Talk:Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.

[edit] Fiercely POV

The account of the Iran operation is fiercely POV, relying on a highly controversial book. Should emphatically be revised for neutrality.

Which part? The Roosevelt "tells his own story" or the first section. I'd think those two sections give a nice balance. THe top part describes part of the view, the second part describes the other part. How's that POV? Besides, do you have sources that back up your claim that something (you never did say which book) is a "highly controversial book." Every book is highly controversial in some circles. That doesn't mean that it should be edited out, especially if the book is written by the person himself. Also, sign your posts. (RossF18 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
I agree, and had already edited this page when this thread was posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhbrown (talk • contribs) 15:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Whoever put the following in the article:
This brief synopsis is by no means conclusive. It is meant to refute the simplistic and plainly inaccurate assertion above, that the TPAJAX was an entirely economically motivated conspiracy that was orchestrated by John and Alan Dulles. Unfortunately for Mr. Blum’s advocate above, the reality is, as usual, rather more complicated than the conspiracy theorists suggest.
should realize the POV of such statement. I've adjusted the paragraph and added a citation request, but make sure to site page numbers for verifications when you label people as being someone's advocate and make comments such as "rather more complicated than the conspiracy theorists suggest." Those statements sound like it's a personal opinion and nothing else.--RossF18 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ross,

Thank you for kindly editing my paragraphs. Let me explain:

1) To somebody vaguely familiar with TPAJAX, the assertion that Britain's sanctions: "would probably leave Iran politically and economically crippled" is not a particularly controversial one. Iran’s only significant economic asset in 1953 was oil. Britain stopped Iran trading oil. It’s not a huge stretch to say that Iran’s economy would be crippled, and to be honest, that’s what happened. So I would go so far as to say that it is obvious, and to properly cite it I would need to footnote a pretty substantial bibliography, approaching a library catalogue! Therefore this citation has been removed. I hope this is acceptable, Ross.

2) The citations surrounding Blum's claims are absolutely justified, and I would like to point out that my edit merely addresses the validity (or lack of…) of these claims. I am not making them myself, never having read Blum's book. The original editor of this article needs to add citations, and needs to address how the possible actions of the Dulles brothers have any relevance to Roosevelt. Surely the actions of Roosevelt to make the coup happen, especially in the immediate aftermath of the first failed coup attempt, dispute rather than buttress Mr Blum's already shaky argument? Did Kermit also have a link to Standard Oil? If not, why is this conspiracy theory even mentioned in this article?

3) Can somebody who uses Wikipedia often please sort this out? It seems that I have to do a lot of work to refute an unreferenced and apparently irrelevant argument.

Sincerely,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhbrown (talk • contribs) 09:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the previous poster, thank you for a letter format addressed to me. However, my comments where not meant specifically for you and were not meant to attack you or anything. Please see Wikipedia policy about original research. It doesn't matter how "absolutely justified" someone's claims are. You have to site it.


An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Source: Wikipedia:No original research

We all appreciate your research and analysis, but if it's your analysis, it usually doesn't belong on Wiki unless you can site it and the fact that it would take you a lot of time to do so is really not an excuse to not do so. It would prompt a

 This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (October 2007)

tag. --RossF18 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mate, what are you talking about? Did you read my post? I never said that Blum's arguement was 'completely justified', to the contrary I said that the citation requests were justified because I think Blum's arguement is a load of rubbish! I'm giving up on this and going back to work!

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.16.27 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Aah, personal attacks. Gotta love them. But they have no place at Wikipedia. First, I didn't say anything about Blum in my own post. Second, even if I did, how about discussing the point at issue, instead of trying to nit pick a post. Oooh, someone made a mistake or a mistatement in a post. That's not the point. The issue is what we're actually discussing so please let's limit discussion to that and not resort to exclamation points. --RossF18 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of irrelevant material

The information below has nothing to do with Kermit Roosevelt.


One controversial argument[citation needed] which has been put forward by William Blum in his 2003 book the book Killing Hope suggests that a conspiracy organized by the Dulles brothers was the main motivation for US involvement in Iran.[citation needed] The Dulles brothers had worked for Sullivan and Cromwell, a prominent law firm that represented Standard Oil of New Jersey. Standard Oil had wanted to gain oil interests in Iran for many years; but the AIOC had a monopoly on the region. The Dulles brothers saw a chance to give Standard Oil the ability to set up operations in the region, when the British asked about a coup. The British, no longer the dominant power, knew they could not remove Mossadegh without the US, which meant that the US would be entitled to a portion of the Iranian Oil, which they were ok with, because 60% is better than nothing. After the Coup, 40% of Iranian oil was owned by US oil companies.

