|Mohammad Mosaddegh has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 19, 2004, August 19, 2005, and August 19, 2006.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Mohammad Mosaddegh was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: May 9, 2006
|This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.|
|Threads older than 6 months may be archived by.|
- Yes, I agree. There are editors here who seem to think that Mosaddegh's martyr-like legacy must not be tarnished with the whole truth about him. These editors suddenly come together to resist change whenever anyone else seeks to expand upon Mosaddegh's negative political moves, his grab for dictatorial emergency power, his re-interpretation (to his advantage) of the constitution, his loss of support—themes such as that. If you work to add such themes I will support you, but the sheer numbers of opposing editors will be a problem, if the past is any indication. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Am I Missing Something?
I read through all of the talk page discussion so far, and I'm at somewhat of a loss as to the extreme stubborness of the parties involved.
Is this an American thing where one side just wants this guy to be a Democrat, and the other guy doesn't, or something? Cos that's douchey.
If 'democratically elected' is just as good as 'appointed', then why not just call it appointed if it makes no diff?
I should note however, that I had been searching up a few pages before this wiki, and so far it does seem to be a big thing (from Iranians mostly it looks like) that the guy can't legitimately be called 'democratically elected'. (E.g. http://www.policymic.com/articles/28131/argo-fact-check-best-picture-is-full-of-inaccuracies, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/27/what-ben-affleck-s-argo-misses-about-iran.html, http://iranian.com/main/2012/nov/good-cinema-bad-history.html etc, etc)
To say that someone is 'democratically' elected is a description of how he came to office. If it wasn't democratic (i.e. by the people, for the people and all that jazz) then it wasn't a democratic election. That's just English.
If this is contentious and could confuse the average reader, or worse mislead him with false information as to the nature of the appointment of the political leader, then I believe it is a correct course of action to modify it into more informative language so that this encyclopedia can serve its intended purpose of communicating frank information for the conumption of average readers who aren't necessarily historians or political scientists. Like me.
Keep it neutral guys, or make a compromise for a common denomination of information.
Personally, I don't care much about it, I was more dubious at calling the guy secular (Argo movie), but this is my two cents.
- What you are missing is that Mossadeq's democratic qualifications have been a thorne on the side Cold-War era propagandists which often try to frame the cold-war narrative as "good vs evil" or "democracy vs communist" narrative. For that reason they have been going through Wikipedia's articles which negatively affect their historical revisionism and trying to expunge evidence of the opposite. The removal of a democratically elected prime minister in Iran (and later Chile) are examples of these inconsistencies. The removal of Mossadeq has literally been described in hundreds upon hundreds of books. It is universally accepted among scholars that he was a democratically elected Prime Minister which was deposed and replaced by an autocrat (at least partially) by the US government for its own interests. You will never find a single peer-reviewed article which states that Mossadeq was not democratically elected. Not a single one. Mossadeq's democratic credentials are IDENTICAL to those of Prime Minister Kim Campbell and Prime Minister John Turner in Canada (where I live). Democratically elected Prime Ministers are almost universally appointed (i.e. indirectly elected) and not directly elected. Your definition of what constitutes "democratically elected" in English is just your own definition. No scholar on the subject agrees with it and there are no reliable sources which state that. If your definition of "democratically elected" was even remotely true, then countries such as Canada, UK, Australia, Sweden, Norway, etc would not be considered democracies. Poyani (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Mosaddegh was appointed by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as the Prime Minister.  During that time the PM was not been elected all were appointed by Shah. Unfortunately it appears that many writers have got it wrong and sited wrongly. There was no election. This need to be investigated, as there is big different between “democratically elected” and appointed. Tzohari (talk)
- There is no such difference. The Prime Ministers of Canada and the UK are appointed in the exact same manner as Mossadeq and they are likewise considered democratically elected. Poyani (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
About Canada I don't know but in UK PM is elected through election and it is not appointed (Next United Kingdom general election) Tzohari (talk) 4 February 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Who elected Gordon Brown Prime Minister see Premiership of Gordon Brown? In the UK (much like Canada, Australia and Iran in 1953), the PM is APPOINTED by the constitutional monarch (the Queen)or her representative. This is done after a candidate is put forward by Parliament. The position, as per the constitution, is always offered first to the leader of the party with most seats. In Iran in 1953 the party with the most seats was the National Front, who presented their leader, Mossadeq, to the Shah. This form of government is called a Constitutional Monarchy and is considered democratic. In the UK in 2007, the leader of the party (Labour) with the most seats was Gordon Brown and hence he was put forward by Parliament after Tony Blair resignation. Brown was then APPOINTED Prime Minister by the Queen. Poyani (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
But people do not call Gordon Brown as elected PM as he was not. I am not saying that Mosaddegh was not PM, my point is that he was not elected. In that case you have to call all other Iranian PM as elected PM Tzohari (talk) 22:02 13 February 2014 (UTC)
In the CIA article of wikipedia it says that the CIA removed Mossadegh at the request of Churchill. I would believe that after reading the memoirs of Sattareh Farmanfarmaian "Daughter of Persia" and CIA funded Brian Crozier "Free Agent" which describe the events. They don't mention Churchill but it would figure.
