Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Request for NPOV edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about these lines from another article in Wikipedia:

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

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

20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for NPOV in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faranbazu 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article rewrite

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

New Intro?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Arteban1, please sign your comments properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Quotes"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shah: Not with the same words, no.

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

Shah: This I have said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I offer an overlooked quotation? The Shah is said to have commented trenchantly on the Western World's profligate use of oil as fuel.

“Oil is too valuable to burn. There are more important uses for oil than burning it to produce energy, for God’s sake!”

“There’s a limited amount of crude petroleum in the earth,” he said. “Oil is used for making plastics and thousands of other products made by petrochemicals which is oil. Oil is too valuable to burn. When we run out, what will we do? Fight each other for the last drop?”

An article on the Shah without this prophetic quotation is incomplete. This quotation also belongs in the Wikipedia articles on oil, petroleum, energy, and plastics. I need the help of those more familiar with the Shah's public statements to date and verify the source. I think that it was in a magazine interview shortly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. --Vince in Grand Rapids 04:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Commoner claim

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

Edit war

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the American Ambassador Julius Holmes; “ (the Shah) is not well served by advisers, either in government or outside it.. This is partially because of his innate suspicious of the ambitions of others and the lack of highly-qualified persons to assist him. Even those who are qualified are loath to give negative advice and follow the Persian tradition of telling the Monarch what they think he wants to hear. This often takes the form of exaggerated flattery, to which the Shah is surprisingly susceptible. He is a vain man and those around him know it.The reference is ^ Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 23. This is a highly authoritative book, and I think Holmes observation helps the reader to understand the character of the Shah which contributed to his failure and downfall. Artaxerex 06:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS, I am prepared to accept the mediation by Rhymesmith on this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your argument is contains logical fallacies in the form of false analogies. The Shah was unlike Saddam Hussein or Mugabe. Do you have any reliable sources that link the Shah with them? As you know, the article must have NPOV, and it is POV to call the Shah a dictator of the likes of Saddam Hussein. The Shah was a monarch, not a tyrant.

It is almost useless to debate this with you since you have used subversive techniques (using sock puppets and starting edit wars) to push your edits and you clearly have no respect for consensus. If your goal is to make the article NPOV and balanced you would find it much easier to use reliable source and present the material without any spin.--Agha Nader 17:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agha Nader!

1. This is the discussion to resolve the first deleted sourced material in the article.
2. The shah's and Mugabe's regims are similar as far as corruption, suppression of political opposition, mishandling of land reform, economic mismanagement, and deteriorating human rights are concerned.
3. Task: using the above model explain what are the similarities between Saddam's and Shah's regime?

• Please note that from now on I will only discuss well sourced materials.

Artaxerex 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation, anyone?

Hello all,

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

Yours,

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

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

Deleting the following references are vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Announcement

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

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

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

About this "too much self-respecting Character"

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

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

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

I agree with Shervink on every point. In any event, the article must keep a neutral encyclopedic tone and be concise as would any article found in any major encyclopedia. There has been a consensus with most editors of this article what it should and should not contain and the article follows wikipedia guidlines. Azalea pomp 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again thank you BJ for sending this missive ([14]) in which like their previous mob-calls to a brawl shervink invites Azalea_pomp!! to provide comment for this article. His missive reads:

Greetings. If you have the time, please have a look at this [15]. Since you have been contributing to the article in the past, I wonder if you have any comments. Shervink 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Azalia_pomp understand that his body is not asking him to suggest changes for resolving the first point in the dispute. He understand that shervink is aiming again to form one of those kangroo majorities to supress all the sourced materials and historical facts that are presented in the suggested lead, or in the version of the article that has been vandalized repeatedly. After all this is the Pahalavi's way -- is it not?

Thus, Azalia _Pomp, by using this Orwellian language obliges:There has been a consensus with most editors of this article what it should and should not contain and the article follows wikipedia guidlines. In other words, he unabashedly proposes that the consensus of the whole group is not needed and it can be replaced by a consensus among a subset of similarly minded partisans of the Pahlavi Junta. This just won't wash.

Finally, please note that I have obliged in "Good Faith" an invitation by the-Behnam and rewrote a paragraph to resolve the first point of dispute. Nobody has yet provided any modification for this paragraph. If you are not prepared to do this, we should restore the deleted sourced material and ask for an arbitaration process. Artaxerex 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. It appears that Shervink has sent this invitation to all members of his gang. Here are some of them:([16]), ([17]), ([18], and ...
  • What "gang"? I haven't edited this article since April 27, so you can blow me. ♠ SG →Talk 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Shervink please stop posting on my user page

• Shervink you have defined vandalism in here([19]which reads:

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shervink 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

• According to your own definition you are a Vandal.
• Moreover, you have been given warning for your vandalism in your talk page here ([20]) which reads:

This mesage is regarding the Kurdish festival of Newroz. Please do not blank and redirect different articles [21].

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Diyako Talk + 15:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop posting in my user page. Artaxerex 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now you are really grabbing at straws. You had to go back FOUR months to find a vandal warning against Shervink? And even then, the edit for which he was given a warning has since become the correct page content after consensus. Now, go ahead and declare that there is a conspiracy or a "gang" with the sole purpose of opposing you and your absolutely unbiased facts. ♠ SG →Talk 01:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• ♠ SG Please restrict your self to providing comments on the disputed content. There is absolutley no point for you to interject yourself here injudiciously. Incidently, this reminds me of some of Shah's Kangroo elections for his parliaments, in which peasants were bused into polling stations and were given an already marked balot to vote. Old habits die hard, don't they?! Artaxerex 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A conspiracy I tells ya, a conspiracy! Theres be troubles afoot! ♠ SG →Talk 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• ♠ SG Please restrict your self to providing comments on the disputed content. Thanks. Artaxerex 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerex, please stop attacking me. I am not a vandal no matter how hard you try to argue otherwise. This is not even a content dispute anymore, as it is actually more a problem with your personal conduct on wikipedia. You are repeatedly pushing your POV, pushing for OR to be included in the article, your edits have a completely one-sided and uncivil tone, you have made numerous personal attacks, and you have repeatedly engaged in sockpuppetry. If you do not stop your disruptive behavior I think the best thing would be to have a RfC on your conduct. I would also like to know what others think about this proposal. Shervink 11:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Shervink
  1.According to your own definition of vandalism in here([22]which reads:

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Shervink 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)shervinkYou are a Vandal. What is so difficult to understand here?
2. I am not resorting to your level of name calling as you have done here,([23]), referring to me as A****.
3. If you are concerned about one-sided POV in my suggested lead why are you incapable of balancing it?
4. Your tactics in calling your co-religonists, and busing them here to vote to ban a different voice will not work this time.
5. If you have concern about the content provide your sourced material and stop this nonsense. Otherwise, we have to go for mediation. Artaxerex 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Shervink called you, literally, an "A******", which is the letter A and a bunch of asterisks after it. I personally think he might have called you an "awesome" (short for "this awesome dude"), which corresponds with the length of asterisks. If you want to believe that he meant something else, well, that's completely up to you.

