Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Please do not remove tags without discussion

This article is still very much in need of improvment. Look at the lead:

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.[1][2][3]

Initially the administration of the United States, led by Dwight D. Eisenhower, considered the coup a successful secret war, but, given its blowback, it is now considered a failure, because of its "haunting and terrible legacy".[4] In 2000, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said that intervention by the U.S. in the internal affairs of Iran was a setback for democratic government.[5][6] This anti-democratic coup d’état was "a critical event in post-war world history" that destroyed Iran’s secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah, ....

It starts talking about "a successful secret war" without explaining what the connection between the coup and the "war-making" US was. Who and when was the phrase a secret war ever used in the Eisenhower administration to describe the coup? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, BoogaLouie that is a crappie lede and that it undoes all the work put into this article in the last few days to make it readable and chronological. I will revert to the last sensible version. Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But I don't agree with your placing tags on the page. First bring it to the talk page, or make edits yourself. If consensus is not reached, it is time to tag it. There was no discussion. Therefore, tags are premature.Skywriter (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is this — If consensus is not reached, it is time to tag it — a wikipedia policy?

The tag I put that you deleted says "totally disputed." I'm disputing it. When we reach a consensus it won't be disputed and then the tag gets removed.

You might revert edits of the article that I make that you disagree with, and then we have to reach a consensus before the article is changed, but what gives you the right to delete tags? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to say what is "totally disputed". You haven't done that. Nobody can read your mind. You have to say what it is you dispute. If you think a viewpoint is not represented, you can and should add that viewpoint. Are you totally disputing the article because you don't like the article and want it deleted? Skywriter (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems

To start with one paragraph in the lead:

The British and American spy agencies returned the monarchy to Iran by installing the pro-western Mohammed Reza Pahlevi on the throne where his brutal rule lasted 26 years. The story is detailed in Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. Pahlevi was overthrown in 1979.[11]

returned the monarchy to Iran: When did the monarchy "leave" Iran? The Shah fled to Iraq and then Europe after the coup appeared to fail, but he never abdicated the throne. Mosaddeq never declared Iran a republic. This is not accurate.

where his brutal rule lasted 26 years. Not very encylopedic. Implies the Mullahs rule was warm and kind. How about "autocratic rule"?

The story is detailed in Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. should this be in the lead? There are many books and extensive articles on the coup. [I keep forgetting to sign] --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The above unsigned comments are by boogalooie

The Shah fled to Italy and the US and UK talked him into returning. He did not want to return. see Kinzer.

If you don't like the word "brutal," have you considered changing it? The families of the thousands killed by order of the Shah said his reign was brutal. See the NYT article on the subject. If you believe links should be added to document his brutality, that can be added, or just lifted from his bio page.

Link to NYT article? There seems to be some evidence that the diabolical evil of the Shah has been overstated, though I'm certainly open to new infomation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinzer's book is widely praised, detailed and authoritative, the first to describe what transpired in 1053 in Iran. What is your precise objection to using his accomplished journalism as the lede?

It's a good book. I read it myself. But this is the WP:Lead (or lede if you insist), which should be concise and brief. We can talk about the greatness of the book in the body of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What information in other books would you add? Skywriter (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

General complaint

My long standing complaint about the article is explained here --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you take the strongest elements of that lengthy section, summarize it, and insert into this article? That seems to be the fair way to go. Complaining "in general" does not rise to the level of a need to add tags to a page. Add some wording to the article based on what you think is missing. Adding resources is a good thing, always welcome. Skywriter (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Will work on it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo777 replaces the word strengthened with re-installed, which BoogaLouie contends is not technically correct. I believe he is right. Shah Jr. was installed as a child when his father was thrown out by the Allies because of he was cutting deals with Nazis. When Mossadeq was deposed, Shah Jr. was over in Italy playing. The US/UK enticed him to return to Iran (he did not want to return) and in doing so, the US/UK promised to strengthen his hand. Shah Jr. was not thrown out until 1979. The word strengthen can be inserted. It meets a BoogaLouie's concern and is technically true. Are you OK with that? Skywriter (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"not technically correct" sound like I'm being a bit tight-assed. The point is the monarchy did not end and then start up again. The Shah, whatever his cowardice, weakness, etc., did not abdicate. So as is, the article wording is misleading. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you are tight-assed. I agreed with the point. "Re-installed" is not technically correct, even if it is frequently used, even in the NYT article by Tim Weiner, which I changed from a direct quote to a paraphrase in order to reach consensus with you. Kurdo777 has a point too. Maybe reinstalled is OK because Shah Jr. was AWOL from the throne. Perhaps that is why Tim Weiner, one of the best and most credentialed reporters in the US, used the term reinstalled. I tried to keep it tight by quoting Wilber-- the spook who wrote the only CIA account not destroyed. He said strengthened. If Kurdo777 references reinstalls, does anyone object to using that word? Skywriter (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is english usage. The Shah may have been reinstalled, but not the monarchy. The monarchy didn't go away (until 1979). I certainly don't object to strengthened. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Order of sections

Dcooper's complaint should be adressed. It's absurd to have a Blowback section at the begining and then an aftermath section at the end. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you propose to structure it? Skywriter (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. 3 Background
2. 3.1 Early oil development
3. 3.2 World War II
4. 3.3 Post-World War II
5. 3.4.1 Support for nationalization
6. 3.4.2 Nationalization
7. 4 Origins
8. 4.1 Cold War
9. 5 Planning Operation Ajax
10. 6 Execution
11. 5 C.I.A. records of 1953 coup
12. 6 Media report
13. 7 Aftermath and Blowback
14. 8.1 Iran
15. 8.2 Internationally
16. 9 The Islamic Republic
17. 10 Conspiracy theories

--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose shortening the "Background" and lengthening the "Execution". The execution is what happened in the coup (i.e. what people expect to find in an article about a coup) and is incomplete right now.

I realize the blowback is why the coup is (in)famous and so some people want to make sure it's near the top of the story. But the lead is at the top and should/will talk about it. There's also no reason to assume readers won't see the ToC and find what they want to read about, and realize the blowback is important. We just have to mention it in the lead. People can see the Table of C and they know what a link is. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling this together. I think all the 1953 material should be placed together because that's what people come here to read answering who, what, where, when and why? (Why is the oil and anti-commie motive) Execution and Wilber's contemporaneous CIA record would be included with 1953, and would include the relevant detail that this info is revealed through a particular (albeit self-serving) prism in that the bulk of US government files on the subject were destroyed. Then stick to chronology. I disagree about placement of Blowback and Aftermath, which should be joined, thinking they should follow 1953 material. Then go with chronology. When it is followed chronologically, the repetition will be obvious and can come out. Anybody else want to weigh in? Skywriter (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Media report is the CIA record and can merge into that.Skywriter (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic and Conspiracy theories can merge as they address the same subject matter. The conspiracy theory subhead is not quite right. It's more like a perspective or viewpoint.Skywriter (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So do you have a different outline you'd perfer?

I think what has happened to the article is that there is a large amount of information editors couldn't bear to leave out of the lead so they added a CIA records section and Blowback section as a sort of addendum to the lead before going to the chronology. It's inconsistent with wikipedia format and looks like a mess.

PS, Don't you think the colon indentation (:) for new dialog entries makes the talk page easier to read? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm going to have to add a POV tag (I think I'm within my rights to add a totally disputed tag but as a compromise with Skywriter's opposition I won't)

Reasons: There are five mentions of Britain and seven mentions of the US or CIA in the lead with with explanation of their cold war paranoia and oil greed. There is one mention at the very end of lead: Some Iranian clerics cooperated with the western spy agencies because they were dissatisfied with Mossadegh's secular government.[10] despite copious mention of homegrown opposition to Mosaddeq in the sources I've mentioned previously. After the lead follows two section about the CIA before you even get to the background section. The article has nothing about the Iranian conservatives freeking out over Mossadeq's emergency powers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you source it and put it in there? Skywriter (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will work on Domestic disatisfaction section tomorrow. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

PS, Don't you think the colon indentation (:) for new dialog entries makes the talk page easier to read? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More discussion

This discussion is pasted from above, it seems to have been left behind and forgotten aobut.

The Shah fled to Italy and the US and UK talked him into returning. He did not want to return. see Kinzer.

If you don't like the word "brutal," have you considered changing it? The families of the thousands killed by order of the Shah said his reign was brutal. See the NYT article on the subject. If you believe links should be added to document his brutality, that can be added, or just lifted from his bio page.

Link to NYT article? There seems to be some evidence that the diabolical evil of the Shah has been overstated, though I'm certainly open to new infomation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kinzer's book is widely praised, detailed and authoritative, the first to describe what transpired in 1053 in Iran. What is your precise objection to using his accomplished journalism as the lede?

It's a good book. I read it myself. But this is the WP:Lead (or lede if you insist), which should be concise and brief. We can talk about the greatness of the book in the body of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What information in other books would you add? Skywriter (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged anti-Americanism

I removed "brutal" from this sentence: "The British and American spy agencies returned the monarchy to Iran by installing the pro-western Mohammed Reza Pahlevi on the throne where his 'brutal' rule lasted 26 years." It is meant to skewer the whole article against the Shah (and against the West) — contending that his rule was totally without basis — in favor of the socialist and the Soviet ally. And it is akin to saying that Fidel Castro came to power after X number of years of Batista's brutal rule when in fact the Soviet ally currently in power has been far more oppressive and killed far more people (both in numbers and in proportion) than the American ally ever was and ever did.

