Talk:Iranian Revolution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Good sources

this is probably the most biased and ignorant article i have read in my life. untruths are a plenty in this page, the shah did not show violence to the people, he was criticized by his peers for showing to little, cancer had taken his energy and he did not have the will or the heart to hurt the people, this went against him. if anything the current regime on the aftermath of the revolution executed 1000's of people, sooo hypocritical!

iran was in economic prosperity, the people had alot of money in their hands, there was relatively good equalitly within the nation, only a communist like the author would say that the revolution has bough prosperity to the people and equality, i would not call a nation with a minimum wage of 2-3 dollars an hour as prosperous the poorest in the shahs period were making more, irans employment was so competitive that it had 1 million foreighn workers working in iran.

all the shah wanted to do was modernize the country elevate it further in the economics side of things, of course igonorance of the population is not fully to blame, the english and the americans were the architects of the scheme and only a minority of khars wanted to have revolution, well i hope those koofts are happy now, iran has been screwed over its economy will take decades to recover after what this 'revolutionaries' have done

ps stop shitting on about the SAVAKS, they were harmless the revoltionary gaurds and there anti fun sentiments, beating up people for showing to much hair or holding hands, or playing music are much worse, iran human rights level has dropped to sewage low the level of brain dead leaders want it to be.

Reply to youre Statement

Listen you Savak lover this rubbish you are talking about brakes my Heart. You dont know about Mohammad Reza Shah, he was an Monster who used the Marchall Plan payed by the USA to a stupid festival in Shriaz while poor people in Iranian cities did not Electricty and did not have enogugh food. Second The SAVAK tortured my two Uncles who could become the most sucesfull people of the World but SAVAK gave them Whips and Electroschocks which you never will understand. SAVAK killed Shariati, Takhti and many Inoccent people and this is not bad. If you are an Iranian then look at the good things which the Islamic Republic did for its people. Many cities have Elctricty and people who lost loved one in the Iran Iraq war are helped. The goverment supports the needs of Students and the Iranian Universities are becoming one of the best in our Region. There are to steps which you can do, one is that you can Complain till youre rest of the Islamic Republic or stand up and help the Country in youre talents because all Iranian can make our Country one of the best

This obviously needs loads. The following may help:

• BBC on the iranian revolution
• A trotksyist prepective on the lead up
• A shia perspective
• From world history

Secretlondon 23:25, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've done a blunt stab at some basic information. I hope it can serve as a starting point. ✏ Sverdrup 00:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas for a breakdown of this topic? (ala Academia) Ambivalenthysteria 09:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if the info exists for such an outline, but this is a possibility if there is enough depth of info, with necessary mods (probably overly ambitious); feel free to mess with this outline as necessary, if people find it to be useful--Confuzion 03:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Precursors to the revolution
  • Condition inside of Iran before the revolution
    • social
    • religious
    • political
    • economic
    • political
  • Who supported the status quo, and Why
    • Members inside Iran - breakdown by ethnicity, race, status, age, gender, education, etc
    • Western Nations - Why certain nations supported the shah
      • United States support
      • UK support
  • Who opposed the status quo, and Why
    • Members inside Iran
    • Nations outside of Iran
• Escalation of tensions
  • Protests
    • Important protests (dates, locations, size, demographics and Why)
      • i.e., Carter's visit to Iran
      • Black Friday
    • Government and Western Response
• The actual revolution
  • Timeline of events for transition of governments
• Consolidation of power
  • Exile of previous regime
  • Purges?
• Post-revolutionary impact
  • Inside of Iran
  • Western/US-Iranian relations
  • Relations to neighboring regimes

I think that sounds excellent. Would make the revolution a lot easier to write about. If you want to put it in header-format (provided no one else has any objections), I'll start filling things in. Ambivalenthysteria 04:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Pjamescowie, those "vague lists" you took out were meant to be possible headers, but converted to list format to avoid cluttering up the table of contents until content is added... restructure if you want, but don't just delete it with no justification --Random|832 16:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's fine.... But I did provide justification..... The lists did look pretty vague and didn't make any sense -even apparently contradictory - as they read originally. Sorry, my mind-reading powers must be at a low ebb! lol. Maybe leave a statement of intent next time..... Make it clear.

