Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh

Lead / Democratically elected?

I think that article buries the lead a bit, for example, Mosaddegh's use of emergency powers, the rather improbable results of the 1953 Iranian parliamentary dissolution referendum, are not mentioned at all in the lead, but rather some several sections below (most readers will only view the lead). I also don't think it needs to be emphasized that he was 'democratically elected', while it's true, it's just not necessary to emphasize the 'democratic' part of it, it's not usually done on these types of articles. Overall the lead (and also the article as a whole) gives off the tone that Mosadeggh was some kind of enlightened democrat, I think more nuance should be introduced. Rousillon (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, because it implies a bit too much. There was less than 1% voter turnout, and Mosaddeggh himself suppressed electoral reform to allow more voters – potentially illiterate, rural voters, with whom his support was extremely weak. Plus, his premature ending of the 1952 election before the rural votes were fully counted suggests something similar. Peepeepedia (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not mere overstatement. It is misleading and all the worse since this false depiction of Mossadegh as a fine democrat is widespread. Election in parliament - in contrast to elections to parliament - should not be classified as "democratic". As Peepeepedia pointed out, the Iranian parliament was not actually based on democracy. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

PS. Looking into the archives, this discussion, the latest on the matter does not support the epithet "democratically elected" either. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état/Archive 15#DO NOT REMOVE "Democratically elected government" from the article. Given that this is from 9 years ago, maybe we need an WP:RfC to settle this question. Just about every source I am familiar with on the subject--from countless documentaries and I believe Chomsky--has said he was democratically elected (or at least via a democrat process through the Parliament). I don't claim to be a historian--there may be better sources. I don't see any sources above for the claim that he was not. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already read that section and - despite that authoritarian title - it doesn't seem like any basis for dictating how this article is worded. Not only can WP never be a source for WP, the discussion there is hardly conclusive.

Just because a phrase is repeated again and again as a trope in "anti-imperialist" rhetoric, doesn't make it true. Mossadegh was not democratically elected. He wasn't elected prime minister as such at all, votes in parliament are not "democratic" especially if the parliament itself was not democraticall elected either. Least of all can Chomsky support anything: next we'll change the article on the Khmer Rouge to say their genocidal policies were not as bad as what happened in Timor Leste but that the US are to blame for either. Chomsky? Please!

You see no source? Maybe you should read the discussion here and which I linked to and ponder these facts. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Back in 2012, I argued energetically against calling the Prime Minister position of Mosaddegh "democratically elected". I cited Abbas Milani who wrote a book about the coup. When other editors challenged me, I reached out to Milani and asked him explicitly whether he considered Mosaddegh to be democratically elected. He said yes, the process of putting him in place was democratic and constitutional according to the standard practices of Iran. That interchange flipped my stance. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Mossadegh was (mostly) constitutionally put into office (except that he lacked the Shah's appointment and even opposed him) and by the standard practices of Iran. But these standard practices were not democratic. They were more democratic than what came later, after the coup, sure, but that's not enough. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

PS. If may quote yourself, Binkersternet: "Respected scholar Abbas Milani describes the "democratically elected" version of events as part of the mystique that arose around Mosaddegh because of the decades of terror under the Shah's authoritarian regime, not because of how the events unfolded at the time. Milani describes this narrative as being first promoted by Mosaddegh himself, then strengthened by the self-serving "leaked" "official history" of the CIA (Milani uses scare quotes here.)" - Milani's published opinion cannot be turned into its opposite by some private communication he gave to you. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Milani's book about the Shah describes Mosaddegh as having a strong agency in his own election to the position of PM. Milani says that Mosaddegh was subsequently lionized as a martyr to democracy because of the Shah's tyranny. A mystique built up around Mosaddegh, for sure. But Milani corrected me about events unfolding at the time. Milani says Mosaddegh followed democratic principles in gaining enough support to complete his PM bid and get elected by the legislature. Mosaddegh did not break any rules of the time, even though he stopped the election process to keep the number of his supporters high. This was not illegal. Milani minimizes the role of the Shah in confirming the PM after election in the legislature. The Shah can veto the candidate, but he cannot simply name the next PM. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You said, "Milani's published opinion cannot be turned into its opposite by some private communication he gave to you", but the point is that I originally misinterpreted the book The Shah that Milani wrote. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You wrote: "Mosaddegh did not break any rules of the time, even though he stopped the election process to keep the number of his supporters high. This was not illegal."