There is also an interesting timeline here to relate to these events and Churchill: 6th February 1952 died King George VI and Elizabeth became Elizabeth II, but her coronation was 2nd June 1953. In that period a lot would have flown under the radar as people were busy. Elizabeth II was also quite young and old Churchill could have pulled the wool over her eyes easily. 'By late 1952 the US position shifted' - did Churchill finally convince people to send in the CIA? There was an early June 1953 meeting in Beirut, just when all eyes were on the coronation. In March 1953 also Stalin died and many people would have occupied themselves with that topic.
I find the discussion if Mossadegh was democratically elected somewhat unproductive. A foreign installed monarch and autocrat that the Shah was is less democratic than someone who was elected to Parliament. That's wooly thinking, but in politics it's never about right or wrong only about the lesser 'evil'. If we look closely, we will find that all regimes which nationalized were removed, from Iran to Chile, Libya, Iraq, now Syria. Privatisation is the driver behind it - me thinks. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Rigged Referendum in Lead
Binksternet - why did you restore the "rigged referendum" in the lead? It is very misleading. It seems to suggest that Mossadeq was removed because of the the referendum (which is clearly untrue since the preparations for his removal predate the referendum by months). Furthermore, it incorrectly states that he rigged a referendum to dissolve parliament. Mossadeq first dissolved parliament and then ordered a plebiscite to gauge public opinion about his decision (which is widely accepted to have been rigged). I am going to delete it again. If you want it included (which is totally fine) then please put it in its own section in the body. It is totally out-of-place and very misleading. Poyani (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I am not disputing that this information is worthy of mention in the article. I am also not disputing that Mossadeq's dismissal of parliament was constitutionally dubious. I am however strongly opposed to where and how this information is being presented. If I were to say, "I ate a sandwich and afterwards I felt ill" it follows that I am arguing that the sandwich made me ill. The information which was added by IP states that "Mossadeq rigged and election and afterwards he was overthrown by the CIA..." It clearly implies that he was overthrown BECAUSE of the rigged election. That is misleading. This information should not be on the lead at all. It should be mentioned in the section about his premiership. Poyani (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree the information should be in the article body. I think it is important to the story because the referendum/plebiscite increased public and political distrust of Mosaddegh, removing a number of people from the ranks of those who might support him in combating a coup attempt. Abrahamian says Mosaddegh had changed from the meticulous constitutional lawyer to a populist demagogue. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please go ahead put it in the body (between the premiership and the coup). We can even create a special section for it. There were three issues. One was that Mossadeq dismissed parliament (which may have been constitutionally dubious). The second was that he tried to use a plebiscite/public opinion survey to justify his action (which is again constitutionally dubious). And the third is that the result of the plebiscite seem to indicate that it was controlled or the results were tempered. Poyani (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that the CIA has openly admitted of their clandestine action to force out a democratically elected prime minister, perhaps the apologists of this American atrocity and crime will be able to restrain themselves from embarking on historical revisionism. I am looking directly at Binksternet, who appears to be determined to cast the US in a puritanical moral light. I'm sorry, but you are too emotionally involved; if need be, we can go to mediation.18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt you would fare well in a dispute here, what with your recent BLP violations such as this one.
- You read me wrong, Halifax. I don't think the US should be absolved of guilt, not at all. Instead, I think the CIA bungled the job and thus they should not be given so much credit. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Or the CIA will be given all the credits needed to proof even to the greatest nationalists and fanatists that such organisations should be prohibited by laws. Because they undermine - if not destroy - democracies...since they violate the separation of powers and are a fourth, non -controllable or even desastrous power. Also, they're basically the invisible hand of politics. No good at all. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mohammad Mosaddeq Britannica.com 28 Jan. 2014