Listen you Savak lover this bullshit you are talking about brakes my Heart. You dont know about Mohammad Reza Shah, she was an Monster who used the Marchall Plan payed by the USA to a stupid festival in Shriaz while poor people in Iranian cities did not Electricty and did not have enogugh food. Second The SAVAK tortured my two Uncles who could become the most sucesfull people of the World but SAVAK gave them Whips and Electroschocks which you never will understand. SAVAK killed Shariati, Takhti and many Inoccent people and this is not bad. If you are an Iranian then look at the good things which the Islamic Republic did for its people. Many cities have Elctricty and people who lost loved one in the Iran Iraq war are helped. The goverment supports the needs of Students and the Iranian Universities are becoming one of the best in our Region. There are to steps which you can do, one is that you can Complain till youre rest of the Islamic Republic or stand up and help the Country in youre talents because all Iranian can make our Country one of the best

modernisation

They wanted the basic Islamic lifestyle to return, in opposition to the Shah's efforts for modernism and progress, which they believed to be westernization.

"modernism", "progress", and "westernisation" are all vague words with political undertones. It almost sounds like we're arguing that the Shah was right, but those stupid people didn't understand how great his reforms were. What, specifically, did the Shah try to achieve that the people opposed? None of these words serve much use here. DanKeshet 18:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

corruption

I am a bit astonished by the assertion that the Iranian revolution has brought a reduction in corruption. Could this be supported by any evidence? Refdoc 21:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It has not brought a reduction in corruption. If anything, the level of corruption during the Shah's regime has sustained, and in some cases, increased since the revolution. To put it bluntly, the royal corruption has been replaced with the corruption of religious zealots. TheSunTheSea 20:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

In the section on "Internal opposition to the regime" it states that the Bahá'ís were opposed to the regime. This is not true. While the Bahá'ís did suffer quite a bit after the revolution, as noted in the section below the named section, and would have had an easier time with the previous Pahlavi regime, one of the Bahá'í laws is to be obedient to the government of the country they are residing in. The Bahá'ís have had many disagreements with the government, for example on the basis of not being able to go to higher education, but the Bahá'ís have never done something to oppose the regime. -- Navidazizi 00:33, Dec 31, 2004

I agree with this statement. The Baha'is did not oppose the Shah's regime nor do they oppose the current Islamic Republic. While both regimes have not been in favor of the Baha'is, the adherents to the Baha'i Faith are not involved in politics and, as the last user mentioned, they are required to be obedient to their government. -- TheSunTheSea 22:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Bahá'ís have always been obedient to the government, both before the revolution and after, because this is one of the laws of the Bahá'í Faith as enunciated by its founder, Bahá'u'lláh. For the past 27 years, Bahá'í students have been denied access to higher eduction because of their religion. When applying to universities, these students are forced to identify themselves as muslims, which is tantamount to the denial of their religion. Thus, they are denied education. During the past year (2005), the government had promised to change its policies and allow Bahá'í students to attend university, but once again they were denied this basic human right. The Iranian Government continues to oppress Bahá'ís, amid international pressures from the UN and human rights groups.

Muharram

I think the current version "one of the most important months" is a lot better than "most important Shia holiday", firstly it is a whole month rather than a few (holi)days, secondly while full of religious festivals work continues largely throughout the month, making the term holiday somewhat dodgy and finally Ramazan is arguably equally or even more important. Refdoc 00:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV

It says in the first para that Iran post-Revolution was a "theocratic democracy". Democracy? Yes, Iran runs elections. But is it a democracy? NO. Most of the most important position are appointed by the Supreme Leader, who is unelected. Shuld this be changed? Batmanand 14:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this is probably the most biased and ignorant article i have read in my life. untruths are a plenty in this page, the shah did not show violence to the people, he was criticized by his peers for showing to little, cancer had taken his energy and he did not have the will or the heart to hurt the people, this went against him. if anything the current regime on the aftermath of the revolution executed 1000's of people, sooo hypocritical!

iran was in economic prosperity, the people had alot of money in their hands, there was relatively good equalitly within the nation, only a communist like the author would say that the revolution has bough prosperity to the people and equality, i would not call a nation with a minimum wage of 2-3 dollars an hour as prosperous the poorest in the shahs period were making more, irans employment was so competitive that it had 1 million foreighn workers working in iran.

all the shah wanted to do was modernize the country elevate it further in the economics side of things, of course igonorance of the population is not fully to blame, the english and the americans were the architects of the scheme and only a minority of khars wanted to have revolution, well i hope those koofts are happy now, iran has been screwed over its economy will take decades to recover after what this 'revolutionaries' have done

ps stop shitting on about the SAVAKS, they were harmless the revoltionary gaurds and there anti fun sentiments, beating up people for showing to much hair or holding hands, or playing music are much worse, iran human rights level has dropped to sewage low the level of brain dead leaders want it to be.

