Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Archived discussions

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3 (From /New)

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)

Wow, Oriana Fallaci's interview isn't reliable? Haha, classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry but we can't remove it, even if it does shatter the wonderful image we have of this glorious 'King of Kings'. Oh, and thanks for the video link. I never knew before that he believed in the Zionist Occupation Government. Very interesting. The Behnam 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, be WP:Civil for a change yeah? I provided my reasoning, there were too many quotes on the same topic, and the second source just cited the first, so it looked suspicious. --Rayis 10:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Civil? It is amusing that, out of those quotes about women, you want to get rid of that one specifically. Anyway, it seems you've added balance, though it should be footnoted, as is done in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad article, since the elaboration is not appropriate where it is. The Behnam 12:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not familiar with WP:Assume Good Faith, I have given number of reasons yet you keep harassing me with your accusations, frankly as you must know, I don't care what you find amusing or not, keep it to yourself --Rayis 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Keep harassing"? What are you talking about? I'm just enjoying the humor of the situation. I can't help if you don't find anything amusing. I'll stop for your sake, as I would hate for you to be uncomfortable or feel harassed. Cheers. The Behnam 14:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact we should mention his belief in Jewish control in the article somewhere. The Behnam 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Go right a head, that's hardly a secret in today's world --Rayis 10:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I just never knew that about him. The Behnam 12:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that you think that Jewish control is not a secret? Or that it is simply not secret that he believed in Jewish control? The Behnam 13:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant the so called "Jewish lobby" and it's influence in American politics. Although of course many call it a conspiracy, many don't. That's not relevant here anyway --Rayis 13:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, maybe WP was not the best place for you to share that you give credence to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Anyway, if there is a source for the Jewish note then it should probably be added, no? The Behnam 14:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean I agree or disagree with it. Anyway yes the Jewish thing is fine, at the moment there is slight undue weight to his opinions on women --Rayis 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I don't know the source for that (aside from the video) but Gerash seemed to, so he can add it when he comes back. The Behnam 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Melca's most recent edit. I didn't really understand his edit summary, but we can discuss it here. I am referring to this edit [7]. The edit summary said "Sorry but i have to remove this. He is referring to a misquote by Barbara Walters and not the quote from Orianas book. Walters quote is different then the one in Oriana book whichis what he is ref. to". I believe the Shah was, in fact, referring to the quote from Fallaci's interview. He is telling Walters that Fallaci misquoted him. Agha Nader 17:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Sorry about the edit summery but i had to shorten it to fit :) Ok here is what i meant. The shah is not referring to the quote from Fallaci's interview but the wording used by Barbara Walters when she is quoting Fallaci. Here is how she quotes it and the shahs response:

Walters: I'm quoting Your Majesty. In a man's life, women count only if they are beautiful, graceful and know how to stay feminine. You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but not in ability. You have never produced a Michelangelo or a Bach or even a great cook. You are schemers. You are evil. All of you. Your Majesty, you said all these things?

Shah: Not with the same words, no.

Walters: Well, the thought, You've never produced a Michelangelo, a Bach, or even a great. . . .

Shah: This I have said.