By all means, give the details of the Shah's rule on his own page; but in history, it is not enough to study what has happened, one must also study what could have happened had not certain events taken place and had not certain decisions been taken. And Iran on Stalin's (and Krushchev's) side is hardly anything that should be wished upon that country's citizens. (Just ask the Poles, the Czechs, and the Lithuanians.) Asteriks (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Asteriks, you are entitled to your personal point of view but not your own facts. Speculating that torture and repression under Eastern Powers "would have been worse" than torture and repression under Western Powers insults the real experiences--the history-- of the Iranian people. Please consult your research assistant, Mr. Google, for 456,000 references to the phrase Shah and brutal. You will find that being tortured, raped and murdered by puppets of the democratic West is no less misery-laden than being tortured, raped and murdered by puppets of the undemocratic East. Your removal of the word "brutal" is a POV change because you offered no evidence that the US/UK overthrow of Iran's elected government and replacing it with a strengthened monarchy was not brutal. You offer only unsupported speculation. Skywriter (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Primary motive"

The principal motive for overthrowing Iran's elected government was US and UK refusal to accept the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the business agreement, between the Imperial British and the Iranian civil governments, according to The Guardian

Skywriter, didn't you want more info in the article taken from Mark Gasiorowski? He pretty much contradicts the Guardian statement. And as a political science scholar he would think he trumps any journalist for a 50-year-old issue!

I've added to the sentence above.--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The James Risen summary of the CIA report by Donald Wilber is the best and most succinct statement of motive. Risen summarizes Wilber's report, which was as close to contemporaneously written about the unfolding of the coup as is available.Summary of the coup a/c CIA report The beauty is that the Wilber report is a primary document albeit abridged.Skywriter (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fringe views

BoogaLouie is adding cherry-picked fringe and apologist views about the coup that contradict the mainstream accounts. Claiming that there was general "dissatisfaction" is an apologist view mainly propagated by the proponents of the coup. The issue of clerical dissatisfaction with a secular government, which was fomented with royalist propaganda, is already covered. Anything more would be a violation of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue weight. --Kurdo777 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"dissatisfaction" with Mossadegh looks like something straight out of Shah's autobiography. It's out of context and POV too. Mr BoogaLouie should refain from POVing this page. --Wayiran (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Shah's autobiography"? "cherry-picked fringe and apologist views"? Virtually every account of the coup mentions dissatisfaction with Mosaddegh by elements of the public and his ex-supporters later in his term.

Let me put a question to you, Kurdo and Wayiran: what account does claim that dissatisfaction with Mosaddegh did not play a part in his overthrow? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one, well-sourced.

On August 19, 1953, we lost our political and economic independence. Our most precious natural resource, oil, which was nationalized and put under Iranian control, was given to a consortium of American and British oil companies.

On this day fifty year ago, we lost our freedom. The very first decree Dr. Mossadegh issued when he took office in April 1951 was to the Tehran Police Chief ordering him to stop harassing and harming any journalist or newspaper that criticized his government. Under Dr. Mossadegh, we had full freedom of the press. Papers from diverse ideologies were published freely and they openly criticized the Iran National Front [Jebhe Melli Iran] and Dr. Mossadegh. Some opportunists even took advantage of these freedoms and kept insulting and slandering Dr. Mossadegh and other leaders and members of the National Front. The monarchist and Tudeh papers kept viciously attacking, insulting and making false and ugly accusations. Despite all their cruel lies, the wonderful and intelligent people of Iran continued their support of the only government in memory which had bravely protected their interests from attacks from cruel kings and colonial masters.

We lost our democracy on this day fifty years ago. After fifty dreadful years, still our people can not have free elections in which they, the people, can choose their representatives. In the past fifty despotic years, either SAVAK and the royal court [darbar] during the monarchy era have screened and chosen the members of the Majles, or the Council of Guardians [Shoray Negahban] during the fundamentalist era has done the same pre-selection.  The Day Democracy Died: The 50th Anniversary of the CIA Coup in Iran by historian Masoud Kazemzadeh

Here's another [1] Skywriter (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

These are polemics, editorials - a couple of pages long. They're not historical accounts. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes The Day Democracy Died: The 50th Anniversary of the CIA Coup in Iran by historian Masoud Kazemzadeh does give some sources, but there's no source for its assertion on the issue of opposition to Mossaddegh:

Despite all their cruel lies, the wonderful and intelligent people of Iran continued their support of the only government in memory which had bravely protected their interests from attacks from cruel kings and colonial masters. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie wrote "there's no source for its assertion on the issue of opposition to Mossaddegh". You're right. There isn't, and that is exactly because there was no widespread (popular) opposition to Mossadegh in Iran. While any elected administration anywhere has some opposition (by those who did not win the election), Mossaddegh was deposed by foreign governments because he nationalized the oil industry. The US/UK wanted his oil and would not allow him to stay in power unless the controlled and profited from Iran's oil. This was continuation of earlier policy. Iranian oil played a pivotal role in WW II when the Allies overthrew Shah Jr.'s father, a Nazi collaborator, preventing Nazi Germany's continuing access to Iranian oil. UK wanted to continue its control of Iranian oil in the late 1940s and 1950s but when Mossaddegh, with the That is the difference between a coup, which has the small support of a tiny clique of disgruntled monarchists and clerics, and a revolution, which has broad popular support.support of Iranians, put Iranian ownership before foreign ownership in contracts that were grossly unfair to Iran, the governments of the United States and the UK deposed Mossaddegh and installed Shah Jr. by any means necessary, and in this case, that meant using (brutal) Nazi tactics. In the early 1940s, Shah Sr. was deposed in opposition to the Nazi power. In 1953, Shah Jr. was re-installed with the assistance of Iranian Nazis who had been jailed by the West during WW II for being Nazis.Skywriter (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kazemzadeh is a historian; his account is deeply-sourced. There's no rule saying "quote only from books not articles." As to your underlying question, yes, the Shi'a clerics wanted Mossadegh out --because his was secular rule, meaning separation of church and state. The clerics cooperated with the western spy agencies to make it so. That does not make Kazemzadeh-- or the historical sources he cites-- wrong. Skywriter (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for that Skywriter. I have several books on the subject too, which I would have to scan and quote when I get a chance. But given the current situation in Iran, I am extremely busy these days. In the meanwhile, dear BoogaLouie, please be patient, and lets follow WP:consensus. --Kurdo777 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies:

• "there's no source for its assertion on the issue of opposition to Mossaddegh". You're right. There isn't, and that is exactly because there was no widespread (popular) opposition to Mossadegh in Iran.

surely Masoud Kazemzadeh could have found some source saying something like "despite the hardship of the british embargo, the people's support for Mosaddegh did not wane"? ... unless support did wane.

• That is the difference between a coup, which has the small support of a tiny clique of disgruntled monarchists and clerics, and a revolution, which has broad popular support.

Sure. But why didn't the masses of Iranians who had not become disgruntled come out in Mossy's defence? Why didn't they rally against the coup the next day as they did the last time he was removed? Was it because they were scared of the army? If so where did all his supporters in the army go to?

• "Masoud Kazemzadeh, Ph.D. Assistant Professor at the Department of History and Political Science at Utah Valley State College" may be an historian but he's still writing an editorial, not an account of the coup. Do you seriously think that if I do a RfC on this article others are going to say "ya, Utah Valley State College, he's the man! those guys being published by Princeton University Press and Yale University Press are too fringe!" ?
• yes, the Shi'a clerics wanted Mossadegh out --because his was secular rule, meaning separation of church and state

the question is not whether you and I and other right thinking people find Mossy's policies enlightened, But did those clerics have a following? Was there a significant group in Iran that didn't want secular policies? That once supported Mossy but became alientated?

• I have several books on the subject too, which I would have to scan and quote when I get a chance

Kurdo777, I've been trying to add something on opposition to Mossadegh to this article and the Mosaddegh article since I wrote This months ago. How long have you been on wikipedia and monitoring this article and deleting my edits? Do you think you could have had a chance to find something in that time? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Aww, you're dissin' Kazemzadeh onaccounta his research does not support your personal point of view. And, BoogaLouie, you understate his credentials. (! I am not shocked !) A freshly minted Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, he's already written two books. Here's one of them.[2] and an array of peer-reviewed articles. After completing his post-doc at Harvard, Sam Houston State snapped him up. Dr. Kazemzadeh's research interests include democratization, post-Cold War international system, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and U.S. Foreign Policy. His dissertation is the recipient of two awards including the Western Political Science Association's "Best Dissertation in Political Science Award". He was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University. In addition to scholarly articles, he has published two books and is working on the third. [3] Here's an archive of his articles. [4] Stay glued to this subject. I suspect you will be reading a lot more of his research. His students at Utah Valley State College give him high ratings-- an Iranian Robin Williams, "best teacher," and they say they were lucky to have him there for the time they did[5] What exactly do you have against Utah Valley State College and why do you think anyone would want to weigh in on that school in an RfC? Skywriter (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, in reply to your link to a very long section consisting of text lifted from somewhere else and dropped onto this talk page, I have this to say, and this repeats what I said earlier. There is no question that Shia'a clerics played a role in the coup but it was minor compared to the CIA, the US/UK desire for oil, and the desire by a small number of monarchists' to return the royalty. More importantly & perhaps because the clerics were losers, not winners in the coup, the CIA role in infiltrating both the Iranian military and the communist Tudeh Party was strategically more important in the success of the coup. That is the overwhelming finding of the credible books on the topic.

Professor Kazemzadeh summarizes:

On the morning of Mordad 26, Radio Tehran announced that the coup against Dr. Mossadegh's government had failed. The people were so happy that they went to the streets and celebrated when they heard of the news.

The Shah fled Iran, but the CIA agents on the ground continued their activities to overthrow Iran's only democratic leader. The CIA had infiltrated the Tudeh Party and used these agents as agents provocateurs to go to the streets and create disturbances including setting places on fire.

U.S. Ambassador Loy Henderson (in collusion with Kermit Roosevelt) met Dr. Mossadegh on the morning of August 19 and deceived Dr. Mossadegh. Complaining about the harassments of American citizens, Henderson asked Mossadegh to restore law and order and protect Americans. Otherwise, Henderson threatened that the US would withdraw its recognition of the government. Dr. Mossadegh, then, called upon the troops to clear the streets. The CIA had its elements in the armed forces to instead go towards Dr. Mossadegh's home.(13) A three-hour tank battle ensued between the troops defending our only democratic Prime Minister and the troops sent by the CIA. Several weeks earlier, the monarchists had kidnaped, tortured and murdered Gen. Afshartoos, the head of Tehran Police and a loyal supporter of INF and Dr. Mossadegh. On August 19, about 300 were killed in Tehran.