Now, you've amused me. I'm going to take a stab at your list:

1. That isn't Shervink's definition. That's a template.
2. Oh, I see. So I guess you calling us "co-religonists" in #4 isn't name calling. Nor is associating us with something called "Iranian B-loggers", saying that we are trying to glorify our "Aryan hero", grouping us into some sort of "compatriot-gang", implying that we are effectively mentally retarded, calling us "co-vandal compatriots", and the list goes on.
3. Uh, huh. I did exactly that a few months back, it included a well-written and clean introduction paragraph, and the rest of the lead contained Pahlavi's successes and failures, including the number of political prisoners he had at the time of the revolution. Then you came skipping along and rewrote it like the awesome dude you are.
4. See #2.
5. I did. Didn't we try mediation a while back, as well? Boring. You are much more entertaining.
6. By the way, please consolidate your edits. You're making a mess of the talk page history. And Shervink can post on your userpage all he likes, just as I can join in on any fucking conversation I desire. Don't tell me to go away. This is Wikipedia, not your personal web page. ♠ SG →Talk 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies That should be adhered to

• Please familiarize yoursel with the following Wikepedia policies on Consensus, verfiability and NPOV
  

1.Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it.
2.Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable.
3.The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
4.In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses;
5. The NPOV policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.
6. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.
7. In NPOV, background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

• Based on the above policies I will now return to edit.
• Please note that removing content by other editors is considered vandalism.
• I am hopping that at some point an admin will intervene to stop an unproductive revert war.

Artaxerex 07:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I have already apologized twice to Artaxerex for that comment [24][25] and I'll do it a third time here. However, I cannot understand his sensitivity to this (admittedly unacceptable) comment of mine when he has been directing dozens of personal attacks at me and others without any sign of remorse. Since the main problem here seems to be the uncivil and counter-productive behavior of Artaxerex, from which he has not backed off even the least bit, I think the best thing is that we start a RfC on his conduct. I hope everyone agrees with that. Shervink 07:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at this RfC and leave your comments if interested. Shervink 11:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to the discussion

• Now that Shervink has graciously accepted my apology, and agreed to return to the discussion, albeit slowly and point by point, I'd like to propose that we need to include some information about the oppression, political prisoners and corruption on the lead. These are well known facts and the information from the following three videos on Iran would be credible because it is straight from the horse's mouth. It is also reported on TIME, which I gave the reference before. The first video from the Swisse TV, provides evidence from Shah's own words on the existence of sophisticated methods of torture, it shows documents related to the Amnesty International estimate of up to 100,000 political prisoners and talk about 75 executions per year by his regime. It is in French and I can translate it if it is so desired ([26]).

The other two videos which are from the interview of Mike Wallace of the CBS, are also important in demonstrating the characters of the shah's regime and his attitude which I think may even please some of the shah's supportes as well. ([27])and ([28]).

More specifically, I wonder what do we do about scors of young intellectuals who have been the victimes of the regime. Some of them were very close to the regime, like Catherine Adl (the daughter of professor Yahia Adl, one of the closest freinds of the Shah), or Ali Hojjat (son of General Hojjat, one of the most powerful generals of the Shah) others like Dr. Hosein Fatemi the Foreign Minister, Mohammad Masood, a Prominent editor and journalist; and Khosrow Golsorkhi, a writer and poet who were executed were staggering losses. To which one can add others like Hamid Ashraf, Bijan Jazani (the philosopher who is accused of many wrong doings by the right wing supporters of the shah, evidently due to the fact that his mother was a jew who abandoned him to go and leave in Israel!! (see ([29]))and others like, Mohammad Hanifnejad, Hamid Sadeghinezhad, Amir Parviz Pooyan (the nephew of professor Pooyan, the president of National University Of Iran in those days), Saied Mohsen and Ali-Asghar Badizadegan, Ali Akbar Safa’i Farahani, Mohammad Ali Partowi, Mohammad Saffari Ashtiani, Eskandar Sadeghinezhad, Nastaran Alagha and many others. Artaxerx

• • Well, as I said, one thing at a time. Let's start with the latter part of your suggestions. You ask "what do we do about scores of young intellectuals who have been the victims of the regime"? The answer is simple, there are articles on many of these individuals on wikipedia already, and anybody can contribute to them if they wish. There is no reason to fill this article, and especially its lead, with the names of such people. That is simply too much detail for any encyclopedic article. Regarding the human rights issues before 1979, it might be possible to dedicate one (short) section near the end of the article to them. In any case the tone should be NPOV.
  • Regarding the individuals you name there, well, some of them might have been intellectuals but they were mostly tried and executed for other reasons. Jazani, for example, had set up an armed guerilla group. Daneshian and Golesorkhi were involved in terrorist activities, at least that's the official version. Calling them intellectuals in such a generic way is totally out of place. Shervink 11:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, Golsorkhi was a researcher, and a poet. His seminal paper "Politics of art and Politics of Poetry" published in Negin along many other pieces attest to this fact. Another victim Ata Nourian was also an art critic. To dismiss all these people as terrorists during the oppressive rule of the shah would be really unwarranted. Wikipedia should not be a place for recycling the Savac Propaganda.
• Of course, I am not advocating for inclusion of all the names of these victims in the lead. However, the lead can for example say something like “The shah implemented a series of security measures in which (according to the Amnesty International ) between 40,000 -100, 000 dissidents were imprisoned and about 75 person per year were executed in the last 10 years of his regime , or another suggestion would be “The Shah administration has been criticized around the world for corruption, suppression of political opposition, mishandling of land reform and oil revenues, economic mismanagement, and deteriorating human rights in Iran” or “By the 1980s, The Shah administration's violation of human rights, authoritarian and increasingly corrupt and despotic practices became a source of much discontent. Shah’s almost unquestioned authority over Iran’s political and socio-economical affairs slipped dramatically when the economic crisis due to mismanagement of Iran’s oil revenues lowered Iranian’s standard of living and fractured his support among the nation's enterpreneurial, political and civil society institutions. After internal unrest, diplomatic isolation began to drain his support in the mid-to-late 1980s” . The NPOV tone of these leads are already approved in the other Wikipedia pages.
• As I mentioned in my RFC response to SG, the current lead whitewashes all the negative points about various aspects of the Shah's rule. For instance, "it talks about all those titles of the Shah including Aryamehr, without any indication that this title was a novelty with its double connotation of not only the “Light of Aryans” (which imagine how emarrassing would be if the Queen was to give herself the title of the Light of Anglo-Saxons), but also with the modern Persian usage of Mehr (meaning feel affection for, or to adore) it was intended as a racial statement against non-Aryans! ... The lead then talks about abdication of his father during WWII, but does not give any indication that his father was forced to abdicate because of his close ties with Nazis (although it can be more open and talk not only about Reza shah’s sympathies towards Hitler but also Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s anti-Jewish sentiments as is clear from this video ([30]). The lead talks about him overseeing the nationalization of oil industry under the prime mister Mossadegh , as if the two man corroborated closely in implementing this policy!! The lead then talks about White Revolution without any reference to the Kennedy administration pressures for reforms in order to prevent the threat of communism ... It talks about the extension of suffrage to women without any reference to his general attitudes towards women as expressed in TIME and other sources. The only negative point about Shah according to the current lead is lack of democratization as criticized by some of his opponent which is presented with the same footing as the decline of the traditional power of the Shi’a clergy!! (despite the fact that his policies contributed significantly to the establishment of the direct rules by the clergy). Of course, the more important factors in his downfall such as torture, execution of intellectuals, and other oppressive policies are also important to mention". Writing in good faith Artaxerex 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Artaxerex, again, please let's discuss only one thing at a time. It contributes absolutely nothing if you bring up several issues simultaneously and propose many changes at once. Now, first, let's agree on the discussion topic. What is it you would like us discuss first? Golsorkhi? Jazani? SAVAK? Amnesty International's reports? The White Revolution? Mossadegh? His titles (if yes, which one)? Let's confine our disagreements to one narrow topic only so we can tackle them. ok? Shervink 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that what we really need here is not a list of names, but just some direct statements. Particularly, it baffles me that the lead seems to avoid saying "execution," "torture," or "censorship." If we mention in clear terms that these were the problems, will you be satisfied? The Behnam 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Shervink; Since we are dealing with the lead, we need to agree on a paragraph that would include both shah's achievements and his failures. We can then deal with those issues one by one in the subsequent sections. Nevertheless, if you insist on discussing point by point of the issues in the lead, why not then to start with his pro-Aryan sentiments (highlighted in his title) and his comments to Mike Wallace about powerful Jews controlling the media and the banks, (New York Times and Washington Post in particular are discussed.) This issue ties very well with the pro-Nazi sentiments of his father, and as many researchers, have argued provide a background to his adoption of various fascist policies, like censorships, imprisonment and execution of political dissidents, and militarism. (I have a number of quotes from reliable academic books and journals . However, given your sensitivity about this issue, one can note that Shah’s relation with Israel was quite opportunistic, as he wanted to use them as allies against non-Aryan Arabs. However, he began to distance himself from the Jewish State after Algiers Accord Writing in good faith Artaxerex 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Behnam, a warm welcome to to this discussion. I wrote above and just when I was going to post I saw your comment. Yes I would be happy to have some general statements along those lines.