The POV of the article is pretty neutral; however I do think some of the stats do need citations. As for what you’re saying, here is what is wrong with your arguments strawman and ad hominem-- Klymen

Nomination for worst article

It seems the "Iranian revolution" article is just a forum with bits and pieces of personal feelings. opinions and counter-opinions. Why don't we try to make this a neutral article based on facts?

• You are making highly POV and inaccurate changes and deleting large amounts of content. You are, for instance, deleting anything that could hint at the causes of the revolution. It is also highly incorrect to refer to the entire event as the Islamic Revolution, which was only the second phase of it. Please stop. - SimonP 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is absolutely unbelievable that this is deemed a "good article". It has several huge factual errors, things which can be looked up in any school book. What is the notion of "The Shah agreed to introduce a constitution" about? The Shah was asked to leave by the prime minister, not forced to flee as written here. The executions after the revolution were aimed not only at SAVAK (perhaps even least notably so), but mostly at military personnel, former cabinet members, officials, academics, and even non-monarchists (in later years). These are just examples. And I am surprised to see that this is called impartial, in fact claiming that the population in Iran were poor whereas by all accounts they were in the best economic situation in the entire history of the country, is ridiculous. This article needs serious revision. It most definitely does not qualify as a good article yet, and I feel obliged to remove the "good article" box. Shervink 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)shervink

• Some facts that were left out of the article. Here is my take on the last 50+ years of Iranian history. Prior to WWII the British were the biggest influence in Iran. The British were there for the oil. 1953: U.S. backs the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. The CIA admitedly paid for an assasanation. Supposedly he was killed because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Then the U.S. supports the Shah for decades. In 1979 during protests his American trained and equipped troops kill thousands of civilians who were peacefully protesting his American backed regime. Americans are suprised when Iranians throw out the tyrant Shah and take over the embassy of the country that supported him for 25 years. Once in power, the Ayatollas create a strict Islamic state. President Jimmy Carter fails the release of the hostages and a rescue mission ended in the deaths of the rescuers. President Reagan then negotiated the release of the hostages, later to pay back Iran by providing weapons through Israel and paid for by questionable means (Iran-Contra). The weapons were to help Iran fight their war with Iraq. Iraq was using weapons sold to them by the U.S. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and civilians. In 1983 the U.S. sends Donald Rumsfeld to improve relations with Saddam http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ knowing he kills dissidents, imprisons or kills political opponents, and has used chemical weapons on Iranians and Iraqi's. The most recent revelation that the CIA shuttled captives to secret torture prisons in eastern Europe continues the legacy of American disgrace and dishonesty, which is almost entirely hidden from the American people. And yet again Americans wonder why their government is disliked in the Middle East. My experience in travelling in the Middle East for decades is that the people there do not hate Americans, they hate the hypocritical American government policies. There has yet been an American government that deserves the respect of these people. I can only hope that someday there will be.

"Reagan then negotiated the release of the hostages". This is a rather ludicrous statement since, as Wikipedia mentions, "The release [of the hostages] took place just minutes after Ronald Reagan was officially sworn in as president." The Carter administration negotiated the release of the hostages. Reagan was able to announce the release only through the coincidences of the American electoral calendar. Furthermore, Iran-Contra was as wholly divorced from the hostage crisis as a thing involving the same two nations can be. Again, Wikipedia notes that the hostages alleged to have been at the heart of Iran-Contra -- though this was denied by Reagan at the time -- were held by Hezbollah and taken later. The significance to this article's point of the fact that the US was funding both sides in the Iran-Iraq war -- which fact I do not dispute -- escapes me. There is surely room to improve the article, but ranting about the corruption or hypocrisy of various American governments, however accurate, is not productive. Czrisher 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommended Book

• What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran, Payvand News, March 10, 2006.

