This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in Iran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow.... that is one hell of a biased article. Must of been written by the iranian government 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.190 ( talk) 10:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zeeba94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JoeCacese.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 24 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Karinap1. Peer reviewers:
Bayesidi.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Could someone remove that "Persian women overseas" junk. It really doesn't belong in here and seems like troll material. We're here to mention the achievments of Iranian or Persian women. You don't see me going to the page about kurdish women or ara women and stating their faults or what a dozen or so of them did abroad thousands of years ago.
Esther was not Persian but jewish hebrew.
Azeris are not 30 million in Iran, this is propaganda created by the pan-turks. They are 9-12 million at best and about 20%, including the mixed ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.31.195 ( talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Persian is assosiated to a sub language developed from the varies indoeuropean accents (I would rather say Aryan tribals whom moved into Iran platoue). Another fact is the inspirations Persian language has gotten during trades, contacts, conflicts and also invations from alien cultures, such as islamic expeditions into Persian empire and Moghol empire.
An amazing fact is that the ALIEN invaders soon became in love with this language served it tremendiously towards a more complexion and beauty! Specially the Moghols IL KHANISM federation gives us enough clue to know period of rennaisance in Persia as well as the language and other artistic arenas.
The above facts fullfilled enough materials to make Persian poetry unic in many fields and specificly the place "HUMANITY" has in Persian artistic expressions is sentral and even prior to the once ethnic or ethnics who spoke this language !
The Universalism of this language has a sentral ICON: HUMAN BEING !
Another specificness is the non subjective ways of expressions. The masculine form of HE and feminine SHE in Persian is the same world "OO", or things are not expressed as masculine - feminine unlike French or Arabic.
The language is rich with poetic literature engaged in philosophy, life, ethics, epics, religion, metaphyzic and universalities.
Many Poets are non Persian ethnics from North India, sentral Asia to Caucasian regions.
An example would be Azeri speaking Arans. At times they are the leading front figures whom produce master work bring new impulses to enrich the Persian Language ! I am not exagerating if I say the Persian language yielded more by Turkic speaking ethinics rather than Persians!
................................................................. .................................................................
Persian is just be one of the iran's total nations and calling iranian womans equal to persian womans is not true so please change the name of persian to Iran if it's possible. Iran is multi national multi cultural country. There are alot of other nations like azeri (Azerbaijani) nearly 30 milion, Kurdi (4 milion) , Arab 2 milion), Baloch,etc.
"Persian" here is not used as an ethnic word. It is a cultural one. That said, we will try to incorporate the name Iranian in as much as we can from now on. The article is not meant to be exclusive.-- Zereshk 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think this article is in need of a pretty massive rewrite. It needs copy-edit (which I was here to look at); it needs to be better about NPOV (the first "historical" section is quite rantish); it needs more referencing. It's also kind of an external link farm at the end, many of which are useless to English speakers. I'm going to try to copy-edit in my free time, but I think this article needs help from all. Please
be bold., this article needs it. --
will
20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"Although Persian women are often viewed as Iranian, they are not necessarily of any specific nationality or ethnicity."
If they are Persian, they are of a specific ethnicity: Persian. Persian is not just a language, it is first and foremost an ethnicity. Then it is a language and if someone is Persian, they didn't become Persian because they can speak the language. I'm changing it and requesting that no one revert the statement,
Any suggestions why Persian women are renowned fot their beauty? -- Vladko 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Why on god's green earth are Persians constantly referred to as Iranian? There are expats who moved long before there was an Islamic Republic, they embrace being Persian. The fact that this redirects to a nationality (in a nation where Persians only barely make the majority) is troublesome. What are the politics behind redirecting an article about the ethnic Persians to a lumped article about the people in a country? I guess the squeaky wheels won the day on Wikipedia, again. -- Bobak 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am also wondering why there is an explanation of the persian wedding tradition under persian women. Why is this necessary? Isn't a wedding ceremony in general related to men and women? -- Definite 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged it as dubious. That isn't what I'd expect to be "traditional" dress somehow; it has a decidedly Western look to it. Of course, I am ignorant, so let's get the sources for that. The Behnam 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
From Avesta.org: "We also worship the Ashavan woman, predominating in good thoughts, predominating in good words, predominating in good deeds, well instructed, 3 having power over the masters , Ashavan, (as are) Spenta Armaiti and your females, O Ahura Mazda."
The version used in the article added a lot to this. Besides, most of the inclusions are OR or from unreliable sources anyway, but I thought it was worth illustrating this one. The Behnam 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This was removed because I got rid of the "Mother Goddess" section. I'm thinking that it could replace one of the Safavid pictures since there are already two, but I'll put it here for now.
I think there should be a discusison on the talk page before anyone removes that much information. That is the best method, from what I can see, there were no citation needed tags placed before The Behnam cited OR before removing almost all of the article or any significant discussion.