Artaxerex, please read this. Firstly, the Shah says that the Israeli lobby in the US is acting against the interests of Israel. And you understand that as an anti-Israeli statement? Your assertions about the Shah's alleged anti-jewish and anti-Israeli sentiments are speculations, or OR at best. Anyhow, an interview with the Shah is not a proper source for an article about him, per wikipedia policy. Your interpretation of Aryamehr as a racist title is also OR and POV, and the title was given to him by parliament, not by himself, and in any case was his official title and should be there in the article. Quite on the contrary, the Pahlavis are well known for having saved the lives of jewish people during WWII. Shervink 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• shervink, As I mentioned in my greetings to Behnam, and my missive to you I am arguing for some sentences in the lead that will provide information on torture, censorship, executions and fascist tendencies of the shah along those positive achievements that are recorded already. Of course, in the subsections we can expand on these points.

Now dealing with your missive above please note that:

1.As, I am sure, you are aware, Jews are not a monolithic group. There are right-wing Jews, left-wing Jews, orthodox Jews, atheist Jews, and so on and so forth. Thus for the shah, generalizing all the US Jews as working against Israel in his interview with Wallace it would be at very best presumptuous, and at very least insulting to talk about Controling Media, Bank etc. . I am not the only person who understands Shah’s remarks as anti-Israeli statement, there are many scholars who argue convincingly about pro Nazi sentiments of Reza Shah and his son. More on this later, but if one listens carefully to Wallace’s own introduction to the piece, one would realize that Shah’s remarks created quite a steer in the Jewish community, and if you would be interested I can provide some other references. Of course, in the interest of compromise I think we can at least note that after Shah decided to improve his relationships with Saddam and other Arab-states, he severed his good-will towards Israel. As Dr. Trita Parsi writes:“Only weeks after signing the Algiers Accord with Iraq in the spring of 1975, the Shah described the need for a new approach to regional affairs to journalist Muhammad Heikal (of Egypt’s AlAhram)  : "We followed the principle 'my enemy's enemy is my friend,' and our relations with Israel began to develop. But now the situation has changed.... I think occasionally of a new equilibrium in the region .... Perhaps [it] can be integrated into an Islamic framework." And as Parsi argues he began shortly afterwards to distance himself from the Jewish state (See Trita Parsi, Treacherous Triangle--The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007) see also , Trita Parsi, Whither the Persian-Jewish alliance? BitterLemons, Middle East Roundtable, December 16, 2004 Edition 44 Volume 2). According to The director of publications at the Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History, Dr. Houman Sarshar, who is the editor of three volumes of The History of Contemporary Iranian Jews and, most recently, Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews; “Reza Shah, an archnationalist and Nazi sympathizer during the Second World War, had been forced to abdicate the crown after the 1941 Allied summit in Tehran.”(See: Days of Darkness, Days of Light: The Unknown Story of Iran's Jews, Reform Judaism Magazine, Summer 2005) Of course other Jewish writers like Timmerman or Black are more informative. For example Black writes:” Relations between Berlin and Tehran were strong from the moment Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, when Reza Shah Pahlavi's nation was still known as Persia. The shah became a stalwart admirer of Hitler, Nazism and the concept of the Aryan master race. He also sought the Nazis' help in reducing British petro-political domination.” (see Despite Shoah denial, Iran worked with Nazis, Washington Jewish Week, Monday, January 16, 2006 )If you think these Jewish writers are not reliable there are others. For example according to Richard Cottam the professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh Reza Shah “attempted to obliterate any evidence of the (Jewish) distinctiveness by destroying their books and closing their schools. Given time he might have turned to other measures. One report (Great Britain and the East , June 16, 1938, p.662) claims that he was considering establishing pales of the old Russian order and restricting the Jews to three cities in Iran” <see: Richard W. Cottam, Nationalism in Iran, University of Pittsburgh Press, p 84> Cottam provides inflamatory anti-jewish slogans propagated by Pan-Iranists who were supported by Mohammad Reza Shah, at time when he had restricted all the liberal and leftist parties.

You may disagree with these writers, but one cannot ignore them in a Wikipedia article. If the video of the Shah’s interview is not considered a proper source surely a Book published by Yale University press is a proper source.

2.The interpretation that Aryamehr title was a racist title is not my OR. Many writers refer to his pro-Aryan predispositions which goes back to the changing of the name of the country. In fact, the issue here is not that Iran was always referred to as such by Iranians. The issue is that Iran does not mean the land of Aryans. On this point I have to provide you a large number of references that would show there has never been a race called Aryans, and this was a construct of German theorists of 18th century. Iran meant "reconnoiters of arable lands" Something that in todays jargon can roughly be translated as "developers", (the Indian interpretation of Arya as "noble" is wrong. In fact, Vedic literature introduced by these "developers" attest to this meaning. The opposite of Iran, i.e. Viran still means arid and ruined. Ferdosi’s line “Mabada keh Iran Viran Shavad” draws from this meaning. Reza Shah, and his German advisors turned this concept into "Land of Aryans" and aggregated all the Turks, Balouchees, Uzbecs, Chechens, Gorgies, Kurds, Lors, and numerous other nations and races under this rubric. (These remarks are well recorded by the recent archeological findings in areas around Pakistan, but this is not the place to discuss it ). The point is that Reza shah and his son placed a cynical emphasis on Aryan Race as oppose to non-Aryans like Arabs and Jews. Light of Aryans refers to this concept. This is not my OR, and I can provide you with references if you'd be interested. For Example, Richard Cottam has argued that the twentieth-century regimes that were described as “fascist” all were characterized by an ability to excite the nationalistic sentiments of major segments of the public. Without exception, fascist leaders were masters at the manipulation of symbols, foremost of which were national symbols” According to Cottam the Shah use of various tittles including Aryamehr the Light of the Aryans was a manipulation of symbols as part of meeting “this definition of fascism” <see: Richard W. Cottam, Nationalism in Iran, University of Pittsburgh Press, p 328>

