Talk:Reza Shah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reza Shah was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: Error: invalid time
WikiProject Iran Reza Shah 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 article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[edit] Exile in South Africa

Please had more to this section. There is some mention in the internet Reza Shah helped establish the apartheid system there.


[edit] Relations with Germany

The guy was an unspeakable fascist and a clear Nazi sympathizer. To say he dispised the Nazis is just naive. I've added NPOV tag to the corresponding section. --Sennaista 20:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illiterate?

I have heard it said that Reza Pahlavi was illiterate. Is this true? It is not mentioned in the article.

No, this is not true. His handwriting is still available. He certainly did not have a very advanced education, however. Few Iranians had in those times anyway.

[edit] De-tribalizing of Iran

I was told that Reza Pahlavi did much to remove tribal politics from the Iranian scene. According to the account that I heard, his methods were brutal. He took all the sons away from tribal chiefs. This eldest, he had killed. The others, he sent for schooling in the West. True? If so, it deserves mention in this article.

Yes, all of that's true. That's how the Bakhtiari elite (Teymur Bakhtiar, Khalil Esfandiary Bakhtiari et al.) became so well-educated, a tradition that has continued to this day with family members such as Rudi Bakhtiar. There are plenty of sources available about all this. Users SouthernComfort and Zereshk are very knowledgeable about Iranian history in general, and would probably be happy to give you some pointers. --Jpbrenna 19:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He was not illiterate

[edit] His Imperial Majesty

SC, after reading the Wikipedia guidelines you cited, it seems to me that you've misunderstood. It would be OK to say, Reza, Shah of Iran, or Mohammed Reza, Shah of Iran. Name, then title. But "His Imperial Majesty" is an honorific, not a descriptor. Suppose one doesn't want to honor Reza Shah? Suppose one loathes and despises the Pahlavis? It's much as if someone were to write an article about a Pope and consistently refer to him as "His Holiness". Someone who isn't a Roman Catholic might well object to this usage. I don't say "His Holiness" when I talk about the Pope, and I don't think Wikipedia should. Ditto pompous honorifics for rulers.

Are you a monarchist, that this is important to you? Zora 05:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. I just looked through the history of the article. The article didn't have any honorific until July 8 of this year, when an anon introduced it. Zora 05:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Zora - "His Imperial Majesty" is a style, and technically, we do use these at the beginning of biographical articles on people who held them - at least, we tend to. There is some considerable dispute over whether we should do this or not, but note, say Pope Benedict XVI and George V of the United Kingdom, for examples of articles on both living and dead monarchs which list their style at the beginning. I completely agree with you that we should not "consistently refer to" monarchs, and so forth, by their styles. Sentences like "His Imperial Majesty then did this," ought to be cut out, if there are any. But that does not seem to be the case here. As to objecting to this usage, this argument is frequently made, but I remain unconvinced. To say that an Emperor is an Imperial Majesty is simply to note that "His Imperial Majesty" is a style which is attached to the office of Emperor. "His Holiness" is similarly attached to the office of Pope - it says nothing normative about the Holiness of the Pope, it is simply a traditional address attached to a title. Whether or not these should be included (I tend to think they should be, not so much for people like Popes and Kings, but for princes and princesses, whose style is often rather more difficult to predict if you don't know the intricacies of the rules - for instance, some Princes of Denmark are royal highnesses, and some are just highnesses.) remains an open question, but I'm not sure about the POV claim - it is no more POV to state that Reza Shah Pahlavi held the style of Imperial Majesty than it is to say that he was Shah of Persia/Iran. Whether you like him or not (I don't particularly care for either of the Pahlavis), he was the Shah, and as the Shah, he held the style of Imperial Majesty. The issue becomes more complicated for royalty of countries which are no longer royalties, but this issue does not arise with actual reigning monarchs. john k 05:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persian vs. Iranian

Could you, if you will, please have a look into the following dispute on the Zoroastrian talk page.

Talk:Zoroastrianism#Persian_vs._Iranian

Thanks in advance. Str1977 10:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

This article shoud move to Reza Shah. Usually, Reza Pahlavi refers to Mohammad-Reza shah's son (Reza Shah's grandson). Bidabadi 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I agree. Shervink 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)shervink

[edit] Marjoribanks

A rather brief article for such an important figure. I might add some material from Cyrus Ghani's excellent Iran and the rise of Reza Shah, not to mention some of Robert Byron's wickedly funny observations on his regime from The Road to Oxiana.

خدا حافظ

Sikandarji 23:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs more images and content.

I was wondering if anyone could help locate more images for this article. For example, this image on Fa.WP; it's a great photo, but I don't know anything about the copyright. In North America and Europe, the copyright is life plus 70 years; what are the copyright laws for Iran? Other than that, I'd like to find other photos that we could possibly use (on the Reza Shah Farsi WP article, there is also a stamp image). Once this article starts getting longer (which I hope we can all do), it'll need more images. ♠ SG →Talk 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just did a major cleanup of the article. Still more work to be done, but at least it's a start. Comments? Let's get this article going! ♠ SG →Talk 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

I've nominated Reza Shah for good article status. I think the article has gone through extensive changes in the past while, enough to warrant the nomination. Comments? ♠ SG →Talk 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewer Comments

I've droped by to review the article. It looks like a solid candidate. Before I promote it, however, I'd like to see more inline references as it is difficult to tell where all the information in this entry is from. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just added some more references. I believe that should take care of the lot of it, but are any other there any statements that you feel need referencing? ♠ SG →Talk 19:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick work! I'd like to see some references in the Rise to power section and the Family section. Also, something to back up the tomb destruction.--CTSWyneken(talk) 19:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I added three more references, one of which is used twice, so only two unique refs. I might have to move the third ref to the end of Overthrow of the Qajar dynasty, because it gives info for the second and third paragraphs of that section, not just the second. What do you think? ♠ SG →Talk 20:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I've got to go out of town this weekend, but will look in again Monday. It's close enough to promote now, I think, but one or two more wouldn't hurt, esp. for anything that people might think, "Oh, really?" Very nice work here by all concerned, by the way. This is just small, picky stuff. --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting ready to go out in a bit, but I'll see if I can throw in a couple more refs tomorrow. Thanks for your help! ♠ SG →Talk 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty, that should take care of the references. Added a few more, of which the "mausoleum destruction" was probably most important. ♠ SG →Talk 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Done! Congrats! The article has been promoted. --CTSWyneken(talk) 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for your help in improving the article, and thanks for promoting it! ♠ SG →Talk 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surnames

The article is unclear when he adopted Pahlavi as his surname? Or when any of his surnames were adopted, dropped, and adopted? Could someone in the know make this more clear in the article?Mowens35 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

RE surname, then check out the genealogical link at the bottom of the article ... His father's last was Khan, as were his siblings. He didn't adopt Pahlavi until later in life. How do we handle this? It has to be handled properly and not ignored.Mowens35 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also have to explain what Mirpanj means and also later title ... can't just plunk them into the text without explaining what they are and what they mean.Mowens35 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't write the whole article, and I do not know the answers to all your questions. You can look them up if you like and add them. Shervink 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)shervink
Yeah, that's my fault. I added in his name changes, but I wasn't exactly sure why they occurred. I'll see what information I can dig up about it tomorrow. ♠ SG →Talk 06:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes by 24.81.87.152

The recent changes by 24.81.87.152 did appear to have some merit, and new sources, however it also removed sources, so its hard to justify the edit as a move towards NPOV; it feels more like a switch of POV, especially removing "the Great". To the contributor 24.81.87.152, feel free to re-introduce these changes slowly so others can review them (i.e. only edit one section at a time). If in doubt whether others will agree that the changes are for the better, talk about the changes here first to gather concensus. John Vandenberg 08:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by A Historian

I have changed the previous version after seeing a student has used it as a source for his essay on the "Roots of Discontent in the Iranian Revolution". The student completely absolved the dictatorship of Reza Shah of any wrong doing and responsibility for creating a condition that resulted in the post war unrest in Iran that continued under the tyrannical rule of his son and ultimately caused the pendulum of history swing to a different direction. After reading the article I came to the conclusion that it is urgent to revise the article before other students also get a biased impression in favour of that tyrant.

Now I have at my disposal a library of more that 2000 books, and more than 150000, documents. It would be unrealistic to list them all. That’s why I offered few sources that I thought would satisfy a scholarly mind, but I welcome any inquiry about any of the thesis in the new version.

As for the title of “Great”, it would have been legitimate if the history had conferred that title to him as a sovereign. To call a despot ‘the Great’, because a Muppet parliament had voted by the dictate of his son, is beyond any reasonable credit.

I plan to read other pages related to recent history and edit them if needed. However, this may take a long time, as I am a busy man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artaxerex (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Firstly of all, Im glad you created an account and come here to explain your contributions.
Im sure you will agree that the student is solely responsible for any conclusion in an essay; Wikipedia records facts and opinions of notable people; it does not present its own synthesised opinion, and should not be used as a source, nor should it need to be used as a source. A well written Wikipedia article will have copious sources so that the reader doesnt need to cite wikipedia. It is great that you want to get involved in improving this article, but in your haste you neglected to take my advice in #changes by 24.81.87.152. I specifically asked you to introduce your changes one section at a time, and only in the rarest case should you be removing sources in the article. As you will see, you have replaced the old problems with new problems, and usually everyone feels more comfortable with the old problems, so your work ends up being reverted. Anyway, its Sunday here and you have created an account, so here is a critical review of your contributions. After writing this, I will start slowly melding the old and your new contributions in the hope the final result is better. John Vandenberg 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Great

Where the article used the title of 'the Great' , it does not imply he was great; just that he was referred to as that. Unless you have a source that says nobody ever referred to him as 'the Great', it is an accurate title. In relation to that change, you replaced by vote of parliament to as a dictator he demanded the Parliament, which its members were hand-picked by himself to call him, however you did not provide a source for any of the facts you added:

  1. he was dictator
  2. he hand-picked the parliament
  3. he demanded that they call him that

The way you have written it here is clearly to ensure that people dont get the wrong impression, however the result is that you are jamming statements of fact into this sentence without any hope of being able to adequately address them. In the very least, the use of the word "dictator" needs to go as over-simplistic. John Vandenberg 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"over-simplistic” ! I am surprised. An overwhelming majority of the Persian sources of various political persuasions consider this as a fact – as I do. You only need to read the speeches of the members of the majles after the dictator was sent to exile. However, let’s look at some of the English sources:
  • Barry Rubin, Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran, Oxford University Press Inc. 1980, ISBN o 14 00 5964 4 AACR2 “Reza Shah operated more like a traditional monarch. He would not delegate authority. The bureaucracy trembled before him since anyone might be whisked away with the Shah's DICTATE. He preferred prestigious construction projects to more necessary irrigation work. He feared rather than promoted any mobilization of the people. Etc." Sounds dictatorial, doesn’t it?
  • Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: American Failure in Iran, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1981. ISBN 0-394-51657 AACRI “Mohammad Reza systematically discarded from power all men who might have developed a popular base of support. While his methods were not as ruthless as those of Reza Shah, he made it clear that he did not wish to have strong-minded men in the position of prime minister.” Sounds dictatorial, doesn’t it?
  • Roy Mottahedeh, The Mantle of the Prophet, Religion and Politics in Iran, Pantheon Books, New York, 1985.ISBN 0-394-74865-4 “The (Reza) shah and the new intellectuals now lived in an uneasy symbiosis. Some of the new intellectuals refused to betray the ideals of (the Constitutional Revolution) of 1906 and refused to take their place in the national forced march even if it was going in a direction they wanted. These men went to prison, into exile, or committed suicide as did (Davar) the author of Reza Shah’s new law codeSounds dictatorial, doesn’t it?
  • Richard W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran, University of Pittsburgh Press 1979. ISBN o-8229-3596-7 “This inability to win clear public acceptance on nationalist grounds in turn compelled both father (Reza Shah) and son to resort to strongly repressive policies to control the Iranian people” Sounds dictatorial, doesn’t it?
  • Nikki R. Keddie and Yann Richard, Roots of Revolution, 1981, Yale University, ISBN 0-300-02606-4 AACR2
"Political life under Reza Shah was extremely limited, owing to the Shahs DESPOTIC CONTROLS and SUPPRESSION of OPPOSITION The prominent poet Eshqi was early assassinated for his opposition to the new ruler...Mohammad Mosaddeq, ..., continued briefly to attack Reza Shah's programs in the majles. He was soon put out of office and retired to his estate, re-emerging to prominence in WWII. Other high=level oppositionists either kept quite or were, at least for a time, co-opted by the regime, as was the former democratic leader of the constitutional revolution, Sayyed Hassan Taqizadeh, who became minister of finance and minister to England.
More striking was the fate of some of Reza Shah’s top advisers and aides. Abdol Hossein Taimurtash,.., died in prison after the oil negotiation of 1933, in which the shah suspected him of double-dealing. Sardar As’ad Bakhtiyari,…, become a leading supporter of Reza Shah, but was arrested and murdered in prison. Lesser men suspected of disloyalty were similarly treated…The majles became A RUBBER STAMP and the constitution was paid lip service only. Communist and socialist groups and propaganda were outlawed.” Sounds dictatorial, doesn’t it?


There are such references in virtually every pertinent historical book in English (and I can provide you with more), The Persian Books are even more explicit).
On the subject of “Great” I have not seen a single book in English that refers to him as “Reza Shah the Great”. Have you seen one?
When I was a young man in Iran people called him “Reza Khan the Thug (Qoldor)”. Young girls used to play a game that accompanied a song about him that can be translated as follows: They tricked you, they put a false crown over your head, do not think that you are a king. You are their black slave” (Sar beh saret gozashtan, kolah beh saret gozashtan. Khial nakon to shahie,to qolame siahie). This does not sound like the song of a people for their great king. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artaxerex (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
(btw, I havent looked through this recent set of sources but thank you in advance for finding them -- any evidence of his dictatorship will find a place in the article in time)
wrt to "the great", I've not added it back to the title and lead sentence because I took heed of the points you have made earlier. I am not knowledgable enough on the topic to "push" for "the great" to be mentioned outside of the "Name" section.
wrt to using "dictator" in this section, you seem to have missed my point. I do not doubt he was a dictator; I dont care that he was a dictator or not; I just dont like the word "dictator" being added to the section "Name" because that section should be succinct and dedicated to his various names. Using the word "dictator" in that section of the article resulted in an awkward sentence. Quite simply, there is no room in that sentence to squeeze in any reasonable justification for using the word "dictator". I have reworded the sentence; what do you think of it? John Vandenberg 10:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overthrow of the Qajar dynasty

In this section you moved "the role of the British" to the first paragraph and reworded it from a "sources say" to "popular view". Now I dont know offhand whether it is an accepted fact, and im willing to accept the number of sources support that, however I cant understand why you think it is more important to mention the "view" of the British role before the "real-true-undeniable-facts" of what happened. By doing so you have pushed the facts of the matter down. John Vandenberg 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"the role of the British" is the "real-true-undeniable-facts" of what happened. Is it not strange? First you question if Reza khan was a dictator. Now you question the "role of British". May I ask why you are acting as an editor for this subject? Do you understand that the object is to provide an unbised source of information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artaxerex (talk • contribs) 09:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
As I said in my comment to the last section, I do not doubt he was a dictator -- you assumed that. And again here, I did NOT question the role of the British. I even said "im willing to accept the number of sources support that". Please stop leaping to conclusions and try to have faith in your fellow Wikipedians intention.
What I was pointing out was that you have rearranged this section and put more weight on the role of the British. The article says that the British's involvement is a "popular view" (those are your words) -- even using that phraseology, the British involvement should not carry as much weight as the stated facts of the matter -- i.e. the number of troops, their training, where they first started marching from. Those facts are the undeniable ones. On the other hand, the role of the British is poorly explained, and consequently doesnt currently deserve to be mentioned at the beginning of this section. The most obvious question is how did the British help? The article doesnt give any indication. Without those specifics, the role of the British is only worthy of mention as an auxiliary piece of information.
Please note that I am commenting on the way the section is arranged/phrased based on the facts and sources that have been provided --- I am not disagreeing with your sources or the facts presented. If you believe that the role of the British deserves to be in the first sentence of this section, you need to provide details of how the British helped put him on the throne. John Vandenberg 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election to the Persian throne

In this section, you have removed two key dates:

  1. December 15, 1925: he took his imperial oath
  2. April 25, 1926: he receive his coronation and his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was proclaimed the Crown Prince

You also replaced two web sources with a book, which prevents many people from quickly looking at further information:

  1. named ref "pahlera": The Pahlavi Era of Iran para. 2, 3
  2. Timeline: Iran; A chronology of key events at bbc.co.uk

Now I can see you have moved the "pahlera" ref further up in the article, but it was also appropriate in this section. The BBC ref has been disappeared completely.

