Jump to content

Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

He was APPOINTED not elected. Why not stick to the truth?

Guys - let's try and avoid party politics. No prime minister in the history of Iran was democratically elected. The Shah appointed him. A parliament made up of members appointed by the King approved the appointment. It is AT BEST misleading to call him a democratically elected official. By doing so you have to call every PM of the SHah democratically appointed. THis is false. According to the 1906 constitution of Iran, the PM is appointed by the Shah and only the Shah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.165.2 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally (after a brief glance through the archives) don't think "appointed" or "democratically elected" should be used in the lede as both can be considered misleading, and giving in to a narrative of good and evil. Just call him the prime minister of Iran, it seems to have been good enough for pretty much every other Iranian prime minister with a wikipedia article. Brustopher (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
We are not going to find the truth by ourselves in Wikipedia . We can only gather the reliable sources , and in this case that is the exact wording of the sources . If you want a new revisionist view , please give reliable sources . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with at the very least just calling him the PM of iran. since no other PM is every mentioned as being "democratically elected" even though all of them have gone through the same process authorized by the 1906 constitution. You don't every see PM Alam or Hoveyda being refered to as "democratically elected". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.165.2 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
the problem we are facing today is that many people unversed in iranian politics actually think Mossadegh was elected in some sort of election that people voted on. This is simply not true and is a result of these wikepedia pages and scocial media posts spreading this narrative that it will eventually become "fact". If you want wikepedia to hold its integrity in tact then we should stick to facts. Mossadegh should just be called the PM of Iran. As were all PMs before him dating back 2500 years and all other PMs after him up to 1979. Singling out one PM and calling him democratically elected because of political agendas does a disservice to many people including the Wikipedia community, academia, journalists, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.165.2 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not about "election". Several times I had this discussion I've been told that it's all about the "coup" and the removal of "Mossadegh, prime minister of Iran". It just sounds better to say that the "prime minister" was "democratically elected". Unfortunately, even the process of approval of Mr Mossadegh was not according to the constitution. When he had been appointed the second time and the majlis had approved Mr Mossadegh, the Senate did not so. Mossadegh insisted that he will only accept the position of a prime minister if he will get the "extraordinary powers". The majlis granted these powers but the Senate did not. Mossadegh closed the Senate but he had still no approval by the Senate. This matter is still not well documented and research should focus on the role of the Senate according to the constitution of Iran. Anyway he was prime minister due to the appointment by the Shah - but he should have resigned when he could not get the approval of the Senate. --Wvk (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"democratically elected" is the same thing that we say about the British prime minister : elected by parliament . But why we don't say that about Hoveyda , because the other parliaments was not real . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There has never been an election in the Iranian parliament. The parliament voted on a vote of confidence of the appointed prime minister. This might be the difference between a British prime minister and a prime minister of Iran.--Wvk (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As you know , the former constitution of Iran has been a translation of constitution of Belgium , in some parts letter by letter . The protocol in constitutional monarchies may be different , but the meaning is same . In Iran , when the power of Shah was more , the Constitutional monarchy tended to changed to absolute monarchy . In cases like last 2 monarchs of Qajar clan and in the beginning of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi , the system was a kind of Constitutional monarchy . After the coup of 1953 , it changed to Absolute monarchy again . So in the periods of Constitutional monarchy , the word elected can be used .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Your name indicates that you speak Persian. Please read the Mosakerat related to the writing of the Constitution of Iran (see www.mashruteh.org). It is simply a myth that the constitution of Iran is a translation of the constitution of Belgium. There had been extensive discussion in the first Majlis which had spent most of its time to write and discuss the constitution. You refer to the last two monarchs of the Qajar. The last monarch was Ahmad Shah who had no intention to rule the country like an absolute monarch. There is no doubt that Iran was 1906-1907 and 1909 until 1979 a constitutional monarchie. Mohammad Ali Shah tried to restore the former absolute monarchie in 1908 but he didn't succeed despite the help of the Russians. Since 1906 the prime minister was appointed by the Shah. Then the prime minister presented himself, his ministers and his political program to the majslis and the parliament voted. Your wrote that "After the coup of 1953 , it changed to Absolute monarchy again " - there had been in 1963 a referendum on the reform program later called "White Revolution". If Iran had been an absolute monarchy the Shah could easily dictate the refom program by farman which he did not and could not do according the constitution. History is based on documents not on fiction.--Wvk (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Correct, there was never an absolute monarchy in Iran after the 1908 attempt. We can say that the most recent Shah pushed very hard for more power, many times successfully, but he was never the absolute monarch. As well, the Majlis did not vote on the PM in the style familiar to the common man, where there are several names in front of the voter, and one of the candidates must be chosen. Instead, the PM was subject to a vote of confirmation or approval by the Majlis, and the vote was either "yes, this man should be PM", or "no, this man should not be PM". It is misleading to tell the reader that the PM was elected. We should instead say that, in April 1951 he was nominated and approved in the normal fashion of Iran, with nothing out of the ordinary. Then in July 1952 he was dismissed by the Shah, and shortly thereafter when his replacement resigned, he was re-confirmed by the Majlis and begrudgingly re-appointed by the Shah.[1][2] Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Mossadegh came to power like all the PMs before and after him. So either all were democratically elected or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.216.65 (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr Alborz Fallah said that Mosadegh was a democratically elected prime minister because we do the same for British ministers and we don't call the ministers after the coup because those Majleses were not real. But I think there is still a big problem: exactly the same majles which elected Mosadegh first, elected Razmara and Ala. And the next Majles which elected mosadegh again, elected Ghavam. Although we can say we don't have real Majles after coup but we have 10 long years before Mosadegh that the Majleses was as real as 16th and 17th Majles and did the same for several ministers from 1941 to 1951. So We have to add this confusing democratically elected to all those people that I don't recommend and we can simply remove this for Mosadegh. Mosadegh was a Patriot and did some good jobs for his country but because of the political system of the era, we can call him democratically elected like the Britain with that long tradition of democracy. We have never had that in Iran and even Mosadegh himself did not believe in those Parliaments. Even the most free ones like 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, 16th and 17th. Mosadegh have serious problems with these Majleses. He believed in People of streets and once call the streets the real Parliament and named the parliament a place of thieves! I think if we refer to Mosadegh himself we can't call that system democratic and call that process democratically elected and if we do that that's fair enough to call General Ramzara the greatest enemy of Mosadegh, democratically elected too. Ahmadi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.194.226 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am going to delete that democratically elected line for two reasons. One it applies a popular election was held and that did not happen. Two while it cites 3 RS none of those are actually checkable so we don't know what they really say about it. While you could argue a parliamentary vote approving an appointment IS part of a democratic system, it is obvious in this case the word is being used to imply something other than factual. The issue does need expanding but for now removal is probably best. Batvette (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Batvette (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material needs consensus .If you think Parliament election can not be considered "democratically elected" , that is a personal point of view . Anyway , the mainstream and dominant narrative about Dr .Mossadegh is democratically elected despite Linguistical arguments --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that the consensus of this discussion is that there is a problem with calling him democratically elected. As for sourced material can you provide any actual quotations from those sources? Batvette (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Batvette (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Sourced material" was pointing to changes in edit 748399777 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammad_Mosaddegh&type=revision&diff=748448484&oldid=748399777 . About the consensus , that needs a process that the admins tell the turnout and not the editors . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Name is Mosaddeq