Dont you think you should have asked for sources or atleast put citation needed tags on for awhile? I'm going to revert the article for now and place a tag on top that says this article seems to be OR and that citations need to be placed for now. Azerbaijani 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so The Behnam should clearly state his reasons why he thinks the information should not be in the article, then we can get this discussion going. Azerbaijani 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(moved from my talk page) You mind explaining why you re-added the picture of the half-Iranian and the harp player? Obviously you disagreed but it would help if you provided an actual reason. Anyway, I'm thinking of using this picture to replace the harp player. It is from the same location anyway. The only problem is that the image use policy is different between them for some reason. As for Soraya, she is half-Iranian (as her appearance betrays). I'm thinking that we should use a full Iranian as this would be more appropriate for an article about Iranian women. The Behnam 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because it is a gallery doesn't mean you add an indefinite amount of pictures to it. We should include a few pictures that best represent the topic. Considering that most Iranian women are of full Iranian ancestry I don't consider a half-Iranian a good choice for the purposes of the article. And I suggest the other picture for the harp player simply because it seems a better work of art, though that is of course debatable. The Behnam 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a third party here, with no real interest in editing. One quick comment though:
The distribution of the seals, which as instruments of trade and government represented economic and administrative control, reveals that these women were the more powerful group in their prehistoric society.
That simply isn't true. Having more seals doesn't mean you have more power, any more than a native american woman who gets to choose chiefs has more power. In ancient Iran, men still controlled the political and public realm.-- Urthogie 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The article contradicts mainstream anthrpology. It is ridiculous to give such undue weight to a single source. It's pretty obvious that it is biased towards the Iranian womens' history, which is why it's claiming that they somehow are the one sole counterexample to thousands of years of human history. It's not surprising to me though-- non-scientific sources do patently ridiculous science reporting all the time. -- Urthogie 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
btw, are there any pending/unaddressed issues with respect to the "massive" "deletions"? -- Fullstop 12:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is in a working progress, and not a court case - Please enrich the article by adding to the article, with appropriate references, rather than removing entries, which are already supported by proper citations, since they are not according to your personal taste, or do not correspond with your religious dogma. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
One cannot say whether the woman is Persian or Turkic (who cares anyways?), but just for the heck of it, the Qajars werent really "Turkic" by the 1900's... Hajji Piruz 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The claim that this is a Persian woman depicted has no source. The image description page doesn't provide a source for this claimed ethnicity any more than the caption does, and the caption doesn't. Hence I tagged it with {{ Fact}}. Vonones, please explain why you have removed the tag without providing a source. The appropriate action is to provide a source, but you didn't. Please reason with me. Thanks. The Behnam 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a mistake that many users keep making. Particularly those like The Behnam that are not an Iranian and do not know our history and country well. "Iran" was officially called "Persia" before 1935. An official decree was issued for that by the King of Iran. All official documents in latin language issued from before then, including the Safavid court, uses the word "Perse". There were no ethnicity tags back then. Therefore you could be an Azeri and still be "Persian", as for example the Azari Safavid monarchs called themselves. And the picture depicts the royal court in Isfahan.-- Zereshk 08:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm definitely not "gaming" the system by tagging the need for sources for claims (WP:OR and WP:V being key policies), asking that a source be used to show that a particular image is at all relevant to a topic (again, WP:NOR, instead of our personal opinions), and other cleanup. Essentially I'm supporting the system by making sure that this article is not exempt from its content rules (or at least trying to warn the reader of non-compliant content) In fact, I find it a tad offensive that you violate AGF so in characterizing my edits, especially without showing any evidence.
You did mention consensus. I get a feeling that certain users don't understand consensus very well. Consensus does not allow groups to 'agree' to include OR or otherwise contravene policy. The relevant quotes from WP:CONSENSUS are:
I believe that these quotes should be enough to explain my position, though I encourage you to read the rest of the document - it's quite a thriller. The Behnam 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep removing the {{ Fact}} tags from unsourced claims in the lead. The definitions need sources as much as anything else - otherwise we may be essentially making up a topic. If it is a claim, it needs an RS source, and 'defining' "Iranian women" involves claims. This is all basic WP:OR and WP:V stuff - I can't believe I have to tell you this. We can't invent our own topics, or define topics in our own way - let the RS do the work, and we report on it.
If this is a topic, it should be easy for you to source these definitions. I personally feel that the definition reflects the opinions of the editors rather than RS, which would make it OR in addition to unsourced. But please, just get the sources instead of suppressing the tags warning the readers about the problem here. WP is not a soapbox for personal definitions and conclusions - please stick to using RS from now on. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please allow me to respectfully disagree with The Behnam. Forgetting about the distinction of "persian" vs. "Iranian", the term "Iranian woman" may have only three meanings, solely for the reason of English language: unfortunately the adjective "Iranian" may have rather different meanings: "women of Iranian ethnicity", i.e., "female Iranian peoples" "women of Iranian nationality", i.e., "female Demographics of Iran", and finally, "women of Iranian culture", which, may be associated both with Iranian/Persian society, as well as with Iranian diaspora. In all these meanings one does not really need any reference or quotation: wikipedia policy WP:VERIFIABILITY does not require attribution in evident statements, such as "copper is a metal" or "women of Iranian nationality".