And in addition you have added lots of bold statements to this section, with a single source called "An Interpretive History of Modern Iran" (that book title doesnt conjure reliability)

  1. he pushed for a "republic", fiercely opposed by the powerful clergymen
  2. he forced the parliament to depose the young King
  3. he assured the landlords and the conservative clergy that he will defend Islamic law

I would be useful if you could provide an additional source for these additions; and please include ISBNs when citing books so it is easier for others to verify the book and its contents. John Vandenberg 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to check the two sources carefully, before including them. The sources for the second segment are now cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaxerex (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 February 2007
No worries. In future, when you see a statement that you arnt confident is accurate, please add {{cn}} after it. You should only remove text from Wikipedia if you can prove it is incorrect, or if you have good grounds to doubt it, and after having asked for a reference, nobody has come forward. In both cases, it is advisable to explain your actions on the talk page. The key here is that you should never take it upon yourself to remove stated facts; always try to give other Wikipedians a chance to back up the fact with sources. John Vandenberg 11:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reign and modernization

You removed an image. Why on earth would you do that?? All of the facts that were in this section have been replaced with a negative view of his reign. Could you please explain why you so heavily trimmed this section. John Vandenberg 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the image was done inadvertently. However, what you call a negative view of his reign are not my opinion, they are well documented facts. As you can see in the previous replies there are many other negative facts such as the stories of Davar and Sardar As'ad Bakhtiyary, and many others that are needed to be told. There is a book in Persian by Senator Ibrahim khajehnoori, The Players of the Golden Era, that is needed to be translated among many other books. There are many other documents that show how the Pahlavi era paved the path for what we see today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artaxerex (talk • contribs) 09:27, 4 February 2007
wrt to the image, no worries.
Please note that again I didnt doubt the negative facts here. I have no problems with the negative view being included in the article, provided it is carefully worked into the current article.
My question was why have you "heavily trimmed this section". I have added the removed image and text back into the article. If you dont believe any of the facts in this section, definately add {{cn}} so we can all see what you consider dubious. John Vandenberg 12:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with all your points. Umfortunately, I will be in Boston next month with a heavy work load. I will provide more sources when I reurn. On the British involvement Hossein Makki's 12 vol. of History of Iran in Twenty Years is an excellent source. Queen Soraya, the second wife of Mohammad Reza Shah In her memoirs (Palace of Solitude, Quartet Books, 1992, ISBN 0 7043 7020 4 implies that Reza Khan was promoted in the Cossack Brigade because of his father-in law: "Taj-al-Mullouk, my mother -in-law...Her father had commanded the cossack regiment in which her husband, Reza Khan, who was later to become Reza Shah, had done his training before becoming colonel. Was it not she, in a sense, who had promoted him in the rank of 'Shah of shahs'"

Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: American Failure in Iran, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1981. ISBN 0-394-51657-7 AACRI write: "Reza Khan had a brilliant militay career, and a remarkable stroke of luck opend the door to power at the end of the Great War, when Great Britain occupied Iran in an effort to contain the spread of the Bolshevic Revelution. As part of their anti-Communist program, the British removed all Russian officers from the Iranian Cossack Brigade and replaced them with Iranian Nationals. Reza Khan soon came to the attention of the area commander of the British trooops, Major General Sir Edmund Ironside." Nikki R. Keddie and Yann Richard, Roots of Revolution, 1981, Yale University, ISBN 0-300-02606-4 AACR2 write: " While there is no written evidence of British civilian involvment in the coup (of Reza Khan) it is now known that the commander of British militay forces in Iran, General Ironside backed Reza Khan's rise to power in the Cossak Brigade and encouraged him to undertake a coup." Richard W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran, University of Pittsburgh Press 1979. ISBN 0-8229-3596-7 writes:" By the Treaty of Freindship of 1921 with Iran, ..., (Bolshevic) Russia renounced the hated capitulations, turned over all Russian assets except the fishery industry to Iran, and promised to withdreaw Russian troop from Gilan as soon as British evacuated south Iran... Ironically , however, the Iranian government that accepted the Treaty of 1921 was that ofSayyed Zia al-Din Tabatabai, a government that Iranians considered British-sponsored. In all likelihood, The Russians shared this Iranian assessment. Even after Sayyed Zia had fled and Reza Khan had become the real power in Iran, they may well have agreed with the Iranians that British influence was being exerted in Iran through Reza Khan."

Makki thesis is that to prevent the threat of Bolshevism and to put an end to the tribal unrest and their clamours for more radical reforms British planned and executed the coup of Reza Khan through their embassy’s involvement in Tehran with the support of General Ironside (Sayyed Zia’s cabinet was humorously dubbed Iron cabinet by Iranians). Makki suggests that many of the Reza’s industrial reforms in Iran was directly advantageous for British interest. For example, in spite of the fact that economically an east-west railway system was justifiable (due to the demographic factors), Reza Khan constructed an uneconomical north-south system, which was of greater benefit for the British who had a military presence in the south of Iran. The British strategic defence plan for the transfer of their troops to Russia in the north required a north-south railway. Should the Bolsheviks have threatened the British colonial interests in the Indian subcontinent, this strategic defence system would have compensated for Britain’s geographical distance.


Artaxerex 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is truly sad to see how one person, with little capacity of decent english writing and obviously even less knowledge of Iranian history, is using this page to promote hatred and bias against Reza Shah. The mere language used by this person shows that he/she cannot be an academic person, let alone an unbiased one. I demand that this article, which after all had been rated as "good", be returned to its original and stable state, and "any additions", which will probably be controversial given the changes that we have already seen, be proposed first on the talk page, discussed thoroughly, and then incorporated into the article. Shervink 14:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)shervink
Thanks for only partly reverting. the {{cn}}'s that you have left behind give Artaxerex ample to work on. And I agree with shervink; new content that alters the POV of the article should be discussed here, so that it can be reviewed and the article can be improved slowly. John Vandenberg 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOPV Model

  • Shervinek’s personal attacks on Artaxerex are uncalled for. His innuendos and vandalism in inserting numerous citation tags in the middle of various sentences which is cheered by his chum John Vandenberg is appalling.
  • Wikipedia is not a propaganda forum for Iranian monarchists, republicans or any other groups.
  • The discussion of the Reza Shah role in the Iranian history should be in NPOV voice. That does not mean one can delete all the negative points about his character and his rule, and stress on his titles such as Great that was given to him by a puppet parliament. The fact that he was a ruthless dictator collected a vast fortune through embezzlements and confiscating lands, that who concentrated power in his hands through murdering his opponents, and used censorships and torture are well documented.
  • Stalin, Franco, and Pinochet among others had the same characters as Reza shah. Thus wikipedia pages on these characters can be used as a NPOV model for Reza’s Page. For example, in Stalin case we read in Wikipedia that

    “Stalin's rule had long-lasting effects on the features that characterized the Soviet state from the era of his rule to its collapse in 1991… Stalin's rule - reinforced by a cult of personality - fought real and alleged opponents mainly through the security apparatus,... Millions of people were killed through famines, executions, deportations, and in the Gulag.”

Similarly for Franco we read:

“Student revolts at universities in the late 60s and early 70s were violently repressed by the heavily-armed Policia Nacional (National Police), ...Franco continued to personally sign all death warrants until just months before he died, despite international campaigns requesting him to desist.

And for Pinochet we read

“The regime's violence was directed against dissidents. It is not known exactly how many people were killed by government and military forces during the 17 years that he was in power, but the Rettig Report concluded that 2,279 persons who disappeared during the military government were killed for political reasons, and at least 30,000 tortured according to the Valech Report, and several thousand persons were exiled.”

  • Nobody has asked for citation in any of these lines, and nobody accused the writer of those lines of using the page “to promote hatred and bias against Stalin, Franco,” This accusation is preposterous. When one reads various Iranian parliamentarians’ speeches (delivered immediately after Reza Shah was sent to exile, particularly that of Ali Dashti’s) the parallels and similarities of the Reza shah, Stalin, Franco, and Pinochet rules becomes quite evident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.80.199.91 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
First of all, I did not insult anybody. If Artaxerex (whose user id had been supposed to be Artaxerxes I assume!) feeled isulted, I wonder why he himself did not say so. In any case I sincerely hope that my tone was not inappropriate.
Secondly, I congratulate you on your insightful comment ragrding the personalities of four different historical figures. It seems that in your opinion, saying that all of them were "the same" is not a generalization, nor is it pov!
Thirdly, saying he was a dictator is ridiculous. Sure, Iran wasn't a democracy in his time, but then one would have to add this term to the articles on most monarchs throughout history. He was a monarch.
This article is in a terrible situation. The reason is the one-sided editing applied to it, which has obviously no regard for neutral writing. I do not have the time or the desire to engage in a lengthy discussion with wannabe historians. However, I think there can be no doubt that this article, in its present state, does not meet the good article criteria. I will therefore remove it from the list. Shervink 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
* This pipsqueak who does not want to engage in a lengthy discussion with wannabe historians, apparently thinks it would be suffice to assert his verdicts and expects that they be accepted as facts. He tries to pretend that Reza was a legitimate monarch, and not a ruffian doughboy who betrayed the trust of his true monarch, the young Ahmad shah. He is quite cute in his judgement about the article not meeting the good article criteria. Faranbazu 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Watch your language please. Your tone is totally inappropriate. Shervink 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
Do you mean you can call people "wannabe historians", and make various sarcastic remarks about them, and one can not infer from these that the writer is a pipsqueak?! Furthermore, your reverence for Reza Shah should not instil in any human-right advocate an intense feeling of contempt?!! Faranbazu 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, watch your language please. I'm not saying that facts about Reza Shah's autocratic rule should not be included. All I'm saying is that both good and bad things about his rule must be included objectively. You cannot selectively choose only those sources which attack him. Even in those cases where you use these sources, you cannot claim their content to be necessarily the truth, you should simply quote this and that person as saying this and that. Don't add analysis on your behalf. It might be good also if you read the wikipedia guidelines regarding sources and how to include them. As for being a human rights advocate, welcome to the club. I'm an amnesty activist myself. Shervink 09:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

[edit] Bad reference deleted

I deleted this reference/source because of it's biased POV and unreliability:

Black, Edwin Despite Holocaust denial, Iran seen to have worked with Nazis http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=16133&intcategoryid=2

Edwin Blacks article is full of factual inaccuracies, inpossibilities, exaggerations, lies and unsourced claims.

For example Black claims "Iranian Nazis" served in the Muslim Waffen-SS Division "Handschar". There is absolutely no evidence to this. I challenge anyone to back this claim up with some facts/evidence. Handschar consisted almost exlusively of Bosnians and other Balkan-Muslims. He also claims the "Handschar" SS-Division openly recruited in Tehran. The "Handschar" Waffen-SS Division was created in 1943. This was two years after Reza Shah abdicated and during the height of the Allied occupation of Iran. Blacks claim of Handschar-recruitment is not only unlikely... it's pretty much impossible.

Furthermore Black connects policies and crimes of the Grand Mufti Amin-Hajj al-Hosseini with Reza Shah, despite the fact that most of these happened after Reza Shahs abdication and had nothing to do with him.

Black also tries to paint Reza Shah (and also Mohammed Reza Shah) as a genocidal antisemite. Actually Reza Shah Pahlavi granted Jews equal rights, paid them respect in a synagogue and made a social and economical flourishing of Jews in Iran possible. The Pahlavi reign (father and son) was undoubtly the most free and safest time for Iranian Jews since ancient times. There undoubtly was pro-German/Nazi sentiment in Iran during the 1930's. Yet to describe Reza Shah as an Hitleresque antisemite on the same level as the Grand Mufti Hosseini is shameful, ridiculous and without substance.

Also Blacks anti-Iran hit-piece seems to see no difference between Iranians and Arabs and their respective policies during the 1930's and 1940's. The radical Pan-Arab and Islamist policies and movements are thrown together with the policies of Reza Shah who had infact strict anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, pro-Western, pro-secular and "Iranian-first" policies.

I therefore decided to delete this source as a reference. The concerned section in the article ("Persia was renamed Iran to emphesize the Aryan roots") remained untouched.

Striped cat 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Striped cat|

[edit] Extremely biased

The entire Article is extremely biased and POV against Reza Shah Pahlevi. I'm not going to alter it right now, but the first paragraph.

"He established a repressive and corrupt regime[2] that valued Persian nationalism, militarism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism combined with strict censorship and state propaganda[3][4]"

This is extremely one-sided. Only the most negative aspects are listed. No word about the reforms, secularisation and modernisation. State propaganda and censorship is nothing particular about Reza Shah. Same can be said about EVERY state back then (even Western democracies) and also many, if not most, countries today. For comparison the Khomeini article doesn't include any such references in it's leading paragraph. A more balanced leading paragraph should be written (I have changed it a bit as an temporariy solution), paying attention to both his authoritarian and strict rule, but also to his reforms and modernisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Striped cat (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Nonsense. The terms one uses to depict the regimes of such historical truculents, such as Benito Musolini, terms like "State-propaganda" and "sensorship" can be regarded as veritable compliments when applied to Reza Shah. In fact, Reza Shah's actions were by far more oppresive, and harsh than Musolini, and it is a true warping of history to deny this fact. Some my believe that history can be rewritten by the interest group, and that has given precise rise to such proponents to the truth, enyclopedias such as Wikipedia, which allow fact to be discerned from oppressive fiction. The article is shamefully silent about the savagery of Reza and his overall corruption. I have not the time right now to correct this, I will do so in an opportune time. I just hope to make my views known, and hopefully others will question the "known" facts and allow me the opportunity to explain in verifiable and researched arguments, as opposed to opinionated commentary that I see written here. Faranbazu 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The article at the moment is indeed biased. "Modernised" was changed to "Tried socio-economic reforms"?! there is no question that Iran and its modern development as we know it today was started by Reza Shah. Comparing Reza Shah to Musolini is like comparing Ata turk to Hitler. This was a nationalist phase throughout the world and even if Reza Shah was in a way promoting ethnic nationalism, he never went as far as many others went. Looking at attempts by imperialist states at the time especially the soviets, arguably if it wasn't for his efforts the country would have been seperated (and indeed it was for short periods). No matter how dirty facts are, they should be seen in that historical phase and context --Rayis 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To assert that "there is no question that Iran and its modern development" was started by Reza Shah, is ludicrous at best, but not ludicrous enough: the exaggeration is the first trait of an Iranian monarchist anyway, so for want of historicity or originality the joke falls horribly flat.

For the truth is that Amir Kabir started the modernization process a century before. Amir Kabir founded the first European-style faculty, supported the foundation of the first Persian newspaper, established and planned for almost all of industries in Iran including steel factory, ship making, textile, weaponry, sugar, glass, and metal manufacturing,(the first Import Substitution policy in the history of economic development). Amir Kabir established strict customs procedures to reduce importation from Britain and made a strong and stable economy. He introduced patent regulation and supported entrepreneurial activities by providing them with loans and credit facilities. He enforced quarantine and mandatory vaccination to prevent disease outbreaks and epidemics. He made improvements in military, in discipline, salaries and establishing Navy, and extended Persian influence in Northern and Eastern borders. What Reza did was a destruction of these achievements. To assert that Reza prevented the country to be disintegrated (or in the words of Rayis; Separated!) is another flat joke. Artaxerex 23:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerxes, the country was "disintegrated" (if that is your preferred word), to soviet backed "republics", for more information feel free to investigate this. If you prefer to calls these "jokes", that is fine but such comments without sources are not really appreciated, especially when given in a provoking manner. See WP:Civil. Regards, --Rayis 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is biased in favor of Reza Shah.

The article whitewashes all the negative aspects of Reza's regime. There is no hint to be found in this article that his regime's atrocities and corruptions (augmented and exacerbated by the excesses of Mohammad Reza), were direct causes of the subsequent tragic historical events in Iran.

The so-called modernization program which his apologists refer to was not anything but the implementation of Lord Curzon’s plan after the Versailles, and Paris 1919 to create a viable buffer in Mesopotamia and Persia to safeguard British India's interests. In fact, construction of the railway, the reorganization of the government and other items in the so-called Reza Shah’s modernization efforts were among the items in the lopsided 1919 treaty that Curzon wanted to impose on Persians by bribing Vosough-ud-dula, Firooz and Sarem-ud-dula. When the three stooges could not deliver, Ironside arranged for the coup of Reza Khan. The article is also quiet about the murderous acts of assassinating Eshghi, Taimoortash, Davar, Modaress, etc. As well, various acts of corruptions like the embezzlement of public funds, the confiscation of private lands, and so on and so forth are totally ignored. I intend to write a NPOV as soon as I have some time. Meanwhile I have asked some students of mine to watch the article, for disturbing propaganda and historical distortions.

Artaxerex 20:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Artaxerex (or Artaxerxes?),
Please contribute to the article. Nobody is trying to stop you. But do not remove sourced material which correctly describes the positive aspects of his reign. Also, whenever you add something negative you have to say who has said this, i.e. quote your sources, don't state the material as undisputed facts. Additionally, as per wikipedia guidelines, we are not supposed to add our own analysis. Wikipedia articles are not research papers. They must be NPOV, inclusive of all credible sources, and verifiable. As for asking others to "watch" the article, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. But the hostile attitude that your sentences project are not encouraging. Wikipedia is open to all editors, and you should understand that before doing anything around here. Thanks for your cooperation.Shervink 10:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
Artaxerex, as per Essjay controversy please do not refer to your current or background scholar positions while discussing this article, it does not make any difference. Thanks --Rayis 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Shervink

As I have asked you and your associates in neumeous times before, please do not use Wikipedia as a monarchist propaganda platform. I am not sure what is your background, but it appears that you are not paying any attention to all the references I have provided for my contributions. The resort to sock puppets to distort historical facts is deplorable. As I have mentioned before, Wikipedia is used by many students as a reference source. Thus we have to be honest and truthful in our statements. What I have contributed up to now all are from reliable academic sources (many of which are recorded in this very page). All your positive comments are from questionable websites or non-academic aticles that are not piere reviewed. If You have any specific question about any of my information I will be more than happy to provide you with the references. I intend to write a more balanced and more accurate essay based on verifiable documents. However, in the meatime please let me to maintain my hostile attitude towards those who resort to fiction and distortion of facts.

Artaxerex 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Artaxerex (or Artaxerxes?),

I frankly don't know what you are talking about. I don't have any "associates" here, and I don't know even a single contributor of this article in person. Regarding a post from one of your supposed "students", there are no "camps" here.

You should read wikipedia guidelines before writing here. Merely adding references does not allow you to delete other people's work. All views need to be included. Regarding sockpuppets, I don't have any, and I don't know what that accusation is about. Feel free to check if you like.