Anybody else here read Arabic? مصدق‎‎ is "Musaddiq" or another spelling, like Mosaddeq. Either way, it's not "Mosaddegh." That is definitely not the letter "qaf" in Arabic. The name definitely ends with a Q. Let us change the name to be more correct. 99.156.160.153 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Mosaddegh" is Persian, not Arabic. Pahlevun (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Mosaddegh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Mosaddegh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

edit to improve

To improve the article, several points were added and sources were right.17:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)17:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)~~

edit to improve

To improve the article, several points were added and sources were right.M1nhm (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Needs serious cleanup

"Until 1935; the Anglo-Persian Oil co had the exclusive rights to Iranian oil. in 1914, the British government controlled 51% of its shares and became a major shareholder. after converting fuel Britain's ships to oil, oil corporation was vital to British national security. Even finally paid Iran only 16% of its profits and often far less. And the company’s Huge profits To compensate for Britain’s budget deficit. For paid taxes at home by company Iranian government got less money from the AIOC. Not surprisingly that Iranians are asking for more share.[50]"

This is not readable. Unfortunately, as a result, I'm not able to help resolve it. There seems to be some POV in here (while it's probably true that Iran seeking a larger share is unsurprising, that doesn't strike me as NPOV). It does read as the writing of someone more familiar with a syntax other than English, so I can appreciate that, but this needs serious work to fit in here. I can follow most of the first few sentences, but the discussion of profits and taxes at the end is very muddled. I get the gist of it (Britain took advantage of the company while it had control, and left Iran in the lurch), but it's light on sourcing, heavy on POV, and very, very difficult to read. FangsFirst (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

British bias

This article seems to have been written from a British point of view based on sentences like "pushing him to seize what the British had built for Iran" and "Mosaddegh tried to justify his nationalization policy by claiming Iran was 'the rightful owner...'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.90.111.115 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Mossodogh

This sentence makes no sense : 

The domination of US over Iran was reminiscent of the access cancellation of Soviet to Persian Gulf.78.151.202.29 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh/Archive_3&oldid=1147922057"