If you compare Walters quote with Fallaci's interview you can see that it is not the same wording. Thats why the shah says "Not with the same words, no". You are taking a statement he made about Walters misquote and applying it to Fallaci's interview, which is wrong. Thats is why i removed it. If you have a source where he explicitly refers to Fallaci's interview and denies it, then we can add that. However copy pasting statements like that is not very npov. --- Melca 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Behnam that we should include something about his quote about the Jewish Lobby. Although we must present it in a NPOV fashion. I think it would fit well in the Foreign relations section. Somewhere near "The Shah of Iran was the first and only one of two Muslim leaders (other being Turkey) to recognize the State of Israel." We should not label it as Zionist Occupation Government, because the overwhelming evidence is that he was not anti-semitic. From my understanding Zionist Occupation Government refers only to "antisemitic conspiracy theories". Agha Nader 17:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Oh yes, of course I wouldn't label as such in article. I just 'did the math' myself there, since his description of the Jewish presence matches that of the conspiracy theory. I think it is one of those things that is considered antisemitic sort of automatically, as in there doesn't need to be a hate for Jews themselves, but the organizations dedicated to labeling things antisemitic deem it so anyway. I don't know if that makes any sense. I just say it because he wasn't an antisemite yet still held pretty much identical view to that of the 'antisemitic' conspiracy theory. But anyway, no sources associate him with the Zionist Occupation Government so we won't describe it as such. And of course NPOV is important. The Behnam 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, look, I have to agree with everyone here on some level. Rayis is correct, Wikipedia is not a repository for quotes. If we have that many quotes on the role of women, have one, TWO at most, and move the rest to Wikiquote. ♠ SG →Talk 18:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we can make a section about his views on women? We seem to have a lot of material, including disagreeing material, so it may make a good section. I personally don't like having quotes that have 'disclaimer' notes at the end of them, but his views on women are notable, so these all seem headed towards a section. The Behnam 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think it is better to make new section on his views of women, role of the jewish lobby and role of US in Iranian revolution. If this is mentioned as proposed, "The Shah of Iran was the first and only one of two Muslim leaders (other being Turkey) to recognize the State of Israel." it should also be said that the circumstances in which Shah was in at that time (being under control of the Allies, which has been noted by many authors) and age of the young Shah.

For those who follow conspiracy theories, here is another interesting fact that I have found: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was first published in Iran in the summer of 1978. --Gerash77 00:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, boy. Well, it looks like we're really pushing it here. Might I suggest that we leave this alone for the time being, and focus on doing the sections that actually matter? I mean, we still have a huge problem with the coup section, a lot of statements are unreferenced, and there are huge historical gaps in the article. I think it would be best to start with his biography, and move onto miscellaneous topics from there. If we don't, we'll end up discussing this same issue to death, and the rest of the article will never be improved. ♠ SG →Talk 00:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are much more important parts of the article that can be worked on --Rayis 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Commoner claim

Looking at this article about Qajar order: Nishan-e-Aqdas, would this order not have made Reza Khan a noble? I am not sure how much of a noble versus commoner class Iran had. I think the commoner statements are not sourced and should be removed. Azalea pomp 06:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Guys, please use the talk page to discuss, not edit summaries. What exactly is the problem here? And why is "there is evidence that the assassin was not a Tudeh member, but a religious fundamentalist" being changed to "According to Stephen Kinzer..."? This is a well-known fact. I have even added another source to support this as well. I can add more if necessary. Khoikhoi 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone actually read my comment? Khoikhoi 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did. And I agree. That's why I didn't re-introduce the "Stephen Kinzer" thing. The point is that Artaxerex, who has been puppetmaster of several sockpuppets, and has been banned repeatedly for it, and with whose ideas and harsh tone almost nobody agreed on the discussions we previously had here, is simply avoiding using the talk page and only trying to disrupt the article by adding his points of view into it. If he has something to say which is different from his already stated (and mostly rejected) points of view, then he should be the one to start discussing it here. By the way, it seems that he somehow miraculously escaped being banned for his third (and severest)act of sockpuppetry.Shervink 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Shervink, Houshyar, Aghanader and the rest of Iranian (group)! Please do not delete sourced materials and references contributed by other editors. There should be a concensus to delete these historical facts. If you want to balanced these facts with other sourced materials you are welcome to do so. You can say e.g. "Smith disagrees with this statement" and give references. This way you can create a NPOV tone. If you are interested only a particular POV the you should look at other places on the net. There are already many articles with your particular POV tone by Iranian B-loggers. Artaxerex 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Really?!! Why are you afraid of discussing these so called "historical facts" in the talk pages??! Be advised that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Perhaps you may want to use blogs or other forums for your purposes. I am afraid you do not have an accurate understanding of wikipedia's NPOV policy. You may want to read that too. Give yourself some time until you digest the concept. Sina Kardar 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that deleting of the valid sourced materials and references and erazing of the contribution of other editors are considered vandalism. You have consistently deleted very important references. You have also used this article to delete very important historical facts. There should be a consensus for deleting these facts. It appears that like many of your compatriots you do not have any respect for the views of the "Other". You are more than happy to eraze the view of those that you consider to be part of the "minority". I have news for you, You will not suceed. Artaxerex 06:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerex, there should be a consensus to include points of view which are as controversial as these. As you fail to discuss your proposed changes in a proper manner, and have instead repeatedly resorted to sockpuppetry and uncivil behavior, you should not be surprised that your views are not well received here. You need to discuss them properly, present them neutrally, and convince others that you have learned from your many previous mistakes and intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Shervink 09:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerex, please write in this section one of the facts you want to include along with a reference, and we all will find a way to present it neutrally. To others, I suggest that if he puts something here that has a decent source but you don't like (also written "controversial"), try to find a source that either responds or directly contradicts it. For example, Milani responded to Edwin Black's article, but unfortunately we are never able to include this because people always censor out Black's information in the first place. Finding a balance will be difficult - we must look into many good sources so as to avoid placing undue weight on certain views. However that does not mean that we necessarily need to exclude them - this should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Behnam 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Starting with one thing at a time and getting to a result is certainly better than what's going on now. Regarding the Black/Milani thing, I think it is obvious that an opinion article by a non-expert and lacking any references is simply a very bad source especially when it contains largely controversial or previously unheard-of material which is discredited by direct evidence presneted by a well-known expert like Milani. This is why others and I have opposed the inclusion of those claims. BTW I still think that Artaxerex simply needs to adopt a more appropriate tone when posting here. Repeatedly calling other people's edits vandalism, refraining from constructive discussion, accusing them of setting up gangs, and his many previous wrongdoings (e.g. sockpuppetry), are probably the reasons that nobody around here seems to have the energy to deal with him anymore. Shervink 11:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reconsidering the Black issue I must agree that it would be serious WP:UNDUE to place his fringe views on the page. However there were some other controversial things that we never resolved ("Terrill" for example). Also, some elaboration wasn't even controversial, such as that about the big feast/party, but was placed in the wrong part of the article. Unfortunately, everything is removed because everything is added together. So please, let's take things one at a time right here on the talk page. The Behnam 20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism by Shervink in deleting sourced material by other editors and references should be stopped

