they didn't break him, which is amazing and a testament to his non-trivial character.  Very complex man and certainly one of the great ShahanShahs of Iran Zameen, warts and all.  Iranians should be quite happy that in the past century, our nation had 4 very substantial leaders (Reza Shah, Mossadeq, Mohammad Reza Shah, and Khomeini).  Check the other country's record, and take Heart! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.52.56 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

If we are going to "be fair" about this whole saga... perhaps it would be wise to contextualize the goals of each leader. Mossadeq's main goal was to nationalize the oil and bring a more "fair" share of the $ to the Iranian people. By most accounts, Iran was getting a horrible percentage of the oil $, and the people were seeing very little of that. Mossadeq was trying to lift up Iran as a country. What was the Shah doing? Whatever it was, he was NOT fighting the Brittish for the good of his country!

BTW, not once have I seen anyone mention that post-Mossadeq Iran was getting more US aid than any other country at the time. Is it coincidence that Mossadeq, one of the first Iranians to stand up to the UK and fight for the people, falls from power and short order the Shah is getting $ and guns to shore up his position.... ? While Mossadeq was in power, every aid request he made to the US was denied... go figure.

"Easy to figure: Mossadegh came to power because his predecessor was assasinated by a member of an organization, Fedayin e-Islam, with which Mossadegh was affiliated, and may have been one of the founders. Fedayin e-Islam is a predecessor of Hezbollah; should US and Britain offer aid to Hezbollah? He was also closely allied at the time of his ascendancy to power with the Tudeh, the Iranian communist party."

And as far as the supplemental article written by the General Zahedi's son... I see absolutely no independent sources cited to back his claims. I wouldn't say his view of history is objective, either.

But, as far as who overthrew who, that's not the point so much as what each leader's intentions were. Mossadeq sought to use Iran's resources to lift the country out of poverty, while the Shah.... ? - C. Davis


 * My view is that they both had good intentions. The Shah was never really opposed to the nationalization of the oil. The point was that he was more pragmatic than Mossaddegh. What good is nationalized oil if nobody buys it from us, we are under sanctions and the people are starving? Mossaddegh 'planned to' lift Iran as a country, the Shah actually did it (at least economically, but also in many other ways), undoubtedly with the help of foreign countries, who saw their interests preserved by that. Due to what Mossaddegh had done, the Shah could get much more money out of the oil sells for Iran, money which was desperately needed. Ardeshir Zahedi is obviously very biased in his assesment, I completely agree with that, and with a lot of what he says I don't agree anyhow. But I think including it gives the reader an opportunity to see what the other side is thinking about the whole matter, and his opinion is noteworthy to mention not because it's correct, but because he was one of the most influential politicians of the Shah times and his views can lead to insight into how these people thought when they were making those policies. Shervink 01:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)shervink

In discussions about the "intentions" of the Shah and Dr. Mossadegh regarding Iran's well-being, isn't a comparison of their personal wealth, the amount and sources, a relevant indicator? Tampacajun, 14 May 2006



This is all well and good, but Mossadegh was indeed overthrown in a coup. Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader of the Iranian people who was unilaterally removed from power by the Shah. This action was not allowable under the Iranian constitution of the time, officially requiring a vote of no confidence by the Iranian parliament. (See War and Peace in the Middle East: a concise histor, by Avi Shlaim) pbrowning, March 18, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.163.14 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

=
I agree with your point about the uselessness of oil when there are no buyers. But, Mossadeq is less to blame for that than the Brittish are, as well as the US. Mossadeq was expressing the popular will of the Iranian people - he was trying to fix a horrible situation brought about by the Shahs' "negotiations" with the UK. It is easy to say that perhaps Mossadeq would have been more successful if he hadn't taken such a hard line, but it is just as easy to say that the US would have a much different relationship with the region if they had chosen to help a representative of the people (instead of taking sides with an imperial giant and a monarch).

But, when it comes to the Shah, it seems his intentions revolved around self-preservation more than anything else. He only warmed to the idea of oil nationalization when it was clear his authority was in jeopardy. A strong case can be made that if he had initially ruled with the intention of helping his people lift themselves out of poverty, then Mossadeq wouldn't have been the popular politician he became.

As a citizen of the U.S., I am astonished how little this period of history is discussed or remembered (by the US population, that is). My opinion is that the actions of the U.S. during this time are related to the current tensions between Iran and the U.S. - at least as much as any religious or political differences.

BTW, Stephen Kinzer wrote an excellent book on the coup of '53, "All the Shah's Men." Just a suggestion for anyone who is reading this. I am sure you (Shervink) have read it, or are familiar with it. Thank you - C.Davis


 * I do not agree with your point that the Shah acted mainly on selfishness. As for the relation to the current tensions between the US and Iran, I think the 1953 actions are completely unrelated. It is a popular myth among a number of intellectuals that the Iranian people never have forgiven the Americans for ousting a democratic leader, Mossadegh. First and foremost, Mossadegh was only as democratic as any other prime minister of the monarchy era. He was never elected, but appointed by the Shah himself. Second, he violated the constitution several times to obtain extra powers. It was the Shah who held firm to the constitution, to preserve which was his most important duty as a monarch. Third, Iranians are friends of America, and the most important reason for that is the prospeous times they had under the Shah with the support of the US. You would never, never, hear the average Iranian say he would be angry over the US for what they did in 1953. The problem with people such as Ahmadinejad is also different. They are extremists who would never care about democracy, nor about Mossadegh for that matter. They despise Mossadegh just as much as they despise any American president. As for the issue of American intervention, there is no reason for the Americans to feel guilty. For whatever reason they acted as supporters of the Shah in 1953, it was the right decision. Shervink 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)shervink


 * Right.. I guess then that Madeleine Albright regretted the coup and said sorry for no reason on public tv? --- Melca 21:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ms. Albright did lots of things for no discernable reason.


 * "discernable" being the key word. Certainly they have their reasons for the mea culpa offered.  They get to write history this way.  Just look:  Here we have morons who think BBC and NYTimes and CIA are "reliable" sources!


 * What I said was that the current problems are not due to those of 1953. Albright didn't say otherwise, as far as I know. She apologized for an American role in the 1953 plot, which was nothing to apologize for, in my opinion. If she thought she should apologize, that's her problem, not mine. Shervink 22:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) shervink

"nothing to apologize for"? To say this is pure "Negationism". Even Dr. Kissinger implied American wrong doing with regards to Mossadegh, claiming that what Dulles did in America was the best route given the perception of Mossadegh at the time, and given the morbid fear of communism prevalent in Washington. Albright did not apologize b/c she felt bad, she apologized as the Secretary of State for actions perpetrated by American diplomacy against the sovereignty of a nation. Truth be told she apologized to the Islamic Republic which certainly didn't deserve to be the recipient of American empathy.168.187.0.35 08:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)HAF

No, There isn't anything to apologize for. Maybe jimmy carter but not Ike. Sorry! Iran was becoming a bad guy in 1953. We stopped it! Ever since carter and 1979, they have been bad!!! (68.227.211.175 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

"Iran was becoming bad guy" I suppose we will never know. The whole Mossadegh era and its possible successes and ramifications in today's situation are just fluff at this point. Nonetheless, American diplomacy cannot claim its relationship with Iran from 54 to 79 as a success. And in light of the Shah's brutality, and failure, and the bigotry witnessed since 1979, it is only logical and legitimate to take another look at Mossadegh and the men who worked with him. After all, they went to the same schools, read the same books and appreciated the same art as their european counterparts... 168.187.0.34 13:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)HAF

reason why
Mossadegh's Tudeh party was officially Stalinist; why would the US support him? BTW, it was the evil shah who set Iran on the course to modernization, women's rights etc. until the Ayatollah overthrew his gov't and murdered 30,000 people (I'm aware of the abuses by the SAVAK secret police, but their crimes pales in comparison to theocratic Iran). Explain to me how the US was in the wrong here. --70.189.32.215 16:10, 13 December 2005

The US was in the wrong because they staged a coup which overthrew a democratically elected, popular government because it didn't support the US's national interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.148.177 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr. Mossadeqh most certainly was not a traitorous Tudeh party member, but there is a post on society.culture.iranian (usenet) that has a photocopy of his FreeMason involvement. I certainly hope it is not true.  And the servile Tudeh party, for your information, figures hugely in this whole debate.  They had recruited very senior members of the army and were in a position to just get rid of the Shah, but that was apparently not what Kremlin required ...

"Mossadegh's Tudeh party"? Are you implying or asserting that Mossadegh was part of Tudeh? Get your facts straight. Mossadegh was the head of the Iranian National Front (Jebbeh Melli), not the Tudeh. Iran's modernization was certainly not his sole doing and selling the country away to foreigners or disturbing the mores of millions doesn't make the Shah an enlightened despot. BTW, saying that the Mullahs are worse really doesn't say much about the Shah. 168.187.0.35 08:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)HAF

I find it difficult to believe that there are still people defending the Shah and the operation to install him. After the terrible pains that these guys have caused the Iranian people: the Shah's incompetent, sadistic and corrupt rule; supplying Iraq with arms with which to attack Iran; retarding the development of the Iranian polity and more; I would think that the elements of the old regime and the west in general would at least have the decency to leave this argument alone.

Docteur Mossadegh
Mossadegh is maainly known in France as "Docteur Mossadegh". But why ? For a long time I believe he was a physician... Did he wrote a doctoral dissertation at the IEP ? Ericd 19:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He was a doctor of law, as far as I know. However his son, Dr. Gholam-Hossein Mossadegh was a physician. Shervink 21:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * He probably eraned his doctoral degree at the IEP in France ? Ericd 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

According to "All the Shah's Men", he earned his doctorate of law in 1914 from a university in Neuchatel, Switzerland. The university is not named in the book.

There are still mentally deranged individuals who criticize the granting of women's rights and liberalization. That is what is scary. Mossadegh was a hero. The Shah had become a nationalist. The fake Islamic British puppets--the muslim clergy-- have been the biggest traitors in that part of the world.

According to Mantle of the Prophet by Roy Mottahedeh (Harvard prof.-- I don't know about these other journalists....), Mossadegh got his doctorate in law at a Swiss university in Neuchâtel. His dissertation was entitled "The Will in Muslim Law (Shiah Sect) Preceded by an Introduction on the Sources of Muslim Law". Additionally, he was also nicknamed "the national physician."

Collective farming?
Is it true that he introduced collective farming? To what extent?

Communism, fabrication or reality?
Mossadegh imposed collective farming, oil industry nationalization, government land ownership, yet "The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism". Collective farming, nationalizations, and government land ownership are objectively a turn towards Communism from an economic perspective. A 99.9% vote on where the sun rises is mildly suspicious, much less on a political question like dissolving parliament. Rigged elections that empower the executive certainly were in the Soviet play book at the time.