The coup regime arrested, imprisoned and murdered many of our heros and the best children of our land such as Foreign Minister Dr. Fatemi and journalist Karimpour Shirazi. From August 19, 1953, a hellish nightmare was imposed on the Iranian people and the voices of democrats were brutally suffocated. Kangaroo courts tried pro-democracy leaders.

The notorious SAVAK was created to imprison, torture and assassinate our pro-democracy activists. Thousands upon thousands of Iran's pro-democracy activists were subjected to severe torture under the Shah's brutal savage rule. Torture by monarchists included rape of daughters of political prisoners in front of their eyes; the most infamous case being the rape of the daughter of Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani, the respected liberal cleric, a leader in the resistence to the coup regime since August 1953 coup and a member of INF until 1961. The monarchists, like the fundamentalists after them, used rape as a form of torture of female political prisoners. Human rights violations were so severe that Amnesty International declared the Shah's regime as "the worst violator of human rights in 1975." (14)

These are the sources upon which Professor Kazemzadeh bases the above account, and I believe you too have referenced Abrahamian.

(12) Habib Ladjevardi, "The Origins of U.S. Support for an Autocratic Iran," in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2 (May 1983).

(13) Abrahamian, "The 1953 Coup in Iran."

(14) Fred Halliday, Iran: Dictatorship and Development (London: Penguin, 1980).

With that many people raped and murdered, it is not surprising that there was no open rebellion. You ask why people did not rise up--a hypothetical. Whenever dictatorship succeeds for a time, and the population suffers, there are those who ask what more could have been done? That question was asked in Germany, and Hitler answered it. He said the Nazi Party could only have been beaten in the streets by communists. Skywriter (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 

Lede paragraph

I'm not sure what happened, but the lede from this version ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=297402739 ) is awful and not what ledes are supposed to be at all. Massive newspaper quotes being the first thing somebody sees? Rambling about fascism? No mention of the later 1979 Islamic Revolution? I reverted it to the version from June 4th, roughly. (Changed the phrasing on the oil a bit.) This one succinctly summarizes the incident and its implications, which is what the lede should have.

I'm no fan of the Shah, but there was also a clear anti-coup bias there, too. The facts are sufficent here to make the Shah look bad, no need to add opinion. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion that the current lede is "awful." The title of this article is 1953 Iranian coup d'état not 1979. We simplified the lede such that it is readable and understandable. Previous drafts were junky and unreadable, particularly those in early June. Your other comments are too general to address. If you would like to suggest specific changes to the wording, feel free to bring it here for comment.Skywriter (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. I really don't want to get dragged into the whole article, which is what will happen with a fuller addressing of your comments, but I stand by my "awful" statement. I suppose I'll have to spell it out.

• Long quoted sections in the lede are very, very rare. This should be Wikipedia's summation of the topic, not someone else's. Quotes are fine if one quote stands out and is extremely relevant, but newspaper readings? Not without very good reason, which doesn't seem to be in evidence. Move it to the rest of the article if you must.
• No reference to the more common "Operation Ajax." Hell, this article used to *be* at that title, it's clearly a notable alternative name, it's even mentioned in the title of the newspaper article you immediately quote. Mention "TPAJAX" as well I guess if you want, but don't leave Operation out.
• The Nazi section - you're just asking for trouble here, this was not a Nazi coup. I'm sure some members of the new administration were former fascist-sympathetics; this is in no way even remotely notable enough for the lede, as Nazi Germany had been dead and buried for 8 years. See Godwin's Law, basically. It makes the article look like it has an axe to grind.
• "brutal rule" - obvious axe-grinding here even if I largely agree with it. Seriously, the Shah's actions speak for themselves, no need to editorialize. Mention SAVAK or something instead here rather than just tossing out nasty adjectives.
• "The story is detailed in Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. " - Why on earth are we hyping a single book inline? And in the lede?! Thousands of books have been written on the topic and Iran, I'm sure.
• The Soviet Union is only mentioned at the very *end* of the lede. To understand the motivations behind the coup at all, the Cold War needs to be mentioned very prominently; the idea that the communist boogeymen were running around, winning an election once, knocking over the democracy, and collecting another country to their empire, so the West has gotta stop 'em now. The lede that I just reverted back to should arguably talk about this even more, actually.
• No mention of modern thoughts? No mention of 1979? Uh, no.

I'm not here to say that the old lede was perfect, but the new lede does not comply with generally accepted standards of good writing style. Further, it focuses on some elements of the coup which are not anywhere near the top 5 most important things someone should know about the coup. If you want to improve the article, great, but please do not revert back that lede. This article is probably getting far more hits than usual right now, this isn't really the time to play around with dumb edit wars; we should keep the lede that the article has long had until after this little dispute is resolved. SnowFire (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There were complaints about this version and various editors worked too simplify the lede. Thank you for sharing your personal opinion that the Soviet Union was a dominant element in the coup but there is little to back up your theory. Hyping Kinzer? I don't think so. There are many sources cited in the new version, which your old hard, heavy-handed version ignores. Kinzer's was the first systematic account with new reporting. A prominent NYT reporter, his account is trustworthy. I agree that you ought to stop engaging in dumb edit wars. Your reverts are not acceptable. We worked --with a lot of discussion on this page-- to get this article to a point where it needed no more tags. Your waltzing in after a hiatus while ignoring the discussion that brought us to the untagged version is offensive. Don't start a revert war. If you believe a section can be tightened, that can be done. To claim that that a clumsy, heavy-handed lede is an improvement is fantasy.Skywriter (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite apart from the factual content of the lede are they stylistic ones. I have issues with both, but I am not making this up when I say that the style of the lede is all wrong. Due to current events it is important for this page to reflect consensus and style guidelines; as a writer, I am saying that the new version of the lede is objectively bad. Sorry, it's nothing personal, but Wikipedia needs to be about quality before ego. It is pretty rare for me to do this kind of thing but that lede merits this kind of remedy.

You have completely failed to address any of the stylistic comments I made. Single books, no matter how influential, are very rarely mentioned in the lede unless the book itself had a major impact on the event. The featured article Akutan Zero, for instance, is a topic with really only one major book written about it, but it's mentioned at the very end of the article. And that's a case where there's only one book, rather than zillions. If Kinzer's book should be mentioned at all, it's in the article, no way in the lede.

As for the Soviet Union, that's not what I wrote. It was the fear of the Soviet Union's influence expanding that caused Washington & London to support a coup. This is absolutely indisputable, regardless of whether the USSR had a hand in Iran at all.

Moving forward... are you standing by a stance that your version of the lede is inviolable and perfect? Because we need to go to dispute resolution, then. If you're willing to work for a better lede, I am happy to offer input, of course, but working together will require some recognition of the criticisms I'm talking about. SnowFire (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional thought: Just remembered the "three revert rule." I have no idea if I technically qualify (I wouldn't really call my first edit a revert, as it was selective and included some editing), but since it seems like we'll both get banned if we keep at this much longer, perhaps we should head to dispute resolution sooner rather than later. I'll put a flag up at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ; it's not a good fit, but I don't see any "writing style" noticeboard to bring this to, alas. (And Peer Review is for taking good articles to great, not dealing with content accused of being poorly written.) SnowFire (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Another comment. You didn't address why you thought the fascist / Nazi quotes deserved to stay. To expand upon why they have to go... look at the article on Subhas Chandra Bose for a more balanced approach to "rebels who wished to throw off British rule and were willing to ally with the Nazis to do so;" there are lots of reasons to possibly side with them, or even merely accept training. And Bose lived when there was an actual Nazi threat afoot. There needs to be some relevance shown; the coup is in 1953, when they blatantly weren't Nazi agents (if they ever really were). And there's not even much indication that they were fascists, because as noted with the Bose example war makes for strange bedfellows. If this is brought up at all, it should be done with full nuance in the article; in the lede it only serves to crudely attempt to tie Hitler to the Shah. SnowFire (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a real problem sticking to the facts of this article and addressing its history on its own terms. The reference to the Nazi background of the man who replaced the elected prime minister was clearly sourced in the version you reverted three times. It has become clear that you made these reverts without even reading what you reverted. Skywriter (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of what is "objectively bad" is your WP:POV As to the substance, your WP:POV that Kinzer's book is unimportant is accepted by no one knowledgable about this subject. "Absolutely indisputable" (your words) is your personal opinion and it does not belong in this or any article reflecting history. You edited out chronology and the history that the references support-- that the UK pushed the US to lead the coup because it wanted continuing access to Iran's oil. That is the substance of the difference between what people have been working on for the last three weeks and your verts. The versions you reverted three times today all reflected that and traced the history, which is fleshed out also by references on Wikipedia to which this article links. You have inserted a revisionist version of history that is at odds with what historians have written. Your account does not reflect the facts, and it certainly does not reflect Mossadech's nationalization of the oil industry, which was the trigger for the coup, and which was reversed by the coup. (Cause of the coup, meet effect.) Coup planner Donald Wilber makes that clear in his CIA report which is reflected in the version you reverted, which in your hurry, I doubt you read. The New York Times places oil at the center of its account, and oil is at the center of the account reflected in the documents presented at the National Security Archives at George Mason University. Since Wilber's are just about the only US government documents on this topic, because all of the rest of them were destroyed, your arrogance in reverting three times today lacks judgment, careful thought or in-depth knowledge of the subject. Your giving WP:undue weight to alleged US fear of the Soviet Union is not supported by the majority of literature on this topic, and in the lede of this article, it is flat out wrongly placed. Indeed, it is laughable. Fear of the Soviet Union is an excuse, not a reason for the coup. Blaming the coup on some vague fear is hogwash and, in it, you allow an honest accounting to be reverted to weak excuses. Your ill-thought out actions have resulted in tags once again being returned to this page. Your bad writing is in dire need of copyediting. ("aided and abetted" is for hacks). Where there was clarity, you brought sludge and official excuses. That is not admirable.Skywriter (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's bedtime over here so I will be brief.

