Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mossadeq's Unconstitutional Actions

The article is a bit one-sided. It sounds like the British and Americans decided independently to oust Mossadeq. The article makes no mention of what an integral part the Shah himself played. Neither does it mention the reasons why Mossadeq had to be ousted by the CIA and MI6. Mossadeq, since being elected by the Majles (Iranian parliament) and approved by the Shah, had committed many crimes against the Iranian constitution. These include attempting to assume the role of commander-in-chief of the military, assuming "emergency powers" through referendum instead of through the parliament, dissolving parliament unconstitutionally, and others. In August 1953, the Shah sent General Fazlollah Zahedi to inform Mossadeq that he was dismissed from the office of prime minister. As head of state, it was the Shah's constitutional right to dismiss prime ministers at his pleasure. Mossadeq refused to leave office and placed General Zahedi under arrest. The CIA/MI6 operation to mobilise pro-Shah elements and restore the Shah to power could be seen as a counter-coup.

sounds like you are one of those SHAHI GOONS that are infesting this wiki with your pahlavi loving rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.163.87 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a "goon" is inappropriate, what about a person espousing "mossadegh-loving rhetoric", wouldn't they also be a goon then? Mossadegh had his supporters and detractors amoung Iranians, just as the Shah did. Both the Shah and Mossadegh assumed despotic powers in order to consolidate control of Iran. Walterego (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somebody could add some of this information. Or maybe I will when I get some free time.

209.195.155.198 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The coup was organised by British with US help, and they tried to get the Shah to help. He only relented when he was convinced by his sister. 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genjix (talk • contribs)

The Volume Library (Southwestern Co. Nasville, TN 1976 edition pg 2189) states "During World War II Iran declared itself neutral, but Britain and Russia occupied the country. In 1941 the Allies forced Riza Shah to yield the throne to his son, Muhammed Riza. After the war a strong Iranian nationalist movement developed, with the ending of foreign control as its primary goal. Muhammed Mossadegh, a leader of the nationalists, became prime minister in 1951 and ruled as a dicator. During Mossadegh's ministry the British-owned oil fields were nationalized. Iran was unable to market the oil without foreign help, however, and the country faced financial ruin. In 1953 the shah removed Mossadegh from office and had him arrested." Spyderman943 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mossadeq's actions being consistent or not with the Iranian constitution is an internal affair and is of no consequence in justifying a coup by an outside country.

The coup was by the Iranian military, not an outside country. So if Mossadegh dissolving parliament and assuming authoritarian powers is merely an internal matter, then so is Zahedi's coup itself. Walterego (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article should include all the complex issues of the coup ...

Mossadegh was elected (although there were irregularities in the election) ... but by the end of his era the referendum to extend his power was not at all free and fair.

He was immensly popular among urban Iranians at the start of his term in office, ... but not nearly as much at the end.

Foreigners organized the coup ... but they had significant Iranian support.

the Shah had the right to appoint or remove the Prime Minister ... but his new choice would have to be approved by Parliament to be constitutional.

The communists strongly supported nationalization and had strong poltical power in Iran during the time ... but they did not support Mosaddeq.

So far it doesn't (include all the issues) and that's why it's tagged. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the arguments made here are really very logically weak. First of all, Mossadeq's attempt to democratise Iran is being labelled "Unconstitutional Actions". None of Mossadeq's actions were unconstitutional.

Mossadeq did not take control of the army, the way some Shahists here seem to suggest. Mossadeq requested control of the army, the Shah refused, and Mossadeq simply resigned from power, which was perfectly acceptable under the Iranian constitution. The Shah relented due to pressure from Iranian democrats and signed the control of the army to the elected Prime-Minster. Nothing about this was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the fact that the communist party, Tudeh, was in favour of nationalization is being heralded as some sort of proof that Mossadeq was a communist. The Canadian communist party today supports the universal health-care system in Canada. Does that mean that Stephan Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister of the Conservative Party is a communist? Convergence of two political entities over one issue does not make them the same. There are many speeches and positions that Mossadeq took that were firmly anti-communist. His friendship with Harry Truman and Tudeh's role in ousting him alone should dissuade anyone from thinking he was backed by the Soviet backed Tudeh party.

This is a very simple historical incident in which all information has already been declassified. There have also been many books written on the subject. For exmaple, All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kitzner is an entire book dedicated to this subject. The coup article should be made in line with what is now consensus among analysts and the nutrality tag should be removed from this article. All these conspiracy theories about Mossadeq being a closit communist, working secretly for the USSR backed Tudeh party, should just be disregarded as it is not supported by a single serious academic on this subject matter.

No more attention should be paid to the Shahist's ridiculous argument regarding the nature of Mossadeq's popular reforms. The idea that the US and UK initiated the coup just to protect the dictatorial powers of the Shah under the Iranian constitution is preposterous. Furthermore, as far as credibility and POV is concerned, the Shahists support for the Shah's dictatorial powers as outlined in the Iranian constitution should be more than telling.

The idea that the CIA carried out the coup in order to protect the Iranian constitution is also absurd. The US had no problems with the Shah's disregard for the constitution prior or after the coup and in fact coerced the Shah to sign an unconstitutional decree dismissing Mossadeq as part of the coup plot.

BoogaLouie, as miticulously documented in "All the Shah's Men" and apparent in the declassified CIA files, the isolation of Mossadeq was an integral part of the coup process (bribing the press, protestors, religous leaders; threatening phone calls to Iranian political parties from CIA agents claiming to be from the Nationalists; the blockade of Iranian oil exports meant to damage the Iranian economy and futher fuel dissent). Hence, dissent cannot be used as a way to justify or explain the coup.

You are mixing cause and effect here. There is little doubt that Mossadeq was popular when he first came to power. There is little doubt that he was popular when the oil was nationalized. There is also no question that the coup attempts started soon-after. In addition, there is little doubt that a significant portion of the resources for the coup went to making him unpopular.

Furthermore, claiming that the coup was popular in Iran is a bit of a stretch. Although the popularity of Mossadeq waned near the end of his power, that does not equate to tacit support from the Iranian people for an externally initiated/backed coup, designed to reinstate the dictatorship power of the Shah and reverse the nationalization of oil.

207.188.69.25 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Ajax

The final two paragraphs of the Operation Ajax section could stand some rewriting and factual review. I am certainly not an expert on this, but the sentence beginning with "The 1979 overthrow of the Shah was a CIA operation..." seems ludicrous since the US government, including the CIA, was cought by surprise by the coup. This is evidenced by the hostage crisis; a knowledgable State Department would have pulled out of the embassy before it was captured. If you are an expert on this subject, please contribute. --Talinus 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is a direct quote from the August 2008 "National Geographic," magazine page 65 and might prove a reliable and excellent source of information: Oil was at the root of a 1953 event that is still a sore subject for many Iranians: the CIA-backed overthrow, instigated and supported by the British government, of Iran's elected and popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had kicked out the British after the Iranian oil industry, controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP), was nationalized, and the British had retaliated with and economic blockade. With the Cold War on and the Soviet bloc located just to the north, the U.S. feared that a Soviet-backed communism in Iran could shift the balance of world power and jeopardize Western interests in the region. The coup--Operation TP-Ajax--is believed to have beenthe CIA's first. (Kermit Roosavelt Jr., Teddy's grandson, ran the show,and H. Norman Schwartzkipf, the father of the Persian Gulf was commander, was enlisted to coax the shah into playing his part. Its base of operations was the U. S. Embassy in Teheran, the future "nest of Spies" to the Iranians, where 52 hostages were taken in 1979.) Afterward, the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was returned to power, commercial oil rights fell largely to British and U.S. oil companies, and Mossadegh was imprisoned and later placed under house arrest until he died in 1967. --[User:Armanon] 21:41, 25 August 2008 <Source: "Ancient Soul of Iran," by Marguerite Del Gludice, National Geographic August 2008> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.232.93 (talk)

Operation Ajax has already been declassified by the CIA. It was carried out by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of the President Roosevelt. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the CIA was caught by suprise by the coup. In fact, declassified CIA files, pieced together CIA documents from the embassy takeover and Madeline Albright's admission that the operation was among the American governments "mistakes" all suggest otherwise. 207.188.69.25 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Elected?