POV

Far too polemical and one-sided and needs some rewriting to remove POV and major corrections and clarifications regarding the more controversial issues. SouthernComfort 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

how so? Joeyramoney 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Amphiboly

"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was returned to power in Iran after he had fled the country in 1953."

Did he flee in 1953, or was he returned to power in 1953? - Unsigned comment by 68.51.84.214

According to Operation Ajax, both. Kirbytime 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Redirect

I just noticed the page is now redirected to Islamic Revolution of Iran, was this discussed and I missed/cannot find it? If not shouldn't a significant change like this be discussed before the change is made?

My personal view is that titling the page the Islamic revolution assumes that the movement was motivated by religion, whereas the Islamic portion of the revolution only occurred later, even though it had a greater lasting effect. As noted above it's incorrect to refer to the whole revolution as the Islamic Revolution. Secondary is the fact that most people searching google for an article on this subject would be looking for the Iranian Revolution rather than the Islamic Revolution of Iran. CRobey 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The unilateral redirecting of this page has been an ongoing problem. You are quite right that the current title is the better one, and such redirections should be revereted. - SimonP 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Recent changes continuously discarded by someone called “Pecher”. It seems the person in question has leniency to the terrorist regime in Tehran, who insists to portray Islamic revolution as a progressive event in Iran and its’ leader, the man who was responsible of massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in one year, 1.2 million deaths, 300,000 political prisoners, 300,000 disables, the main cause of current poverty, prostitution and drug abuse in Iran, as a holy man and a liberator!

Please assume good faith. Also, the version of the article you are trying to insert is highly POV and filled with unsubstantiated facts not accepted by any mainstream historians. Plecher was quite right to revert these changes. - SimonP 20:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the corrections that I have made to her/his article are "unsubstantiated facts"? Are you an authority in this field? At the end each event mentioned in my revised article, reference(s) given, in contrary to his article; - have you checked all the references, and came to conclusion that my contribution is based on "unsubstantiated facts"?

Re:Recent Changes

"....and filled with unsubstantiated facts not accepted by any mainstream historians"?! What historian? Do you mean "Western Media" that toppled a regime that was no perfect, but at least was going towards right direction, and were replaced with a tyrant and terrorist regime by West. The article that I have re-written based on your own article and information published in "Mission to Tehran" by US General Robert E Huyser; "37 Days" by Dr Shapur Bakhtiar, tha last Prime minter of Shah; "What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran" by Ernst Schroeder; "The last Shah of Iran" Houchang Nahavandi; memoir of Sir Anthony Parsons, the last British ambassador to Tehran prior to revolution, and many other written memoirs and analysis by vetren politician who were involved (directly or indirectly) in that plot, which the Western media have portrayed it as Revolution - Surena ^Talk.

You're filling the article with poorly written conspiracist nonsense presented as facts. Please read WP:NPOV before doing such sweeping changes; you must have the majority of historians on your side to present your POV the way you're doing. In addition, sign your comments, please, and refrain from personal attacks. Pecher ^Talk 09:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your claims regarding Islamic revolution are baseless, and complete falsification of the history. You have included good bibliography list, I suggest that you read them first, then preach and claim an authority. However, if it is poorly written, please forgive yourself, since the article that I have submitted is based on your own, and I only have corrected your mistakes, and removed the historical distortions. Joseph Goebbels was written Hitler’s speeches in perfect German, but what has happened to his propaganda machine? It is better to write poorly than misinform the public - Surena, 11 June 2006.

I have studied the Iranin Revolution in some detail, and while this article is imperfect it does reflect the generally accepted scholarship. Please stop edit warring and desist from personal attacks, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - SimonP 18:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are clueless about the Iranian revolution in contrary to your claim. Reading few coffee-table books in comfort of your home, won't make you an authority in this field. The article here has no historical back ups or authenticity, and lack of references at the end of each event mentioned in your article, makes it more unreliable. Again, I suggest that you read the bibliography that has been included in the article, and then you will realize how misunderstood and mislead you are. I have done my best to put you in right direction, which is based on historical facts, but as an old-English saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink”; - With regard to “personal attack”, it is more “personal observation”, and if you care to read Pecher’s contributions, and his disrespect for others' contributions, you will learn that we are dealing with a fundamentalist -- Surena 13 June 2006.