I have no doubt that he did have a Nazi background. I fail to see any indication of why that fact is appropriate for the lede. Winston Churchill drank too much and had a penchant for wandering about naked, but that's not relevant enough for the lede. Further you have phrased it in a way that implies something far more evil than what was actually going on.

The POV guideline is for expressing opinions in the article, which I would propose your version does more than the older one. It is not meant to stifle discussion on the talk page. Editors are expected to point out problems with an article.

I'm certain Kinzer's book is important, too. It is not at all important to a summary of the coup, though, as it was written long after, and is not so overpoweringly relevant as to demand mention. Something like the Islamic Revolution of 1979, as a "random" example, is far more so. I don't see what the problem is here. Talking about the scholarship on an event is fine, but only very rarely merits mention in the lede, especially when calling out one book in particular as extra important.

I'm not sure what you're going on about a revisionist version of history. Of course Iran's oil resources were important and one reason why the UK supported the coup. That isn't denied in the old lede at all. It just doesn't need a long quote from a newspaper giving huge amounts of over-specific detail as being the first thing in the lede. In fact, the sentence you tagged with "citation needed" has exactly the non-controversial "indisputable" statement I said:

When Iran nationalized the industry, the British government, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was furious. London set out to topple the man it blamed - the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The British government enlisted the help of the Eisenhower administration in the United States, which was drawn in by a very different concern - the spread of Soviet influence. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html

The UK was worried about oil, the US about the USSR. I don't get why you have your flamethrower out here. Like I said before, I don't particularly stand by the "old" lede at all. Its writing is merely adequate. Despite the extremely hostile tone you are taking, believe it or not, I am willing to work forward on this article. SnowFire (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When you revert to the same tired misleading information four (!) times in one night, that activity suggests aggression, personal investment, and agenda. Anyone who ignores extensive discussion on this page highlighting the dissatisfaction with the early June lead-- and the work that went into making changes that were satisfactory to participating editors-- invites criticism. Replacing book references you don't like with an error-ridden CNN transcript, in the lede, is both a sorry and weak substitute for widely accepted history books, albeit a history book you happen not to like but state no reason for that viewpoint.

CNN itself warns that its decade-old interview just might be filled with error ("This Copy May Not Be In Its Final Form") and in fact, it does contain errors. In all these years that have passed since this interview was placed on line, for example, CNN still hasn't gotten around to correcting the spelling of an author who participated in that interview. Mark Gasiorowski, who, with Malcolm Byrne, edited the book on this topic based on documents gathered through Freedom of Information requests, but readers will never know it because CNN does not identify their book AND Gasiorowski's name is misspelled. I see it as a real failing to refer unsuspecting Wikipedia readers, in the lede, to the error-prone CNN transcript when scholarship, documents and interviews by Kinzer, Gasiorowski, the NYT and the National Security Archive are accurate, more precise, freely available, and a click away. Why link to James Risen on CNN when his articles on this topic at the NYT are on point and succinct?

In the same way, the CNN interviewer keeps referring to Albright's "apology" when the truth is, there was none, as is documented elsewhere in the footnotes to this article. Those are my reasons for not championing the CNN transcript. What references are you citing to criticize Stephen Kinzer's book? All the Shah's Men received an extraordinary number of positive reviews. [6] and you disparage it yet cite no sources to support your contention that a CNN transcript riddled with spelling and factual error is an acceptable substitute for the scholarship of books by Kinzer, Byrne and Gasiorowski? Or writing by the up and coming Masoud Kazemzadeh? Skywriter (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SnowFire, you can't just make a sweeping revert of hundreds of edits by several editors. If there are specific issues, please list them here one by one, and get a WP:consensus for your edits. --Kurdo777 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kurdo777: I *did* list them here one by one. Please look up at the top of this section and read it? And more to the point, this article has been seriously unstable over the past two weeks. Hopefully it will come out the better for it afterward, but don't overstate the "consensus" - I DID read the above talk page discussions, and they don't really touch on my issues at all, but there are still major disputes with the edits you two have made.

• Skywriter: This has nothing to do with which references I like and dislike. And for a normal article, I'd be happy to try and work together the referneces you added first to create a harmonious better version. However, put bluntly, this article is too important. As I've said before, I feel that the new lede is majorly flawed to such an extent that it needs to go first, and be worked back up to later.

• The CNN transcript was just convenient. It was literally the first reference I looked at. Pretty much every account mentions the Cold War. Heck, your references mention it too. Why is this under debate? It can be oil AND the Cold War! There are many reasons to do something!

• As for All the Shah's Man, this is in fact the canonical example of why I'm being so "aggressive." This has nothing to do with whether I like and/or criticize the book. It has everything to do with the fact that a single book of scholarship should not get called out in the lede! Used as a reference, fine, but it is extremely rare that a book merits such a mention - only perhaps when the publication of a book caused a massive reassessment of the event, and that changing view made the book worth it! I see no evidence that is the case. As is, we're just randomly hyping a single book on the topic. Regardless of views on the coup, this sentence violates Wikipedia's style for the lede section.

• My concerns - listed above - remain unanswered. SnowFire (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What's with all these quoted paragraphs? Those belong somewhere else in the article, not in the lede! Agree with SnowFire here; the lede should be scrapped and rewritten to present the subject in a broad overview without quotes or the mention of Kinzer's All the Shah's Men. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.Skywriter (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

SnowFire wrote: As for All the Shah's Man, this is in fact the canonical example of why I'm being so "aggressive."... It is extremely rare that a book merits such a mention only perhaps when the publication of a book caused a massive reassessment of the event, and that changing view made the book worth it! I see no evidence that is the case. Reply-- If you see no evidence that Kinzer's book brought about a massive reassessment of the 1953 coup in Iran, then you did not read the book or the reviews.[7] Aggression aside, SnowFire, the underlying flaw in your windy analysis is the absence of credible sourcing. SnowFire wrote: The CNN transcript was just convenient. It was literally the first reference I looked at.

Yes, and it shows just how careful were your mad rush of reverts last night. Fast and loose with facts, you also tried to reinstate the false claim that Secretary of State Albright apologized for the coup. She did not. And that is stated explicitly here. As to your deleting the word "brutal" with reference to the Shah's regime, that is pure reference-free POV pushing. Albright also briefly acknowledged that the shah, installed after the coup, brutally repressed political dissent. [8] Skywriter (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowfire wrote-- The CNN transcript was just convenient. It was literally the first reference I looked at. Pretty much every account mentions the Cold War. Heck, your references mention it too. Why is this under debate? It can be oil AND the Cold War! There are many reasons to do something!

Your credibility would improve by using references to make your arguments rather than simply making unsourced claims. The current version of the lede now links to theAbadan Crisis timeline a chronology of how Britain's resistance to the nationalisation of Iran's oil industry led to the coup. The CIA does cite vague fear of the Soviet Union in its most recent justification for the coup. However, the CIA's accounting, published in 2007, three years after the publication of Kinzer's path-breaking book (2003), must be weighed against the CIA's destruction of most of its documents related to this coup."C.I.A. Destroyed Files on 1953 Iran Coup" along with destruction of US State department documents.

While US government traces US motives to undocumented fears of Soviet influence in pre-1953 Iran, the history of the struggle for Iran's oil was central to the coup. There is an absence of facts and therefore an absence of truth about other motives-- claims for which must be weighed against the fact of the massive document destruction, which would have given historians clearer insights into the US motive for overthrowing Iran's government in 1953. The historians who write the definititve Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) have complained about the document destruction and the resulting absence of contemporaneous documents to establish facts and motives. Therefore, while the US claim as to motive is included in this article at various points, it does not deserve to be in the lede.Skywriter (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter: I have tried to be civil with you. I would ask that you return the favor. Remember, I didn't even write the old lede; I picked that as merely being most likely to be non-controversial. Also note that on every single edit page, there's a big statement saying "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Part of the "edited mercilessly" part is that people will criticize your writing. It's nothing personal.

"If you see no evidence that Kinzer's book brought about a massive reassessment of the 1953 coup in Iran, then you did not read the book or the reviews."

Amazon reviews are worthless for determining how important a book is, merely how good one is. But whatever, you didn't include a direct mention in the most recent version, so let's just drop this. (And for about the billionth time, since you mention in my edit summary that I'm "criticizing" Kinzer.... I'm doing no such thing. I'm sure the book is very good, judging from the review given by the CIA history fellow. But "very good" is not the same as "an element of crowning importance in the coup itself." People knew after 1979 that something had gone horribly wrong, so this was not a new revelation.

"Aggression aside, SnowFire, the underlying flaw in your windy analysis is the absence of credible sourcing"

You said earlier that "Your other comments are too general to address. If you would like to suggest specific changes to the wording, feel free to bring it here for comment." I decided to expand on the many problems with the lede, and now it's a "windy" analysis. Got it. But aside from sniping, you still fail to understand that my biggest problems with your version of the lede have nothing to do with sourcing. It has to do with what information is appropriate for the lede. There are a million and one possible, sourced facts that can be mentioned in the lede; we have to pick which ones. I have no doubt that your text was sourced; it doesn't mean it's automatically appropriate for the lede.

Yes, and it shows just how careful were your mad rush of reverts last night. Fast and loose with facts,

Let me say it again: Are you denying that Cold War paranoia had anything to do with the coup? Do you realize what references are for? It's to confirm facts. This fact is obvious and supported by every source, including your own, so it doesn't particularly matter what it was referenced to. If you want to source it better have a blast, but this is not even close to "fast and loose with the facts."

Albright's "apology"

You've got a point that the linked NYTimes article doesn't call it apology. Remember, I didn't write the old lede! Fair enough if we want to remove that due to being murkier than we'd like.