As for the use of wikipedia by students, I think it is your responsibility to teach students to check validity of articles themselves, rather than copying them down. It doesn't matter whether it's wikipedia or britannica or Iranica.

I will not allow you to maintain a "hostile attitude", because it's contrary to wikipedia guidelines and spirit. You will simply be blocked from editing if you show hostility. I hope that is clear. People are supposed to act in a civillized manner.

I suggest returning the article to the last GA status article, and then adding any NPOV material that you or anybody else can provide after discussion on the talk page.

Oh and finally, it's peer review, not piere review! Shervink 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

* Alas pipsqueakery at its best -- again?! Margaret Atwood writs of how she could not spell the word 'Busy', and that didn't bother her as a writer of some consequences. Only a Persian English speaking hot shotlike you never finds the need to use Spell Check!!!! Faranbazu 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings by the above comment, I think that should be clear from the context, and I apologize to Artaxerex (Artaxerxes?) if it is not, although he did not raise any concerns over my remark himself. It struck me, however, as a very strange thing that someone claiming to have an academic job does not correctly spell a word so frequently used in academic life. As for your response to my comment, please be polite. I have warned you several times regarding the tone of your posts and I expect you to behave properly here, otherwise any discussion is pointless. Shervink 09:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
Thanks for correcting my spelling error, but comme l' historien a dit: soit prudent de vos faits historiques soit inquiétée des erreurs d'orthographe. However, you are right I have to be more careful with my spelling.--Artaxerex 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial Integrity is Vital for Wikipedia

I like wikipedia. It has democratized the access to epistemology, for which it is becoming a valuable source. Unfortunately, for many people subscription to sites such as the JSTORE, to gain access to the scholarly pier reviewed articles, is financially prohibitive, and here is the place that Wikipedia plays it’s the most important role. I am saddened that the history department at Vermont’s Middlebury College has band students from using the site in citations. Sadly Don Wyatt the department’s chair is quoted as saying that the recent Essjay embarrassment is “vindicating in an interesting way”. My feeling is that Don should, and he could, mobilize his department,like many others throughout the world, to work on improving wikipedia content and preventing people like Rayan Jordan to damage such an important source for students. Nevertheless, I agree with Dan Brandt of Wikipedia Watch, who said “if you’re going to intrude in the social sphere, you have to be accountable for it”. It is in this spirit that I welcome Jimmy Wales’s initiative, announced yesterday that I understand would exert some degrees of scrutiny on the editors who exhibit some inappropriate agenda. This would hopefully weed out the postings by interest groups that either purposefully or inadvertently undermine the credibility of this source.

It should be clear that on the Reza Shah page we are already having such a problem, with some editors trying to portray an oppressive and corrupt dictatorial regime which destructed a fledging democracy, by ignoring the rules of law and by total disregard for a hard won constitution as a kind of moderniser and liberator. Despite the fact that there are ample evidences that the process of modernization in Iran was started during Amir Kabir, and the modernization program of Reza khan was at most a rehashing of the provisions of the 1919 treaty of Lord Curzon with Vosough-ud-dulah, these editors insist to distort the history. 140.80.199.91 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghani's book

Ghani's book is by far the most thorough source for the information about the rise of Reza shah to power. It hasn't been mentioned in this article. Jahangard 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] About the 1919 agreement

Dear Jahangard, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are genuinly unaware of the implementation of the 1919 agreement by Reza shah. Under the terms of the Agreement Britain, after pledging respect for Persia's integrity, undertook to provide expert Advisers for her Treasury and any other departments of government that needed them (in effect, to bring them under the British control == Reza shah implemented this socalled reform); to second military officers for the reorganization of Persian army (incorporating the South Persia Rifles to create a subservient army == implemented by Reza shah) and to provide munitions and other material for its equipment; to help her revise her Customs tariff ; to assist her in the planning and construction of new railway and road projects (mainly to create the necessary infrastructure for Curzon’s strategic defense system of India == implemented by Reza shah); and finally, the carrot after the stick, a loan of £2million to be secured on customs and other revenue. In two letters addressed to the Persian Government simultaneously with the Agreement Britain promised (a larger carrot) to 'reconsider' current treaties to which Persia objected-this was understood by both parties to mean that the British would eventually, under proper safeguards, agree to the abolition of Consular courts, the so called, 'capitulations' (which Reza shah took credit for). Faranbazu 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Your sources don't support your sentence. Reza shah didn't implement the 1919 agreement and that's a fact. About your calims, I should remind that:
  1. Reza shah didn't bring Iran under British control. He actually gradually fired all the foreign advisors.
  2. Reorganazing Persian army and abolishing the South Persia Rifles (which were under British control) was in spite of British will, not because of it.
Your historical analysis is, at best, an example of Original Research, if not a deliberate distortion of historical sources. Jahangard 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a clear POV by the monarchist camp. Your distortion of historical facts is sickening.

According to Harold Nicolson, "it was largely owing to…Sir Percy Loraine [the British Ambassador in Iran], that he [Reza Khan] owed his...rise to power. After the collapse of Lord Cruzon’s Anglo-Persian Treaty of 1919, it was evident that Persia was heading for complete disintegration; only hope was that she could be renovated under strong leadership from within; Sir Percy rightly foresaw that Reza Khan was capable of such regeneration. See: Benab, Younes P. The Soviet Union and Britain in Iran, 1917-1927: A Case Study of the Domestic Impact of East-West Rivalry. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1974. Stop Vandaliasm!Faranbazu 06:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? Nicolson accepts that the disintegration of Persia didn't happen, because of Reza Shah. That is not a new thing. Most of the historians, as well as most of the average Iranians give Reza Shah credit for that. How does it support your claim (about the implementation of the 1919 agreement by Reza Shah)?! The only thing that you can conclude from Nicolson's comment is that in his opinion, Sir Percy Loraine was leaning toward Reza Shah and was optimistic about him. Indeed, Curzon (the British minister) didn't share Loraine's opinion and that's why the Foriegn Office ended Loraine's appointment in Iran. Jahangard 07:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you not decfipher a simple inference by yourself?

Here is the logic of the argument:
1. Bolshovics agitated for reforms,
2. Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 was demanded certain reform that would further the interests of British empire,
3. A hundred days after the collapse of the agreement,and the signing of the Persian agreement with Bolshovics, Reza Khan does the coup(See the US Army history notes on Iran, and this we know was planned by General Ironside,
4. Reza khan undertakes a reform proram that exactly follows what was envisaged in the ill-fated Agreement i.e., what Nicolson referes to as "such regeneration".,

Ergo: Reza khan implemented the lord Curzon plan -- albeit in a superficial way, that ultimately destroyed the democratic constitution of Iran. Faranbazu 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OR - you are new here, so it is good if you would please read up on what is allowed and not allowed. Khorshid 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you are an old-timer you should know the following item in WP:OR;

[edit] The role British played in Reza Khan's so-called Reforms

  • Here is an interesting article published in Omid-e Iran Magazine, dated Mordad of 1331 (1952). It was reprinted in Khandaniha Magazine, Year 12th, no.100, Saturday 21 Mordad, 1331 (1952). The article is a good evidence on the role British played in Reza Khan's so-called Reforms.

“ Recently, Hossein Makki visited the Shah (Mohammad Reza) in the Marmar Palace. Shah was strolling in the beautiful garden paths adorned by cedar trees and box bushes. Makki arrived, and saluted. Shah looked at the dark and intense face of Makki and asked; Mr. Makki, your opinion about the coup (of Reza Shah) is ill-advised. Did my father served his country or betrayed it?” Makki remained silent. Shah continued: Last night I was reading the section on the conception of coup in your History of the Twenty Years, and was quite saddened by it. I thought to ask you face to face; if the reins of government didn’t come into my kingly father’s hands, where would so many of reforms; large schools, new administrative system, roads come from? Most educated elites are those students that went to Europe during the reign of my father, and today are among your comrades fighting for the national victory with a enlightened minds. Makki who is straight shooter and prides himself in being outspoken and consistent replied: Your majesty, a historian is inspired by the public opinion, and the views of the people, and a majority of the Iranian society judge your father in the way I described him in the History of the Twenty Years, and the reason for this is that the sympathy for the British interest was the principal motive of the coup of the late His majesty, your father.” This article was not denied by Shah's Palace. Later on, Makki corroborated this story in the third edition of the volume 2 of his History and wrote ‘When I was writing the History of the Twenty Years as a serial for the Iran news paper (later changed its name to Mehr-e Iran), one evening the late Majid Movaqhar the publisher of the newspaper and a member 13th Majlis entered the edit room and asked Hasshemi-e Haiery the editor in chief “are you not reading Makki’s articles? Hashemi asked; What’s the matter? Movaqhar replied; Shah summoned me and handed me the today’s paper and asked; Who is this Makki, and what is his beef? Was my father a bastard that he has written this nonsense. … Later on when I was elected as a member of parliament, one day the telephone rang and the operator told that the Palace Chief of Protocols is on the line. The chief asked me why have you not requested an audience with his majesty? I asked if it is a protocol that the elected members should request an audience? He said up to now all those who have been elected have done so. I said ; I did not know of this arrangement, if there is such a convention please determine a date for me and I will be there. He immediately gave me an appointment. Two days later I went to Marmar palace, and was led to the Shah’s office, He was keeping both hands under his arms and standing in front of his desk. He looked ponderingly at me and for couple of seconds stirred in my eyes. Then suddenly asked me if your father had a post in the Qajar court. I said no my father was a businessman, and had no relation to Qajar court. .. Then Shah came forward and asked “ Did may father served or betrayed? He paused a little and then asked “ was my father a British agent?” Had the coup of the Hout 3rd a London mark? Didn’t my father build the railway? Who established this university? Who was behind all these progress? …..I replied; A historian works with historical documents and files, I have written my History based on the documented evidences and I have cited all my sources. If you have any paper or file that contradicts the text of the History of the Twenty Years please let me see it, if it is proven that they contradict the book I will publish a retraction. I saw in his face a great pain. He looked at his watch and said: It is the future history that judges if the late His majesty was serving his country or betraying it.

Makki's documents which were published 50 years ago, and all subsequent documents clearly indicate that the coup was designed by British, to confront the Bolshoviks. The British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey understood the need for reforms , so also his successor Lord Curzon. Their only mistake was that they choose an Idi Amin protype, cruel, corrupt, and dishonest.--24.81.87.152 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (I appreciate if Shervink does an spell check for me. I usually misspell a lot when I translate so fast--Artaxerex 06:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

To Artaxerxes and all other editors concerned, please see note on Allied Propaganda below. Mehrshad123 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is not original research?

  • Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. --Faranbazu 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Reza Shah a type of math? Applying that principle to this article reeks of OR. The Behnam 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There are some bizarre POV additions being made to this article by Faranbazu - opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Mehrshad123 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not a properly conducted logical deduction, I fear. john k 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of Allied Propaganda from Fact

There is a lot of confusing information in this article involving the improper usage of Allied Propaganda from World War II to disparage Reza Shah in order to justify the invasion of Iran and his forced abdication. It should be noted that Reza Shah was the target of a large number of untrue allegations (namely being pro-German etc.) started by American, British and French press, of that time, because of his Declaration of Neutrality in World War II and his subsequent refusal to allow the Allies to use Iranian Territory to:

(a) Supply arms and support to the Russians, and

(b) Train Polish and other allied troops on Iranian soil to fight against Germans.

Indeed, the invasion of Iran and his Forced Abdication by Britain & Russia was in response to this stance.

We need to be careful about considering what is fact and fiction when it comes to Allied Press reports, and other literature about Reza Shah. Mehrshad123 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Well said my friend. The "history" they say is always written "by the victor" and here it is very true. Allied propaganda against Reza Shah has become fact in the American and British texts (and by proxy Iranian texts since Islamic Republic is against Reza Shah as well, sharing common ground with the Allies in this sense) but the true facts speak loudly enough to be clear and there is literally no evidence that Reza Shah's government was pro-German. The only relationship Iran had with Germany was trade and perhaps to some extent cultural since there were exchanges of students and scholars, but even this was minimal since Iranians overwhemingly preferred cultural exchange with France. Reza Shah himself forbade the Nazis to even go near Iranian Jews in France and also had his diplomat there to give hundreds of blank Iranian passports to French Jews to keep the Nazis from deporting them to the camps! That is the reality, not the propaganda of the British (who always hated Iranians) and the Soviets (under Stalin, master of propaganda!). Khorshid 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - And I forgot to mention above that we are indeed dealing with more than one propaganda source when it comes to the Pahlavi Dynasty. Islamists, some Arabs, current members of the Qajar family, and Communists are some of the other sources of anti-Pahlavi propaganda that should be carefully weighed for credibility. Mehrshad123 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Woah! These are really startling statements – if not revolting. Apparently, according to these individuals every historical documents were Allied Propaganda!. Nazi’s agents did not operate in Iran at all!! Germans did not build all those ugly edifices, including the Mehrabad airport with their swastikas carved all along its ceiling!! These were all created by Allied --eh? How convenient indeed; reject all historical facts as propaganda and support all your arguments by mere assertions-- Shervinak must be proud of you!

This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race, and all those paraphernalia of undemocratic and absurd titles like “King of Kings”, “Light of Aryans”, etc. They do not see how a precious hard-won constitution was utterly undermined by stupidity and haughtiness of Reza Khan -- a vassal petty officer in a Russian vassal brigade, who was always ready to change side when the result was more money in his pockets -- from Rusians to British, to Germans. The most preposterous claim is that “The only relationship Iran had with Germany was trade and perhaps to some extent cultural since there were exchanges of students and scholars, but even this was minimal since Iranians overwhelmingly preferred cultural exchange with France.” The writer does not stop for a moment to think that if Iranians overwhelmingly preferred French, why on earth then Reza khan went against this tide and established his relationships with Germans? These characters are also audaciously attributing the humanistic action of a Qajar diplomat in Paris who saved many Jewish lives to that of a despot who killed so many of the intellectuals like Eshghi, Davar, Taimoortash, Firooz, etc. --Faranbazu 05:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, keep responding with Personal Attacks and soon we won't have to deal with your repeated acts of vandalism anymore. Mehrshad123 20:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Faranbazu, you are going too far now. Calling other editors fascists, and attacking them based on their political view (which you apparently think is monarchism), are both examples of serious personal attacks. Your job here is not to judge other people's political leanings but to discuss articles in a civilized way. I insist that you for once apologize for your behavior and use a proper tone in the future. Shervink 09:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
Shervin (et al.), I think a more appropriate response is to unilaterally agree on banning the vandal. I have read his/her provocative resposes to all the editors as well as his edits and they not only lack any factual information, but also any sense of logic. Read what his response is again: He is bringing in materials that are not only products of his own mind, but also have absolutely nothing to do with this article nor this general topic at all! My gut feeling here is that he is also drawing some information from Qajar family-run websites. Notice this quote from him: "...attributing the humanistic action of a Qajar diplomat in Paris who saved many Jewish lives to that of a despot who killed so many of the intellectuals like Eshghi, Davar, Taimoortash, Firooz, etc..." . No one is putting down the Qajar Dynasty here, but their last shah, Ahmad Shah Qajar was an 11 year old child when he ascended the throne and was wide open to being eventually overthrown by Reza Shah (especially since the last Qajar was in Europe when he was officially removed from power). It appears that the Ahmad Shah Qajar, and other Qajar articles have also been tampered with. Mehrshad123 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Everbody should take a deep breath and step back a bit. Try to improve the article and stop ranting Yima 05:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"
"Yima", assuming you are not a sockpuppet of "Faranbazu", please read above note on allied propaganda. The edit you have made is entirely based on a highly dubious source (and it definitely does not belong in the "Death of Reza Shah" section). Your "source" does not appear to be very informed on this topic and seems to be very confused about German "co-operation" between "ARAB COUNTRIES OF THE MIDDLE EAST"; this has no connection with Iran. The only thing true about it is that there was a presence of German agents in Iran, but that was true for many countries of West and Central Asia at the time, just as there were British and American agents simultaneously present in all these countries. Ferdosi's work is largely Legendary and cannot be used as reference on origin of Iran, and besides what does that have to do with Reza Shah's death? The rest of your additions are also totally ridiculous: you added "Reza Shah’s regime planned for a total diversion of oil from the Allies to the Nazis, in exchange for the accelerated destruction of the Jews in Eastern Europe and the Nazis' support for an Arab state" - REZA SHAH WAS THE SHAH OF IRAN, NOT THE LEADER OF AN ARAB STATE, AND BESIDES HE OUTLAWED AN OLD ISLAMIC TAX LEVY WHICH USED TO REQUIRE THE JEWS TO PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE ISLAMIC CONQUEST OF IRAN 1200 YEARS AGO! - HOW IS THAT ANTI-JEWISH!! Judging from how nonesensical and irrelevant the new information you have added is (some of it based on Pop-Culture novels), it is almost certain that you are "Faranbazu" Mehrshad123 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yima has done a good research on the topic, and has provided valid citations. Wikipedia policies do not allow that you blank all his contribution. Wikipedia policies do not care if Franbazu or Yima are the same person. All that maters is to write a well referenced piece. In all the academic historica sources it is considered a fact that Reza Shah was overthrown because of his relationships with Nazis. Nazis were quite active in Iran and were assisting him in all sorts of activities. These are recorded facts. You can not just wave your hand and say these " sources does not appear to be informed". You have to produce evidence from peer (did I spell it right) reviewed journals. Yima does not claim Reza Shah was Arab. He argues Reza Shah allowed Nazis to use Iran as a safe haven for Pan-Arabist who were agitating in Iran under Reza Shah nose. Remmeber that Allied did not have anything against a nationalist or a patriot. They got rid of Reza Shah because hae was facinated by Fascism, in his actions as well as in his relationships. Artaxerex 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments are all based on Faranbazu's (& sockpuppet) falsified data, POV, and nonsensical original source info which have all been unilaterally shot down by everyone here. You should read Wikipedia policy on POV, Vandalism, Reversion rules, "Sockpuppetry", Personal attacks, and Orignal Source. Mehrshad123 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism I am not going to continue this childish game of reverting and blanking. I will ask the administrators to look at this problem. Artaxerex 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do. (Admin Please verify IP addresses of sockpuppets) Mehrshad123 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the request for a third opinion on this page, as there are more than two editors already involved in the disagreement. Nonetheless, I'll stick my oar in anyway. Firstly, everyone should take a step back, and have a cup of tea. Calm down; it's not the end of the world. Just because someone agrees with people who disagree with you doesn't make them sockpupets, nor is making a good-faith edit you disagree with vandalism.