Allegations without support

Various consiracy-theory type allegations are being made in the version of the article that some are trying to support. Something as scandalous as attributing Black Friday to Palestinian militants, as in the comment

But in later years was revealed that it was not the conscripts of the imperial army who opened fire on demonstrators, but a group of Palestinian mercenaries, in Imperial Army’s outfit, brought to Iran via Iraq by unknown sources.

should not be stated here unless it has significant factual support. To include it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

If you would have read the references included at the end of the paragraph, prior to your censorship and deletion of the article, then you would have realized that is factual and based on historical events. It seems it is easier to distort history by shouting "conspiracy theory". As a Greek philosopher once said: It is easier to deny knowledge, than understanding it - People are afraid of knowing the truth. Unfortunately, this saying is applied here, to these pages - a correct article replaced with a hoax story, suitable to Islamic regime and their supporters, about a revolution that until now resulted in 1.2 million deaths, 300,000 political prisoners and a country in a state of disarray. It is a disgraceful act by Wikipedia to permits historical-distortion, and supports the rule of tyranny and terrorism – Surena 13 June 2006.

Firstly, I doubt anyone here is an apologist for the Islamist regime, and your allegations are personal attacks and must stop. Secondly your theories that the Iranian Revolution was a British plot is certainly not the accepted view among scholars of this subject. Academics are hardly noted for their Western propagandizing, but I have never read of one that accepted this theory. If you could cite some who do support this theory, it could be inserted as an alternate view, but there is no way this revisionist view will be the main one presented by the article. Also, this is not the article to catalogue the many human rights abuses of the post-Revolutionary regime. The article already mentions the abuses, and more detail would be better suited to an article such as human rights in Iran. - SimonP 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s State of Censorship

To SimonP - You keep saying Scholars, but how many books have you ever read about Iranian revolution? I believe NONE, otherwise you wouldn’t deny British and Western involvement in that revolute. The problem with most people like you is that they accept whatever Media are feeding them with; -and by watching few TV programs and reading some short essays published in newspapers or few coffee-table books they think that they know everything. I was one of the active members of opposition to Shah and his regime, and now I know how wrong and mislead I was. However, it is too late to change the history, but at least we can inform the future generations about the truth and real events have taken palce during that reolution, and warn them about the hazardous and obstacles on their ways, in quest for democracy, freedom and civil society. You have asked for references, here are few of many books to study in depth, and hopefully you will learn something about "Iranian revolution" and the Scholars that you use them as reference in vain, which will help you not to be so reluctant to accept the not-so shocking reality:

• Mission to Tehran by US General Robert E Huyser
• 37 Days by Dr Shapur Bakhtiar (the last Prime minter of Shah);
• A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, by Ernst Schroeder
• The last Shah of Iran H. Nahavandi
• Memoir of Sir Anthony Parsons (the last British ambassador to Tehran prior to revolution)
• The Seven Sisters; The Great Oil Companies and the World they Made, by Anthony Sampson
• The Rise and Fall of Shah, by Amin Saikal
• The Shah’s Story, by Michael Hoseph
• Power and Principles, by Zbigniew Brezenski
• Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, by W. Lewis & M. Ledeen
• MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service by Stephen Dorril
• Centre Européen d'Information, 1963 Report, Re: Khomeini and Kashani's relationship with Western Secret Services.

The above-mentioned books were the core for correction of the mislead-article here that you are reluctantly trying to propagate and mislead the public. Hopefully after reading the above-mentioned books by the ‘’Scholars’’ and politicians involved in Iran-affair, then you'll be able to ease Wikipedia Police-order and the state of censorship that have been imposed here – Finally as mentioned before, please do not mistake “Personal Observations”, with “Personal Attacks”, try not to be so faint-hearted, and accept critics and prepare to correct yourself, when proven wrong – Truth & Justice will Always Prevail - Surena, 14 June 2006.