The CIA does cite vague fear of the Soviet Union in its most recent justification for the coup. However, the CIA's accounting, published in 2007, three years after the publication of Kinzer's path-breaking book (2003), must be weighed against the CIA's destruction of most of its documents related to this coup

Wait, the CIA destroyed the documents, so therefore the Soviet Union had nothing to do with it? That logic doesn't flow. More to the point, the idea that Cold War machinations were behind the US involvement is in literally every source. I haven't read All the Shah's Men, but from your linked book review (the one by a notable person, not from Amazon reviewers), it seems to be in that, too! I quote..

Eisenhower and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, were dedicated to rolling back communism and defending democratic governments threatened by Moscow's machinations.

Kinzer depicts him as beguiled by a moralistic John Foster and a cynical Allen.

By ignoring the anticommunist basis of US policy, he wrenched the dispute with the AIOC out of its Cold War context and saw it only from his parochial nationalist viewpoint. Lastly, Mossadeq's naïvete about communist tactics led him to ignore the Tudeh Party's efforts to penetrate and control Iranian institutions. He seemed almost blithely unaware that pro-Soviet communists had taken advantage of democratic systems to seize power in parts of Eastern Europe. By not reining in Iran's communists, he fell on Washington's enemies list. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

....yeah. As a reminder this is from a review of your favored source. (Also note that Dulles is described as "moralistic," i.e. interested in stopping the communists, not greedy / interested in oil. Squares with what I know of Dulles anyway.)

The overwhelming consensus is that the US was involved due to Cold War issues. Might this be false due to the document destruction? Possibly, but that's irrelevant, because Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (WP:V). Historians say that the US involvement was due to Cold War paranoia, therefore Wikipedia should report that.

You miss the point with this--I haven't read All the Shah's Men, but from your linked book review (the one by a notable person, not from Amazon reviewers), i-- the link was not to amazon customers but to news and journal reviews that appeared when the book was published. These reviews established the sea change in looking back at what 1953 meant to Iranians.

Your reverts of this article are objectionable because you waltzed in with no history in the last several years of working on this article and arbitrarily reverted it to early June, without regard for numerous intermediate edits, and also without any detailed commentary on why each change made since June 5 or 6 is problematic in your opinion.Skywriter (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? The "detailed commentary" was the long list of problems with the old lede I mentioned above. And I didn't revert the whole article, just the lede. Which was direly needed. Number of edits doesn't matter, quality does. SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You trashed the leading paragraphs and violated Wikipedia guidelines in the process by reverting three times in one day. You added no new references and continue to insist on making the Cold War primary. You want to place an endless stream of minor details into the lead with the effect that the article is hard to read yet attempts to portray a hard right POV excuse that most scholars today do not accept as the primary reason for the overthrow by the US and UK of a democratically elected governemtn. There is room in this article for a discussion of what role the Cold War played in the coup but it is a distortion to make this primary. Skywriter (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward: Proposed new lede

Now that that is out of the way, let's call off this juvenile sniping. The new lede is much better, though still too short and still giving short shrift to some topics of importance. Here is my rewrite of it. I will place it here on the talk page first for comment before moving it to the article.

---

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. The coup was organized by the United States' CIA and the United Kingdom's MI6, who aided and abetted anti-Mosaddeq royalists and mutinous Iranian army officers in overthrowing the Prime Minister. Operation Ajax or TPAJAX, as the mission was called, was organized by CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. to aid retired General Fazlollah Zahedi and Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri to establish a pro-Western government. Roosevelt and the CIA bribed Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen. Further support for the coup came from clerical dissatisfaction with Mosaddeq's secular government, who were also encouraged by the CIA.

The coup grew out of the Abadan Crisis of 1951 in which Prime Minister Mossaddeq, backed by nationalistic supporters in the Iranian parliament, moved to nationalise Iran's petroleum industry. This infuriated the government of the United Kingdom, as Britain's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company would lose its concessions controlling Iran's lucrative oil supplies. The United Kingdom mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged Iran into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the United States in planning a coup, but the Truman administration refused. However, after the 1952 elections, Truman's successor Dwight D. Eisenhower "allowed the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government." Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, were alarmed by reports of infiltration of the communist Tudeh Party into Mosaddeq's adminstration, and feared Iran falling under the influence of the Soviet Union. With the consent of Eisenhower, the Anglo-American backed coup moved forward.

Mosaddeq was sentenced to internal exile and the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, took complete control. US support and funding continued after the coup, with the CIA training the Shah's feared and hated secret police, SAVAK. Originally, the Eisenhower Administration considered Operation Ajax a successful secret war, but, given its blowback, it is now considered a failure, because of its "haunting and terrible legacy". The anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced Iran’s post-monarchic, native, and secular parliamentary democracy with a dictatorship. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the Shah and replaced the monarchy with the anti-Western Islamic Republic of Iran.

---

One asterisk on this: Due to rewriting this, it's entirely possible that which references go where may have gotten jumbled around. Please do not jump on me for this and claim it invalidates everything; let's just fix it if you spot a problem there.

So, any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an improvement as it adds no new references and loses valuable references instead. The writing is dense, lacking the clarity of the current version. You seem to be trying to change this for the sake of change, and in the process, you lose high-quality references. Why do you believe this is an improved version of what exists now?Skywriter (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't lose any "high quality references." I just checked and the only reference in the current version not in the version I wrote above is to [9] about Anglo-Iranian oil being the "largest investment overseas" and renaming the company to BP. These are cute factoids but not relevant enough for the lede; my version says that Anglo-Iranian had a huge interest in avoiding nationalization and re-negotiation of the rights, and that Britain's government hated the idea too, which is the important thing.

I am not trying to change this for the sake of change, I am trying to write a short summary of the important facts about the coup. The current version mentions nothing about Kermit Roosevlet, nothing about Operation Ajax, nothing about what happened during the coup itself, nothing about the Cold War, nothing about the 1979 Islamic revolution, and does not use the word "Shah" nor mention the restored monarchy. That's why I think this proposed lede is an improvement, as these facts are just as important as the oil issue. SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment above is a gross misstatement of the facts of the existing lede. There is no requirement that any of the things you mention be addressed at the start of the article. Do explain this-- How does adding a link [10] in the lede to the hard right [11] Middle East Forum that engages in character assassination "improve" this article? And why exactly is this brief critique of Kinzer's book placed ahead of any reference to Kinzer's book? Again, this sure does look like POV-pushing pure and simple. Skywriter (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I was copying references from the earlier version of this article? If you dispute that reference, fine, let's remove it. And the actual text of the lede doesn't criticize Kizner at all anyway.

Also, any short account of the coup that doesn't mention the Shah is lacking. If we only had one sentence it would say "A US-British backed coup deposed democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in favor of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled as an absolute monarch."

Do you have any other issues with this lede? SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is false. The elected prime minister was replaced by a self-appointed prime minister. Introduction of the shah came later after the overthrow of the elected prime minister, and that is covered in the article. Every detail can not appear in the summary. The reason you offered yesterday for three reverts was that a blockquote was too long. That changed and references were added to establish the widespread acceptance of this version. Now your objections have changed again with the insistence, by example, that the lede is not wordy enough. You argue that Kermit Roosevelt, Ajax and 1979 should be in the lead. Roosevelt and Ajax are of peripheral importance and dealt with later in context. This article is about 1953. While it had a tremendous impact on Iran's history, that impact is addressed immediately in the next section. Changing the lead the way you suggest muddies the flow and changes the thrust.Skywriter (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was a new prime minister too, but the Shah ended up with the real power. And the Shah and his son was who ruled the country for the next 28 years as a result of the coup, so it seems obviously relevant? And Roosevelt organized the coup! That's obviously important in an article on the coup.

I'm not sure where you're going here, but your version seems to suggest almost two articles - "lead up to the coup" and "the coup," since your version of the lede only concentrates on the lead up. While perhaps a split might one day be warranted, I don't see why you're so against including information on the coup itself, and only talking about (some of!) the problems from before hand (but not the USSR). SnowFire (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Further thought: Ah, I get it, the "mentioned later" means you're viewing this as just the first part to read, they'll read about the other stuff later. However that is not what lede sections are; they aren't "section 1," but rather a summation of the entire article. We shouldn't expect our readers to keep on reading any farther; they should get an overview immediately. See MOS:INTRO: "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." SnowFire (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And the Shah and his son were who ruled the country for the next 28 years as a result of the coup,-----Are you making this up? What is your source?Skywriter (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You have completely ignored my other points. And I was referring to Reza Shah who ruled in the 30s but was deposed, but fair enough that he's not relevant for the 1953 coup and I screwed up the phrasing. Seeing no comment as to my actual points, let's try moving to a lede that summarizes the article rather than simply being the first section. SnowFire (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has ignored any of your points. The concern is that over the last 24 hours, you have repeatedly introduced error into this article AND WP:POV. You seem to forget there is another suggestion on this page, and that is to keep the current summary because it accurately reflects what is in the remainder of the article, is well-written and does not try to stuff so much into the summary that it is unreadable. You seem to be a big fan of making wholesale changes without regard to accuracy. That is reason for concern. The rewrite you present does not summarize the most important points in the rest of the article. It presents the POV you wish to impose on the article structure.Skywriter (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Well then what's the error in my proposed lede? You keep claiming it's there without saying what it is. And just what POV is it that I'm pushing? Tell me, I'm curious.

Your lede does not summarize the topic. There are major facets you are leaving out and solely focusing on the oil issue instead. The oil issue is real, and my lede talks about it, but to mention only oil but not mention the Shah?! If you don't believe the Shah was important for this coup, I don't know what to say. SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I've updated the proposed lede as of June 21st in response to Skywriter's complaints. This is not in any sense a final good lede. I believe that SOMETHING about the actual progress of the coup should be mentioned, but Skywriter didn't like "massive protests and demonstrations." I also think that the oil issue needs to be dealt with to show exactly what was going on - Anglo-Iranian had a sweetheart deal where they paid very little for the rights, and was basically government-owned by Britain. Simply saying "controlled" with no modifiers might make people think that Iran was getting *nothing* out of the deal, rather than just too little with most of it skimmed as corruption. SnowFire (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede that summarizes and sources the facts

The following succinctly presents the history presented by the remainder of the article and should continue.

