Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Archived discussions

Archive 0 (before March 2004), Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3 (From /New), Archive 4 (2007-10-13)

Artaxerex banned for a period of one year

For the sake of moving on, I have archived the entire discussion from this page. Now that he is gone, I can finally return to editing this article for the first time since April. Let's start talking about improving the article. ♠ SG →Talk 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoopee! --*Kat* 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Corruption and Wealth Section

This section is very biased and does not include sources for its claims. Are the sources biased? Also, the Shah was the Emperor of Iran, so one would expect he would have several palaces as any monarch of any nation typically does. It either needs to be fixed or removed. Azalea pomp 08:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz...is worth an estimated 21 billion dollars in 2006.[1]
• Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei... 20 billion dollars in 2006 and 22,000,000,000 dollars in 2007[2]
• Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan...with 19 billion dollars
• Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum of UAE has 14 billion dollars
• Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein has 4.5 billion dollars[3].

...

• Teodoro Obiang Nguema of the tiny Equatorial Guinea has a net worth some 600 million dollars.
• Khamenei? Who knows if he is ever going to let himself be interviwed? Apparently, no news agency is curiously because it is well-known that his salary is from Allah!03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Marriages

By the way, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz has 4 wives concurrently and about 35 children. We don't know the names of those spouses and nobody cares. At least Caligula was honest and transparent.03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Birtdate

The two birthdates are diffrent one of them is 16th and the other 26th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.168.106 (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead and neutrality

"succeeded[neutrality disputed][opinion needs balancing] in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things." Is there a dispute over this issue? I think it is based on virtual consensus.--Agha Nader (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Death?

I know he died, but I see no mention of particulars, like where or cause of death, etc. Strange omission.... Bigmac31 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There used to be a whole section on his exile and death, his burial in Cairo, etc. Why was all of this information removed? 74.68.123.162 (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The section was deleted by a vandal on 4 February, but not noticed at the time. I have now restored it in its most recent version. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources I have read indicate the Shah suffered from non hodgkins lymphoma for several years before his death. I don't recall a mention of pancreatic cancer. Can someone provide clarification? ACM83 (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

religion

What was the religion of the shah? None of the articles on any of the shahs really say this. Was he a shi'ite, or something else like a zoroastrian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The introduction describes him as a 'secular muslim,' which is an oxymoron. Zatarra86 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

He was a Muslim, no doubts about it. Obviously the degree of his religious practices are unknown because he didn't make a show of it. I've seen a picture of him performing Hajj in Mecca and heard one speech in particular in which he indicates he cares for the state of Islam but he found the Shia denomination-his denomination-to be polluted by those who "want to make a business out of religion", alluding to the Shia clergymen. 08 Dec 2011

---

The Kashmir issue was solved in 1958, sadly Ayub Khan took over and betrayed the Pakistani people.

The real story behind Iraq, Iran ,Turkey and Pakistan: A meeting of the Baghdad Pact, July 1958 King Faisal II killed and assasinated by CIA. Shah of Iran 1973 revolution thanks to CIA. Iskander Mirza exiled 1958 by CIA. Adnan Menders Turkish PM false charges by CIA.

Had these countries joined an alliance US wouldnt be the superpower anymore.

True stories being told by great grand son of Iskander Mirza,

Humayun Mirza jr.

Tired of all the false facts and not everyone knowning the truth.

17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)~

Well he pretended to be a Shia Muslim, but when you kill your countrymen to defend your rule instead of listening to their demands, you wouldn´t really belong to any religion would you? My last comment was out of place but I´m saying the Shah belonging to any religion is just silly.--Da Dashz (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Birth Place

I edited country in "Birth Place" section of the box to Tehran, Iran (known as Persia then) to avoid confusion. Persian Empire, which was the term used before, was not appropriate here as it does not imply the country in modern sense and is misleading.

Some might translate "Shahanshahi-ye Iran" to Persian Empire. However, firstly that term was not used untl later in the Shah's era. Secondly, there has been no official translation of that term to English anywhere in official sense. Things like "Artesh Shahanshahi" and "Nirooye Havaii Shahanshahi" were translated as Royal Army of Iran or Iranian Royal Air Force and not Empirical Army etc.

Persian Magi (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Important

As I have for a long time seen how many wrong things are written here about the Shah; I decided to try and see if I can change and affect this and see if wikipedia really works as it should. This is my plan-

• Go through the page and take up points that are wrong and edit/change. Go over this twice.
• Add new sections and information

(there should be a section about how many people think that the revolution was a work of western powers, there should be a bit information of how much Iran progressed out of nothing to become one of the greatest nations during His Imperial Majesty, more to come.)

