Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Archived discussions

Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

Revolution

There is a conspirancy behind the revolution, well it's the truth that the west planed and funded it. Remember that, don't lie to the people!

Request for NPOV edit

Please replace the introduction to the article with the following that incorporates Behnam's NPOV comment.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: محمدرضا پهلوی Moḥammad Rez̤ā Pahlavī) (October 26, 1919, Tehran – July 27, 1980, Cairo), He was the first son of Reza Shah, who ruled Iran between 1941 to 1979. According to the American Ambassador to Iran Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar demanded that the Shah should leave Iran in response to a popular uprising against the Pahlavi regime . After the American hostage crisis in 1981 the Shah became a persona non grata as no country was granting him an entery visa. Finally, President Sadat of Egypt allowed him to enter Egypt, where he died of cancer. He was the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy. He gave himself the title Khodayegan Alahazrat Homayooni Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Aryamehr Shahanshah-e Iran (Godlike, Supreme-presence, Homa(Mytical-Bird)-selected, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, sun-of-Aryans, King-of-kings of Iran). Artaxerex 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is up for a vote. I reject it. It does not fit in an encyclopedic article. Even the Persian is not in a standard transliteration (Library of Congress), for example "Homayooni". Also, Aryamehr is translated as Light of the Aryans, not Sun of the Aryans. For an introduction in an encyclopedic article there is no reason to mention Shapour Bakhtiar and President Sadat of Egypt. azalea_pomp

• Dear Shevink et al, "Mehr" in the "Aryameher" is Persian for Mitra and means "Sun", not "light". However if you want to replace the "Sun of Aryans" with "Light of Aryans" it would ok. In the Wikipedia page of king Edward VII, the introduction includes the reason for his abdication. We should mention why and how Shah was ousted. The current introduction has a strong monarchist POV. Faranbazu 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The page is not monarchist at all. In fact, I think it is a bit biased against the Shah. I think the page should be more neutral, but that is another issue. Please read another encyclopedia article on the Shah (World Book, Britannica, etc) as a model for what an encyclopedia article should look like. The difference between the Shah and Edward VIII, is that Edward VII is mostly known for abdicating. The Shah never abdicated his throne, he only left as a "vacation". Bakhtiar advised the Shah to leave the country, but the Shah leaving was due to the protests, not because Bakhtiar removed him from power. azalea_pomp

Why on earth should Shapour Bakhtiar be mentioned in the introduction? It should say that the Shah was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution. The rest of it is details, that should go in the body. john k 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Edward VII did not abdicate. You might be thinking of somebody else. john k 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I also do not think we need to clog up the introduction with every title of the Shah. Perhaps there should be a section at the end with all of his titles and their meanings with no bias and also with LC transliterations of the Persian. azalea_pomp

Comment - The main problem is that most of those details shouldn't be placed in the lead. They may be better suited to a different part of the article. The lead is supposed to be kept a concise and general summary of the article contents. See WP:LEAD. Anybody have any ideas which places in the article is best for these details? While we should add mention of the reasons he was deposed, this should be brief & neutral. For example, in the Edward VIII article, compare the coverage of Nazi allegations in the lead to that coverage in the body of the article. We don't need all of the specifics here, just a summary coverage. Also, while Mehr literally derives from Mithra and hence "Sun", it is intended as "Light" here. From my experience, pretty much all sources reflect this accurately. Anyway, like John K said, just mention the overthrow and death without all of the details. The Behnam 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't mind if the titles of Shah goes to the end. But, it is important to mention that all those titles where self-inflicted! :). If you look at IDI Amin page, you'll see that he also gave himself a lot of titles. The difference between a legitimate King (say King George V who foregone all his German titles) is thatthose title are inherited. The Shah's legitimacy is under question 1. because both him and his father when borned were commoners (as Reza khan was a missionery solder in the Russian-financed brigade).2. both he and his father were died in disgrace out of the country. 3. His father ousted the constitutional monarch Ahmad Shah. (read the speach of Dr. Mossadegh on the subject.)
• The importance of Shapour Baktiar in the ousting of Shah should not be under-estimated. Here was a couragous comrade of Dr. Mossadegh at the National Front, who took the helm, and kicked out the Shah. That was natural outcome of the condition for his accepting of the office (See: Mission to Iran), there are other references as well.
• As for King Edward VIII being mostly known for his abdication (which I agree is the case) the introduction to his page also mentiones: "During World War II he was at first stationed with the British Military Mission in France, but after private accusations that he was pro-Nazi, was moved to the Bahamas as Governor and Commander-in-Chief." and nobody has complained that this is clogging the introduction. Faranbazu 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but most of your comments are loaded with POV. Please, read examples of encyclopedias as most of your comments do not belong in a neutral online encyclopedia. This talk page is not to promote Dr. Mosaddeq or Bakhtiar (courageous comrades?) or to discuss the legitimacy of any dynasty. Further, just as a casual reader. When I read an article and I feel there is just a slant, it taints the whole article. An article should just state facts, and maybe a few opinions (both pro and con) on both sides. Azalea_pomp

• I'm only honest about my beliefs, and I am not hiding the fact that I find these dictators i.e., Reza and his son (like every other dictator -- dead or alive) repulsive. However, this does not mean that I want a POV article against this guy. On the contrary, I want a balanced article. Unfortunately, a large gang of monarchist try to golrify this character -- I find this also repulsive.
• However, I am going to provide all evidences at my disposal, and I am sure sooner or later a Wikipedian Admin will look at my references and will balance the article. I consider this the duty of every decent man to fight for democracy and humanity, no matter how hard is the fight. Faranbazu 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a page of one's beliefs. Wikipedia is a not a forum for anyone to spread their views whatever they are. Perhaps you should create your own website or contribute to a website with like minded people because this is not the place for anyone's political beliefs. As someone neutral, I don't see this page at all glorifying anyone. In fact, I find it a bit biased against the Shah as I think the language is not neutral in many places. azalea_pomp

* First of all, he did not give those titles to himself, all of them except for Aryamehr were also in use before the Pahlavis (e.g. in Qajar times), Homayoun and Shahanshah go back to pre-islamic times. Aryamehr was given to him by parliament. Mehr means many things besides Sun, Mithra is the god of light, the sun, the seasons, the god who watches over people's contracts and agreements, and over the laws of nature, and in a more mdoern sense the meaning also transformed to include feelings of love or affection. (See, e.g., Persian Myths by Vesta Sarkhosh-Curtis).

* As for the proposed intro, it could not be any more POV than this. Why does the intro need to include mainly the events of his downfall? The man was the Shah of Iran for 37 years, and you concentrate only on the last 1-2 years of his life? Why?

