Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

• Archive1

Contents 1 Technical problem 2 Failed GA 3 Style 4 Paradoxic edits 5 Protected 5.1 Unprotection 6 Title 7 Very Ugly Introduction, Needs Infobox 8 Layout 9 Name, farsi words 10 Self-declared titles 11 Location of "'Coup' Controversy" Section 12 thought re article title 13 Reza shah and Germany 14 Authority of Shah to dismiss Mossadegh 15 Name, Big Mistake 16 Quotes

[edit] Technical problem

Something has gone wrong with the styles infobox; it's added some random text. I tried a copy/paste from another monarch but that didn't help either. Can anyone fix it? Yanksta x 21:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I'm removing this from the Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations page because:

• lead is too short, and isn't structured
• lack of references (and inline citations)
• WP:CONTEXT states that years without full dates should not be linked

Thanks, AndyZ 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

STYLES ARE NOT USED ON WIKIPEDIA. STOP RESTORING HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY.

You are incorrect - styles are allowed so long as they are identified as styles. Also see WP:CIVIL and remember to sign your posts. SouthernComfort 05:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Styles are not used unless there is a pressing need for the. It was agreed by a large consensus to use the infoboxes instead. I generally try to be civil but I am acting accoding to wikipedia protocol at the minute, and am getting quite annoyed. Sorry if any offence was caused. Yanksta x 07:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Again styles are allowed so long as they are clarified as being styles. SouthernComfort 13:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are not removing the styles but taking out the disambiguation term "styled." Therefore your edits are not only confusing, but inconsistent with your claim that you are opposed to styles. SouthernComfort 13:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore you should read up on WP guidelines, since they do not support your contentions. SouthernComfort 13:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Do you mean the infobox? Why have you removed that? That is used in every royal article on Wikipedia, in the manner I added it. Syles are also not used unless the use's legitimacy is disputed. There is no dispute regarding that the Shah was entitled to HIM, and thus there is no need to reference it in the opening. It was agreed to use the infoboxes by a consensus quite some time ago. that would be the reason that all royals now have them rather than the style in the opening paragraph. Would you mind explaining why every other article does as I am doing now? Look around. Yanksta x 17:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed before many times - check the archive. SouthernComfort 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the archive. Why do you insist on removing the infobox and adding the styled HIM above. Look at ANY other royal article. I am simply editing this to fall in line with all other royal articles. There is no reason why this article should abide by different guidelines. If you want me to agree with you, explain exactly why this article should not behave like all other royal articles. Yanksta x 06:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That box is specific to the monarchs of the UK. There is no overwhelming concern to also use it here. SouthernComfort 13:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What? If you are talking about the specific box itself, it is British as I stated above, because the other one was causing some glitch. I will try to correct it to reflect the Shahs. The concept of the box is not limited to the British kings though... Nontheless, the box is used in place of styles in every monarchical article on Wikipedia in place of the first paragraph. Are you having difficulty understanding that? Yanksta x 18:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. I've already made my points. SouthernComfort 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to see wp civil. I have made many valid points, none of which you have clearly addressed, which is why I am under the inmpression you do not understand. Royal articles use infoboxes, unless there is a dispute over the legitimacy of the style. You have not yet come up with the answer to that, and I will stop reverting once you actually explain why you want to ignore all otehr royal articles. Yanksta x 06:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP policy or guideline which supports your contentions. Back up your claims with a guideline or policy and then we'll talk. In the meantime, stop reverting. Also, you should leave edit summaries whenever you make an edit or revert. SouthernComfort 09:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