First

These are the points I want to discuss on the Wikipedia article:

"However, a partial failure of the land reform, the lack of democratization, a source of criticism from some of his opponents, as well as the decline" Isn't this supposed to be a neutral article on the Shah? The land reform was not a failure at all. Democratization existed - there was a senate and parliament (majles) and national elections on a lot of things, such as minister.. (Don't you people see "Democratically elected Mossadegh"? Thus this mean that there was free elections) and referendum on things such as the Revolution of the Shah and People.

"particularly due to his strong policy of Westernization" Shah did not westernize Iran but modernize Iran. That's a big different! How exactly did he westernize? What did he do to westernize Iran? The same thing can be said to you western people who "easternized" yourselves by using eastern things that the Persians invented for instance ages ago, such as Human Rights Charter which the US constitution is based on. I suggest that Westernization to Modernization!

"including the banning of the Tudeh Party" There should be a reason to why, Why wont the wiki state that Tudeh Party used violence to get their voice forward and why does wikipedia try and make it seem like they were all nice and everything?

"Oil nationalization and the 1953 coup" There are many facts and many ex-MI6 and Cia agents that state that this never happened. All this is based on is a document made by CIA that is forged. I will take this up at it's main article discussion later using evidence and proof.

"Westernization and autocracy" Again, not westernization but modernization.

"in the words a US Embassy dispatch" If you put something by some USA guy, then you must put something by an Iranian that says that say something else. What is this!?

"However, by 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion" It was still not completely dictatorship as the party consisted of two different groups with two different ideas. This should be noted.

"Criticism" The response of the Shah should be given to each one of these, and the monarchists of course. I will go in order. 1- You should mention that the Shah had invited human rights organizations to review and take a look at the judical laws and all that, he got recommendations which he followed. 2- You should mention that the 2500 year old celebrations helped Iran to grow and become stronger in these ways: 1) Better relationship with world leaders, 2) Protecting and spreading the History of Persia who for some reason because of jealous westerns never gets mentioned in a good way 3) Entertainment for the country 4) Foreign inventors for the Iran 5) More recognation for a country like Iran. Shah's own answer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pHzal4Jg61c

It should be said that the americans refused to give the Shah medical help!

"On the revolution" It should be said that the Shah was sick and in a bad mood, in a hurry he got a note from this guy (I can find his name later) and read it because he was lost and sick. This should be mentioned!

After these are settled I will go through the page again to see what else could be changed and please note that I can get source and evidence to each thing I mentioned here.

--JavidShah (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with these changes.

• Land reforms and democratization - there's an argument either way about these but if you have references indicating the reforms were not a failure and democratization occurred, please go right ahead and include them.

• Westernization - this should certainly be replaced with "modernization", which reflects improvements without attributing an aspiration to replicate the west. There's no source for such an aspiration and "westernization" is a point-of-view only.

• Tudeh Party - you would need sources for the claims of violence.

• 1953 coup, CIA, oil nationalization, US embassy comments, multiparty rule - if you think these mentions are one-sided or don't tell the whole story, feel free to add the other side with appropriate references. Where there's an overwhelming majority of opinion on one side, there might bea problem with either giving undue weight to a minority view, or including fringe theories, but let's see what material there is to support counter-arguments.

• Criticism section - criticism sections are generally a bad idea as they become a holding pen for every nasty comment that can be found online about someone. An opposing view can certainly be added (once again with references), or the entire section could be merged into the body of the article. I think the second option is better, but would wwelcome your view.

• On the revolution - the Shah being sick and in a hurry sounds little like original research and even if correct, is unlikely to be that relevant to the isue. Unless there are multiple reliable sources not only for him being sick and in a hurry but also for this having any relevance, I doubt this should be included in the article.

These are just some general comments. Once again good luck with improving the article overall - it certainly needs a bit of work. Euryalus (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for responding. I will get to getting the sources and references now! --JavidShah (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title and MOS

The current title is not valid per the Manual of Style: we don't use honorifics on any royalty pages. (any exceptions should also be moved to a better title). I am not sure that the previous title was the best choice per the MOS either, so I propose we have a discussion. Please keep the following in mind:

• It is Wikipedia policy to name articles about deceased, abdicated and deposed royalty consistently with their royal status. By doing so consistently, Wikipedia avoids commenting on the legitimacy of their reigns, the legitimacy of monarchy in general, etc.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) is the guideline, but it was originally developed for European monarchies and has specific guidelines for various southeast and east Asian countries. It specifically remarks that we may need to look at how to do this for muslim countries, and I have to agree that "Mohammed of Iran" would be among the least useful titles we could come up wtih.