In addition to relying on entirely circumstantial evidence, this theory ignores several key factors outlined below. First, the idea of ousting Mossadegh had been formed in preliminary stages by the Truman administration long before the Dulles brothers came into their positions as Secretary of State (JF) and Director of Central Intelligence under Eisenhower. Steve Marsh's article The United States, Iran and Operation 'Ajax': Inverting Interpretative Orthodoxy[1] points out key policy continuities between the two administrations, arguing that the change in administration was not the key factor in the acceptance of the coup. Second, it ignores the most basic goals of British foreign policy in Iran. To say that Britain was no longer the dominant power in the Middle East is accurate, but to assume that this was understood by the people and governments in power is not. The subsequent events in Suez show that even after the fall of Mossadegh, Britain still felt it had a right to overseas possessions. Moreover British policy did not show willingness to compromise. In fact, the blockade and sanctions imposed on Mossadegh’s government represented a successful unilateral policy that could have crippled Iran and, in the long term, been successful in reestablishing the dominance of the AIOC, or at the very least destroying Iran’s political stability entirely thereby sending a message to the world that nationalization of private property was not acceptable, and that the sanctity of contract endured.

A major factor that made this plan unacceptable to the new superpower was that it would probably leave Iran politically and economically crippled.[citation needed] The cold-war mentality in the US viewed this possibility as extremely dangerous, as it could result in communist takeover. This (probably unrealistic) fear of communist takeover was played on by the British and Iranians to encourage US support.[citation needed] Eventually, Churchill prevailed and convinced the Eisenhower administration that they would better contain the communist threat by removing Mossadeq. These arguments were meant to refute the assertions that the TPAJAX was an entirely economically motivated conspiracy that was orchestrated by John and Alan Dulles with the help of Kermit Roosevelt.[citation needed]

Therefore I've removed it.

If anyone has any citations linking Roosevelt to the supposed Oil related motivation of the coup, please feel free to post this back up. Or it could be incorporated into the existing TPAJAX article.

Matt


Somebody accidently put up this:

There is some speculation that Kim Roosevelt may have been part of a British plot to maintain an anglophile alliance with the United States. The British company AIOC (Anglo Iranian Oil Company) had a full monopoly on Iranian oil, but by 1951, Prime Minister Mossadegh had nationalized oil and removed British interests in the region. The British contacted the Truman administration to set up a coup, but they were not interested, as Mossadeq had been an anti-communist, and kept the Tudeh Party in place. However, in 1953 a new administration came to power and contacted MI-6 (British) to give their support for a coup. John Foster Dulles (secretary of state from 1953-1961) and his younger brother Allen Dulles (CIA Director) came up with Operation Ajax, a plan giving a million dollars to Kermit Roosevelt to create a coup. Roosevelt began giving money to General Zahedi, who in turn distributed the money among his soldiers to ensure their loyalty. In 1953, Zahedi led tanks into Tehran and closed the Majlis (legislature) and removed Mossadegh from power.

Which is simply repeating what is stated (and cited - please cite the claims you make) above. If this information is important, please add it to the AJAX section as it is clearly a summary of TPAJAX.

Thanks,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.16.27 (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style

This article is horribly riddled with run-on sentences!

Don't mind me, just posting as a bookmark to remind me to come back to this page.--Jersey Devil 09:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kermit Roosevelt Jr had a son named Kermit Roosevelt Jr. As tradition would have it, when the senior dies, the junior may drop junior, so that his son with the same name becomes the new junior. Thus the current Kermit Roosevelt Jr may drop the junior if he so wishes. He graduated from Groton School in the class of 1956. He should not be confused with Kermit Roosevelt III, who was born in 1971. De Forest 16:13, 13 Aug 2006 (UTC)


What is up with this line: "There is some speculation that Kim Roosevelt may have been part of a British plot to maintain an anglophile alliance with the United States. He remained convinced that the coup had been just and noble until his death in 2000." I mean, I remain convinced I am the best wikipedia editor EVER, until I die... I think that line was written to make it seem on his deathbed he recanted that the coup was just and noble. 66.31.222.89 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)PeterP