All articles used to begin with a style, but that was altered to end the style wars. Try Queen Elizabeth II. Want a deposed monarch? Constantine II of Greece. A deposed dead monarch? Umberto II of Italy. A deposed dead emperor? Haile Selassie. If you visit Leopold II of the Belgians, you find anoted in the article itslef (edit mode ). Will be back with more evidence. Yanksta x 17:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked for evidence in the form of WP guidelines or policy, my friend. SouthernComfort 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't WP:MOSBIO#Honorific prefixes supposed to cover this? (Not that I can figure out what "in the text inline" means, but it's tired and I'm getting late.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I have found the wording there to be subjective as well. The UK monarchs infobox is inappropriate since there are two additional styles (other than HIM) used for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi such as Shahanshah and Aryamehr. Personally, I see no need for any infobox since the styles are disambiguated as such. If others see a pressing need for an infobox, then one specifically for Iranian monarchs (and their specific styles should be started. SouthernComfort 05:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes are used in royal articles as a matter of protocol. I'm not sure about Aryamehr, but Shahanshah is a title. Using "styled" indicates that there is some controversy, as with Princess Alexandra of Hanover. Yanksta x 08:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term "style" - please see Style (manner of address). SouthernComfort 12:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Imperial Majesty is a style/manner of address. Emperor is not. It is a title. I am not sure, but I was under the impression that the Shah's actual title was Shahanshah which granted him imperial styles. Yanksta x 20:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Style His Imperial Majesty, followed by The Shah of Iran should be used in the first line. This is his name ans should be used accordingly. (Couter-revolutionary 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Have you even bothered to read the discussion? I'm okay with it now, but you are completely wrong.

[edit] Paradoxic edits

adding ", also known as the Suitcase Monarch for his speedy departures during tensions in the country," and "until the Iranian Revolution in wich he was overthrown." doesn't make the article NPOV.

1- Suitcase monarch? known by who exactly? any sources? It looks like a hatred POV.

2- Can you explain to me the need of this in the introduction? The article clearly talks about this. --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It does, maybe not for you, but this article should represent all sides, he WAS known as the suitcase monarch and a dictator as well as many other things, sugarcoating this and ONLY including good things about him doesnt make the article NPOV.

1-No, not at all, you are being very defensive, Marvin Zonis the Shah Biographer was very clear in this, he was called the suitcase monarch because he departed from the country many times due to tensions that he feared would escelate against him.

2-The above text is completely POV so i dont see why you have a problem with people that want to change it into a NPOV text for it to be supported by all readers, NOT just the monarchists living in beverly hills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paradoxic (talk • contribs) .

• I am being very defensive? What do you mean? The article has to be NPOV as you said. Look, if you would like that to be included, bring the source so we can see it. "Marvin Zonis" was clear about what? I had never heard of such a thing, I can tell you one thing for sure that although what it implies might be correct, Mohammad Reza is not "also known as Suitcase Monarch", thats a term I had never before, if you cite a notable reliable and verifiable source, sure we will include it.

• Secondly what text is POV? Was he not Shah of Iran? Lol thats a POV? can you explain to me atleast what it is that you are finding POV? --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it is relevant whether you heard of it or not. Marvin Zonis mentioned it in the BBC made documentary "The last Shah".

I also dont think it takes a rocketscientist to see how this page evolves around promoting the Shah was a purely good character that went into history as a great man. I am sorry, but most iranians would beg to differ, he was overthrown and is not liked by most. I dont mind pro-Shah statements at all however this page is ridiculously bias. I will try to reform this page for more NPOV in the coming days. I am not amused by people trying to censor anything that is AGAINST the Shah, wich has been attempted more than once. --Paradoxic 15:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxic an edit war isn't the best thing to do. A BBC documentary sadly is not a verifiable nor reliable source See WP:V. Until you find a source please stop including such POV from the article --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An editing war is necessary if censorship didnt occur on this page, however it does and one sided views will not be tollerated. You do not determine what is a "proper source". Marvin Zonis made the statement and he is a Shah biographer that has written works about the Shah such as "Majestic Failure; The fall of the Shah" [[1]]and has contributed to many Television interview due to his knowledge on the Shah as an academic. this is sufficient as a concrete reference for wikipedia.--Paradoxic 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, which page does it include this term and can you cite what it actually says? --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the Shah either, but there should be a better way to discuss his shortcomings (which were many) aside from trying to belittle him, which is not how an encyclopedia works. Perhaps more on the autocracy and the coup situation would be a better place to criticize him academically rather than calling him names which is just juvenile. Tombseye 16:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Please work out your differences here instead of edit warring. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anybody please care to raise specific concerns - if there are any - so that the issue can be settled? Shervink 14:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