Why does the introduction refer to Mossadegh as elected? He was chosen by the Shah and approved by the vote of parliament. Same holds for all other prime ministers of the Pahlavi era. The term elected creates the impression that he was actually directly chosen by people's votes, which was not the case. Therefore, it should be removed. As his way of becoming prime minister was exactly the same as all other prime ministers, no special description is necessary anyhow. Shervink 15:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)shervink

71.68.11.205 20:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Approved by the vote of parliament you say? By...the...vote...

Well, if you like, you can call this an indirect election. In usual use, however, elected means voted for in an election. The people never voted for Mossadegh. But in that way, all other prime ministers, including General Zahedi, were elected. The point is that the system remained the same throughout. If you think Mossadegh was democratically elected, then Iran was a democracy till 1979. Shervink 11:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Doolee just made a number of changes to the first two paragraphs. Many of them are highly questionable. I've changed a few. Others should review the first few paragraphs for accuracy. (Note, also, Dooloo gave some references that were formatted incorrectly, and thus didn't show up.) --Cultural Freedom talk 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. We commonly talk, do we not, of Tony Blair having been elected Prime Minister despite (as you say) it is his party that appoints him. You seem just to want democratic language to be expelled from the text, probably because you are anti-Iranian. Not that I am pro-Iranian, but I do think the coup was despicable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.209.140 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends upon whether the parliament was democratically elected. Isn't this indirection similar to the US system where citizens vote for "electors" who then vote for the president? Kwenchin (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on whether that parliament remained in power at the time of Operation Ajax, and whether its votes were rigged by the Prime Minister. Mossadegh, it seems clear to me, came to power through democratic elections, but then assumed greater and greater power, asserting authority over the Iranian military (which was the main reason the soup occurred), rigging votes in Parliament, and finally dissolving Parliament. So is a leader who came to power through democracy, but then ends that democracy, a despot or an elected leader? Perhaps both are true but I don't see Mossadegh described in the article as a despot (even though that is how he ended his rule), I only see him described as an elected leader which seems overly pro-Mossadeg/anti-CIA and NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterego (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at the end of Mossadeq's rule, he had no more power than currently held by the Prime Minister's of Britain, Canada or Australia. The control of the army by the elected head of governmnet is by no stretch of the imagination considered a form of Authoritarianism. This is the case in every democracy in the world.

The idea that Mossadeq was "rigging Parliment votes" is preposterous for two reason. Firstly, most of the Majlis was allied to Mossadeq. Secondly, he lost many Majlis votes before being ousted. Declassified CIA files show that many of Mossadeq's allies in the Majlis voted against him due to bribes provided by the Americans.

Remeber, Mossadeq was democratically elected. If Shahists and CIA supporters want to claim that at the end of his rule he became a "despot", then it is their responsiblity to prove their case. Despite the fact that I have done so, it is not the responsiblity of the rest of the community to disprove the Shaist claims.

I challenge user like Walterego to come up with one power that Mossadeq held that is not currently held by the likes of the President of the US or Prime Minister of Canada. We have to be consistant in our definition of what constitues a despot. If Mossadeq was a "despot" for transferring the control of the Iranian army to Iran's elected leadership, then the same can be said about Gordan Brown or Stephan Harper, who hold similar powers.

The idea that the American CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt was sent to Iran to halt Mossadeq's democratic reforms against the dictatorial powers of the Shah under the constitution is preposterous. The proposition that this was the "main reason the soup occurred" would require the presumption that the Americans conducted clandestine operation for no other reason than to prevent the creation democracies in the world. I wonder if users like Walterego would be content with this rational extention of their arguments.

The primary reason behind the coup, as demonstrated by the CIA declassified documents, was the implementation oil contracts with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, many of which were later transferred to the American oil company AMARCO, and later to Shell.

207.188.69.25 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV phrasing needed in intro paragraphs

Doolee, please don't make your changes again without discussing, and justifying them, here. You did not understand my comments. The goal per se had nothing to do with totalitarianism (etc.). The first part of the sentence governs those adjectives, and results in a false claim. Non-native English speakers are welcome here, but please be careful. Look at it this way, the following statement would clearly be wrong: "Operation Ajax was a covert operation to remove a democratic government and replace it with a totalitarian dynasty." That was not the goal of the operation at all! When one names the government, and, respectively, dynasty, the statement doesn't become significally less incorrect. --Cultural Freedom talk 14:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the goal had nothing to do with totalitarism. But the only means to achieve the goal was to establish a dictatorship, since the majority of voters opposed that oil profits ended up in foreign countries, and therefore voted Mossadegh. What is controversial here? I looked at the archieve and this is what editors Quadell and GD think too, and more importantly, all sources. Why you removed it?--Doolee 15:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1) If it's about the means, then it shouldn't be described in a sentence talking about the goals. (No offense, but I think you don't quite understand English well enough to grasp how the sentence reads.) 2) Either way (and this is not relevant here), it is certainly not the only means possible to achieve the ultimate goal of the UK: a) get compensation for the nationalized company, or (preferably...) b) get the company "un-nationalized". Many other options were possible: negotiations, waiting for the next election, etc.! --Cultural Freedom talk 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird Sentences?

I just found the Paragraph "In 1917, the war allowed it to take the British arm of the German Europäische Union, which used the trade name British Petroleum. After the war ended, the company, in which the British Government now had a 51% interest, moved to secure outlets in Europe and elsewhere. However, its main concern was still Persia, following the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 the company continued to trade profitably in that country." I was wondering what that is supposed to mean. The 'Europäische Union' is the German word for European Union and I don't know why the war allowed such things. This whole paragraph doesn't make much sense, so I removed it. Feel free to clarify and reintroduce it though. --Ebralph 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is also weird: "In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and United Kingdom encouraged the Shah to remove the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power." I know what it means, but what it says is that Dwight D. Eisenhower was the leader of both the United States and the United Kingdom. alvastarr 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate Picture

I changed the picture. The previous one was from another demonstration preceeding the Operation TPAjax. The one added is the front cover of a Tehran weekly, dated two days after the coup. aliparsa 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(even though he was an avowed anti-communist)

Well there is what people say, and there is what they do. Better historians typically favor deeds over words. Uncompensated siezure of private property is the foundational action of Communists, and has been since the Russian Revolution. The editors / authors are very generous to ignore the evidence in front of them. As the old saw goes: "Who are you going to believe, me, or your own lying eyes".