It's strange that there are no citations from the Soviet archives on their relations with Mossadegh. That is an independent viewpoint that should be included into any true NPOV article. TMLutas 20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

IF anything, Mossadegh was an Iranian Nationalist and a possible promoter of socialism. But he was no way a part of the Soviet Posse. He despised Russian intervention in the Middle East, just as he despised British. The one critical mistake westerns make, is that we judge how foreign questions are run, and belive they should run, without studying about the history of the respective regions. If we did, we'd find out that nationalizing the oil industry, among other things were needed policies to enrich Iran, and foster betterment among the rural class. Besides, it has been said that Mossadegh nationzlied the oil industry, because the Brithish company (as usual with transnationals), did not pay Iran its proper dues.
 * Why do you paint a picture where "we westerns" always make such foolish mistakes? Please name the countries and or regions where people do not make these mistakes. Who are these foreign policy geniuses who set the standard that "we westerns" fail to live up to? Include some examples... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.81.94.69 (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
 * He doesn't need to have supported the Soviets, the fact remains that he did increase state control over the means of production (and not just the refineries). As luck would have it, we have a word to describe exactly that. --Jahandar 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Death date is Wrong
I changed to 5th march http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/

So was the birthday, I've changed that. Lorpius Prime (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Is the second picture really from August 1953? The uniforms of the soldiers seem to be winter coats, August in Tehran would be way too hot for such clothing! Can anybody clarify this somehow? Shervink 17:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink
 * That picture could not have been taken in August in Tehran, precisely for the reason you mentioned. --Houshyar 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually talked to my father about this issue, he was alive at that time and said that the military uniform did not differ greatly between the seasons and that the military usually wore this uniform, he also mentioned that the uniforms were made of a fabric that did not make the person wearing it hot. -Pouyan t

The picture is accurate. If you take a closer look at other pictures of the 28 Mordad incident, you will see that all personnel are wearing full uniforms and full suits  and even trenchcoats. These uniforms were not fasli (seasonal) and were fixed. My grandfather was also a colonel of the Shah's Army. I remember him with only one uniform. Keep in mind that the weather patterns of those days were not exactly the same as those of today. When I was a kid, it would snow in Shiraz and the river was full. Now it routinely hits 100 degrees every summer, and the river has completely dried up.--Zereshk 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw this caption quite a while ago. I'm wondering if it would not be a good time to fix the caption so that the user is not greeted by the first text, which as the user before me notes is speculation. --Edwin Herdman 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

transliteration
I don't know if this has been brought up, but his name should be written as "Mossadeq". Transliterating the qaf as "gh" is not very standard. Likewise, it should be "Muhammad" or "Mohammad", but not "Mohammed". Cuñado  -  Talk  19:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no standard transliteration, but we should try to use the most common spelling we can. See Naming conventions (Arabic) for a proposed policy that would apply Wikipedia-wide. Below is a chart of possible name combos, and how many Google hits each returns, with relevant footnotes.


 * 1This version of the first name is Wikipedia's preferred spelling of the Prophet's name, and has the most Google hits as a single name.
 * 2This is Wikipedia's current title, so the Google hit number may be somewhat inflated by the inclusion of Wikipedia mirrors and other sites using Wikipedia's spelling as a reference. This spelling is also used by the U.S. State Department about half the time, and Time Magazine's famous 1927 cover of Mossadegh used this spelling. Also, the New York Times prefers this spelling.
 * 3This spelling is used by the State Department the other half of the time.
 * 4The Encyclopedia Britannica uses this spelling.
 * 5The Columbia Encyclopedia uses this spelling, for some reason.

Based on all this, I'd say we should keep the article with it's current name, but there's certainly room for debate. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good research. If you look at Naming conventions (Arabic) there is a "standard version" which does use [q] for transliterating 'qaf'. But it is only a proposal right now. Likewise, [Muhammad] is clearly the most used and more proper version of the Prophet's name. I have been working on several pages working to standardize the different transliterations of Arabic script. It seems that there are a lot of people opposed to standardization which either quote two things: 1)the transliteration is not phonetic, and in Persian cases, they pretend that it's pronounced differently in Persian (although the exact same word); 2) the non-standard version has become 'English', as in the case of Mecca, which properly transliterated should be [Makkah].

Persian pronunciation really does differ from Arabic pronunciation. Why do you say "they pretend," anyway? Μost speakers of Arabic and Persian will agree that names that are spelled the same way using Arabic letters end up being pronounced quite differently by Iranians and Arabs. Shall we start calling the Ottoman Empire the `Uthman Empire, even though the Ottomans, who lacked the letter `ayn in their sound system, pronounced what was spelled in Arabic as `Uthman (عثمان) as "Osman"? The short vowels "a" "i" and "u" of Arabic sound like "æ" "e" and "o" in Persian. Iranians pronounce not only the vowels but also the "h" (ح)in Mohammed (محمد) quite differently from Arabs. And the "q" (ق) of Arabic invariably gets pronounced like "gh" (same sound as for ghayn (غ) in Persian) by Iranians. It is strange that you insist on Arabic transliteration (which reflects Arabic, not Persian pronunciation) for the spelling of this Iranian leader's name. Just because my Korean name CAN be written in Chinese characters doesn't mean I have to go around transliterating using a Chinese standard (I'm not sure what it would be exactly, but i'm guessing it's "Xin Zhifan" (申基範)). It makes a LOT more sense for me to use the Korean spelling, "Shin Kibum" (신기범). And in any case most people call me by my American name, which is Tony. Shall I start spelling it in Greek, since my name is originally from Greek Αντώνιος? Standardization is a fine goal, but don't impose an Arabic standard on this Iranian leader.


 * I am in favor of standardization, because currently a wide and chaotic array of transliterations are used by people that don't realize a standard exists. I don't give much credit to google searches as proof of the common English name. In the case of Fatimah Zahra, someone wanted it to be [Fatima], but google searches were predominantly references to the town in Spain where an apparition of the virgin Mary appeared (the lady of Fatima). Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think a standard transliteration system is badly needed, not just for Wikipedia but for the West in general. The whole project could certainly use a jumpstart from a dedicated Wikipedian. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case the argument is about two different things - transliteration would use the arabic since it is supposed to represent the spelling, whereas a transcription would represent the differces in the Persian pronounciation (which is considerable). I would favour transcription in this instance as to me how the name is said is more important than how it is written. We need to know how to correctly say a name in a different script, not how it is spelt in that script - this is useful to academics (who would know anyway) but not to the general public, if you follow me.

Well, I am somewhat surprised but the correct transliteration of the name has not been put correctly here at all..Anyone familiar with the Arabic or Persian language knows that there are no letters such as -o- and -e- but only pronounced as such when there is an emphatic letter in front..the other troubling information the user gets here is that the name has a doubling of the wrong letters in the surname..it is inconceivable to assume that the name could be spelled with a double -s- and then a -gh-..The correct spelling can only be Muhammad Musaddiq with a -u- and a doubling of the -m- in Muhammad and a -u-, a double -d- and a -q- in Musaddiq.


 * There is a major issue with the above post, as it takes an Arabcentric point of view. While Arabic lettering, which is altered in Farsi anyway, may lead to certain transliterated Roman characters most of the time, the pronounciation in Farsi is far different from that in Arabic.  Since Mossadeq (I use the q because the pronounciation at the end tends to be harder than -gh would proport, though both could reasonably be phonetic) was Iranian, the Farsi accent and transliteration therefrom should be used.  Farsi includes much more in the way of a hard "a" than Arabic does, which often sounds a "uh" sound when Farsi would have what could be seen as an "aa".  Therefore, the best transliterated spelling would me Mohammad (pronounced Mo-Ham-Mad)Mossadeq/gh (pronounced Mos-sah-dek/gh).


 * I have a problem with the spelling of this article. I agree with the above poster that the convention takes an Arabcentric view. I would add that the Manual of Style (Arabic) page follows the same Arabcentric view that Persian words should be transliterated using Arabic standards. I suggest that the Persian alphabet have its own standards, much like it does in reality with unique letters that the Arabic alphabet does not have as well as different pronunciations. I have seen the majority of Iranians use the spelling "Mossadegh" (ie: books written on this figure by Iranian authors, Iranian websites) and your google search results may be of some indication of this. Furthermore, the Wikipedia page on the Persian alphabet gives us the option of "gh" or "q" for the transliteration of the letter "ﻕ" but the Manual of Style Arabic page only gives the option "q" with the note that sometimes "g" is used. Clearly there is something there that is unique to Persian speakers. So why then don't we defer the matter to Iranians, whose language it is? I suggest changing the main title of this article to "Mohammad Mossadegh" to more accurately portray him as an Iranian. --UnderPolaris 21:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly he was Iranian, his name is Iranian, the transcription should reflect Iranian pronunciation. Whatever it is, though, some consistency in the article would be nice.86.145.1.32 18:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition needed.
New York Times "Text of Mossadegh Letter to Truman" June 29, 1951 Pg. 5

New York Times "Mossadegh Offer on Oil is Reported" By Albion Ross July 21, 1952 Pg. 1

New York Times "Iran Stands Firm on Oil Case Rights" Special to the New York Times May 10, 1951 Pg. 4

Although Mossadegh may have violated past agreement which he explained was under extrenuating circumstances of occupation by the British which left no choice in so far as deciding oil or independence, he did agree to continue the flow of oil to western countries and provide compensation to the British for their loss in the AIOC.

extra addition to author
Regardless of the mention of this addition, the article is not too left or right in political concerns which means you took a intelligent and fair approach in writing this article. Good Job.

M. Mossadegh
Hello,

your text is very good, however there is a mistake : Dr Mossadegh got his PhD from Neuchâtel University, in Switzerland, in 1914 (and not from Paris). I have his thesis in front of me entitled "Le testament en droit musulman (secte Chyite, précédé d'une introduction sur les sources du droit musulman". Thèse présentée par M. Mossadegh à la faculté de droit de l'université de Neuchâtel le 1er mai 1914 pour obtenir le grade de Docteur. (Paris, Librairie Ancienne & Moderne, Georges Crès et Cie éditeurs, 116 boulevard Saint-Germanin, 116) 1914

Thanks for making the correction Yours Claudine Faehndrich University of Neuchâtel Switzerland claudine.faehndrich@unine.ch


 * Fixed. AucamanTalk 10:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Encyclopædia Britannica Mossadegh received a Doctor of Law degree from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland . But according to this book by the National Security Archive he received his Doctor of Law degree from the University of Neuchâtel. I think Britannicas got it wrong. --- Melca 09:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your presumption is also confirmed by Roy Mottahedeh's Mantle of the Prophet. As usual, Britannica gets it wrong and Wikipedia gets it right. Don't they know that Wikipedia has unleashed man's true passion for being pedantic? Agh.niyya 12:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "Reasonable Assistance"a more accurate representation of what happened in 1954 than "plot"
I'm confused about something. Here we have an apparently insane guy who was creating a dictatorship, falsfying elections, dissolving parliament, dissolving the Supreme court, socializing the economy, crippling the oil industry, and because the U.S. cooperated in his removal by the head of state, it's considered a "plot"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex7777 (talk • contribs).

