Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Prostitutes and thugs

Let's focus a discussion thread solely on this quote: "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, under the direction of CIA and MI6, and with the help of high-ranking Shia clerics, anti-democratic military officers, and paid mercenary mobs composed of prostitutes and thugs from Shahr-e Nou [Tehran's red-light district] attacked our democratic government and replaced it with a brutal tyranny."

Some editors want this quote in the article, others don't. Some have said that there are indeed named prostitutes who took part in the coup, so the quote is factually correct. I think the quote is incendiary instead of neutral, and this makes it inappropriate because of the basic tenet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Instead of quoting this angry scholar, we can simply state the facts of the matter, and nothing is lost to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet per my earlier comments about the quote above.--RossF18 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I used the quote to create two replacement sentences that get the point across. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The re-wording is fine with me. Since all the contested issues seem to have been resolved now, we should remove the tags soon. --Kurdo777 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When we use a direct citation , the wording should be the same thing that the writer says. If we are not going to use the direct sentence (because of NPOV), then we have to find a substitute that shows the importance of thugs and prostitutes in the process with a neutral wording.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you recommending a return to the quote or a search to find support for Pahlavi being directed by CIA and MI6 as well as support for the mercenaries of the coup including prostitutes and thugs? Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend writing a new sentence based on that quote , with neutral words and consensus.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're going to need a much better source than that to support the notion that prostitutes and thugs were key to the coup. A throwaway sentence in a propaganda article doesn't count. Ray^Talk 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, now that the quote's basic points have been put into the form of neutral fact statements, the supporting reference fails in its role—Masoud Kazemzadeh doesn't prove his assertions. Also, the placement in the article of that quote or those sentences seems to break the flow of comprehension. If the sentences were adequately supported, where would they best be placed? Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Prostitutes and thugs were important in the coup.For proof , look at :Iranian government document center , saying " Among the civilian leaders of the coup,were .... Rashidian brothers (Asadollah and Seifollah) and among the leading thugs Shaban Jafari known "Silly Shaban the crown giver" (Shaban-bi-mokh e Taj-bakhsh), Tayeb Haj Rezai , Hossein Ismailpor known "Ramezan ice" , Mahmoud Mesgar (one of the managers of Shar-neu (Tehran's red light district)), and among the known prostitutes , Rogheyeh Azadpour (known as Parvin-e-Ajdanghqzy) and Malekye Etezadi .Among the military officers...etc ( for a [weak] translation of the pages , look at the google translator here) :Iranian Document center and Persian Wikipedia page about the Silly Shaban --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is helpful. We are now aware that the Iranian government considers their roles to be significant, and so do the editors of the Persian Wikipedia. Will you vouch for the judgment, neutrality, and rigor of these sources, for those of us who can't read Persian? Ray^Talk 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Official governmental publications does not say anything about the high-ranking Shia clerics (like Ayatollah Kashani , Falsafi and etc ) , but they are also important and some payments to the thugs was given via them . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Can you try restating that? Via whom? What are the sources you're suggesting we use, if not the government one? Ray^Talk 06:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In the opening we had a debate about the role of prostitutes and thugs , Shia clerics , CIA and MI6 and military officers. Iranian government considers all of them as participants ,except the Shia clerics .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Operation TPAJAX and 1953 events in Iran

The Wiki article propagates a deliberate error by calling the CIA Operation AJAX when it was TPAJAX, meaning ridding Iran of the soviet backed Communist Tudeh Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.231.221 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Claim of deliberate error by anonymous user is without merit. Anon user does not explain, and after extensive reading on topic, I have not seen it explained what AJAX or TPAJAX means. Agency could as well have called it "little green cherries." Anonymous user claim that TPAJAX meaning is "ridding Iran of the soviet backed Communist Tudeh Party" is unsubstantiated. Skywriter (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The term has no meaning. IIRC, CIA naming conventions from that era were to precede the operation name with a digraph, indicating a particular type of operation and/or area of responsibility, followed by a word chosen from a randomly generated list of appropriate codewords. That said, the name was TPAJAX and not AJAX, and we should probably change the article to reflect this. Ray^Talk 17:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Authoritative secondary sources use both. I was responding to the anonymous user's false and unsubstantiated claim. If you go back into the history of this article, way too much time has been devoted to the CIA's version, its naming conventions and self-justifications and not nearly enough on the effect of CIA crimes against the Iranians and their loss of the promise of democracy. This is the reason this article does not improve. Some editors spend enormous quantities of time defending the actions of the Eisenhower administration and fight every opportunity to show the impact on the Iranians. Study the history of the article and you will see that we go over the same material over and over and over again. The same words are put in and then pulled out and the pattern repeats itself until those who are seriously interested in improving the article turn elsewhere. This behavior that drives away editos is better known as point-of-view pushing. Skywriter (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletions by 124.197.15.138

I have deleted from the introduction the reference to "democratically elected", for two reasons. Firstly the PM is technically not elected, but appointed by the Shah. Secondly, and more significantly, the 1951 elections were rigged by Mossadegh - see the Wikipedia article on him. If he hadn't stopped the elections as soon as enough urban results were in to form a quorum, he would have lost his majority and been replaced as PM.124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why we had semi-protect on the page before it was removed - to prevent anonymous user from random deletions regarding subjects that are still in disputes while citing other less than perfect wiki articles as sources.--RossF18 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The user from IP address 124.197.15.138 has not bothered to establish an account or is not logged in but still expresses a strong but provably false opinion concerning the facts of this article. All of the historians of this period in Iran concur that Mossadegh was democratically elected by the Iranian equivalent of the US Congress. This is not different from the US head of state's election by the Electoral College. In neither country was there then nor is there now direct election of the head of state (or representatives) by direct election of the people. In 1951, both countries were representative democracies. I don't know what Iran is these days because, like the US, it has had a disputed election and the high court in both countries controversially used its power to install the head of state. If user from IP address 124.197.15.138 wants to present factual evidence and not personal opinion concerning "democratically elected" as it pertains to the Iranian head of state in 1951, we will read the resource you present. In the absence of credible sourcing, personal opinion has no place in this discussion. Skywriter (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes by CasualObserver'48

In this edit :[1] , in the lead section , a new sentence that changes the whole meaning is added ."increasing communist involvement" is an addition that legitimizes the involvement of the anti-communist powers and is a violation of fringe theory (WP:FRINGE) and undue weight (WP:UNDUE), and not the mainstream scholarly view on the subject. More than that , if we are going to change a sourced material from a book , we may first discuss it in talk page to know if the previous understanding of the sentence was wrong , then inserting a new sentence . About the section (George Lenczowski source), that view is one view among many , and if we are going to use this source , we may first mention that this is the Lenczowski's point of view and not all the scholar's view . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored that section, as your deletion of it introduced problems with reading flow and spelling. As well, the quote was attributed directly to George Lenczowski, not hidden from context, so the reader who believes Lenczowski to be a fringe observer will be able to judge for himself. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last version covers the problems . What do you think ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the problems you introduced with spacing around Lenczowski, but the wording is okay. I also restored your deletion of the bit about communism—it is prominent in the reference source. I named the reference and used it to support the communism bit more directly. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The new wording is OK with NPOV and I like it , but the comment about communism is not a direct sentence from "LaTulippe" . If we are referencing it to that source , shouldn't it be mentioned in the book ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead can not be changed with a WP:CONS. As per George Lenczowsk, he is not a historian, the book cited is not expert book about the coup, and his calling of the coup an "anti-coup" , makes him a fringe theorist who should not be used in the article at all per WP:undue. --Wayiran (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes the wording is fine. Guys I enjoyed reading this article (took me long time). I have also a bit problem with those about communism which is not a direct use of source. I think, Communism in this event was the smoke-screen, not any unveisrally held opinion. Also, Lenczowsk is basically stating that Mossadegh was staged a coup, and this was an anti-coup. This is really a minority view, and the wiki policy is clear that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia " (wp:undue as others are saying too). Xashaiar (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CasualObserver'48 replaced the lead with the bolded section-- now the subject of controversy. In a plan called Operation Ajax, the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) helped organize and execute the overthrow of the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mosaddeq. This came about in part from America's fear of increasingly aggressive Soviet-backed communism in Iran,