But that's precisely the crux of the matter. If he could do that without breaking any rules, the system was democratic to begin with. If a government can stop elections at whim, thus excluding many voters, these are not democratic elections. I have no issue with calling Mossadegh's government constitutional, parliament-based etc. - just not democratic. Definitely his election in parliament was not a "democratic" act.

As for your second comment: it remains that your private communication, important as it might be to you, cannot be used for the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mosaddegh RIP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

The book "America and Iran A History, 1720 to the Present" By John Ghazvinian provides new information that can be added under the Iran section of the Legacy header. The book (on Chapter 19) gives information on a specific date, March 5th, 1979, in which hundreds of thousands of Iranians publically marked the anniversary of the death of Mossadegh. It states "For sixty solid miles, the highway from Tehran to Mossadeq's burial site...transformed into a massive, unbroken daisy chain of cars...In the final seven or eight miles approaching the village, traffic became so gridlocked that mourners were forced to abandon their cars and complete the journey on foot...the country's official newspaper, Ettela'at, estimated the crowd at over a million." Garon12 (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo change

The photo was changed by IP editor 46.143.84.177. I restored it, as I believe the original photo is better. However, while I was restoring it, Str1977 made this edit regarding Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Lead_/_Democratically_elected? and I inadvertently reverted Str1977's edit also. I had no intention of getting into an edit war over the "democratically elected" issue. I believe that when Str1977 reverted my last edit, s/he may have not noticed that my last edit was actually about the photo, and Str1977 may have inadvertently reversed that part of my edit as well. There is no mention of photo in the edit summary of [1]. Can I/we restore the photo to this version of the photo or is there more support for the IP's change to the photo in this version? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction: Mosaddegh’s birthplace is not Ahmedabad, India

Mosaddegh was born to a prominent Persian family of high officials in Ahmadabad-e Mosaddeq, a village northwest of Tehran in present-day Alborz Province, Iran. 2600:1700:3ECE:5010:E123:4A03:100:2712 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@2600:1700:3ECE:5010:E123:4A03:100:2712 different city 97.65.184.7 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Our article does not say he was born in Ahmedabad, India. A quick googling gave me three sources saying that he was born in Tehran. Our article Ahmadabad-e Mosaddeq says that he is buried there but not that he was born there. I'll change place of birth into Tehran. Lova Falk (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Use of the word "issue" in place of "children"

This article appears to list Mosaddegh's children as "issue". Rarely, if ever, in modern English are children referred to as "issue". There is also no lede into this section, so if you are unaware of that specific definition of the word "issue" (which most English speakers in the modern day are not), the section just reads like a list of random people with random fun facts. It appears every use of the word "children" is replaced with "issue".

It appears from the edit history that several people have tried to correct this and someone has gone back to change it back to "issue". So- I'm just curious why this article must use the word "issue" instead of "children"?

I also do not think this is a totally necessary section of the article. A "personal/family life" section would maintain the relevant information in this section while providing opportunity for expansion about Mossadegh's personal life. Regardless of what this section is titled or if it is made a new section, this section is written very poorly with incomplete sentences. "Had issue (children). Later divorced." and "Became an engineer." are really poor descriptors of those people, and call into question the importance of highlighting Mossadegh's children in an encyclopedia article about him.

Proposed edits: Replace the word "issue" with "children", "child", and "family" depending on when it is necessary. And, I'd like to open up the discussion of merging this into a Personal Life or family life section. GlamourToadRealness (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

GlamourToadRealness I agree with you on "Issue". Especially for non-native speakers this is a strange word. I changed it into offspring. I hope it won't be reverted! Lova Falk (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)