Yes he was insane, because he nationalized the oil, how dared he take away take away all that free money from the brittish. And then he boldly tried to sell the oil to feed his uncivilized countrymen! But our brave soldiers and mighty navy stopped his small boats from getting out from the persian gulf and sell it. Long live the Queen --Darkred 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Mossadegh systematically neglected the constitution of Iran. He dissolved the parliament, and didn't resign when asked to do so by the Shah. Both were violations of the constitution. What he did in nationalizing the oil industry was a remarkable achievement, but nevertheless it is technically wrong to talk about a coup here. The whole thing was totally legal and legitimate, in fact it preserved the constitution, and Mossadegh himself achknowledges that in his book "Khaterat Va Taalomate Dr. Mossadegh". He clearly states that he didn't accept the constitution and that he knowingly violated it. Shervink 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Yes but he had a good cause for doing so. He was trying to not let the country fall into the brittish hands again. In my opinion he had the right to do whatever necessary to achieve that. --Darkred 20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe that is true. I also think that he acted in good faith. But the fact of the matter is, as he himself has written, that he was not willing to adhere to the constitution. The Shah, on the other hand, did. Fact is, also, that Mossadegh was never really elected. The common version of the story believed by most people states the exact opposite. It has been advertised that it was the Shah who, violating the constitution, removed the elected Mossadegh from power. In fact, however, the Shah used his constitutional right to remove the unelected Mossadegh (who himself had violated the constitution by dissolving the parliament) from power. What the intentions were is speculation, but the factual state of affairs is very clear. Shervink 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

Democratically elected and Coup
Dear Shervink. Please dont remove sourced material. The following independent and published sources all refer to Mossadegh as democratically elected and the actions of the CIA and MI5 as a coup. And i am also sure you have heard of Stephen Kinzer's well written book, All the Shah's Men, which also backs this up. If you can find published sources however, that explicitly state why it is "technically wrong to talk about a coup" feel free to merge that into the text. Melca 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Melca, I'm glad to see you're back after such long time. I remember we had a similar discussion on the Mohammad Reza Shah talk page, and I offered you several sources there, namely two books, several articles, and interviews. What I only recently realized was that Mossadegh himself admitted that he was in breach of the constitution, you can take a look at his memoirs for that. (It's Khaterat va Taalomate Dr. Mossadegh in Persian, I'm not sure about the English traslation, if any.) Shervink 11:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Yes i remember that. But none of the sources, such as Ardeshir Zahedi, explain why it is technically wrong to talk about a coup. They just flat out deny that a coup ever took place. I guess that could qualify as an explanation but that would put the word of a small minority against what's been reported in the mainstream media. More specifically i was asking for a independent scholar that has done some research and published his finding's in for example a peer reviewed academic journal.


 * I was not aware that Mossadegh wrote that in his memoirs. But if he did i find it strange since he did not accept the charges against him and defended himself in the subsequent trials. If you can provide the name of the publisher, isbn number and what page he states that, i will gladly look into it. But even if he did admit being in breach of the constitution it does not change that the media has reported him as being democratically elected. --- Melca 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Shervink you have removed sourced material again. More specifically you have removed the text "democratically elected". The very mention of a coup necessitates a mention of a democratic election. If democratic elections were common place in Iran at the time and went without saying it would not have been explicitly stated in the sources provided. --- Melca 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is simply incorrect to state that a coup necessitates a mention of a democratic election. For a recent demonstration, the news media was full of discussion of a coup against Saddam Hussein in 2002. Separately, Kim Jong Il, like his father before him has suppressed suspected coup attempts. Going back in history, the coup plot against Hitler and suspected coup plots against Stalin provide ample example that Mossadegh could have a coup against him whether or not he had been elected. TMLutas 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding what i wrote. I'm sorry if i was not more clear but i was responding to the following edit by Shervink . I didn't mean that Mossadegh couldn't have a coup against him if he had not been elected. He certainly could have as you have pointed out. --- Melca 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Shervink you keep removing referenced content. You have again removed that Mossadegh was Democratically elected and that the Coup was funded by the British and U.S. governments. Instead you have watered it down to Mossadegh was "appointed by the Shah..." and that Mossadegh was removed with "supported from the British and U.S. governments". What kind of support? By writing that the support was a "British and U.S. funded CIA coup" makes this explicit. Instead of engaging in a revert war please discuss you changes at the talk page first and reach consensus. I have left your addition that Mossadegh "was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and approved by the vote of the democratically elected parliament" but i need a reference that explicitly states that that was how prime ministers were elected at that time in Iran. According to this book that was not how prime ministers were elected.


 * I'd really appreciate it if you would stop putting vandalism warnings on my talk page for what is obviously a content dispute. I cannot remember you or anybody else answering to my post on the last lengthy discussion on this talk, which means that consensus was never reached. Shervink 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * You are refering to a discussion between you and user:Khorshid. Nevertheless most of your points in that post were responded to here, where you left the discussion by writing "i'm tired of discussing obvious matters".


 * Well, even if it was not directly addressed to you, I believe you should consider reading it before making edits. Anyhow, you have absolutely failed so far at providing any credible reasoning for why the point of view I am presenting here should be excluded. It is held by several sources, and don't say they are all biased or involved in the matter, because they are not. The only way to make this article NPOV is to include them as well. Failure to do so on your part is clearly POV pushing and deliberate exclusion of sources. Shervink 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Im not POV pushing anything or excluding any sources. I am just restoring referenced content removed by you. I did read your post and i told you that several people, including myself, already commented on your points and references here. Also you have removed referenced content again. There are several references in the article all referring to the events as a CIA coup which was led by Kermit Roosevelt. --- Melca 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Melca, Regarding your recent post on my talk page and the above post, the fact of the matter remains that I have removed no content what so ever from the page. I have included the mainstream term coup, as well as references to the CIA, US, and UK, as well as the term democratically elected. I have not included anything from the other point of view, for which I have already provided several references, in the introduction. All I have done is to tone down the harsh tone of the inroduction to make it more encyclopedic and NPOV. I cannot imagine what your problem is with that. Rgarding the name of Kermit Roosevelt, it is definitely not important enough to be mentioned in a 4 or 5 line long intro, where the names of several other critical figures, such as Dr. Fatemi, Ayatollah Kashani, General Zahedi, ... are missing. Shervink 13:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Thats not true. Its true that you have backed away from removing "democratically elected" but you are removing the term "CIA orchestrated coup" and changing it to "plot" and you are also removing that the coup was "known as Operation Ajax" . Also its not up to you to decide what is important enough to be in the intro. Todays featured article (Slate industry in Wales) for example has a much longer intro than this article. What is it that you think is in a "harsh tone" and not NPOV? Please list them here --- Melca 14:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer, as well as for your efforts to have me blocked. I am impressed. Well, it is not up to me alone to decide what goes into the intro, but neither is it up to you alone. We are supposed to decide that together. I have included the term coup, the funding and support by CIA, the terms US and British government. That is more than enough for such a short intro. I have not included the fact that Mossadegh acted against the constitution, which he declared as illegitimate in his memoirs, nor the fact that a number of scholars have discredited the term coup, nor the fact that the claims by your sources are directly in contradiction to the text of the constiution. I believe this is much more concession than you actually deserve, and the reason is only the lack of time on my behalf to discuss with you on so many things. If you like to make the intro longer, I'd appreciate that, as long as you write something that's balanced. You can of course write about Roosevelt's efforts, and use his account of those days as a source, but then you should do the same about Zahedi, whose role was not less significant, and also include his version of the story, which denies even the existence of a coup. Don't you think that would be more reasonable? Shervink 15:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Thanks for not reverting again and taking the time to discuss our differences. Kermit Roosevelt, Jr was the grandson of an American president. That's not insignificant. I think that's pretty interesting and belongs in the intro especially sine the coup is mentioned and he was the head of it. He was not just some unknown cia agent. If he was i could maybe understand you would want it removed. But even then its just one sentence. I don't see the big deal. As i said before there are other articles with much longer intros than this. For example the Theodore Roosevelt article is over 25 lines long and has been identified as a featured article. Also I'm not using Kermit Roosevelt accounts of the events, nor should i or anyone else. That would be POV. Instead I'm referencing what has been reported in the media and written by the academia. Yes we can write that according to Kermit this is what happened or that Zahedi "denies the existence of a coup". Those viewpoints should also be reflected but they they are minority views.
 * Now for the "scholars have discredited the term coup" and the "Mossadegh acted against the constitution" that you mention. These two subjects were discussed here. Again consensus was reached before you left the discussion that those are minority views and that a coup took place. Last but not least the thing about Mossadegh writing that he "acted against the constitution". I responded to this above, in my post from May 4. 2006, that i find this very unlikely. However if you can reference it with a publisher, isbn number and what page he states that, i don't mind you adding that to the article. People can look it up for themselves to see if its true. I hope this answers your questions.