CasualObserver'48, you must work toward establishing {{WP:consensus]] and you have not done this. Please try to persuade those of us reading this talk page (and who have a long history writing and editing this article) that what you have repeatedly added to the lead of this article is the unchallenged mainstream view by historians of this coup. Using mainstream sources AND PAGE NUMBERS from recognized historians, journalists or academics who are expert in this subject, please show that this was THE single primary motivation of the US government. If you believe this strongly, you ought to be able to prove it. We will listen. In the absence of proof, you are acting as the catalyst for an unnecessary edit war. Skywriter (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The reversions against CasualObserver'48 are wholly unsatisfactory. George Lenczowski is no wild-eyed fringe character. His observations are valid, and they are even credited to him, which means that readers can gauge their worth according to the source. Regarding LaTulippe, the fact that mainstream U.S. historical works about the coup consistently include some form of "American fears of increased Soviet communism in Iran" should rouse some sort of mirroring response here at this article, but patriotic Iranian editors repeatedly refuse this bit. The situation is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We had an agreement to propose and discuss all major edits, and obtain a WP:CONS before implementing them. George Lenczowski is neither a historian nor an expert on 1953 coup, and the simple fact that he calls the 1953 coup, an "anti-coup" disqualifies him as mainstream source. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. Whatever George Lenczowski says is said with the authority of years of research. If he says "anti-coup", then so be it. Let's pull off the blinders and take a fresh look at the man's work. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works sir. This was a coup d'état, that's an undisputed fact supported by all mainstream scholarly sources, and the reason why the page is titled 1953 Iranian coup d'état. When some politically-motivated commentator makes a revisionist claim that it was a "anti-coup", then in accordance with WP:Undue, such extreme minority view should not be given any weight or quoted in the page. And that's besides the fact that George Lenczowski is no authority on this subject anyways. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not about Lenczowski, Bink. It is about this article. One scholar's view can be an outlier. That does not mean it is the view accepted by experts in the field. The attempt here is to make this the dominant viewpoint: the lead that is supposed to fairly summarize the historical viewpoints. To restate: Using mainstream sources AND PAGE NUMBERS from recognized historians, journalists or academics who are expert in this subject, please show that this was THE single primary motivation of the US government. Skywriter (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdent:First, let me apologize for seeming disruptive; other than watching history, I never looked at the talk page until informed, thanks Sky. Second, I note we all are seasoned editors, and I will engage toward the consensus, of which I am now part, and which apparently, caused some imbalance. Third, although personally familiar with Iran, I tend to edit farther to the west, so I am unfamiliar with other editors here, and how best to include RS’d edits efficiently. Fourth, I saw reasoned support for my edits, as well as some proper re-wordings of them, by those generally opposed. Fifth, I note unhappily that none of my lede edits remain, but happily that zurkhaneh is blue. And sixth, I see the page is locked, sorry for that, sysop; but for my part, it is no longer needed.

My editorial and RS objection to the previous version, was that while Ajax was the CIA’s baby, the whole success of that coup is blamed solely on the CIA; that is SYNTH and just not possible, mumkin neest. It is no more possible than saying everybody involved all went one way; that didn’t happen, Iranian society is too open, though governments differ considerably. Quite frankly, my refs do not include too many details on this subject; they tend to cover the forest rather than individual trees. Lenczowski is an RS’d source; the coup/counter-coup wording seems only point of view, as noted below and certainly not fringe. My relevant edit included two parts: ones in the lede, and the Lenczowski cite farther down. I added ‘helped organize…’; that is backed up quite fully by Lencz. I also added ‘communism’, which Bink improved to RS. What is wrong with a linked Cold War?

I will close with part of the first para (p.32) from Lencz’s 8-page discussion of The Mossadegh Oil Crisis in Iran. It says: “The two administrations gave a different emphasis to the crisis. Whereas Truman’s concern centered primarily on the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, Eisenhower had to face a constitutional crisis in Iran that originated in the oil issue but evolved into a struggle for political control of the country. It was in this second phase that the climax to the entire crisis occurred.” [Additionally late reply, due to real life and internet connection problems] Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

CasualObserver wrote--"Lencz’s 8-page discussion of The Mossadegh Oil Crisis in Iran. It says: “The two administrations gave a different emphasis to the crisis. Whereas Truman’s concern centered primarily on the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, Eisenhower had to face a constitutional crisis in Iran that originated in the oil issue but evolved into a struggle for political control of the country. It was in this second phase that the climax to the entire crisis occurred.”

This is both a tight and useful summary that can be added to the article (with page number for that exact quote) as it does fairly reflect what mainstream historians and journalists have written. Anyone disagree? Skywriter (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon , but I think what I said remained unnoticed in debate . I said : "The comment about communism is not a direct sentence from "LaTulippe" . If we are referencing it to that source , shouldn't it be mentioned in the book ?" Thank you again .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Others may comment also, but for myself, my first question is: Do you mean a direct quote? If that is what you are asking, it is my understanding of the wiki-rules that it does not, necessarily. The specific words used need to neutrally reflect those of the reference, be verifiable, and come from consensus. While looking into your question, the most helpful section I found was WP:LEADCITE, with further information at WP:V and Wikipedia:Citing sources. I hope that helps. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lenczowski and complaints of ‘fringe’

Lenczowski is not fringe; this, I believe, is a facetious argument, really, and should be discussed. Please read about him. While I admittedly wrote that article, its notability is self-evident. Concerning Lencz’s RS-ness relative to Iran, note that his first book was Russia and the West in Iran, published in 1949. I don’t have that one, but a contemporary book review of it is available here. The remaining bit, inaccessible there, reads:

[Russia was] grimly serious about her ideological principles, which were the mainspring of her action.” His concluding observation is that “Iran will always have the onerous privilege of being a testing ground, at least as long as Russia maintains her present system and policies. To the United States in its new world role, this bequeaths a legacy of constant vigilance and intelligent preparedness.” This is a volume of first-rate caliber, full of meat. It should be read with care by everyone seriously concerned with Soviet aims and methods and especially by those charged with the shaping of United States foreign policy.

There seems to be considerable un-Wiki resistance to allowing any mention of communism in relation to Iran and the CIA-inspired coup; that was sourced by others from another ref, and it too was deleted. That seems just a deletion of RS’d material, and a lack of AGF. I don’t want to argue if others disagree about the degree of involvement; there is nothing wrong with ‘This came about in part from America's fear of increasingly aggressive Soviet-backed communism in Iran.” That was deleted too. Worry about Iran falling within the Soviet sphere was indeed a major American motivation; it partly motivated the US to use such tactics, and for the first time. There were others, including Mossy’s moves away from Iran’s democratic constitution, referendum electoral shenanigans and his unwillingness to negotiate. Lencz’s description of official Truman-era “neutrality” and attempts to mediate between Iran and the British are also largely missing. He says that it increasingly became a political power play between Mossy and the shah.

Lencz provides an RS for both sides (more so in his Iran Under the Pahlavis, Dec 1978, and his discussion on Carter and Iran), but until there is some positive engagement on these issues, rather than clinging to an established (and stale) consensus, the page will remain protected; even if it is the ‘wrong version’, so be it, there are other RS and editorial ways to skin that cat. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Lenczowski is basically legitimizing the coup, by calling it an "anti-coup", a terminology that even the most right-wing commentators have avoided. That's the very definition of a a fringe theory.