More importantly, I think the disputed paragraph is well-supported with citations, and hence should broadly stay rather than simply being removed - remember, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not fact. This is not the place to argue about whether these sources were correct or not. Nonetheless, I can see why some might consider it non-NPOV, so, if you can provide some published sources that back up your point of view, Mehrshad123, then that side of the story can be included in the article as well. Try re-wording the paragraph to be more NPOV e.g. "According to Eubank, Reza Shah started to cooperate with the Nazi Germany from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933[cite]." This opens the door for adding something like "but this is disputed by [someone else] due to Allied bias against him.[cite]". --Scott Wilson 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott as someone who just stepped in, your assessment is superficial and incorrect on several counts. We are not talking about a single paragraph or statement. The additions are based on hatred and a clear intent at vandalism by a single user/sockpuppets (and even if one statement in there might be correct, none of it belongs in the "Death of Reza Shah section"). You are also incorrect about this issue being between two people. Please read the discussion above which spans several weeks: it involves ONE person/sockpuppet against SEVERAL editors working to control the situation created by a clear vandal who repeatedly provokes and instigates personal attacks. I find it astounding that this situation, which started before I began assisting in vandalism control here, has still not resulted in the banning of the user+sockpuppet accounts. Mehrshad123 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, Thank you for your suggestions. I totally agree with you, providing both sides of the argument creats a much more balanced approach. However, Mehshad123 (and his associates, Shervink, Khorshid, Rayis Etc.)think that only their POV is the Truth and Nothing but the Truth. Mehrshad123 's response to your comments shows that he has already made up his mind. This is rather frustrating, since a lot of time and energy are being wasted on a childish rv game. I am not yet frustrated enough to leave this place and let these people to use Wikipedia as their froum for their Aryan race glorification. But I need your help in bringing a more balanced approach to this forum. Best Regards, Artaxerex 20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have serious issues with Reza Shah for personal reasons. Your report of vandalism against me was immediately deleted by adiministration about two minutes after you submitted it [1] (probably because of your long history of vandalism and attacks against editors.). Every instance of the word "Aryan" in this article was introduced by you so what exactly do you mean by "let these people to use Wikipedia as their froum for their Aryan race glorification": I think you should seriously stop and think about what you are doing/saying (and maybe talk to a professional?). I am not sure how all those editors suddenly became my "associates": I guess everyone who disagrees with you is associated right? How old are you by the way? Mehrshad123 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone needs to calm down. The discussions here are turning to be more and more nonconstructive and a revert war doesn't do anyone any good, let alone the article. As far as i can see Artaxerex has provided sources for most of the edits which are being disputed by some users here. He has even provided page numbers. Official Wikipedia policy explicitly states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It is not up to anyone here to decide if a source is propaganda or falsified, as long as it is published by a reliable source. If there are other sources which dispute Artaxerex edits then incorporate that into the article, as Scott Wilson suggested. However do not remove properly sourced text. Also, Mehshad123 please don't dismiss other users input/comments by calling it superficial or incorrect. Melca 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Melca based on your previous behaviour and "edits" to Pahlavi articles (which I just saw in your history) you sound like a very "reliable" and "impartial" source here. :-) Mehrshad123 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Mehrshad123 please do not engage in personal attacks. The talk pages are only for discussing matters regarding the article. You have without exception dismissed all comments from editors, which are not in line with your view.
What kind of behaviour are you referring to? If i am not impartial for editing Pahlavi articles then certainly you are neither. --- Melca 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Okay, bulleted list so it's easy to digest:

  • Good-faith attempts to improve an article - which I believe all editors involved are, in their own minds at least, making - are never vandalism, so stop accusing each other of it.
  • On that note, try to keep your observations to the content; not the editors - do not make personal attacks.
  • Third opinions are strictly for disputes involving two editors. Not three, not four, not six. The accusations of sockpuppetry have not been proven yet, so we must assume good faith, and consider them real users. Nonetheless, you got another opinion anyway. What are you whining about?
  • Regardless of the intent of whoever added the section - and I apologise if I used an inappropriate term, I accept is is indeed several paragraphs - it is backed up by references to published literature. Unless evidence can be provided - ideally in the form of citations - that these books and articles do not constitute reliable sources (and 'they don't support the facts as I believe them' is not evidence), the section should stay in place. Let me reiterate this one more time: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not fact.
  • Instead of trying to remove a disliked section (which should not be done as per the previous bullet), try to find some reliable sources and use them to present the opposing view (or at least why the sources supporting the orthodox view are biased); this is what neutral point of view is about. If that section is cited well enough, it will be equally protected by Wikipedia's policy and guidelines.

Finally, it would appear that the (n+1)th opinion has no weight - of course it doesn't, as it has lost it's tiebreaking status. I'm therefore going to make a request for comment to try and build up some real consensus. --Scott Wilson 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott please don't confuse this issue. Out of 12 or so editors, only one person (and suspected sockpuppets) are making personal attacks. Why are you including us all in this childish game this ONE person is playing. I do not think you are the right person to arbitrate this, based on your lack of regards for the history of the discussion, edits to the article and total lack of knowledge on this subject. Mehrshad123 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Dispute over whether a section detailing the subject's dealings with Nazi Germany is due to Allied propoganda or not. --Scott Wilson 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over whether a section detailing the subject's dealings with Nazi Germany should be included or not. --Scott Wilson 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

No that is not what this is about - it is only one aspect of it. Please cancel this and read the history of the discussions. There is only one person here that has problems with the content of this already-vandalized article. Mehrshad123 22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; I have been over-specific, and will attempt to make my description more general. Apologies. --Scott Wilson 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope that's not it either. Mehrshad123 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you tell us what it's about then, instead of pointing out what it's not? --- Melca 06:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

As an disinterested user, (check my history, never posted on anything remotely connected to the topic) it seems like Scott's proposal to cite verifiable sources that support both sides of the argument is most in line with WP policy. Mershad123 - you, in particular, should try to calm down and make an effort to be more constructive. Ronnotel 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Artaxerxes" (and sockpuppets) is viciously disparaging us with statements such as This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race. and This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race, and all those paraphernalia of undemocratic and absurd titles like “King of Kings”, “Light of Aryans”, etc; What exactly are you referring to when telling me to "calm down"?
Mehrshad123 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mehrshad123 you have to learn to respect other views. Nobody tries to stop you from expressing your views. We can say some historians believe Reza Shah was a Facsist who admired Hitler, and some others(if there are any) think he was a democratic ruler who fought against Nazis. The problem is that you want to wipe out all the references about the relationships of Nazis and Reza Shah. Even Britanica writes :"(Reza Shah) banned trade unions and political parties and firmly muzzled the press". This is called Facsism (This is fact and no insult is intended). Britanica also writs that he expanded trade with Nazi Germany in the 1930s. and "His refusal to abandon what he considered to be obligations to numerous Germans in Iran served as a pretext for an Anglo-Soviet invasion of his country in 1941". Thus this is not an unconventional view. Anyhow, please do not remove the section until we get a resolution.

Faranbazu 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi controversy

The Nazi information should not be suppressed if the sourcing is legitimate, as it appears to be. Instead, just work on NPOV textual issues, and add a reliable opposing view for balance, assuming such a reliably-sourced opposition exists. The Behnam 03:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible undue weight

Many of the more controversial statements appear to be from a random newspaper article by Edwin Black. As he doesn't cite any sources, and his original article is more of an opinion piece where he defames Iran [2]. With this in mind, there may be too much weight placed on this newspaper article. So, we should probably state, "According to Edwin Black, ..." or something like that. If possible, real academic publication should be found to verify the claims, as they are rather bold. The Behnam 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the basis of all of the sources that "Artaxerex", and suspected sockpuppets "Yima", "Faranbazu" etc. are using. He has been repeatedly given this information by myself and 7 other people and he simply ignores it and then viciously attacks and disparages us when we remove his bogus edits. This has been on-going for weeks before I became involved and he will not stop the attacks and edits until he has been banned. (Funny how a Greek user chooses a missplled name of a Persian shah who fought with Greece for his account name) Mehrshad123 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'basis'? Are you saying that undue weight is the case for all of this sources? I'm not sure about that until I see evidence of strong and reliable opposing views. Rather than go on and on about his sockpuppetry we should just try to balance the article. I've done a little bit myself; do you approve? Anyway, despite Faranbazu's conduct we should avoid whitewashing Reza Shah's affiliation to fascists. I remember that before the article said something like 'but he in fact hated the Nazis' but there was no support. If any reliable sources indicate that he indeed was distasteful towards fascism than we can mention this in addition to those that allege his support for fascism. But the stuff about his supposed fascist affiliations cannot be removed because the soundness of the sourcing seems undeniable. So basically, add the opposing view with strong sources, and an NPOV version can be worked out from there. The Behnam 07:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
By "the basis of all his sources" I mean that his source(s) that he keeps citing are all derivatives of articles such as/similar to the Edwin Black article. He has carefully sought out a POV which matches his agenda and repeatedly sources it. I will review the article again when I get a chance, and will also give a chance for other editors that have been absent for a while to also come back and evaluate it. There are definitely serious problems in the article since it is the result of weeks of tampering. Also, I don't know if we can call Iran's/Reza Shah's relationship with Germany in WW II as a "Fascist Affiliation". There were German agents present in Iran, but there were British agents, Russian agents and possibly Americans as well. The Germans had contracts in Iran related to Industrial Development and Transportation, but you can't read much into that.Mehrshad123 07:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about all of them being derivatives, but rather, he just uses the Edwin Black article for numerous references. Having read the Edwin Black article I'm not sure that it is the most reliable source of facts about Reza Shah since it seems geared towards establishing Iran as having a "Nazi" history. We don't know what sort of 'creative takes' on various facts Edwin Black may or may not have used when arguing his case for the San Francisco Chronicle. The issues need further investigation, and may even warrant a real trip to a grad library to get sound info about the whole issue. In the meantime, we shouldn't whitewash the fascist assertions, as they have actual sources, while the opposing view is not even there. If you can create one with sources, please do so; that will help us weigh out the issue better. Thanks. The Behnam 08:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We can't have sentences like "Reza Shah changed the name of the country to Iran." in the article, that just shows how weak the source is --Rayis 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this, please see my comment below under "Article by Edwin Black / Personal Attacks". Shervink 10:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

[edit] Article by Edwin Black / Personal Attacks

Edwin Black might be an expert in many areas, but he is certainly by no standards an expert on Iran or Reza Shah, and the overall quality of his article is not very high, considering the importance of the accusations compared to the poor (or nonexistent) referral to sources. Even so, the fact that he cannot even find enough sources for a proper newspaper article linking Iran to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust tells for itself: The man has written an entire book linking IBM to the holocaust (see IBM and the Holocaust).

Abbas Milani, Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University, a Hoveyda and Shah biographer and established academic historian, has written two detailed responses to Black's article. see: 1 and 2. I think that these articles and sources mentioned therein are enough reason to give Black's work at most a marginal mention in the article, rather than making it a central source. (Milani is by no means a monarchist or Pahlavi-supporter, either, so he cannot be accused of bias in favor of Reza Shah. He was imprisoned in Iran for opposition to the Shah, but is now generally regarded an impartial historian.)

Overall, I think everybody should cool down a bit. The problem here was not the editing of the article, which is always welcome (of course) if it is done in a proper manner and with sufficient discussions and consensus. The problem (as I see it) was the many personal attacks directed at me and others, where we were called fascists by User:Faranbazu 1, were accused of setting up a monarchist camp (whatever that might be) 2, were accused of racism (or more specifically of glorification of the Aryan race) by User:Artaxerex and User:Faranbazu (e.g. 3,4), and where I was called a pipsqueak on more that one occasion by User:Faranbazu (5,6). The problem is not the discussion by itself, but the personal attacks and harsh tone used by some editors. Shervink 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Shervink, to be fair you should recognize your own role in all of this as well. You yourself made personal attacks when you called the above users "wannabe historians" [3] and made fun of their spelling [4][5]. Both camps here have extensively used personal attacks, which is not acceptable, especially for some of the more senior users here. A lot of headache could have been avoided if everyone had settled for dialog instead of ridicule. Also IBM's role in the holocaust is quite well documented. It is not a conspiracy or whatever, and as far as i know IBM has never refuted this? --- Melca 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I did not do or say anything comparable to what has been directed at me. Even so, I apologized for my comments 1, and I did not make fun of anybody, as I have explained quite clearly in the same post. The editors mentioned above started with a quite aggressive attitude even before I said or did anything, and I did not revert their work but tried to resolve the matter (e.g. 2). (The only thing I did was to remove the article from GA status, because it had been totally changed compared to its original version.) I find it very strange that you defend the use of such harsh language. Again, other editors and I were accused of fascism, racism, and attacked merely based on a (percieved) political view, and were accused of trying to whitewash Stalin's and Hitler's legacy, among other things. I don't think this is acceptable on wikipedia. Shervink 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
I'm not defending anyone, on the contrary. I just want this dispute resolved. --- Melca 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clear from his other books and also the source used in this article that the author has a tendency to make up conspiracy theories. Such made up facts should be included in the Unencyclopedia for the humour but not here.
"In 1935, at the suggestion of Hitler's trusted banker, Hjalmar Schacht, Reza Shah changed the name of the country to Iran. This was a smart move on the part of Nazis since from that point, Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime"
This paragraph is wrong in so many ways as it would be apparent to anyone with enough knowledge about Iran and Iranians. Before we remove this we should acknowledge the weakness of sources used as a reference for these.
I also agree about the general uncivility by Artaxerex and others, both in talk pages as well as in reverts calling other user's contributions as vandalism. I believe he was warned about it on his talk page --Rayis 11:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Rayis, everyone (even the troll) agree that Iran has always been called Iran. Pick up any Persian language literature from before the "name change" in 1935 and, as we all know, it is referred to as Iran from centuries ago to modern times. They are simply changing it back in order to push an overall agenda. The troll's best line of defence has been to randomly recruit people that have absolutely no knowledge of the subject to keep re-posting bogus information, (or use one of his sockpuppet accounts). Mehrshad123 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it should be quite easy for you to cite a source that supports your argument. --Scott Wilson 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and everyone, watch you don't get three revert ruleed - discuss before you revert. --Scott Wilson 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This was a no brainer (and this is the 20th time it is being repeated here). Scott, the troll knows this and has acknowledged it but you will see him weasel in the incorrect statements anyway. SOURCE: ENCARTA ENCYCLOPEDIA However, until 1935, when the Iranian ruler demanded that the name Iran be used, the English-speaking world knew the country as Persia, a legacy of the Greeks who named the region after its most important province, Pars (present-day Fārs). Again, just because the English-speaking of that time called it Persia does not mean that was the official name of the country, nor does it mean that the name of the country was "changed" by Reza Shah. Mehrshad123 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for citing a source. I think what we have here is more a dispute about semantics rather than fact. Your own citation would seem to support the assertation that Reza Shah 'changed' the name, but only to the outside world. If it's to remain in the article, this distinction needs to be made clear. --Scott Wilson 23:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
After a little link-clicking, it would seem that we already have an article that would seem to be relevant to this issue - Iran naming dispute, particularly the section Re-introducing the name "Iran" It goes into detail on why Reza Shah insisted on the name 'change', and why this was important; we should probably crib some stuff out of there; the remark in this article is currently a bit throwaway. --Scott Wilson 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ditto on throw away. Now let's wait here till he comes back and starts calling us "Monarchists" and "Fascist Aryan Supremacists". Mehrshad123 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wheesht. You've just shown that once you filter out the personal attacks and - dare I say it - the rage, you can be a very knowledgeable and competent contributor. Don't go and throw it all away by slinging mud at people. Sit up on the moral high ground and let them go their way. --Scott Wilson 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reza Shah and Aryan race

  • Hi Scott, thank you for acting as a moderator here. Your patience and your level-headed assessments of facts are greatly appreciated. The main issue is that Nazis tried to associate the name ‘Iran’ with the idea of the “land of Aryans”( I will provide detailed reference soon.
  • This is important, since Reza Shah and his military junta constantly associated Iran with the idea of this ‘Master Race’, later on his son called himself Aryamehr (light of Aryans), as well the chief of the army changed his surname from Manoocherhri to Aryana. This association with the idea of "Master Race" is what Black in his article refers to. As already has been discussed no Iranian writer has ever referred to “Aryan” race prior to Reza Shah’s regime.

Faranbazu 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well at least it's not a personal attack on us this time although you all have to admit I predicted the timing and the nature of his response in my last entry (above). You have already provided us with the info. I told you that Ferdosi was a Mythologist and his claim on the origin of the word Iran is from 1200 years ago. He was writing a fictional story and he made it up. End of story. You have been told this before and it has been cited for you. Look up Shahnama and please don't vandalize it. Mehrshad123 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Mehrshad123. First let me congrtulate you for the accuracy your prediction. Indeed, who else but you could have predicted that I will try to find other academic sources.