"Uncompensated siezure of private property"? There's something else that falls under that description: taxes. 71.203.209.0 08:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not uncompensated siezure, (although it was involuntary) the Nationalization was to proceed under British law at the time (britain had recently nationalized it's coal and other strategic industries) where hearings were to be held to determine fair compensation. Sorry I don't have a Citation I heard it on a great NPR special on the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.50.117 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There was neither a "seizure" nor was there lack of "compensation". The Iranian government argued that the contracts that were forced through by the British under the previous dynasty were illegal. They won several court cases in this regard. Renegotiation of contracts were requested but were rejected by the AIOC. Compensation was offered but rejected by the AIOC. 207.188.69.25 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

pronounsiation

how do you prounounce Ajax? an ogg would be nice there... Towsonu2003 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

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

The result of the proposal was Move. Duja► 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC) This article should be moved to "1953 Iranian coup d'état" or something like that. It is the historical event, the deposition of Mossadegh, which should actually give the article the title. The events in the background described here should be included within the big picture of all the other events. It is very strange indeed that there is no article on the event itself whereas there is one on the CIA codename for it! (See 1973 Chilean coup d'état for a comparison.)Shervink 09:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. Operation Ajax is the most recognized and used name for the coup in the west. -- Melca 18:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think so. Operation Ajax is an internal CIA file name, nothing more. A coup should be named as what it is, namely, a coup (See 1973 Chilean coup d'état for example). We can have a separate article on the CIA's role if you like (if there is not enough space for it in the main article), but the coup itself deserves a proper article with a descriptive name. Shervink 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I did not recognize what the WP:RM was talking about until I saw the proposed new name; Operation Ajax defeats the prupose of our naming policy. Furthermore, this is a broad article, about rather more than the actions of the CIA; it even discusses the Qajars. It may be worth writing a more tightly focused article about Ajax alone; but that's another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support because of naming guidelines. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Split the articles

I recommend the articles be split into to separate ones. 1 Outlining Operation Ajax and 1 outlining the events leading up to and surrounding the reason the operation happened as well as describing the people involved.--Langloisrg 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but until someone has the time to do that, shouldn't this article be renamed? —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that first this article should be renamed. If, after the renaming, there is not enough space in a single article to include also the CIA's role in the events, we can of course split it to have a more detailed article on that particular issue. Shervink 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations and rewrite needed

In the 1950's section: "The newly state-owned oil companies saw a dramatic drop in productivity as a result of Iranian incompetence and also, consequently, exports; this resulted in the Abadan Crisis, a situation that was further aggravated by its export markets being closed when the British Navy imposed a blockade around the country in order to force the Iranian regime to honor its previous oil agreements. Of course, royalties to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization, since nationalization, by definition, caused oil profits to be directed into the regime's coffers rather than into the hands of oil companies; however, the British Naval blockade succeeded and the Iranian regime was brought to heel." This whole paragraph has major issues. It sounds subjective and biased. Oil was likely a central point to the whole issue of the coup and, to be credible, needs multiple citations of evidence that oil production was lower and that the Mossadegh government was corrupt. Also the paragraph makes an assumption that the oil agreements were fair to begin with. The word "coffers" has an inherently negative tone to it and should be replaced with a more neutral term. No matter what our personal views of Iran are, "The Iranian regime was brought to heel" makes Iranians sound like Western owned dogs and is not professional. I am surprised that there is no Wiki warning at the top of this article while it is being worked on. This article is very important considering the possibility that America may go to war with Iran in the near future. Given the magnitude of Wikipedia, a heavily biased tone will compound any misunderstandings we have of Iran at the present time before we even understand the culture itself. The last thing we need is popular support for another war based on social bias and misinformation. If Iran does indeed warrant an invasion it should be based on facts, not feelings. The author of this paragraph probably didn't realize his own bias when writing this. But as is, this paragraph sounds more like NorthComm propaganda than Wiki quality material. Peace out. Lakeshorebaby 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the evidence?

In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and Britain removed the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power,

There are two core claims in this article that seem, to me, to be unsupported.

In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and Britain removed the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power

How, exactly, did the US and Britain "remove" him? By asking the Shah to remove him? That's silly.

The coup was carried out in a covert operation by Britain and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX).[1] The coup installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in power in an attempt to preserve Western control of Iran's oil infrastructure

What, exactly did they do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 23:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Since there ben no response, I'm going to correct the statments to be in line with the evidence. If anyone wants to claim that there was a coup, etc., be sure to put in some evidence of that.Heqwm 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with this particular event, but I'm pretty sure we don't have the authority to insist that it was not a coup d'état. All the resources seem to refer to it as such. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm, you are trying to distort historical facts (diff) because you are not familiar with the history of the 1953 Iranian coup, as evident from your misconception that the U.S. merely asked the Shah to remove Mosaddeq. As for proof of the obvious, take a look at Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, or Iran Chamber of Society: A short account of 1953 Coup. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kinzer's book establishes that the Eisenhower administration overthrew Mossaddeq and re-installed the shah. Skywriter 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They did not "install" the Shah. He had been Shah for twelve years already at the time, he had not abdicated and had not been overthrown. So how could anybody have "installed" him in an office he already held?! Shervink 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This should explain it, Shervink. [2] NYTimes reporter Stephen Kinzer summarizes his book in an interview with Amy Goodman. The shah was out of power and looking for work after the first coup by Kermit Roosevelt against Mossadegh failed. (In power since 1941, as you correctly stated, the shah tried to order Mossadegh out of his position as prime minister, but since Iran was then a democracy and had been elected by the democratically elected legislature, the shah's action was illegal and Mossadegh was prepared to reject it. The shah fled to Rome, resigned to his fate of not being Iran's figure monarch any more, when he learned that the second coup by the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt had succeeded. The shah rushed back to Teheran and was re-installed in power, thanks to the CIA. This material can be incorporated into the article. I don't think Kermit Roosevelt is mentioned and he should be.Skywriter 03:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not distorting historical facts. I'm simply correcting the article to bring it in line with the cites that have been presented. You show your arrogance by referring to your position as "obvious". If you want to include a claim in the article, you have to actually present a cite.Heqwm 00:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy on civility, please do not refer to other editors as arrogant. Thank you. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that another editor's position is obviously wrong, and that they are distorting history, is a violation of civility. If pointing out that someone is violating civility is also a violation of civility, then you are guilty too. Now, no cite has been presented for the claim that the Shah's actions were illegal, nor have cites been presented for the other claims. I came here and politely asked for cites for the claims, and I waited nearly a week to give people a chance to give them. No one made any response until I started editing. Rather than discussing the issue, you people are just reverting my edits and calling me "disruptive", and when I point out that you're being rude, you claim that mentioning your rudeness is a violation of civility. The fact of the matter is that ANYONE who reads the information presented in this article objectively will come to exactly the same conclusion as me, that the claims simply aren't supported. Now, you may call that ignorance. You may say that there is more information that I'm "ignoring". Well, if you refuse to properly cite it, then I'm not "ignoring" it.Heqwm 20:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"The coup placed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the primary position of power"

"Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup d'état briefly faltered, and the Shah fled Iran."