Additionally, the issue of U.S._motives can not be summarized in one line, it`s already discussed in details at 1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#U.S._motives. --Wayiran (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, whatever it is called, it is history, and ever illegitimately, you can't get any more legitimate than that. He uses 'countercoup', one word, no hyphen, which by that RS, indicates that something else was already on-going. I believe that terminology indicates his (the Western?) POV, and likely terminology at the time, for whatever who was doing what to whom. I will be very careful to synchronize the RS's phrase with your understanding of it. Secondly, I have no idea about your mention of what 'right-wing commentators have avoided'; I do note that your refs seem much newer that mine, and such BS may have crept in during the interim. I don't like right-wingers either, whether they are red, a newer green, or even red and white striped. Additionally, I do not believe the existing refs in #U.S. motives provide a very encyclopedic view, and I note you have not even allowed the issue of U.S. motives to be summarized in one line, even if there is an entire section. Not very AGF to me, nor MOS. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way CasualObserver'48 , George Lenczowski`s page says that he was friend of the royal family of Iran. That also raises a SERIOUS WP:COI issue. --Wayiran (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does, but it isn't the COI to which you refer; I believe it may indicate input to his POV, but you should read his sections on Carter and Reagan aftermath to make sure. Frankly, they are both dead, so your assumption is too. COI is a wiki-no-no, but mostly between editors and content, not historic relationships between sources and primary participants. The COI mention is invalid and purely off-topic, but since we are there, (please excuse the transliteration without translation) Dust a man, che gofti gee a gov hast. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If Lenczowski was indeed a friend of the shah's family, then your attempts to place his opinion in the lead of this article is entirely misplaced. Placing this reference in the lead is wrong and, by any measure, fraught with conflict of interest.Skywriter (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Please indicate where on this page you found such a statement, regarding associations between a source and a subject in an article. Show me where, really. As I said before, it may indicate input to his POV, but .... CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

[2]

Skywriter (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what does that mean? Like I said, it indicates input to his POV, he apparently knew many other people also. Whatever or whoever, it is not a COI. Also, I never placed his ref in the lead; I indicated only the CIA boys 'helped organize...', and considered Lencz's ref to substantiate that word usage. Generally that is how a lead is written. Can we drop the COI complaint now? If not, and you feel strongly, please take it to the appropriate location. It does not seem appropriate here. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Any other comments on Lencz's fringe-iness? His choice of a word, versus another, does not indicate fringe; it indicates point of view. That, is perfectly acceptable, if properly sourced, cited, worded and located. As I have noted, COI is not a wiki-issue for a source, just editors and articles. Unless the Lenczowski reference can be demonstrated to be improper, by links to wiki-rules, he appears acceptable for inclusion. This [[3]] might also provide some assurance of his RS at Wikipedia. Does anybody have another linkable objection? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CasualObserver, if you don't mind me asking, do you have any real life connections to Mr. Lenczowski? There is no doubt that Lenczowski can be used as a WP:RS on certain topics on which he was an expert, but 1953 coup is not one of them, and the inclusion of his opinion on this topic would be a violation of WP:UNDUE for (1) The book in question is not about the 1953 coup, it's not an expert book on the subject, the book's main topic is American presidents, and 1953 coup is only discussed briefly in one chapter, as a secondary subject. (2) Mr. Lenczowski's closeness to the Shah, and usage of a controversial neologism like "anti-coup" ("countercoup") to designate the coup in question, which is an "extreme minority" POV, disqualifies him as a neutral reliable source on the topic. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never had any real life connections to the author. He is a RS on American policy in the Middle East, on American policy toward Iran and an expert both before and after the coup. Why not during the coup? His inclusion would not be UNDUE, it would be DUE weight. His continued exclusion only highlights the previous concerns expressed regarding your apparent ownership issues, which a bot just archived. Including Lenczowski would be indicative of another RS'd POV, and trend the article toward NPOV. Again, Lencz does not use the term 'anti-coup'; that appears to be your own neologism. If he used your neologism, he might be an extreme minority, but he didn't, so he isn't. I agree with the comments below. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not the contributor, CasualObserver. I am not the only one here who has an issue with inclusion of Lenczowski, there are half a dozen editors here who have expressed similar concerns. Also, to be precise, Lenczowski uses the term "countercoup". But what's the difference? It's still a neologism, and a wild claim contradicted by mainstream sources. --Kurdo777 (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't sideline Lenczowski for putting his analysis in a book that has as its subject U.S. presidents. If Lenczowski wrote about the 1953 coup, he wrote with authority. If he had not been certain of his material, he would not have included it. Lenczowski's connection to the subjects does not remove him from being reliable or an expert. His opinion, however much a minority in your eyes, reflects years of scholarly research. Focusing on his usage of one neologism is not going to make his other words go away. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeating yourself does not make you any less wrong when it comes to Wikipedia's core policy of WP:UNDUE , as your points have all bee addressed and refuted already within that policy. The fact that Lenczowski was a personal friend of Shah, or uses a term like "countercoup" is a clear WP:REDFLAG, as the policy clearly states that "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions" are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Lenczowski's claim that 1953 coup was n "countercoup" is a perfect example of what this policy is talking about, as such claim has never been made by any reputable scholar or historian. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of repeating oneself, you continue to harp on the supposed use by Lenczowski of the word "anti-coup" or "anticoup". Show me where he used the neologism the next time you bring it up. Otherwise, there is no need to keep introducing the red herring as an argument. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant "countercoup". I've fixed it now.. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdent: Well, have we all agreed to use Lencz as a RS? Stephen Kinzer seems to accept him, and cites him twice. Despite his term, it is what that RS says, after all. It also seems that Kermit Roosevelt uses the same term, based on the References; they apparently saw things somewhat the same way. I will leave this comment section there, unless there are more objections. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed tag and NPOV tag

I have placed two tags at the top of the article. "Disputed" and "NPOV":

Disputed

1. Some editors are insisting that a University of California professor, a middle east scholar, George Lenczowski, is a fringe character, unreliable, and should not be used in the article. Myself and others hold that this source is a solid expert whose opinions and analysis should be used.

2. Some editors have consistently removed from the lead section any indication that the U.S. was concerned about Soviet communism growing in Iran. Many sources list this fear as fact, others discuss it as a cover story concocted by the U.S. government, but none of these have been allowed to appear in the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, any significant material in the body of the article should be summarized in the lead.

NPOV

3. Rather than having the article compare and contrast a wide variety of sources, a group of editors has consistently picked the sources which hold similar viewpoints. The article should instead discuss all the major viewpoints and present the facts of the coup couched in terms of which version of the coup affirms the particular fact. Contrary views should be presented together. What has been taking place here is that some editors have tried to interpose their judgment between conflicting expert sources and the reader.

4. Specifically, editors who view with fondness the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq have fortified their position against editors who challenge Mossaddeq's actions. If reliable sources present Mosaddeq in an unflattering light, the article should reflect that. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your rationals are not sufficient for disputing the "factual accuracy" of the article. The article is well-sourced, and therefore factually accurate. Inclusion or exclusion of a disputed source has no bearing on factual accuracy of the article. I'll give you the NPOV tag for now, but that tag will also be removed in due time, if there is a WP:consensus. An article can not be indefinitely held hostage by one or two disgruntled editors with a serious case of WP:IDHT. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Virtually every reliable source agrees that the U.S. was concerned about Soviet communism growing in Iran at the time of the coup. That mention of this fact has been repeatedly cleansed from the article damages the factual accuracy of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please. That would be a NPOV issue. Problem with "Factual accuracy" in fact means that there is un-sourced or wrong information in the page, which is not the case here. The tag is irrelevant. Xashaiar (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, as I already explained above, inclusion or exclusion of a disputed source has no bearing on factual accuracy of the article, that would a NPOV dispute. Factual accuracy tag is only for articles that do contain factually incorrect information, and this page is well-sourced and contains no such factually incorrect info. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not change the tags myself, but note that “unbalanced“ {{unbalanced}}, and “missing information“ {{Missing information}} are alternatively and similarly appropriate. I do not really question the "factual accuracy", so much as its non-neutral presentation, as noted above. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

{{unbalanced}} serves the same purpose as as {{NPOV}}, but you could replace one with the other. {{Missing information}} doesn't really apply here, as it's meant for missing undisputed facts, not disputed controversial theories/point of view which would also fall under {{unbalanced}}/{{NPOV}}. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Giant quote from Ervand Abrahamian

Why do we have a lengthy quote from Ervand Abrahamian in the first section? This is an encyclopedia article summarizing an event in history, not a podcast. We should summarize the event, using experts as sources. We should not let a source like this take over the body of the article—it will cause readers to skip ahead past the long quoted section. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If we are going to have masses of verbage by Abrahamian in the article why not give equal time to these scholars from the book Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran?