1953 Iranian coup d'état

The 1953 Iranian coup d’état deposed the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.[1][2][3]

Backed by his nationalist supporters in the Iranian parliament, Mossaddeq angered Britain with his argument that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves, instead of allowing profits to continue to flow to Britain through its control of Iran's oil industry. In 1951, Mossaddeq nationalised Iran's oil industry, which had previously and exclusively been controlled by Britain's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company,[4] "the UK's largest single investment overseas".[5]

The Abadan Crisis timeline is a chronology of how Britain's resistance to the nationalisation of Iran's oil industry led to the coup. Britain accused Mosaddeq of violating the legal rights of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and mobilized a worldwide boycott of Iran's oil that plunged Iran into financial crisis. The British government tried to enlist the United States in planning a coup, but the Truman administration refused. But Truman's successor Dwight D. Eisenhower "allowed the CIA to embark on its first covert operation against a foreign government." [6] With control to Iranian oil restored, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company changed its name to BP in 1954.[2] Skywriter (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd night of vandalism to this article

Snowfire again tried to revert this article, the fourth time in 24 hours, and again introduced a series of errors. e.g. Snowfire inserted this false claim--This infuriated the government of the United Kingdom, as Britain's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company would lose its control over Iran's lucrative oil supplies and the light fees it paid for the rights.[7] Where exactly does the Guardian mention light feesin this linked article?

And how about this? With the consent of Eisenhower? Eisenhower was US president. He ordered the coup. You wrongly introduced the following into this article Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, were alarmed by reports of infiltration of the communist Tudeh Party into Mosaddeq's adminstration, and feared Iran falling under the influence of the Soviet Union.[8][9][10] With the consent of Eisenhower, the Anglo-American backed coup moved forward. Massive protests and demonstrations soon deposed Mosaddeq.

References [8][9][10] do not support the sentences you attached them to. And, you just made up this sentence out of whole cloth and, not surprisingly, offered no citation for it Massive protests and demonstrations soon deposed Mosaddeq.

To say nothing of the fact that, if you are going to bring up the Tudah Party in the lead summary, which is not necessary, then you tell only part of a complicated story. You leave out the infiltration of the Tudah Party and all that entailed.

STOP IT NOW. You are behaving like a vandal and introducing errors. STOP IT. You are wasting our time.Skywriter (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you had those complaints, you could have brought them up here on the talk page. That's the ENTIRE POINT of why I posted my suggested lede here first. Instead you refused to give feedback. Also "revert" is incorrect; I have so far performed only one reversion, and have edited the lede in a failed attempt to satisfy you. But whatever, let's not argue over what exactly reversion is.

So how would you write the actual coup? There were protests in the streets, which the coup plotters helped set up, no? Again, I'm willing to work with you here, but propose an alternative phrasing you feel would be better. And the communist worries are extremely relevant, as I explained above and will not repeat here.

I'm going to another noticeboard here, because your lede is not a summary of the article and leaves out major, major facts which were at the top of this article for months. Changes in the past two weeks do not constitute a magical new consensus that the fact that the Shah came to power as a result of the coup is irrelevant. (Seriously, why on EARTH should we leave out the most important outcome of the coup?) If you won't believe me, hopefully a neutral third party might have more luck. I've posted to the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. SnowFire (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We welcome participation in the editing of this article. We object to the introduction of error and personal opinion based on little or no knowledge of or reading about the subject. The installation of the Shah has been added to the leading summary along with the Consortium Agreement of 1954 which stayed in effect until 1979 when the Shah was deposed. I caution you to remember this encyclopedia article focuses on the events of 1953 and that it is important to get those details right. More needs to be added about how the British organized blockade of Iranian oil shipments in 1952, after nationalization, triggered the economic and political crisis. Winston Churchill's role in defense of British Petroleum is also not addressed.Skywriter (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This sentence of the proposed lede sounds like an aside: "The Abadan Crisis timeline is a chronology of how Britain's resistance to the nationalisation of Iran's oil industry led to the coup." Instead, it should read "The coup grew out of the Abadan Crisis of 1951..."

The use of quotes following Eisenhower is ungainly writing. As presented, it appears to be a quote by Ike, but its tense shows that it is from a later analysis. There should instead be a sentence containing the essence of the analysis but without using quotes.

This sentence is wholly unnecessary in the lede: "With control to Iranian oil restored, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company changed its name to BP in 1954." Instead there should be a statement about how the coup restored British control of oil.

These things must be mentioned in the lead section: Operation Ajax, General Zahedi, mullahs vs. secular, Reza Pahlavi (!!), SAVAK, 1979 revolution. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the Shah is now included, but the Kinzer book should be taken out of the lede. Who is writing this section; Kinzer's publicist? Too many details about percentage of oil are in the final paragraph of the lede. The quote which begins "Financially, this agreement..." should be prose analysis, not a quote. Same with "much more unfavorable than..." In fact, no quotes at all need be introduced in the lede. None of the actors in the 1953 drama are being quoted. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made some indicated changes to the lede, but it still needs to have Ajax, Zahedi, mullahs and SAVAK. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Binarybits has made constructive edits to this article.Skywriter (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the Moving forward: Proposed new lede section above. I've removed the sentences you complained about, Skywriter.

I make no claims that this is the perfect lede, but it's closer to a general overview of the topic. SnowFire (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Lead (or lede) is all background

It contains nothing about the basic facts: such as the Iranian leader of the coup: Fazlollah Zahedi or Nematollah Nassiri. Is full of trivia about various consortiums and contains nothing about coup's impact on 1979 revolution. This old version is better. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 ended the crisis that led to the coup, and stayed in effect until 1979 when the Iranian Revolution of 1979 ended it. The 1954 agreement determined which oil companies controlled Iranian oil and profited from it. Skywriter (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure something about should be in the body of the article but two paragraphs on the Consortium Agreement of 1954 in the lead and nothing on the impact of the coup on the 1979 revolution is bad form for an encylopedia article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you add linking 1953 to 1979?Skywriter (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph from an old version of the lead.

Originally, the Eisenhower Administration considered Operation Ajax a success, but it is now thought to have left a "haunting and terrible legacy" of strong anti-Americanism in the Iranian Revolution and Islamic Republic and in anti-American terrorism of 9/11. In 2000, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, stated that intervention by America in the internal affairs of Iran was a setback for democratic government. The coup is considered "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced an elected native democracy with a pro-foreign monarchic dictatorship.

the above is a comment by BoogaLouie.

While most of that is further down in the story, last I checked, BoogaLouie, I can support its use wherever you say it should go except I would delete and in anti-American terrorism of 9/11 because it is both a stretch and it muddies the sharp differences/hatred between the Shia'a and Sunni (or Iran vs Saudi Arabian) brands of Islam. It is a stretch also because lots of other things have happened in the interim, i.e. the shooting down by a US naval ship of a civilian Iranian airliner with 240 on board, mostly women and children headed for a shopping trip, and all that is mentioned in my note below on why this story really is about control of Iranian oil. Thanks for taking the time to comment using references.Skywriter (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oil issue

The good news is that this lede is better. Thanks to others for their input. There are still major items being left out, but more importantly there's an undue focus here; this lede is aboslutley obsessed with the oil issue. It is important, yes, but it is not the only thing that mattered. While I'm sure this is the view that Noam Chomsky or the like would take, why are eight out of eleven of the statements in this version of the lede ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&oldid=297785613 ) about oil?! There's lots of items of importance to the coup, but this lede makes it very clear that the writer thinks that oil was the only thing that mattered. SnowFire (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "oil" appears 12 times in the lead: "oil industry", "Iranian oil", "oil companies", etc. After all that there is a sentence in the Background section pretty much contradicting the idea that oil was the key to the coup:

However according to scholar Mark Gasiorowski, while "it is often argued that the main motive behind the coup was the desire of U.S. policy makers to help U.S. oil companies gain a share in Iranian oil production ... it seems more plausible" the U.S. policymakers "were motivated mainly by fears of a communist takeover in Iran."[40]

(full disclosure: I put that sentence in.)

The lead badly needs to be changed to include something on other motivations for the coup (cold war fears of UK and US, anti-secular feels of bazaari and clerics) and on the impact of the coup (1979 revolution). --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What compromise lead?

SnowFire has made a sweeping revert again, claiming to be "putting back in the compromise lede agian", when there is clearly no WP:Consensus here. Beside the apparent lack of consensus, the lead in question also includes some historically inaccurate statements like "infiltration of the communist Tudeh Party into Mosaddeq's adminstration". There was not a single Tudeh Party member in Mosaddeq's administration. Such outdated accusations were part of the propaganda/misinformation campaign behind the coup, meant to justify and legitimize the coup, and have long since been refuted by modern academic sources, and therefore do not belong in the lead of an encyclopedic article in 2009. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Slice and dice it anyway you want. This article is about Iran, not the US or UK, or it is about Iran and the role played by the US and UK in forcing regime change in Iran in order to continue western control Iranian oil. Here's the story.