Now, this article states that it is about the third case: women of Iranian culture, and this is not POV, it is simply limiting of the scope of the article, and editors have full rights to define the desired scope. If this is a genuine intention, tyhen there should be a page Iranian women (disambiguation), listing the three meanings I mentioned. However to my uneducated opinion now there is nothing much to say in the article, e.g, Women of Iranian ethnicity (besides that they are very beautiful). Therefore may I humbly suggest that the article incorporates all three aspects. If someone enfulled with wisdom can write more than 5 sentences about Female demographics of Iran, no one will prevent him from making a separate article later. Inshallah. Mukadderat 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm ... I don't see why we need any definition in the first place. This article seems to deal with women of a certain region of this world (Iran in this case), and since both "women" and "Iran" are well-defined, there is no point in looking for a source to define women in Iran. The only source of confusion might be "what is meant by Iran" ( Greater Iran or the modern state Iran), and based on what we wish to include in the article, it is quite simple to clarify in the intro which one is meant. See Women in Arab societies for comparison. There is no definition there either, I presume because no one feels any necessity for it. Shervink 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that the current lead is not a definition. Why would anyone need to define women of a certain country? Of course there is no source doing such a thing, because "women of Iran" is not something with an independent definition. If one knows what women are and what Iran is, one knows what this article is about. The aricle is not there to define anything new, but to present detail on something which is otherwise well known and well understood, presumably because the topic is not sufficiently covered in other articles. Shervink 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the painting of Queen Esther by Edwin Long. What exactly is it doing for the article? Does it tell the reader something about Iranian women? Is it even an accurate representation of Queen Esther? The Behnam 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This line زن خوب فرمانبر پارسا was wrongly translated to "The honorable and noble woman". Checking out an on-line Persian-English dictionary [10] shows the obvious mistakes (This line of Sa'di is usually frowned upon by Iranian feminists): فرمانبر = Obedient However it was perviously mis-translated to "honorable". Heja Helweda 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Soraya shah wife.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
==
This article is highly sexist. No other countries have separate articles for their women, and there is no separate article about Iranian men. Why are Iranian women considered a seperate species who need their own special article? Why can't this information be incorporated into other articles pertaining to Iran and its people? Magpyr ( talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This article seems like a mess, look at the number of boxes talking about needing the page being "cleaned up" -- ☯µWiki☯ Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I just stopped by this page to learn, and the first line in the 'descriptions and appearance' box strikes me as a little random - perhaps I am misreading it, but does 'women thought they were better than men' need to be in there? Thank you.
perhaps sponsored by some ever dreaming Royalists.
1979 was 9% of iranian women employed and today more than 57% (without Mullahs maybe 70%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.97.111 ( talk) 11:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Are we now going to do "men" and "women" articles for every ethnic groups? Iranian women, Kurdish women, Arab women, Greek women, Italian women, Catalan women, Scottish women, German women, Maasai women, Sinhalese women? Or what?
Yes, there should be a "women's rights / gender issues in modern Iran" article, but not in the form of a cheesy ethnic fantasy piece about Persian womanhood through the ages. -- dab (𒁳) 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
wellspoken +1 DragonTiger23 ( talk) 20:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Where did the quote in the introduction about the dying of hair, and the widening of eyebrows? I have searched and searched, but I cannot find any references to the use of indigo as hair dye. The quote isn't attributed to a specific person either. Someone should fix this, or delete the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanatorRider ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a sportswomen section can be created?
The file File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot ( talk) 21:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Binksternet, please check out WP:RS a little bit. This sentence - On August 20, 2012, 36 universities announced that 77 courses would become male-only for the following school year placing severe restrictions on female university students who make up 60% of the student body. - isn't suitable for article because it's simply false. Just because it's widely reported (thanks to Iranophobic propaganda) it doesn't make it reliable, because it's speculation and nothing has been implemented. There's list of universities in Iran and you can find official websites, try to find even one with states anything about gender-only curses. Or "separated classes", also announced in Western media year before and year after stupidity above. Basically, every year the same controversial head of the same university announces "gender separation", but on university website there's no word about it. Newest photos taken few days ago shows mixed seminaries.