"Two broad geostrategic conditions led the United States to take this fateful step. First, the climate of intense cold war rivalry between the superpowers, together with Iran's strategic vital location between the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf oil fields, led U.S. officials to believe that they had to take whatever steps were necessary to prevent Iran from falling into Soviet hands. These concerns seem vastly overblown today, ... However after the 1945–46 Azerbaijan crisis, the consolidation of Soviet control in Eastern Europe, the communist triumph in China, and the Korean War—and with the Red Scare at its height in the United States—U.S. officials simply could not risk allowing the Tudeh Party to gain power in Iran. (p.274, Gasiorowski)

"Newly available CIA documentation on the role of the United States and Great Britain in toppling the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddeq presents a single, all-embracing motive for the coup. CIA analyst Donald N. Wilbert's Overthrow of Premier Mosaddeq of Iran: November 1952 – August 1953 suggests that fear that the Tudeh Party might push Iran into the Soviet camp—geopolitical anxieties conditioned by the cold war—were of prime concern to the perpetrators of the plot and the main justification for Operation TPAJAX. The new CIA documents argue that with the deterioration of Iran's economy under the nationalists, chaos and collapse were probable and would ultimately lead to the loss of Iran to the West. The oil issue is deemed to be of secondary importance in the new documents and is explained away by pointing to an oversupply of petroleum on the international market." (p.102 Behrooz) —BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I support shortening the quote, but the new wording should be proposed here first. That said, you can not put Ervand Abrahamian , the leading scholar of modern Iranian history, and one of handful of authorities on this subject in the same league as Gasiorowski and Behrooz. Gasiorowski is a decent source, and he is already cited in the article, but academically he is still a minnow compared to Abrahamian. Maziar Behrooz is not even a 3rd party neutral expert source, his specialty is architecture and ancient Iran, and ideologically he appears to be a monarchist. If this page was about Persian architecture, then he would be a great source. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I similarly agree it is too long, and appreciate what Gasiorowski and Behrooz have to say. Not being so familiar with the ‘expert’ and Iranian scholars as some, I do wonder if any of them are somehow split by the Iranian Cultural Revolution, and if so, who and how. Does anyone know? Basically, what I know of Behrooz is this[4]; I don’t see much architecture or ancient Persia. Not being so intimately informed as some, could someone also indicate any differences between Op Ajax and TPAjax, or are they both the same cleanser being discussed here; it might fortunately avoid another ‘anti’-‘counter’ discussion. Concerning what the RSs say, I note that neither Gasiorowski or Behrooz discuss some of what Lenczowski does he notes (p.36):

Upon his assumption of the presidency, Eisenhower found the situation in Iran vastly changed. The initial focus on the dispute over oil was becoming quickly overshadowed by the struggle between Mossadegh and the shah. … Mossadegh took a succession of steps to ensure his control of the country: (a) he wrested command of the military from the shah by arranging that his own supporter, General Taghi Raihi, become chief of staff; (b) he secured from the Majlis approval of his rule by decree for six months with an extension for another six months; (c) he induced the Majlis to vote the dissolution of the Senate; (d) in July 1953 he called, in turn, for the dissolution of the Majlis and by August 12, through a referendum marked by intimidation, he obtained popular approval of this measure

My formatting is for both the quote’s veracity as well as AGF. While I haven’t checked to see if mention of all these are included in the timeline, they seemed to jive with my recollection of its contents. Lencz’s next paragraph is enlightening in that it presents a different view of communist involvement, certainly not one of the US 'pushing' it.

While thus consolidating his power and reducing the shah to the position of a figurehead, Mossadegh tried to secure from the newly elected President Eisenhower financial aid to rescue Iran from the economic crisis which his intransigent oil policy had brought about. His strategy revolved around two major points: (1) prevent and/or destroy American-British cooperation on the Iranian problem and (2) gain American support by threatening that in its absence Iran would fall victim to a communist takeover. The latter was a specious argument because it was precisely Mossadegh’s reckless policy on oil, his challenging of the shah’s power, and the ensuing chaos that were the main reasons for the Communist upsurge in Iran.

That is, at least, what he writes. He goes on to detail Ike’s feelings, ref’d to his memoirs, should there be any questions. (You can also search for “his first appeal”, and "I refused" at the above ref to get some more of the page and next. He also states that Kermit made his presentation to Dulles on June 25, 1953. The question is how may these varying refs be included neutrally. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing Lenczowski here? Your arguments about Lenczowski's usefulness on this particular topic, lack consensus. Entire books, written by REAL historians like the Distinguished Professor Ervand Abrahamian have documented the history of this event in hundreds of pages of detail, and we are still caught up on what Lenczowski has to say, a former diplomat/buddy of Shah whose book's main subject is not even about this event, and makes claims that are contradicted by mainstream scholarship. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Although your spelling correction is appreciated, not all sources transliterate the same; it isn't a matter spelling, we all know who we are talking about, and would rather we keep it on the topics above. That is, supposedly, talking about what the RSs have said, above rather than spelling below. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Kurdo, to return to the topic, I am still discussing Lenczowski, because in your repeated objections, you keep resorting only to your personal opinion; you say that he is not an expert (sections above), and that others are experts (all sections), but you can not bring a ref to support that assertion. I brought George Lenczowski to this page, figured his page was enough to be acceptable, and never called him anything. On the other hand, Ervand Abrahamian, was already here, and he seemed RS enough, based on his relatively more recent work. There is no need to keep polishing his apple, there is no need to express your opinion of other RSs as well, which you have done repeatedly; look at your diffs. While I acknowledge and respect your opinion, I accept it only as your own, unless you can RS it. Otherwise, I will AGF and let a consensus develop, rather than just accepting your apparent OR and ownership dictates. I will point out that your initial comment in this section said in part, I support shortening the quote, but the new wording should be proposed here first. We can move on from there; comments from others would be appreciated.

We seem to have several questions open, so let me summarize: First of all, we have the unresolved question of including communism, and how to say it. Secondly, we have Lencz’s consensus acceptance as an RS, and possibly others, based on previous comments. Thirdly, I believe we should comparatively discuss the what the RSs noted higher in this section have to say, there seems to be some differences. What does Abrahamian say about communism, does he mention it? Someone must have the ref. Respectively, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The common spelling of Mossadegh's name

It's Mohammad Mossadegh, I changed it in the article, for for consistency's sake. --Kurdo777 (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Progress toward a new consensus?

Discussion seems to have stopped; it has been several days. To many, the general lack of comment may be seen as agreement, or to better phrase it, as a lack of disagreement. If so, that would tend to indicate movement toward a new consensus. Since it was suggested that the new wording be proposed here first, I suggest the following diff[5], which is the last one reverted to cause the page protection, and the one that generated the five discussion sections above. I believe, since those objections have been duly discussed, and further objections have ceased, that it is the appropriate place to start. The second and third sentences in the lede would read as follows, and the Lencz quote would be added in farther down. This[6] is the diff with the currect version. Comments?

In a plan called Operation Ajax, the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) helped organize and execute the overthrow of the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mosaddeq. This came about in part from America's fear of increasingly aggressive Soviet-backed communism in Iran, and in part at the request of, and with support from the British government. The coup, and later support, enabled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to become an authoritarian monarch, who went on to rule Iran for 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.

Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All I have are grammar and style suggestions. The last sentence can be trimmed of a comma and some words: "The coup, and later support, enabled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to become an authoritarian monarch who ruled Iran for 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979." Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

CasualObserve, just because you keep repeating yourself, and other editors have got tired of engaging in repetitive arguments with you, does not mean that their "objections have been duly discussed, and further objections have ceased". Half a dozen editors have already expressed their objections to your edits, and their opposition stands, unless stated otherwise by those editors themselves. Nothing had changed, you simply do not have a consensus for these edits. Your persistence does not create consensus. You are not going to get your way, by wearing everyone down with repetitions and empty chatter. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that you have said so, I can agree that you are still sitting on your old consensus and unwilling to accept that there are alternative POVs that may be RSd here. I did run across this ref[7], which talks about this and previous historical instances of US involvement in Iran (interspersed by a couple of missing pages). I believe it points to the differences between these various perspectives, and to a large degree, the more recent studies to which you appear so exclusively enamored. In any case, that cannot discount all mention of how the US might have perceived the situation at the time and in the following decades. I am not saying your refs are incorrect, they are RS; I am saying your refs do not indicate sufficient variable sources to provide NPOV. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

unindent Silence does not mean consent. It means you have no consensus or agreement to proceed. Who is Steven LaTulippe besides a blogger at the libertarian http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe-arch.html ?