Thanks to a deal cut in the early 20th century, Britain held longterm leases on all Iranian oil. By the middle of the century and directly reflecting popular Iranian opinion, Mossaddeq came into power in Iran and said "That deal's not fair. Iranian oil should primarily benefit Iranians." The Brits said "No way you're nationalizing "our" oil. We have a contract, signed in 1913. We are closing down your ports," and that is exactly what Britain, under Winston Churchill, did. With no oil flowing, Iran became unstable and strikes and street action reflected the unrest. The government of Britain, which held controlling shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., which had drilled, refined and shipped Iranian oil before Mossaddeq nationalized it, invited the US to join Britain in overthrowing Mossadeq's government. The US replied, "No, we've got our hands full." Britain replied, "Come on. We backed you in Korea." A new administration came into power in the US in 1952 and Joseph McCarthyism dominated the political sphere, and the enthusiastically anti-communist Dulles brothers held two key spots in the new administration. With that confluence of events, and because a cease-fire was now in place in Korea, the US reconsidered the UK request but only on the condition that US companies receive an equal cut (40 percent) of the oil action. Britain replied, "Sure. Let's go," and the two western governments proceeded to infiltrate Iranian institutions, every group from the Shia'a clerics on down to the communist Tudeh Party. The two western governments threw lots of money around, sent representatives to Italy to persuade Reza Pahlevi to return to Iran where they would make certain he would rule Iran as absolute monarch. Pahlevi was cruel to his own people and sicc'ed his secret police, SAVAK, on thousands of people whom SAVAK either tortured or killed. This sad situation continued until 1979 when Iranians couldn't stand it any longer and gave power to the clergy who proceeded to behave badly too especially with regard to the issuance of rules governing "morality" and women's clothing and social behavior. The US incited Saddam Hussein to attack Iran and backed his 10-year war (1980s) on Iran in which Saddam used poison gases to kill millions of Iranians. Envoy Rumsfeld sealed US support for Saddam with a famous handshake. The US turned the screws by deceiving Iran in an arms sale, known as Iran-contra in which the US sold short-range missiles to Iran whereas it had been paid for long-range missiles, a deceit that sincerely pissed off the Ayatollahs. The US used the proceeds of the missile sale to fund a war in Central America but that's another story. The US-backed Iraq war on Iran ended, the US cut Saddam loose, and then turned on him. Meanwhile, the US and UK were still sore at Iran for cutting western oil companies out of the action for the second largest oil reserves in the world.

I have one question. How is this story not about oil? If this is a Cold War i.e. US vs. USSR story, please demonstrate the role of the former Soviet Union in this tale. Kurdo777 is correct in saying the anti-communist fears were pure western propaganda to disguise an oil grab. Please prove me wrong, using references. Gasiorowski patriotically quotes State Department sources and he is a western source interpreting a western invasion and coup. While it is important to get the western propaganda claims into the story, it is not so important to get it into the summary. Giving top billing to US (or any government) propaganda claims that try to justify going to war is a slippery slope. i.e. Fear that Mexico will reclaim the western states is not a reason to re-invade Mexico.Skywriter (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

BoogaLouie's reply

The story is about oil ... along with other issues - the cold war and domestic dissatisfation with the Mossadegh.

please demonstrate the role of the former Soviet Union in this tale

Well here is a section on the cold war deleted from the article some months back. It should be restored:

---

Among the controversies involved in the coup is the importance and/or legitimacy of American and British fears of Communist influence in Iran.

In the decades following the October Revolution, Iran's huge neighbor, the Soviet Union, had expanded its domain to rule over tens of millions of Muslim in Central Asia, and following World War II over much of Eastern Europe. On June 26, 1950, as the movement for oil nationalization was gathering steam in Iran, soldiers of the North Korean Communist regime with the backing of the Soviets, crossed the 38th parallel to invade South Korea, beginning the Korean War. Three years later, just before the coup in Iran, Soviet tanks crushed an anti-Communist uprising of strikes and protests in East Germany. In Iran itself, the well-organized, pro-Soviet Tudeh (Communist) Party, greatly exceeded the National Front in the sized of its rallies as the crisis became worse.

In the view of American mainstream public and elite opinion, the crisis in Iran became just part of the conflict between Communism and "the Free world." Consequently,

the United States, challenged by what most Americans saw as a relentless communist advance, slowly ceased to view Iran as a country with a unique history that faced a unique political challenge.

According to Sam Falle, a young British diplomat at the time of the coup,

1952 was a very dangerous time. The Cold War was hot in Korea. The Soviet Union had tried to take all Berlin in 1948. Stalin was still alive. On no account could the Western powers risk a Soviet takeover of Iran, which would almost certainly have led to World War III

In addition to fear of the Soviet influence in Iran, the Cold War influenced American support for, or at least lack of opposition to, Britain's policies there. Hardline British Prime Minister Winston Churchill used Britain's support for the U.S. in the Cold War to insist the United States not undermine his campaign to isolate Mosaddeq. "Britain was supporting the Americans in Korea, he reminded Truman, and had a right to expect `Anglo-American unity` on Iran."

A pro-American Iran under the Shah would give the U.S. a double strategic advantage in the ensuing Cold War, as a NATO alliance was already in effect with the government of Turkey, also bordering the USSR.

---

PS: What evidence do you have that Gasiorowski is being "patriotic" and not scholarly? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PPS:I have no evidence, though I think his view was cherry-picked. See below. Skywriter (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As to that long bloated section, I took it out this morning because it has nothing to do with Iran, it has no basis in fact, and is extraneous bs not pertinent to the this article. Proof--the USSR left Iran after the war and did not interfere. It had no role in the coup. (If it did, what was it?) See discussion of boogyman in the next note. I oppose returning it to the article.Skywriter (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the tie-in you were looking for-- pertinent quote from book on 1953 "Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran," edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Bryne. Below is an excerpt.

"The '28 Mordad' coup, as it is known by its Persian date, was a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region. The joint U.S.-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years. When the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-year reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians."

That article contains two relevant links. A succinct summary of why the coup was all about oil. Foreign Domination in Iran, 1918-1953 When people argue that the US was "afraid" of the boogy man (a Soviet takeover of Iran in 1953), the world looks at the history of who has been the aggressor. Chronology of the US arming Iraq for war with Iran

I took a look at the quote from Gasiorowski on western fear of the Soviet boogyman that is now contained in this article, and conclude it is not a careful enough quote in that it is cherry-picked. Gasiorowski included a lot more caveats than appear in this article.[12] Skywriter (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter: Nobody contests that according to some historians the coup was "really about" oil. It's just that that is not the only view. And even many of those who emphasize oil over the Cold War admit the Cold War had *some* relevance, if nothing else as a way to sell it to Eisenhower. The view that it was oil and oil alone is not mainstream. We have already quoted sources from all sides; why not have a consensus lede that summarizes all aspects historians feel are relevant? SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

SF's reply

Kurdo777: SnowFire has made a sweeping revert again, claiming to be "putting back in the compromise lede agian", when there is clearly no WP:Consensus here.

You and Skywriter agree. That is not a consensus. The entire body of work editors made prior to the two of you editing this article represents a much stronger residual consensus, and every neutral editor who has seen the new lede has agreed it has problems. Less problems now than before, sure, but problems none-the-less. As a reminder, I too am a neutral party - I didn't seek out this confrontation; I was merely browsing this article and saw problems to such a degree I felt forced to intervene.

Beside the apparent lack of consensus, the lead in question also includes some historically inaccurate statements like "infiltration of the communist Tudeh Party into Mosaddeq's adminstration".

Read carefully. I never said they had infiltrated his administration; I said that Eisenhower was alarmed by *reports* and the possibility of this happening. If you have a better phrasing of this idea, feel free to add it, though. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter: I have one question. How is this story not about oil?

I am not here to debate about the "true" reason that the coup occurred. We are here to write the established consensus of historians. If that consensus of historians is corrupted by "western propaganda" then that's unfortunate, but that's still the consensus. Let me quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability again:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

There is a school of thought that oil was the only item of importance, which you obviously hold to. That's nice. It is not the only school of thought, or even the most popular one. Wikipedia should not privilege it above the others. Look up at my other comments from your talk page a review from your own favored source says that Cold War fear of the USSR was what motivated Dulles and Eisenhower. And nobody is contesting that oil is largely what drove the UK, which is in my version of the lede as well.

I did a very brief Google and immediately was confronted with many, many sources backing up what I am saying as non-controversial. Again, it might still be wrong, but it is the established view. Take this for example, reviews of scholarly book on the coup:

The book [provides] a richly and tightly reasoned setting out of what might be dubbed the emerging scholarly synthesis: the British started it, but the United States took it over; Cold War concerns about 'losing' Iran were a greater factor than was oil nationalization; and Mosaddeq faced growing domestic opposition and made important tactical mistakes in his final days-but he was toppled only because of outside intervention." http://www.syracuseuniversitypress.syr.edu/spring-2004-catalog/mosaddeq.html

Another source, which reports on both causes without taking sides:

British intelligence sources, working with the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), came to the conclusion that Mossadeq had communist leanings and would move Iran into the Soviet orbit if allowed to stay in power. Working with the Shah, the CIA and British intelligence began to engineer a plot to overthrow Mossadeq. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?id=2764&action=tdihArticleCategory

In fairness, I also found some articles taking your side, like this article from CounterPunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/faruqui05282003.html . Of course, CounterPunch is pretty much old left and socialists, so such a viewpoint is expected to a degree. So yes, there's a dispute, but even the CounterPunch site admits that other causes exist, just that they argue that oil was the most important one. They don't go nearly as far as you want to go, which is to remove all reference to the Cold War from the lede. Hell, even if a crystal ball came and told us that the Cold War was irrelevant, it'd still be notable to mention as, if nothing else, the official reason for the coup.

When there's a dispute, Wikipedia should report on all the facts, and not take sides, like you want it to. Can't you see that you can believe that it was really all about oil, yet admit that not everyone does? That's all I am asking here.

(Also, side comment? You say that this is really about Iran. I agree, but your version is almost entirely Western-focused, while my preferred version mentions the main Iranian players too, like the mullahs, Zahedi, and Nassiri. Just sayin'.) SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

snowfire wrote-- The entire body of work editors made prior to the two of you editing this article... I have a long history with this article. You showed up for the first time the other night, introduced factual errors based on your personal opinions and have continually engaged in a revert war. Your demonstrated role here is anything but neutral.Skywriter (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see you edited a bit back in 2007. Whatever, content is what's important. By "neutral" I mean I have no stake in this article - I happened across it randomly, have not edited it before, and my first reversion wasn't even to my own writing. Surely you don't contest that fact, no? In fact you criticize me for just that, "showing up for the first time." At risk of pointing out the obvious, it's good to have people uninvolved with an article look it over occasionally to catch things. I looked at just the lede, and found so many problems that I checked the history. That's why I edited this article at all; to restore what I see as a better and more neutral lede as an outside observer. SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about your activities these last two days.