[edit] Unprotection

The article has been protected for a week now, and I will be unprotecting it tommorow or the next day (leaving a day or two for comments on this note). It is unfortunate that the protection achieved the opposite of what it intended to accomplish: instead of the talk page being used to address the dispute, the discussion effectively ended with the protection. With respect to this dispute, I want to make one thing very clear: The article needs to follow the historiographical consensus among specialists in the field. Hagiography —which this article suffers from— is not sustainable and the views of critical scholars, such as Fred Halliday, and so on, must be represented accordingly in the article. Thanks. El_C 02:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Page is now unprotected. Thanks. El_C 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

These are wikipedia guidelines:

Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchial title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death; for example, Constantine II of Greece not ex-King Constantine II or Constantine Gluckberg, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom not the Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, but Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha not Simeon II of Bulgaria. No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article.

If people continue to disregard Wikipedia guidelines i will have this art. blocked! (Couter-revolutionary 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Very Ugly Introduction, Needs Infobox

All of your bickering has done nothing for this article. Compare to George I of Great Britain, and you'll see how different it is. The "His Imperial Majesty," and "Shahanshah" parts do not need to be bold, they are not his names. I'm going to try and clean it up to look more like George I, which I think is an excellent article. And no, I'm not against Pahlavi, just in case you want to use that argument against me. ♠ SG →Talk 04:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've made a lot of changes. Please look at Rainier III, Prince of Monaco. I used the method of styling from that article, and it should hopefully be accepted by everyone. I think we also need to copy the infobox to the Reza Shah article. I made a few changes around the article, but there is still a lot to be done. For example, the whole Mossadegh part was a single paragraph. I think we still have room to break it up. Other areas can be extended, I changed the TOC by editing the headings, among other things. Just take a look, if there's something you have a problem with, let's all have a civilized conversation here and try to find some common ground. ♠ SG →Talk 04:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro? Look closer, even the title of the article is disputed. I doubt anyone can produce a solid reference to this "Cyrus" name which has been forced in to this article and wikipedia. Reza Pahlavi goes by the name of Reza Pahlavi, not Reza Cyrus Pahlavi. It's a middle name that there is little evidence of its existence. If no one objects, we can move it to Reza Pahlavi? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that now. This is ridiculous. People need to understand that this is an encyclopedia. As for the name "Cyrus," you must be referring to his son. I don't know about his name, I'd have to ask. ♠ SG →Talk 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This user SG should not have a tone of hostility against others. "Aryamehr" and "Shahanshah" are both Imperial titles of the Shah. Khorshid 02:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are being hostile by reverting my edits without even discussing it. I put notes here, and then made the changes. I did not remove "Aryamehr" or "Shahanshah" from the article. "Shah" is the English word for Shahanshah, I even made the link for "Shah" point to Shah#Shahanshah. You also do not need to put "King of Kings," because the link to the word explains what it means. I'm not trying to be against the shah, which is obviously what you are getting from my edits. Please use your head; I'm trying to make this as NPOV as possible. ♠ SG →Talk 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• bearing the monarchial style - Why do we need this? Look at Albert II, Prince of Monaco, it simply says "styled," which is much simpler. It gives the exact same meaning.
• from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979 - I added exact dates, why do you want amibiguous years only?
• and the last to rule under the Iranian monarchy. - He WAS the last to rule under the Iranian monarchy. Why do you keep changing this?