Again, I can live with any reasonable title, but this one needlessly violates community consensus that we avoid honorifics in all articles. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support Mohammad Reza Pahlavi or Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The inclusion of Country is intended solely for disambiguation, and should not be used when some other form (like Agustín de Iturbide or Lorenzo de' Medici) is both clearly unambiguous and customary. Of the two, the former, as shorter, may be preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

His father is (and apparently has always been) at Reza Shah. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So, let we change the article title then. Demophon (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah. This one is certainly wrong. I'd say the previous one is just fine. I notice in Farsi it's محمدرضا شاه; what does that come out to? Something "shah", I think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Farsi on the infobox is محمدرضا شاه پهلوی, so yours is presumably, if that is literal, Mohammed Reza Shah; another valid choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Neutrality

Perhaps we can have a discussion here about the neutrality issue instead of going back and forth on the editing page.

1) The changing of the word 'left' to 'fled' really makes no difference to me; both convey they same meaning (although one is decidedly more urgent) and this is a relatively minor change. I have seen 'fled' used a few times, including in this title of this magazine article:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921924,00.html

2) Requesting citations for the $100,000 CIA funds seems appropriate. Anyone have a reference for that?

3) The change regarding the Shah's stay in Panama seem to be where the problems are arising. The sources I have read, which I will list below, indicate that the US did have a role in securing the Shah and his family passage to Panama. However, the US, or at least the Carter Administration, did not want the Shah to return to Egypt for fear that it would complicate the then active Iranian Hostage crisis. Additionally, they were fearful that his presence there would undermine Anwar Sadat, who was a relatively pro-US moderate presence in the Middle East. So to say that the US arranged for his stay in Egypt does not follow. That is why I asked for a source on that info.

There is also debate about whether the government of Panama would actually have gone ahead and extradited the Shah, although it certainly was a possibility. Saying definitively either way is pointless speculation because no decision was actually ever made. Perhaps we can come up with a statement that includes both of these points... something to the effect of:

The Shah's stay in Panama was short. The revolutionary government in Iran had not abated from demanding his and his wife's immediate extradition to Tehran. Whether or not the Panamanian government would have complied is unknown and a matter of speculation among historians. Regardless, the arrival in Panama of an Iranian ambassador carrying a 450 page extradition request greatly alarmed both the Shah and his advisors. After that event, the Shah again sought the support of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat who renewed his offer of permanent asylum in Egypt to the ailing monarch. The Shah returned to Egypt in March of 1980 where he received urgent medical treatment but nevertheless died from complications of non hodgkins lymphoma on July 27, 1980 at the age of 60.

How does everyone find that? Feel free to copy and paste the paragraph and add your own suggestions. We can discuss them here.

My sources:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921924,00.html, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947015,00.html?promoid=googlep (Time isn't the best source but it is available online for anybody to read)

Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran by Elaine Sciolino (not digitally available), Farah Pahlavi: Memoirs (although I grant this might not be considered unbiased)

ACM83 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think discussion is an excellent idea. Regarding left vs fled, the reason I prefer "left" is because it doesn't editorialise as much. Time can editorialise in its headlines, but Wikipedia strives for neutrality so I think we should probably stick to the more neutral-sounding word. I'd object to "was unfairly driven from his rightful home" for the same reason.

2) I don't see how that claim can stay in the article without a source. I haven't been able to find one either.

I like your alternative Panama paragraph a lot. Some minor suggestions:

'The Shah's stay in Panama was short. The new government in Iran still demanded his and his wife's immediate extradition to Tehran. An Iranian ambassador arrived in Panama during the Shah's stay carrying a450 page extradition request. The official request greatly alarmed both the Shah and his advisors. Whether or not the Panamanian government would have complied is unknown and a matter of speculation among historians. After that event, the Shah again sought the support of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat who renewed his offer of permanent asylum in Egypt to the ailing monarch. The Shah returned to Egypt in March of 1980 where he received urgent medical treatment but nevertheless died from complications of non hodgkins lymphoma on July 27, 1980 at the age of 60.

Orpheus (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1) I understand about the use of 'left' instead of 'fled'. As I said before this is not really a major issue for me but I understand your point so from my perspective it can stay as 'left'.

2) Lets remove the reference to CIA funds of $100,000. If someone can find a source they can put it back in

3) Suggestions seem fine to me, made a couple minor changes but either version works. Lets go ahead and post it and see if we get a better response.