The Islamic Revolution article

Someone made a new article today called The Islamic Revolution. Almost all of it's content was created on the first posting, so I'm thinking this is a copyvio. Nonetheless, there is some good information in there, which I think should be used to expand on this article. I was going to nominate it for deletion, but I think this is a better way of dealing with it. I wanted to add {{mergefrom|The Islamic Revolution}} to this article, but it's currently locked. Would someone mind adding it? ♠ SG →Talk 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That article is actuially just a copy of this one, but with a very strong POV added. There isn't much worth merging, so I've simply redirected it here. - SimonP 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! That sounds perfectly good to me. I have a feeling a revert war is about to start, so, just a heads up that this might have to go to VfD. ♠ SG →Talk 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was a corrected version of "Iranian Revolution", which never permitted to be on-line more than few hours, since it was to controversial, and distasteful to Wikipedia Censorship Department. I remember those days when Wikipedia was established, considered to be a safe heaven for free-writers of pro-democracy; it was a forum and e-encyclopaedia of freedom of information, which was not controled by Media propaganda machine, but nowadays it became same as other encyclopaedias, a subservient of state of censorship. Therefore, new motto should be: Wikipedia, The Imprisoned Encyclopedia - Surena 14 June 2006

My suggestion is that you go to Wikinfo. It is a version of Wikipedia that allows both original research and POV articles. They currently do not have anything on the Iranian Revolution, and would gladly accept your piece. - SimonP 13:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To St. SimonP - Thanks you for telling me about Wikinfo; -I had no knowledge of it; I am so indebted for your permission, that I can publish my work there! Without your enlightening gaudiness, I didn’t know what should I do; I had to put my life on hold, if you would have not tell me about it. You are the Wikipedia' users saviour. Anyhow, do you call this unrehearsed and misinformed published article Original Research? - Surena 15 June 2006.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "this" is. If you mean your version of the article, then the answer is "yes". Pecher ^Talk 11:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest psychological and socio-problems that Muslim Fundamentalists are suffering from is Self-righteousness and being importunes Surena!

The Man Who Claims to Know Everything, Knows Nothing!

The wise word above 10th century Persian philosopher is applied here to SimonP.

SimonP, claims to be specialized in all the fields of knowledge; -from African history, to the Iranian Revolution, from Russian Culture, to US politics, and so on and so forth. He spends most of his time in here as editor, censoring, communicating, leaving senseless messages, and still he has time to learn to convoy his knowledge to others. He must be either superman, or another Albert Einstein; -and that is hard to believe!

From the style of his writing he mustn’t be older than 30 years of age. Let’s hypothetically say, that he started reading and leaning as soon his mother gave birth to him, and since then he has continued to pursue his knowledge without being in need of eating, sleeping, and other necessities to survive; -he still could have not enough time to gain all these knowledge that he quite arrogantly claims to have an absolute authority in all of them. We have a word for these people like SimonP, the ”Impostors”.

I came to this conclusion recently, when I have corrected and added some historical facts to the Article “Iranian Revolution”, in which he has relentlessly deleted all my contribution! He has claimed that my work has no historical back-ups, which in contrary to his observations, I have included references and bibliography at the end of each event that were mentioned in that article. He claims that my editing are “allegations without support”, and when I’ve provided him with a list of books *[1], and urged him to read them, all of sudden he went absurdly quite.

I was a misled-participant in that so-called revolution, and being involved in researching the event since then. As a result, I am able to claim (to some certain degree), that I know about the topic, while, he claims that he knows it “in detail”.

SimonP, portrayed one of the rootless revolutions in human history as a peaceful event with democratic values, that led Iranians to a prosperity; -the prosperity that he promotes and propagates here, has taken over 1.2 million lives, hundreds of thousand of political prisoners, left a county with a bankrupt economy, and the worst record of human rights, as well as supporting terrorism. I don’t wish to accuse SimonP, but if someone supports a revolution that created the Islamic regime in Tehran, he must be either a super-gullible, or have a tendency to oppression, terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism/fascism.

I believe that his editorial purgatives should be removed, and he should be replaced with someone who is open-minded, tolerant and respects other peoples’ beliefs and thoughts. Wikipedia was established as a “Free Encyclopaedia”, and closed-minded, mislead, dictator-like individuals like SimonP, who subscribe to “My Way or Highway” school of though, transfers Wikipedia to become like other Encyclopaedias controlled by Media Empires and world propaganda machines Surena.

What about the Soviet role during and after the revolution?