* And for the last time, there is no Shervink et al, I'm not affiliated with any of the editors here so stop this way of addressing me. Shervink 11:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

* By the way, as for Bakhtiar and Mossadegh being "comrades" against the Shah, or wanting to oust the Shah, that is very far from the truth. Both of them were openly monarchists (See either person's memoirs for instance). Shervink 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

• Dear Shervin-ak and Co, I don't mind if we say the title is given to him by his puppet parliament. After all idi amin also gave himself titles using the same shenanigans. Empror Bokassa would also be a relevant model here.

  File:Imperial stamp.jpg

  A stamp series celebrating Bokassa I's coronation

  . In facdt, there are a lot of similar characters.

• Dear Azalea_pomp, thank you for your comments. I totally agree with you. The article about Shah should be balanced.

How about these lines from another article in Wikipedia:

In 1978, the unrest in Iran against the monarch Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his autocratic rule boiled over into a revolution. In January 1979, the Shah fled Iran to exile in Egypt and Iran was turned into an "Islamic Republic". On 22 October 1979 the Shah was allowed to travel to the United States for medical treatment. This caused widespread anger in Iran. Furious at what was called "evidence of American plotting" by Iranian revolutionaries, the American Embassy in Tehran was taken over with the entire staff became hostages. While the situation was trying to be resoled through diplomatic means no real ground was gained for the release of the hostages.

... Shah became a persona non grata as no country was granting him an entery visa. Finally, President Sadat of Egypt allowed him to enter Egypt, where he died of cancer. He was the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy. He gave himself the title Khodayegan Alahazrat Homayooni Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Aryamehr Shahanshah-e Iran[2] (Godlike, Supreme-presence, Homa(Mytical-Bird)-selected, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, sun-of-Aryans, King-of-kings of Iran). Artaxerex 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Faranbazu, is there a particular reason you sign Artaxerex when editing with your Faranbazu account?!

As for addressing me "shervink and Co" or "shervink et al", I already asked you not to address me in this manner, as I am not affiliated with any of the other editors here. It is contrary to wikipedia spirit and basic good manners not to respect my wish.

Your comparisons to Amin and Bokassa are totally irrelevant and only reflect your personal point of view, as is your comparison with King Edward VIII.

Those titles you mention were traditional titles of the Iranian monarchy, and naturally also used by Mohammad Reza Shah.

Again, your proposed intro only focuses on the events in the 1-2 years around and after his fall, ignoring his 37 years in office, and has an obviously strong POV language as well as factual errors (regarding the titles, which were not his invention.)

Shervink 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

It appears that the user name discrepancy was from the cut-and-paste of that passage. The passage must have been written by Artaxerex elsewhere, and Faranbazu copied it to here. The Behnam 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Behnam you spoiled it :). I am honord to be associated with Artaxerex and Melca. By the way, when can I edit the lead. According to Wikipedia advice, I am planning to leave here for couple of months in order to let things cool down and then come back to see if things have remained the same.

{{Editprotected}} There does not appear to be consensus for this change. Please replace the tag when consensus is found. Until then, I will resolve this tag. CMummert · talk 05:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for NPOV in the lead

Please place this section in the lead: In 1978, the unrest in Iran against the monarch Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his autocratic rule boiled over into a revolution. In January 1979, the Shah fled Iran to exile in Egypt and Iran was turned into an "Islamic Republic". On 22 October 1979 the Shah was allowed to travel to the United States for medical treatment. This caused widespread anger in Iran. Furious at what was called "evidence of American plotting" by Iranian revolutionaries, the American Embassy in Tehran was taken over with the entire staff became hostages. While the situation was trying to be resoled through diplomatic means no real ground was gained for the release of the hostages.Shah became a persona non grata as no country was granting him an entery visa. Finally, President Sadat of Egypt allowed him to enter Egypt, where he died of cancer. He was the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy. He gave himself the title Khodayegan Alahazrat Homayooni Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Aryamehr Shahanshah-e Iran[2] (Godlike, Supreme-presence, Homa(Mytical-Bird)-selected, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, sun-of-Aryans, King-of-kings of Iran).

I disagree for reasons stated above. The proposed intro is POV and contains factual errors, and there is no consensus on it. Shervink 09:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

• Dear Shervinak and co, Please suggest changes to make the above NPOV. Note that the above text is already in Wikipedia. I am not saying where to stop you and co to vandalize that page. However, I will gladly provide the information to an admin. It is rather absurd that you want only to keep your Empror Bokasa's grandoise titles, and no facts about his dismisal. Faranbazu 18:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The introduction in the article is fine as it is in the protected article now. I would not object to the list of the titles of Shah mentioned at the end, but they there needs to be in a standard transliteraton and no POV. azalea_pomp

• How about this version. Please try get to a resolution, before I leave:

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: محمدرضا پهلوی Moḥammad Rez̤ā Pahlavī) (October 26, 1919, Tehran – July 27, 1980, Cairo), was the monarchial ruler of Iran from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy. In 1978, the unrest in Iran against the monarch Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his autocratic rule boiled over into a revolution. In January 1979, the Shah fled Iran to exile in Egypt. On 22 October 1979 the Shah was allowed to travel to the United States for medical treatment. In response, the American Embassy in Tehran was taken over with the entire staff became hostages. While the situation was trying to be resoled through diplomatic means the Shah became a persona non grata as no country was granting him an entery visa. Finally, President Sadat of Egypt allowed him to enter Egypt, where he died of cancer. He was the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy. He gave himself the title Khodayegan Alahazrat Homayooni Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Aryamehr Shahanshah-e Iran[2] (Godlike, Supreme-presence, Homa(Mytical-Bird)-selected, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, sun-of-Aryans, King-of-kings of Iran). Franbazu, 22:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. What exactly is the problem with the current version? 2. As I said before, those titles were traditional titles of the monarch, they were not self-imposed. Shervink 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

I would like to know as well. What exactly is NOT NPOV from the current lead? ♠ SG →Talk 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi SG, Good to see you here, where are the rest the gang? As I said before, the current lead is too lopesided. Here you have a guy that according to the CIA report is suffering from megalomenia, has facsist tendencies (e.g. forcing people to become members of his Rastkhiz party or otherwise they should leave the country). He excutes intellectuals like Golsorkhi, and Jazani, has low oppinion about women and his own wife's capcity to lead (a la interview with Barbara Walters), is superstious to the nth degree (according to his own auto-bio), and yet the current lead which is supposed to be "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. " is totally silent about such controversies. The lead does not say he was ousted, no country issued him visa etc. etc.
• Again WP:LEAD states: "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 (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article" Do you guys understand any of these or you think we are back in the old country, wher logic and instructions are good for SaG. For example: what important points covered in the article is in the current lead? How the current lead create interest in the subject? Is there an admin around that can explain these points to these characters?