May Irespectfuly ask you sir what kind of references would you consider valid? I have given below a quote from the Amrican ambassador and a quote from a professor of history. Nevertheless, if you can specify the set of characteristics of an author that would be required by you to be convinced of the validity of the information that Reza Shah's motive in changing the name of Iran was motivated by the Nazis' idea of Aryan Master Race, I will happily oblige and provide a reference. Cheers Faranbazu 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Faranbazu, he never changed the name of the country. He only changed the name that Iran was known to the West as. Aryan is a self referential term from Indo-Iranian origin, so if anything, Reza Shah was promoting Iranian identity rather than promoting anything connected to Germany. However, it is true to say that this may have been seen as a provocative move (to tell other countries to call us by a name that means "Land of the Aryans") but to connect this to the idea of Aryan master race from Germany is only a speculation since the name of the country had been Iran for a long period before him --Rayis 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Rayis, thanks for reiterating that fact - I have a feeling we have to keep repeating this information to him indefinitely! Mehrshad123 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Rayis, Thank you for your contribution. This dispute shows how conniving the Nazis master stroke of associating “land of Aryans” to Iran was. Here is why:
  • In fact, every scholar agrees that Reza Shah was impressed by the Nazis idea of Aryans as the Master Race, and this is why he asked Europeans to call Persia Iran. Please cosider this; Persians Call the "UK" Englestan. Suppose Churchill have asked the government of Iran that from now on you must call my country “ the UK”, because he was a monarchist (hypothetically of course). Can then somebody claim that since British have always called their land the UK, he really was not a monarchist?
  • Again, Iranian call Germany , Almaan. If Hitler demanded that Iranian should call his country Deutchland, because; Deutschland über alles, than could somebody have argued that since Germans have always called their country Deutchland than Hitler's slogan was immatrial?
  • Now Reza shah demanded that Europeans and Americans use the name 'Iran' instead of Persia, because he believed in the idea of Master Race, and there are overwhelming evidences that he was a Nazi sympathizer, and he invited Nazis to operate from Iran socially and culturally. He started a propaganda campaign aiming at promoting the idea of supremacy of Iranians over other races, particularly over Jews and Arabs. In fact, one can see the legacy of his propaganda still reverberating among the Iranian youth, when they use all sorts of pejorative remarks about other ethnicities. Remember that his son called himself “Sun of Aryans” and he had a four star general changing his name to Aryana. I hope this can motivate us to start our positive, referenced based contribution to the article. Cheers 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Academic References Beside Blacks onReza Shah's Nazi Tendencies

  • Hi Behnam, I went to the grad library and found dosens of references. Here is the first written by Professor Keddie, Professor of History of the University of California, and prsident of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in 1981

Roots of Revolution, N. R. Keddie Yale University Press Page 110,

  • "Nazi ideology and agents were prominent, and the Germans declared Iran a pure Aryan country. Reza Shah was not averse to Nazis phrases and methods, as they suited his dictatorial and nationalistic inclinations. On the eve ofWorld War II, Iran housed German economic and Political agents and the government had economic and political commitments tying it to a pro-German policy"
  • Dear Shervink, Dear Mehrshad is this Allied propganda? Is this conspircy theory? If it is please let me know and I will quote another source. The Western tradition of research will support me. I hope you too could agree with me. Regards Faranbazu 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Shervink, Dear Rayis, You accused me that my only source is Black. I assume Professor Keddie's, quoted above, will not be satisfactory to you.Thus I thought may be quoting a respected diplomat would satisfy you. After all, you would think an American Ambassador, who has access to back-grounder files and has written his book 40 years after the demise of Reza Shah would be a reliable source -- wouldn't it. So here is a quote from page 52 of William, H Sulivan, Mission to Iran, W.W. Norton & Company, 1981:
  • German influence was more than merely military, they also had a certain political and psychological effect on the Shah. In fact, in the late thirties , in order to emphasize the Aryan nature of Persian origins, Reza Shah changed the name of his country from Persia to Iran, a name that was intended to signify the Aryan aspects of his people and his regime. It was Reza Shah's futile hope that by siding with the Germans in the coming conflict, he would not only protect himself against the incursions of the British and Russians but also he associted with the ultimate victor (i.e. Nazis).
  • I hope this convinces you respected editors and you will stop posting warnings in my user page. I appreciate if you could cite only one respected reference, I really could use it in my works. Respectfully Faranbazu 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the most elaborate reaction I have seen yet; yet I did predict it above. Generally any "source" that claims he/she knows what Reza Shah was thinking should be promptly discarded. Also, I am at a loss on what you are trying to prove here. Your previous attempt at claiming that the shah "changed" the name of the country has been squashed over and over with prominent, widely accepted references as opposed to "Pop culture" ones. By the way, which one of these sources was the one that claimed that "Reza Shah wanted to exterminate the jews" and that Hitler's most elite military unit, the "SS", was largely made of Iranian recruits? Mehrshad123 10:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi MehrShad, Thank you for the question. I'm trying to prove here that "Reza Shah became an ardent admirer of Hitler, Nazism and the concept of the Aryan master race.And W. Andrew Terrill's observation that, Reza Shah had been impressed enormously with European fascism is not "pop coulture". The reports that suggest Reza Shah started to cooperate with the Nazi Germany from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933, are historically accurate . It is well documented that he welcomed Nazi agents and other operatives to Tehran, allowing them to use the city as a base for Middle East agitation against the British and the region's Jews." Basically, I try to stop whitwashing these facts. I will be more than happy to provide you with references other than Black. I hope this has been useful and you are not anymore at loss. Finaly, none of these sources are claiming the staff you have suggested. Respectfully yours Faranbazu 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reza Shah introduced many socio-economic reforms, reorganizing the army, government administration, and finances. [1] However, his attempts of modernisation reforms have been crticised by some for being "too fast". [2] and "superficial" [3].Under Reza Shah, the social structure continued essentially to be one where a small minority lived off the labors of the rest [4] 02:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what it is you want changed, whether you want the above text put in, and if so, where? Harryboyles 12:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Y Done - Harryboyles 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran's name

Iran's name had been Iran well before 1935. Claiming otherwise, even if it's sourced, is simply false when there are historical documents such as coins and banknotes that show the name Iran being used to refer to the country as early as the Sassanids' times, such as the following banknote from 1800's. --Mardavich 08:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Qajar-era currency bill shows, with the phrase "Royal Bank of Iran" engraved on it.
Qajar-era currency bill shows, with the phrase "Royal Bank of Iran" engraved on it.
The fact is, and I wonder why we are even discussing something this obvious, that Iran was always Iran for thousands of years. There is an article on this topic in wikipedia, and there is the famous discussion started by Prof. Yarshater regarding the Persia/Iran issue. Factually, Reza Shah never changed the name of the country, but asked the west to use the local name as used by the Iranians. Nobody with even the most superficial knowledge of history disagrees with this. Shervink 12:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
  • Dear Shervink, Dear Mardavich, The issue is Reza Shah's sympathy for the Nazis' notion of "Aryan Master Race". Nazis Propaganda suggested that the brown-eyed and dark-skinned Persians are members of this Master Race, and Reza Shah bought this treacherous absurdity, and promoted it in his army and in his education system. Artaxerex 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether or not if Iran was know as Iran for thousands of years, or that the name Iran was printed on currency bills long before the time of Reza Shah. The issue here is Reza Shahs motive for explicitly insisting, that the local name "Iran" should be used by the west, instead of Persia. Artaxerex's and Faranbazu's sources show that Reza Shahs motive was due to Nazi sympathy, and should therefore be mentioned in the article. Also after the "name change" all letters with destination "Persia" were returned back to their sender, so the name change was not just formality or a simple request. Of course if there are sources which reject the above reason for the name change, those viewpoints should also be discussed in the article. However Reza Shahs sympathy and ties with the Nazis is quite well documented by several independent scholars and Edwin Black is not the only author to have written about it. I hope this clears things up. --- Melca 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It should be considered that Nazi Propaganda and Racial policies were quite flexible and irrational. They changed the criteria according to the politics of the day. When they allied with Japan, the Japanese were promptly declared to be the "superior race of Asia" and "related to European-Aryan roots". The same was done with Balkan and Caucasian Muslims. Superficial "history" and "racial roots" were invented to declare allies as "good-blooded". Also notable non-Germanic/European figures were declared "Honorary Aryans".

In contrast the Iranian people are indeed of actual historical Aryan origin (not the "nordic" phantasy-Aryans of Hitler and Rosenberg) and nationalism and racial thinking was very popular everywhere at this time... Reza Shahs (nationalistic) interest and favour for pronouncing "Aryan-ness" made certainly more sense than the Nazi-theories of Rosenberg, and should also be viewed from a genuine Iranian perspective and not only as mimicking Nazi propaganda.

Pronoucing the pre-Islamic, "Aryan" Iran was also done to distance Iran from the Arabic-Islamic sphere... which was regarded as backward, savage and "colony-style" by Reza Pahlavi. (His dislike for religious Islam is well documented).

Napht 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

  • Dear Napht, Reza shah was a Nazi-sympathizer. He believed in 'Aryan-ness' (which is, was, and will be an absurdity). His regime brained-washed a whole generation of Persian youth in believing in their superiority of race. The flexibility of Nazis' propaganda cannot be used to whitewash this bigotry. As for his dislike of Islam, it is quite clear that you are simply wrong, as in early 1937, on the occasion of an Islamic feast he delivered the following line in his speech :" The fact is that the great Law Giver of Islam, were he living today and confronted by the progress of the world, would himself demonstrate the conformity of the basic features of his laws with the conditions and forms of the present day civilization." see D. N. Wilber, Riza Shah Pahlavi, New York, 1975, P.180. Further more his son Mohammad Reza Shah writes: Reza Shah "was too sincere a believer... He named all his sons after the Imam Reza ...because he had a particular veneration for this descendant of our sainted Ali. Reza Shah frequently went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Imam Reza at Mashhad...My father also took care to protect our religion against the propaganda of an intolerant materialism which demanded that the "mosques be razed" (Answe to History, PP. 56-57.
  • In general,it would be nice to see some references to your 'well-documented' assertion.

Cheers, Faranbazu 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Faranbazu,

Reza Shah's anti-clerical policies are maybe the best documented aspect of his regime. I don't think this can escape anyone studying Iranian History. Every single book on Reza Shah has enough information on this. Don't pretend otherwise. What you offer is a propaganda-speech by Rezs Shah and some references to his alleged piety (he may have been pious in private... but that's exactly the point: religion was seperated from the state). The speech you mentioned obviously was intended to ease somewhat the tensions with the Shia clergy. Don't give too much credence for Reza Shahs speeches. They were often enough propaganda only. He also vowed shortly before the Anglo-Soviet Invasion in a prep-speech for his soldiers to "revenge rifle with rifle and cannon with cannon". Yet when Iran was invaded he quickly ordered to cease fighting, for political considerations. Speeches are speeches, and real policy is reality.

Reza Shahs secularization policies are an undeniable fact. I repeat: UNDENIABLE. The abolishment of the veil is documented extensively and proven in photographs and reports. Abolishment of Islamic laws, prohibition of Muslim dresses, especially the Chador (veil) and the strict laws and reglementations of Muslim Holidays (Ashura, etc.) were very unpopular with the clergy and can only be described as anti-islamic. There are also reports (Jaroljmek) of Reza Shah entering Mosques (i.e. Qom) with boots. This is considered sacrilege in Islam.

I don't say he was non-religious or an atheist. Far from it. But he WAS pursuing secularization and showed heavy anti-islamic tendencies. I don't say this policies were good and I'm not saying this in defense of Reza Shah. It's simply the way it was and therefore should be written accordingly in the article.

Napht 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

[edit] Heavy edit necessairy regarding German-Iranian connections.

Hello, I'm researching 20th century Iranian history and see dire needs for change here.

The relations between Iran and Nazi Germany cannot be described flatly and unscientifically as it is currently. Major corrections have to be done. Therefore the article has to become free for edit again.

The relationship between Iran and Nazi Germany were more complicated than what is stated here.

Reza Shah feared the Soviets above anything else and therefore adjusted his policy according to the current situation. In the late 1930's this indeed meant a pro-German policy, but this changed dramatically 1939 to mid-1941. Pre-1939 The German "Auswaertige Amt" and Nazi ideologues like Rosenberg planned to integrate Iran and BRITAIN(!) into a enormous alliance against the Soviets. Therefore Reza Shah was courted by the Nazis and propaganda about Aryans was intensified in regards of Iran. Nontheless the Iranians weren't too comfortable about the Nazi visions for Iran and tried to keep good relations with the Soviets but especially the British.

Also propagandistically Iran wasn't totally pro-Nazi at this time. They heavily critisized the Nazi annexion of Czechoslovakia. Nontheless in 1938 after the annexion of Czechoslovakia (Iran's biggest military source) Iran asked the Germans to assist Iran militarily against the Soviets and continue previously Czech support for Iran's military. The Germans agreed to this.

The Hitler-Stalin pact and following Nazi-Soviet cooperation changed everything and scared the Iranians. Reza Shah thought the Soviets and Nazis are intending to split and share the entire Middle East. It is proven that Iran in 1940 offered to join therefore the ALLIES and sought alliance with the British, which was refused by the British. Strict ANTI-German policies were introduced and the Germans in Iran placed under strict observation. Reza Shah pondered to invade Iraq, crack down the pro-Nazi coup, arrest Rashid al-Gailani and hand him over to the British. Iran openly hoped for German defeat in Syria and Iraq.

Late 1940 Hitler and the German Military considered an alliance with the Soviets against Britian, and therefore were willing to offer Iran to the Soviets as a bargain. However since this alliance with Stalin didn't materialize it didn't have too significant meaning.

Also during this time Nazi Agents (the Abwehr and SD) thought about killing or deposing the now pro-British Reza Shah and replacing him with a pro-German regime. But the German "Auswaertige Amt" (State ministry) and Germany big business rejected such plans and tried to keep good economic relations with Iran.

Things again changed drastically when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in mid-1941. The Soviet threat to Iran was apparently washed away and Iran openly hoped for a German victory but assured to the British that they hope for a failure of both Germany and the Soviets. Nontheless Reza Shah aligned Iran with the apparently victorious Germany drastically in economic and political questions. He indeed hoped for a grand bargain after the Soviets are defeated. This was indeed cause for deep concern for the British. Churchill's stated policy of assisting Germany's enemies and opposing supporters applied here.

The actual reason for the Anglo-Soviet Invasion was NOT the propagandistically exaggerated claim of Nazi agents (there were indeed rather few... and many of them under observation). The British needed a quick victory in 1941 and Churchill wanted to give Stalin his desired new front against Germany. The Anglo-Soviet occupation was intended to boost the new-born Anglo-Soviet alliance and create a obstacle to Germanies push into Asia.

For Sources and Reference read Yair P. Hirschfeld "Germany and Iran in the playfield of the powers (International Relations under Reza Shah 1921-41". All his sources and references are listed in this book. If desired I can give more information and write down the exact documents and sources.

BTW I heavily object using Edwin Black as a source, as was already written above. Black's article is awash with outright lies, impossibilities and factual nonsense. He lumps together everything from the 1930's Middle East to draw an Nazi-Iran connection. For more details see the talk entry above: "bad source deleted"... it gives the details on why Edwin Blacks article is a bad source.

Napht 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

  • Thank you very much Napht, many of the informations you provided are indeed accurate. I have seen the documents referenced in Hirschfed, and it is quite clear that Reza Shah had strong sympathy for the Nazi regime. As you've put it Reza Shah "indeed hoped for a grand bargain after the Soviets are defeated" with Nazis. Of course this is not a new finding, and has been known by virtually all historians all along. As for Reza Shah's plan to oust Rashid Al-Gailani, it was a British plan that was supposed to be executed by Reza Shah, but he refused and provided a sanctuary for Al-Gailani's supporters in Iran, which was one of the causes for Allies to invade Iran and to depose Reza Shah. Thanks again Artaxerex 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome Artaxerxes. I'g glad I could contribute more details. But I object the one-sided segment on German-Iranian Relations in the current article which is too much relying on Edwin Blacks article which is full of lies and errors.

The background why Reza Shah's policy was sometimes pro-German and sometimes anti-German needs to be in the article.

The pro-German/pro-Nazi attitudes and policies need to be based on other sources than Black.

Beside an factual account of pro-German aspects there should be mention of the intra-German split whether to support or depose Reza Shah and mention that Nazi Agents cooperated with Azeri and Armenian Nationalists against Reza Shah and after 1941 Mohammed Reza Shah (see Hirschfeld and Schulze-Holthus).

Also the anti-German actions taken by Iran in favor of the British, and the Iranian plan to join the Allies in 1940 should be mentioned. Generally the entire relations Germany-Iran have to be brought into the context of Iran's situation between Russia and Britain. The fear of Soviet Invasion was the main compass of Reza Shah's policy. Changes of Reza Shah's policy before and after the Hitler-Stalin pact are essential to understand the reason for both pro-German and anti-German actions and the pretext of the Anglo-Soviet invasion.

Regarding the plan to oust Rashid Al-Gailani: As far as I know (Hirschfeld and Wilber) the idea came indeed from Reza Shah (maybe you can give me your source that the plan was a British idea). Reza Shah was truely concerned 1939 to June 1941 that Germany and the Soviets were going to carve up the Middle East. It was the genuine policy of this time to side with the British, which is also reflected in the exports/imports of Iran and propaganda. This changed after the German invasion of Soviet Union.