• This is an inadequate reference. LaTulippe, Steven. "America, Iran, and Operation Ajax: The Burden of the Past." P1
• In what WP:RS does it appear?
• LaTulippe hasn't written any books according to http://www.addall.com/ and isbn.nu and amazon.com and my local library.
• Why are you substituting LaTulippe for reliably sourced history books on this subject? Skywriter (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Google the words within these parentheses ("steven LaTulippe" 1953 iran) and crazy stuff turns up. This guy is a physician in Ohio. He seems to have an opinion. Why do you think that qualifies him to be a major contributor to an encyclopedia article? Why are you shoving historians and journalists aside in favor of a guy with an opinion? Skywriter (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That sure doesn't sound like "lack of disagreement" to me, CasualObserver.--RossF18 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I will assume you have misunderstood; I didn't bring LaTulippe here, I hadn't looked into it, and won't. Apparently other sources may be better. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume this article is not about you. Assume that when you put up a suggestion for review that its references are reliable.Skywriter (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If as you suggest, the source is claptrap and not reliable, then why does it remain twice on the current page? My problem is mainly with the simplistic SYNTH in the last sentence, which says (by deleting LaTulippe): This enabled Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to become an authoritarian monarch, who went on to rule Iran for 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.[5] It directly associates the coup, which put him there, with later happenings and the Shah's own actions and culpability regarding his authoritarian rule. It blames everything on the US, and that is CB. I believe we should work on a more neutral statement of those years; that is called collaboration. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the coup did not "put him there". Shah was a constitutional monarch of a democratic pluralistic multiparty system prior to the coup, who became an absolute monarch/ruler of an authoritarian system as a result of the coup. The coup eliminated all the independent political parties, from the far right to the far left. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

alternative cites supporting fear of communism as motivation

As alternative citations to support the sentence
This came about in part from America's fear of increasingly aggressive Soviet-backed communism in Iran, how about "Gasiorowski in Gasiorowski, Mark J., Editor; Malcolm Byrne (Editor) (2004). Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran Syracuse University Press, p.274", and "Behrooz in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran p.102." (Look here for quotes from the two about US motivation that the cites refer to.)
Also, the sentence could be changed to
This came about in part from America's fear of the expansion of Soviet-backed communism into the strategicly vital location Iran occupied between the Soviet Union and the Persian Gulf oil fields.

legitimacy of alternative cites

While I'm on the subject, the two sources were desparaged above earlier, Kurdo calling Gasiorowski "academically ... a minnow compared to Abrahamian," who is "the leading scholar of modern Iranian history," "Maziar Behrooz is not even a 3rd party neutral expert source, his specialty is architecture and ancient Iran, and ideologically he appears to be a monarchist."
Says who? Maziar Behrooz has been a professor of history not architecture. Rebels with a Cause: The Failure of the Left in Iran, “Iran after Revolution,” "On US Policy toward Iran" - do these sound like they're about ancient Iran???? Who says he's a monarchist? There is no hostility toward and scant criticism of Mosaddeq in his article. As far as I can tell both comments aren't even close to being true. And if he is a fan of the shah does that disqualify him any more than being a fan of Mosaddeq?
Abrahamian just calls himself "well qualified by education and experience to teach world and Middle East history" on his website. He hasn't written a book on the coup (though he is working on one), while the Gasiorowski and Behrooz wrote their articles for just such a book, a book whose "central goal" (according to editor Gasiorowski) "has been to resolve this controversy [who is responsible for the overthrow of Mossy], to the extent possible, by presenting a balanced, comprehensive account of how and why Mosaddeq fell. Each chapter has examined the contributions made by one particular actor or group of actors to Mosaddeq's downfall." (Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran p.262) --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides the legitimacy issues, which I already addressed, Behrooz's POV is not the prevalent mainstream academic view of the supposed motives, and therefore does not belong in the lead of the article per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. The current academic consensus on the motives behind the coup differs greatly from Behrooz's version of events, and we have discussed this numerous times in the past. The lead is suppose to a summery of undisputed facts, not disputed controversial theories that are not supported by most scholars in the field. "zomg , Iran was being taken over by communists" is one of those disputed controversial theories, specially when Mossadegh was the one who actually ordered the military into the streets to crack down on the anti-Monarchy communist rioters right after the first failed coup attempt,, and the top American perpetrators of the coup themselves have by now admitted on record that "fear of communism" was a just a smokescreen. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo I've just just given evidence why something you said (Behrooz has been a professor of history not architecture, Gasiorowski is outtrumped by Abrahamian) was not true. Do you have any reply? These are the "legitimacy issues", and as you have made no reply to them it can't be said that you "addressed" them. It is true "we have discussed this numerous times in the past", what isn't true is that you or any other editor has demonstrated that the "current academic consensus on the motives behind the coup" does not include cold war fears of the Soviet Union and/or Tudeh. All I see in your post is asssertions and wiki jargon about WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.

So I'll ask you again do you have a reply? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"the top American perpetrators of the coup themselves have by now admitted on record that "fear of communism" was a just a smokescreen." Who? when? where? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not repeating myself. What you call " wiki jargon " are core Wikipedia polices that will be followed to the letter. If you're not going to respect Wikipedia's polices, maybe Wikipedia is not for you, I'd suggest that you consider writing a column on Newsmax or FrontPage Magazine instead. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with wikipedia policies (they're not perfect I'm sure) the " wiki jargon " I'm complaining about is throwing around the jargon (WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD) as though that was proof the someone violated the policies. You haven't proven (or even tried to prove) anything. You've only made accusations. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaints and comments on Mosaddeq's behavior by foriegners

From Kinzer, Stephen, All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, Stephen Kinzer, John Wiley and Sons, 2003

In July 1951 American diplomat Averell Harriman and oil expert Walter J. Levy fly to Iran to talk to Mossadegh.
"Again and Again, Levy enumerated the obstacles that Mossadegh's government would face if it tried to run the Abadan refinery by itself. There were almost no Iranians trained for senior administrative and technical positions, and even if by some miracle a way could be found to keep the oil flowing. Iran had tankers to bring it to market. Loss of Anglo-Iranian's royalty payments, which in 1950 had reached nearly 10 million pounds, would destabilize Iran and possibly lead to Mossedgh's overthrow, and replacement by a Tudeh government controlled from Moscow ....

"None of these argument moved Mossadegh in the slightest. Whenever Levy paused after making what he thought was an especially trenchant point about how much Iran would suffer if it failed to reach an accord with the British, Mossadegh would roll his eyes and reply simply `Tant pis pour nous` (Too bad for us)." (p.104)

"To Harriman, it was a matter of practicalities, a set of technical challenges that could be resolved by rational analysis, discussion, and compromise. Mossadegh saw it from an entirely different perspective. He believed that Iran was at the sublime moment of liberation. Imbued with the Shiite ideal, he was determined to pursue justice even to the point of martyrdom. Details about refinery management or tanker capacity seemed to him laughably irrelevant at such a transcendent moment." (p.105)

Harriman reported that his July 1951 meeting with Mosaddeq "Foreign intervention, [Mosaddeq] insisted, was the root of all Iran's troubles, and `it all started with that Greek Alexander, who had burned Persepolis twenty four centuries before.`" (p.104)

Criticism by author Stephen Kinzer of Mossadeq:

"At several points he might have declared victory and made a deal. In the summer of 1952, for example, he was an unassailable national hero. He had been had been returned to power by a spontaneous mass uprising and had won a great victory over the British at the World Court. President Truman was on his side." (p.206)

Self-awareness
"Another failure in Mossadegh's judgment was his inability or refusal to understand how the world looked to Western leaders. They were in a state of near-panic about the spread of communist power. Mossadegh believed that his conflict with Anglo-Iranian had nothing to do with the global confrontation between East and West. This was highly unrealistic." (p.207)

Communism
"Mossadegh was also naive in his assessment of the communists who controlled Tudeh and were working assiduously to penetrate Iran's government, army, and civil society. ... The fact that communists had taken advantage of democratic systems in Eastern Europe to seize power and destroy democracy seemed not to affect him. His refusal to crack down on communist movements in Iran put him on Washington's death list. (p.207)

Disinterest in creating a united political movement/party:
"Never during his 26 months in power did Mosaddeq attempt to forge the National Front into a cohesive political movement. It remained a loose coalition without central leadership or an organized political base. In the Majlis election of 1952 Mossadegh made no effort to assemble a state of candidates committed to its program. This made it highly vulnerable" to the CIA and efforts to break it apart. (p.207)

From Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004

"[Mosaddeq's] clearly unconventional and visionary political modus operandi was not easily intelligible to his foreign and domestic detractors; hence the barrage of invective deployed by among other, the British ambassador, Shepherd, and occasionally his American counterpart, Henderson, denouncing Mosaddeq's alleged irrationality, lunacy, absurdity, and so on." (Azimi, p.100) [Azimi, of course, did not agree with this view of Mosaddeq]

"George Middleton, the British charge d'affaires, ... concluded that Mosaddeq's `megalomania is now verging on mental instability.`" (Azimi, p.75) According to George Middleton "`[Mosaddeq's] strength lies in his powers of demagogy,` Middleton wrote in his report to the Foreign Office, `and he has so flattered the mob as the source of this power that he has, I fear, made it impossible for a successor to oust him by normal constitutional methods.` ... `Mosaddeq appears to be beyond reasonable thought and to swayed entirely by emotion.`" (Louis, p.149-50)

UK Foreign secretary Anthony Eden had studied Persian at Oxford and ... "had been to Iran and had seen the oil fields. ...Behind the Caricature of Mosaddeq as a buffoon in pajamas negotiating from an Iron bedstead, Eden saw a shifty operator who was impervious to reason because of his antipathy to the British." (Louis, p.154)

American Ambassador Loy Henderson. "In early January 1952 he [Henderson] had described Iran as a sick country and Mosaddeq as `one of its most sick leaders.` By late May he had concluded that there would be no oil solution as long as Mosaddeq remained in power." (Azimi, p.81)

"In a highly tendentious dispatch of March 10, 1953, ... Henderson reported `Mosaddeq [is] so much [a] creature [of] his own emotion[s], prejudices and suspicion, that attempts to analyze motives [of] his various actions in [the] light [of] ordinary rules [of] logic or [on the] basis of reason might we lead one astray." (Azimi, p.82)

"After 30 Tir, [US] Ambassador Loy Henderson became progressively more pessimistic about Mosaddeq, even questioning his mental stability. Other advisers shared his pessimism and pressed for more drastic action." (Byrne, p.222)

Vernon A Walters report of Mosaddeq's view of the British: "`You do not know how crafty they are. You do not know how evil they are. You do not know how they sully everything they touch.` [source: Vernon A Walters, Silent Missions (Garden City, NY; Doubleday, 1978) p.247]
Melodramatic or not, Mosaddeq thus expressed a deeply felt sentiment, although he meant it collectively and not individually." (Louis, p.130)

"A few British "sympathized with his aspirations as an Iranian patriot and in any event believed it to be unethical to intervene in the affairs of other nations by covert means, at least in normal times. A good example is (Sir) Sam Falle, later high commissioner in Singapore and then Nigeria. In 1949-52 Falle was a young foreign service officer in Iran. `In the Foreign Service I was known as `Red Sam`, because I believed in liberal causes, resurgent nationalism and the like .... Thus Dr. Mosaddeq was initially a man after may own heart. ... So the fact that even I eventually became convinced that he had to go says something.` It was the circumstances of the cold war that brought even well-wishers such as Falle around to the view that Mosaddeq must be toppled." (Louis, p.129) --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to see your cherry picking skills are still sharp. However, this page is not about Mossadegh's personal characteristics or trivial character assassinations of him, it's about the 1953 coup in Iran. I must say that this is a new low for you Booga, as you are essentially arguing/implying that the rape victim should be blamed for the rape, since she wasn't considered a "good girl" by some. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Booga, none of what you quote establishes that Mossy was irrational. It establishes that westerners who had a vested interest in Iranian oil, and therefore a coup, sometimes used overheated rhetoric to attack someone they could not persuade to sign oil contracts unfavorable to his own nation. Mossy was crazy as a fox, an astute politician and nationalist, a dedicated patriot-- patriotic not to the West but to his native Iran. If that makes him irrational, then so is the rest of the non-Western world. None of Mossy's biographers believe he was irrational. Why do you? Skywriter (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, your question was Who among "US coup supporters (and especially the UK ones)" claimed he was irrational? and the above is the answer. Please don't accuse me of cherrypicking, of "arguing/implying that the rape victim should be blamed for the rape," or of attempting to "establish that Mossy was irrational." What is established is that at least several high-ranking people in a position to support the coup thought he was irrational. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Booga, You wrote: What is established is that at least several high-ranking people in a position to support the coup thought he was irrational. What your citations establish is that one or two westerners representing vested interests in the outcome used overheated rhetoric to attack the man whose government they, at least rhetorically, helped to overthrow. Beyond that, you are coloring pieces of what these men have said to suit the interpretation you'd like to impose on this article. Do you grant, at least, that there is more than one side to this story? Or do you contend that the overwhelming reason for this coup is that Mossy was irrational? What WP:weight do you place on this alleged "irrationality"? What was Henderson's expertise? Was he a medical doctor, a licensed practitioner qualified to assess a patient's mental well-being? Was Mossy his patient? What WP:weight do reliable sources place on the motives of westerners who attacked Mossy's sanity? Skywriter (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and please re-read my comment. I did not attack you nor say any of those other things you addressed to me.Skywriter (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) You were the one who asked the question I answered, but the accusing came from both you and Kurdo.

you are coloring pieces of what these men have said to suit the interpretation you'd like to impose on this article.

Why do you keep making up up all these things I want to do? You asked a question and I answered it. That's all.

What about Mosaddeq's percieved irrationality goes in the article (or more likely the Mosaddeq article) is whole nother question. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

proposed subsection for article

... But since you asked I've written up a short subsection based on the above quotes.

Perception of Mosaddeq

Various British and American officials complained to each other that the Iranian prime minister was "impervious to reason", "a sick leader", posessing "megalomania ... now verging on mental instability," and "one of" Iran's "most sick leaders.` This has been attributed to their unfamiliarity with Iranian culture and with Mosaddeq's "visionary political modus operandi," but also to Mosaddeq's "inability or refusal to understand how the world looked to Western leaders." --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, booga, this is so damn one-sided. What was the Iranian support for their elected leader? And, what did Mossy have to say about Henderson, Eden, Middleton, et al. They were, after all, the aggressors. Or do you contend that Iranians had no opinion and neither did Mossy? Skywriter (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(more sighing) It's an article about a coup. The motivation of the coup supporters/organizers/whateverers is an important part of the article. This (the percieved irrationality of Mosaddeq) was part of their motivation.

The subsection does say This has been attributed to their unfamiliarity with Iranian culture and with Mosaddeq's "visionary political modus operandi," so I don't think its particularly one sided in any case, but a sentence such as oh ...

"Mosaddeq is beloved by many Iranians" wouldn't go in that section because it's not an explanation for the coup. Do you see? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with lead and proposed rewrite

I realize that this is the umpteenth attempt to rewrite the lead, but if first you don't succeed, .... The capitalized in brackets are what I see as the problems in the lead, which in my opinion is not only excluding important information but is badly written and doesn't come close to following wikipedia guidelines. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Existing lead and its problems

[FIRST PARAGRAPH: THERE IS NOTHING FROM A RS STATING THAT THE COUP WAS SIGNIFICANT.]
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. In a plan called Operation Ajax (less commonly TPAJAX), the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) organized and executed the overthrow of the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mosaddeq, at the request of, and with support from the British government.[SOUNDS LIKE THE US GOVERNMENT WAS A CONTRACTOR DOING WHAT UK WANTED]
This enabled Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to become an authoritarian monarch, who went on to rule Iran, often violently, for 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979.
DID THE COUP PLAN MAKE SHAH A DICTATOR? NO RS INDICATES THAT.]

[FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS: LONG HISTORY OF OIL IN IRAN WITHOUT STATING THAT THIS WAS A CAUSE OF COUP. NO RS STATING IT WAS A CAUSE.
NOTHING ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED DURING THE COUP]
Two years earlier, in 1951, nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, had nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and then elected Mosaddeq as prime minster; they agreed with his argument that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves instead of allowing profits to continue to flow to the United Kingdom. Mosaddeq had backing throughout Iran, but this decision had angered the British goverment, because since 1913, the oil industry in Iran had been controlled exclusively by the British government-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and it represented the UK's single largest overseas investment.[NOT TOTALLY TRUE AS USSR HAD OIL INDUSTRY IN THE NORTH] The ejection of the British staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) from the nationalized refineries in Iran triggered a crisis at Abadan, the world's largest refinery, in what came to be called the Abadan Crisis. Britain accused Mosaddeq of violating the legal rights of the AIOC and mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged Iran into financial crisis. "After Iran nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company May 2, 1951, Britain assembled an armada made up of its Navy, Air Force and army to seize the island of Abadan in order to reclaim control of the oil refinery but Prime Minister Clement Attlee declined to attack, choosing instead to enforce the economic boycott against Iran. The British government, headed by Winston Churchill, tried to enlist the United States in planning a coup, but President Harry S. Truman refused. Under his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, the CIA embarked on its first covert operation to overthrow a foreign government.