Other thing, you can not put However, factfish.com reported... after BBC link. FactFish is database run by programer, not some reliable institution itself. It's reliable because it refers to World Bank, and WB refers to UNESCO. Data from UNESCO is most reliable in this case because numbers are precise and they come from official institutions, so only "stronger" source would be data from Iranian ministry of education. BBC and other media outlets are irrelevant for statistic, not because it's British, implies for any kind, including Iranian. -- Qizilbash123 ( talk) 07:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, these comparisons between present and past regimes make no sense. (in every country) For example, look at literacy; it is obvious that with population growth the literacy will grow too. It is not a good comparison to say the past regime was bad! Aminabzz ( talk) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The comparison table falls under WP:DISPUTED because it doesn't take into account the change in cultural trends. The rise in literacy rates for instance cannot be simply attributed to the Islamic regime.-- AnarchistFakest ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding latest POV attempts by neo-orientalist heads: claim about alleged banning women from universities is not true, see: "Facts about women in universities in Iran" (Mehraspand , 2014) and "Did Iran Really Just Ban Women From Universities?" (Pourahmadi, 2012). Also, inserted domestic violence in Iran is not neutral article, its based on political pamphlet which has been removed from the internet. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 22:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Plus, about gallery: presentation given by User:Rupert loup is (1) irrelevant to the text, already illustrated by four directy related images, (2) highly selective - it shows indoor women from family album and some young girl in nature, in contrast to the four photos consisted of two Iranian Arab women (with abaya and battula) and two women with chador. Among those seven photos, none are illustrating how average Iranian woman looks like. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This article breaks the following wikipedia NPOV (Neutral Point of View) guidelines:
Impartial tone:
Several sections in the article are written in such a way to promote an argument or a point of view in iranian politics, examples:
"The Iranian women who had gained confidence and higher education under Pahlavi era participated in demonstrations against Shah to topple monarchy. (no citation)" by what measure or analysis?
"Ayatollah Khomeini seemed to express appreciation for women's issues after he took power. In May 1979, Khomeini addressed his audience and spoke about Fatimah" 'seemed', is subjective and shows the obvious bias of the author. Also breaks the words to watch guideline.
"Many Iranian women participated in the Iranian Revolution, the social changes being greeted by a majority of women (photo),[44] but opposed by a minority of secularized women.[45]" Citation, but statistics not given, nor how and when this data was collected.
The comparison table in the "Islamic Republic of Iran" section shows the increase in literacy rate, graduation rate, and age of marriage of women before and after 1979. 1979 was the year of the islamic revolution so using this date as a before & after comparison point is suggesting parallel between islamic revolution and an increase in womens freedom in iran, without giving solid evidence to enforce this claim. This is an impartial argument to make, why not use 1975 or 1985 as the before & after comparison point?
Bias in Sources
"With the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Western media said that women's rights declined" This claim was made by western and non western media, but by framing this as western media only the author revealing their political affiliations and attempting to impose them on this article.
" In 2010, 531 young females (aged 15–29) from different cities in nine provinces of Iran participated in a study the results of which showed that 77 percent prefer stricter covering, 19 percent loose covering, and only 4 percent don’t believe in veiling at all" The citation for this is considered largely biased, there are many surveys which contradict these results. A counterargument is not given.
No Citation
"A very small, but vocal, minority of thoroughly Westernized women from the upper class who totally opposed wearing of headscarves was democratically overwhelmed and defeated, and many of them left the country." Once again no statistics are given to prove that women opposing headscarves are more likely to be westernised, upper class, or in the minority. This might be considered true in common discourse about iranian politics but you need to cite sources and evidence, wikipedia is an encylopedia of proven facts and knowledge. This sentence also breaks the impartial tone guideline. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Usn1994 (
talk •
contribs)
09:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
"It's all properly sourced by very reliable, academic literature."
Is it Wikipedia policy to based statements from books most of us don't have and where actual quotes aren't provided? I just keyed in "What do Iranian women feel about the veil" on Google and got
this. First result?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/28/iranian-women-hate-hijab-tehranbureau "Why so many Iranians have come to hate the hijab". The report is Thu 28 Apr ‘16 09.00 BST.
2607:FEA8:239F:F18F:5A7:D2D2:9435:E0FA (
talk)
08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Which "unconstructive edits" you're talking about? There's a vast review about history of clothing, all referenced to tens of academic books, and beyond it someone added garbage section which claims something completely otherwise. Furthermore, someone excluded other properly referenced sections, so I restored it. Introduction was without any single source and with bizarre claims. -- 188.40.183.139 ( talk) 22:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz ( talk) 13:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz ( talk) 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I am curious why there is such a huge gap from the end of the Sassanid Dynasty until the Qajar Dynasty. I want to work on this period. Suggestions anyone? ---- Abscarab ( talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, wife of Ahmad Shah Qajar classic work, From Darkness to Light, published two years before the Islamic Revolution (1968-1969) ". However, from my searching, 1. Authur of said book was Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, a lady born in Tehran in 1905, while one of the wives of Ahmad Shah Qajar, Badr al-Molouk was born in 1897 in Tabriz. They couldn't be the same, and 2. the so called Islamic Revolution happened in 1979, said book was first published before the revolution. Hence the period couldn't be (1968-1969). [1] Please enlighten me to see if I'm correct. I'm working on the translation of this article into traditional Chinese. Thank you for your attention. ThomasYehYeh ( talk) 03:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
References
I've got no chance to read the referenced book, I thus have hard time understand the real meaning. Maybe a rephrasing can help. Thanks.