 * Sorry for removing your name correction btw. --- Melca 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well, as I said already, I don't disagree with putting the info regarding Roosevelt's role in those events. What I am saying is that he, even according to the CIA's documents, is not the only significant person behind the "coup", or whatever one calls it. What I'm objecting to here is to single him out in this manner, and to even fail to include Zahedi, among others. Include as much info as you can, but be careful to keep it balanced please. Likewise, all sources highlighting the role of Roosevelt, in effect are based on the CIA documents, which have been written by one of the organizers of the coup, namely, the CIA and Roosevelt. Other people involved in the coup (whose involvement was much clearer than Roosevelts, because they went into high ranks of government upon its success), tell a partly or entirely different story. If we are to include one organizer's account, we should also include the other's reports. Don't you think? There is no objective reason to rely solely/mainly on CIA documents regarding this topic. The reason that western media have mostly reported on the CIA view is simply its ease of access for them (as well as their usual sensationalism), rather than necessarily their superior content.
 * As for Mossadegh's book, I read it a while ago in a friend's house,I don't own it, and it is unfortunately rather difficult to find. I'll try my best to find a copy and give you a more detailed citation as soon as possible. Shervink 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I dont think that its stated in such a way that, Kermit was the only significant person behind the coup. The intro merely states that he led the coup. In other words he was responsible for the funding set aside for the coup, the planing, the organization and so on. The execution was done mostly by others. He could of course not have done it without the support of the Shah, Zahedi, etc. which is also explained later on in the article. If you think "led by" gives this impression we can perhaps use another term.. maybe "directed", "organized" or "head of"?
 * Also i don't think its true that the media and academia solely rely on the CIA documents and Roosevelt's book on this topic. For example the NSA's book on the topic (which is an academic book), is very aware of any possible POV in these two sources. When referencing Kermit's book for example, they explicitly state that its "a book to be used with caution" (p. 313). If you look through their reference section you will see that they rely on a very wide range of sources. Also the coup was already very well documented before the leaked CIA documents and Kermit's book. Nevertheless i agree with you that we should include the account of other key players that disagree with the mainstream version, in a section. But we should present the standard version of the events first and foremost. --- Melca 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again, and sorry for my very late reply to your post. I'm glad to see that you agree with the inclusion of views other than the mainly reported version of the events. I also agree that the story which is considered mainstream should be the one receiving more attention in presentation here. So far so good. Can we also agree to work on making statements with a neutral tone? The point is, facts should be presented as they are. What the reader thinks about them is his/her business, and it should be left to the reader to judge the events abd the people involved, based on the information. This would imply making statements in as precise a manner as possible, without too much simplification or generalization.
 * As an example, the "democratically elected" thing. Mossadegh became prime minister in pretty much the same way as most other prime ministers of the time. Am I right? The standard procedure was that there was some sort of consultation between the Shah and the parliament, and usually the Shah would then suggest a person to the parliament for approval, who would ultimately become prime miniter once the Shah formally agreed to the parliament's vote. This was how Mossadegh became prime miniter as well. Same is true for most of the prime ministers before him. Now, it is true that the process of parliament approval is a largely democratic process, which is still common practice today in many other places, for example England, The Netherlands, and many other constitutional monarchies. But replacing all this with a mere "democratically elected", which to the average reader would imply a direct election, rather than indirect appointment by a parliament which might have been elected long before, is too vague. Mossadegh was not "elected" any differently than those before him. Nevertheless, putting those words right at the beginning would imply such a thing. The special thing about Mossadegh was his extraordinary popularity due to his role in the oil nationalization, not the way that he got to power. There are also other examples where the presentation of the facts could be improved upon.
 * As for Roosevelt, just as I said, I don't disagree with including his name there. I think, however, that one could better put it somehow along the lines that Zahedi and the people around him were the people carrying out the coup, with the person in charge of the planning at the CIA being Roosevelt, who also presided over the distribution of money etc. among his contacts in Iran.
 * Let's see how we can make things better. Shervink 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I do not agree with you regarding the way prime ministers were chosen. Before the coup the shah's role was ceremonial like that of the kings and queens in many constitutional monarchy's in Europe. Its true though that Mossadegh was not elected prime minister through a direct election but that doesn't meant he wasn't democratically elected. Democratically elected simply means that some kind of fair democratic process took place. There are many variations of democracy in the world, direct and representative democracy being the main ones. Democratically elected is not a term reserved for direct democracy only. Mossadegh was elected to the parliament through a direct election, like every other representative in the parliament at the time. The parliament then in turn elected the prime minister. Since the parliament was democratically elected, so was Mossadegh (although indirectly). The main thing though is that the sources i provided at this talk page and the ones in the article all refer to Mossadegh as 'democratically elected'. Since Mossadegh was overthrown in a coup i think it is very relevant to include this in the article, which is also why the sources include it.  --- Melca 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not referring to the prime ministers after Mossadegh's fall in 1953. If you read my post again you will see that I compared Mossadegh to the ones before him. Can you please tell me in what way Mossadegh was elected differently from Ghavam, Foroughi, Soheili, Razmara, and many others? In all those cases it is simply said that they "became prime minister". The insistence on using the term only for Mossadegh is totally misleading, since it creates the impression that he was the first, or the only, democratically elected prime minister of Iran. That is by no means the case. Even after 1953, the procedure was still pretty much the same, although one might say that the elections were questionable. A multi-party system, however, still existed for more than 20 years after Mossadegh's fall. Anyhow Mossadegh most certainly was not the first democratically elected prime minister in Iran. There was nothing special about his election, so the emphasis is misleading. The fact that sources have said it does not necessitate its inclusion, not everything that newspapers write should be copied into WP articles, without considering the coherence and neutrality of WP articles. Shervink 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Sorry if i wasn't clear, but i didnt refer to prime ministers after Mossadeghs fall? Also i am a not insisting on using the term "Democratically elected" for Mossadegh only. I will not object if you add the same term to prime ministers before Mossadegh. If you read the last line in my previous post though, i write why i think its necessary to include the term in this article. It is actually quite normal to include the term in the media when coups overthrow democratic governments. It has nothing to do with not being neutral. --- Melca 09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that the manner of his coming to power is worth mentioning in the intro. However, I still think that what usually comes to mind by saying "democratically elected" is a direct election, not appointment by the Shah and vote of approval from parliament. The least we should do is to imply in the formulation that the process was a parliamentary, rather than direct, democracy. So the better term would be "parliamentarily elected" or something like that. Still better than that, in my opinion, is to remove it altogether since the fact that he was approved by parliament comes in the sentences right at the beginning anyway.
 * About the coup being CIA-orchestrated, it is actually wrong. If you want to include a discussion of how the coup came to happen, you need to expand on it, naming many actors, including the British, and including those Iranians who denied the US' implication in the coup. But well, that's what the article is for. So I think such potentially lengthy stuff should be moved to the next sections, along with the discussion of the controversies around the term "coup". Shervink 10:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * A prime minister elected by a parliament that is democratically elected is, by extension, also democratically elected. If the same principle that Shervink is proposing were applied the United States we couldn't call its president "democratically elected" as the president is directly elected by the Electoral College. -Will Beback · † · 01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As an outsider reading the article for info, I say the expression "democratically elected" immediately implies the person was elected by a direct vote of the people although I can understand it can have other less obvious meanings. Yes, technically the US President is not directly elected but there is a vote by the people which still controls the outcome. The electors could do something different but that is unlikely and could be noted. Thanks for listening. 4.229.81.237 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

source?
is there a source for this statement?

"The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears."

if no one can come up with a source for it i'm going to take it out. it's one thing for whomever to claim that they were misinformed.... quite another to state it as fact. it's kind of hard to believe the line that the cia, state department etc were unwitting dupes and somehow victims of cold war manipulations. much of the historical evidence points towards the concern in the region was more over independant arab or in this case persian nationalism.

yeah ok i looked this up and the view that the U.S. was duped by british intelligence is interpretive and not a fact.

"ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think oil is the central issue. But of course this was done at the height of the Cold War, so much of the discourse at the time linked it to the Cold War. I think many liberal historians, including of course Stephen Kinzer's wonderful book here, even though it's very good in dealing with the tragedy of the '53 coup, still puts it in this liberal framework that the tragedy, the original intentions, were benign.--that the U.S. really got into it because of the Cold War and it was hoodwinked into it by the nasty British who of course had oil interests, but the U.S. somehow was different. U.S. Eisenhower's interest, were really anti-communism. I sort of doubt that interpretation. For me, the oil was important both for the United States and for Britain. It's not just the question of oil in Iran. It was a question of control over oil internationally. If Mossadegh had succeeded in nationalizing the British oil industry in Iran, that would have set an example and was seen at that time by the Americans as a threat to U.S. oil interests throughout the world, because other countries would do the same."

what is the source for this?

"Inside Iran, Mossadegh's popularity was eroding as promised reforms failed to materialize and the economy continued to suffer due to heavy British sanctions. The Tudeh Party abandoned its alliance with Mossadegh, as did the conservative clerical factions."

i haven't read any evidence that his popularity ever eroded

___________________________ ""The United States was falsely informed that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears."

This jars with me also.

See also... http://www.theglitteringeye.com/?p=1424

Dispute tag
Shervink could you please state here why you put up the dispute tag and what it is specifically you want sourced? --- Melca 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not a shortage of so-called sources. The problem is that the article is totally one-sided, praising Mossadegh out of proportions. The article selectively only picks up a certain point of view on the topic, which is very much disputed, although very loudly present in the bulk of media. Moreover, what you call sources are mostly from media rather than academia, which is not very reliable. Unless the counter arguments (of which I have given you many sources before) are presented in an equal manner (For example by changing words like coup and led by to plot and assited by, or discussing both views at length), I do not see a chance to consider the article neutral. Moreover, factually Mossadegh was in no way differently elected than others. That is a very simple historical fact. He became prime minister only because the Shah, constitutionally, dismissed the previous prime minister, and suggested Mossadegh to parliament instead. Mossadegh never had a problem with getting to power in this manner. How come he had a problem when it was his turn to leave office? I'm not judging his motives or whatever, but stating the words democratically elected here and not in other prime ministers' articles, creates a false impression that for him the procedure was different. Moreover, in its current way it implies, for many readers, a direct election, which is why it is better to mention the exact procedure, i.e. approved by parliament on the Shah's suggestion. It would be more specific and accurate. For a start, can you tell me you opinion on these issues please? Shervink 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

The sources in the article are both from the media and academia. Furthermore Wikipedia does not advocate one over the other as long as they are both published and verifiable. Sources such as the New York Times and the BBC are respected sources and reliable. The BBC for example even admits to have played a role in the coup, and uses the words coup and democratically elected explicitly. The CIA has called it a coup and so has Madeline Albright. There can therefore be no doubt that a coup took place. Wikipedia policy states that "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" (exceptional claim being that no coup ever took place).


 * BBC is a "reliable source"? If BBC has admitted to "playing a role" in activities of INTELLIGENCE SERVICES of the west, then obviously they are self-admitted agents of the shadowy organizations; they were from the beginning agents of the crown of england and nothing has changed.  Why would one consider BBC as reliable?  BBC is a misinformation agency, a propaganda organ, for the British Crown.  New York Times is certainly not "respectable" nor "reliable" as their performance as "journalists" and "paper of record" (Funny if not tragic, in fact for Americans) since 9/11 has made clear to anyone who has been paying attention.  Scholars.  Factual documents, such as Constitution of Iran.  These we can 'rely' on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.52.56 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Last but not least Mossadegh was elected differently than others after him, such as his successor Zahedi. The Shah's role before the coup was mostly ceremonial, like the queen in Britain. It was only after the coup that he was granted absolute powers and ruled through a one-party state in autocratic fashion and could thus dismiss prime ministers, at his will, without the consent of the parliament. You can read about this in e.g. these to well researched books. --- Melca 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Melca, you should get your facts straight. The one-party system you mention was established only during the last four years of the Shah's rule, more than twenty years after Mossadegh. The Shah constitutionally already had the power to dismiss prime ministers in 1953, and Mossadegh acknowledged that in his memoirs. Also Shapour Bakhtiar, for example, who was a close ally of Mossadegh, in his memoirs only criticizes the disrespectful manner in which Mossadegh was dismissed, but never questions the Shah's legal right to do so. It is true that the Shah changed the constitution after 1953 to get more powers, but dismissal of prime ministers and dissolving parliamnet already were among his rights before that. Mossadegh also acknowledged himself that constitutionally he didn't have the right to dissolve parliament through a referrendum, but that he did not accept those parts of the constitution. Unfortunately the book seems to be out of print, and I don't know of any english translation either. Anyway this is the link, in case you like to search for it yourself . Shervink 10:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

The main thing is that what you write does not coincide with the two books i referred to. Before the coup, only parliament had the right to fire prime ministers and Kinzer, the author of one of the books, also discusses this in the following interview by Democracy Now. As for mossadeghs memoir i have already commented on that here. But i will try to see if i can digg it up. --- Melca 08:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Kinzer is wrong . Shervink 05:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Well you can believe what you want but Kinzers version of the events is the same as the one reported in the media, which most articles in WP are based on. --- Melca 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most articles in WP are based on the media? I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. Anyhow, when you use the word media you usually only seem to mean those which you choose to read. Those inconvenient facts which you choose to ignore are somehow magically not included, be they books, articles, interviews, or official documents! I gave you several sources which necessitate a review of the article to make it NPOV.Shervink 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