The economic and political crisis in Iran that began in early 1952 with the British-organized worldwide boycott of Iranian oil, ended with the signing of the Consortium Agreement of 1954. Pahlavi signed the agreement with the result that, for the first time, United States oil companies shared in the control of Iranian oil, with the U.S. and UK evenly splitting 80% and the remainder divided between French and Dutch interests. Iran was allocated 50% of the revenues, which was an increase from 16% in the original agreement. However, from Iran's perspective, the Consortium Agreement of 1954 was far less favorable than conditions set forth several months earlier in the joint 'Churchill-Eisenhower' proposal to Mosaddeq. After the coup, the Consortium Agreement of 1954 ended the crisis, and stayed in effect until it was modified in 1957 and 1973 and then ended in 1979 when the Iranian Revolution deposed the monarch. [MUCH DETAIL FOR A LEAD. WAS THE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT OF 1954 CONNECTED WITH THE COUP? A GOAL OF THE COUP? WHERE IS ANY RS STATING THIS?]

US support and funding continued after the coup, with the CIA training the Shah's secret police, SAVAK. [SAVAK WAS CONNECTED WITH THE COUP? A GOAL OF COUP?]
Originally, the Eisenhower Administration considered Operation Ajax a "successful secret war", but, given its blowback, that assessment is no longer generally held, because of the coup's "haunting and terrible legacy". [AWKWARD SENTENCE. "HAUNTING AND TERRIBLE" SHOULD COME FIRST]
The coup d’état was "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced Iran’s native, and secular parliamentary democracy with an authoritarian monarchy. [BUZZFLASH A RS?]
The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the Shah and replaced the pro-Western monarchy with the anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran.

Some more problems

• • “The ejection of the British staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company from the Iranian refineries triggered the Abadan Crisis and nearly caused a war.” The AIOC built the refineries, which of course is part of the dispute. The British thought their discovery of the oil, drilling wells, building refinery, etc. entitled them to lots of compensation. Should say something like “The ejection of the British staff of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company from their refineries in Iran triggered the Abadan Crisis and nearly caused a war”
  • “From Iran's perspective, the Consortium Agreement of 1954 was much more unfavorable than conditions set forth several months earlier in the joint 'Winston Churchill-Dwight D. Eisenhower' proposal to Mosaddegh.” Two problems with this
    • First, what's the "Churchill Eisenhower proposal"? It's not explained in the lead. In fact it's never mentioned again in the article!
    • Second, there are three sources given for the statement, but the only one that supports the statement about "much more unfavorable than conditions set forth several months earlier" comes from a state-owned company in the Islamic Republic, not really a WP:Reliable Sources. Here are the three sources:
    • the first one is petropars Go to the link and you will find the statement: “From the point of Iran, the contents of this agreement were much more unfavorable than conditions set forth several months earlier in the joint ‘Churchill-Eisenhower’ proposal to Dr. Mosaddegh.” Petropars is owned by “NICO an affiliated company of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) owns all of Petropars shares.” ( http://www.petropars.com/tabid/53/Default.aspx ) and the NIOC is a part of the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum. This statement may (or may not) be true but a subsidiary of the Iranian oil company is not exactly an unbiased source.
    • The second is a joint statement from the consortium agreement. It (not surprisingly) says nothing about the agreement being "more unfavorable than conditions set forth several months earlier in the joint 'Winston Churchill-Dwight D. Eisenhower' proposal," in fact it says nothing about Churchill, Eisenhower or any previous proposals.
    • and the third source is a very brief mention in a book called The Legal Regime of Foreign Private Investment in Sudan and Saudi Arabia, which the footnote claims explains: “Article 41b of the Iran Consortium Agreement of 1954 precluded Iran from making any administrative or legislative changes to oil company operations without the consent of the foreign oil companies.”

When you go the book you find it says nothing about the coup, has no judgement about whether the Consortium Agreement was "more unfavorable" for Iran, says nothing specifically about whether Iran was "precluded ... from making any administrative or legislative changes to oil company operations," and next to nothing about Iran. It deals with the finer points of contract law. I’ve typed it out:

“… Perhaps the best-known example of a stabilization clause it that stipulated by Article 41b of the Iran Consortium Agreement of 1954, which provides

`No general or special administrative measures or any other act whatsoever ... shall annul this agreement, amend or modify its provisions or prevent or hinder the due and effective performance of its terms. Such annulment, amendment or modification shall not take place except by agreement of the parties to this agreement`"

... i.e. pretty clear cut WP:Original Research.

Proposed new lead

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état (referred to as 28 Mordad 1332 in Iran, and as Operation Ajax or TPAJAX by the CIA) deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. The coup has been called "a critical event in post-war world history", the first covert operation by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) against a foreign government, and is thought to have influenced "all of subsequent Iranian history," contributing to the 1979 overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi and his replacement with the anti-American Islamic Republic.

In 1951, Mosaddeq, backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, nationalized the British government-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), so that Iran could profit from its vast oil reserves previously controlled exclusively by the AIOC. Britain accused Mosaddeq of violating the legal rights of the AIOC—the UK's single largest overseas investment—and mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil, pressuring Iran economically. In March 1953, after failed negotiations, the British government successfully enlisted the support of the United States in planning and executing the coup. While the American Truman administration had opposed a coup, the new Eisenhower administration feared that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". The British and U.S. spy agencies persuaded Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to order Mosaddeq's dismissal, while paying and organizing anti-Mosaddeq politicians, clergy and Iranian army officers, and a propaganda campaign against Mosaddeq. The coup appeared at first to be a failure when on the night of August 15-16 Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempted to arrest Mosaddeq. The Shah fled the country the next day. After several days of mass confusion, however, a pro-Shah mob marched on Mosaddeq's residence, which was also attacked by a tank column led by retired General Fazlollah Zahedi. The prime minister fled when his defenders were overwhelmed.

In the wake of the coup Zahedi became prime minister and the Shah returned to Iran where he ruled as an autocrat for the next 26 years until being overthrown in 1979. The Iranian-controlled national oil company was replaced by a consortium of international oil companies which shared profits 50-50 with Iran but did not to open their "books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors."

In America, the coup was originally considered a triumph of covert action but now is considered by many to have left "a haunting and terrible legacy," not only in Iran, but worldwide. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, called it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.

Comments?

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pasting comment by editor CasualObserver here so as to simplify modifying the proposed lead

It certainly looks better; I’ll reply here with a few (not-so) quick comments:

Para2: Drop ‘his’ before ‘nationalist supporters’, they were nationalists in their own right and later broke with Mossy.

Sentence 2: This misses the notability of Abadan being the world’s largest refinery, and its worldwide economic/oil run-on. (See cryptic Lencz mention below)

Sentence 3: Lenczowski does not exactly support ‘the British government successfully enlisted the support of the United States in planning and executing the coup’; read what he writes about/says: After noting the US cut off military aid to Iran in Jan’52 (Truman?) (p34), he notes Truman was growing so exasperated with the British “rule or ruin’ policy in Iran that they were ready to cast aside cooperation and develop “an independent policy or run the gravest risk of having Iran disappear behind the Iron curtain…” (quoting Truman memoirs). But it was precisely this risk of Soviet absorption of Iran that prompted Acheson, despite his own criticism of Eden’s foot-dragging, to insist on synchronization of American and British policy. Any break with London could weaken NATO ‘and require joint action by major American oil companies—an alternative Acheson dreaded to envision because of known opposition of “police dogs” in the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice’. Lencz discusses Mossy’s diplomatic vacillations, a growing fever pitch in Teheran, and his brief departure and return, ‘this time demanding and obtaining near-dictatorial powers.’ Next para(LenczAmPres. p36)

At about this time the idea began to gain ground, in both Washington and London, that no solution to the conflict could be found so long as Mossadegh stayed in power. Ambassador Henderson was given instructions to explore, together with the British charge d’affaires, possible alternatives to the obstreperous Iranian premier. This trend of thought found strong support in London, where a belief prevailed that, in spite of his midsummer victory, Mossadegh was becoming politically weaker, a number of his early allies having deserted him in the course of 1952. In August Prime Minister Churchill proposed to President Truman a joint approach to Iran. By the fall the principal of combined British-American action was adopted in practice. Its implementation, however, was to be worked out by the new administration that came into office in January 1953.