Faranbazu 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, and I am repeating myself. There is too much information in your proposed intro and too much POV in your other writings. Also, your paragraphs are riddled with typos. I am just going to be honest. Your proposed edits are not going to get any approval from us or any other serious contributor on wikipedia. So I don't know why you just keep repeating what you are saying over and over again, when we keep saying no. azalea_pomp

Faranbazu has a legitimate point. The current lead[1] is only four lines and contains almost no info about the subject. The lead should as an absolute minimum contain the reasons for him being overthrown. You can argue the tone of these additions being added are POV, but in that case suggest a more NPOV version. Arguing that its too much information, when the lead is only four lines and contains almost nothing of interest about the subject, is not an excuse to oppose an addition. Many of the featured articles at wikipedia have much longer leads. Also personally i think his titles should be removed from the lead altogether and instead mentioned later in the article. However if they are to remain in the lead, i don't see why adding his remaining 2-3 titles is POV. If you think the titles are not in a standard transliteration then suggest a better one. --- Melca 06:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that the current lead is too short. The question is what should be added to it. Regarding the titles, I absolutely agree that they should be included within the intro, as is the case with many other royals' articles. My criticism is regarding the language used by Faranbazu. Firstly, I have never seen the title "Khodayegan" being used, but I wouldn't mind it if someone could show me a reputable source stating that he was really addressed like this. "Aryamehr" was given to him by parliament (freely elected or not is another issue, and can be discussed in its own place, since the title has even its own article on WP). As for A'la-hazrat, homayoun, shahanshah, and so on, saying "he gave himself the titles ..." is totally wrong since these were used by every monarch before him, in some cases they date back to pre-islamic times.

Regarding the revolution, I also think it needs mentioning, but we should concentrate on events rather than on analysis, since the "reasons" for his downfall are something we could discuss forever (There is also an article on the revolution where these are discussed). But I think adding a few NPOV sentences descibing the revolution is important. The overall intro should be balanced with respect to the time frames, however. If you propose including the 1979 revolution to be included, then so should for example the events of the white revolution, the land reforms, the advances in women's rights, and so on. The last year of his reign cannot take up the whole intro. Shervink 10:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

The lead doesn't say he was ousted? It clearly states he remained in power until the Iranian Revolution. What do you think a revolution is, a party for the Shah? As for those women quotes, what you perceive it to mean is different than what I perceive it to mean. Do you mean to tell me that he had no respect for women, but decided to bring in women's suffrage just for kicks? I am all for writing a more concise, neutral, and accurate article about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But just because you source your statements, doesn't mean they aren't NPOV; if your sources are POV, your text will be POV.

I personally would rather have everyone collaborate on this topic. Those against, those for, those in between -- everyone. I'm certain each of us will bring up points that are completely against what another will believe, but if we each discuss our additions in a calm and proper manner, then we will be able to work together. Introduce neutral sources! Ie., if you have one source supporting your statement, and someone else has a source opposing it, you'll have to find some common ground. ♠ SG →Talk 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite

File:Crystal 128 clock.png

The actual article is currently locked. This is effectively stonewalling the advancement of the issue at hand, so I have created a temporary page where we may all collaborate together: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/New. It is a copy of the article's state right now. I am now archiving the older topics on this talk page, so that we may begin focusing on improving the article. Start from the top (beginning with the lead) and we'll slowly move on through the article. How does this sound to everyone? ♠ SG →Talk 06:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New Intro?

As per my comments here [2], I suggest this version for the expansion of the intro:

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: محمدرضا پهلوی Moḥammad Rez̤ā Pahlavī) (October 26, 1919, Tehran – July 27, 1980, Cairo), was the monarch of Iran from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran after his father Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced to abdicate by the allied forces occupying Iran during World War II. His reign oversaw many important developments in Iran, including the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a series of reforms in the White Revolution which included nationalization of many natural resources, land reforms, and extension of sufferage to women.

The Shah had a strong anti-communist and pro-western policy, and was severely criticized by the Iranian clergy for his good relations with the state of Israel. His rule, however, almost constantly became more autocratic throughout his 37 years in office, and he has been criticized by many for his neglect of democratic principles and human rights violations. His supporters, however, have credited him with modernizing his country.

In 1978, the political unrest against his rule boiled over into a revolution. In January 1979, the Shah left Iran, officially for a visit to Egypt. Prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar's attempts to avoid a full collapse of the political system, however, could not stop the eventual success of the revolutionary forces under Ayatollah Khomeini, who returned to Iran from exile in February 1979. After stops in Marocco, the United States, and Panama, the Shah finally settled in Egypt, where he died of cancer in July 1980.

During his reign, he was addressed by the style of Alahazrat (Imperial Majesty), together with the imperial titles of Homayoun (by the grace of God), Shāhanshāh (King of Kings), and Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans).

Regarding the translation of the titles, they are not literal but are the closest in actual meaning so far as I know. I also avoided saying anything about Aryamehr being given by parliament or being legitimate, I merely said that he has been addressed like this, which we know is the case and is thus not controversial. Please let me know what you think about it.Shervink 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