Artaxerex 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Artaxerex, I will only continue this discussion if you agree to stick to one point and one point only, and not constantly shift from one topic to another. Is that really so hard to do? Now you are discussing several things at the same time again.
• I think you seem to have some grave misunderstandgs regarding the name of this country, which are quite common in the western world. Both Aryan and Iran are quite old terms, the first appearing as early as in Achaemenid times and the latter dating back to at least the early Sassanid times. Both have roots also in the Avesta. It is a fact that the name of Iran never actually changed, at least not for the past 2000 years or so. The term Aryan, as it is understood in the western world, is, however, a new thing, and an invention of the 19th and 20th centuries, becoming particularly well known through Hitler. It is not uncommon for new ideologies to adopt old names in order to project a false sense of historical validity, and that is exactly what happenned in Europe in this case. However, the Iranians have always understood themselves as Aryans (in the non-European, ancient meaning of the word), and the fact that the Shah of Iran was called Aryamehr is certainly to be understood in this light. see [31][32][33] for example. Shervink 09:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Iranica supports that the modern notion of is the result of German influence (see summary of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule). I quote, "As a result Germany, which did not have a history of dealing with Persia and stood against both in World War II, was accorded a measure of sympathy in Persia. Its ideology of Aryan supremacy added to the people's admiration without their realizing the nature of Nazism." Also, the imagine that the meaning of "Aryan" has stayed the same the entire time is not correct at all. Ferdowsi thought that "Iran" was derived from "Iraj," the legendary figure who ruled Iran, rather than from "Aryan." The Behnam 16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • In any case, Iranica leaves no doubt that both names are ancient, not invented by Hitler, unlike what Artaxerex suggests. Stating that the name of Iran has changed or was invented in 20th century is totally wrong, and there is already an article dedicated to this issue, so there is no point in discussing it here. Saying that the Aryamehr title was meant as a racial supremacy symbol is speculation. I cannot recall the Shah (or the parliament which gave him the title) ever having linked it to Aryan supremacy theory. The claim of Artaxerex about the meaning of Iran is contrary to established knowledge as presented in Iranica, which I think is a far more reliable source than Artaxerex's interpretation of a verse by Ferdowsi. Shervink 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The names are ancient, but the common Iranian understanding is modern and based upon German ideas, per Iranica. BTW, when did Artaxerex bring in a verse by Ferdowsi. I mentioned that Ferdowsi considered Iran from "Iraj," but that isn't my interpretation - that's from the commentary (or maybe the introduction) in my copy of Shahnameh (translated by Dick Davis, who is probably the commentator as well). The Behnam 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all that Iranica says is that 1. Iranians admired Germans because unlike other European powers they had not been manipulating Iran before that time. 2. The German Aryan ideas added to this admiration. Where does it say that the German theories shaped the idea of Iranians of themselves? Of course, the Nazis admired Iran's past and liked to be associated with it, and naturally you like whoever praises you. But as far as Iranica is concerned, that's where it stops. Linking this to the title of Aryamehr and the rest of those interpretations is Artaxerex's personal ideas, it doesn't follow from what is written there. Shervink 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Shervink, I agree with you that we should go point by point.

Starting with the Aryamehr, I agree with you that Iranians always understood Iran in its historical sense. However, we are not dealing with Iranians here. Professor Ayazi, in a section of her study entitled “Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s Aryamehr Identity” has argued that “ In the Shah’s mind, Iran was part of Western civilization, separated by an accident of geography from its natural partners and equals. The Iranians in his view were Aryans, not Semitic, (Shahin Ayazi, Identity Crisis, International Relations Journal, SFSU, Spring 2003, p56). Professor Cottam argues that the Shah, like all the fascist regimes of the twentieth century, used the Aryamehr title as a tools to manipulate the nationalistic sentiments of his people. <see: Richard W. Cottam, Nationalism in Iran, University of Pittsburgh Press, p 328>. Thus, if we quote these authors it would not be my interpretation and my OR.

Using Persian references we could note that the juxtaposition of the words Arya, and Mehr was a Nazi-inspired construct against non-Aryans like Jews or Arabs. This Juxtaposition was suggested to the Shah by his fascist head of military General Bahram Aryana (who changed his own name from Hossein Manoochehri to Bahram Aryana, and his wife’s name from Soraya Assar to Aryanoosh Aryana, and who was a member of the Kabood Party , a National-Socialist party based on the Nazi model led by Habibollah Nobakht.) The Berlin educated Dr. Rezazadeh Shafagh who himself was a propagator of the idea of purity of the Aryan race was an advisor to General Aryana. The writings and speeches of General Aryana himself during 1960-69 is replete with references to the Aryans’ pure blood. (See Ettellaat and Keyhan dailys particularly 1967-68). Writing in Good Faith Artaxerex 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you all mean by "historical sense." Are you telling me that Iranians have always understood the historical origin of "Aryan" - from Avestan and Achaemenid times? I've yet to see anything that actually indicates Iranians had any advanced knowledge of these subjects before Western scholars unveiled the knowledge. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary (Ferdowsi's etymology for Iran, the naming of Achaemenid & Sassanian ruins after legendary and Islamic figures) - and probably more than I even realize. But the point is, nothing has been brought forward that suggests that they did know much (the affirmative position) - the Iranica articles you linked only narrated on what is understood now and what was understood much further back (before the terms were history), both understandings arrived at by relatively modern research, not Iranian traditional understanding of their history. The Behnam 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Never mind, this is off-topic. Anyway, what is the topic? What proposed inclusion are we discussing? The Behnam 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Behnam, I agree with you, I just wanted to replicate Shervink statement, and then argue that the discussion is not about understanding of Iranians of the term Aryan, but the Shah's understanding. However in my haste instead of replicating exactly his phrase "the Iranians have always understood themselves as Aryans (in the non-European, ancient meaning of the word)" I wrote "I agree with you that Iranians always understood Iran in its historical sense."This was just to shorten it a bit. I also agree that the Iranains' understanding of the term Iran is an evolving understanding, (if one can use a generalization here at all. But in discussion with Shervink I sometimes abstarct from these subtlities in the interest of time).

And the topic is to try to provide some balance to the lead, and the first point was how to somehow provide a context for the significance of the title Aryameher. One view is that it was related to the pro-Aryan and anti-Semitic bias of the two Pahlavies (Cottam, and Ayazi's views published in two respected academic sources, among others including many Jewish scholars). The other view is that of Shervink which is difficult for me to articulate. Nevertheless, I hope that both views can be presented in NPOV tone. Writing in Good Faith, Artaxerex

Based on your previous posts, there really seems to be no such thing as Ayazi or Cottam's view regarding Aryamehr. You quote Cottam as saying that the Shah used his titles to manipulate the nationalistic sentiments of Iranians. How does that make Aryamehr anti-semitic except for in your imagination? Are you implying that Iranian sentiments in general are anti-semitic? Regarding your quotes from Ayazi, it is not only the Shah who did not think that Iranians are semitic. Iranians are not semitic. That's nothing new. Nor does it make them automatically anti-semitic.

I would actually like to know what it is exactly (propose one sentence for example) that you'd like to be included in the article. Shervink 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why doesn't the lead for Ruhollah Khomeini say anything about fatwas, assassinations, prisoners, exiles, murder or torture? ♠ SG →Talk 00:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure - it seems like a rather short/introductory lead, while this article attempts to provide a summary lead. I'm open to considering an "introductory" lead rather than "summary" lead here as well. My initial thoughts on this possibility are removing the summarizing 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and focus upon its presentation in the body of the article instead. After all, we want people to read the article itself, not just the lead. IMO the lead should "lead them in" instead of providing a complete summary of everything covered in the article. Anyway, if you don't like Khomeini article maybe you can bring it up there, but let's not have a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of argument. The Behnam 00:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shervink,

• 1. You wrote: There really seems to be no such thing as Ayazi or Cottom view;

My response, Professor Ayazi’s view is expressed under the section- heading ““Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s Aryamehr Identity” (with the word Aryamehr italicized by the author. She argues that “In the Shah’s mind, Iran was part of Western civilization, separated by an accident of geography from its natural partners and equals. The Iranians in his view were Aryans, not Semitic,”. What would you call this. A statement, A thesis? An observation? And why do you think does she present this information under the section-heading "Aryamehr Identity"? Professor Cottam discussing under the section-heading The Role of Symbol Manipulations discusses the choice of the Aryamehr title as a symbol manipulation in order to “excite the nationalistic sentiments of major segment of the public”. He argues that “Without exception, fascist leaders were masters at the manipulation of symbols, foremost of which were national symbols…Certainly the Shah made every effort to meet this expanded definition of fascism” What would you call this statement? Would you agree to call it ‘Cottam thesis, idea, opinion?