“After periods of imposed restrictions, women's educational attainment continued its rise through the Islamification of education following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, peaking in the years following radical changes in the curriculum and composition of classrooms.” ThomasYehYeh ( talk) 11:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Women in Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "books.google.se":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Women in Iran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow.... that is one hell of a biased article. Must of been written by the iranian government 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.190 ( talk) 10:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zeeba94.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JoeCacese.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 24 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Karinap1. Peer reviewers:
Bayesidi.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Could someone remove that "Persian women overseas" junk. It really doesn't belong in here and seems like troll material. We're here to mention the achievments of Iranian or Persian women. You don't see me going to the page about kurdish women or ara women and stating their faults or what a dozen or so of them did abroad thousands of years ago.
Esther was not Persian but jewish hebrew.
Azeris are not 30 million in Iran, this is propaganda created by the pan-turks. They are 9-12 million at best and about 20%, including the mixed ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.31.195 ( talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Persian is assosiated to a sub language developed from the varies indoeuropean accents (I would rather say Aryan tribals whom moved into Iran platoue). Another fact is the inspirations Persian language has gotten during trades, contacts, conflicts and also invations from alien cultures, such as islamic expeditions into Persian empire and Moghol empire.
An amazing fact is that the ALIEN invaders soon became in love with this language served it tremendiously towards a more complexion and beauty! Specially the Moghols IL KHANISM federation gives us enough clue to know period of rennaisance in Persia as well as the language and other artistic arenas.
The above facts fullfilled enough materials to make Persian poetry unic in many fields and specificly the place "HUMANITY" has in Persian artistic expressions is sentral and even prior to the once ethnic or ethnics who spoke this language !
The Universalism of this language has a sentral ICON: HUMAN BEING !
Another specificness is the non subjective ways of expressions. The masculine form of HE and feminine SHE in Persian is the same world "OO", or things are not expressed as masculine - feminine unlike French or Arabic.
The language is rich with poetic literature engaged in philosophy, life, ethics, epics, religion, metaphyzic and universalities.
Many Poets are non Persian ethnics from North India, sentral Asia to Caucasian regions.
An example would be Azeri speaking Arans. At times they are the leading front figures whom produce master work bring new impulses to enrich the Persian Language ! I am not exagerating if I say the Persian language yielded more by Turkic speaking ethinics rather than Persians!
................................................................. .................................................................
Persian is just be one of the iran's total nations and calling iranian womans equal to persian womans is not true so please change the name of persian to Iran if it's possible. Iran is multi national multi cultural country. There are alot of other nations like azeri (Azerbaijani) nearly 30 milion, Kurdi (4 milion) , Arab 2 milion), Baloch,etc.
"Persian" here is not used as an ethnic word. It is a cultural one. That said, we will try to incorporate the name Iranian in as much as we can from now on. The article is not meant to be exclusive.-- Zereshk 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think this article is in need of a pretty massive rewrite. It needs copy-edit (which I was here to look at); it needs to be better about NPOV (the first "historical" section is quite rantish); it needs more referencing. It's also kind of an external link farm at the end, many of which are useless to English speakers. I'm going to try to copy-edit in my free time, but I think this article needs help from all. Please
be bold., this article needs it. --
will
20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"Although Persian women are often viewed as Iranian, they are not necessarily of any specific nationality or ethnicity."
If they are Persian, they are of a specific ethnicity: Persian. Persian is not just a language, it is first and foremost an ethnicity. Then it is a language and if someone is Persian, they didn't become Persian because they can speak the language. I'm changing it and requesting that no one revert the statement,
Any suggestions why Persian women are renowned fot their beauty? -- Vladko 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Why on god's green earth are Persians constantly referred to as Iranian? There are expats who moved long before there was an Islamic Republic, they embrace being Persian. The fact that this redirects to a nationality (in a nation where Persians only barely make the majority) is troublesome. What are the politics behind redirecting an article about the ethnic Persians to a lumped article about the people in a country? I guess the squeaky wheels won the day on Wikipedia, again. -- Bobak 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am also wondering why there is an explanation of the persian wedding tradition under persian women. Why is this necessary? Isn't a wedding ceremony in general related to men and women? -- Definite 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged it as dubious. That isn't what I'd expect to be "traditional" dress somehow; it has a decidedly Western look to it. Of course, I am ignorant, so let's get the sources for that. The Behnam 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
From Avesta.org: "We also worship the Ashavan woman, predominating in good thoughts, predominating in good words, predominating in good deeds, well instructed, 3 having power over the masters , Ashavan, (as are) Spenta Armaiti and your females, O Ahura Mazda."
The version used in the article added a lot to this. Besides, most of the inclusions are OR or from unreliable sources anyway, but I thought it was worth illustrating this one. The Behnam 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This was removed because I got rid of the "Mother Goddess" section. I'm thinking that it could replace one of the Safavid pictures since there are already two, but I'll put it here for now.
I think there should be a discusison on the talk page before anyone removes that much information. That is the best method, from what I can see, there were no citation needed tags placed before The Behnam cited OR before removing almost all of the article or any significant discussion.