• Thanks Melca, Your intervention appears to have rendered as a conduit for logic in this discussion. So please stay for awhile and do not leave.
• Shervink, thank you for your new intro, it is a quantum leap towards improvement. Here are some important facts from various academic sources, to quarantine this information from my unabashedly anti-Pahlavi biases I refrain from rephrasing them, and leave it to you to suggest an NPOV tone for them.
• 1. The Shah’s ability to control the Iranian security forces proved to be considerable; He appointed several tough, competent, and ambitious men to the various top security posts and relied on their conflicting ambitions to neutralize each other, .. The longevity of the Shah’s rule is due largely to his success in balancing his security chiefs against each other …Although the Shah was clearly willing to utilize instruments of terror to remain in power, he nevertheless was probably sincere about wishing to bring economic, social, and political reform to his country. (R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran PP 295-297)
• 2. The Shah contended that there were between three thousand and thirty five hundred political prisoners in Iran in 1977 (The Shah stated this figure in a CBS interview with Mike Wallace in 1976. In an interview with Aftenposten , Oslo, June 17, 1978, he used the figure of 3,300 for 1997).
• 3. In addition to all his other titles he was often referred to , especially in a military context, as “Khodaygan” .. which gives the flavor of being a leader approaching divine (R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran P.329)
• 4. In October 1971 the Shah celebrated the twenty-five-hundredth anniversary of the Iranian kings. The New York Times, October 12, 1971, 39:2 reported that $100 million was spent , where French chefs prepared breast of peacock for royalty and dignitaries around the world. This “was a major fiasco. Months before the festivities, university students struck in protest. ..Even within the entrepreneurial class there was much grumbling at what amounted to forced levies, large monetary contributions to the celebration. (R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran P.329) .On a dusty, windswept next to the ruins of Persepolis , the Shah gave orders to build a city covering 160 acres, studded with three huge royal tents and fifty-nine lesser ones arranged in a star-shaped design. No expenses was spared to make this one of the most lavish events of modern times. Food was catered by Maxim’s of Paris, the buildings were decorated by Jensen’s (the same firm that helped Jacqueline Kennedy redecorate the Whit e House), the guests ate off Ceraline Limoges china and drank from Baccarat crystal glasses… Indeed, the cost was sufficiently impressive that the shah forbade his associates to discuss the actual figures… The Persepolis ceremonies antagonized many of the Iranian people, for the contrast between the dazzling elegance of Persepolis and the misery of the nearby villages was so dramatic that no one could ignore it.(Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 22)
• 5. Shah’s was a traditional approach to kingship,, and he never extended the elitism of the court to the technocrats and intellectuals who emerged from Iranian and Western universities. Indeed, the shah’s system provoked the new classes, for they were excluded from participation in real power … Power was based on the calculus of personal relationships; in the words of Manfred Halpern , “upon the intimidation of one prominent man, the purchase of another, upon the expectation of future favors by a third, and upon the fear of losing privileges not earned on ground of talent or skill” Unwilling to touch this way of conducting national affairs, the Shah fell victim to the limitation of what Halpren calls transitional authoritarian rulers, those who are “barred by the very nature of the ties that created their power from engaging in reforms that might harm the existing relationships” .(Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 23, ans Manfred Halpern , The Revolution of Modernization, Princeton University, April 24, 1964)
• 6. According to the American Ambassador Julius Holmes; “ (the Shah) is not well served by advisers, either in government or outside it.. This is partially because of his innate suspicious of the ambitions of others and the lack of highly-qualified persons to assist him. Even those who are qualified are loath to give negative advice and follow the Persian tradition of telling the Monarch what they think he wants to hear. This often takes the form of exaggerated flattery, to which the Shah is surprisingly susceptible. He is a vain man and those around him know it . (Julius Holmes, Diplomatic cable, American Embassy)
• 7. In the words a US Embassy dispatch “The shah’s picture is everywhere. The beginning of all film showings in public theaters presents the shah in various regal poses accompanied by the strains of the National anthem… The monarch also actively extends his influence to all phases of social affairs…there is hardly any activity or vocation which the shah or members of his family or his closest friends do not have a direct or at least a symbolic involvement.
• 8. Shah proved to be a master in the cooption of the ideas others, both as tactic of control and manipulation and as a form of channeling creativity to his advantage. For example, the much-vaunted White Revolution of the early 1960s represented a projection of the views of Prime Minister Amini and his agriculture minister, Hassan Arsanjani, both of whom were defenestrated prior to the full implementation of the reform program. .(Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 27)
• 9. The shah claimed to take a two party-system seriously and declared “If I were a dictator rather tan a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized” (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mission for my Country, London, 1961, page 173). “By 1975, however, the shah had decided to finish this charade.. In an unanticipated initiative he announced the establishment of a new single party called the Rastakhiz or National Resurgence Party. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The thinking behind this was probably that the regime needed a more positive means of winning support and of forcing people…to declare their loyalty publicly. The shah’s own words on the matter were blunt enough; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t. .. A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization , or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law” (Fred Halliday, Iran; Dictatorship and Development, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-02.2010-0).

• 10. According to William Sullivan the last U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Mission to Iran, Pp 161-163; “ Jolted by the events of September 7 , (1979) the shah summoned his military commanders to the palace and held a long meeting. The city and the country awoke the next morning to announcement that martial law had been declared …A demonstration had been organized and scheduled for September 8 in Jaleh Square. In short order the demonstrators who had gathered there and the troops who were brought in to disperse them. … In any event, a melee soon developed and shoving took place on both sides. After a few minutes of this, the troop commander called his forces back to a firing line and ordered to fire their weapons . .. The massacre was a shock to both sides. The opposionists seemed sobered by the force of military action; the government – and particularly the shah – seemed astounded by the number of casualties. .. Later, I received a message asking me to see the shah and inform him that the United States government felt it was in his best interest and in Iran’s for him to leave the country. ..The shah listened to me state it simply and gently as I could and then turned to me, almost beseeching, throwing out his hands and saying, “Yes, but where I will go?” The Cable of instruction had said nothing about this point. Accordingly, when the shah asked this question I told him I had no guidance, (After pondering on the Switzerland and England as options that shah dismissed for lack of security and bad weather respectively) I then asked, “Would you like me to seek an invitation for you to go to the United States?” He leaned forward almost like a small boy, and said “Oh, would you?”

• 11. In possibly the most astonishing of a series of brilliant interview portraits, the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci has captured some of essence of the Shah’s self –image and demeanor. Confessing to an abiding mysticism, the Shah strongly asserted his contention of divine ordination. ”I believe in God, and that I have been chosen by God to perform a task. My visions were miracles that saved the country. My reign has saved the country, and it has done so because God was on my side.” By 1973, at the time of this interview, he was aggressively and publicly contemptuous of Western liberal democracy , boastfully proud of having the strength to order the shooting of dissidents. (Oriana Fallaci, The Shah of Iran, New Republic, Sep. 1, 1973 , 217:16-21.)

• Please note that these points can be summarized succinctly for the lead so that the gist of the story be revealed. I trust that the new spirit of co-operation could provide room for these points. Please note that I have researched these points extensively and if there are objections on some of the references, I am reasonably confident that I can provide other references from the impartial sources. Please let me know if you would like me to summarize these points for the lead. Faranbazu 22:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

• Wow, that's a lot of points. We should certainly use what we can, but we don't want to go overtly into details in the introduction. Personally, I think points 1 and 2 are simple enough to be summarized in the lead (though we need a credible source for #2). Everything else is far too detailed, and they need to be embedded into the article itself. The intro should give us a basic idea of why he was a success, a failure, praised and loathed. It should interest the reader into going deeper into the article for the particular incidents and details.