• 2. You wrote: You quote Cottam as saying that the Shah used his titles to manipulate the nationalistic sentiments of Iranians. How does that make Aryamehr anti-Semitic except for in your imagination?

My Response: First please note that Professor Ayazi explicitly refers the Shah’s attitude that: “The Iranians in his view were Aryans, not Semitic” (I chose this quote from many different quotes from academic sources to this effect, in order not to be accused of presenting an OR). Second, Professor Cottam, who had been a foreign service officer at the American embassy in Tehran during the Shah, writing in 1964 establishes the anti-Semitism of the Shah and his father early on in his book p.84-5. After having discussed the anti-Semitic behaviour of Reza Shah in a section on Jews as quoted before (i.e. Reza Shah destroying Jewish books and closing their schools) he goes on to present an outlook for the Jews under Mohammad Reza Shah, he writes “Early nationalism in Iran had been liberal and as such tolerant of religious diversity” However, “The former liberal colouring of Iranian nationalism with regard to race and religion began to change. This change was accelerated a good deal by the anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda”. Professor Cottam, provides an example of such a Nazi-inspired propaganda during the Shah's regime that I do not like to reproduce and concludes that “with the widening popular base for nationalism, latent anti-Semitism will be given greater expression and the possibility of Jews ever becoming an integral part of the Iranian nation will become more remote” (Nationalism in Iran, P.85). As we saw above the Shah’s choice of the title Aryamehr is regarded by professor Cottam as manipulating symbols for steering this widening popular base for nationalism. This is not my OR, and every words is his.

• 3. You wrote : Are you implying that Iranian sentiments in general are anti-Semitic?

My Response: No, The Shah’s sentiment is not the same as the Iranian sentiments in general, Iranians ousted him, because they had different sentiments.

4. You wrote: “Regarding your quotes from Ayazi, it is not only the Shah who did not think that Iranians are semitic. Iranians are not semitic. That's nothing new. Nor does it make them automatically anti-semitic.

My response: Your statement is False. There are many Semitic Iranians. Jewish Iranians are Semitic, Arab Iranians are Semitic. In fact, anybody who argues that Jews who have lived in Iran for more than 2500 years are not Iranian not only would be wrong, but also anti-Semitic. I am really disgusted by the above statement, and I hope you really wrote it inadvertently. Iranians from the times of Cyrus the Great considered Jews as full-Iranian. And this is not my OR. Please re-read the Cottam argument again “Early nationalism in Iran had been liberal and as such tolerant of religious diversity”.

5. I suggest the inclusion of the following sentence. “Many scholars argue that the Shah was a fascist with anti-Semitic tendencies. The Iranians in his view were Aryans, not Semitic, (ref: Shahin Ayazi, Identity Crisis, International Relations Journal, SFSU, Spring 2003, p56) It is argued that his choice of the title Aryamehr was to steer a nationalist sentiment based on glorification of Aryan race and disfranchising of the Semitic Iranians, such as the Jewish, Assyrian, and Arab Iranians.” (ref: see: Richard W. Cottam, Nationalism in Iran, University of Pittsburgh Press, p 328).

Writing in Good Faith Artaxerex 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Artaxerex, please don't call my comments "disgusting" or "anti-semitic". Please be aware that considering your past behavior I have absolutely zero tolerance for such statements and I will not warn you another time. I don't think I need to explain to you why Iranians are not semitic. They are not because they mostly speak non-semitic languages and have a quite different culture. That has nothing to do with race, as many people commonly referred to as Arabs might have had non-Arab ancestors but are now classified in this way for mainly cultural reasons. Likewise, all Iranians are Iranian regardless of whether they're jews or arabs or whatever else. That does not contradict the understanding of Iran as a nation shaped mostly (even its semitic inhabitants) by a non-semitic culture. In any case, these things have nothing to do with our discussion.
• The main problem is that your conclusions do not follow from your quotations, and frankly your allegations against the Shah and at times against Iranians in general are so grave that I cannot accept them unless you find several reliable sources which explicitly state them, without you putting a certain spin on the source.
• Regarding Behnam's idea of shortening the lead, well, it used to be short. It was Artaxerex in the first place who insisted on lengthening it. Convince him!
• Regarding your proposed sentence: Two scholars does not mean "many". You still need to quote someone calling the Shah a fascist with anti-semitic tendencies. Even if you find a source explicitly saying that, that is an allegation which at best might deserve a mention in some section dedicated to criticisms of the Shah, not in the lead. What you write about Aryamehr is also not presneted by your sources. In any case, the title has its own page on WP, and any such detail, if supported by sources, would belong there, not here.Shervink 08:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, I will be going on a short vacation (and wikibreak) for a few days, so I apologize in advance if I don't respond to your messages promptly. Shervink 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop cherry picking your references

I find it curious that you use Sanasarian's book, Religious Minorities in Iran for the Reza Shah article, but not here. While the claims you are making in Reza Shah with this as a source are outrageous themselves (the book doesn't even come close to using your wording), I can see why you didn't use it here. The book is filled with praise for Mohammad Reza Shah and how he helped Jews and other minorities prosper in Iran, though it takes a more negative tone about his father in the 1920s-1930s (p. 46).

Stop playing these silly games. Use proper, neutral sources. Sanasarian is one, she is a very knowledgeable professor who annotates and references everything -- yet you refuse to use sources properly, and instead you take out the facts that YOU like from them. ♠ SG →Talk 08:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith?!

Shervink, You wrote: “Regarding your quotes from Ayazi, it is not only the Shah who did not think that Iranians are semitic. Iranians are not semitic. That's nothing new. Nor does it make them automatically anti-semitic.” I responded as thus: “Your statement is False. There are many Semitic Iranians. Jewish Iranians are Semitic, Arab Iranians are Semitic. In fact, anybody who argues that Jews who have lived in Iran for more than 2500 years are not Iranians not only would be wrong, but also anti-Semitic. I am really disgusted by the above statement, and I hope you really wrote it inadvertently.

Obviously, I did not call you Anti_semitic I assumed that you wrote this remarks inadvertently and without thinking it through. However, you responded

“Artaxerex, please don't call my comments "disgusting" or "anti-semitic". Please be aware that considering your past behavior I have absolutely zero tolerance for such statements and I will not warn you another time. I don't think I need to explain to you why Iranians are not semitic. They are not because they mostly speak non-semitic languages and have a quite different culture.”

This again implies that the Iranain- Jews are not Iranians. And of course is again wrong. However, you go on to argue that:

That [statement] has nothing to do with race, as many people commonly referred to as Arabs might have had non-Arab ancestors but are now classified in this way for mainly cultural reasons. Likewise, all Iranians are Iranian regardless of whether they're jews or arabs or whatever else. That does not contradict the understanding of Iran as a nation shaped mostly (even its semitic inhabitants) by a non-semitic culture.

Which frankly, is very puzzeling, as the last time I checked, the Iranian literature and philosophy (Rumi, Saadi, Jami, Nezami, Hafez, Sina, Toosi, Farabi, Mirdamad, Sadra ), architectors (variuos schools and bridges during the past 1400 years), and plastic arts (Reza Abbasi, AghaReza, ...) are always studied under the Islamic and Jewish traditions and not under Aryan culture, (indeed I appreciate if you can provide me some samples of Aryan culture!!). It appears that this Aryan-propaganda has distorted a lot of common sense.

