Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh

Mosadegh's August 1953 referendum

Democratic?

From Proquest Historical New York Times.
"In Iran Plebiscite on Majlis Ouster" by Kennett Love, p.1
Teheran, Iran, Aug. 3 - Premier Mohammed Mossadegh won about 99.9 per cent of the votes cast today in the first phase [Tehran district] of a plebiscite to express the `will of the people` as authority for dissolution of the Majlis. The proportion of the victory surprised few.

The ballot was not a secret one. Separate polling places were provide for those voters favoring dissolution and those against, and the voter had to give his name, his address and the number and place of issuance of his identity card.

......

The opposition has charged the plebiscite was Premier Mossadegh's final step to a full dictatorship .... --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot base the democratic intentions of Mosaddegh's leadership on the ballot not being secret. BoogaLouie continually argues the democratic nature of the election and other votes over this point[read above]. The separation of the voting locations cannot be deemed an undermining of democracy unless you can prove that it intentionally done to have an effect on the outcome. The only support you provided is the landslide vote which "The proportion of the victory surprised few". Maybe they weren't surprised cause all their peers supported it. As for the election of Mosaddegh, his popularity among Iranians is a much more probable reason for the landslide there and his popularity alone would likely have won him office. Without concrete evidence for the argument I could just as well say Mosaddegh may have done it that way with the intention of avoiding violence at the voting booths or to compensate for the rampant illiteracy. Secret ballots are great, unless you can't read. Centralized voting is great, until a riot breaks out.

As for giving your name, address, and ID at the voting booths.... I have to do that when I vote too. It's to prevent people from voting more than once not to undermine democracy.

I think Mosaddegh's rule was not a very traditional sense of democracy but it was a very good start in a country that never saw the likes of it before. A start that US and British intelligence agencies purposefully ended to control Iran's oil. Isn't one of the traditional principles of democracy to spread democracy? Mosaddegh's reforms of implementing unemployment compensation and ending slave labor are things that US leaders have been honored for. Democracy is for the people by the people. Mosaddegh's leadership definitely showed the for the people trait. If you want to argue by the people on him you might as well agrue for the people in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.102.15 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just different from the way Westerners do things?

Is it true that
The context of the events is important. Until that time no such "Standard western type ballot" was performed in Iran (and maybe not until now!) ... That means it is not correct to judge with present western standards about a previous middle eastern referendum.? (quoted from editor Alborz Fallah, above )

From Proquest Historical New York Times.
"Mossadegh Voids Secret Balloting : Decrees `Yes` and `No` Booths for Iranian Plebiscite on Dissolution of Majlis" by Kennett Love, p.6
Teheran, Iran, July 28 - The institution of the secret ballot, inviolate since the Iranian Constitution adopted it in 1906, was swept aside by a Cabinet decree published today. ....
According to the directives of the decree, each election district will have two marked polling booths, ... In addition each ballot must be clearly inscribed with the full name of the voter and the number and place of issue of his identity card.
The legality of the plebiscite iself has been questioned. Premier Mohammad Mossadegh has said a favorable vote would be regarded as authority for the dissolution of the Majlis on the ground that the `will of the people is above the law` despite the consitutional amendment specifically reserving to the Shah the power of dissolving Parliament.
Although there is no provision in the constitution for a plebiscite such as the one proposed, the Constituion stipulates that the election of deputies must be `direct and secret.` --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, secret ballot was part of the 1906 constitution. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaban Jafari

Based on the discussion taking place at Talk:Abadan Crisis timeline#Shaban the Brainless in jail August 19, I am restoring one sentence of scholarly cited text to this article, the sentence offering the minority viewpoint that Shaban Jafari was in jail on 19 August 1953 and did not lead street riots that day. One sentence does not violate WP:UNDUE, and the cited sources are from scholarly imprints; among the best possible sources per WP:SECONDARY. Here is the sentence: "Jafari has also been reported as being in jail during the coup." Very simple. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Following the RfC at Talk:Abadan Crisis timeline#Shaban the Brainless in jail August 19, I am once again placing the single sentence of scholarly cited text into this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You have no WP:consensus to do so. The RFC has not yield any conclusive results. In light of the irrefutable photographic and scholarly evidence posted on Talk:Abadan_Crisis_timeline#Discussion, and the fact that even your disputed partisan sources do not report what you're claiming as a verifiable fact, you're basically re-introducing a false claim to Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Death