I wrote a new lead over in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/New (see the related discussion on its talk page), which I think is a good starting point for rewriting the article. I'm going to change it around a bit by adding in what I can from your and Shervink's suggestions. I'd appreciate it if you guys could join in with the rewrite as well. ♠ SG →Talk 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly if anyone has the A&E Biography of the Shah from the late 90s, it is a rather good non POV biography has it has commentary from many about the Shah. There are many great quotes from people like Anthony Parsons, former ministers, American officials, and people who were against the Shah. azalea_pomp

New Lead

• Please note that I have kept Shervink's edit and added the interesting events per WP:Lead policies that could be expanded in the text.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: محمدرضا پهلوی Moḥammad Rez̤ā Pahlavī) (October 26, 1919, Tehran – July 27, 1980, Cairo), was the monarch of Iran from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy.

Mohammad Reza and his twin sister Ashraf were born as commoners . After his father’s coup and the seizure of the throne, he became the crown prince and was sent to Le Rosey school Switzerland. He became Shah of Iran after his father Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced to abdicate by the allied forces occupying Iran during World War II. His reign oversaw many important developments in Iran, including the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a series of reforms in the White Revolution, initiated under prime minister Ali Amini and his reformist minister of agriculture Hassan Arsanjani, which included nationalization of many natural resources, land reforms, and extension of suffrage to women.

The first years of his rule seared in his mind the inherent weakness of his position. The country was occupied by allied forces, and he was installed on the throne by the foreign occupiers. The 1947-1952 was an extended period of musical-chair prime ministers that for the most part were appointed by the British government. The young shah was considered by Britain as indecisive and weak to confront the rising soviet agitations. At the same time he had to face the fierce face-off with the nationalist Prime Minister Dr. Mossadegh, who through his eloquent speeches was demanding the re-establishment of the constitutional monarchy. At the same time the Communist Party of Iran (Tudeh) was supporting the dismemberment of Iran and the break-away of the “Azerbaijan Democratic Republic” and “Kurdestan Democratic Republic” which were supported by Soviets.

After the departure of the Allied Forces from Iran in 1947, the prime minister Qavam decided to confront Russians, he succeeded by a combination of strategically smart moves, discreet backing by British, and blunt threat of the Truman Doctrine. However, Princess Ashraf, the shah’s twin sister, suspicious of Qavam ambitions, arranged for his dismissal by the parliament This enabled the young shah to claim that it was he who freed Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. According to the US Ambassador George Allan at the time; “Despite the fact that the Shah is by far the most powerful figure in Iran today, his power is largely negative in that he can prevent almost any action he does not like, and is unable to do very much of a positive nature.”

In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establish the democracy ,constitutional monarchy, and nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry. From the start he erroneously believed that the Americans, who had no interest in Anglo-Iranian Oil company, would support his nationalization plan. He was buoyed by the American Ambassador, Henry Grady. In the events, Americans supported the British, and fearing that the Communists with the help of Soviets are posed to overthrow the government they decided to remove Mossadegh from the office. Shortly before the 1952 presidential election in the US the British government invited Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA to London and proposed that they cooperate under the code name “Operation Ajax” to cause the downfall of Mossadegh from office. . The American Embassy in Tehran was reporting that Mossaedgh had near total support from the nation and was unlikely to fall. The prime minister asked Majles to give him direct control of the army. Given the situation , alongside the strong personal support of Eden and Churchill for covert action, the American government gave a go-ahead to a committee, attended by the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt, Ambassador Henderson, and Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson. Kermit Roosevelt returned to Iran on July 13 and on August 1 in his first meeting with the shah. A car picked him up in the midnight and drove him to the palace. He lay down on the seat and covered himself with a blanket as guards waved his driver through the gates. The shah got into the car and Roosevelt explained the mission. The CIA provided $1 million in Iranian currency, which Roosevelt had stored in a large safe, a bulky cache given the exchange rate 1000 rial = 15 dollars at the time. .

Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry and within a few months his government was in direct conflict with the shah. The Communists staged massive demonstrations to hijack the prime minister’s initiatives. The United States had announced its total lack of confidence in him; and his followers were drifting to indifference. On August 16, 1953, the right wing of the Army reacted. Armed with an order by the shah, appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister, a coalition of mobs and retired officers close to the Palace, attempting what could be counted as a coup d’etat. They failed dismally. The shah fled the country in an humiliating haste. Even Ettelaat, the nation’s largest daily newspaper, and its pro-shah publisher Abbas Masudi, published negative commentaries on the shah .

In the following two days the Communists turned against Mossadegh. They roamed Tehran raising red flags and pulling down statues of Reza Shah. This frightened the conservative clergies like Kashani and National Front leaders like Makki , who sided with the shah. On Agust 18, Mossadegh hit back. Tudeh Partisans were clubbed to be dispersed.Tudeh had no choice but to accept the defeat. In the meantime, according to the CIA plot, Zahedi appealed to the military, and claimed to be the legitimate prime minister and charged Mossadegh with staging a coup by ignoring the shah’s decree. Zahedi’s son Ardeshir acted as the go-between for the CIA and his father. On August 19th the thugs organized with $100,000 of the CIA funds finally appeared, marched out of south Tehran into the city center, other mobs joined in. Gang with clubs, knives, and rocks controlled the street overturning Tudeh trucks and beating up anti-shah activists. As Roosevelt was congratulating Zahedi in the basement of his hiding place the new prime minister’s mobs burst in and carried him upstairs on their shoulders . That evening Ambassador Henderson suggested to Ardashir that Mossadegh not be harmed . Roosevelt furnished Zahedi with $900,000 left from the operation Ajax funds.

The shah returned to power, but never extended the elitism of the court to the technocrats and intellectuals who emerged from Iranian and Western universities. Indeed, his system irritated the new classes, for they were barred from partaking in real power. According to the American Ambassador Julius Holmes; the shah was a vain man and those around him knew it , he was not well served by advisers, either in government or outside it, partially because of Shah’s innate suspicious of the ambitions of others and the lack of highly-qualified persons to assist him. The shah’s ability to control the Iranian security forces was rising and proved to be considerable; He appointed a number of strong, competent, and ambitious men to the various top security posts and relied on their conflicting ambitions to neutralize each other. Cottam have argued; the longevity of the Shah’s rule was due largely to his success in balancing his security chiefs against each other. Although the shah was clearly willing to utilize instruments of terror to remain in power, he nevertheless was probably sincere about wishing to bring economic, social, and political reform to his country.

The Shah had a strong anti-communist and pro-western policy, and was severely criticized by the Iranian clergy for his good relations with the state of Israel. His rule, however, almost constantly became more autocratic throughout his 37 years in office, and he has been criticized by many for his neglect of democratic principles and human rights violations. In 1961 the shah wrote “If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized” However, in1975 he announced the establishment of a new single party called the Rastakhiz or National Resurgence Party. All Iranians were expected to join in, as the shah addressed the nation in these blunt words; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t. .. A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words is a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”. His supporters, however, have credited him with modernizing his country.