I have not ignored anything and you should assume good faith. You haven't provided any articles as sources. Your first source is a supposed scan of the former constitution of Iran which is a primary source and is not of much use at WP (see WP's Reliable sources policy). You third source is just an opinion and cant be used as fact, and even states that the 1906 constitution "limited the monarch's powers". You fourth source claims to be from the New York Times but has never been published there and therefore not a valid source, and i have already commented on the last source here. So whats left is an interview of Kashani and a memoir by Zahedi. First of all both their fathers played a key role in overthrowing Mossadegh and were both on the CIA payroll during the coup which im sure you already know. Second Kashani and Zahedi flat out deny that a coup ever took place which puts the word of a small minority against what's been reported in the media and academia. Thats why they are not included in this article and not because they are ignored. --- Melca 22:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the nonsense from, regarding ZAHEDI denying a coup?? He prides himself to have been instrumental in it; however rightfully calls it counter coup, which it obviously was. ZAHEDI was hardly on a CIA payroll, neither was his father, they were immensely rich with realestate alone, worth about a billion dollars in present terms. It is rightout stupid trying to smear these two PATRIOTS with silly unfounded allegations. That goes for all ignorami and wannabes, such as KINZER and the like, and those blindly following suit. General Zahedi may well be called a ruthless dictator with lots of blood on his hands, and his son a squanderer of state money, but both are/were fierce PATRIOTS who simply would not let another great man and PATRIOT, Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh, who also meant well but with sad results, drag the country into an abyss. Why make life miserable for serious editors like SHERVINK?? It makes one sick to see him waste his precious time with people who very obviously have very limited education and whose mental capacity simply does not suffice for putting well researched data into context for an encyclopedia. WIKIPEDIA is increasingly becoming a laughingstock with all sorts of half-wits adding their random hearsay gibberish, just to suit their fancy....Pantherarosa 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Pantherarosa about Zahedi being on the CIA payroll, you may want to read the CIAs own after-action report which was declassified and was the basis for the NY Times article in 2000. On the last page of the CIA reports summary page it states, and I quote:
 * "In order to give Zahedi badly needed immediate financial assistance so that month-to-month payrolls could be met before the United STates could provide large scale grant aid, CIA covertly made available $5,000,000 within two days of Zahedi's assumption of power."
 * Now you may wish to claim that Zahedi had some personal wealth at some level or another, but the CIA states clearly that he was given large sums of money immediately after his assumption of power to pay those around him from US (i.e. CIA) moneys until larger direct financial supports could be put in place. It is also without dispute that he was controlled by the CIA, protected by the CIA when it first looked like the plot might not be successful (i.e. when the Shah flew to Rome), etc. Lestatdelc 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are distorting my assertion! All i tried to make clear was that ZAHEDI did not pocket himself any funds, as many slanderers and hearsay pedlars tried/try to insinuate in numerous publications. Neither during the campaign ousting Mossadegh, nor after having come to power. If you were aware of their family background and their vast wealth, you would not remotely assume any such fabricated nonsense. In addition General Zahedi is known to have been a fierce patriot, loyal to the Iranian cause, irrelevant of the purported iron fist, with which he established a new order after his takeover as Prime Minister. Additionally, ZAHEDI was hardly "controlled" by the CIA either, as some, trying to belittle his role try to make it look like. The CIA was depending on him and his vast influence and popularity, in order to achieve their objectives, which where naturally also ZAHEDI's and the Shah's at the time. Thus he surely played along and utilised the means put up by the CIA/MI6 in order to win the game, which he did eventually. You need to keep in mind that this man had, in very close proximity to the Shah and his father played decisive roles for 4 decades prior to his last calling. His skills at powerplay and his very deeply rooted contacts to all strands of society and especially the semi-feudal TRIBAL system made him the ideal man to bring about the change, the foreign powers were seeking. Had ZAHEDI not shared their interests, he would certainly have neither been asked by them to cooperate, nor have acted against his own patriotic convictions, when playing his decisive part.  Pantherarosa 22:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity.. what did he do with the CIA money then? Did he donate it to charity perhaps? --- Melca 07:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I frankly admit, having difficulties to fathom the intellectual depth of this "question". You may wish to note , that ZAHEDI was "on the run" during the coup preparations (since January of 1953), due to a warrant out for him, officially implicating him with the torture death of General Afshartus, the former Police Chief of Tehran. ZAHEDI was alleged to have had him tortured to death as a reprisal for the humiliation suffered due to Afshartus' responsibility for ZAHEDI's preceding brief incarceration on suspicions to foster coup plans (ordered by Mossadegh). Thus having gone underground, ZAHEDI was dependant on funds (1 Million dollars in cash) from third parties, to finance support among loyalists among the tribes as well as urbane folks. The 5 million received as immediate aid from the US government AFTER coming to power were aid funds which were funnelled into the state budget , as can be easily verified. No need for sensation seeking insinuations (i understand that the term "CIA money" awakes fantasies in certain individuals...) that any corruptness in this context had taken place, without a single proof! I repeat, ZAHEDI was known as a PATRIOT and LOYALIST and was himself extremely rich, the corruption allegations could therefore not be more farfetched in nature.Pantherarosa 10:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The job of Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, is to present the standard version of events first and foremost. The events we're describing are commonly called a "coup". Certainly there are those who don't think it was a coup, or who think "counter-coup" is a better term, and those viewpoints should also be reflected. But they are minority views. The widely-held view, both in the United States and Iran, is that the event was a coup, and so that is the term which we should use. So far as procedure is concerned, we need to restirct ourselves to verifiable information from reliable sources, and to summarize information using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A counter coup is CERTAINLY a coup, the term "counter coup" merely adds precision. It is also not a matter of people "thinking" the 19 August 1953 coup having been a counter coup, but rather a matter of historical and political analysis (see above explanation. Even Kermit Rosevelt used the term "counter coup" in his book, which spawned all other accounts to this day.  So why go on and on bickering?  ). This has very obviously been a counter coup, just as we speak of Hitler having waged a WAR OF AGRESSION, while his opponents were engaged in a war of defence, it was a WAR all over though...Pantherarosa 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so we can say that Kermit Roosevelt called it a "counter coup". There is room for all points of view. -Will Beback 05:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of discussing obvious matters. If two books and several articles and interviews do not qualify as sources in your opinion, then I don't know what to say really. Shervink 14:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Shrevink, if you don't have an actionable objection, you shouldn't be placing dispute tags on articles. It's pretty clear here that a coup took place. Some of your sources are not even published and others only deny that a coup took place because of their own biases. We can fit both points of view into the article, I think, but it would be ridiculous to state what appears to be the minority point of view as the only one. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I wanted it to be the only point of view which is included. I'm only saying that it is a significant point of view held by many, and I presented you the sources. If you interpret published sources as unreliable, or want to go about judging the intentions of the writers, I don't mind it, but it would be only speculation. At any rate what I am saying is that the fact that the notion of the coup is disputed should be included with appropriate discussion and sources into the article. Shervink 22:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

Is it possible to remove shervink from wikipedia? I figure he can probably start up his own wiki with some of his family money, then he can say whatever he wants about Mossadeq. However, he really shouldn't be allowed to undermine an excellent article with his incredibly arrogant and woefully inadequate criticisms.


 * If you are genuinely interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I suggest you choose a user name and engage constructively in the process, rather than attacking me. Shervink 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)shervink

I've also looked at Shervink's sources and I find them all to be either biased, inaplicable, or unreliable. In my opinion Shervink is advocating a minority viewpoint. Perhaps he should express within the article and note it as such, but clearly it is not reasonable to expect this view to be represented equally with generally accepted facts. I feel that this is mostly a well written and informative article and that this whole coup or counter coup thing is pointless. These events are accepted by most sources to have been a coup. What this means is that Mossadeq is accepted to have been the leader of Iran at the time in question, and to have been deposed. The phrase counter-coup implies that Mossadeq deposed the Shah first, which according to the ample scholarship cited in this article, is not what happened. It is of course possible that the concensus of scholarship on this issue is in error, but those who beleive this to be the case are by definition, holders of minority viewpoints. That said, I do think Shervink's views are interesting and should be included (and noted as a minority viewpoint) in the article. This issue is generally seen as the west vs. Iran with the shah on the side of the west. A point of view more sympathetic to the monarchy is rarely heard. Itsafarce 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Itsafarce

Chavez
Who is insulting the name of Dr. Mossadegh with this garbage about Chavez? If I do not see a source, i am removing this section or someone else can do it. Khorshid 09:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always been impressed by the overall genuine neutrality of Wikipedia but the last segment comparing Mossaddeq to Chavez is ufnair to Mossaddeq to say the least - it's obviously pro Chavez. I'm by no means a fan of ousting Chavez or our administrations limited tolerance with him, but if you were to listen to some of the thing's he said you would realize that he's about as mature as a 16 year old. It sounds better, or should I say worse?,in spanish.


 * Agreed. The whole paragraph is shoddy.  Specifically:
 * The CIA has attempted to overthrow Chavez - I can find no reference to this in either the Chavez page or the Venezuela page. This would need to be cited.
 * Mossadegh genuinely cared about Iran and wanted to use Iran's oil resources to improve the condition of the common Iranian just as Hugo Chavez has wanted to do in Venezuela. This strikes me as pure conjecture. In the spirit of boldness, I'm nixing the section.  Feel free to argue otherwise and revert.


 * Agreed. Making a comparison with another person living in another continent, within another culture and half a century later, who history hasn't weighted yet, is just an opinion not an historical analysis. I vote for deleting this paragraph, it undermines the credibility of the whole article. --Wintermute314 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How exactly can we not compare Mosadegh and Chavez? Ok, this is not an article about Chavez but the parallels are obvious and surely the study of history is about informing our view of the present. If the idea of wikipedia is to inform and educate I think a referenec to Chavez is clearly a good idea as he, as Mosaddeq, is trying to use the oil for the benfit of his own citizens (and other impoverished groups abroad) is being portrayed as a dictator/ tyrant/ communist in the western media (which he is not) and has been overthrown in a coup that, if not orchestrated by the CIA, was supported by the US government at the time.

Please reinsert the reference to Chavez - could be something like 'there are parallels being drawn by some people with Hugo Chavez/ Chavez is a man who could learn from the Mosaddeq story' etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloganarchist (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the Dispute
May I suggest that steps be taken further towards the goal of removing the NPV tag? See Resolving Disputes for details on inviting outside opinions and taking a straw poll. I'd take the initiative myself, but I think it would be more appropriate from someone who has been involved in the discussion already. Schwael 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * haha. Or just removing the tag works too.  :) Schwael 15:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Kinzer
Please can we get away from thinking that Stephen Kinzer is the source above all for affairs regarding Mossadeq? His book is not excellent, it is a screed. He never, never cites his sources, is fast and loose with facts, and has an agenda rivaled only by Mossadeq's himself. Far, far better books and articles on the 1947-1979 era in Iran have been written by Mostafa Elm, Mary Ann Heiss, and S. Marsh. Please read these academic materials when trying to make academic points, and do not use instead journalistic material that only passingly pays tribute to the people who did the real research and the real documentary evidence in the Foreign Relations of the United States and various Foreign Office documents.

Almondwine 05:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the comment, Kinzer "never, never cites his sources". The edition of his book I have does indeed include end notes with source citation.  I agree that his work is not the most objective, nor definitive work on the subject, but it is not a bad piece of work.


 * Kirkesque 19:47, 3 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Shah bias
I sense a serious pro-Shah bias that has sneaked into this article since some edits ago. This is not appropriate or acceptable. Khorshid 09:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please substantiate your assertion pertinently and conclusively! No sense in posting your "sensations" here.--Pantherarosa 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Where is your proof for assertion that Mossadegh acted against constitution? Khorshid 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can read it in his memoirs, "Khaterat va taalomate Dr Mossadegh", where he acknowledges that he did not respect the constitution of the time as legitimate and thus overruled it by organizing a refferendum to dissolve the parliament. That it was the Shah, not Mossadegh, who according to the constitution had the right to dissolve parliament is the simple truth.