• You wrote “The main problem is that your conclusions do not follow from your quotations, and frankly your allegations against the Shah and at times against Iranians in general are so grave that I cannot accept them unless you find several reliable sources which explicitly state them, without you putting a certain spin on the source.”

I am not sure why do you always resort to vague and generalized statements like the above and evade a reasoned discussion of points. Exactly what is it that you find too grave, and what do you mean by reliable sources? Why exactly the seminal book by Richard Cottam is not reliable? It is referenced in more than 80 academic references. You have called all my references unreliable, which include: Richard Cottam, Shahin Ayazi, Fred Halliday, Andrew Terrill, Nikki R. Keddie, Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Stewart. Richard, Edwin Black, Timmerman, Meslman and Javdanfar, Ambssadors Holmes and Sullivan and the list goes on. What are your sources? Are you acting in Good Faith? (remmeber that Wikipedia’s criteria for references and NPOV ) Why only positive points about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is reliable?

• SG, I am trying to introduce some balance in the article. You include all the praises you want from all the sources that exist, and let me to provide some counter argument based on valid sources.
• Dear Behnam, Is this a propper way to resolve dispute? Artaxerex 17:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This probably isn't the best way. I think that if we focus on specific proposed inclusions, such that you propose a sentence with sources, and give us the location, and then we discuss this one sentence, we may be more productive. Right now we are bringing up all sorts of a "big" topics that we quite obviously don't all see eye-to-eye on, and while it may be nice to try teaching people the true nature of Aryanism in Iran, I think that some of our discussion has strayed too far from the objective of resolving the content dispute on this article. That's why I brought my say about Shervink's apparent unawareness of how Semitic Iran is (in many ways) on his talk page, and plan on keeping it there. If it is critical to advancing discussion here, then OK, but for now, how about you make a specific proposal so that we can work on fixing the article? If that doesn't even work out, then we can look into more options given by WP:DR. The Behnam 17:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait, I notice that you have proposed a sentence. I'll address it up there. We just need to stick to the merits of the sentence and its sources rather than talking about all sorts of broad topics. The Behnam 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No. I'm getting SICK AND TIRED of dealing with you, Artaxerex. Let me explain this to you: "You include all the praises you want from all the sources that exist, and let me to provide some counter argument based on valid sources." THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS! YOU are supposed to write balanced material. YOU are supposed to keep everything neutral. Contrary to your belief, you don't come skipping into here, throw in every negative thing you can think of, and then wait for other editors to balance it. What the fuck is wrong with you? I don't care if you're the preeminent scholar on everything from pediatrics to Middle Eastern politics, you need to grow up and stop being a child. Go home, write an article by yourself, then hand it to some random person and ask them if they can sense a fiercely negative tone in your writing. I'm sure they'll agree with the rest of us. Good day. ♠ SG →Talk 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Well that's a counterproductive post! You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Artaxerex did not necessarily mean blatantly biased writing, but perhaps something like mentioning both positive opinions and negative opinions about each point of his rule that we mention. This can be balanced - it depends on presentation. But providing praise and criticism together can be neutral. The Behnam 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • In fact, on Islam-related articles, balance seems to count on such juxtaposition provided by editors of opposing POVs. The Behnam 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Behnam, It is ironic that the Aryamehrism (defined as talking softly in a liberal tone, and act despotic without any shame)has survived to this century. I read somewhere that the late Ghotbzadeh during the American Hostage Crisis had said that there's a bit of Aryamehr in all of us. I've spent an awful lot of time on this absurd discussion in total vain. Nevertheless, perhaps if you think, as per Wikipedia policies, it would be helpful for me to leave for couple of months in order to cool things off a bit I'll be happy to oblige. Respectfully yours Artaxerex 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That won't help. The article will stabilize and improve for a few months, then when you return, you will attempt to "balance" it per your perspective, and destroy the work that had been done in the months prior. You are a plague, Artaxerex. The worst kind of human being. You have no respect for the views of others. The only reason you show any sign of kindness towards others or remorse for your actions is that it allows you to put up an appearance of being a helpful citizen, thus allowing you to further your progress in your only apparent goal in life: to sabotage history and fabricate claims based on your pure hatred of people like Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The Behnam is far too generous in presuming good faith on your part. He might not think that you did not mean "blatantly biased writing", but based on your past actions, I cannot see you writing anything but. I do not care whether or not others think I am being counterproductive by writing such posts. While they may have the patience and tolerance for dealing with the likes of you, I am tired of your façade, for I have dealt with you for far too long to be able to sit comfortably while reading the mess you have written.

You don't even have the decency to address me directly when I take the time to respond to your absurd comments. Instead, you indirectly reference me with phrases like "Aryamehrism" in an attempt to discredit me as a blind supporter of the Pahlavi dynasty, or you write something that could hardly be interpreted as a response and is instead the proverbial middle finger to my arguments. ♠ SG →Talk 06:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why am I even writing this? You will soon respond as you always do: with the same list of "sources" and "references" you have posted over and over again for the past several months with varying claims of atrocities committed by the Pahlavis and their governments. Everything I have ever written to you has fallen on deaf ears. You will ignore anything and everything that you do not agree with. Instead of taking a step back, and thinking "oh, these guys might be right about this particular affair", you have always continued on with your campaign against this and related articles. Every editor on this page has agreed to some degree with many of your arguments and suggestions, yet, you yourself have never, not even once properly agreed to what we have suggested to have written in the article. When you talked about political prisoners, I went out of my way to find a neutral and accurate source. When you talked about a biased lead, I rewrote it, including both positive and negative aspects of Pahlavi's rule, from his rise to his downfall. Regardless of what we may have argued otherwise, you seem to believe that every single one of your claims are absolutely one-hundred-percent factual, and undeniably balanced. ♠ SG →Talk 07:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A Suggested Statement for the Lead

• Greetings Behnam; Given the putative notability of Pro_Nazi sentiments, as is indicated on the lead for Edward WIII which says : "but after private accusations that he was pro-Nazi, was moved to the Bahamas as Governor and Commander-in-Chief". I propose the following statement for the lead:

The Shah has been accused of propagating the Nazi-inspired pro-Aryan race sentiments

Best Regards, Ataxerex 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I need a lot more information about the sources and what they say for this statement. Show me how you would reference it and what specific statements from the sources back the sentence. The Behnam 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have already discussed two references by professors Ayazi and Cottam above. Here is a more direct reference by Iraj Isaac Rahim a Jewish writer living in Texas, See: Iraj Isaac Rahmim, Where the Shah went alone: meditations on a life under tyranny, Reason, July, 2003,

Rahim starts by establishing that: “Reza Shah (1878-1944), who was the father of the last Shah, sympathized with Nazi Germany..." He goes on to discuss the time under Mohammad Reza when he was a young Jewish boy in an Aryan!! culture and writes :

"We'd line up often in elementary school to march and sing nationalistic songs. And if you passed by the Nobakht (New Fortune) Elementary School near the Vali'ahd (Crown Prince) Circle sometime in the late 1960s, you might have found me, a little Jewish kid with huge brown eyes, thick black eyebrows, olive-colored skin, and a prominent nose, standing in military formation along with dozens of other little boys and girls, singing with fervor, no doubt a bit off-key, a beautiful nationalist song: ...We are the Aryans,”

• Professor Younes Parsa Benab, the co-founder and editor of Review of Iranian Political Economy and History, whos publications include Political Organisations in Iran (1979), Tabriz in Perspective: a historical analysis of the current struggles of the Iranian people (1977), Oil embargo: analysis (1973) writs: (see:Younes Parsa Benab,The origin and development of imperialist contention in Iran; 1884-1921: part III, A case study in under development and dependency)

"To be sure, due to its anti-democratic system and its ideology of racist “Aryanism”, Nazi Germany was taken more seriously by the Shah and his high-ranking military personnel in Iran. The Nazi philosophy of “Aryanism” and “pure racism” provided a guideline for the rewriting of Iranian history and for justifying the existence of Reza Shah's autocratic monarchy-fascism. The concept of “Iranian superiority”, based on this ideology, assisted Reza Shah in glorifying the legitimacy of the absolute monarchy and in fostering an ideological drive for the modernisation of the army, implementation of “edifice” projects, and intervention in the cultural and traditional ethos of the Iranian people."