Dont you think you should have asked for sources or atleast put citation needed tags on for awhile? I'm going to revert the article for now and place a tag on top that says this article seems to be OR and that citations need to be placed for now. Azerbaijani 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so The Behnam should clearly state his reasons why he thinks the information should not be in the article, then we can get this discussion going. Azerbaijani 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
(moved from my talk page) You mind explaining why you re-added the picture of the half-Iranian and the harp player? Obviously you disagreed but it would help if you provided an actual reason. Anyway, I'm thinking of using this picture to replace the harp player. It is from the same location anyway. The only problem is that the image use policy is different between them for some reason. As for Soraya, she is half-Iranian (as her appearance betrays). I'm thinking that we should use a full Iranian as this would be more appropriate for an article about Iranian women. The Behnam 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because it is a gallery doesn't mean you add an indefinite amount of pictures to it. We should include a few pictures that best represent the topic. Considering that most Iranian women are of full Iranian ancestry I don't consider a half-Iranian a good choice for the purposes of the article. And I suggest the other picture for the harp player simply because it seems a better work of art, though that is of course debatable. The Behnam 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a third party here, with no real interest in editing. One quick comment though:
The distribution of the seals, which as instruments of trade and government represented economic and administrative control, reveals that these women were the more powerful group in their prehistoric society.
That simply isn't true. Having more seals doesn't mean you have more power, any more than a native american woman who gets to choose chiefs has more power. In ancient Iran, men still controlled the political and public realm.-- Urthogie 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The article contradicts mainstream anthrpology. It is ridiculous to give such undue weight to a single source. It's pretty obvious that it is biased towards the Iranian womens' history, which is why it's claiming that they somehow are the one sole counterexample to thousands of years of human history. It's not surprising to me though-- non-scientific sources do patently ridiculous science reporting all the time. -- Urthogie 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
btw, are there any pending/unaddressed issues with respect to the "massive" "deletions"? -- Fullstop 12:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is in a working progress, and not a court case - Please enrich the article by adding to the article, with appropriate references, rather than removing entries, which are already supported by proper citations, since they are not according to your personal taste, or do not correspond with your religious dogma. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
One cannot say whether the woman is Persian or Turkic (who cares anyways?), but just for the heck of it, the Qajars werent really "Turkic" by the 1900's... Hajji Piruz 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The claim that this is a Persian woman depicted has no source. The image description page doesn't provide a source for this claimed ethnicity any more than the caption does, and the caption doesn't. Hence I tagged it with {{ Fact}}. Vonones, please explain why you have removed the tag without providing a source. The appropriate action is to provide a source, but you didn't. Please reason with me. Thanks. The Behnam 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a mistake that many users keep making. Particularly those like The Behnam that are not an Iranian and do not know our history and country well. "Iran" was officially called "Persia" before 1935. An official decree was issued for that by the King of Iran. All official documents in latin language issued from before then, including the Safavid court, uses the word "Perse". There were no ethnicity tags back then. Therefore you could be an Azeri and still be "Persian", as for example the Azari Safavid monarchs called themselves. And the picture depicts the royal court in Isfahan.-- Zereshk 08:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm definitely not "gaming" the system by tagging the need for sources for claims (WP:OR and WP:V being key policies), asking that a source be used to show that a particular image is at all relevant to a topic (again, WP:NOR, instead of our personal opinions), and other cleanup. Essentially I'm supporting the system by making sure that this article is not exempt from its content rules (or at least trying to warn the reader of non-compliant content) In fact, I find it a tad offensive that you violate AGF so in characterizing my edits, especially without showing any evidence.
You did mention consensus. I get a feeling that certain users don't understand consensus very well. Consensus does not allow groups to 'agree' to include OR or otherwise contravene policy. The relevant quotes from WP:CONSENSUS are:
I believe that these quotes should be enough to explain my position, though I encourage you to read the rest of the document - it's quite a thriller. The Behnam 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you keep removing the {{ Fact}} tags from unsourced claims in the lead. The definitions need sources as much as anything else - otherwise we may be essentially making up a topic. If it is a claim, it needs an RS source, and 'defining' "Iranian women" involves claims. This is all basic WP:OR and WP:V stuff - I can't believe I have to tell you this. We can't invent our own topics, or define topics in our own way - let the RS do the work, and we report on it.
If this is a topic, it should be easy for you to source these definitions. I personally feel that the definition reflects the opinions of the editors rather than RS, which would make it OR in addition to unsourced. But please, just get the sources instead of suppressing the tags warning the readers about the problem here. WP is not a soapbox for personal definitions and conclusions - please stick to using RS from now on. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please allow me to respectfully disagree with The Behnam. Forgetting about the distinction of "persian" vs. "Iranian", the term "Iranian woman" may have only three meanings, solely for the reason of English language: unfortunately the adjective "Iranian" may have rather different meanings: "women of Iranian ethnicity", i.e., "female Iranian peoples" "women of Iranian nationality", i.e., "female Demographics of Iran", and finally, "women of Iranian culture", which, may be associated both with Iranian/Persian society, as well as with Iranian diaspora. In all these meanings one does not really need any reference or quotation: wikipedia policy WP:VERIFIABILITY does not require attribution in evident statements, such as "copper is a metal" or "women of Iranian nationality".