I'm surprised that this wasn't mentioned in the article. What did the Soviet leadership think about an Islamic fundamentalist regime coming to power right next door? Remember they intervened in Afghanistan in December 1979 to prevent Islamic fundementalists from seizing power in that country. I have seen various (unproven) theories that the Soviets helped to incite a revolution in Iran, or even that the whole thing was caused by them, that radical Muslim fundamentalists who opposed the Shah were actually communist agents in disguise (yes as crazy as it sounds), and that the Soviets did this because Iran was about to recieve advanced American weapons and aircraft (F-16 jets and the Phoenix missiles). Is there any truth to this? Personally I think it's nonsense. Auspx 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Changes

"The CIA used some of it's techniques used in Operation Ajax to help Khomeini to take control of Iran.The CIA even advised that Revolutionary council to use Anti-American Rhetoric to help demonize the Shah as a puppet of the United States.The first actions of Khomeini when he came to power was the mass execution of communists. Khomeini was no favorite of the CIA but anyone was better than a Communist in the eyes of the CIA."

What the hell is this about? Care to produce some sources instead of just assuming things? I don't believe that Imam Khomeini was working with the CIA, and this above paragraph contradicts the rest of the article completely. It is just plain wrong, incorrect, and misleading information, which should be removed.

To the person below me, why don't you learn something. I am complaining about information presented because it just assumes, and there are no sources. You denying that the Shah killed anyone is just plain ignorant. He killed thousands of people, and SAVAK are even worse. They were the ones who killed innocent civilians who were in the streets. To say that they were harmless is an insult to the memory of those innocent people who died as a result of the Shah's opressive and dictatorial regime. After the Revolution, SAVAK agents and Monarchists were killed, as well as those fighting the revolution, WHICH IS NATURAL. Every revolution begins with executions of high ranking members of the former regime, and of course counter-revolutionaries. Look at Russia, China, Cuba, etc. You are ignorant.

ALSO ANOTHER THING: Please could somebody change the title of the article to the "Islamic Revolution", as this is the proper and correct name for it. It was not the Iranian Revolution, and you can ask anybody that. Iranians or non-Iranians with knowledge of the Revolution call it the Islamic Revolution, because that's what it was, a Revolution for Islam.

• In the second paragraph, it is mentioned that the shah was in power since 1941, with a brief interruption in 1953. I think for the purpose of understanding some of reasoning behind the Iranian revolution in 1979, it is important to refer to the removal of his father Reza Shah, by the British government, who was a very popular leader and also to operation AJAX in 1953 which resulted in the removal of democratically elected primeminister Mossadegh. Often the history of events will lead to the culmination of other events, and in this case the Iranian people have been yearning democracy for a long time. There have been some references to British involvement in the 1979 revolution, which may also have some weight. Also, based on the events of the last century, it is clear that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 was the hope for a new democracy in Iran, which did not happen, so renaming the page title to Islamic revolution in Iran might be better. Amrix 12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali Shariati's murder?

The article on Shariati states he died of natural causes in London. Here, we learn about his assasination. which of the two articles is true? Jasiok 17 August 2006 (UTC)

cites

I would like to see some citations in the 'Khomeini takes power' about CIA involvement.

Unprotected

This was not marked as protected. Semiprotection shouldn't normally be used for more than a few days, and I'm not sure why full protection was used here. Let's see if the vandalism resumes. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

--- I don't know how to create the template: "opposition of neighbouring regimes" I changed 'many hezbollah weapons to 'some', i haven't seen a huger count then 3 supposedly! iranian hezbollah-rockets, and remember most are thought to be 'home-made' furthermore the assumptions that iran (or syria) is the sole facilitator of hezbollah are ridiculous, and i have unfortunately to point out again the propaganda function of wiki in obscuring history. Someone putting 'all' the responsability on iran, will probably edit articles about syria to say the same. It should be checked;) 80.57.242.54 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shorting introductory section

I propose to shorten the intro section and move information therein into other sections of the article - "precursors to the revolution", "pre-revolutionary conditions inside Iran", "early protests", etc. Any objections? --Leroy65X 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

very pro shah

the article claims the shah pushed through "universal suffrage" (i.e. women's voting rights). This is a fallacy since the guy was a repressive dictator nobody had any rights. what an idiotic thing to put in the article

People had more rights than under the Islamic Republic. He was an good dictator.--06:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot poosibly say that he was a good dictator. People do not have revolutions when their is a lack of discontent.