The Shah's stay in Panama was short. The new government in Iran still demanded his and his wife's immediate extradition to Tehran. A short time after the Shah's arrival, an Iranian ambassador was dispatched to the Central American nation carrying a 450 page extradition request. That official appeal greatly alarmed both the Shah and his advisors. Whether or not the Panamanian government would have complied is unknown and a matter of speculation among historians. After that event, the Shah again sought the support of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat who renewed his offer of permanent asylum in Egypt to the ailing monarch. The Shah returned to Egypt in March of 1980 where he received urgent medical treatment but nevertheless died from complications of non hodgkins lymphoma on July 27, 1980 at the age of 60.

ACM83 (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with your version. I've integrated it into the article to see how it goes there. Orpheus (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The proper transliteration of the article's title (from Persian to English, rather than Arabic to English) should be "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi" rather than "Mohammed Reza Pahlavi". It might seem a minor point, but it is actually important. Persian Muslim names are always transliterated differently from Arabic names. "Reza" for example, is the Persian transliteration, whereas "Riza" would be the proper Arabic transliteration. I suggest that we request an administrator move the article to the proper title since this cannot be done by an ordinary user as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi already exists as a redirect. IranianGuy (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I've requested the move. Orpheus (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And done. Thanks, Anthony. Orpheus (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. IranianGuy (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Shah section

1. Why does there only have to be what U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said? Why is there nothing from:

Ardeshir Zahedi -- http://www.ardeshirzahedi.org/cia-iran.pdf Farah Pahlavi -- http://www.farahpahlavi.org/nyt-answer.html

Why is there none of these? Because they are Shah supporters? Because they ignore history? Because Allen W. Dulles, the director of central intelligence, approved $1 million on April 4, 1953 to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddeq. And because the US DID allocate another $5,000,000, getting the Shah in power (lots of people became very rich)? Because the Savak were torturing jerks? Because the quotes below do belong in the dustbin of history?

Barry Rubin writes "It cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah... Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door".

Gary Sick writes The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.

Amir Taheri writes "What happened was not a successful conclusion of a (CIA) conspiracy but a genuine uprising provoked by economic hardship, political fear and religious prejudice.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that the agency did not counter rumors of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascoes as the Bay of Pigs.

Even Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose "secret report" has been given top billing by the NYT makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at he time simply failed.

Wilber writes: headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair... The message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18 said that the operation has been tried and failed and that contrary operations against Mussadeq should be discontinued

2. Various controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the Tudeh Party Why is there no word as if why Tudeh Party was banned? It was banned because they were terrorists. They used terrorist acts. They attempted to bomb a center for example.

3. Amnesty International reported that Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978 According to Amnesty International that is. According to the Shah supporters and the Shah himself first the figures were not that high, secondly they were terrorists, not political prisoners.

--JavidShah (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Presently the article reads

In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establishing democracy and constitutional monarchy,

This isn't just POV, it's outright falsehood. Mossaqdegh promptly proceeded to dissolve the Majlis, suspend the constitution, and imple4ment rule by personal decree. Mossadegh may have been elected, but quickly made himself a dictator. His fatal mistake was declaring the monarch deposed- the royalist Army revolted. The article then goes on to imply by juxtaposition that oil nationalisation was the proximate cause of the US/UK intervention- which it was not.Solicitr (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully concurr with what JavidShah writes above, the rebuttal by Ardeshir Zahedi he wrote for the New York Times should put a lot of this to rest. However here in this article, it states HE was the go between fo rthe CIA and his father? I think he would definately object to that baseless accusation. The wiki article on Operation Ajax is even more slanted. People who distort these events would pretend it is out of concern for Iranians, but they are ignorant of the real effect, which has their progress into political maturity stifled by blaming others for all their problems. Furthermore it insults the people of Iran as pathetic and weak, as Ardeshir Zahedi clearly states. The rebuttal he wrote has a dead link to it, you can find it reproduced here: [4]Batvette (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep the opening paragraph neutral

The previous opening paragraph was chock full of POV. Keep it neutral! Azalea pomp (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi → Mohammad Reza Pahlavi — For years the article stood at "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi", until being moved a few months ago without consensus. It should be moved back, as this is the most commonly used form in English. A recent biography of the Shah uses it, as does a book on the Iranian Revolution. So too do The New York Times ([5], [6], [7]), The Washington Post ([8], [9], [10]), The Telegraph ([11], [12], [13]), The Guardian ([14], [15], [16]), etc. There is some ambiguity between "Mohammad" and "Mohammed", but that's secondary; the main idea is to move to the standard English usage. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support English usage as documented by reliable sources.Erudy (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Political prisoners in 1978