I consider this may cover sentence 3 better: The American Truman Administration, which had tried to negotiate the dispute, now insisted, in light of the Cold War, on synchronization of American and British policy; by the summer of 1952, “the idea began to gain ground, in both Washington and London, that no solution to the conflict could be found so long as Mossadegh stayed in power.”(LenczAmPres. p36) In March 1953, after additional failed negotiations, the Eisenhower administration agreed with the British government to plan and execute the coup, fearing that Iran was in danger of falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". Though I don’t particularly like the ‘empire’ link; it has too much chronological crystal ball. I will watch and see if legitimate responses develop. I’ve also done some work here, since it establishes some preexisting documentation. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The additional sentence:

The American Truman Administration, which had tried to negotiate the dispute, now insisted, in light of the Cold War, on synchronization of American and British policy; by the summer of 1952, “the idea began to gain ground, in both Washington and London, that no solution to the conflict could be found so long as Mossadegh stayed in power.”(LenczAmPres. p36)

Is pretty long. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

Part of what I'm trying to do shave down the lead to the most important points --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Though I don’t particularly like the ‘empire’ link; it has too much chronological crystal ball." Not sure I agree. by 1953 many countries in Europe were "behind the iron curtain" and the old Russian empire of Ukraine, Belorus, Baltic republics and "the stans" - all ethnicly non-Russians - had been reconstituted as the USSR. Political Power was in Moscow, the leadership of the communist Party of the Soviet Union was overwhelmingly Russian. So I think Soviet Empire is a legitimate description. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've split a sentence in two and added - While the American Truman administration had opposed to a coup, (in italics) to the lead. The longer sentence, in some form or another, could go in the U.S. motives section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Read quickly though the comments , and the new proposal seems to include some good suggestions and some repetitions of already-discussed-and-rejected-recycled material. I am too busy now, I'll post a detailed response as soon as I get a chance, possibly during the weekend. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Very brief comment due to burning out when caring about this issue before: BoogaLouie's lede looks fine. I largely agreed with him in the debates before and feel that there is a very drastic break in views of reality here - I read the same book that others had claimed supported their view, and it just didn't. Anyway BoogaLouie's new lede looks on-point to me and an excellent summary of the main facts of the coup. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

[This was deleted by editor Crackajack Mac with the edit sumary "pointless comentary not important to page", (I had asked for commentary) and reposted by me, BoogaLouie. Crackajack mac also deleted Kurdo777's response. Crackajack mac's User Contributions page say: "This user is currently blocked." He may be crazy. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)]

I like the new changes. I edited the new lead section for spelling and for alignment with WP:DASH guidelines. Wording and conceptualization is satisfactory. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I like them better than what exists now, and can accept them. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)\\

Thanks to everybody for the feedback. Kurdo777 do you have any detailed response? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The following is an example of an obscure source that has been discussed at length on this talk page and yet shows up again, miring this draft in a swamp of long-standing controversy. --O'Reilly, Kevin (2007). Decision Making in US History. The Cold War & the 1950s. Social Studies. pp. 108. ISBN 1560042931.

The question is this--what does this tertiary and hard-to-find textbook bring to the table for use in an encyclopedia? What information is in this book that can be found nowhere in the standard histories? What does it add to this article that historians and journalists, and the autobiography of Roosevelt and the account of CIA activities by Wilber do not contain? How does this reference help readers? What original work did O'Reilly add to knowledge about this coup that is acknowledged and review in peer journals? What does the article lose by removing that reference?Skywriter (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My answer to that last question is an end to this particular controversy.

It's true the book is not famous, but if it's so problematic why have you never said anything about it before? The citation can be found in the article going back months (to June at least). You never deleted it and as far as I can tell never complained about on the talk page. I did a search of the talk pages using the author's name and found no complaints, no comments about the book by you anyone else. Are you disagreeing with the quote? that the coup influenced "all of subsequent Iranian history"? Why? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are in error. There was discussion about how inappropriate this source is. I notice you do not address the underlying issue. Why do you need this source? Skywriter (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat/Archive_6#Who_is_Kevin_O.27Reilly.3F_What_is_his_expertise.3F_Why_are_we_quoting_him.3F

Please answer the underlying question. Why do you need this source? What is unique about what O'Reilly says that is not found elsewhere. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still on project deadline though I have read Booga's contribution that shows some improvement with certain exceptions. Since the focus of this historical is or should be on the actions of the expansionist US and British empires, the phrase and links to "Expansionism|expansionist Soviet Empire|Soviet Communist "empire" is unacceptable in the proposed draft because it introduces unacceptable POV-pushing and WP:undue weight. The Soviet Union was kicked out of Iran four years earlier and was not an expansionist player in 1952 (by any historical account) when the UK forced the worldwide economic embargo of Iran (in order to regain control of Iran's largest oilfield, which it had held for 60 years). The former USSR was also not an expansionist actor in Iran in 1953 when the US spook agency planned and carried out the overthrow of Iran's government, smothering another budding democracy in the cradle. Another budding democracy you ask? See Tracy Wuster American Studies, University of Texas, Austin and Mark Twain's essay (1901) "To the Person Sitting in Darkness" findable somewhere online. It is more to the point to discuss the Dulles brothers and their fervor for heating up the Cold War and their role in the 1953 coup for which there's ample documentation. I will comment further but later in the week when I'm off deadline.

However, those two items are the two biggest edits that would help.

That US actions were guided by the anti-Soviet views of the Dulles brothers, there is no doubt. To insinuate with words and links that the then USSR was then an active player in the internal affairs of its next door neighbor, Iran, is false. It was the US and UK that were reaching across the world to expand or continue their spheres of influence in the instance of Iran 1953. Skywriter (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the idea that "the focus of this historical is or should be on the actions of the expansionist US and British empires" POV-pushing and WP:undue weight? We have all sorts of books - including a recent one devoted exclusively to the coup (Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran) - that provide evidence of cold fear of communism as a motivation for the coup. The web site you talked about (http://www.twainweb.net/reviews/zwick2.html ) doesn't even mention Iran. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

booga asks: Why isn't the idea that "the focus of this historical is or should be on the actions of the expansionist US and British empires" POV-pushing and WP:undue weight?

Reply: It was the US and UK that overthrew the democratic government of Iran, not the Soviet Union. The words you use are charged with your personal POV and are inappropriate for this article. Find neutral wording. This disagreement has been central to why no progress has been made on this article. Use precise wording from a reliable source. Stop using your own POV-charged wording because it is unacceptable. The Mark Twain essay and related essay was on the subject of the US overthrowing another young democracy and installing another dictatorship earlier in the century. It is a parallel example of US expansionism.Skywriter (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Ed, by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004 is vastly different from yours and your interpretation of their wording. Skywriter (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, booga. These are the words and links that taint your offering: "influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire". These words appear to be your original research (your POV and show no resemblance to what is written by historians of this topic. Can you tone it down? Skywriter (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is "wording in [book] Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran" indicating fears and/or reasons for the fears of Soviet expansion that the US administration (and UK) had concerning Iran and Mosaddeq.

How are they "vastly different from yours and your interpretation of their wording"? Are you saying the quotes don't bear out a fear of an `expansionist Soviet Communist "empire"`?, that the quotes go against the theme of the book? Please explain? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow up: Some real-life issues have diminished my ability to spend any meaningful time on Wikipedia this week. I will, however, get free next week, and would make a detailed point-by-point response then. Generally speaking though, the only major problem I have with the new proposed lead, is the "communist empire" sensationalist bit and some other half-truths whose original source is the coup organizer's propaganda machine. There are also some crucial information in the current lead, which are missing from the proposed lead. Overall, I think there are also some good parts of the new proposed lead, which could be implemented without any controversy. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)