Shervink et al; Please refrain from deleting sourced materials by other editors. Please also note that Wikipedia policies are based on reaching a concensus on deletion of views. In other words the majority must respect the views of the opposition -- particularly when these views are supported so overwhelmingly by the proponderance of valid documents and sourced materials. You can of course challenge these materials by valid and reasonable argument but you cannot delete the references and the opposing views. I hope you can wrap your mind around these simple and straightforward principles.

Again, Artaxerex, considering your past record you are in no position to lecture others regarding Wikipeida policy, which I'm afraid you are misunderstanding. Please take your time to get familiar with how things ought to be done around here, realize than your past behavior (sockpuppetry, personal attacks, etc.) was wrong, and try to help get things done rather than stand in the way. Thank you. Shervink 08:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Shervink et al; Please refrain from deleting sourced materials by other editors. Please also note that Wikipedia policies are based on reaching a concensus on deletion of views. In other words the majority must respect the views of the opposition -- particularly when these views are supported so overwhelmingly by the proponderance of valid documents and sourced materials. You can of course challenge these materials by valid and reasonable argument but you cannot delete the references and the opposing views. I hope you can wrap your mind around these simple and straightforward principles. Artaxerex 18:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see the section above this one. Shervink and I would like to work this situation out with you through discussion of each point one-by-one. This is probably your best bet if you want any of your content to stay in the articles, considering what usually happens. The Behnam 19:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Behnam, I welcome your involvement. I have restored the article and we can discuss the adjustment of various fact one by one. The first one that is being deleted is the following section:

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.The reference is ^ Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 23. This is a highly authoritative book, and I think Holmes observation helps the reader to understand the character of the Shah which contributed to his failure and downfall. Artaxerex 06:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS, I am prepared to accept the mediation by Rhymesmith on this point.