The introduction says, "Amnesty International reported that in 1978 Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners." with [citation needed]. In fact, the 1978 AI Annual Report (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL10/001/1978/en/3b791385-8458-4028-91fc-d95037765467/pol100011978eng.pdf, retrieved 15 June 2011) does not make that claim. On page 256, it says, "Amnesty International does not know the number of political prisoners in Iran. An official Iranian estimate, quoted in the British newspaper, the Guardian, on 22 February 1978, put the number of political prisoners at about 2,200, ..." The introduction should be modified accordingly. Kelseymh (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate statements

This article is full of inaccuracies. It talks about House of Pahlavi, or Pahlavi dynasty. The so-called house consists of two shahs, both born as commoners and died as commoners, they were both thrown out of the country and died as in exile loosing their throne. Reza khan-e Mir Panj was a low ranking officer, in the Russian Cossack Brigade serving in Iran who with the help of British participated in the Seid Zia Tabatabaie's coup to overthrow Ahamad Shah of House-of-Ghajar and then got rid of Seid Zia and proclaimed himself the Shah. His son Mohammad Reza who was born as a commoner was proclaimed as the crown prince.Both men died in disgrace when they were overthrown and both are responsible for the plight of the country in the last thirty years or so.

The article talks about the success of the Shah's White Revolution though virtually every expert assessment of its outcome, including even by people inside the regime like Prince Manucher Farmnfarmaian who was one of the elite Farmanfarmaian brothers that were acting as the ministers, the CEO of plan and budget organization, The Governor of Central Bank and so on consider it a major flop.

Please help to provide an accurate assessment of the historical period. Artaxerex (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Dynasty" is a general term to describe the families to which hereditary rulers (and sometimes merely prominent kinsmen) belonged: The House of Bonaparte is considered a dynasty, yet had only two members ruled France, rising as revolutionaries and dying in exile. Balance is called for in any article's opening lede: either only info that is agreed upon by or, if judgment is to be expressed, it must be fair, including pro and con perspectives. I've tried to edit accordingly. FactStraight (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Our personal opinions cannot get in the way of commonly used terms such as "Pahlavi dynasty". This term is so common it is in the title of some books: The rise and fall of the Pahlavi dynasty by Ḥusayn Fardūst, edited by Ali Akbar Dareini (1995), States and Territories Established In 1925: Pahlavi Dynasty, The History of Iran: The Pahlavi Dynasty, World War II, and the Iranian Revolution, and Treaties of the Pahlavi Dynasty, Including: Fourth Geneva Convention, United Nations Charter, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Central Treaty Organization, Second Geneva Convention, First Geneva Convention. Many other scholarly books use this term. We follow scholarly practice. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well to maintain some semblance of neutrality, at the very least it is essential to provide some information about the fact that this so-called dynasty was created by a coup, aided by the British general Ironside (See: R. H. Ullman, Anglo-Soviet Relations 1917-1921, 3 (Princeton, 1972) or D. Wright, The English amongst the Persians (London, 1977), pp. 180-84. Ironside's diary is the main document.)

The Bonaparte house had a number of European Kings as its members,(namely Napoleon's elder brother Joseph (1768–1844) king first of Naples (1806–1808) and then of Spain (1808–1813), his third brother Louis (1778–1846) king of Holland (1806–1810) and his youngest brother Jérôme Bonaparte (1784–1860) king of Westphalia, and the house was survived with Napoleon the third. The achievements of Napoleon cannot be compared with an illiterate thug who bullied his way to the royalty with the help of British and then was kicked out when he became Hitler's ally. The two rulers of the so-called House Of Pahlavi neither were born as a Shah nor died as a Shah.

As for the White Revolution there is a need for an acknowledgement that according to virtually all the scholarly studies, it was a big failure, if not an outright fiasco (See in addition to Blood and & oil by Farmanfarmaian & Farmanfarmian, also Barry Rubin, Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran (Oxford University Press, 1980: ISBN 0-14-00-5964-4) and Cottam, Nationalism in Iran and Nikki R. Keddie and Yann Richard, Roots of Revolution (Yale University, 1981: ISBN 0-300-02606-4) and Abrahamian, History of Modern Iran). The apologists for Shah's incompetent rule and his corrupt regime must at least accept part of his reprehensibility for the 1979 uprising that resulted in today's plight of Iranian nation. Artaxerex (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)