I'm afraid that Mosaddegh was dead in Ahmadabad, in exile, not in Tehran. --Cloj (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I believe he was transferred to a hospital in Tehran for medial attention before he died. But feel free to make the appropriate corrections, citing a WP:RS. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

April 3 edits

I've reverted a bunch of recent edits as some are quite contentious and am not sure they are backed by reliable sources. I'm going to go through them and unrvt edits that seem OK. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is a pretty big mess with duplicating text and lacking sources. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks the editor Kurdo777 was trying to hide the royal ancestry of Mosaddegh, hide his involvement in ousting Reza Shah in 1941, hide his political machinations in calling for a referendum, hide his seizing extra power and dissolving the Parliament. All this political maneuvering was put into the passive voice, removing Mosaddegh's strong interest advocacy.

However, Kurdo777 was correct in adding the information about Mosaddegh weakening the landed aristocracy. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But look here --

"This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector.

Mosaddeq also weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran’s centuries-old feudal agriculture sector ...."

Kurdo added what was already in the article. The problem is sloppiness, not just partisan POV editing. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You two need to be civil and assume good faith with other editors. The edits in question, were all constructive improvements to the page, which were blindly reverted in a bad-faith fashion. I've restored the edits. --Wayiran (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad revert, Wayiran. No problem with a lack of good faith was shown by BoogaLouie or myself. The problems with the changes were pointed out and are still being discussed. They were not blindly reverted, a term more aptly applied to your own action. I am reverting you, but I am reworking the French TV bit to include what I assume to be Kurdo777's intentions. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't appreciate your rude accusatory tone. My edits were mostly maintenance-related edits (removing a citation tag from the lead etc), or reverts of random IPs who had been adding WP:OR to the page, like Mossadegh supporting the abdication of Reza Shah. I also restored some deleted info about feudal agriculture sector, and reworked the referendum section in line with the main article, to tone down the POV language, and replace outdated editorial commentary with academic sources. BoogaLouie's mass revert is unacceptable and disruptive. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no rude tone from me, just a discussion of the edits. You changed the article to a point of view you hold, one I do not hold. Simple as that. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You were making baseless bad-faith accusations- my edits have improved the article. You're restoring WP:OR (who says Mossadegh was involved in Reza Shah's abdication?), an out-of-place tag in the lead (who puts citation tags in the lead, which is the summary of the article, in front of an obvious fact discussed in details in the article?), an outdated primary source, while removing an academic source (Abrahamian), among other things - just because the edits were made by me. This is unacceptable behavior. You have a problem with my edits, you discuss them one by one in a civil manner. Blind mass-reverts will not be tolerated. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What part of my discussion was not taking your edits one-by-one? I said that your edits served to hide various parts of Mosaddegh's history, and they did. That is not any kind of assumption of bad faith. I have no problem with you; nor have I blindly mass-reverted as Wayiran did. I assessed the various changes and determined that calling the 2003 TV show French was just fine. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's called a baseless bad-faith accusation. You didn't address my points one-by-one, so I'm going to ask again: who says Mossadegh was involved in Reza Shah's abdication? Why are you introducing WP:OR to the page? Why are you putting a fact tag in front of a well-sourced fact in the lead where citations are not used? Why are you replacing a modern academic source (Abrahmian) with an outdated primary source (TIME news item from Aug. 17, 1953)? Why are you violating the relevant Wikipedia polices on sourcing (WP:RS, WP:Primary). style (WP:LEAD) and original research (WP:OR)? Kurdo777 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Mr. Binksternet, WHY? I'd like to know as well. --Wayiran (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither Binksternet nor BoogaLouie have answered my detailed content-related questions above. BoogaLouie has made yet another blind revert, compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, by re-introducing falsehoods/WP:OR (Mossadegh being involved in Reza Shah's abdication) into the article. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