In October 1971 the Shah celebrated the twenty-five-hundredth anniversary of the Iranian monarchy. The New York Times, reported that $100 million was spent. Next to the ruins of Persepolis , the Shah gave orders to build a city covering 160 acres, studded with three huge royal tents and fifty-nine lesser ones arranged in a star-shaped design . French chefs from Maxim’s of Paris prepared breast of peacock for royalty and dignitaries around the world, the buildings were decorated by Jensen’s (the same firm that helped Jacqueline Kennedy redecorate the White House), the guests ate off Ceraline Limoges china and drank from Baccarat crystal glasses. This became a major scandal for the contrast between the dazzling elegance of celebration and the misery of the nearby villages was so dramatic that no one could ignore it. Months before the festivities, university students struck in protest. Indeed, the cost was sufficiently impressive that the shah forbade his associates to discuss the actual figures.

In 1978, the political unrest against his rule boiled over into a revolution. According to William Sullivan the last U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Jolted by the populous unrest the shah summoned his military commanders to the palace and held a long meeting on September 7 1979. The city and the country awoke the next morning to the announcement that martial law had been declared. A demonstration had been organized and scheduled for September 8 in Jaleh Square. In short order the demonstrators who had gathered there and the troops who were brought in to disperse them were meeting face to face. A melee soon developed and shoving took place on both sides. After a few minutes of this, the troop commander called his forces back to a firing line and ordered to fire their weapons . .. The massacre was a shock to both sides. The opposition seemed sobered by the force of military action; the government – and particularly the shah – seemed astounded by the number of casualties. Later, Sullivan received a message asking him to see the shah and inform him that the United States government felt it was in his best interest and in Iran’s for him to leave the country. ..The shah listened to him state it simply and gently as he could and then turned to him, almost beseeching, throwing out his hands and saying, “Yes, but where I will go?” The ambassador asked, “Would you like me to seek an invitation for you to go to the United States?” The shah leaned forward almost like a small boy, and said “Oh, would you?”

In January 1979, the Shah left Iran, officially for a visit to Egypt. Prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar's attempts to avoid a full collapse of the political system, however, could not stop the eventual success of the revolutionary forces under Ayatollah Khomeini, who returned to Iran from exile in February 1979. After stops in Marocco, the United States, and Panama, the Shah finally settled in Egypt, where he died of cancer in July 1980.

During his reign, he was addressed by the style of Alahazrat (Imperial Majesty), together with the imperial titles of Homayoun (by the grace of God), Shāhanshāh (King of Kings), “Khodaygan” ( Approaching Divinity) and Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans). Franbazu 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, for the nth time, your suggestions are loaded with POV. Everything you write is slanted to the negative. azalea_pomp

• That's fine, don't worry about it. My main problem is that what Franbazu wrote isn't exactly a lead, but more of a very long negative summary. Anyhow, I digress. You needn't worry about what Franbazu is writing here, because while he may be against the Shah, there are other Wikipedians who are just as much supporters of the Pahlavis. So, we take what we can from both sides by finding (alternative) neutral sources regarding the topics discussed. I guess what I am trying to say is that when Franbazu (or anyone) writes these things here, on the talk page, rather than overwriting the article itself, we all have a chance to discuss changes that will ultimately result in a more neutrally-toned article. ♠ SG →Talk 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The transliteration of the LC for Homayoun is Homāyūn. Aryamehr is Āryāmehr. Khodaygan is Khodāygān. I now need to find them for the other titles. azalea_pomp

• I agree totally. If one can provide reasonable facts that are verifiable from valid sources everybody wins. We are lucky that we can always ask other editors to act as judges. It may take some time to air a reasonable argument, but it is fun. Cheers, Franbazu 07:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

• Dear SG and Shervink; I am planning to request for arbitaration. Would you agree? I will be more tahn happy to work with you in good faith to improve the article. I do not mind if you include well sourced facts, provided that you respect mines to provide a balance, and do not delet them. If this is agreeable to you, please go ahead and edit my new suggested version.

please note that in this version above I have included all the points suggested by Shervink. Please assume Good Faith on my part, as I assume to be the case for your edits. Faranbazu 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought SG was here for arbitration... In any event, balance does not mean let's include a negative for every positive. Balance means no POV and language which is neutral without any slant. What you have written it simply not going to make the cut. We need to improve the article on MRP2. I can tell you now your article is so POV and slanted, it would need a total rewrite. azalea_pomp

• Oh, no; I'd be the last person you'd want for arbitration. Well, Faranbazu, if you want to make a RfA, go for it, but my suggestion is to start at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation first, and if that doesn't work, then try a request for arbitration afterwards (as recommended by the dispute resolution policy). ♠ SG →Talk 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear SG, Thank you for your suggestion. Would you agree to put the following points (from the edits I made on Shervink suggestions, see above) on the tablefor mediation. Please feel free to suggest edits that would be agreeable to both sides, so that we can reduce the number of points going for mediation. Again I assume the good faith on your side, and would offer nothing less, but good faith on my part. (if you think the lead will be too long, I suggest to summarize these points in the lead with NPOV and exapnd them in the article ala [WP : Lead].

• 1 Mohammad Reza and his twin sister Ashraf were born as commoners.

• 2 After Reza Shah's coup and the seizure of the throne, he became the crown prince.
• 3 His reign oversaw many important developments in Iran, including the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a series of reforms in the White Revolution, initiated under prime minister Ali Amini and his reformist minister of agriculture Hassan Arsanjani, which included nationalization of many natural resources, land reforms, and extension of suffrage to women.
• 4. The first years of his rule seared in his mind the inherent weakness of his position, as the country was occupied by allied forces, and he was installed on the throne by the foreign occupiers.
• 5. The 1947-1952 was an extended period of musical-chair prime ministers that for the most part were appointed by the British government. The young shah was considered by Britain as indecisive and weak to confront the rising soviet agitations.

• 6. At the same time he had to face the fierce face-off with the nationalist Prime Minister Dr. Mossadegh, who through his eloquent speeches was demanding the re-establishment of the constitutional monarchy.

• 7. At the same time the Communist Party of Iran (Tudeh) was supporting the dismemberment of Iran and the break-away of the “Azerbaijan Democratic Republic” and “Kurdestan Democratic Republic” which were supported by Soviets.