   Shervink 09:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * This is interesting, I have never read these before. But if it is complete fact that Mossadegh acted against constitution, why no published books mention this and say only that Mossadegh was within his rights? You see, here is my issue: Shah did not want at first to go against Mossadegh. Correct? he was pushed into the coup plan by his sister Princess Ashraf (who was pro-British), yes? So, why if Mossadegh was going against constitution did Shah resist at first the coup? You can say that Shah did not trust the British (and he was always suspicious of them because of what they did to his father), but still that does not explain it. Also, there is no fact to support the idea that Mossadegh wanted to get rid of monarchy and proclaim Iran as republic. If I am not mistaken from time of exile of Reza Shah to the coup Mohammad Reza was only a figurehead with little political power. Most of power was in Majles. From what I understand Mossadegh did not do anything to change that. Khorshid 04:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. It is true that the Shah hesitated for a long time before getting involved to remove Mossadegh from premiership. There are certainly a lot of reasons for that, but it does not necessarily mean that the Shah thought he didn't have the right to do it. He probably feared the consequences or symphatized with Mossadegh to some extent, so he hesitated.
 * It is also true that Mossadegh never wanted to get rid of monarchy, or at least that is what one can conclude based on available sources. Some of his ministers, most notably Dr. Fatemi, however, did want a republic and were very harshly demanding the removal of the Shah. Mossadegh, though a monarchist in essence, was against the "Pahlavi" monarchy. He was a Qajar himself and had never forgiven Reza Shah for changing the royal line from Qajar to Pahlavi. He was an opponent of Reza Shah's ascension to power, as well as most of his reforms and efforts to unite Iran. He was even against Reza Shah's action regarding Sheikh Khazal in Khuzestan, for example. In his interview with the Harvard Iranian oral history project, Dr. Mossadegh's son has said that his father was against everything that Reza Shah did. When asked whether Mossadegh also opposed him in those cases where Reza Shah served Iran's national interests, he said "Yes, even in those cases", stating as reason that Reza Shah should never have de-throned Ahmad Shah Qajar. That was essentially Mossadegh's mentality. He loved Iran and he loved democracy, but above all he could never forgive the Pahlavis. In his memoirs, he never, never, claims that he adhered to the constitution. In fact, he openly says that he didn't think the constitution was legitimate (Khaterat va Taalomate Dr. Mossadegh). He used to cite the "spirit" of the constitution", rather than the "script" of it . Besides the fact that one can still verify this by reading the constitution of that time, this reasoning is also the basis of Ardeshir Zahedi's defence of those events, and his rationale for his and his father's involvement, as evident from pre-published parts of his forthcoming book . In an article, Fereydoun Hoveyda (a long-time Zahedi opponent) states the same, i.e. that Mossadegh was not acting within his constitutional rights.
 * To sum up, there is considerable evidence that Mossadegh knowingly acted against the constitution. Nevertheless, he was a national hero and I wish we had more people like him. What he did he did in good faith and he served the country very much, despite making big mistakes in the last months of his premiership. The evidence for his "unconstitutional" behavior (I'm not saying it was not nationalistic or democratic or whatever), should however be included here, along with the other view (which was established and published mainly in a journalistic rather than scholarly way and getting wide media attention). Shervink 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I agree that there is a pro shah Bias, if u read the article at one point it says 'In August 1953, Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country and allow him control over the government. The Shah refused..' The shah never refused, if you read 'The Mossadegh Era' it talks about how the Shah accepted, and was about to leave, but somehow news leaked out to the public and the conservatives pressed the Shah to stay. If anything the Shah did not want to stay once Mossadegh had pressured him to leave, but the powers that be convinced him otherwise.Paskari (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mossadegh did receive a comparatively mild  sentence
What is POV about mentioning in a pertinent and sober fashion that Mossadegh's sentencing to 3 years incarceration was comparatively mild, in face of the contemporary MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE for treason ? It is POV on Khorshid's part to deny it was "comparatively mild"--Pantherarosa 23:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is POV because it is not fact that Mossadegh was guilty of treason. As I write above, Shah in the beginning did not even want to go along with the coup and get rid of Mossadegh. Have you read Shah's memoirs? He didn't hate Mossadegh or want to see him executed. Maybe others did, I don't know. But it has never been proved that Mossadegh was guilty of treason. That is a serious accusation to make here! Khorshid 04:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is not pertinent! No sense in taking you up on any intelectual subject, as you are driven by emotions, as clearly reflected in your bickering above! It is an established fact that Mossadegh was FOUND GUILTY OF TREASON by the military tribunal, which charged and sentenced him. So don't waste our time with repetitive gibberish to the contrary! When found guilty of treason by a military tribunal, and with laws in place that foresee a death sentence for treason, 3 years in jail can be considered very mild indeed, in comparison.--Pantherarosa 12:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude chill. -- S p a h b o d  21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things: First, a sentence delivered by a military tribunal is always prone to be scrutinized and most often invites questioning given the fact that defendants are granted fewer rights than in a normal judicial proceedings. So for anyone to accept Mossadegh's sentencing as fair by virtue of a trial according to due process is a stretch. Second: Mossadegh was condemned to a life sentence in house arrest. 168.187.199.254 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)HAF

was he assasinated in 1951? or died in 1967?
A lot of these facts and dates are conflicting.


 * Yes true, i dunno who put that there, he died of cancer in March 1967. -- Spahbod  ☼  02:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it seems they meant razmara got assasinated. -- Spahbod  ☼  02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor Mark Gasiorowski, Professor of Political Science at Louisiana State University is supposedly the most prominent scholar of the 1953 coup. His article “The 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran” published in 1987 in the International Journal of Middle East Studies might settle som of these disputes. "Just like that How the Mossadegh government was overthrown", another article of his is available at http://www.iranian.com/History/2000/July/Coup/index.html.

Intro
The intro seems technically false. Because he resigned and but was reinstated due to demonstrations (not through the electoral process), his democratic period only lasted through 1952. That doesn't necessarily make his rule any less valid, but it does indicate that "was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953" is false. Unfortunately, it's a bit more complicated to say, "Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran beginning in 1951 and was quickly reappointed to the post after his July 1952 resignation, only to be removed from power in August 1953 by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran..." but this phrasing has the benefit of being true.

nice article
nice article guys. just easy on the pro-shah/US bias.

Reverted to Old
I reverted the article to a previous and more complete version, because it lacks important details as the period when Mossadegh resigned, and exvhanged for Ahmad Ghavam, and reinstituted due to popular demand.

I suggest leaving this article, and developing it further, rather than giving it major edits just to remove information.

http://www.irvl.net/july_18a.htm http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.237.187 (talk • contribs)

Legacy
"Because of his legacy, Mossadegh was named as Time Magazine's 1951 Man of the Year."

His legacy? "Legacy" refers to one's lasting impression; how could his legacy be ackowledged in his first year in office as prime minister? Mossadegh was named Man of the Year because of his vigorous rejection of colonialism, fervent nationalism, and super-stardom in Iran. This line should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billdurkin (talk • contribs)


 * You are right. The Times article however does not explicitly state why he was named Man of the Year. Nevertheless I have changed the line so that it is not referring to his legacy but to his popularity and his defiance of the British, which is also mentioned in the article. --- Melca 15:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Points
1)There is no question Mossadegh was democratically elected. 2)Coup was organised by British, supported and helped by CIA. If there are still issues, please open a "request for comment" immediately and bring in neutral 3rd-party wikipedians. Khorshid 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read the article word for word and I'm also going to suggest a 100% neutral "peer review" so that each part which is not neutral or is personal opinion is shown. Suggest that no pro-Shah or anti-Shah people take part in peer review and same is true for "request for comment" (rfc). Khorshid 02:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Things are not that simple. I'd like to briefly respond to Khorshid's comments here and those made further above the page under "democratically elected and coup".
 * 1. The so-called election of Mossadegh was the same as any prime minister before him. It was done by appointment of the Shah and vote of approval by parliament. This is consistent with the constitution of those times, general practice, and numerous historical records. I don't think this is disputed. This is very different from the way that, for example, the US president is elected, as that does not involve directly an un-elected monarch. To avoid misunderstanding on the part of the reader, the process should be acknowledged accordingly, rather than simplified down to a mere "democratically elected".
 * 2. Mossadegh was not a democratic or legal head of government at the time of his removal, since he had, in violation of the constitution, closed the parliament (Majles). According to the constitution, that had to be done by the shah, not by him. This does not fit into the sensational media reports upon which this article seems to be based, but it is in fact quite clearly acknowledged by Mossadegh himself. In his book, published by the efforts of his son Dr. Gholam-Hossein Mossadegh ("Khateraat va Taa'lomaat" (Persian), Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, Elmi Publishers, Tehran, 1986, Ed. I. Afshar), Mossadegh describes on page 269 how he was asked to the parliament to be questioned over a number of issues. Fearing that the parliament (which had appointed him, and had the right to impeach and remove him as well) would not give him a vote of confidence and thus remove him from office, he decided to close the (democratically elected) parliament instead of justifying his actions in front of it. On page 270, Mossadegh says that "Only traitors opposed my decision to dissolve parliament [through a referendum], their reasoning being that the second constitutive assembly [which wrote the constitution] had given the right of dissolving the parliament to the shah." In what follows, he never questions that this is in fact what the constitution says. Instead, he says that "The constitution should have provided for a means to directly ask the people" in such matters. He then justifies his violation of the constitution by saying that he tried to "save the shah's face" by not involving him in the matter, although that would have been the constitutional approach to dissolve parliament. He describes himself, moreover, that the referendum was carried out "with proponents and opponents casting their votes at different places", which is obviously against all norms of democratic elections, even those of that time in Iran.
 * 3. The involvement of the CIA and the British intelligence needs to be mentioned of course. The point is that the whole matter is now presented as if no Iranians were involved. In particular, it must be said very frankly that all Iranians participating in the plot, most notably the Shah and the Zahedis, believed that the constitution in fact allowed the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh. This was, after all, the prevalent view of the time. Add this to the fact that Mossadegh violated the constitution by dissolving the parliament, as described above.
 * I think these need to be incorporated into the article. These are not just some claims by some unknown pro-Shah people, these are Mossadegh's memoirs, and although certainly not impartial, they probably deserve at least as much attention as a book by some New York Times reporter or by K. Roosevelt. Shervink 12:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)shervink

Shervink i think its a good idea to do a "peer review" and/or "request for comment" as Khorshid suggested. --- Melca 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Melca, how can we have a discussion when you refuse to answer to my comments? Did you read what I posted above? Did you read the excerpts of Mossadegh's work? What do you think about them? Don't you think they should be included in the article? Are you still interested in having a discussion at all?
 * Since we already had an agreement on the most important points, I don't see why we should do such a thing as a peer review at this point. If you insist, however, I have no problems with that. I think, however, that there must first be a version which includes at least some of the things which either of us like to see mentioned in the article, otherwise a peer review would be essentially meaningless, since there would be nothing to evaluate by the reviewer!
 * Moreover, the quality of a peer review depends on the quality of the reviewer. In addition to being a neutral person (being neither pro-Shah nor anti-Shah, anti-Mossadegh, pro-US, or whatever), which is already very difficult to judge in the more or less anonymous world of wikipedia, a reviewer in the academic sense must be substantially knowledgable in the field. A neutral person with little knowledge will not do a proper job. So I only think that is a good idea if we can include a number of neutral people which are known to be knowledgable in the field, and ask them for a review or ask them to participate in the discussion. Shervink 10:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I am interested in having a discussion but with all due respect, i have answered your comments in your previous post several times. I will however answer them here again.


 * 1. I responded to very similar comments by you here and here and here by Will Beback. The shahs role was mostly just to sign into law whatever majles did, like it is now a days with many kings and queens in many constitutional monarchy's in Europe. If prime ministers were elected the way you write there would be no way the media or the academia would have reported Mossadegh as a "democratically elected" prime minister.