fight over edits

I think we need to step away from the overheated rhetoric and look at the article and the recent edit history.
Kurdo made a series of edits April 3 which I rvted as there was not a consensus and they seemed problematic.
I made a second edit keeping some of Kurdo's changes and toning down some of the old text that (it seems to me) Kurdo was objecting to. I left a talk message about it at the beginning of this section (April 3 edits.)
IOW I did not "blindly reverted in a bad-faith fashion ... constructive improvements to the page."
and did not "compromis[e] the integrity of Wikipedia, by re-introducing falsehoods/WP:OR (Mossadegh being involved in Reza Shah's abdication) into the article", as that's one of Kurdo's changes I included in my edit as you can see here.

Anyway, WayIran rvted what I did and the fight insued.

My two main concerns with Kurdo's edits were

A) repetition here --
"This weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran's centuries-old feudal agriculture sector.
Mosaddeq also weakened the landed aristocracy, abolishing Iran’s centuries-old feudal agriculture sector ...."
Kurdo added here
Which he has since fixed here and

B) eliminating all mention of the highly controversial non-secret ballot voting in the referendum Mosaddeq called for giving himself legislative powers, specifically these sentences

The referendum vote did not have a secret ballot but separate polling places for yes and no voters. Mosaddegh won "99.9 percent the vote" in the Aug. 4, 1953 referendum. According to the New York Times, on or around Aug. 16, Mosaddegh "overreached, playing into the C.I.A.'s hands by dissolving Parliament", and Mosaddegh's emergency powers were extended^{[citation needed]}.

... which kurdo calls "an outdated primary source." Maybe the TIME magazine source is a problem but there are plenty of other sources criticizing the balloting, such as:

Kinzer. "Mossadegh announced that he would hold a referendum on the question and pledged to resign if voters did not vote to oust the existing Majlis. The referendum, hurriedly convened at the beginning of August, was a disastrous parody of democracy. There were separate ballot boxes for yes and no votes, and the announced result was over 99% in favor of throwing out the Majlis. The transparent unfairness of this referendum was more grist for the anti-Mossadegh mill. Mid-August found Roosevelt and his team of Iranian agents in place and ready to strike." (Kinzer, Stephen, All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, Stephen Kinzer, John Wiley and Sons, 2003, p.165)

Abrahamian reflects on how Mosaddeq had changed and become more radical by mid-1953: "Mossadeq, the constitutional lawyer who had meticulously quoted the fundamental laws against the shah, was now bypassing the same laws and resorting to the theory of the general will. The liberal aristocrat who had in the past appealed predominantly to the middle class was mobilizing the lower classes. The moderate reformer who had proposed to disenfranchize illiterates was seeking the acclaim of the national masses. To ensure victory at the polls, positive and negative ballot boxes were placed in different places. As expected, Mossadeq received an overwhelming vote of confidence, winning over 2,043,300 of the 2,044,600 ballot cast throughout the country. (Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, Princeton University Press, 1982, p.274)

Gasiorowski calls the referendum "blatantly rigged" and "causing a great public outcry against Mosaddeq" in his 1991 book U.S. Foreign Policy and the Shah, Building a Client State in Iran, Mark J. Gasiorowski (Cornell University Press, 1991) p.75, but by the time of Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, (published 13 years later) he described it only in terms of a political mistake. "Mosaddeq's decision to conduct a controversial referendum to close Parliament gave the CIA's precoup propaganda campaign an easy target, probably helped persuade the shah to support the coup, and undoubtedly turned some Iranians against Mosaddeq." (Gasiorowski, Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran, Edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, Syracuse University Press, 2004, p.266)

In any case there is still no consensus on Kurdo's edits. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

propaganda

Even if the CIA supported these events, in this article you get the impression, that the CIA or the USA was the main actor behind everything. This kind of conspiracy propaganda used in order to delegitimate the Shah, but it has little to do with the truth. Do also not forget that the western mainstream media in Europe esp. the left has supported the 1979 revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.32.19 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)