Wait a second. Either "the coup" refers to the events after the Shah fled, in which case he was re-installed, or it refers to events after the Shah fled, and therefore the second statement that I quoted is wrong. Which one is it?Heqwm 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if Christopher Mann McKay was uncivil in calling your position obviously wrong, that does not justify further incivility. And keep in mind that I am not Christopher Mann McKay, so you have not pointed out that I am rude. It's true that nobody responded to your questions in the talk page and perhaps someone should have (that's how it works sometimes). Like I said, I'm not familiar with the subject of this article, so I can't really say much about conclusions but it seems that both this article and the one on the Shah himself seem to provide some contradiction. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what part of my logic you're having trouble following. I don't think that it violates civility to point out that someone is being uncivil, but you apparently do. So by your own position, in claiming that I was being uncivil, you were being uncivil.Heqwm 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The part of your logic I'm having difficulty with is your inaccurate portrayal of your actions. Namecalling is not pointing out someone is being uncivil, even if it's to address incivility. It's the difference between "please be civil" and "please be don't be a dickhead." Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not name-calling.Heqwm 23:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, it's still a breach of civility. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm, I will try to answer all your inquiries regarding this article.

"How, exactly, did the US and Britain "remove" him?" "What, exactly did they do?"

They removed him via Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax included the bribing of military officials, news organizations and protesters, alliances with various powerful religious figures in Iran (see Ayatollah Kashani), and coercing the Shah to write a dismissal letter to Mossadeq (despite the fact that constitutionally that can only be done by the parliment). All of these actions were conducted by CIA agenst such as Kermit Roosevelt. This is all the tip of the iceburg. Millions of Iranian Rials were paid in bribes alone. Read "All the Shah's Men" by Kitzner or one of the many already available books about the coup for more details. Furthermoore, Operation Ajax is already declassified so you can look up this info yourself.

"Either "the coup" refers to the events after the Shah fled, in which case he was re-installed, or it refers to events after the Shah fled, and therefore the second statement that I quoted is wrong."

There were two coup attempts. The first failed, which led to the Shah fleeing Iran for Rome. The second attempt succeeded, thereby reinstating the Shah. Again I would suggest you read the references I provided above for details.

207.188.69.25 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

democratically-elected (again)

I realise that this issue has come up before (see above Elected?). I think saying 'elected administration' in the intro is fair enough but 'democratically-elected administration' seems a bit of a stretch given that women didn't have the vote at the time. Is it reasonable to describe the Iranian parliament of 1953 as 'democratically-elected' ? I don't know. It seems a little bit misleading to me. Perhaps it just needs a bit of context adding so that it's clearer what 'democratically-elected' really meant in the Iran of 1953. Having said that, I can see that Mossadegh is referred to as 'the democratically elected prime minister of Iran' in the excellent article 'Surrounded: Seeing the World from Iran’s Point of View' by Dr. Houman A. Sadri, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Central Florida in the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center - Military Review (July-August 2007 English Edition). Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's terrible that women were not allowed to vote, however, I note that women were not allowed to vote in the U.S. until the 1920 and all of the elections in U.S. history were called democratic elections regardless. Democratically-elected has more to do, I believe, with the process than with whether every single member of the populace were able to vote. --RossF18 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pwned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.163.185 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Double pwned. 72.88.65.221 (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion?

I noticed that there is a NPOV tag for this article but there doesn't seem to be an actual discussion for it. Did I miss it somewhere above? If not, then I will remove the tag. Quanticles (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at the endless discussions above, under "What's the evidence?", "Elected?", "NPOV phrasing needed in intro paragraphs", and several others in the archives, most of which really didn't get anywhere. Moreover, just look at how many controversial statements are totally uncited throughout the article. These are standing for months now.Shervink (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been resolved. The article as it is now seems NPOV to me. thx1138 (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No they haven't, at least as far as I am concerned. Unfortunately, however, the matter seems to be to emotional for some editors in order to make a fruitful discussion possible. That is the only reason those discussions stopped. Shervink (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Which issue remains unresolved? They all seem to be resolved. Ijust commented on a few that were already resolved just to be sure.207.188.69.25 (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

fair

I think the topic is of prime importance--for all americans to gain as much information as possible. In our form of goverment we can not have secret over throws of soveign nations. The executive brnach did not fully ( or at the time ) even partially inform congress whos involvement was consitutionally required and the people of the US who would be asked to give their tax dollars and their lives --for operations then and now in Asia, were not included in this most important event in post WW2 foriegn policy. For it was the beginning of a policy--unknown to the people or the US senate and house. The Cia does not have the consitutional authoirty to make policy and yet has made policy by denying information tot he public. More articles like this one is needed. Those who will try to keep the information from the public--even now..should remeber we still have a consitution...no alligence to the american idea is stronger than an informed people. Secret and covert actions are for kings....it is time our government remembers that. Longwoodoh (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)LK

Neutrality Discussion?

Let me make my case that the article is strongly POV with a question: How could the CIA come to Iran, spend $30,000 in bribes (I belief that is the correct figure) and overthrow a true patriot, whose crime was working to get for his country what truly belonged to it, i.e. its oil resources?
My answer is there was more to the coup than the "orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration ... motivated by ... desire to control Iranian oil fields." Namely, Mossadeq could not have been overthrown with bribes unless he had lost crucial support from the military, from the clergy and from the "traditional middle class" (who were closely allied with the clergy). That the lead should talk about these domestic opponents and why they opposed Mossadeq.

Here is a paste from another talk page on some of the issues:

Did Mossadeq lose support of some Iranians after taking emergency powers? Evidence

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

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

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

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

We would end up like the Soviet Union where the state owns everything and citizens nothing. Anyway, we all know that our bureacrats are incompetent businessmen.

When the minister of economics tried to reduce food prices by opening new bakeries, the bazaar guilds - encouraged by Kashani - protested that the government had no right to interfere with the free market. When the minister of communications recommended that the country's telephone companies be nationalized, Kashani solicited petitions from shareholders, and Haerzadeh proclaimed that `Islam protects private property and prohibits expropriations.` When Fatemi complained that the prohibition against the sale of alcohol reduced government tax revenues and increased the consumption of pure alcohol, [Shams al-Din] Qonatabadi [a preacher and leader of the Society of Muslim warriors, which was a member of the National Front] exclaimed,

I cannot believe my ears. Here is an assistant minister who considers himself a Muslim and represents a Muslim country proposing to legalize what the shari'a has clearly made illegal.

When Mossadeq's advisers proposed to enfranchize women on the grounds that the spirit of the constitution treated all citizens as equals, the `ulama, supported by theology students and guild elders, protested that `the religious laws undoubtedly limited the vote to men.` Kashani stressed that the government should prevent women from voting so that they would stay home and perform their true function - rearing children. ... One demonstrator was killed and ten were seriously wounded as theology students in Qum took to the streets to protest the proposal of extending the vote to women." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.275-6)

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

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

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

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

Did Mossadeq have the support of the communists? NO

To clear up this issue:

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

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

What was the association of Tudeh (communist party) and Mossadeq?

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

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

One must admit that the Tudeh was a major force participating in the struggle to nationalize the oil company.`... although diverse elements participated in the July uprising, the impartial observer must confess that the Tudeh played an important part - perhaps even the most important part. .... If in the rallies before March 1952 one-third of the demonstrators had been Tudeh and two-thirds had been National Front, after March 1952, the proportions were reversed. [Panjah Saleh-e Naft-i Iran (p.320)

"Arsanjani, writing on behalf of Qavam, argued that the Tudeh was the chief force defeating the Shah. And Kashani, the day after the riots, sent a public letter to the pro-Tudeh organizations thanking them for their invaluable contribution toward national victory." (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.320) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

$30,000. The figure cited in "All the Shah's Men" is roughly $1 million. As per your question of "how it was done", again this has been debated over and over again here. Furthermore there is a consensus among most academics on this subject and the ideas that Mossadeq was a closit communist, ... have all been discreditted. The fact that Mossadeq lost support before being ousted is undeniable. But given that Operation Ajax's declassified files specifically mention that the majority of the Iranian press were bribed, and that much of the articles published in the Iranian press were "written in Washington DC" should be more than a satisfactory explanation for these results.