All in all, I don't understand your changes. I don't see how my edits could be considered POV, they add more information and clarity to the article, while yours simply removes information. Please, do explain. And to avoid an edit war, I will not be re-adding these changes, that way I'll give you a chance to respond. ♠ SG →Talk 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont dispute the last two points. About first point: "His Imperial Majesty" is a style because then his name would be "H.I.M. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi" like other monarchs but "Aryamehr" and "Shahanshah" are Imperial titles connected to his office and no one would call him "Shahanshah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi" or "Aryamehr Mohammad Reza Pahlavi" but "H.I.M. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shahanshah ("King of Kings") va (and) "Aryamehr" ("Light of the Aryans"). I hope you understand. Before you removed "Shahanshah" and only left aryamehr. Thats why I changed it back. Khorshid 06:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I see. In that case, I have no problem keeping the first part. I will make the according changes. I don't see a need for "bearing the monarchial style," so I'm using simply "styled." But I'm putting in the "Imperial" line as you said. It makes a lot more sense now, thanks! If you have any problems with it, let me know. Hopefully we can move onto the rest of the article now. ♠ SG →Talk 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement. Khorshid 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added back the translations please don't remove them unless there is an explanation? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think you can add the translations as you wish? You do not have the final word on this article. I have once again reverted your edits. Read the discussion I had with Khorshid above. Count it as a vote, that's two against one. Democracy always wins. ♠ SG →Talk 06:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you did not answer my comment, you leave me with no option but to revert you again. If you continue with these reverts and rude comments, I will have no choice to fill a WP:RfC so "we" can understand what your problem is. Until then, provide an explanation before reverting me again. edit: I read above conversation, it doesn't look like you were discussing the same thing, so no it doesn't count as "vote" on any matter --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good for you! As for your threat for RfC, I already filled one out last night. What do you mean "provide explanation?" I have provided an explanation several times, which you seem to overlook. I'm getting sick and tired of your antics. ♠ SG →Talk 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

This article's layout is absoulutely horrific now. (Couter-revolutionary 13:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Agreed, User:Bnguyen added that Reza Cyrus Pahlavi is his successor in the monarch box, for no apparent reason. I added the house properly, which is something he was attempting to do. Nevermind. I don't see a reason to add the house; he retains his last name (Pahlavi), so the house is already given. I was also thinking of adding another entry to the monarch box, "Pretender: Reza Cyrus Pahlavi," but decided against it. I'd rather just keep it simple. Any thoughts? ♠ SG →Talk 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what is going on but I do not agree to removing styles or titles. It seems that only one or two people always complain about this so-called "layout" - to everyone else it looks fine. Always on Wikipedia there are people wanting to make new problems. Everyday there are new problems. Please stop! Khorshid 09:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name, farsi words

1. His name is not Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, it is Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Why did it get changed back when I corrected it?
2. The word, "shah" literally means, "king" in english. It is the literal translation, and the word "shah" does not have a distinct meaning as the person who revered my changes suggested. Take a look at a dictionary for your own sake. Here you have an online translator if you even understand farsi, because this is ridiculous: FarsiDic - ArmanJan

His birth name is Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but once he became Shah, he was Mohammad Reza Shah, and Pahlavi was his last name. It differs from the traditional English word "king," where one is referred to as "King 'Last Name'." Another example would be the Russian tsar, who is referred to as such in English, and not as a "king." The reason why "Shah" is included, is because it is not appended before his name, as with all other Shahs, and unlike a "king." Hope this clears it up for you! ♠ SG →Talk 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. His name did not change at any time. What you refer to is just the name by which he was referred to on 'the streets' to avoid confusion with many others who were also called Mohammad Reza. Another example is of Muhammad Ali in Zaire. After his conversion he did not want to be called Cassius clay anymore, and he would react very harshly to those who did. However, because there were so many Muslims with the name Mohammad Ali, he allowed Muslims to call him Mohammad Ali Clay, and that is, until today, the name by which he is known in the Islamic world. As for your explanation for Shah, it is simply ridiculous.