• For starters, don't "restore" the article at all during this process. We need to review every proposed addition first - after review we will add it. The others revert you every time anyway so there is no point in such restoration.
• As for the proposed addition, I have a few concerns. First of all, I notice that you included this entire passage in the lead of the article (search for "Julius"). I do not think that the lead is the most appropriate place for such a detail because the lead is supposed to be a simple summary of the article. Also, I am concerned about including such a lengthy quote of the Ambassador anywhere in the article. Unless it is absolutely necessary we should simply summarize the Ambassador's description in one or two normal sentences. Placement is also important here. While the lead is inappropriate, I'm having trouble deciding a better section for it. We don't really have any "general" section discussing the quality of his rule. Perhaps we should make one? I'll let others share their thoughts. The Behnam 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Behnam I am not sure why shouldn't we restore the article with all sourced materials included. Isn't the case that the "Good Faith" policy should be adhered to? I am assuming Good Faith on your part, and restore the article. However, I will be open minded about your suggestions to change. I am not concerned about vandalism of those who want to suppress these materials, since I am confident sooner or later an admin will intervene and incorporate some form of these facts.
• As for not placing this section on the lead, of course it is important to understand why this ruler was ousted by such an overwhelming majority of the people. I agree that two or three sentences in the lead about the quality of his leadership and his character would be warranted. In addition, note should be given to his murderous acts (e.g the execution of the poet Khosrow Golsorkhi,the intellectual Bijan Jasani and the Foreign Minister Dr. Fatemi as well as the assassination of the journalist Mohammad Masood, among many others), his extravagant expenses (such as the Persepolice carnival or Aryamehr Tennis Tournament in the face of dire poverty in the country), and his socio-economic blunders (for example forced removal of low-income families by force to construct the Karim_khan-e Zand Boulevard and relocating these people in the remote Kooye Nohom-e Aban and away from the economic centre of Tehran where these workers could not find jobs as gardeners, janitors and cleaners and created a Drug-based crime-nourished economy -- and this was not an isolated case and was repeated practically in all the major cities). However, in the past when I provided such informations, characters like shervink, SG, Mehrshad123, Raiis, and other members of their persuasion, argued that they are POV statements, and asked for sourced references. One mediator suggested the use of a formula like "according to xx in the .... This was followed with no success. The reason was clear these characters are not interested in facts, they intend to glorify their Aryan hero. Nevertheless I am open to suggestions for modification in tone to express these facts. The main point is that there is a strong strand of scholarly opinion that consider Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a megalomaniac dictator with limited leadership ability, total disregard for human rights, who possessed vain attitudes, and was amenable to corruption and racism. All these are well documented by Western academic sources, and should be acknowledged in the article.
• As for Black being unreliable I would like to have some clarification as to why. As far as I know; Edwin Black is a Jew and as such his opinions about the antisemitic characters of Reza Shah and his son should be given more weight. After all only a Jew can judge if somebody has such a view. Black is especially well placed for rendering such a verdict since his scholarly work focuses on genocide and hate, corporate criminality and corruption, governmental misconduct, academic fraud, philanthropy abuse, and historical investigation. All very relevant for understanding the pahlavies' regime. He is the award-winning, New York Times and international bestselling investigative author of 56 bestselling editions in 14 languages in 61 countries, as well as scores of newspaper and magazine articles in the leading publications of the United States, Europe and Israel. As for his reliability it should be noted that editors have submitted Black's work nine times for Pulitzer Prize nomination, and in recent years he has been the recipient of a series of top editorial awards. He has also contributed to a number of anthologies worldwide. Black's speaking tours include hundreds of events in dozens of cities each year, appearing at prestigious venues from the Library of Congress in Washington to the Simon Wiesenthal Institute in Los Angeles in America, and in Europe from London's British War Museum and Amsterdam's Institute for War Documentation to Munich's Carl Orff Hall. Among Black's award-winning bestselling books are IBM and the Holocaust (Crown Publishing and others worldwide 2001), The Transfer Agreement (Macmillan 1984 and Carroll-Graff 2001), War Against the Weak (Four Walls Eight Windows and others worldwide September 2003), Banking on Baghdad (John Wiley & Sons and others worldwide 2004).
• Even if one accepts that Black is unreliable, the same information about the Pro-Nazi policies of Reza Shah can be found in other references. For example Kenneth R. Timmerman in his book Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on AmericaCrown Forum; 1st edition (October 21, 2003)# SBN-10: 1400049016, # ISBN-13: 978-1400049011 writes "Shah Reza Pahlavi, a nationalist general who seized power in 1925, was such a fan of Hitler's theories of racial supremacy that he renamed his own country "Iran" shortly after Hitler's rise to power. (Iran means "Aryan" in Persian.)

