Talk:14 July Revolution

Queries

"Western imperialist control of Iraq through its monarchic mediators". That is neither factually correct nor proper English!124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "urges to liquidate traitors" is also poor English, and confuses incitement to murder of government officials with a legitimate activity.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased

This article seems to justify and approve the Iraqi coup plotters who massacred the royal family and turned Iraq into a one-party dictatorship...--201.81.226.220 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as shown by such language as "executed by the army" - no, they were murdered by rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.127 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Flag

The flag of the belligerents on the left side, shouldn't this be the flag of the Arab Federation? Since Iraq had merged with Jordan to form this federation (and this is one of the reasons for the revolution). --24.130.226.80 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did CIA Director Allen Dulles really tell Eisenhower "it was the hand of Nasser that implemented this coup"?

In Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War, Bryan R. Gibson challenges this account, stating: "The CIA director was uncertain whether Nasser was behind the coup, noting that while the conspirators were pro-Nasser, the CIA 'lacked hard evidence implicating [him].' This conclusion dispelled the notion that the United States thought that Nasser had played a direct role in the plot." Unfortunately, due to an oversight in this otherwise rigorously documented book, I am unable to determine where Gibson got this quote from. However, records from the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States do hint at a more nuanced U.S. understanding of events in Iraq. For example, in a July 14 meeting with Congressional leaders, Dulles reported: "The elements who have taken over in Iraq are led by persons some of whom have been clearly identified with the pro-Egyptian campaign. There is some question, however, as to whether the methods and timing of the present coup in Iraq were dictated from Egypt. The timing seems a little out of gear with what might have been expected, as well as the manner and brutality of carrying out the coup." Similarly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Rountree told Secretary of State John Foster Dulles on July 23 that "Both sides, however, have been careful to avoid giving any impression that Nasser dominates the Iraqi revolutionary regime and we do not anticipate that the new regime will join the UAR." Given Nasser's aggressive attempts to export his revolution to Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia it was hardly unreasonable for U.S. officials to investigate the possibility of Egyptian involvement in the Iraqi coup, but they do not seem to have reached any definitive conclusion on the matter, and clearly acknowledged some of the potential holes in that narrative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

CIA instigated

Is there any mention of the CIA instigation of this coup and putting Saddam Hussein in power. -- > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/a-tyrant-40-years-in-the-making.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Morris is an extreme Left-wing propagandist and most of his specific allegations in that article have since been debunked (or tl;dr). Of particular interest is Morris's citing of two major authorities on the CIA, the Church Committee and David Wise, as if they support his claims, although they plainly do not. In a 2003 Reuters report, which found "many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, say there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the 1960s," Wise subsequently went on record disputing Morris's account. On the Church Committee, here is an example of what can only be called Morris's intentional deceit, in which he selectively edits a quote in such a way as to reverse its meaning: "'The target suffered a terminal illness,' a CIA officer quipped to a Senate committee, 'before a firing squad in Baghdad.'" That sounds rather more damning with the very next phrase, "an event we had nothing to with," omitted. (Of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the myriad of ways in which that obscure Congressional footnote has been mangled and distorted.) The more obvious response to your query, however, is that you're on the wrong page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: copy/paste move reversed, history merge requested.(closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 03:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

---

1958 Iraqi coup d'état → 14 July Revolution – Someone copied and pasted the 14 July Revolution article to this redirect page. This is against Wikipedia policy and was done without a proper discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• support the proposal for procedural reasons (to undo a controversial undiscussed move). Support a WP:HISTMERGE of the two articles as well. —  AjaxSmack  12:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there should definitely be a WP:HISTMERGE. Charles Essie (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• History-merge  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)