Furthermore, the fact that despite all of this, Mossadeq stood resolutely for the freedom of the press and refused to interfere should be more than enough to show he was not a "dictator" or a "despot" as some have claimed.

As previously stated, the idea that since Mossadeq's Nationalists and Tudeh converged on a few issues or (as you have cited) Mossadeq's election "helped" Tudeh then Mossadeq was a communist is as irrational as claiming that since the Canadian Conservative Party and Communist Party have similar positions on healthcare or education, then Canadian conservatives are communists. Convergence on a few issues is a very unsound argument for equating two political philosophies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.69.25 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes in Lead

I've made a lot of changes in the lead section. There is still plenty about bribery and covert action and control of oil fields, but there is now also a mention of its place in world history, the names of Iranian coup leaders and that there was/is a dispute over the motivations and causes of the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

timeline of the coup

I propose a timeline of the coup and events leading up to it be created as a separate article. A lot happened. Some of the events are not mentioned or dated in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Created Abadan Crisis timeline. Includes both 1953 coup events and events leading up to it. altogether they're called the Abadan Crisis although that article is very short. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert of expansion

CreazySuit has made a wholesale revertion of sourced material expanding the article including trimming of repetious citations and corrections in spelling of Mosaddeq's name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You've completely re-written the article in a POV manner with selective fringe quotes which were previously disputed (like Abrahamian accusing Mossadegh of rigging elections etc). It's undo weight, and editorializing. You should get get consensus for such major changes. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. The article has not been completely rewritten. The sources are anything but fringe. Abrahamian is a respected scholar and much of the information I posted comes from Kinzer who published the most well known work on the CIA coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For anyone with any doubts that the CreazySuit reversion was done without checking over what it was reverting, look at the rewritten Operation Ajax section has opposed to the old version (that CreazySuit reverted to). The old version has a section on Planning Operation Ajax but nothing about the failed Nasiri coup or what happened during the Zahedi coup a few days later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We had already discussed on Talk;Mossadegh about how Abrahamian's theory about election rigging is not supported by other historians, and hence fringe. As for the other changes, why don't you propose or add them one by one, so that other editors could peer-review and scrutinize them, instead of one sweeping edit which includes controversial/POV material. --CreazySuit (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have provide no evidence in Talk;Mossadegh or anyplace else that "Abrahamian's theory about election rigging is not supported by other". The statements in my expansion are supported by reputable souces you have given no decent reason why they should be reverted, while no other editor has complained about them. It is an enormous waste of time to "propose the edits one by one" for your approval. Why don't you criticize them one by one so that other editors could peer-review and scrutinize your criticism? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputing accuracy

Complaints of accuracy of article

In 1921, a military coup, organized by the British no evidence given. The only evidence Kinzer gives is that the coup must have cost a lot of money and thus must have been financed by outsiders namely the British.

Oil revenues to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization, since nationalization, by definition, caused oil profits to be directed into the state's coffers rather than into the hands of foreign oil companies. No evidence and nowhere have a read that revenues went anywhere but down.

This is an article about a coup but there is next to nothing about what happened in the coup just unsourced allegations like Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were designated to operate in the country alongside AIOC after a successful coup.

This is just a quick look. THere is much more that is factually inaccurate. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources are available . I think it's possible to reference any sentence one by one . For the beginning I think the organization role of the British officials can be referenced here : NY times:How a Plot Convulsed Iran in '53 (and in '79), and "London draft of TPAJAX Operational plan" --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion : Use Historical Documents

There are historical Documents available on this that conflict with this entry. This entry would be improved by referring to historical documents that are available especially in areas where the historical documents and the article conflict.

The Shah was still the Shah, that is why the royal decrees were necessary. He had the legal right but lacked the power.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/082353iran-reversal.html

• April 14. Mossadegh introduced a bill in Majlis (Parliament) to transfer army control from Shah to himself.
• June 29. President Eisenhower rejected Mossadegh request for loan.
• July 11. New Soviet Ambassador appointed to Teheran.
• July 19. Unable to get army bill through Majlis, Mossadegh demanded dissolution. When Shah refused Mossadegh called for plebiscite.
• Aug. 2. Backed by Tudeh, Mossadegh won plebiscite with 99.4 per cent of vote in a nonsecret balloting.
• Aug. 10. Moscow announced bilateral talks with Iran on "all questions."
• Aug. 14. Foreign Minister Fatemi announced full agreement on Russian talks agenda.
• Aug. 15 (last Saturday). Mossadegh announced dissolution of Majlis. The stage was set for last week's events.

23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Shah was still the Shah, that is why the royal decrees were necessary. He had the legal right but lacked the power."
Due to the changes of Iranian Constitutional Revolution, in that time , the Shah was supposed to be a shah of Constitution v.s a Shah of Absolute monarchy. That means the royal decrees were only decorative and not necessary,he had no legal rights to do any political action at all ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

unsourced assertion that contradicts sourced information

I've deleted the statement
Oil revenues to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization, since nationalization, by definition, caused oil profits to be directed into the state's coffers rather than into the hands of foreign oil companies.

Is contradcited by statments by authors that the oil production fell from lack of maintenance and boycott engineered by AIOC. (Mackey, Iranians, p.201) or that by mid 1952 Iranians were "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day". (Kinzer, All the Shah's Men (2003) p.135-6) --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In the edit summary I wrote "reverting censorship". That's obviously not true. It should have said something like "deleting unsourced contradictory statement". --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is stupid, biased and full of lies.

I am going to put my time now correcting this article using Shahs own book, lots of other books to show and tell the truth about this man. Enough with lies now. I am going to slowly work on this page, but first I am going to collect everything and make a summary out of it and then write it here in the talk page.

How can the Operation Ajax happen when British intelligence themselves said that there is no way we did this? That's a start. --JavidShah (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems here

Look at this sentence for example: "This deposition of a formerly elected civil government was "a critical event in post-war world history", because it returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to the throne, who soon after established a pro-Western dictatorship, that, in the event, contributed to his deposition by the anti-Western Islamic Republic in 1979."

This is seriously problematic and overly simplistic. The issue is nowhere near as black-and-white as this. Mossadegh never overthrew the Shah or the monarchy during his administration. The Shah was always the official head of state as Iran was a constitutional monarchy, nor was the Shah an "unpopular" figure as is claimed in the article. That is a mere opinion, not a fact.

Here is the basic story: from 1941-1953, the Shah was the de jure head of state - in practice, his executive powers were mostly ceremonial. After the successful coup against Mossadegh and the dissolution of his government, the Shah gradually became more autocratic and authoritarian until Iran effectively became a one-party state in the 1970s.

To call the Shah a "dictator" or his government a "dictatorship" is an opinion, not a fact. This is no different than calling George W. Bush a dictator or his administration a dictatorship. It's an opinion. Was it autocratic? Yes. Was it authoritarian? Yes. But not immediately after 1953. It took years for the autocracy to unfold. It wasn't until the late 1960s when the authoritarianism of the Shah's government really became active.

