Talk:Fazlollah Zahedi

message: SINCE WHEN IS >>>>SOURCED<<<< EDITING VANDALISM??? READ THE CITED SOURCES! WHERE pray tell me DOES IT SAY THAT IRAN EVER (I SAY EVER) HAD A DEMOCRATICAL ELECTION OF ANY SORT OR SHAPE in HISTORY?? QUIT CONVERTING WIKIPEDIA INTO A TRASH BIN with YOUR SILLY AND INFANTILE PRANKS! KISSING EACH OTHER'S REAR ENDS DOESN*T MAKE POV less POV
: As I have told you before Sphinxter-delator aka Pantherarosa - most sources state that Mossadeq's election was democratic - in accordance with a parliamentary democratic system (where an elected parliament elects the head of the executive, and recommends him/her to a monarch/unelected representative which rubber stamps the decision.  This is how parliamentary democracy works in Canada, Britain, Israel, etc etc.
: In any event, as I said before, Kitzner describes the election as democratic and his is a book where the election and coup are the primary subject of interest (it does not just mention the election in passing).  Do not vandalize this page again! It will just be reverted again.  Poyani (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Furthermore, if you need information and sources about Mossadeq and his election, look it up in the Mossadeq and Operation Ajax pages.  What you are changing (that Mossadeq's elections was democratic) is a consensus among historians and political scientists who have written academic papers on the topic. Furthermore if you want to change this info change it in the main coup article rather than weaseling it here. Poyani (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  User Poyani, do not make false claims with regards to postings, which I have NOT made (even if these coincide to some extent with my views of the subject matter). It has become clear to me that you seem to be lacking knowledge, the ability of sober judgement and couth to an extent, that I cannot waste my time in correcting you and your "associates". I shall, for a last time provide some wellfounded historical knowledge, which has at one point in the past been PROPERLY VERIFIED on these articles, the references having been obliviated bay some POV pushers some time ago. ALL CAN BE TRACED, however through the page history. As I have discovered (to my admitted surprize) today that you have made an attempt at pertinently backquestioning some historical FACTS, I shall address these for a last time, in order to prove good will, despite the damage done by entirely clueless posters, wasting the time and effort of a great number of authors.  Pantherarosa (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1953 Coup D'état 

message: The author of the original article abandoned scholarly conventions by consistently describing the 1953 coup in Iran as a "countercoup," arguing that Mossadeq had seized dictatorial powers and was himself responsible for instigating a coup d'etat. In fact, the term "countercoup" suggests a restoration of the previous system of government; the coup in August 1953 did not restore the previous system of government that existed prior to Mossadeq's ascension to power. It vastly increased the Shah's power. Consequently, all historians of modern Iranian history (that I know of) characterize the events of August 1953 as a "coup." (Roosevelt chose to describe the events as a "Countercoup" in his book; however, internal CIA documents, now readily available, describe the Shah's seizure of power as a "coup.")
I've read thousands of CIA documents related to the coup in Iran and subsequent US policy. This article is BAD.
::This was not a counter coup, as Mossadegh did not stage a coup. He was however unlawfully retaining power. Also, whether the Shah's powers were increased or not does not determine whether Mossadegh's replacement was a coup or not.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Counter coup" changed to more accurate "coup" 

message: What sense is this discussion above supposed to make? The CIA, playing the main part in this historic drama, was represented by Kim Roosevelt locally, from whom emanated ANY intelligence recorded at head-office. Kim Roosevelt termed the coup, which he and Wilber (his boss) instigated, a COUNTER COUP. Mossadeq seems to be unjustly portrayed, on this page, as a "disappointed" weakling, constantly threatened by coups, while, in contrast, he actually succeeded in driving out the ruler. Zahedi, on the other hand is branded as the bad guy, while he proved an ally to the USA and Uk. While I could not care less, personally, about any of the villains involved in the play, why do sensible people, contributing to public knowledge through this forum, engage in a smear campaign against each other???
For heaven's sake, what difference does it make if we speak about a COUP or a counter COUP? Coup is coup!
*********It is NOT bickering over a choice of words, that matters here, but the introduction of personal "readjustments" of historical facts. While I would    agree that a "coup is a coup", I sort of said it myself at some point, I cannot comprehend why someone would start to doubt the UNIVERSE, just because the very term used by the major co-plotter Roosevelt has been (as technically required) likewise used by the authors of the subject article. Why point a finger and at the same time proliferate "verbose nonsense", accusing others of the same. For the record: I am far from being an "Iranian" an "exile" or both! --Pantherarosa 23:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why bicker over choice of words? Kim Roosevelt coined it counter coup himself!