Soon Iran became unsafe as well. In October 1941, fearing the pro-Nazi shah would allow the Axis powers to disrupt the Allied supply line through Iran to Russia, the United States and Britain landed troops in Iran, arrested pro-Nazi government ministers and replaced the shah with his young son, Mohammad Reza. " Is Timmerman also unreliable? Respectfully yours. Artaxerex 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to state my opinion on the above suggestion of Artaxerex, although I still demand an apology on his part because of his many insults and personal attacks directed at others and me, before this discussion can actually carry on.
• There is no question that there are many interesting quotes by many people regarding the Shah. But there is nothing in particular about this quote or the person (who was ambassador to Iran in 1955 and 1961-1965, which is long before the revolution) which makes it important enough to be put in the lead, or even in the article itself. If we decide to include a quote by a relative outsider such as him then we should include probably tens of others as well since there are people who knew the Shah a lot better than Holmes. In other words, the inclusion of this quote would be putting undue weight on this certain point of view. In any case, using such a quote and then making major conclusions about the revolution itself is definitely original research. For these reasons I think that this quote does not belong in the article.
• I would once again like to emphasize that any response to this comment by Artaxerex should be preceded by a full apology to me and others for his insults, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and disruptive behavior, to prove his good faith. Otherwise we will have no chance of getting on with this discussion. Shervink 09:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Ambassador Holmes statement from his vintage point is of particular historical interest cannot be denied.  

The comment shows that even the representative of the Shah’s most important ally --i.e. The United States -- was aware of his alarming inadequacies. After all Mohammad Reza was ousted from Iran in a popular uprising which reflected the collective will of his nation. The lead should provide the antecedent for this asseveration. As a compromise I suggest the following statement with references in paranthesis.

The Shah was judged by many observers as a megalomaniac dictator with limited leadership ability, total disregard for human rights, who possessed vain attitudes, and was amenable to corruption and racism. It is argued that because of his innate suspicious of the ambitions of others and the lack of highly-qualified persons to assist him he was not well served by advisers, either in government or outside it. He was susceptible to exaggerated flattery and wanted to be told by his advisors what he wanted to hear. (Ref; Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 23). He was a despot whose secret police did use torture, as he once admitted to Time magazine, and who eventually earned the passionate hatred of his people. He had no great regard for women. In 1973 he exploded at Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci: "Does it seem right to you that a King, that an Emperor of Persia, should waste time talking about such things? Talking about wives, women? Women are important in a man's life only if they're beautiful and keep their femininity. You're equal in the eyes of the law but not, excuse my saying so, in ability." --former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon once called him "a nut". The middle class was angered by the lack of political rights and by the corruption and inefficiency of a government system in which top jobs were awarded on the basis of loyalty to the Shah rather than ability (Ref: See Nobody Influences Me, Time, Monday December 10, 1979). In 1976 Amnesty International, a London-based organization that keeps track of "prisoners of conscience" around the world, estimated that 25,000 to 100,000 political prisoners were being held in Iran. The Shah's own figure was 3,000 to 3,500. Amnesty International in the 1970s described various methods of torture applied by his regime such as: electric shock, burning on a heated metal grill, and the insertion of bottles and hot eggs into the anus. However, he regarded most dissidents as potential or actual Marxist terrorists and thus common criminals rather than political prisoners. Some of the dissidents really were Marxists. He was notorious for his murderous acts (e.g the execution of the poet Khosrow Golsorkhi, the intellectual Bijan Jazani and the Foreign Minister Dr. Fatemi as well as the assassination of the journalist Mohammad Masood, among many others), his extravagant expenses (such as the Persepolice carnival or Aryamehr Tennis Tournament in the face of dire poverty in the country), and his socio-economic blunders (for example forced removal of low-income families from the prosperous parts of various cities to the remote distict such as Kooye Nohom-e Aban in Tehran which was far away from the economic centre of city where these workers could have found jobs as gardeners, janitors and cleaners. This created a drug-based crime-nourished economy). William J. Butler, a New York lawyer who investigated SAVAK for the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, spoke to Reza Baraheni, an Iranian poet who was held for 102 days by the secret police in 1973. Baraheni told of seeing in SAVAK torture rooms "all sizes of whips" and instruments designed to pluck out the fingernails of victims. He described the sufferings of some fellow prisoners: "They hang you upside down, and then someone beats you with a mace on your legs or on your genitals, or they lower you down, pull your pants up and then one of them tries to rape you while you are still hanging upside down." Baraheni himself was beaten and whipped, and released only after agreeing to make a statement on television condemning Communism. Many other SAVAK victims were tortured briefly and then released, after the secret police satisfied themselves that they would no longer oppose the Shah. (Ref: See Nobody Influences Me, Time, Monday December 10, 1979)Artaxerex 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Please refrain from imposing puerile preconditions and concentrate on the improving of the content. Also, please respect the wikpedia's policies on references, you cannot reject a reference based on your priors. (please note that I did not qualify the priors)