• 8. After the departure of the Allied Forces from Iran in 1947, the prime minister Qavam decided to confront Russians, he succeeded by a combination of strategically smart moves, discreet backing by British, and blunt threat of the Truman Doctrine.

• 9. Princess Ashraf, the shah’s twin sister, suspicious of Qavam ambitions, arranged for his dismissal by the parliament [3] This enabled the young shah to claim that it was he who freed Azerbaijan and Kurdistan.

• 10. According to the US Ambassador George Allan at the time; “Despite the fact that the Shah is by far the most powerful figure in Iran today, his power is largely negative in that he can prevent almost any action he does not like, and is unable to do very much of a positive nature.” [4]

• 11. In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establish the democracy ,constitutional monarchy, and nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry.

• 12. From the start he erroneously believed that the Americans, who had no interest in Anglo-Iranian Oil company, would support his nationalization plan.

• 13. He was buoyed by the American Ambassador, Henry Grady. In the events, Americans supported the British, and fearing that the Communists with the help of Soviets are posed to overthrow the government they decided to remove Mossadegh from the office.

• 14. Shortly before the 1952 presidential election in the US the British government invited Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA to London and proposed that they cooperate under the code name “Operation Ajax” to cause the downfall of Mossadegh from office. [5]. The American Embassy in Tehran was reporting that Mossaedgh had near total support from the nation and was unlikely to fall.

• 15. The prime minister asked Majles to give him direct control of the army.

• 16. Given the situation , alongside the strong personal support of Eden and Churchill for covert action, the American government gave a go-ahead to a committee, attended by the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt, Ambassador Henderson, and Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson.

• 17. Kermit Roosevelt returned to Iran on July 13 and on August 1 in his first meeting with the shah. A car picked him up in the midnight and drove him to the palace. He lay down on the seat and covered himself with a blanket as guards waved his driver through the gates. The shah got into the car and Roosevelt explained the mission. The CIA provided $1 million in Iranian currency, which Roosevelt had stored in a large safe, a bulky cache given the exchange rate 1000 rial = 15 dollars at the time. [6] .

• 18. Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry and within a few months his government was in direct conflict with the shah.

• 19. The Communists staged massive demonstrations to hijack the prime minister’s initiatives. The United States had announced its total lack of confidence in him; and his followers were drifting to indifference.

• 20. On August 16, 1953, the right wing of the Army reacted. Armed with an order by the shah, appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister, a coalition of mobs and retired officers close to the Palace, attempting what could be counted as a coup d’etat.

• 21. They failed dismally. The shah fled the country in an humiliating haste. Even Ettelaat, the nation’s largest daily newspaper, and its pro-shah publisher Abbas Masudi, published negative commentaries on the shah [7] .

• 22. In the following two days the Communists turned against Mossadegh. They roamed Tehran raising red flags and pulling down statues of Reza Shah. This frightened the conservative clergies like Kashani and National Front leaders like Makki , who sided with the shah.

• 23. On Agust 18, Mossadegh hit back. Tudeh Partisans were clubbed to be dispersed[8].Tudeh had no choice but to accept the defeat.

• 24. In the meantime, according to the CIA plot, Zahedi appealed to the military, and claimed to be the legitimate prime minister and charged Mossadegh with staging a coup by ignoring the shah’s decree. Zahedi’s son Ardeshir acted as the go-between for the CIA and his father.

• 25. On August 19th the thugs organized with $100,000 of the CIA funds finally appeared, marched out of south Tehran into the city center, other mobs joined in. Gang with clubs, knives, and rocks controlled the street overturning Tudeh trucks and beating up anti-shah activists.

• 26. As Roosevelt was congratulating Zahedi in the basement of his hiding place the new prime minister’s mobs burst in and carried him upstairs on their shoulders . That evening Ambassador Henderson suggested to Ardashir that Mossadegh not be harmed . Roosevelt furnished Zahedi with $900,000 left from the operation Ajax funds.

• 27. The shah returned to power, but never extended the elitism of the court to the technocrats and intellectuals who emerged from Iranian and Western universities.

• 28. Indeed, his system irritated the new classes, for they were barred from partaking in real power.

• 29. According to the American Ambassador Julius Holmes; the shah was a vain man and those around him knew it , he was not well served by advisers, either in government or outside it, partially because of Shah’s innate suspicious of the ambitions of others and the lack of highly-qualified persons to assist him.

• 30. The shah’s ability to control the Iranian security forces was rising and proved to be considerable; He appointed a number of strong, competent, and ambitious men to the various top security posts and relied on their conflicting ambitions to neutralize each other.

• 31. Cottam (of the US State Dept.)have argued; the longevity of the Shah’s rule was due largely to his success in balancing his security chiefs against each other. Although the shah was clearly willing to utilize instruments of terror to remain in power, he nevertheless was probably sincere about wishing to bring economic, social, and political reform to his country.

• 32. The Shah had a strong anti-communist and pro-western policy, and was severely criticized by the Iranian clergy for his good relations with the state of Israel. His rule, however, almost constantly became more autocratic throughout his 37 years in office, and he has been criticized by many for his neglect of democratic principles and human rights violations. (this point is suggested by Shervink and I totally agree with it.

• 33. In 1961 the shah wrote “If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized” [9]

• 34. However, in 1975 he announced the establishment of a new single party called the Rastakhiz or National Resurgence Party. All Iranians were expected to join in, as the shah addressed the nation in these blunt words; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t. .. A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words is a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”.

• 35. In October 1971 the Shah celebrated the twenty-five-hundredth anniversary of the Iranian monarchy. The New York Times, reported that $100 million was spent. [10]

• 36. Next to the ruins of Persepolis , the Shah gave orders to build a city covering 160 acres, studded with three huge royal tents and fifty-nine lesser ones arranged in a star-shaped design . French chefs from Maxim’s of Paris prepared breast of peacock for royalty and dignitaries around the world, the buildings were decorated by Jensen’s (the same firm that helped Jacqueline Kennedy redecorate the White House), the guests ate off Ceraline Limoges china and drank from Baccarat crystal glasses. This became a major scandal for the contrast between the dazzling elegance of celebration and the misery of the nearby villages was so dramatic that no one could ignore it. Months before the festivities, university students struck in protest. Indeed, the cost was sufficiently impressive that the shah forbade his associates to discuss the actual figures.[11] [12]

• 37. In 1978, the political unrest against his rule boiled over into a revolution. (suggested by Shervink and I agree)

• 38. According to William Sullivan the last U.S. Ambassador to Iran, [13] Jolted by the populous unrest [14]the shah summoned his military commanders to the palace and held a long meeting on September 7 1979. The city and the country awoke the next morning to the announcement that martial law had been declared. A demonstration had been organized and scheduled for September 8 in Jaleh Square. In short order the demonstrators who had gathered there and the troops who were brought in to disperse them were meeting face to face. A melee soon developed and shoving took place on both sides. After a few minutes of this, the troop commander called his forces back to a firing line and ordered to fire their weapons . .. The massacre was a shock to both sides. The opposition seemed sobered by the force of military action; the government – and particularly the shah – seemed astounded by the number of casualties. Later, Sullivan received a message asking him to see the shah and inform him that the United States government felt it was in his best interest and in Iran’s for him to leave the country. ..The shah listened to him state it simply and gently as he could and then turned to him, almost beseeching, throwing out his hands and saying, “Yes, but where I will go?” The ambassador asked, “Would you like me to seek an invitation for you to go to the United States?” The shah leaned forward almost like a small boy, and said “Oh, would you?”