• Anthony Parson, the British minister in Iran during the Shah writes:

"In the Shah’s mind, Iran was part of Western civilization, separated by an accident of geography form its natural partners and equals. The Iranians in his view were Aryans, not Semitic, and their innate talents and abilities had been suffocated by the blanket of the Arabs invasion 1,200 years previously and its spiritual concomitant, Islam. He saw it as his mission to lift this blanket and to restore Iran to its former grandeur among the Great Powers." (see: Parsons, Anthony. The Pride and the Fall: Iran 1974-1979. London: Jonathan Cape, 1984. p.7.)

More References:

• Ernst Bernard Hass, Nationalism, Liberalism, and Progress, Vol.2 “The Dismal Fate of New Nations”, 1997, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0801431085, Chapter 2, P.55

“In 1925 he deposed the last Qajar ruler and made himself the successor under the title Reza Shah Pahlavi. He ruled Iran with an iron hand until Britain deposed him in 1941 for siding with Nazi Germany”

• Bob Feldman; IRAN: A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF A WASHINGTON TARGET, TOWARDS FREEDOM Friday, 16 February 2007,

“Despite Reza Shah Pahlavi’s nationalism and his regime’s pro-Nazi, pro-German political orientation during the late 1930s, in 1933 his government added another 60 years to the term of the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s lucrative oil production concession.”

• Arthur Goldschmidt , A Concise History of the Middle East, 2001, Westview Press, ISBN 0813338859, p.229-30

“After Hitler took power, German entrepreneurs flocked into Iran, Reza and many of his subject were flattered by Nazi racial theories because they viewed Iran as the original Aryan nation … The Shah also inherited his father’s authoritarian streak. When his reforms failed to meet his subjects expectations, he fell back on propaganda, censorship, and his secret police (SAVAK) to stay in power. Although successive US governments backed him as a bulwark against Communism, many Americans questioned his commitment to human rights”

• Asghar Fathi, Ed. Women and the Family in Iran, 1985, Leiden, E.G. Brill,ISBN 90-04-07426-0

“With the Allied occupation of Iran in 1941, Reza Shah, who had pro-Nazi tendencies, was forced to abdicate the throne in favor of his son Muhammad Reza. Following the departure of Reza from the political scene many women reverted back to the use of veil. This reaction was not only in total defiance of the forced measures of Reza Shah, but also a display of contempt for his imperious techniques of forced modernization.”

• MARGUERITE JOHNSON, THE EMPEROR WHO DIED AN EXILE, TIME, Monday, Aug. 04, 1980

“In 1941, when the Allies needed a secure route to ship war supplies to the Soviet Union, Reza Shah, a Nazi sympathizer, was forced into exile.

• Thus Professor Ayazi's analysis of Aryamehr sentiment is not an isolated study. According to her “Based on his choice, the Shah throughout his reign maintained a close relation with Germany. The discourses of that relationship relate to the analogous ethnic derivation—both origins being Aryans—the Shah identified with them intimately. He acquired most of his developmental plan’s provisions from Germany as they helped him to build hospitals, bridges, and various institutions. Such identification led to his removal. When the British demanded the Shah to expel the Germans from the country, the Shah refused...The Shah adapted the title Aryamehr, due to its meaning of Arya (Aryans), and Mehr (the sun, Mitra,love, affection). (See: Shahin Ayazi, Identity Crisis, International Relations Journal, SFSU, Spring 2003). ”.

The above analysis is also consistent with Professor Cottam's view. Cottam who had been a foreign service officer at the American embassy in Tehran during the Shah, writing in 1964 establishes the anti-Semitism of the Shah and his father early on in his book p.84-5. After having discussed the anti-Semitic behaviour of Reza Shah in a section on Jews as quoted before (i.e. Reza Shah destroying Jewish books and closing their schools) he goes on to present an outlook for the Jews under Mohammad Reza Shah, he writes “Early nationalism in Iran had been liberal and as such tolerant of religious diversity” However, “The former liberal colouring of Iranian nationalism with regard to race and religion began to change. This change was accelerated a good deal by the anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda”. Professor Cottam, provides an example of such a Nazi-inspired propaganda during the Shah's regime that I do not like to reproduce and concludes that “with the widening popular base for nationalism, latent anti-Semitism will be given greater expression and the possibility of Jews ever becoming an integral part of the Iranian nation will become more remote” (Nationalism in Iran, P.85)

Please note that with the exception of Cottam, and Ayaz these are new references that should be added to my previous list (Trita Parsi, Meslman, Timmerman,Ambassados Holmes and Sullivan, etc.) Artaxerex 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? None of the above has ANYTHING to do with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Every single thing you have posted here pertains to Reza Shah, not Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It doesn't look like you're on the right talk page. By the way, I appreciate your ignoring of my previous arguments; what's wrong, out of inane comments to refute me with? ♠ SG →Talk 04:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

End of discussion

I think that we're finished here, or at least I am. Artaxerex's latest calling us "Aryamehrist" (whatever it means, but given his attitude I take he means it in a derogatory way) shows clearly he has no intention to have a civil discussion. If there is a way to have him banned (perhaps through continuing the RfC), that should be done. In any case I will not do it since I don't intend to spend even one more second on this nonsense. If it is not possible to get rid of him, as long as he is around I (as several editors before me) will leave this page. I don't have time for this kind of thing. Shervink 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did he call you this? The Behnam 01:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Shervink, I did quote the late Ghotbzadeh who reportedly has said " there is a little bit of Aryameher in all of us". Some of the people that you have asked their suport for RFC against me have called me "a plague" " the worst kind of human being' and so on in recent times, yet since I have comitted myself to this discussion (that you yourself had repeatedly invited me to) I stayed. I did so in spite of detecting this strange behvior of yours that delays any balancing of the page.
• I am not sure what is the proper term to describe your continous request for my banishment, but it appears that I will be here to stay. Boethius wrote:...our chief aim is to displease the wicked. Of course, you are NOT the wicked, I'm talking about myself as the "gadfly" of Socrates, who as an Iranian and a Persian objects to that absurd notion of noble "Aryan" in all its forms including Aryamehr. Artaxerex 04:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. They did not call you "a plague", that was only me, one person, not in the plural form. And I did so because you are. Princeton defines plague as "any epidemic disease with a high death rate", "any large scale calamity", "an annoyance". You have thus far caused many editors to leave this page (high death rate), continually disrupted any work done to the article (large scale calamity), and have refused to listen to our arguments and continue to repeat yourself over and over, no even after we prove you wrong. I should add that you did not merely quote Ghotbzadeh, you instead wrote "It is ironic that the Aryamehrism (defined as talking softly in a liberal tone, and act despotic without any shame)has survived to this century." Do not toy with words.