That is simply neither a lead nor NPOV. If you really don't understand this I think you should read some wikipedia articles, policies, and guidelines to first get to know what kind of articles are being written here. This is also my last comment since you did not apologize for your many personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and other violations. Shervink 07:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• The lead article for most dictators provide the appropriate antecedents. For example, Saddam's lead reads:

"As president, Saddam maintained power through a combination of the skilful use of patronage and the employment of systematic state terror, aided by a pervasive security apparatus. Upwards of 200,000 people were estimated to have been killed or "disappeared" during his rule...he was dubbed the "Butcher of Baghdad" for the scale of bloodshed that he incurred[2] and reportedly embraced the nickname.[3] During and after these conflicts, Saddam used large-scale repression to crush rebellions he deemed threatening to the stability of Iraq” This lead can be replicated word for word for Shah as "the Butcher of Tehran" ..The lead for Robert Mugabe another dictator similar to Shah reads “The Mugabe administration has been criticized around the world for corruption, suppression of political opposition, mishandling of land reform, economic mismanagement, and deteriorating human rights in Zimbabwe. According to most analysts his administration's policies have led to economic collapse and massive starvation over the course of the last ten years. Zimbabwe has the highest inflation rate in the world[3] expected to hit 1.5 million% by the end of the year,[4] “ Again I do not see why can’t we use a replica of this for the Shah – word for word indeed. There are more example but for now I feel these two must be sufficient.

• Please note that you cannot dismiss any references and any contibutions that do not adhere to your strongly held beliefs. You have to realize that wikepedia’s policies are based on reaching a consensus, and therefore forming of any majority cannot supress the facts and sourced materials. If people think that the lead I provided above is one-sided I welcome their contribution to balance it. But deletion of all these facts without any support simply will not wash. Artaxerex 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation, anyone?

Hello all,

It looks as if there is a major conflict here, which I have been monitoring for some time, as I have this page watchlisted. Might I suggest informal mediation at the Cabal?

Yours,

The Rhymesmith 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rhymesmith , Please see above and below. Many thanks. Artaxerex 06:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the following references are vandalism

Shervink (or Dfitzgerald!!) Once again I urge you to refrain from deleting sourced material. This is Vandalism pure and simple. So what's so difficult for you and your co-vandal compatriots to understand? The facts that you vandals are trying to censor and suppress are expressed in the following references:

• Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf,p.22 and p. 27
• The New York Times, October 12, 1971, 39:2
• R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran P.329
• Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mission for my Country, London, 1961, page 173
• Fred Halliday, Iran; Dictatorship and Development, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-02.2010-0)
• Paul D. Mayle, Eureka Summit: Agreement in Principle and the Big Three at Tehran, 1943 (Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 1987), pp. 40-59;
• W. Andrew Terrill, Regional Fears of Western Primacy and the Future of U.S. Middle Eastern Basing Policy, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, December 2006
• Nikki R. Keddie Roots of Revolution, Yale University Press, ISBN O-300-02606-4 AACR2 – Page 110
• Stewart. Richard A,, A sunrise at Abadan – The British and Soviet Invasion of Iran 1941, New York 1988
• Buckley, Christopher , Five ventures, London, 1977
• Edwin Black Holocaust nothing new in Iran: Ties to Hitler led to plots against British and Jews, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, January 8, 2006