Oh gee, I wonder whose POV your A&E unreferenced summary is pushing? A&E says Shah was "solid Cold War ally" (and not a creepy dictator who had thousands of Iranians tortured and killed).

Your A&E link contends-- "Iran remained a solid Cold War ally of the United States until a revolution ended the Shah's rule in 1979." ... and "The Shah became one of America's most trusted Cold War allies." Don't you think it a wee bit odd that, protected by the US, his being an absolute ruler who had many of his subjects murdered by his secret police is relevant and that this is exactly the reason Iranians hated him and finally ran him out? Thanks for your fair and balanced view of history, and for letting us know, finally, what appeals to you.

I believe you linked to the sale page for Byrne and Gasiorowski's book, a useful source, and your only other source aside from the slanted A&E summary, not because you've read their book but because you like the brief excerpt from the review in Foreign Affairs. Try reading their book to discover that the essays they use are thoughtful and nuanced, not at all what you claim.

I believe you have engaged with this article and reverted it wholesale some seven times now--in just 48 hours-- (!!) not because the subject matter interests you but out of arrogance. You enjoy the fight. You seem to have absolutely no loyalty to facts. Skywriter (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter: I'm speechless. What on earth are you talking about? First of all, linking to a page does not mean I agree with everything on the page! Second of all, it's nice you disagree with the History Channel page, but that's precisely the point - there are lots of sources out there that disagree with you. Calling them propaganda... well, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories ; basically I'm very concerned by any claims that the currently accepted history is wrong. Even if true, Wikipedia is here to report the "accepted" history." Third, why do you think I approve of the Shah? The Shah was a nasty dictator, yet you were the one who was removing my references to SAVAK, so go figure. Fourth, isn't it possible that the Shah was a Cold War ally of the US *and* a nasty dictator?

I am insulted by your claim I have no loyalty to facts. And I detest this fight. It is the one thing that drives me away from Wikipedia, edit wars with battle-hardened ideologues. The only reason I have engaged on this edit page at all is, believe it or not, interest in incorporating your concerns into the lede. No, really. Because I could have ignored everything on the talk page and merely reverted. I have not enjoyed this conversation at all. And it seems that it will now be at an end. It is impossible to collaborate with someone who refuses to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We disagree, Skywriter, but I am trying to make this article better.

If you are interested in working together - something I have invited you to do many times, and tried my best to do so- feel free to say so, and preferably retract your personal attacks. Until then, I see no point in continuing this conversation. I suppose it'll just be an edit war, and we'll create a mess for Administrators to sort out. Lovely, the bad ending. SnowFire (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Tudeh was not a part of Mossadegh's government, Mossadegh and Tudeh did not get along, these are the facts supported by all the modern neutral academic sources. So we're not going to put such apologist/propagandist theories accusing Mosadegh of having links to Tudeh, in the lead of an encyclopedic article which is suppose to rely on modern mainstream academic theories. We are not going to, because doing so is a violation of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo: And this is exactly what is so frustrating about this conversation. I am not saying Tudeh and Mossadegh got along. I do not know why people think I'm trying to be an apologist for the Shah. However, this is about what Eisenhower believed. Let me quote again from my preferred version of the intro:

Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, were alarmed by reports of infiltration of the communist Tudeh Party into Mosaddeq's administration, and feared Iran falling under the influence of the Soviet Union.

I do not remark on whether the Tudeh had infiltrated Mossadegh's government; the most important thing is that the US believed that they were and that Iran was going to fall under the USSR's influence. This distinction is clear, right? Hell... if you have a source, I wouldn't have a problem with rephrasing that as something like:

Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, were alarmed by the potential of the communist Tudeh Party taking over Mossadegh's administration and feared Iran falling under the influence of the Soviet Union. Modern scholarship has disputed the actual risk of communist infiltration, with historians such as (NAME) believing that the risk was greatly exaggerated. (REFERENCE OF YOUR CHOICE)

This would make it clear that we are only referring to a perception before. Would that be fair? SnowFire (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "Modern scholarship..." sentence needs to be in the lede. We're talking about a brief summary of what the event was, what influenced it, what it influenced. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree, since my original assumes that the reader is smart enough to see "reports" and not need further prompting, but as a compromise there have been worse ones. SnowFire (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal, is how it presents 1950's propaganda and "official line" about the motives, as genuine concerns of the parties involved. Modern scholarship view the "fears of communist takeover" as just an excuse to justify the coup in the context of the cold war. We shouldn't be repeating the perpetrators' own propaganda and self-stated "motives", in the lead of an encyclopedic article. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that, as already discussed, the mainstream historical view is that it is not "motives" in quotation marks, but motives. The consensus view is that Eisenhower/Dulles really were concerned about communism from the many many links and quotes I have provided above - including from sources that Skywriter favors. And even if they weren't - which is not the mainstream view anyway - then yes, it is still absolutely relevant to mention the official motive. I direct you to Invasion of Poland (1939), a Featured Article - it prominently mentions the "German-staged "Polish attack" on 31 August 1939" which was the official reason why Germany was forced to "defend itself."

More generally. I really don't want to debate the issue itself with you, but since you it keeps on coming up, as a historical methodology note... generally you should be very wary of any sources which claim that the reasons somebody did something are different from those they claimed themself. Obviously there have been people in history who were almost certainly liars about their own motivations, but less than you'd think. Many of the people who claim this kind of thing are historians with their own overarching worldview who fit everything to meet it - think Naomi Klein, for whom everything is really about the economic interests of the shadowy evil multinational corporations cabal. WP:Verifiability reports that "a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended" requires exceptional sources. There is ample material that says Eisenhower was a staunch anti-communist, a position he publicly defended; Eisenhower is not on record, however, as particularly caring about the imperial interests of the British. In fact, he would hang Britain out to dry in the Suez Crisis and warn about the military-industrial complex after leaving the Presidency. And Binksternet already dug up one direct quotation from Eisenhower on the topic saying "Iran seemed to be almost ready to fall into Communist hands."

It was completely effortless to find those quotations supporting my point - from Skywriter's own favored sources - and I suppose I'll dig up some more, but you don't sound like you're going to be convinced any time soon. Heck, just from the External links to the article...

Britain and the U.S. understood that the likeliest outcome of Mossadegh's cunning introduction of disorder was the downfall of the shah, and the creation of a void in which the Communists would assume power. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_55/ai_107223571/

In meetings in November and December 1952, the secret history says, British intelligence officials startled their American counterparts with a plan for a joint operation to oust the nettlesome prime minister. The Americans, who "had not intended to discuss this question at all," agreed to study it, the secret history says. It had attractions. Anti-Communism had risen to a fever pitch in Washington, and officials were worried that Iran might fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, a historical presence there. In March 1953, an unexpected development pushed the plot forward: the C.I.A.'s Tehran station reported that an Iranian general had approached the American Embassy about supporting an army-led coup. The newly inaugurated Eisenhower administration was intrigued. The coalition that elected Dr. Mossadegh was splintering, and the Iranian Communist Party, the Tudeh, had become active. Allen W. Dulles, the director of central intelligence, approved $1 million on April 4 to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh," the history says. "The aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party." http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter1.html

Eisenhower and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, were dedicated to rolling back communism and defending democratic governments threatened by Moscow's machinations (...) By ignoring the anticommunist basis of US policy, he wrenched the dispute with the AIOC out of its Cold War context and saw it only from his parochial nationalist viewpoint. Lastly, Mossadeq's naïvete about communist tactics led him to ignore the Tudeh Party's efforts to penetrate and control Iranian institutions. He seemed almost blithely unaware that pro-Soviet communists had taken advantage of democratic systems to seize power in parts of Eastern Europe. By not reining in Iran's communists, he fell on Washington's enemies list. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html (and yes, I already quoted this one above, but it's really on point)

Again. This was not hard to find. This is not cherry-picking, this is everywhere if you research the topic. Let me say it again: you are free to think that the mainstream historical account is wrong. But I will say that a strong proportion of sources all say that communist fears and the Cold Wars were huge factors in the US's decision to back the coup. And even if you think it wasn't, it's still very notable as the official account. This needs to be reflected in the lede. SnowFire (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter wrote "Modern scholarship view the "fears of communist takeover" as just an excuse to justify the coup in the context of the cold war." The context of the Cold War was exactly that; a fear expressed by the U.S. that the Communists would take over. The 1953 coup was part of the Cold War. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2009

Binksternet, we should not be repeating self-declared motives as facts. If X murders Y, and then cries "self defense" and claim that as his motive, are we suppose to take that on face value and list X's self-declared motives as facts? Or are we suppose to rely on a court's judgment on the case? In this case, the court is the modern scholarship, and the verdict is that there was no genuine fear of a communist takeover. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's funny: the self-declared motives are on record from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, somebody you'd have to agree was an expert in the matter of what the opinion was in the U.S. at the time. It's inconceivable to me that Ike's opinion, and great swaths of scholarship affirming his stance, are ones that you propose to dump into the ashcan of history. That goes against a very basic policy here, expressed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Your "court of modern scholarship" consists of one author who wrote one book. It's not mainstream and can't be given priority. It can be mentioned, but it can't take over the page. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know politicians lie. That's a given and the main reason why Eisenhower's self-declared motives will not be presented as facts in a neutral Encyclopedia, and doing so would be a violation of WP:NPOV. As per "swaths of scholarship affirming his stance", that's simply a misrepresentation of academic consensus on the issue. Nearly all modern sources, published after the release of secret documents on the coup within the last decade or so, dismiss the "fears of communist takeover" as a pretext to justify the toppling of another sovereign nation's democratically-elected government. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A few threads lower, I have six sources saying "U.S. fears of communism". It's part of the standard scholarship regarding the 1953 coup. Ike's word must be used as it appears; he's the expert on U.S. opinion in 1953, period. Even if we frame it as a statement from a source like "Ike said blah blah" we have to include it, no matter whether you think it's a lie or not. Can you list for me your specific references that say "nearly all modern sources" in the last decade or so dismiss the fears of communism? I'd like to peruse them as much as possible online. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)