 * 2. I responded to this here and here. I do not object to adding stuff from Mossadeghs memoir, on the contrary. But please keep any analysis out of it. When you write things such as "According to the constitution" and "in violation of the constitution" that is your opinion. This is certainly not how it has been reported. These are legal opinions that are at best disputed.
 * Also its difficult to get anywhere when you discredit the mainstream version of events by calling it "sensational media reports". We are not talking about Gossip magazines here. The sources provided are from the BBC, The New York Times, The National Security Archive, The Washington Post, The Guardian and are all very reputable and respected sources.


 * 3. I responded to this here. I dont think that its presented as if no Iranians were involved. The Shahs and Zahedis role is mentioned several times in the article but if you want to expand on this go ahead. The article is no way near completion. A mention of the rashidian brothers role certainly also deserves a mention.


 * I think that an rfc or peer review is a good idea but i am not insisting at this point. I hope this answers your questions. --- Melca 21:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. Well, you had asked me before to give you more details, page numbers, etc. regarding Mossadegh's book, so I was surprised to see that you didn't respond to my latest post. Regarding your responses above, to be brief, 1. The extent of the Shah's role is something which can be easily seen by looking at the historical facts. For instance, Mossadegh's second term in office came to be because the Shah "dismissed" Qavam-os-Salatneh, as stated in this very article. How come Mossadegh didn't protest the Shah's intervention when it was to his advantage? In any case, whether or not he practically had been dismissing prime ministers is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the consitution allowed him to do it, just as in most other constitutional monarchies today. 2. I'm not adding any analysis here. Those were Mossadegh's quotes. I still think that if Mossadegh's memoirs say he didn't think the constitution was legitimate, it is simply wrong to replace that by the account of the New York Times or whatever other publication. Original sources are always preferable. Shervink 16:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * According to official wikipedia policy : "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves." "A New York Times analysis... is a secondary source." "A journalist's account... is a secondary source." "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about." I definitely think we should include the opinions of Mossadegh, the Shah, Zahedi, Kermit etc. in the article, in a separate section, but only in direct quotes from their memoirs. We should "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." --- Melca 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with that. But what if a secondary source directly contradicts a primary source? Shervink 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * I think that's a question better asked at the NOR policy talk page, but according to the policy, secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources. --- Melca 08:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is called "going around in circles". As I mention before the only real solution is to request a RFC and have other people say what they think or mediation (by someone neutral and who is not editing here). According to Wikipedia policy at this stage this the proper solution. Khorshid 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Khorshid, I don't really understand why you are insisting on an RfC. As it seems Melca and I have nearly come to an agreement on the disputed matters, which were mostly what sources to use and in what way to include them. As I see it, Melca is in fact mostly worried about possible misrepresentation of content from sources such as Mossadegh's book. This will obviously be solved by minimizing personal analysis and focusing only on contents as they are presented in the sources themselves. I, on the other hand, agree that the most widely circulated understanding of the events should be the one discussed first in this article, and on that there is in fact no disagreement. I think with a few additions and edits by both of us (and anybody else interested in the matter and following the discussion) we will eventually have a better article, and the dispute will be resolved. Shervink 09:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Dear Melca, since it seems that we have found an agreement on how to deal with the issues, do you agree that we proceed to edit the article accordingly? I would suggest, in particular, to add the material we discussed, most importantly from Mossadegh's book. I will try my best not to add any commentary of my own. Please add to or edit the text if you find necessary, and if you disagree with something added by me let me know about it on the talk page. Shall we proceed? Shervink 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)shervink


 * Hi Shervink. Yes i think we agree. Fell free to add the material but please source it with page numbers so that its easier to verify. Also may i suggest limiting the material to a separate section as much as possible, so as not to mix it with the mainstream version of events. I'm looking forward to reading your additions. --- Melca 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

US Beliefs on Mossadegh's attitude toward Communism
I recently ran across this page, and while reading it I was interested by the assertion that the US was "falsely informed" about Mossadegh's attitude towards Communism and the USSR. I visited the links to the documents cited for that statement, but found to my surprise that none of the documents give any evidence for such a deception. After reading through several of the external links, as well as finding the portion of the CIA National Intelligence Estimate for 1953 that dealt with probable developments in Iran in 1953, I'm convinced that this is fundamentally a non-NPOV statement that is heavily disputed in the current literature. This issue was discussed previously in the talk page under "Source?", but no reason is given for why that statement remains on the page. I have rephrased that passage and the one following it to a more accurate and NPOV attitude. If there's compelling evidence to the contrary somewhere that I've missed, please let me know here.

I also have concerns about the depiction of Britain as being unwilling to come to a reasonable settlement, this articlefrom the New York Times in 1953 produces a Timeline that suggests it was Mossadegh that was being unreasonable, but I don't know enough about the offers made to determine if that's the case and therefore I've left that section alone. I would appreciate any clarification, however. RichardRB 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard. I briefly skimmed the sources you mentioned and found in the first source this estimate on page 5. "It is now estimated that communist forces will probably not gain control of the Iranian government during 1953.". But most importantly this book from the National Security Archive has a complete chapter regarding this and they conclude that quote "the main justification for the coup- the Tudeh, and by extension Soviet, threat- in retrospect seems implausible." (page 125, chapter 3). Every book i have read on this subject come to a similar conclusion so i don't think its disputed or POV. The British had agents in Iran to stir up unrest, posing as communists and Tudeh members. Also the Tudah didn't have an alliance with Mossadegh as you have added in the article. In fact according to the same book they apposed Mossadeqh as prime minister and his oil nationalization. Therefore, if you don't mind, i suggest we revert your edits and add the book as a source.


 * Also you should be wary of the neutrality of articles published in the 1950's about Mossadegh. Most of them apposed very much Mossadegh and his policies. One example is this Times article about Mossadegh which is very negative, even though they named him Man of the Year. --- Melca 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Melca. Alright, I'll accept your revert for the moment, but I still can't help feeling that the :: of Britain essentially duping the US into going ahead with the Coup is unsupported by any of the documents I've read, including the ones in the link you provided, and is instead an opinion of what happened imposed on the narrative. From your NSA Archives link: "Among the book's main conclusions is that Iranians and non-Iranians both played crucial parts in the coup's success. The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation. When the plot threatened to fall apart entirely at an early point, U.S. agents on the ground took the initiative to jump-start the operation, adapted the plans to fit the new circumstances, and pressed their Iranian collaborators to keep going."  It does not state that the British were responsible for the US belief in Mossadegh's communist connections. I'm not asserting this is false, only that I can't find any evidence for it in the external links on the web.  I'm going to try borrowing a few of the books mentioned and reading through them, but if you have any information on the source of that claim, I'd appreciate you letting me know. RichardRB 02:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi folks. No expert here, and thanks to everyone who's helped make this something i can read.  My one major complaint - and this seems like the place for it - is that there's no source or real details on the statement about the British refusals to negotiate and the terms offered.  This seems like a fairly major turning point in the relations between Iran and the West, and a major event in

Mossadegh's tenure.

About the 1954 Coup de'tat
This subject has interested me for some time now, and although I am Iranian(Persian)I am baffled by some issues here regarding the conduct of Mossadegh and of the Shah. Mossadegh was selected by the Shah to become prime minster, and although he was elected by the people, it seems to have been more of a ratification than an actual election as we would understand it here in the west. My other issue is that the Shah has been accused of leading a Coup against Mossadegh. How would this have been a coup when it was within the consitutional authority of the Shah to do dismiss the Prime Minster he has selected. After all he was selected by the Shah, although ratified by the people. My other point and question is that didn't Mossadegh desolve parliament? How was this witin the consitutional rights of the Prime Minster? That would seem enough of a breach to dismiss him as Prime Minster. Mossadegh had convinced the Shah to leave the country, although it is believed that this move was more motivated by revenge rather than by the country's interests. The Shah's return was being blocked by Mossadegh which I find to be grossly self serving than serving to the nation. Dismissing the head of state when that head of state is clearly part of the consitution of the land is really the actual coup de'tat. I only ask these question and raise these points because it seems to me that Mossadegh was trying to oust the Shah. If his intention was to serve Iran then how would this be achieved by ignoring the consitution of which the King is apart of? Dosilving parliament is not a ministerial privilage in any Monarchy, how was he able to do this and what leagl and consitutional means could he employ to justify this. It seems that any task and deed performed to achieve this objective when it is not within the constituion would be a Coup de'tat. The removal of power by the people outside of the legal mechanism is a revolution. The removal of power from within the system of government outside of legal mechanisms is a coup de'tat Please don't jump down my throat for raising this issues as I am merely discussing and not stating. I would appriciate intelligent responses. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Behzadbayati (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

--If that was true, then why was the Shah so hesitant to remove Mossadegh. I think if the Shah saw that someone was trying to oust him, he would exercise every avenue both legal and illegal to remove him. There is clear evidence that proves that both not only was the Shah reluctant but he was pressured both external (CIA and Britain), as well as internal, (his own sister, who is reported to have communicated with the CIA and Britain).

I think it was clear that both the Shah and Mossadegh wanted to take full control of their own resources especially oil and that the British and the US were going to do anything to stop him it.

shah leading coup...? i don't think so
i dont think the shah really had any power to lead the coup to overthrow mossadegh...back then the shah was powerless, and was controlled by the british, the whole thing was set up by the americans and british, so if you guys can, edit out any part that says the shah overthrew mossadegh, if you know any history you CLEARLY know that the british were the main contributers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.151.28 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You get it all wrong. The Iran Constitution at that time was aimed to create a government like England. Do you think currently queen can appoint anyone she wants as prime minister. off course she have the power but she is not supposed to use it against will of people. In Iran on that time there were no well established political parties so the process was somewhat like this. after each election the representative would have discussion for some session outside the Parliament and give a name to the Shah and then Shah was supposed to appoint that person as prime minister. This tradition was abandoned by Reza Shah(the father of the Shah) but at the first years of Shah it was reintroduced to the political system. after Dr. mossadeg the process was abandoned by shah again. Also as a prime minister mossadeg had the right to dissolve Parliament and hold an early election, again formally like Englnd shah had the power but shah should have acted on the request of prime minister and dissolved the Parliament.