Lastly, the Iranian reasons for the coup was that the monarchists suspected Mossadegh of being a republican and feared that he was going to declare Iran a republic with himself as president. These were the rumours going around at the time, and considering the facts, there is some truth to them as Mossadegh did harbour republican sentiment. The plot against Mossadegh was designed and initiated by Iranian monarchists, and then executed with British and American support and funding.

It's really not that complicated, but unfortunately bias and misconceptions always prevent this article from being accurate and factual. IranianGuy (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Salam ! In Wikipedia , we may not use our opinion . If you think the cited source is unreliable , feel free to put the tag that shows your opposition to the source upon the sentence . But please don't change the sentence by your preference . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

IranianGuy, you are right to claim that the Shah was never "overthrown". However, the Shah's powers waned greatly during Massadeq's rule as Iran was transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy. Control over the army and decision-making regarding the oil revenues were slowly transferred from the Shah to the elected Parliment and the Shah took a more ceremonial role. The idea that the Shah's rule was a dictatorship at any time other than during Mossadeq's rule is fact not an opinion. I challenge you to find one reliable source who refutes the idea that the Shah was Iran's dictator, from 1945 to 1979, aside from this brief period in the 1950s.

Furthermore, it is widely accepted that the Shah was an unpopular figure. Events during the coup, such as his dismissal of Mossadeq followed by mass protests can easily attest to this.

I agree with your arguments regarding the Iranian reasons for the coup, however, it is important to note that after the first coup attempt and the Shah's subsequent flee to Rome, Mossadeq had the option of declaring Iran a Republic but did not do so. The idea that he was a Republican at heart is pure speculation as none of his actions nor any of his speeches would suggest otherwise. It is more accurate to consider Mossadeq a Democrat, given his attempts to shift control and authority over state functions to the democratically elected Majlis and away from the unelected Shah.

It is also important to note that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Americans and British were "convinced" of removing Mossadeq by the Shahist factions. Given the balance of power, this is very unlikely to be the case. It is also important to note that the British had the option (on several occasions actually) to renegotiate the AIOC agreements prior to Mossadeq's election, or during his dismissal, which would have ended the conflict in favour of the Shahists.

There are also a sea of quotations from British politicians which would contradict your claim that the Iranians convinced the British to undertake the operation. For example, Winston Churchill referred to the Iranian's position as "irrelevant people with delusions of relevance" and he riled on Truman for arguing for rights for "unimportant" nations such as the Iran against the interests of the important British.

207.188.69.25 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

207.188.69.25, do you have any reply to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Neutrality_Discussion.3F_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mohammed_Mosaddeq#Mosadegh.27s_August_1953_referendum i.e. that Mossadeq's popularity and devotion to democracy was not uniform and constant? Specificially that he became much less democratic and much less popular in the months leading up to his overthrow? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, it is clear that Mossadeq's popularity was not constant. However, this fact should interpretted in context. As verified by the CIA files and noted in All the Shah's Men Millions of Rials were paid to influence the media to paint Mossadeq as a Communist Republican.

As per your comment regarding Mossadeq's commitment to democracy, I will have to research the article you have posted a bit further. However I must state that I am very suspecious of the NYT's claims regarding such issue.

I do know however, that despite the multitudes of lies that were printed in the press against Mossadeq, he never, not even until his last days and despite the advise of many of his advisors, made any move to curtail the freedom of the press. In my opinion he also took great care to avoid any confrontation with Shahist demonstrators.

It is important to note that when dealing with such questions as "Mossadeq's devotion to democracy" we are trying to establish the intent and belief of an individual, which is near impossible to establish. I do not believe such a concept is even relative to the wiki article. I think the issue at hand is quite simple and not at all controversial.

Well we can't read his mind but we can say something about democratic his actions were as prime minister ... which is very relevent to an article about him in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The US government overthrew the democratic government of Dr. Mossadeq due to oil interests. Whether Mossadeq was really committed to democracy is not even relevant. It is not wikipedia's role to guess what might have been had the situation been different.

but would the US government been able to overthrow him - to find the demonstrators and a military leader - if Moseddeq had not done things to alienate religous leaders and notables if the economy had not been the bad state it was? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I think that unfortunately, given the light this article shines on the US government and particularly the devestating use of these arguments against current US claims that it is fighting for democracy and not oil in the Middle-East, it has cause a swarm of ideological Americans and their supporters (not you - but I think you would agree there are others) to nitpick insignificant details so to disguise the facts.

Let's assume that in fact Mossadeq's aim was to establish his own theocratic dictatorship much like the current Islamic system.

I don't want to get speculative since this is an encyclopedia - but maybe something more like Egypt's Nasser --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that change the fact that he was democratically elected? NO! Does it change the fact that he was overthrown by the CIA to protect American oil interests? NO!

So lets have all the facts. He was elected. He was very popular (at first). The CIA did spread black propaganda. The US and UK did want control of the oil. .... But also include the rest. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If at some point, the article speculates on the intentions of Mossadeq then feel free to remove these parts. However, as far as I can see, the facts about Operation Ajax are not at all controversial.207.188.69.25 (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. However, above in a dispute with another user who has challenged your use of a certain author, you have asked him to prove that the mentioned author's views are not supported by other historians.

I don't think this is reasonable. He could not possibly prove that there are no other historians who have the same view. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that Abrahimian's views are backed up by other authors. If not, then it should be mentioned that this is the case as there is also evidence that Mossadeq did protect democratic values (such as not limiting the freedom of the press - which was a norm in the region - at a time when the press was so clearly anti-Mossadeq, often outright lying about his actions).

I that agree that we should just state everything (including Abrahimian's argument) so to remove the "neutrality" tag.

Why is the neutrality tag still there anyways? The points being discussed seem too minor to justify it. Are we still taking people who claim that the coup never took place seriously?207.188.69.25 (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

picking nits

the bottom line is that this was a CIA/US/British sponsored coup that completely changed the post WW2 democratic landscape and it was alomost totally responsible for the current anti-US attitude of presnt day Iraq. Just another example of corporate oil interestes usurping US forgign policy. Exactly the same reason that we invaded Iraq and both have turned out to be failures on a massive scale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariner133 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

this is useful - http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html (Dm85 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Article Structure and Confusion

The first three paragraphs are poorly written, confusing, and contain grammatical errors. Use of a radio interview as the first reference is not a good idea because it is imprecise. I would like to suggest some ways to go about revising this article to make it easier to read with a basis in the scholarship that supports the subject.

First, the National Security Archive at George Mason University offers primary source material. This article should rely on those files. Chronology usually makes sense. Kinzer's book is a better source of documentation and precision than the radio interview where he makes unsourced statements.

The earliest and most credible scholarly analysis, according to the National Security Archive, is Professor Mark Gasiorowski, who published a detailed article about the coup in the Journal of Middle East Study No. 19 (1987). This article has been reprinted in several places, including here-- http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html

That article provides chronology, facts, and context. In response to an invitation by the National Security Archive to evaluate the new information provided by James Risen at the New York Times in its special report dated April 16, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html , Gasiorowski provided his reply half way down this page-- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

It begins this way--

“What’s New on the Iran 1953 Coup in the New York Times Article (April 16, 2000, front page) and the Documents Posted on the Web”

By Mark J. Gasiorowski 19 April 2000 There is not much in the NYT article itself that is not covered in my article on the coup (“The 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran” published in 1987 in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, and available in the Gulf2000 archives) or other sources on the coup. The most interesting new tidbit here is that the CIA’s agents...