A consensus needs to be found between the differing factions on the controversial issues. Sources and References should be factual and from scholary works only. Edwin Blacks article is objectively not an acceptable source.

Again, for any eventual changes and contributions to the article, it needs to be free for edit again.

Let's discuss the matter together and edit the article. The present state is chaotic and unreliable.

With best Regards

Napht 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

[edit] Sources on Reza Shah's Sympathy with Nazis and Hitler

Here are a few of the sources that argue explicitly that Reza Shah was impressed with European Fascism and were an admirer of Hitler's thories of "Aryan-Race".

  • William, H Sulivan, Mission to Iran, W.W. Norton & Company, 1981: p 52
  • 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
  • Roots of Revolution, N. R. Keddie Yale University Press Page 110,
  • Keith Eubank, Summit at Teheran (New York, NY: William Morrow, 1985), pp. 161-197
  • 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;

Faranbazu 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So what??? As far as I remember your initial argument was that he was brought to power by the British. Does this somehow support that idea? Is there any objective document (other than this or that person's opinion) that his motivation to ask others to use the name "Iran" was a German idea? You have not shown anything of the sort so far. Shervink 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
  • Dear Faranbazu,

It indeed is factual that his reign was dictatorical and close to those of European fascism. I'm also not denying he had pro-German/Nazi tendencies and certain admiration for the racial theories of Aryan supremacy. But that's only one side of the story.

-It is undeniable that his attitudes towards Germany changed during the years

-It is undeniable that Hitler considered offering Iran to the Soviets

-It is undeniable that the Nazi spy agencies considered killing or deposing Reza Shah

-It is undeniable that Iran wanted to join the Allies in 1940

-It is undeniable that 1939-41 Iranian policies were anti-German

These are proven and documented facts. I can give you the sources if you like. When writing about Reza Shah's relations with Germany we have to mention all proven and factual aspects and not only the pro-German/Nazi aspects.

Best Regards

Napht 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Napht,

Don't you think if all those undeniable facts were valid then American, British, and French governments would have been more than happy to welcome him as an ally, instead of ousting him and sending him to South Africa? Do you think Winston Churchill would be distorting the historical facts in his memoir for such an insignificant figure? Artaxerex 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Artaxerxes,

First of all America was not part of the Allies at this time and joined the war months after the Invasion of Iran and the ouster of the Shah. Also to call Reza Shah an insignifcant figure is ridiculous. If he was was so insignifcant why do you bother about this article? Even more why did the Soviets and British bother at all about invading Iran, if he was so insignifcant? Let's stick to the facts and not to belittling persons. Also Churchill isn't the divine authority on history. He writes in defense of his policies and is therefore (and admitted by himself) biased. Anyway Churchill indeed expressed regret for invading Iran (it was unlawful) but defended it as a necessairy step to block the German advance.

The facts I listed above are proven and belong to the article. The references are all listed in Hirschfeld's book, which you probably have. Please have a look at it. The sources are Iranian, British, Soviet and German diplomats, officials and contemporary articles and witnesses. They are certainly more authentic and relaible than ol' Churchill's post-war memoirs.

Now regarding the Iranian attempt to join the Allies. Iran's concrete proposal was British protection for Iran against a potential Soviet Invasion (who were alligned with the Germans since the Hitler-Stalin pact). Iran asked Britain for 85 modern bombers and modern fighting planes (which Iran lacked) and proposed to carry out bombings against Baku.

The British refused because of several reasons:

-They didn't have the possibility to deliver those desired planes. Britain was too much engaged in Europe and therefore had higher priorities in the fight against the Germans, instead of supporting an Iranian raid on Soviets.

-They feared (and knew) that an Iranian provokation of the Soviets would lead to an Soviet full-scale invasion which wouldn't be possible to be stopped by Iran. Britain would have to protect it's interests in Iran by military means. The British couldn't afford to fight the Germans in Europe and the Soviets in Iran at the same time. Priorities!

-They had airbases in Iraq (Mossul) which would enable British bombers to reach Baku themselves, should they have decided to do so. Therefore there was no need to let Iran carry out this dangerous mission.

You're above statement about exiling Reza Shah doesn't make sense at all. At the time (September 1941) when Britain and Soviet Union invaded Iran and exiled Reza Shah following things were facts:

-America hasn't entered the war yet (they did enter Iran in 1942!)

-France was already defeated and occupied by the Germans (June 1940)

-Germany has invaded the Soviet-Union (which turned Iran pro-German)


At this time Britain and the Soviets were NOW ALLIES and pretty much alone in the war against Germany. Reza Shah was hoping for a Soviet defeat, while the Germans were advancing towards the Caucasus. Britain and the Soviets had to block the way of the Germans and therefore occupied Iran.

Best Regards

Napht 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

Dear Napht, And you believe all these! and dismiss Churchill?!! the most important stateman of the 20th century, the man who won the war and put an end to Hitler atrocities says lies about your hero!!!! He is so stupid that, despite the fact that Reza Shah asked him for Bombers to invade Russia, decides to depose him!!! Who's here out of his mind? Faranbazu 23:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Farabazu,

You are offering NO facts to counter my above assertions. You are only offering unscholary accusations and factual nonsense. Try to dissprove my facts. I care only about facts. Cold hard facts.

Churchill was on the winning side in WW2. Great for the world and great for Churchill. But so what? I don't love Reza Shah, and I don't love Churchill. Being Hitler's enemy doesn't make him an unbiased and unquestionable source.

You apparently have deficits in knowledge on World War 2. Your above mention of France and USA as allies proves this. You apparently haven't understood what I wrote. Please read through it again.

Iran's great fear was Russia. They wanted British help against Russia at a time when Russia and Germany were allies. But Britain was fighting the Germans and didn't want to fight the Russians at the same time. Britain also had the bombers to attack Baku themselves. They didn't need Iran's help. That's the reason (among the others listed above) why they turned down Iran's request.

Reza Shah was opportunistic. His focus was keeping out the Russians. He was friends with the Germans when they were enemies of Russia (1936-1939). When Russia and Germany became friends (1939-41) he sided with the British. When Germany attacked Russia, Russia and Britain became friends and Reza Shah again became a friend of the Germans. That's why the Anglo-Soviet Invasion was launched and deposed him.

All of this are PROVEN FACTS. You can't deny or change this.

Nontheless Best Regards

Napht 12:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

Perhaps you should also provide sources. Might make this easier. The Behnam 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you would have read my comments above you might have seen the sources.

Have a look at Yair P. Hirschfeld, "Deutschland und Iran im Spielfeld der Mächte : Internationale Beziehungen unter Reza Schah, 1921-1941" (It's written in German... but there probably are English translations). Hirschfeld's book gives the so far most accurate and best researched account of German-Iranian relations. Hirschfeld (BTW he is Israeli) names all his sources (Russian, British, German and Iranian diplomats, officials and contemporary reports) and gives exact references where to look for further information.

I can give you the complete list of references, but they are hundreds. Better look at Hirschfeld's book. Read the pages 333-344. He lists all sources. Official and secret documents by all involved nations, diaries and memoirs and literature by hundreds of authors are listed

It would simply take too long to list all of Hirschfeld's sources. They are literally hundreds. Maybe in the next days I can give an full account of all the books and sources I have and are used by Hirschfeld.

The Governmental documents and Literature are numerous. For a start I will list the Authors of the memoirs and diaries (if you need the titles ask for the specific author):

Arfa, Bahar, Berstorff, Bluecher, Churchill, D'Abernon, Dirksen, Dunsterville, Fakhrai, Grobba, Halder, Hedayat, Henderson, Hentig, Hilger, Jones, Knatchbull-Hugessen, Kroll, Leverkühn, Massigli, Millspaugh, Nadolny, Niedermayer, Passikivi, Pahlavi, Papen, Rahn, Rawlinson, Rosen, Rintelen, Schacht, Schulze-Holthus, Seraphim, Severing, Schwerrenburg, Sperber, Warlimont

Napht 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

  • Dear Napht, Please do not let yourself to be carried away with unfocused thinking. The issue at hand is this;

was Reza shah a Nazi sympathizer. I gather from your missive that the answer is yes, but his motive was his "opprtunistic character". Since you wrote : " Reza Shah was opportunistic. His focus was keeping out the Russians. He was friends with the Germans when they were enemies of Russia (1936-1939). When Russia and Germany became friends (1939-41) he sided with the British. When Germany attacked Russia, Russia and Britain became friends and Reza Shah again became a friend of the Germans." The other issue is that all Allied historical documents atest to the fact that he was a Nazi symathizer (irrespective of the fact that Americans joined the war at a later date, or French were defeated at early stages. In fact, ambassador Sullivan wrote his book in 1981, and based on the documents at his disposal he agreed with Churchill that Reza Shah was a Nazi sympathizer. They even teach this fact in the US Army (see Thrill). In sum, you have to give more credit to American, British, and French sources. Even Hirschfeld does not deny this fact. Cheers Faranbazu 20:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Faranbazu,

My points are very solid and need to be either dissproven scientifically or otherwise be incorporated to the article. Don't you think the changes of his relation to the foreign states during WW2 should be mentioned? Why do you dismiss them as irrellevant? They are just as much part of the history as are the pro-German aspects. I am NOT denying pro-German aspects. But you also shouldn't deny pro-Allied and anti-German aspects of Reza Shah either.

I don't understand your unquestioning trust in Allied sources. They are just as valid as Russian, German or Iranian or neutral sources. The Allied Armies' (post-Invasion) are not objective or unbiased sources. To claim otherwise is unrealistic. Every side in a war is engaged in propaganda and justification of their actions. I advise you cordially to read Hirschfeld's book. I only know of a German version of his book... so maybe you don't have access to his work.

The most striking point is that your Allied sources are largely post-war memoirs or recollections. Hirschfeld sources are largely contemporary and not post-war justifications.

He does dismiss and largely debunk the assertion of Reza Shah being a total Nazi-Sympathizer you try to paint him as. Reza Shah showed pro-German/Nazi tendencies when it suited his current policy. There are at least as many occasions when Reza Shah ordered strict anti-German actions (propagandistically, economically and militarily) and pro-British or pro-Soviet policies. It was all a question of oppurtunity and playing out the foreign nations. He simply reached a dead end in September 1941.

You are still only touting sources of the victorious Allies as being superior. I rely on sources paing attention to every side, giving a very nuanced and balanced assertion of Reza Shah's foreign relation. You also pick only parts of my argumentation which suit your position. So far you failed in dissproving any of my points. Again I challenge you dissprove scientifically my points.

Best Regards

Napht 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

  • Dear Napht, If you read my previous missives you'll see that I have also argued that Reza khan was opportunist and changed his alliances when suited him. You are a 100 per cent right -- Scientifiaclly speaking.
  • The other issue is Reza khan's psycological disposition towards fascistic rules (closing newspapers, incarcerating and execting opponents, etc. This has nothing to do with his foreign relationships. I hope you'll agree.
  • Finally, the last issue is Reza Khan's penchant for the Idea of "Aryan Master Race" and its suprmacy. Again this as you might put it scientifically is an indisputed fact. Witness, his son's title Aryamehr -- Light of Aryans !!!. Or General Aryana (ex-colonel Manoochehri), or the generation of young Persians who really think they are Aryans of the German verity. Faranbazu 02:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok. So we can agree on the focal points of his foreing relations. Eventually when editing we will respect those proven points. This means the aspect of his fascist/pro-German rule and ideas, but also the aspects of foreign relations I mentioned which were clearly hostile to Germans. My point is that the relations with Germany cannot be reduced to a few simplicistic phrases. The relations with all foreign states, including Germany changed several times during the years, and there were times, when Reza Shah's policy was clearly pro-German and times when it was anti-German and pro-Allied. Vice-versa the foreign states position towards Reza Shah changed. Just as it suited their policies. I hope we can now agree on all those points and edit the segment of German-Iranian relations, which BTW should be changed into Reza Shah's foreign relations.

Best Regards

Napht 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Napht

[edit] How British Helped Reza Khan to Overthrow the young Constitutional Monarch Ahmad Shah

  • Dear Shervin, I have gathered a huge number of primary references on the subject of Ironside, Smyth plan, and the finacing of it by McMurray, Norman's role Etc.
  • when the article is unlocked I will try to edit the section on coup.I will, of course, use a NPOV voice, per Behnam's suggestion.
  • I will also show that when Reza Shah switched his loyalty from British to Hitler, the British had to depose him. cheers Faranbazu 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Faranbazu, you need to discuss your proposed edits here before doing anything. Given the tone of your previous edits I don't think we will get anywhere if you just start editing the article. Please at least make an attempt to show some cooperation with others. Shervink 11:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

[edit] About the title The Great

The title "the Great" was given to Reza Shah in 1949 (1328 in Iranian calendar), five years after his death, by the parliament (Majles) (see image below). As the period 1941-1953 generally is regarded as a time when elections in Iran were quite free and when Mohammad Reza Shah had little or no influence on the parliament's decisions, I hope we can now once and for all get rid of the wrong remark that "his son" gave him this title. Shervink 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)shervink Image:Rsk-g.jpg

I am sorry to say but that picture can not be used as a valid reference. How do we know it is authentic and hasn't been altered? And even if it was authentic, it is a primary source and can therefore not be used on wikipedia. Also the site which the picture is from, is very pro-monarchist and i for one don't trust anything written there. Instead please provide a proper published secondary source which backs up you claim. --- Melca 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Melca this document appears to be genuine but please read my rebuttal below:(pleased to see you here, as I understand you are being accused of having the same identity as I, which I take this opportunity to say to you that is an honor for me)
  • Thank you Shervinak and associates for providing this document. I encourage you and your friends to provide more of such references, that would add to the quality of this debate. Now let’s examine your assertion that “the period 1941-1953 generally is regarded as a time when elections in Iran were quite free and when Mohammad Reza Shah had little or no influence on the parliament's decisions”,
  • So my task (or as the scientists say my null hypothesis0 is to maintain that the Majlis 15th was puppet of the Shah. Here are the evidences:
  • As the title of the document suggests, it is issued by Majles 15 in 1949. It is known that from the Majlis 7th to Majlis 13, all election was rigged by the Palace and the Majlises were used to rubber stamp the decisions of the Shah ( see: The Policy of Negative Equalization in Majlis 14, by Hossein Kei-Ostovan, Vol.2 , page 8, as well as other references I will provide as we proceed).
  • Majlis 14 was the only Majlis, with a few of the genuinely popular candidates which were allowed to be ellected due to the occupation of Iran by the Allied forces. This was despite the interference of the Prime Minister, Soheili, and the Minister of interior Taddayon.
  • Majles 14 rejected the credentials of a number of the Palace nominees including those of Said-Zia , as well it nullified the economic authority of Dr. Millispaugh, abrogated the concessions on Oil, and objected to occupation of Iran.
  • In 1949, Mohammad Reza Shah was strengthened by the success of his prime minister, Qavam’s “successful blocking of Soviet Intervention, and he wanted to curb the power of the Majlis 14, by filling the next Majlis (i.e 15th) with his lackeys. As Barry Rubin writes the US State Department was concerned that Mohammad Reza shah, “in trying to tilt the political balance in his own direction , might open the door to a right- wing dictatorship”. (see : Paved with Good Intention, page 39)
  • The Shah's Palace was angered by the speeches against Reza Shah in the Majlis 14th, particularly those demanding redresses for his embezzlements and corruption. This was why Majles 15 was rigged more rigorously. The attitude of Palace can be described by no-lesser person than Princess Ashraf, the twin sister of the Shah, (who was directly involved in the selection of the members of the Majlis 15th. She writes about this period i.e 1949 in Faces in a Mirror, Page 109 “ According to our constitution then, a two-thirds quorum was required for conducting any business, and a three-fourth was needed for voting legislation. These rules, coupled with the multiplicity of political interests, made it an easy matter for small groups of individuals virtually halt the legislative machinery merely by absenting themselves…Having imported the machinery of democracy to our shores we faced the kind of acceptance-rejection forces that any transplant generates. We could conduct the elections (like Americans), go through the motions of parliamentary procedure (like the British), but in the minds of our people, and many of our politicians, this was mere Pro forma, a “going through the motions … It wasn’t unusual for ballot boxes to be tampered with or for the identity cards of deceased persons to be bought in bulk by would-be parliamentary deputies (voting was done by identity cards).
  • After the termination of the Majlis 14 there was no election for 14 months ( period of Fetrat). Qavam with the support of Ashraf rigged the election completely. Mossadegh wrote this open letter to Qavam “ Dear Prime Minister, People are saying that the central government has no inspectors in the balloting stations and in other stations the Government interferes on behalf of your Party. This means the election is not free and the elected parliament will not be the representative of the prople” Mossadegh and his followers tried a sit-in protest in the Court, but the Shah ignored their plea (speech of Dr. Mossadegh on Majlis 16, Tuesday 5th Ordibehesht 1329, 1950). It was clear that in Majlis 15 the most popular member will not be elected, he went back to his property in Ahmad Abad. Ashraf Pahlavi Writes: “ One evening , in December 1947, I invited Qavam to come to my house, and without mincing my words I told him I had heard about his political ambitions”. In Ashraf's house Qavam asks her; “ What would the Princess have me to do to prove that I would never jeopardize the monarchy/” I looked through his dark glasses, into his eyes and said calmly; “the best proof of your royalty would be your resignation.” … "The following day he requested … a vote of confidence. To his dismay, Qavam could not get a majority and was forced to resign.” And then Ashraf unabashedly confess that the members of the Majlis 15th were her appointed lackeys. She writes” Actually I had not been bluffing: through my contacts with various members of Parliament I knew they would not give Qavam a vote of confidence, should he ask for one”. Faces in a Mirror, Page 90..
  • Dr. Mossadegh were aware of these machinations in his speech to the Majlis 16th he said : And now let’s see how the Court operates? Who are those who want to interfere in the political affairs. Inevitably, the heart of politics is in the Court. Everybody knows, and God is my witness that I am saying the truth and I don’t fear anybody. First I thank Princess Shams (Shah’s elder sister) on behalf of the Iranian nation and the members of the parliament. This is because although Her Royal Highness is from the same dynasty, she never interferes in the political affairs of the country. .. But there is another Royal Highness in the court that shall not be named (later in the speech he names her -- Princess Ashraf) who meddles in the politics. How does she meddle? First, she is quite influential, and there is no doubt that there are other ways to rig the elections, and this is why I am opposing her. She recommends people and they will be elected. And those who are elected in this way become her warriors. If I tell you that one day I discussed this issue with Her Highness , and what I am saying here is a report of those discussion, I expect Her Highness to not deny this” Mossadegh then goes to reveal that Ashraf is using the budget of the Organization of Royal Services to finance the rigging of elections.
  • Note that, your document is signed by Reza Hekmat( this is Sardar Fakher Hekmat) one of the Shah’s most prominent lackeys who became the speaker of the successive puppet Majleses until his death. He was the Prime Minister after Qavamin 1947. He was (s)elected by the Palace, and it is a well documented fact that under his speakership Majlis 15th legislated a number of acts against the interest of Iran. For example, according to Kei-Ostovan (The Policy of Negative Equalization in Majlis 14, by Hossein Kei-Ostovan, Vol.2 , page 286). “there were many legislation passed in the Majlis 15th which were against the interest of the nation”.
  • Note also that the text of your document was prepared by the Court, and Hekmat signed it as a faithful rubber-stamper.
  • Thus QED, the task is accomplished. Reza Shah became "Great" bexcause a puppet Majlis rubber stampped the wishes of his daughter.