You have NOT "committed [yourself] to this discussion", all you have done is:

1. Engaged in an argument with Shervink which has virtually nothing to do with the actual article,
2. Directed your actual article-based comments to The Behnam alone, rather than all of the editors as a whole,
3. And most importantly, you've thoroughly ignored all of my responses to you and my arguments against your claims.

By the way, your constant use of the term Aryan in a pejorative sense is starting to bug me. The Avestan itself uses a form of "Aryan" to define the land that encompassed the Iranian world, so it goes back far beyond what you seem to be able to comprehend. Then there's your insane insistence that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a Nazi sympathizer and an antisemite -- regardless of what we have told you, even though all of your sources discuss Reza Shah, not the younger ruler. ♠ SG →Talk 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But Artaxerex didn't actually call any of you Aryamehrist, did he? Since the agreement in the RFC was that he stop personal attacks and edit warring on these articles, I need to know the extent of any violation of this agreement for my ArbCom statement. If he really didn't call you Aryamehrist in the time after agreeing to stop attacks, you shouldn't use this section as "evidence" of a personal attack for any DR process. The Behnam 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He did. I was referring to this and this. He says that "Aryamehrism has survived to this century", and defines it as "talking softly in a liberal tone, and act despotic without any shame". Well, there is no doubt whom he means by that statement, since the Shah certainly did not survive to this century. In the other post he calls my statements disgusting and myself anti-semitic. Regardless of what the subject matter of the discussion is, the use of such insults and labels is uncivil behavior. Shervink 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I've responded to these allegations at Shervink's talk page. The Behnam 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of biased/improperly sourced section

I've deleted a section on the coup that ran as follows:

"There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh neither was purely military in nature nor led to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country. It over-turned the referendum under which Mossadegh had suspended certain aspects of the constitution."

Firstly, the use of the word "coup" does not require that an "overthrow" be "purely military" in nature. If we take the use of "coup" on this page to be the French word signifying a blow, a hit, a strike, it would only require that the "overthrow" occur somewhat rapidly or unexpectedly. However it is obviously more likely that the use of "coup" here refers to the expression "coup d'etat", and this phrase too fits perfectly well. Merriam Webster defines a coup d'etat thusly: "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group". I fail to see how this substantively differs from the 1953 events. Then to argue that the events did not lead "to a change in the form of government" is simply equivocation and shows the bias of the contributor.

Secondly, the links used as citations simply don't support the argument. Of the seven links provided, one is an article written in the New York Times by the son of the CIA's Iranian contact General Zahedi and this article fails to mention the word "coup" once. One citation links to Amazon.com and fails to include page numbers where this claim is supposedly made. One article actually uses the word coup to describe the events. The remaining four citations link to articles in Farsi and are therefore unverifiable by vast majority of the English wikipedia readership. pomopaulrevere

You are correct, the sources don't support the claim. Perhaps the paragraph is an original claim that attempts to use those pages to support its argument even though they explicitly say nothing about it. The view that it wasn't a coup is fairly non-notable - I know that the respected Iranica calls it a coup [34], as do many other RS. In any case, the current sources don't support that paragraph, either because they simply don't talk about it or the writer is not a notable voice on the topic.

As for the Persian sources, I think that they should not have used unverifiable sources for a controversial/fringe view. I will ask another editor to take a look and tell us if the sources are appropriate for the claim.

Unfortunately, your removal was undone by Dfitzgerald with the mysterious edit summary "rv POV". What does that mean - that Dfitzgerald reverted to restore POV? I ask this because that is what it looks like. I encourage Dfitzgerald to participate in the talk page (and use better edit summaries in the future). The Behnam 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some editing notes (BTW the section under discussion is Mohammad Reza Pahlavi#Coup):

• [35] Since these unsourced statements have been questioned here as original research, I've tagged them for the benefit of readers and editors alike.
• [36] One of the sources was a dead link, which obviously can't be used to support anything.
• [37] To help us focus upon only the sources that really need discussion, I've removed the online bookstore pages because they are not RS and don't support any of the paragraph's claims anyway.
• [38] Simply reading Hoveyda's work reveals that he is not disputing the CIA coup itself, but rather that it is commonly attributed as causing the Shah's restoration. Instead, Hoveyda argues that Mossadegh's following inaction (which he also claims has to do with tradition & mythology) is what really allowed the Shah to return to the throne. The point is that Hoveyda's work doesn't at all make a statement disputing the definition of the CIA action itself as a coup/coup attempt, so his work cannot be used as a source for the paragraph under discussion. Now, I've also considered that Hoveyda's work may have been used only to support the last sentence of the paragraph. I don't care to verify whether it actually does or not because I know that even if it does, its use to bolster the primary claims of the paragraph (which Hoveyda does not support) clearly violate Wikipedia policy forbidding original synthesis. In conclusion, Hoveyda's work has no place in that paragraph. The Behnam 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what the point is in starting a new discussion while there is still an ArbCom procedure going on which initiated here? Shouldn't we all wait a little and show some patience before starting to edit the article again? Let's not forget that we don't have any deadlines to meet here at wikipedia. Shervink 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured that it wasn't related to the ArbCom issue at all, but needed to be resolved. The Behnam 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be resolved of course, but I don't think we can get anywhere so long as Artaxerex is around, since his presence keeps a lot of editors away.Shervink 09:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters, what is your opinion on this thing? It seems fairly straightforward to me, except for the Persian language sources, which I suspect don't support that claim as well. The Behnam 13:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'll join the discussion once the ArbCom is finished. Hope you understand.Shervink 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The people who aren't directly involved in the ArbCom should continue to improve the article without hesitation. About the coup section, it is in severe need of rewriting. Back when I first created the to-do list for this page, rewriting the coup section was the first thing that came to mind. A lot of the article needs to be rewritten, but that part ranks the highest. The revolution section has a bit of work to go, and the corruption section is based on two sources -- a single, largely unsourced article in Time and Oriana Fallaci. Rather than writing in a way that the reader should take everything with a grain of salt, it is provided as pure unbiased fact. This applies to much of the article. But, as you guys have started to do, it is best to focus on one section at a time, and move along chronologically as soon as each section is completed. ♠ SG →Talk 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme bias

This is one of the blatantly slanted articles I've ever seen, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Especially the first paragraph, which I think speaks for itself. Josh 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Haha, yeah, we know. It's essentially one guy's crusade against anything regarding the Pahlavis. He's been engaging in his revert war for a solid seven months now. ♠ SG →Talk 09:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

artaxerex

Artaxerex, if youre going to mass-revert the article the way you did, at least please fix the typos. I see at least six typos that had been fixed previously by other editors but were now just reintroduced into the article because of your reversion. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought:

Editors (like me) aren't going to stop trying to clean this page up (its what Wikipedians do). Artaxerex isn't going to stop reverting those edits, and DFitzgerald isn't going to stop reverting Artaxerex. Its all getting quite ridiculous. Perhaps its time for this article to be fully protected so that NO ONE can edit it. What do y'all think? --*Kat* 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• That has been done in the past. It doesn't help at all. A few editors worked together while the article was fully protected to create a new version, but after it was unlocked, the edit war just started up again. I'm not a big fan of full protection except when it involves mass vandalism, ie. with bots. Otherwise, it's just detrimental to the progress of the article. Instead of people like you coming and at least making some cleanups in some revisions (which we can come back to and use later), you wouldn't be able to edit the article at all without using the edit request template, which isn't exactly the most encouraging way of making improvements. ♠ SG →Talk 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• • That really sucks. There is one major difference between then and now though, and that's the ArbCom. Last time I checked, the Arbs seemed to be leaning towards banning Artaxerex. You could unprotect it after their ruling. --*Kat* 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Imperial stamp.jpg

Image:Imperial stamp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)