(read the rest here-- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

So my suggestion is to rework this article based on the primary sources and using Professor Gasiorowski's two articles for credible sourcing. Kinzer wrote a useful book and this article should continue to reflect this with the specific contributions that Kinzer made.

Comments?

Good idea

Skywriter (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I have re-worked the lead, to make it more accurate and descriptive. I have also cited a new source. If anyone has any objections, please cite specific issues, and bring sources to support your position, so we can have a discussion. Thank you. --KneeJuan (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well here is one objection from an old post by Iranian Guy This is seriously problematic and overly simplistic. The issue is nowhere near as black-and-white as this. Mossadegh never overthrew the Shah or the monarchy during his administration. The Shah was always the official head of state as Iran was a constitutional monarchy, nor was the Shah an "unpopular" figure as is claimed in the article. That is a mere opinion, not a fact.

Here is the basic story: from 1941-1953, the Shah was the de jure head of state - in practice, his executive powers were mostly ceremonial. After the successful coup against Mossadegh and the dissolution of his government, the Shah gradually became more autocratic and authoritarian until Iran effectively became a one-party state in the 1970s.

The new lead is less, not "more, accurate and descriptive." It's overly simplistic. It took years for the Shah's rule to become a dictatorship, and Mossadeq's rule was less than democratic towards the end. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of source describing Mossadegh's government as "democratically elected". DO NOT change this, it is sourced. --KneeJuan (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the vote counting was cut short to keep rightist deputees, allegedly British agents, from being elected, so there is certainly ground to not call it democratic. But I will keep the word "democratic". --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not revert the improvements, and sourced statements, the source says agents, Shaboon bi mokh was not a ``civilian``, your using the language of the apologists of the coup. --KneeJuan (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute with KneeJuan

Some disagreements: I submit the BBC source http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050822.shtml
is crude and simplistic.

• It's much better to quote what albright said than call it an "apology".

"American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, called the coup an "intervention by America" in Iranian "internal affairs" and a "setback for democratic government" in Iran. The word apology does not appear in what she said.

• "pro-Western dictatorship" is simplicitic as "Iranian Guy" editor noted before. "the Shah gradually became more autocratic and authoritarian until Iran effectively became a one-party state in the 1970s."

• "foreigners re-enthroned as Shah of Iran". Did Mossadeq or anyone else announce that Iran was a republic? That the shah was no longer shah after he fled? "a foreign-organized coup allowed him to return" is more accurate.
• why was this edited out?: "After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the coup, and particularly American involvement in it, was widely criticized in Iran." was it not criticized after the revolution??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are subjective and POV-ridden. Stick to what the neutral sources explicitly say. --KneeJuan (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The source calls it an apology, not your job to interpret secondary sources.

If the source is not accurates, not a scholarly source it shouldn't be used. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The source calls it a dictatorship, so again , it is not your job to interpret secondary sources.

Again it is crude and inaccurate it shouldn't be used. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, that is your own original research. It is also an unsourced statement. Khomeini criticized Mossadegh, more than he criticized the coup.

Yes Khomeini criticized Mossadegh, but the coup was criticized heavily. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

--KneeJuan (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not your job to determine what is accurate and not, sources do that, do not change the sourced items. --KneeJuan (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"BuzzFlash Reader Commentary"? This is a WP:RS?

There are all sorts of sources writing about the 1953 coup, many completely contradicting each other. The fact that someone says something about the 1953 coup does not make it a reliable source worthy of wikipedia.

I'll leave your edits alone right now because this is becomeing an edit war, but as the article stands it is biased and unencyclopedic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are criticizing BuzzFlash as WP:RS? Why don't you do as you preach and remove this author-less non-WP:RS web-page from GlobalSecurity.org [[3]] which you are using to propagate false info ? Are you actually claiming that Iranian universities do not teach law, political sciences, economy, psychology, education and sociology? --KneeJuan (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting off topic, but what "I'm saying" in that article is that GlobalSecurity.org says law, political sciences, economy, psychology, education and sociology disciplines were shut down and purged during the cultural revolution. I have no doubt Iranian universities now teach law, political sciences, economy, psychology, education and sociology as approved by Islamic authorities. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they backed down and allow teaching of much of what was thrown out earlier as "false knowledge" ... but I don't have any sources on that.

If you have more authoritative information to the contrary, tell us about it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Column at Buzzflash is not credible source

Just as columns at Pajamas Media are opinion not to be relied upon for facts, unsigned columns at Buzzflash are opinion and not fact. The source of the material is Kinzer's book. He researched the subject and should be directly credited. Similarly, Chomsky et al. ought not to be the primary sources for the lead in this article because Chomsky et al. are relying on journalism i.e. including Kinzer's book and articles in the NYT for their assertions. Kinzer studied and wrote, based on primary sources. Does anyone object to the reworking of this article along these lines?Skywriter (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't although I suspect KneeJuan will. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Democratically elected once again

Sources simply claiming the government was "democratically elected" are not good enough, especially when they may be biased. I have provided sources for claims about the legitimacy of the 1951 parliamentary election and the 1953 referendum. Feel free to add details about these, since that is what we really should be discussing. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that describe Mossadegh`s government "democratically elected", claiming otherwise is a fringe view and not allowed. You can`t use a 1953 article as a source either, it`s outdated and considered a primary source. The Telepgraph opinion puff can be used either. You are also synthesizing with the whole election thingy, read [WP:Synth], [WP:RS], [WP:Undo weight], before trying to use these materials again.--KneeJuan (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lundberg's edits should not be reverted wholesale. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

rewrite

There have been suggestions by Jacob Lundberg and Skywriter make substantial changes in the article. Personally I think one change in need of being made is that the article is supposed to be about the 1953 coup but has one paragraph on the "execution" of the coup (what happened during the coup) itself. For example, the only mention of Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri - the man who first tried to arrest Mossadeq but was arrested himself - appears in the lead. There's no mention of him in the execution section.

I propose we expand what happened in the coup and shorten/summarize what happened leading up to the coup. That part should be covered in more depth in something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq#Prime_Minister.

Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be added to the article

This article is seriously biased and has been hijacked by KneeJuan.

Albright's comments should not be labelled as an apology.

Nowhere in Wikipedia:No original research does it say that a newspaper article is a primary source just because it is old.

This should be added to the article:

In late 1951 Prime Minister Mosaddeq held a parliamentary election. "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies - just enough to form a parliamentary quorum - had been elected." This was interpreted variously as a defensive action against subversive British agents by Mosaddeq supporters, and "as undemocratic and grasping for personal power" by his opponents.

In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. It was rigged with 99 percent of votes supporting the proposal.

References

Jacob Lundberg (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

problematic recent edits

90.200.72.14 and rrburke have made some edits I will rvt and here is why:

The quote marks deleted by rrburke are quotes of the sources cited. This is a controversial issue/article and it's sometimes important to give exact wording.

It is not at all agreed that cold war fears were a secondary consideration for the plotters of the coup. see: Gasiorowski, M. (1998). "The 1953 Coup D'etat in Iran". University of Toronto, utoronto.ca.