- ArmanJan

Who said he changed his name? In Persian, we don't say "Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi," we say "Mohammad Reza Shah." However, I agree with you in that his true name is not "Mohammad Reza Shah." How about we change it according to the article of Ismail I ("Mohammad Reza Pahlavi [...] reigned as Mohammad Reza Shah"); it's current format is akin to Abbas I of Safavid. ♠ SG →Talk 03:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Either the Article is renamed to read Mohammad Reza Shah, or it stays Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Both are correct, but not in ONE single entry! This applies also to the introduction. With the present article heading, we are well advised to speak of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and add his title "Shah of Iran". The late shah himself signed his name Mohammad Reza Pahloavi in Persian, as can be seen on this autograph: [2] . An explanation that the Persian term "shah" implies "king" in English is useful. In an encyclopaedia one does NOT indulge in court protocol, which would be grotesque, and does therefor not speak of "His Imperial Majesty"....so and so....! Our task is to INFORM the interested reader, consulting the article for knowledge, and not please ourselves with sycophantic fancy or homage to a revered sovereign.--Pantherarosa 22:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please also bear in mind that the it is actually only in Persian that is customary to speak of Mohamad Shah Qajar or Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi! We do not speak, in comparison, of "Emperor Wilhelm/Wiliam Hohenzollern" or of "King George V Saxony Coburg Gotha" . In a Persian Encyclopaediy it would be perfectly correct to write "Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi", but definitely not here! --Pantherarosa 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't really understand exactly what you're trying to say. If I get the gist of it, you're basically accusing me of adding pro-monarchy bullshit to the article.

Your version is highly redundant: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran [...] was the Shah of Iran [...]. It is already written that he was Shah, the point is that he reigned as Mohammad Reza Shah, and is referred to as such.

Your comment about His Imperial Majesty is also pointless, as this has been discussed numerous times. HIM is a title, and is noted.

Imagine a student researching this subject. They should know that he was born Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but reigned as Mohammad Reza Shah (instead of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) and had the title of His Imperial Majesty. I'm reverting your edits, as per my reasoning above. ♠ SG →Talk 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-declared titles

I am sure we all know that all these titles (i.e. king of kings, light of the aryans, etc, etc), are all unlawful self-declared titles. Why is that not mentioned in the article? ArmanJan 16 July 2006

What do you mean "unlawful?" King of Kings is the translation of Shahanshah, and had been in use for more than two millennia before Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Also, if you read the Aryamehr article, you'll see that title was granted by parliament - so I don't see anything unlawful. ♠ SG →Talk 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein had the same amount of titles. However, these are two people who came to power through force and put their own people in what you call "the parlement". Those Iranian 'parlementarians' actually kissed the Shah's feet on every ocassion. There are video's of it online. Many titles have existed long before, but this person actually crowned himself on national tv, and declared himself this and that while people were starving to death. ArmanJan

Wow, are you really that anti-monarchist? First off, you don't seem to know how Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power. His father, Reza Shah, overthrew the Qajar dynasty with Seyyed Zia'eddin Tabatabaee (who then became the Prime Minister). Afterwards, the National Assembly voted to crown Reza Pahlavi as Shah. During World War II, Reza Shah was removed from power by Allied forces; he was forced to abdicate in favor of his son. That's how Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran.

Your last comment is absolutely unwarranted, please see White Revolution.

Honestly, do you have any idea how many governments have been dissolved and formed by the use of force? If that is your best argument, then you're mistaken if you think that will warrant the removal of titles from an encyclopedia. ♠ SG →Talk 10:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, just so you don't get the idea that I'm a pro-monarchy idiot, I don't condone his use of force to maintain control of the government (ie. SAVAK). (Funny, isn't that what the Islamic Republic of Iran is doing now, but worse? That's for another time, I suppose.) Please, no original research. This page isn't for voicing your political beliefs. While you may not agree on how he got those titles, how he came to power, etc., you can't just remove it because you feel it is so. ♠ SG →Talk 11:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my masters in History. It would be a waste of your energy to go out of your way to convince me of anything in which you obviously have a lack of knowledge of. I directed myself to this dicussion page in the hope to find a group of intelligent people, but alas! If I have some time left I will write a section about how his royal dictatorship really came to power. ArmanJan

Masters from where? Qom? Just kidding. Please contribute to this page with your knowledge, but remember to remain neutral and objective. You are not the only one who is knowledgeable in history, and even professors of history would disagree on a lot of topics like this. So please stay calm. Shervink 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