Now, this article states that it is about the third case: women of Iranian culture, and this is not POV, it is simply limiting of the scope of the article, and editors have full rights to define the desired scope. If this is a genuine intention, tyhen there should be a page Iranian women (disambiguation), listing the three meanings I mentioned. However to my uneducated opinion now there is nothing much to say in the article, e.g, Women of Iranian ethnicity (besides that they are very beautiful). Therefore may I humbly suggest that the article incorporates all three aspects. If someone enfulled with wisdom can write more than 5 sentences about Female demographics of Iran, no one will prevent him from making a separate article later. Inshallah. Mukadderat 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm ... I don't see why we need any definition in the first place. This article seems to deal with women of a certain region of this world (Iran in this case), and since both "women" and "Iran" are well-defined, there is no point in looking for a source to define women in Iran. The only source of confusion might be "what is meant by Iran" ( Greater Iran or the modern state Iran), and based on what we wish to include in the article, it is quite simple to clarify in the intro which one is meant. See Women in Arab societies for comparison. There is no definition there either, I presume because no one feels any necessity for it. Shervink 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that the current lead is not a definition. Why would anyone need to define women of a certain country? Of course there is no source doing such a thing, because "women of Iran" is not something with an independent definition. If one knows what women are and what Iran is, one knows what this article is about. The aricle is not there to define anything new, but to present detail on something which is otherwise well known and well understood, presumably because the topic is not sufficiently covered in other articles. Shervink 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the painting of Queen Esther by Edwin Long. What exactly is it doing for the article? Does it tell the reader something about Iranian women? Is it even an accurate representation of Queen Esther? The Behnam 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This line زن خوب فرمانبر پارسا was wrongly translated to "The honorable and noble woman". Checking out an on-line Persian-English dictionary [10] shows the obvious mistakes (This line of Sa'di is usually frowned upon by Iranian feminists): فرمانبر = Obedient However it was perviously mis-translated to "honorable". Heja Helweda 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Soraya shah wife.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
==
This article is highly sexist. No other countries have separate articles for their women, and there is no separate article about Iranian men. Why are Iranian women considered a seperate species who need their own special article? Why can't this information be incorporated into other articles pertaining to Iran and its people? Magpyr ( talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This article seems like a mess, look at the number of boxes talking about needing the page being "cleaned up" -- ☯µWiki☯ Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I just stopped by this page to learn, and the first line in the 'descriptions and appearance' box strikes me as a little random - perhaps I am misreading it, but does 'women thought they were better than men' need to be in there? Thank you.
perhaps sponsored by some ever dreaming Royalists.
1979 was 9% of iranian women employed and today more than 57% (without Mullahs maybe 70%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.97.111 ( talk) 11:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Are we now going to do "men" and "women" articles for every ethnic groups? Iranian women, Kurdish women, Arab women, Greek women, Italian women, Catalan women, Scottish women, German women, Maasai women, Sinhalese women? Or what?
Yes, there should be a "women's rights / gender issues in modern Iran" article, but not in the form of a cheesy ethnic fantasy piece about Persian womanhood through the ages. -- dab (𒁳) 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
wellspoken +1 DragonTiger23 ( talk) 20:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Where did the quote in the introduction about the dying of hair, and the widening of eyebrows? I have searched and searched, but I cannot find any references to the use of indigo as hair dye. The quote isn't attributed to a specific person either. Someone should fix this, or delete the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanatorRider ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a sportswomen section can be created?
The file File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot ( talk) 21:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Binksternet, please check out WP:RS a little bit. This sentence - On August 20, 2012, 36 universities announced that 77 courses would become male-only for the following school year placing severe restrictions on female university students who make up 60% of the student body. - isn't suitable for article because it's simply false. Just because it's widely reported (thanks to Iranophobic propaganda) it doesn't make it reliable, because it's speculation and nothing has been implemented. There's list of universities in Iran and you can find official websites, try to find even one with states anything about gender-only curses. Or "separated classes", also announced in Western media year before and year after stupidity above. Basically, every year the same controversial head of the same university announces "gender separation", but on university website there's no word about it. Newest photos taken few days ago shows mixed seminaries.