"Eastern" - as in "neither east nor west but Islam" - is a very big buzz word in the Islamic Republic and should be left in to describe the Soviet Union. ("niether east nor west" is a quranic phrase) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

more information

what was the result of the operation ? were other middle east countries involved ?

this article leave a lot unanswered (also there should be wikipedia links to other articles about other US ops in Iran ?)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.96.198 (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not sure where to put this, but there is a point in the article that refers to Winston Churchill as 'reactionary' which is inaccurate as well as inappropriate.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.131.57 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you biasing this article towards the leftist point of view? Reality is much more complex and interesting than ideology.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.101 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why isn't there anything about lots of other people going against all this Operation Ajax lies? It never happened according to me and thousands others.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rux (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

!!!! Well, someone better tell the CIA then. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/ If operation ajax didnt happen then whats all the documentation produced by the CIA about?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.127.112.19 (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

confusing intro paragraph

I read the first paragraph 3 times, and I still can't parse what it's saying. It consists of 2 sentences, each with multiple subordinate clauses. Can someone please simplify it? I have a college education, and I want to understand the topic, but I cannot. The writing style here is complex to the point of being obtuse. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.155.87 (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Have attempted to cleanup the lead. It's not that the issues in the lead are so complicated, it's just that the writing is crap. As you can see by all the tags at the top of the article, the article is very controversial and edits go back and forth. The editor(s) who control the article may not be able to write but are very dilligent and make sure the article represents their point of view. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article as a whole is poorly written and structured. It need to be completely rewritten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.155.205 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged article

Removing flags from this page as all requests for citations have been met. Yes lots of citations have been added but the article is still inaccurate, still POV and badly organized.

Problems with the lead

Inaccurate: After the coup, Mossadegh, Iran's popularly elected leader, was taken to jail and Roosevelt carried out the plan devised by Wilber to install Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri to establish a pro-US and pro-UK government. To carry out the plan, Roosevelt and Wilber bribed Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen.[8]
"carried out the plan" after the coup? Nassiri was prime minister?

Not enough repetition mentioning democracy, foreigners and CIA : "democratically-elected ... popularly elected leader ... Western-led covert operation ... coup was organized by the United States' CIA and the United Kingdom's MI6, ... CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. carried out Operation Ajax ... This Anglo–American coup d’état ... Western control."
With four paragraphs there should be much more!

Not enough details in the lead: The CIA history, written by Wilber, called the operation TPAJAX with the TP preceding AJAX indicating ....
Should have XPG3PWE8LJBO: operation as well! --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously folks there is nothing in the lead about the overall historical impact of the coup the paragraph
Originally, the Eisenhower Administration considered Operation Ajax a success, but it is now thought to have left a "haunting and terrible legacy" of strong anti-Americanism in the Iranian Revolution and Islamic Republic[11] and in anti-American terrorism of 9/11.[12] In 2000, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, stated that intervention by America in the internal affairs of Iran was a setback for democratic government.[13] The coup is considered "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced an elected native democracy with a pro-foreign monarchic dictatorship.[14]
is gone. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply-- instead of tagging the entire page, why not insert citation flags at the wording you question. Some of what you say is sarcasm and does not translate very well in print. Better to make each point directly. I concur that the writing could be improved. A lot. That's true of most articles on Wikipedia. That's what happens when you have group edits or group writing. The effect is gang bang. When you see repetition, why don't you splice it out? Tagging the top of the page is discouraging and makes it appear that there are fundamental differences of opinion. I do not think there are. Rather it appears that good writing is wanted and that is a problem that can be resolved with the keyboard. I had intended to add detail to this article this weekend but the top of the page tag suggests I should go somewhere else. I don't have time to do battle. There's enough controversy. Skywriter (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the rest of the article

There are paragraphs and paragraphs of details such as
Cryptome discovered a flaw in the method used to conceal agents' names and transcribed some of the PDF files into text. Cryptome informed The Times it intended to publish and archive the original uncensored files after other organizations had done so.
Before readers ever get to the facts of the coup. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No citation for this blanket statement: The principal motive for executing Operation Ajax (the coup d’état) was Western (US and UK) refusal to accept the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the business agreement, between the Imperial British and the Iranian civil governments.[citation needed]

Niether the first or second citation for this statement: As a condition for restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the US required collapsing the AIOC's monopoly; five American petroleum companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were to draw Iran's petroleum after the successful coup d'état — Operation Ajax.
say anything about the oil companies, in fact what the first cite has to say about Anglo US cooperation sound like the deciding factor was the cold war not oil:
.... But when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, cold war ideologues - determined to prevent the possibility of a Soviet takeover - ordered the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government.
the second cite contains nothing about Royal Dutch Shell or Compagnie Française des Pétroles or any American oil companies that I could find. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The rules about this sort of thing are pretty clear. Insert the citation tag where needed. Leave it up for awhile, then remove the offending material if the person who added it does not cough up the citation. If you've looked at the citation and it doesn't say what this article says it does, either fix it or take it out. Skywriter (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To do

I copyedited some of what BoogaLouie flaggs as flabby and added a section on the CIA burning its records with links to the relevant NYT stories. Here's what I didn't have time to do, The lede still needs to have incorporated the installation of the Shah and the effect his dictatorship had on that country until 1979. This needs to be stated succinctly and up high in the story. Skywriter (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example where use of passive voice distorts the intended meaning.

The most recent edit changed text to this-- In 1953 Mosaddeq held a referendum to give himself powers to legislate law. It was alleged to have been rigged by Mosaddeq's royalist opponents, since it was not a secret a ballot.

Please change it to active voice. Skywriter (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

generic condemnation of socialism

The third paragraph under 'Nationalization' seems to give a generic description of the paragraph's author's view of the ills of socialism in general, as it cites as its authority a Time Magazine article printed in 1976 that, upon review, does not seem to have much to do with the claims that the author of the section is making. The Time article points to a new budget deficit associated with global economic health and decreased oil revenues that resulted. Furthermore, the article states that, "For all the difficulties, Iran still expects economic growth of 17% in the new year..." - hardly the "unsustainable economy" that the contributor claims existed and cites the Time article as the source of.

Perhaps the author is right about the effects that Nationalization had, but these claims should certainly be attributed to a meaningful source. The current citation seems totally disingenuous.

Anothereader (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of sections

The first two sections of this article (Blowback and CIA burned....) seem to be misplaced. Usually an article would start with the Background. I suggest moving the sections to the Aftermath section. I also suggest getting rid of the title "CIA burned.... " as it is not in line with Wikipedia style.Dcooper (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What is not in line with Wiki style pertaining to "CIA burned....? Got a link? thanks.Skywriter (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Article titles are the guidelines that should also be applied to subject titles according to WP:STYLE. Titles are generally nouns or noun phrases. They should be short. The section heading is a sentence. I'll also point out that when I saw the bizarre title and the misplaced opening sections, I was immediately alerted to the fact that I was going to read an article pushing an agenda. I'm not saying that the facts in those sections are incorrect. I'm just saying my reaction to seeing this article.--Dcooper (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What heading do you suggest?Skywriter (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The new heading is fine. Or just put it in the Aftermath section. Also, the section appears to just be three quotations. I would rewrite it, but I don't understand what the editor was trying to get across.--Dcooper (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The point of the section is to report that there is very little in the way of official documents relevant to the Foreign Relations of the United States pertaining to this episode. No cables. No info from the ambassador, and so on. I put it up high because of what I perceived as a need to explain why there are gaps in the story. The point of Tim Weiner's series of articles on the subject was to show violations of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act Skywriter (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)