message: You make some points that I feel are worth taking seriously. And I want to apologize for all of my unfair personal attacks. They were inappropriate, and generally made under the influence. So I apologize. I'm sure that you're a fine human being.
We can figure a way to resolve this conflict together. I'm sure of it. But we'll put our minds to it...
Just let me sober up.
**********Thanks for reaching out. I look forward to a constructive solution to our apparently minor differences of opinion. I feel we ought to releave the world from the kakophonic duett above and eventually delete it. If you go into "history" of this page you will find someone (user 84.128.48.194) has "peppered up" your posting with the most silly argumentation, literally adding insult to injury. I look forward to all of this "TALK" above making place for sensible accord. --Pantherarosa 13:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We will overcome...I love you. 

message: The story in the article is at odds with other articles on Wikipedia(eg Operation Ajax) and with accepted scholarship and key sources (eg the CIA history  (PDF). Rd232 talk 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrayal

message: Shouldnt the article discuss the hundreds of thousands of dollars he was given by the CIA prior to becoming the prime minisiter. Also the $5 million dollars given to him after the coup d'etat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.104.213 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldnt this mention 

message: POV must not continue to blatantly deny the obvious:
Given the fact, that merely two foreigneres, namely Donald L. Wilber and Kermit Rosevelt, according to the latter's official accounts, were locally active, together with just a handful of local Iranian agents (such as Shahpur Reporter and the Rashidian brothers) in their pay, it is clear that in fact Iranian activists, often referred to as payed mobs, prominent clerics (Ayatollah Kashani, e.g.) and military leaders, backed by troops loyal to them, brought about the turn of events, leading to the toppling of Mossadeq and his government. It is silly trying to deny the active role of a large number of individuals who fought for a change in government, merely because the triggering initiatives may well have come from the foreign agents, who instrumentalized a handfull of local men on their payroll in propagating the foreign powers' agenda. 93.233.106.110 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  End misportrayal of role of parts of IRANIAN population (activists, clerics, military) in bringing about a turn of events on 19 August, 1953  

message: I have once again reverted the edits of Pantherarosa.  The material which he keeps reverting to is unsourced and his own OR pushing a POV.  He he describes his edit as "Removed POV and naive portrayal of events and reverted to previous version, providing a far more balanced and historically accurate account of the events described".  Please note that it is Wikipedia's role to decide which sources are "naive" and certainly not the role of Wikipedia to address this "naive portrait" with a POV without sources. The material listed is described in numerous articles and several books and scholarly accounts of the incident as well as declassified US government documents.  Whether or not these sources are "naive" in a user's POV is not really relevant. As I have noted on a prior occasion, if anyone has a problem with the coup section, they should address it in the main coup article which is extremely well sourced and clearly written. The coup section in this article only summarizes the portions of the main coup article which pertain to the subject-matter in question.  It is also extremely unsettling that as a response to my note, Pantherarosa as a way of pushing this OR has removed the link in the "coup" section to the main coup article with the puzzling description "Removed obsolete reference to 'main article'". This is clearly vandalism. Please cease and desist. If you feel that there are problems with the article please discuss here instead of reverting without explanation. Poyani (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pantherarosa, you have again reverted with the statement "Reverted from POV and Mutilation of Article. People with a POV AGENDA and a blatant lack of relevant knowledge keep messing with this article".  One more time I am going to note that it is not our place to determine the lack of knowledge of another user or even to present our own knowledge in these article.  The material has to represent the sources. No matter how knowledgeable you think you are about this subject, if the material you are presenting is not presented with reliable sources, it is just Original Research, which is not admissible.  Furthermore, I do not appreciate the grotesque message you left on my talkpage. Poyani (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You left a disgusting message full of profanity on my talk page in Farsi.  The IP is same as yours. Your impression of me is irrelevant.  Whatever you think about the subject matter is irrelevant. If you have no sources, you have nothing to write here.  Stop wasting everyone's time and read WP:FORUM. It clearly states "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts".  It doesn't matter what you think you know or what you think I know about this subject matter.  If you don't have sources, do not put your claims in the article. Poyani (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting POV edits and unsourced material 

message: Zahedi did not replace Mohammad Mosaddegh through a coup d'état. Mosaddegh was unlawfully retaining power, was lawfully dismissed by the Shah, and Zahedi was lawfully appointed as new PM. There was no coup. I have corrected the false claim that the removal of Mossadegh and appointment of Zahedi by the Shah was in violation of the Constitution. Clause 46 clearly gives the Shah this power.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawful appointment, not coup 

message: The so-called coup d'état in 1953 did not end the era of constitutional monarchy and replace it by direct rule of the Shah. The constitution was not changed, the country continued to have a parliament and elected government.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1953 coup not end to constitutional monarchy 

message: If Zahedi was born in 1897 and died in 1963, as the article claims, he cannot have been 73 at his death. I'm not sure how to correct this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.156 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Age at death wrong

message: An article on Iran-Germany relations in ww2 says that Zahedi was suspected of being a pro-nazi sympathizer who was planning an uprising, and that is why he was interned. I see nothing about this on his article, is that claim true? 
If it is, please update the article, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.200.33 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  return from internment, internment not mentioned anywhere else