---if that was true then the British wouldnt have set a coup, the fact is that the British and the US is more interested in what will be more profitable the it is wat more demacratic this coup as well as current event like Iraq clearly suggest that. the very fact that had the west not set a coup then there would be a real democracy in Iran

Winston Churchill
It says that from 1952 the British government under Winston Churchill was plotting to depose Mosaddeq, yet Churchill was out of office by 1945. Am I missing something here?Itb3d
 * This is basic British political history of the time. Fascinating stuff, really. Churchill was back in the office of the Prime Minister by 1951, and retired in 1955. Please read the article. --Edwin Herdman 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Mossadeq was appointed to the post of Prime Minister, not elected. He was elected into Parliament but the Shah appointed him, like all other Prime Ministers of Iran. Agha Nader 22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader


 * Hi Nader. This has already been discussed at this talk page here here and here. --- Melca 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I understand the problem. There are many sources that say he was "democratically elected"; so it will remain in the article. Nonetheless, we should include information about how he was appointed to office by the Shah and then approved by the Majlis. As of now that does not seem to be mentioned in the article. Do not you agree that it may be misleading to just say he was "democratically elected" without mentioning how he was appointed by the Shah and then approved by the Majlis?--Agha Nader 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader


 * This should be included in the Political career section. Agha Nader 02:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader


 * Nader take a look at the lead again ;) It is already there: "He was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament". However this is actually misleading since the shahs role was only ceremonial when it came to these things, but i don't want get into a discussion about that now. --- Melca 06:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What we really need is an article about the Shah's status between 1941-1953 and then from 1953-1978 because there seems to be alot of confusion about this. Basically he was a figurehead from 1941-1953, and then from 1953-1971 becomes gradually "autocratic", then from 1971-1978 Iran becomes a one-party state. I think it would be worth it for someone who has the time to do the research for this. Khorshid 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Khorshid. That is exactly what i meant. It was only after the 1953 Coup that the Shah's status changed, by amending the constitution. Before that his status was only ceremonial, as it is with many kings and queens in Europe today. --- Melca 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. See the Encyclopedia Iranica article on the Iranian constitution (p. 191). It says about the original constitution of 1906/1907 that "Although in the Constitution the right to appoint the prime minister had been granted to the monarch, it had become customary for him to submit his nomination to the Majles for a formal vote of inclination before making the actual appointment." Moreover, it says that in 1949 (not 1953) "the Majles agreed to the convening of a constituent assembly to amend the Consitution", and that in the same year (1949) article 48 of the Consitution was changed, giving the Shah "the power to dissolve the Majles and Senate, separately or together."
 * It is therefore incorrect to use the term democratically elected. He was appointed by the Shah, after the Majles gave a vote of inclination towards the Shah's nomination. It is also very clear that Mossaddeq's act of dissolving the parliament was unconstitutional in 1953, since in 1949 the consitution had given this power to the monarch.
 * Regarding Melca's comparison to European monarchies, it might be interesting for you to know that in England, still today, it is only the monarch who can dissolve the parliament. As another example, the Dutch constitution, still today, states in its article 43 that the prime minister and ministers are to be appointed and dismissed by the monarch, and in article 64 that the monarch has the power to dissolve either of the two houses of parliament. Shervink 08:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Shervink. I really don't want to go into a lengthy discussion about this subject. We have already discussed this several times and reached consensus. I hope you understand. I will briefly comment on your last point about the Dutch constitution however. As you mentioned the Dutch constitution article 43 explicitly states that "The Prime Minister and the other Ministers shall be appointed and dismissed by Royal Decree". This is actually quite common in European constitutions where the government is a Constitutional monarchy. See this for a list of European constitutions. You can for example also find that the Danish constitution has a similar article to the Dutch constitution: "§ 14 The King shall appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and the other Ministers". The Norwegian constitution also has a similar article and etc. My point is that even though it is explicitly written in the Dutch, Norwegian and Danish constitutions that the prime minister is appointed and dismissed by the King we can still agree that they are all democratically elected and that the constitutional powers of the Dutch, Norwegian and Danish kings are only symbolic. The actual power lies in the parliament--- Melca 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shervink, I think you understand things too literally. Did you know that in the UK, Netherlands, Spain, even Canada and Australia the monarch technically has overwhelming executive powers??? This is a fact. Yet in those states the monarch is simply a figurehead and does not exercise his or her executive powers. In other words, their position is entirely or almost entirely ceremonial. The same is true of the Shah. Why would the Allies, after deposing his father, then put his son into a position of dictatorship?? Anyway, there are no sources which even claim that the Shah exercised his executive powers before 1953. The power rested with the Parliament with the Prime Minister being the effective political leader of the country, like in Australia, Canada, UK, etc. Khorshid 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Khorshid, I'm not taking anything too literally here. The point is that Melca said the constitution changed after 1953, I provided a totally reliable source stating that it changed in 1949, giving the Shah the right to dissolve the Majles. This is simply how it was, and I'm only providing quotes. Regarding the election thing, again I provided an exact quote regarding the procedure of appointing a prime minister, which was by no means even close to an election. Shervink 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This notion of "democratically elected" is a huge propaganda device in the West. It is somewhat ironic, but no more ironic than the fact that West fully supported the Ayatollahs rise to power in Iran.  It is utterly ludicrous to compare the appointment of an Iranian Prime Minister to the appointment of someone like Tony Blair.  Mossadeq was elected only to the parliament of Iran.  He was most certainly Appointed prime minister; this may in fact reflected the desire of the poeple, but there were NO ELECTIONS of any kind whatsoever.  The second leg of this ridiculous propaganda ploy is the notion of the Shah being "installed by CIA".  He was Shah before and after and any installation that may have occurred did so after his father's abdication.  It is regrettable that Iranians, understandably, wish to grasp at straws regarding 'what if' situations, but the facts remain:  Shah appointed and dismissed his prime minister.  It is not due to CIA, or MI6, or any other external ogre that this occurred.  This occurred for perfectly evident (though obviously ignored) reasons primarily due to internal dynamics and history of Iran.  Was Shah supported by the external elements?  Certainly!  But did some flunky CIA operative manage to remove the "democratically elected" prime minister and then "install" the Shah?  Utter absolute nonsense.  Mossadeq fell because he was pulling the exact same brinksmanship that the current IRI is pulling regarding the Nuclear issue.  But back then Iran was not getting 60Bn$ annual income from oil and his attempt FAILED.  He lost power because he FAILED to achieve his ambitious goal. God Bless him for trying, but the facts remain the facts.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.247.52.56 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Thank you to those for reciting the 1949 consitution that allowed the Shah, Emperor, to disolve parliament showing Mossadegh to be involved in an unconsitutional stance. Please would people refrain from giving European nations and their constitutions as examples on how the Iranian consitution Monarchy was set up. Its true that some blue-print examples were taken from European nations that have a monarchy but this changed rapidly and did not resemble other European monarchy states. The most obvious proof is the change to Senate representation from that of MP. Although one must illustrate exmpales alike to make a point, please remember that it is relevent examples that make a point not points that make relevent examples. B. Bayati.

Article
This is another informative article on this subject recommended for those who are interested in facts rather than their own special point of view. Unfortunately available only in Persian: http://www.iranpressnews.com/source/024171.htm Aryo


 * Should this ever become available in English please repost a link to it. Many of us are interested in the facts, not spin. I tend to gravitate toward believing Zahedi's New York Times article of May 2000, as linked in the article. When I see the patronizing and insulting way Iranian nationals are portrayed in some accounts that claim Kermit Roosevelt threw $10k at a cleric then gathered up a group of hoodlums, acrobats and jugglers and overthrows an entire nation's government, it implies Iranians were pathetically weak and naive, not a fair observation whatsoever. Since it is largely leftists now promoting it, one wonders when they made the transformation to jingoist CIA boosters. Batvette (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This has deteriorated due to pro-monarchy POV
This Wiki entry has become strongly anti-Mossadegh and pro-Shah/monarchy. Needs substantial revision. Most of the Persian sources are not credible or balanced. Historical counterfactual: think of how history would be different if the US and UK had allowed a secular, democratically-elected government to continue in Iran. No Shah as tyrant, no SAVAK repression of either leftists nor right-wing religious groups, no revolution, no taking of the US embassy staff in their attempt to force the US to return the Shah for trial, no reaction by the religious right, no rise of Khomeni, no US financial and military support of Saddam Hussein s regime during the Iraq-Iran war (that killed 1,000,000 people -- "why do they hate us?"), no drive for nuclear weapons by Iran, etc. For decades the US denied involvement in the overturn of Mossadegh's government. With the release of the after-report, we know for a fact the US was instrumental in this coup. Now, the pro-monarchy spin has become one of "it was a good thing." History is replete with exiled groups using the US and Europe as a base to re-group and bolster their claims to power in their home countries. The Shah's descendants and their supporters are doing this now. Has Operation Mockingbird hit Wikipedia? DBrnstn 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To start, the introduction must be cleaned up. It is way too long and goes into inappropriate levels of detail. I will move the detail sentences to the article's body. rewinn 00:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest in this article. The introduction is, in fact, very short compared to most comparable articles on wikipedia, and should be expanded, not shortened. In any case, since there have been too many content disputes over this article in the past, please first try to propose and reach a consensus over your changes here before making major edits. Shervink 12:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It is not a major edit to move excessive and irrelevant detail from the introduction into the body of the article. rewinn 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "think of how history would be different if...."

Is this wikipedia or the Twilight Zone? Kindly keep speculative assessments of your own fantasies far away from encyclopedia content. You presume Democracy flourishing throughout the region to be something WE prevented- but lemme guess- you approve Operation Iraqi Freedom, right? Never mind you have the audacity to imply a view expressed upon Wiki not in line with your own MUST be part of a secret CIA propaganda mission. Did you proof read that entry?Batvette (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Biased Tone
I just changed this sentence: "He eventually was removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention." I believe "eventually removed from power" has a biased tone and "military intervention" is a way to sugar-coat a coup. I hope this is ok with everyone. --Definite 07:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Actually there was a problem with your edit. He was not removed from presidency. He was the prime minister, not the president. Secondly, the word coup is just what the following sentence starts with, so I don't think there is a sugar-coating taking place, especially since it is also repeated throughout the text several times. Shervink 08:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction of this article goes into excessive detail about the mechanics of a single, albeit important, part of this man's life. For example, identifying who believed his actions were unconstitutional is not important enough to go into the introduction. Since this article seems to be a sensitive one to some, I'll sit on this edit for a while, but I would like someone to make the case that the introduction should include such content, instead of putting that into the body of the article. Alternatively, if that information should go into the introduction, I would like someone to make the case that any other fact in the article should not go into the introduction. rewinn 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, the thing is, I previously had a similar discussion here with Melca, where my stance was in fact similar to yours. Anyway, he/she insisted that the overthrow of 1953 was probably the most important event in Mossadeq's life, and should be therefore in the article. Now, I agree with that more or less, and I don't see why we should not at the same time provide a little more background on what events led to the coup in 1953. Since the intro is short anyway, I don't think we need to bother about the space this would take. The idea is, of course, to expound the details of this short account in the body of the article. Shervink 11:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's view of Dr.Mossadegh's overthrew

 * Most often, our messing around and meddling in the affairs of other countries have unintended consequences. Sometimes just over in those countries that we mess with. We might support one faction, and it doesn't work, and it's used against us. But there's the blowback effect, that the CIA talks about, that it comes back to haunt us later on. For instance, a good example of this is what happened in 1953 when our government overthrew the Mossadegh government and we installed the Shah, in Iran. And for 25 years we had an authoritarian friend over there, and the people hated him, they finally overthrew him, and they've resented us ever since. That had a lot to do with the taking of the hostages in 1979, and for us to ignore that is to ignore history... Also we've antagonized the Iranians by supporting Saddam Hussein, encouraging him to invade Iran. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? But the on again off again thing is what bothers me the most. First we're an ally with Osama bin Laden, then he's our archenemy. Our CIA set up the madrasah schools, and paid money, to train radical Islamists, in Saudi Arabia, to fight communism... But now they've turned on us... Muslims and Arabs have long memories, Americans, unfortunately, have very short memories, and they don't remember our foreign policy that may have antagonized... The founders were absolutely right: stay out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, mind our own business, bring our troops home, and have a strong defense. I think our defense is weaker now than ever.
 * Interview by Laura Knoy on NHPR, June 5, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alborz Fallah (talk • contribs) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So why don't you put this on the RON PAUL page, isn't there section there on "isolationism" or "self flagellation"? Or maybe a Ron Paul page ia warranted in the catagory, "American Politicians using national guilt for political capital"???? You'll excuse me, I have to go train to fly a 767 into a middle east building. There are Arabs living in America and that "intervention" seems to be a just cause now.Batvette (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)