If you can rebuttal these facts through a reasonable argument supported by valid references please do. However, given the intellectual level of your discourse I strongly doubt that you have the slightest idea of fathoming the importance of this. Nevertheless, sooner or later like your Pahlavi heroes you will be led toward what's inevitable. Artaxerex 05:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. the mediation is most welcomed by Artaxrex Artaxerex 06:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • For one, I must note that we did rule out the last reference ("Black") as unreliable. While the others remain, I don't think that sources themselves are really the problem as much as the way information is presented from them. Anyway, we have a section further above where we are discussing the issues one at a time. Let's keep the discussion there instead of spreading it out so as to be more organized. The Behnam 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that User:Artaxerex decided to act CIVIL. Concerning his long time edits to show that the Iranian Kings were basically supporters of Nazi ideology:

The references provided either do not support the User's claims or are unreliable. I can comment on each reference in more detail if you are interested. I have already commented on some of them in the past. People like W. Andrew Terrill are some minor strategists with no expertise on Iranian history of 20th century. I wonder why the user put down the scholarly sources that are available around and use some weird "sources" to make statement about a head of a state.

Concerning other conclusions (unrelated to Iran-Germany relation), these references are mainly American pov and can not be treated as facts. You can at most say that Amercian A claimed X or made some allegations. Any American source needs to be balanced by an Iranian source.

PS: I have not got any reply to my former extensive comments.

Sina Kardar 20:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Announcement

This is really too much. Artaxerex, you cannot simply go on calling everybody vandal around here. I hereby announce that I refuse to engage in any discussion with Artaxerex so long as he does not drop his hostile tone towards me and other editors. I also demand a full apology on his part to demonstrate his good faith (That he did not act in good faith so far is proven beyond doubt by his many personal attacks and repeated sockpuppetry). So long as the apology and change of behavior is not there, I will simply assume that he has not learned from his past mistakes and is still acting in bad faith. Shervink 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Repeated deletion of sourced materials and valid references are considered vandalism. By this definition you and your compatriot-gang have acted as vandals for a long time. You have wasted a lot of time that could have gone to valuable research projects, and during that time you and your gang were incapable of producing any shered of evidence from any academic source to support your position. I am not surprised of you getting out of the kitchen when it’s too hot. In a discussion under the possible watch of a mediator you will be expected to provide valid references for your Aryan-inspired bravados, won't you? Artaxerex 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, more insults, more personal attacks, no apology, no realization that your previous personal attacks ([8],[9],[10]) and sockpuppetry ([11],[12])have been wrong. Somehow surprisingly you were not blocked after your latest (third) sockpuppet attack. I think this proves that to have been a wrong decision. You seem to get bolder in your uncivil behavior every day. I think there is simply no room for mediation or discussion. With this behavior you simply do not belong here. You do not respect others and I have too much self-respect to waste my time listening to your insults. Shervink 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

About this "too much self-respecting Character"

• From talk pages of Sina Karda which is forwarded to me by B,([13])

Hello Sina. It is a shame that this guy is still able to edit anything on wikipedia. I think that he should have been banned indefinetely after the several sockpuppet attacks organized by him. Anyway, I have no intention whatsoever to continue wasting my time on this childish, totally useless and weak so-called encyclopedia which cannot even manage to keep the likes of this A****** from editing. I'm out of this game and I think anybody who cares about his time will eventually do the same. I think this whole wikipedia thing is evolving into an utter failure. Shervink 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Artaxerex 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that you were not banned for your latest sockpuppetry. In any case the fact that I again started discussing here with you shows that I'm interested to get things done (I'm the only one among perhaps a dozen or so editors who is still giving your ideas a chance), and I don't know what you want to achieve by posting the above comment. In any case I will not post anything here anymore unless you apologize for your insulting behavior. Although I have never done anything that comes even close to your insults, sockpuppetry, and personal attacks, as a token of my good will I do apologize if I have at any point hurt your feelings. Shervink 07:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)