Cheers

1.There is no question that the Majles gave him the title. Melca, what exactly did you expect? Do you have any doubts that the title was given to him on that year and that it was decided by parliament?
2.Faranbazu, please sign your edits, and do not show bad faith by constantly referring to my associates, or I will have to report your uncivil behavior. Your analysis above is at best original research, and does not belong here. Shervink 09:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
Hi Shervink. All i am expecting is a reliable secondary source which explicitly states, that the parliament indeed did decide to give him the title. Posting a picture of a document from an unknown/biased homepage doesn't prove anything. To be honest i doubt that the title was decided by the parliament, but more likely by the Shah and then forced through the parliament. I think we have all heard how ruthless Reza Shah's rule was, a story of a baker comes to mind, so i doubt "The Great" would be given to him as a title by a free parliament. However, if you can find a secondary source which backs up your claim, than this whole discussion wouldn't be necessary. We could write something along the line "the title 'The Great' was given to Reza Shah by the parliament, however, x and y argue that the parliament at that time was not free." I must admit though that i doubt that you can find such a source, namely for the reasons stated by Faranbazu above. --- Melca 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Melca, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not necessarily excluding the possibility that it was not the idea of the parlamentarians to do this, nor am I saying that they were not influenced by anybody. I do not have evidence to prove or disprove anything of the sort. What we can agree on is that the parliament indeed voted to give him the title. As for your assertion that the Shah forced the parliament to do so, if you have any source explicitly saying this, please provide it and we can add that as well (we could say " ... was given to Reza Shah by parliament, but X has argued that the decision was influenced by Mohammad Reza Shah."). Otherwise, saying that the parliament was not free objectively does not belong here (although it might be true and should be mentioned in its own article). What I was trying to say is that 1941-1953 was the time when the Shah's influence was minimal. You yourself have correctly pointed that out to me many times before. Shervink 10:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
I have pointed out that constitutionally his influence was minimal. But practically is another subject. It might have been minimal at the time, but it still could have been enough to force through the vote. However i am not asserting anything, but i think some of Faranbazu's referenced sources and claims should be incorporated into the article. Also i would still like a valid secondary source which states that the parliament voted to give Reza Shah the title 'The Great'. --- Melca 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Shervinak and freinds, Please stop this hooliganism. There are references provided above; to Pricess Asharaf's explicit admission that Majlis 15 was rigged and acted as rubber stamp, Barry Rubin's which says the same in Paved with Good Intention. There are evidences from official recordings in the Majlis 15, 1nd 16, and You then have the gaul to say this is original research. Shah's lackeys have always acted like their hero Shaban-bi-Mokh, but this I think is going too far. Faranbazu 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Faranbazu, your sources do not say what you claim they do. You quote Ashraf Pahlavi as saying that she had contacts with memebers of the parliament, and conclude that they must have worked for her. This, as far as I can understand, is not even original research, it is simply misinterpreting sources.
2. In case you didn't notice so far, my user name is Shervink, not Shervinak. I assume that you are not familiar with the Persian language, since if you were you would know that calling me Shervinak has a distinctly derogatory meaning. I will assume that this was a mistake on your part and that it was not your intention to attack or insult me, but please be more careful in the future. It's Shervink.
3. I also asked you several times please not to address me as "Shervink and friends/Co/etc.", since I am not affiliated with anyone here. What am I to understand from your insistence on using this kind of language?
4. Refering to me or others as "Shah's lackeys" is a personal attack. You have been warned several times regarding this. Why don't you try to improve your tone? Shervink 19:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
  • Dear Shervin K, The reason for addressing you and your cohort at the same time is for efficiency, so that you won't need to send heads-up to your gang. If you recall you did send a heads up to Mehrshad123, planning your hooliganism of continuous blanking and reverting of legitimate edits which still continues. Here is a record of your pipsqeakery "Well, we could leave that article as-is for a few days while we separately create a new one at User:SG/Reza Shah. Once we make an article that is sufficiently neutral and accurate, we could move it over to the actual Reza Shah page. ♠ SG →Talk 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC) This is reaching crisis proporations - I have fixed some of the damages, but reading through it, I find that the vandalism done by "Faranbazu" and his sockpuppet accounts has been on-going for weeks and it is extensive throughout the article. I will try to contribute more time in removing the falsified, nonsensical information and references, but would appreciate help from other editors in this work. Shervin: thanks for the heads-up. You should be able to get through now. Mehrshad123 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Again with respect to your absurd comments here are the issues.

A. You claimed the Majlis 15 which issuing that edict to give the title of Great was not a puppet Majlis and was freely elected. B. I provided the open letter to Qavam by Mossdegh, complaining about the election of Majlis 15 to be rigged. C. I provided the speech by Dr Mossadegh in Majlis, recounting his sit in in court to protest the election. D. I offered the view of the US State Department that Mohammad Reza shah, “in trying to tilt the political balance in his own direction , might open the door to a right- wing dictatorship”. (see : Paved with Good Intention, page 39) E. I provided evidences from AShraf's book that "It wasn’t unusual for ballot boxes to be tampered with or for the identity cards of deceased persons to be bought in bulk by would-be parliamentary deputies", and ” Actually I had not been bluffing: through my contacts with various members of Parliament I knew they would not give Qavam a vote of confidence, should he ask for one”. Faces in a Mirror, Page 90. F. I provided reference from Kei-Ostovan (The Policy of Negative Equalization in Majlis 14, by Hossein Kei-Ostovan, Vol.2)who explicitly says Majlis 15 was rigged.

And you, like all other members of your gang, have the gaul to shamelessly insist that the title of 'Great' for a Fascist, Nazi-sympathizer, corrupt, and Ruthless dictator is legitimate! The price Iran paid is the loss of a democratic constitution, the price the world paid is a free fall to the depth uncertainty in this century, the price humanity paid is a regression of the enlightenment ideas. Plague on your houses 64.59.144.85 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Faranbazu, firstly, please sign your posts properly. Secondly, your inappropriate tone is totally unnecessary, and you are only reducing your own credibility by attacking others like this. Thirdly, the posts you refer to were not by me, as you can easily see for yourself. You seem to be holding me accountable for what others say, which does not make any sense. Fourth, there is no gang or anything of the kind. Shervink 22:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
I have gone ahead and added 64.59.144.85 to the sockpuppet troll list. Mehrshad123 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Said-Zia and Dr. Mossadegh describe the British role in the Coup of Reza Shah

  • I've just translated parts of the two speeches by Dr. Mossadegh and Said-Zia in the Majlis 14 about the coup of Reza Khan. Please note that I am not using this as evidence. I will provide documents from British Sources later on. But, I found these speeches facinationg. To set the stage, note that this is the start of the legislative session and Dr. Mossdegh questions the credentilas of Said Zia:
  • The gentleman was a journalist (Said-Zia), and was not an army commander. How come the forces under the command of colonel Smyth came under his authority?. Our dictator (Reza Shah) constructed a railway with our money and against our interests. This was foreseen twenty years before for the strategic transfer of forces. He confiscated people’s properties. He promoted corruption. He reinterpreted the article 83 of the constitution, and weakened the judiciary. He promulgated unjust laws for the survival of his regime. As he believed in quantities he increased the number of schools, and since he did not believe in the quality of education abridged it. He sent scores of people to Europe to be educated, but executed and incarcerated the best of them.”
  • Said-Zia in his defence gives the following rebuttal. “ My greatest service to the country was my silence in the past 24 years and the fact that I did not divulged any secret that could have endangered the interests of Iran…Until the time of change of monarchy I did not have any reason to talk… However after the dictatorship (of Reza Shah) had established, the situation have been deteriorated to the extent that had a French newspaper in Paris would write an article criticizing the Shah, the government would have breaking up the relationship, the Iranian Ambassador in Price would have been recalled, and the French embassy would have been thrown out. The period of overcast by fear in Tehran was spreading in Europe as well. How could I say anything, make a noise, or write something. Or if I wrote something how could I send it Iran, or if I could have sent what would have happened to those few hundreds that would have received my letters would they not have been imprisoned?
I don't know why you have not signed this, but this sounds like an admitted WP:OR, please cite third party sources --Rayis 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get this article unlocked?

It is unfortunate that a Wikipedia admin has once again abused their locking rights and inappropriately locked this article *AFTER* it was vandalized again. Mehrshad123 19:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to All

I would like to thank everyone in helping successfully expose the troll User:Artaxerex and his "meatpupets" and "sockpuppets": [6] Confirmed and suspected sockpuppets and meatpuppets of User:Artaxerex

User:Yima User:Faranbazu User:Napht User:Melca User:Arteban1 User:140.80.199.91

We have yet to successfully enforce rules regarding personal attacks from the above trolls, where several editors were repeatedly refered to as "Aryan Supremacists" and "Monarchists", but the most important part of the work has been done. Again, thank you very much for donating so much of your time for the sake of Truth and Fact.

I will try to have the Reza Shah page unlocked ASAP so we can begin the long process of undoing all the vandalism over the last few months!

Mehrshad123 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article unlock is initiated as of now - thanks again. Mehrshad123 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that not all of those users were confirmed sockpuppets. The Behnam 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that you are once again out of the loop, "The Behnam". The exclusion of a couple of those people was simply an oversight that can be re-confirmed. I really don't think it is appropriate for you to stalk people and continue jumping in on topics and discussions that you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever. Mehrshad123 11:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
More gross incivility from Mehrshad123, including putting quotes around my name and a baseless accusation of stalking. The Behnam 12:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Mehrshad you know well Yima and I were cleared of being sockpuppets so please stop accusing us. --- Melca 07:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That finding was an error - Yima is indeed a sockpuppet, and you are a meatpuppet of the above. If you would like, we can reconfirm the logs and have you "both" permanently banned. Mehrshad123 10:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are so sure i insist you do that then. --- Melca 13:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am the User Napht

Hello,

I am the deleted user "Napht".

I was blocked from editing because I was alleged to be a sock-puppet of "Artaxerxes" alias "Faranbazu" etc.

I assure you that I am NOT a sock-puppet. I don't even know how I aroused suspicion since I obviously was argumenting strictly against "Artaxerxes" alias "Faranbazu".

Now that the article is free for edit again, I would like to contribute to remove the factually wrong parts and those who are heavily biased and POV against Reza Shah Pahlavi. I am primarily focusing on the factually incorrect and biased section on Iranian-German relations, which needs to be based on facts and balance. Also I am going to include Iran's attempts to join the Allies during WW2.

If you need proof for my identity you might contact me, so I can give you my Name.

Thanks and Best Regards.

Torsh 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Torsh

Here we go again... Mehrshad123 10:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relations with Germany

Why is that tag there? Just because people don't like it or something? Every sentence is sourced and straightforward, so I don't see what the original research and unattributed claims are. The Behnam 03:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There were some unsourced sentences. I tagged the sentences. I must say though, I disagree with removing the whole section--even if is tentative. --Agha Nader 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the Black section has been removed for now since some sources indicate that the claims are dubious. Fortunately that means that the tags are gone without actually whitewashing the information about relation with Germany. Of course keep an eye out for any more news on Black. The Behnam 23:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black has been discredited

See [7] and [8]. Furthermore the claim that a Nazi official promised a "Pan-Islamic state stretching from Casablanca to Tehran" is complete and utter bullshit. Iran under Reza Shah was 100% secular - Reza Shah was not an observant Muslim (he was a diehard secularist very much along French intellectual lines), and furthermore Iran is predominantly Shi'a, while most of the rest of the Islamic world is Sunni, making such a state impossible. The claim would definitely need a more reliable source, because as it is, it sounds ridiculous. Iran traditionally has never been part of any talk of "Pan-Islamism" until the time of Khomeini and the Islamic Republic, and then it was not "Pan-Islam" but "Pan-Shi'a Islam" excluding the Sunni states. Khorshid 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Rayis 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That is good to hear. His views were quite odd and I hadn't seen anything that elaborate anywhere else. Thanks for taking it out. The Behnam 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont see why Black cant be used as a source? I fully understand that his book is very controversial but according to wikipedia policy it is a valid source and can be used in the article. Also there will always be people who disagree with controversial subjects and therefore resort to discrediting. Again wikipedia has no policy regariding discredited sources, only that both views should be presented, which is what i think should be done here. --- Melca 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Melca, what you referred to is a guideline, not a policy. According to policy, however, Sources of dubious reliability such as this work should not be used. Black's work has been discredited by a simple fact check 12. It is therefore a bad idea to use it here. Shervink 08:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)shervink
That it is of dubious reliability is your opinion. What makes it "of dubious reliability"? Is it because there are people such as abbas milani and the daughter of one of the shahs diplomats who disagrees with Black? There is room for both views at wikipedia --- Melca 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. We may be able to reinclude it with explicit attribution and phrasing such as "Black claims". The Behnam 21:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes thats one way of doing it. Lets remember that NPOV means we should address all points of view in a neutral manner, not asserting which is right. In this case, a controversial source is being used to back up a controversial statement without any room for the generally agreed on POV (Lets remember even neutral POV, is a POV) --Rayis 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all Melca, Black is not a historian but a writer. His research is shoddy and he makes wild connections. He's not an academic. His view should not be included because it is not notable in the least since it has no other backing from other sources, let alone academic sources. His wild theories belong in his own article, not here. Melca, I advise you to read WP:POINT and WP:POINT - we are not here to indulge Shah-bashing here. I know you don't like the Shah, but please try to keep your POV in check. Otherwise we might see this article and the Mossadegh article with POV tags forever due to these endless and lame disputes. Khorshid 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Khorshid i am not bashing anyone here, i don't like or dislike anyone and my POV is not unchecked :) I am discussing the Edwin Black issue in a civil way. I am not engaging in any revert war or adding anything to the article without consensus. Edwin Black is a journalist and author, and according to his homepage 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". He is therefore very much notable and is not just some "writer" as you wrote. Even Abbas Milani who disagrees with him states in his article that Black is "a prominent American journalist". He is therefore definitely a valid source and notable. Black also has been used as a source in other wikipedia articles. However, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that what he writes should be stated as fact. On the contrary. I am suggesting to do as Behnam suggested: to attribute his claims such as "Black claims..." and then add other sources which dispute his claims. This is how it is done in many featured wikipedia articles. --- Melca 06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New reference added

Please note that sasanrid is from Wikipedia article on Iran Jews. Please do not let your extreme POV in favour of Reza shah interfere with truth about his Nazi relationships. Artaxerex 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, be civil. Relax, no one has "extreme POV" here. You have a source? what does it say? Just because you have an extra source it doesn't mean you are now geared up to rewrite the lead section to suit you!, explain what your source claims, perhaps provide an exact quote and page number so it can be verified. Regards, --Rayis 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Your gang started to change the article again into an extreme POV version. Again it is alleged that it was the Parliament that gave this man the title of Great. The Wikipedia article on Persian Jews talk of his Nazi relationship, Jewish Reviw has republished Black's article which you guys trying to discredit its author, despite the thousands of verifiable documents.