Ha! That "Qom" line cracked me up, Shervink. Honestly, ArmanJan, if anyone wants to add to this article, go for it. Just cite your verifiable sources; again: no original research. And please, try to be civil. There's no need to attack me by saying I have a lack of knowledge in history, and trying to prove your worth with a master's degree. ♠ SG →Talk 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, and I also appreciate your closed-mindedness, which you wholeheartedly seem to pronounce. ♠ SG →Talk 10:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location of "'Coup' Controversy" Section

Shouldn't the section on the controversy about application of the term "Coup" to the 1953 coup be moved to the article on Operation Ajax? Jack Waugh 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in its entirety, but it does deserve a mention on both articles. ♠ SG →Talk 22:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thought re article title

Should this not be titled "Mohammad Reza Shah of Iran" rather than "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi"? Though Pahlavi certainly is the surname the family adopted in the early 20th century, per Wiki standards (and by official standards when the imperial house was in power), he was known as Mohammad Reza Shah (or somesuch variant), without the surname. (The use of Pahlavi, officially, is and was used solely by the younger sons and daughters of the monarch, with the distinction of Prince and/or Princess, ie H.I.H. Princess Shams Pahlavi.) A comparable, I think, comparison would be Prince Rainier of Monaco; everyone knows the family's surname is Grimaldi but I don't think we would title his article "Rainier Grimaldi". Any thoughts?Mowens35 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reza shah and Germany

Regarding Iran-Germany relations in WWII, It should be noted that modernization of Iran's industrial infrastructure was proceeding with the help of the German companies and engineers at that time. This includes power generation plants and transmision, railraods, main industries etc. Reza-shah had initially moved to Germans as opposed to Great Britan which had been trying to control Iran for decades, not knowing the details of world policy and the fact that Hitler was about to start his war machine in Europe. That said, Germany was known for her flagship industries and superior engineering to anyone including Reza-shah at that time. Nevertheless, Iran remained neutral during WWII and there was absolutely no presense of German military in Iran or vice versa, no weapons were sent to or recieved from Iran. It is said that Hitler sent one of his "paintings" as a gift for Reza-shah but he never even offered to jon the access. In fact it is known that a number of Polish jews fleeing the Nazis had taken refuge in Iran which shows the unluckiness of any military cooperation between the two countries. The Soviets needed vital supplies if they were to effectivey push the eastern front and the fastest reliable way to supply them was using Iran's German-built railroad. In fact if the Germans knew the railroad would be used against them they wouldn't have helped building it! When Iran was given an ultimatum by the allies to expel all German personnel, it did so but the allies still attacked Iran when all the German nationals had left the country. It is more true that the allies invaded Iran because they needed to do so, not due to Iran-Germany being war allies. Nationalistic character of Reza-shah who had confronted the British at least a few times is also belived to have palyed a partial role in this.

[edit] Authority of Shah to dismiss Mossadegh

I have added few links that dispute the authority of the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh. It is common claim by those who wish to whitewash the coup by saying that it was simply perserving the constituion of Iran by punishing the man who violated it Mossadegh. Unfortunately, according to the sources I've added, the constituition of 1906 did not give authority to the Shah to dismiss parliamentary officials. This false claim that is often trotted out to make it seem like the Shah was really one overthrown and that coup against Mossadegh was a counter-coup is very clever little diatribe that unforntunately is holy misinformed. While Mossadegh may have been appointed by the Shah he was neverthless extremely popular among the Iranian people, as were his referendums.The Shah was not overthrown, he simply ran away like the coward he was after Mossadegh refused to step down. I realize that the links I have are from opionated people with bias, but with all due respect so are yours. They come from extremely biased sources such as the relatives of those who helped perform the coup. If your allowed to put your biased sources, so should I. If you can show me a link that proves the Shah had the power to dismiss Mossadegh I'll reconsider, but for now I'm sticking to the additions. I hope you will take into account that instead of going on a mad deleting rampage I was respectful of wha others had wrote and made some honest additions of my own. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about right.

[edit] Name, Big Mistake

Some prankster has added "Damagh" to his name, which means "nose". This is probably a joking reference to his big nose, but either way should be deleted. I'm not sure how to do it, so i'll leave it to one of you.

Done.--Couter-revolutionary 11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

What happened to the quotes section?