Other thing, you can not put However, factfish.com reported... after BBC link. FactFish is database run by programer, not some reliable institution itself. It's reliable because it refers to World Bank, and WB refers to UNESCO. Data from UNESCO is most reliable in this case because numbers are precise and they come from official institutions, so only "stronger" source would be data from Iranian ministry of education. BBC and other media outlets are irrelevant for statistic, not because it's British, implies for any kind, including Iranian. -- Qizilbash123 ( talk) 07:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, these comparisons between present and past regimes make no sense. (in every country) For example, look at literacy; it is obvious that with population growth the literacy will grow too. It is not a good comparison to say the past regime was bad! Aminabzz ( talk) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The comparison table falls under WP:DISPUTED because it doesn't take into account the change in cultural trends. The rise in literacy rates for instance cannot be simply attributed to the Islamic regime.-- AnarchistFakest ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding latest POV attempts by neo-orientalist heads: claim about alleged banning women from universities is not true, see: "Facts about women in universities in Iran" (Mehraspand , 2014) and "Did Iran Really Just Ban Women From Universities?" (Pourahmadi, 2012). Also, inserted domestic violence in Iran is not neutral article, its based on political pamphlet which has been removed from the internet. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 22:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Plus, about gallery: presentation given by User:Rupert loup is (1) irrelevant to the text, already illustrated by four directy related images, (2) highly selective - it shows indoor women from family album and some young girl in nature, in contrast to the four photos consisted of two Iranian Arab women (with abaya and battula) and two women with chador. Among those seven photos, none are illustrating how average Iranian woman looks like. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This article breaks the following wikipedia NPOV (Neutral Point of View) guidelines:
Impartial tone:
Several sections in the article are written in such a way to promote an argument or a point of view in iranian politics, examples:
"The Iranian women who had gained confidence and higher education under Pahlavi era participated in demonstrations against Shah to topple monarchy. (no citation)" by what measure or analysis?
"Ayatollah Khomeini seemed to express appreciation for women's issues after he took power. In May 1979, Khomeini addressed his audience and spoke about Fatimah" 'seemed', is subjective and shows the obvious bias of the author. Also breaks the words to watch guideline.
"Many Iranian women participated in the Iranian Revolution, the social changes being greeted by a majority of women (photo),[44] but opposed by a minority of secularized women.[45]" Citation, but statistics not given, nor how and when this data was collected.
The comparison table in the "Islamic Republic of Iran" section shows the increase in literacy rate, graduation rate, and age of marriage of women before and after 1979. 1979 was the year of the islamic revolution so using this date as a before & after comparison point is suggesting parallel between islamic revolution and an increase in womens freedom in iran, without giving solid evidence to enforce this claim. This is an impartial argument to make, why not use 1975 or 1985 as the before & after comparison point?
Bias in Sources
"With the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Western media said that women's rights declined" This claim was made by western and non western media, but by framing this as western media only the author revealing their political affiliations and attempting to impose them on this article.
" In 2010, 531 young females (aged 15–29) from different cities in nine provinces of Iran participated in a study the results of which showed that 77 percent prefer stricter covering, 19 percent loose covering, and only 4 percent don’t believe in veiling at all" The citation for this is considered largely biased, there are many surveys which contradict these results. A counterargument is not given.
No Citation
"A very small, but vocal, minority of thoroughly Westernized women from the upper class who totally opposed wearing of headscarves was democratically overwhelmed and defeated, and many of them left the country." Once again no statistics are given to prove that women opposing headscarves are more likely to be westernised, upper class, or in the minority. This might be considered true in common discourse about iranian politics but you need to cite sources and evidence, wikipedia is an encylopedia of proven facts and knowledge. This sentence also breaks the impartial tone guideline. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Usn1994 (
talk •
contribs)
09:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
"It's all properly sourced by very reliable, academic literature."
Is it Wikipedia policy to based statements from books most of us don't have and where actual quotes aren't provided? I just keyed in "What do Iranian women feel about the veil" on Google and got
this. First result?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/28/iranian-women-hate-hijab-tehranbureau "Why so many Iranians have come to hate the hijab". The report is Thu 28 Apr ‘16 09.00 BST.
2607:FEA8:239F:F18F:5A7:D2D2:9435:E0FA (
talk)
08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Which "unconstructive edits" you're talking about? There's a vast review about history of clothing, all referenced to tens of academic books, and beyond it someone added garbage section which claims something completely otherwise. Furthermore, someone excluded other properly referenced sections, so I restored it. Introduction was without any single source and with bizarre claims. -- 188.40.183.139 ( talk) 22:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz ( talk) 13:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz ( talk) 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I am curious why there is such a huge gap from the end of the Sassanid Dynasty until the Qajar Dynasty. I want to work on this period. Suggestions anyone? ---- Abscarab ( talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, wife of Ahmad Shah Qajar classic work, From Darkness to Light, published two years before the Islamic Revolution (1968-1969) ". However, from my searching, 1. Authur of said book was Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, a lady born in Tehran in 1905, while one of the wives of Ahmad Shah Qajar, Badr al-Molouk was born in 1897 in Tabriz. They couldn't be the same, and 2. the so called Islamic Revolution happened in 1979, said book was first published before the revolution. Hence the period couldn't be (1968-1969). [1] Please enlighten me to see if I'm correct. I'm working on the translation of this article into traditional Chinese. Thank you for your attention. ThomasYehYeh ( talk) 03:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
References
I've got no chance to read the referenced book, I thus have hard time understand the real meaning. Maybe a rephrasing can help. Thanks.
“After periods of imposed restrictions, women's educational attainment continued its rise through the Islamification of education following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, peaking in the years following radical changes in the curriculum and composition of classrooms.” ThomasYehYeh ( talk) 11:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Women in Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "books.google.se":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)