Please go back to Iranchamber and write your article on "Reza Shah the Great" there [http://www.iranchamber.com/history/reza_shah/reza_shah.php} . Artaxerex 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guiding Principle for Artaxerex

Stop adding the extensive controversial details to the lead. While it may be possible to use it somewhere in the article, the lead is the last place to have that much detail, especially about disputed content. I don't know why I am saying this as we have been through this back when you and your 'students' (sockpuppets) kept adding it to the lead. Knock it off, please. The Behnam 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerex, I think after being identified as a sockpuppeteer in several cases and being blocked twice, it is time that you finally understand that you are not supposed to make personal attacks on wikipedia. You are once again using the term "gang" to describe editors disagreeing with you, and are assuming bad faith. Please refrain from such behavior in the future. Shervink 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
He must be mistaking us for that dangerous roving gang of Tom Brokaws we had a while ago. ♠ SG →Talk 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian Railway

This a BIG lie in this article. The North-South project wasn't made for the British. Everyone knows Reza Shah hated the British, the reason he was overthrown. He made a North South, because he thought that that would help Iran more. Although, some may discuss that East-West was better, but that was not a reason that he built it for British. And If I don't get a factual reference within a week, I will remove that and replace it with a reference of mine. --Arad 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Railway was the main reason the British attacked Iran. Because they could send their troop to Russia easily. It wasn't built for them, but they took advantage. --Arad 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

IF Reza shah Loved and cooperated so much with Britain, why did they invade Iran. These are bunch of non sens POV. --Arad 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV article

This article is a complete POV in the Germany Part. He wasn't obsessed with Germany, but he chose to cooperate with them because he saw them as a way to maintain Iran's independence from Britain. He hated Britain, he didn't love Germany. Many of the references may also not exist. I did a Google search on many of them with no result. I will remove them soon if no reliable reference is added. --Arad 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your help would be greatly appreciated Arad. --Rayis 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return to the Old Protected Version

Obviously the old dispute is not resolved. People again are deleting the referenced material. So may be we need a cooling off period. Please note that by bringing more and more of blogers you can not establish a majority for distorting historical facts. Yima 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We have been working on the article and there are no known disputes. Please refrain from reverting to any old versions --Rayis 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There are following disputes on the article 1. title "Great" given to him by his son, 2. Reza Shah's sympathy with Nazis, 3. British support of his coup. 4. His corruption. 5. The Anglo-Persian treaty of 1919 and British demands for reforms to reduce the threat of Bolsheviks. I hope this helps. Please do not delete sourced articles. Please do not accuse me of sock Puppetry. Thanks, Yima 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You are an obvious sock puppet of Artaxerxes, please just give everyone a break so this article can finally start developing in a NPOV view. --Rayis 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is anyone else getting tired of being called "an Iranchamber bloger"?

I am. ♠ SG →Talk 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could take credit for it but sadly this is not the case, for crying out loud this is too disruptive --Rayis 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] == The Article is Protected Now

  • Please note that I have asked for full protection of the article --eventhough it is now very much POV in favour of Reza Shah (and at least one admin agrees that it is so).
  • Hopefully, this would allow everybody to cool down and think.
  • Please know that at least two admins agree that Black article is legitimate and so is the book by Sanasarian, Eliz (2000). Religious Minorities in Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77073-4. Thus, I humbly suggest that the final version of article should pay attention to these sources in NPOV of course.
  • I apologize for being frustrated and calling you beloggers. I like Artaxrex did not want to have a wikipedia article that would repeat all the POV aspects of the Iranchamber on Reza Shah The GREATE! .
  • I request that the accusation of sock puppetry will be removed from my user page.
  • I will be back on December and intend to fully participate in development of this page.

Thanks all, Yima 18:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who has the time please initiate an RFCU in the case of Artaxerex/Yima? Yima was not checked the last time because he had only three edits back then and seemed to have stopped. Now that he/she's back, given the unmistakable similarity to the previous sockpuppets and Artaxerex's pattern of behavior, a check would be a good idea. I for one frankly do not have the time for this anymore. Shervink 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have, if anyone needs to see/comment on it, it's at: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Faranbazu --Rayis 09:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Rayis. Shervink 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The case was just confirmed. --Rayis 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

I am moving it here:

According to W. Andrew Terrill, Reza Shah had been impressed enormously with European fascism[5]. In 1935, Reza Pahlavi announced that all Western countries should use the name of "Iran" in their languages too. Opponents claim that this act brought cultural damage to the country and separated Iran from its past in the West, and caused many people to confuse it with Iraq (an Arab state west of Iran). During World War II, in fact, Winston Churchill ordered that the name "Persia" be used for all government documents so as to avoid this confusion. For many westerners, "Persia" became a dead empire that does not exist anymore. Members of the Persian intelligentsia were not happy with this decree either, because of the allegedly pro-Nazi incentive behind it [6]. After Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, the Nazi Economics minister, commented on the Aryan origin of Persians, Reza Shah's ambassador in Germany encouraged him to issue the above mentioned decree asking all foreign delegates to use the word "Iran" (meaning "Land of the Aryans") instead of "Persia" in formal correspondence.[7]

As The New York Times explained at the time, "At the suggestion of the Persian Legation in Berlin, the Tehran government, on the Persian New Year, March 21, 1935, substituted Iran for Persia as the official name of the country. In its decision it was influenced by the Nazi revival of interest in the so-called Aryan races, cradled in ancient Persia. As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set forth in its memorandum on the subject, 'Perse,' the French designation of Persia, connoted the weakness and tottering independence of the country in the nineteenth century, when it was the chessboard of European imperialistic rivalry. 'Iran,' by contrast, conjured up memories of the vigor and splendor of its historic past."[8]

The whole section seems to WP:OR done by Artaxerex based on an nonacademic account of what happened. I would love to hear any counter arguments on why this should be included --Rayis 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's POV and OR. He didn't use Iran for Pro-Nazi reasons. I'm pretty sure he had some nationalistic point of view (even though I think he did made a mistake). And It's a first time I hear that he was obsessed with fascism. This whole article needs rewriting not this section. Specially the North-South train project which is very POV. --Arad 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Assuming he covered Terrill correctly, that part is a completely legitimate inclusion. I do, however, oppose using a random iranian.com opinion post as a source unless the poster is known to be of note. The Behnam 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Behnam. The above section has legitimate sources and should be included in the article. As it is now the article does not discuss Reza Shahs motives for insisting the west use the name Iran instead of Persia. One view is that it was due to pro-Nazi incentives. This should definitely be discussed and both views should be presented. I must also remind you Rayis that no wikipedia policy states that only academic sources can be used on wikipedia. Other types of reputable published sources are just as legitimate .--- Melca 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I give up. The guy added in that crap into the lead, which is hardly the correct place. Tell me, what the hell does this:
  • Reza Shah was impressed enormously with European fascism[2]. He was ousted by the British forces in the second world war because of his Natzi sympathies [3].
...have to do with anything else in the opening paragraph? It doesn't even follow a coherent structure as part of the lead. Even worse, he AGREES that it is OR and disputed, by creating a section titled "Relations with Germany" and using the {{OR}} and {{totaldispute}} templates on his own. I'll hang around the Mohammad Reza Shah article, but for this one, you guys are on your own. I'm really in no position to babysit Artaxerex all over Wikipedia. ♠ SG →Talk 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole lead needs to be re-written. I don't think anybody can claim that the current version is anything near neutral or even that most of that stuff is relevant as lead material. By the way, why is it that Artaxerex was not blocked after his third repitition of sockpuppetry? Shervink 10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shahanshah title

I am not really sure about this one, I think it Mohammad Reza was styled Shahanshah but not sure about Reza Shah. --Rayis 10:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You people really should not involve yourselves in subjects which you are not well educated in. Even the coins minted during Reza Shah's era testify to the fact that he was the Shahanshah (and not simply Shah) of Iran. Now I suggest to all of you to stop at once this ill-mannered and rude behavior. Thank you. Atashparast 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it seems rather disingenuous for other users to remove things based on there not being any sources, when much in this article and most articles on Wikipedia do not use proper references. And what on earth is "WP:ATT" that this user named "Agha Nader" mentioned? Please speak Standard English. Atashparast 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Atashparast, please use a polite tone when posting on wikipedia. Regarding the Shahanshah title, as far as I know every "Shah of Iran" as we know today (i.e. a shah ruling over the whole of Iran) was a Shahanshah and used the title, there's nothing special about it. The title was not Mohammad Reza Shah's invention! Shervink 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artaxerxes

Your additions are not reliable sources. Just a bunch of POV political editorials like the Edwin Black article. Not good. Khorshid 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not rv the sourced material. Black (although a credible source) is not the only valid source. The most recent source is: Yossi Melman and Meir Javdanfar, "Nuclear Sphinx of Iran", 2007, Caroll & Graf Publishers, New York, ISBN 13-978-0-78871- 887-0. Page 74

[edit] What remains

I think that we should be set to remove the neutrality tags if Edwin Black's are either removed or responses are mentioned. His claims are presented as complete fact despite the fact that they have been challenged. However, the other references seem fine even though they don't make him look good. There are some things that we must simply accept as it would be inappropriate to remove them. In any case none of this seems to be OR so I may remove those tags. The real problem is balance of views, so I think that those who object should just add views opposing some of these claims rather than removing relevant sourced material. The Behnam 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reza shah was impressed by European fascism!!

Hey guys! In the context of current poltitical tension between Iran and US and the recent remarks by Iranian president, some American strategists and politicians like W. Andrew Terrill are trying to fabricate history in order to make Iranians look racists!! These new claims has never been raised by any scholars during 20th century. If these odd claims are going to be included, then we have to include similar claims by "scholars" who are associated with Islamic Republic of Iran concerning American and western leaders and politicians in their pages. We need basis for claims like: "Reza Shah had been impressed enormously with European fascism"!! I am quite sure that most of educated Iranians in current Iran do not know any thing about Nazi Germany and what Nazi German geneticians and biologists were doing in their labs, let alone Reza Shah who was illiterate and I am sure he had no understanding of European politics. Iranians hate Russians and Britons because they were constantly stealing Iranian wealth. Naturally Germany was Iran's largest trading partner and has remained so until today. This has nothing to do with their ideology. This is due to the fact that Germany bothers us less than US, UK and Russia. Sina Kardar 14:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide some info on how Terrill is part of a fringe fabrication group? And of course some RS. We can't cast doubt on Terrill's claims based upon personal objections. The Behnam 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You can not say a nation`s leader was impressed by European fascism based on claims by some strategists and journalists several decades after his death. Its more than obvious. Sina Kardar 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on what criteria Terrill came to this conclusion? What are the evidences? Simply having good economic and diplomatic relation does not mean anything. US has a very good relation with Saudi Arabia which is the most fundamentalist regime in the muslim world. Can you conclude that "US is sympathetic to this regime?" OR "US has been impressed by fundamentalist ideology?!!!" Diplomatic relations and economic relations are based on the benefits a country gains. Iran used its good relation with Nazi Germany and saved all Iranian Jews who were living in Paris. How do you claim that Iran let Germany into Iran to suppress Jews???? It`s just a cheap propaganda. The reality is that Reza shah was very much supportive of Jews. Eileen Pallok in his article entitled "The Jewish Shah" wrote: "Reza Shah's reforms in opening new occupations to Jews and allowing them to leave the ghetto led them to hail him as their savior" [9] (also see [10])Sina Kardar 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the fact that Reza shah was proud of Iranian race is nothing odd. He was a nationalist like French nationalists, Arab nationalists, Turkish nationalists etc. There is no evidence that he was white supremacist and in love with blue eyes and blond hair!! Also Iran`s name has been always Iran. This country has had only one name over the centuries and that was Iran. Persia was a name created and used by westerns and not Iranians. Sina Kardar 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran was also officially neutral in WW II. Read Encyclopedia Britannica`s articles on these subject. There are also hundreds of Iranian historians and western historians who are spacialist on 20th century Iran. No need to use a claim by an unknown figure in the field from The Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College and promote it!! No Iranian leader was impressed by European fascism, murdering Jews, performing toxic biological test on living humans, and praising white and blond people! Read this article by Abbas Milani, a renowned Iranologist from Stanford University who replies to these newly emerged propagandas (After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power!). [11] Sina Kardar 20:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There is not a single academic or scholarly source even remotely supporting these strange claims. We shouldn't waste our time discussing nonsense introduced by someone like Artaxerex who has always been only interested in disrupting the article and preventing others from getting anything done. Shervink 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This all seems like all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there are opinions opposing these references we can include them for balance. Instead you simply blank, and even have the gall to call the information "vandalism," which is entirely unacceptable. This article will not be whitewashed. If, based upon your sources, you want to mention that he is "Jewish"[12] and that he prayed to a Torah[13], you may (though I'm not sure about the second source - how is iranonline reliable? It seems like a forum). We can also note such lines as "At the start of World War II, he threw in with Hitler, and his brothers in America washed their hands of their black-sheep relative" from the first source.
This [14] can be used to contest Black's claims, but not obliterate them, such that we mention that Abbas Milani contested the claims under _____ grounds. We need balance, not whitewashing. The Behnam 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranianonline is more reliable than US Army War College! and Massoume Price is a Social Anthropologist and Human Ecologist from London University, Kings and University Colleges. I don`t believe that Reza Shah was Jewish but he supported Jews. He may have prayed to a Torah but that did not make him Jewish. Muslims do believe in Torah too. I offered this article in order to reject the claims by User:Artaxerex. I am not sure whether Eileen Pollack is an expert on Iran or not. But at least the author wrote an article on Reza Shah while Mr Terrill has no original research article on Pahlavi regime or history of modern Iran. Sina Kardar 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a comment by an expert like Abbas Milani and those of non-experts. People like Black and Terrill are NO expert on Iranian history. The article should consider the ideas of main stream historians. See the Encylopedia Britannica`s article on Reza Shah. For your information: Both Reza Shah who founded Pahlavi regime and Khomeini who founded Islamic republic were supportive of Iranian Jewish community. This is what all historians are saying. To me a source like "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" is not a reliable source for Iranian history. Moreover it is not enough to say that A is B because Mr X claims (Btw our Mr. X is not notable either). You have to provide basis for the claims such as a direct quote of Reza Shah or a letter from him etc. Sina Kardar 19:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrill`s writings are about "nuclear proliferation, the Iran-Iraq War, Operation DESERT STORM, Middle Eastern chemical weapons, and ballistic missile proliferation, terrorism, and commando operations." He is not an expert on Iranian history of Pahlavi era and I strongly doubt he can even read a word in Persian. Terrill and Black are either ill-informed and ignorant (most probably) or have some political intentions and none of these two guys belong to well-established academic circles and universities. Sina Kardar 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Shervink

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 06:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Boring. I've seen this episode already. Someone change the channel. ♠ SG →Talk 14:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dfitzgerald et al; Please refrain from deleting sourced materials. Please also note that Wikipedia policies are based on reaching a concensus. 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 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Artaxerex" I am issuing a stern warning to you to stop calling editors "vandals". You are the one that was engaged in fraud and sockpuppetry for months on, you are the one that incessantly instigates Personal Attacks against highly experienced and reputable editors, and you are the one that is committing all the vandalism in order to satisfy what is clearly a severe hatred and personal vandetta against Persians. It is quite supernatural that you have not been banned already, and seriously I am getting tired of spelling "Artaxerxes" incorrectly so that I can address you. Mehrshad123 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mehrshad 1 2 or even 3, Please try to be civil. Your tone is inappropriate for such a forum. If you have any problem with sourced materials please provide a counter argument. Do not delete references that you disagree with, provide references that are more reliable --that is, if you can ;o). Rememmber, that you are not in your old country anymore. As for being tired of spelling, may be you need to take a deep breath! But all in all I suggest deleting important historical facts and references is considered vandalism. Please do try to refrain from old bad habits. Artaxerex 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Artaxerex, firstly, please do not make fun of other people's usernames. Secondly, calling others vandals is not civil. Thirdly, we have asked you to start discussing on the Mohammad Reza Shah page what your proposed edits are, so I don't understand why you are still attacking others here rather than discussing your edits there. Shervink 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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 highly respected references such as:

  • 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;
  • Yossi Melman and Meir Javdanfar, "Nuclear Sphinx of Iran", 2007, Caroll & Graf Publishers, New York, ISBN 13-978-0-78871- 887-0.
  • 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 05:26, 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 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran & Germany during WWII in other articles

Axis powers of World War II#Iran and Cases of controversial relations with the Axis of World War II#Afghanistan and Iran both contain statements about Iran and Nazi Germany that seems to have been refuted in this article. --Sus scrofa 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems they do. But they don't present any sources for it and refer to Iran with the absurd and bizarre term "Imperial Islamic Kingdom of Iran", which has never been an official (or unofficial) name of the country. I don't think, therefore, that those text passages can be taken seriously. Shervink 11:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ever since I first saw those sections I thought they looked fishy, and I thought that instead of reinventing the wheel I'd bring them to the attention of editors familiar with the sources. --Sus scrofa 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Wow. This is a really interesting discussion page. But I have one request: Could ya'll please learn how to spell?? This is driving me crazy!! Kitty2008 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC) "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." Psalm 118:8

Are you complaining about spelling in the article itself? If so, feel free to correct errors and I'll look out for them myself. However, if you are complaining about our discussion spelling, that's a silly request. The Behnam 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's about the discussion. And silly or not, it's true that people should learn how to spell, for heaven's sake!! Kitty2008 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC) forever

Generally we aren't picky about spelling in the discussions (much like other internet discussions), and in fact people can be offended by someone who nitpicks about their spelling. It doesn't actually indicate that they don't know how to spell the words correctly, but rather proper spelling isn't the point in discussion. So I guess you'll just have to get used to it or people might get mad at you. I personally don't care but I know that some others do. The Behnam 03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


reza pahlavi shahs mother she wasnt azeri she was from armenia but she was ethnically persian a tati persian so i changed it back. the shah that was the king from 1941 to 1979s mother was half azeri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.157 (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reza Pahlavi's mother

Is there any reliable source about who his mother was, what language she spoke etc? Was his mother a Persian (ethnic Persian) from Yeravn? At the time of Reza's bith there was no Armenia, so writing that she was from ARMENIA is literally wrong. And as far as I know there are no ethnic Persians in Armenia, and there were no ethnic Persians in Yeravn. A reliable source is needed to say what his mother's background is, otherwise it should not be mentioned so clearly. 89.136.167.247 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reza Shah's military hat

I am looking at Reza Shah's military hat in the profile picture of this article. I am interested in the design on the hat, it looks like some kind of animal. What is that exactly? Siyavash (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)