• 39. In January 1979, the Shah left Iran, officially for a visit to Egypt. Prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar's attempts to avoid a full collapse of the political system, however, could not stop the eventual success of the revolutionary forces under Ayatollah Khomeini, who returned to Iran from exile in February 1979. After stops in Marocco, the United States, and Panama, the Shah finally settled in Egypt, where he died of cancer in July 1980. (suggested by Shervink and I agree)

• 40 During his reign, he was addressed by the style of Alahazrat (Imperial Majesty), together with the imperial titles of Homayoun (by the grace of God), Shāhanshāh (King of Kings), “Khodaygan” ( Approaching Divinity) and Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans). Franbazu 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, we can't put that much into the introduction. It's just far, far too long. We need to keep the length to three paragraphs or less, and they can't be overly long paragraphs either. Basically, you're trying to summarize his entire life in the lead. Instead, we need to go over some very basic details about his birth, rise and fall. That's it; hardly any details. I think we can create another section in the article itself for the titles (I mean, come on, how important are titles in the lead compared to a revolution?).

However, much of what you've written needs to be added to the article itself — albeit much more neutrally and with proper sourcing . For example, it was Time, not The New York Times, who alleged a $100M cost for the ceremonies; however, the official estimate was $16.8M, but others would put it as high as $500M; in an interview with The Iranian in 2002, Abdolreza Ansari tallied up a figure of $22M. So, as you can see, there are many sources to look at for everything; it's going to be hell, so we'll all have to work together to find all of these sources in a reasonable amount of time.

How about we set a goal for ourselves? By May 1, we should all agree that this article is ready for a Good Article nomination. That will give us all something to harder work for. That target date gives us about one month, after mediation. ♠ SG →Talk 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know about this [3] (Artaxerex blocked for 48 hours. Faranbazu blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet). Shervink 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

• Oh, and here I thought he was starting to become cooperative. Thanks for having that checked out, Shervink. ♠ SG →Talk 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the above 36 points are well researched, it is still incombant upon you to provide a response as to how are you going to incorporate them with a NPOV voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arteban1 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Arteban1, please sign your comments properly.

2. It might be interesting for everyone to know that Arteban1, who has joined our discussion right after Artaxerex has been banned, has accused a large number of senior editors here of sockpuppetry [4]. Needless to say, the accusation is totally baseless and virtually no evidence has been provided by him/her.

3. SG, many thanks for your efforts on this article, I totally support your idea regarding the new version, and I'll help wherever I can. Please feel free to use any part of my above-suggested lead that you find useful. Shervink 08:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, shoot, I was even being nice to him. Well, this is surprising to say the least. I myself am quite shocked to learn that you are my puppet master, Shervink! As for the new article, I'd really rather have you in there editing, instead of getting me to incorporate your ideas; we should be able to get much more accomplished in less time, that way. ♠ SG →Talk 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dear SG and Shervink please assume Good Faith and concentrate on the content of the article at hand. Thanks 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, we had a new sockpuppet here [5]. This is really annoying, it's simply a huge waste of time and energy to track all these multiple sockpuppet accounts.

Dear SG, I'll try to work on the new article as far as I can find the time. Shervink 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Quotes"

Out of 5, 3 of them are on "role of women". I took this one out:

• On the role of women: Women are important in a man’s life only if they’re beautiful and charming and keep their femininity and ... this business of feminism, for instance. What do these feminists want? What do you want? You say equality. Oh! I don’t want to seem rude, but.. you’re equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability ... You've never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach. You've never even produced a great chef. And if you talk to me about opportunity, all I can say is, Are you joking? Have you ever lacked the opportunity to give history a great chef? You've produced nothing great, nothing! … You're schemers, you are evil. All of you.

Mainly because sources are not verifiable. Second "source" basically cites the first one, and the first one is not online. I think from an audio link on this very page, he is asked if he has said that quote and he replies by saying "not exactly the same words". There are enough silly quotes about women already, I don't see why this one should also be there --Rayis 12:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This quote shows he was a "man". You can get the book and verify, laziness is not part of Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'll put it back and also add his quote about Jewish control of the media and banks. These two quotes show the unknown part of the Shah which remains hidden by the sissified expatriates in the west and the Islamic republic, who want to say he remained a puppet of the planetary establishment.

Do you object?--Gerash77 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This quote shows he was a "man"?! what?! Read what I said again, it seems like he disputed saying such thing. Oh and please keep your anti-Pahlavi opinions to yourself. --Rayis 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rayis.. The quote you have removed is very well known and caused quite a stir at the time. It is from this book by Oriana Fallaci, who was a famous Italian journalist who interviewed many top level figures such as Golda Meir, Khomeini and Kissinger to name a few. Because you think it is silly does not justify its removal. Also because the source in not online does not make it less valid. Read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. You should know this by now. Gerash go ahead and add the quotes --- Melca 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't get my points, so I will put it in bullet points:

• 1- There are 5 quotes, 3 of which refer to "role of women". Who is trying to make a point here? do we need this many points on one matter?
• 2- I said there is a sound file I think linked on this very article, where he denies saying those exact words, so if it was disputed by himself, lets not push the matters. --Rayis 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rayis I get your points. 1) I personally wont object if you remove the two other quotes about woman (others might though). As you can tell he his being quite condescending about woman. The other two quotes were added to show his other views about woman. If you want to even it up, add quotes about other subjects, as Gerash also suggested. 2) I dont know which audio file you are refering to, but he has never denied the quote from Orianas book. He has only denied the wording when it has been misquoted from the book. --- Melca 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are alone in your opinion regarding removing his quote. Unless we have established that most agree with you, the quote will remain. And yes, it does establish he finally became a man, no longer a puppet. [6] Which may be why he lost his White House backing. --Gerash77 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)