Deletion of intro sentences

these bullet points in the intro have been deleted by Patchouli

The revolution was unique for the surprise it created in the world stage:

*It was the first modern revolution where ideologies like nationalism and populism took a back seat to religion. Islamism -- the revolution's (ultimate) ideology -- was until then unheard of, or at least considered by outsiders too conservative and otherwise ill-equiped to inspire a revolution.

This lead is extremely misleading. It is well-known that many revolutionaries like People's Mujahedin of Iran were Marxists and other liberals who didn't like sharia and compulsory hijab. After all, just look at the number of Iranian expatriates and how the European nations deal with Iranians who a visa for travel after the Islamic Revolution. If it were all about Islam, then now there is enough Islam to nauseate people. Why do so many people want to permanently leave that hellhole? [Patchouli comment]

1)Who ended up in power as a result of the revolution? liberals and leftists? or religiously motivated Islamists?

The Islamist.--Patchouli 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

2)The argument is not whether ... things are not so good in Iran now, it is whether religion played the leading role in the revolution. Non-religious Marxists and liberals were defeated by Khomeini's forces.

The Islamists overcame other factions.--Patchouli 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

3)You don't have to be in favor of (traditional) sharia to be religious. Ali Shariati considered himself religious. He was a modernist.

4) Is it not true that People's Mujahedin of Iran strongly deny being Marxist? That they consider themselves Islamic, much like Shariati?

I don't really know. I just know that the U.S. State Department calls them "Marxist."--Patchouli 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

5) And finally, what have I added or subtracted from the article that lacks neutrality?? --Leroy65X 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

*It overthrew a regime many considered safe from overthrow. Iran was a member of OPEC and benefited from a huge infusion of oil revenue (following the tripling of the price of oil brought on by the 1973 oil crisis) available to either placate discontent among the public or army, or crush it with its large and feared security apparatus.

His explanation left as a message to me is

"Nothing was unique. You haven't studied the dates of the sequences. If you think a few demonstrations and killings are a revolution, then you need to restudy history. There were demonstrations and killing in the U.S in the 1960s. There were/are demonstrations and killings in China during Tiananmen Square, Sudan, Uganda, Nepal, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, ....

If Khamenei would leave with a few demonstration and deaths, then the Islamic regime would have been gone long ago. --Patchouli 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)"

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leroy65X")

Patchouli, Here some questions for you:

• If the IRI was "not unique," I ask when was there an Islamic "modern revolution where ideologies like nationalism and populism took a back seat to religion"?

It wasn't all about religion. Listen to http://www.iranian.com/Pictory/2003/February/prom.mp3-- if you understand Persian.10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also well-known that Khomeini initially made promises to appease the Marxists and other liberals.

Yes he did, but A) that doesn't disprove the contention that the revolution was uniquely religious, B) He soon realized, if he didn't know already, that he had more power, more support than those non-religious groups. --Leroy65X 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The September 8, 1978 `Black Friday`, where rumors swept the country of thousands killed, and which was followed the next month by demonstrations and especially strikes in the ports and banking, and oil industries, is considered by historians to have finished off the Shah. For example
• Yes, rumors, not in fact.

the Black Friday killings spread the opposition throughout the country. It was no longer merely the big cities which were in open revolt. Khomeini's cassettes and statements were circulated deep into the countryside. ... All this turmoil meant that the security forces were stretched to the limit. From mid-October, for example, the authorities in Neishabur, and ancient but small town in the north-east, were short of security personnel. .... [p.194-5, Khomeini by Baqer Moin, Thomas Dunne Books, c2000]

• Every author's words should be taken with a grain of salt. There are embellishments, too. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had over $8,000,000,000 invested in the United States and sky was not falling.

How do we know this is true?

Can even billions of dollars worth of cash stop an economy paralyzed by strikes and government law enforcement overwhelmed by protesters and insurgents?

And why haven't you answered the question: `If the IRI was "not unique," when was there another Islamic "modern revolution where ideologies like nationalism and populism took a back seat to religion"?`--Leroy65X 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrations may not topple a government, but strikes that hamstring the economy certainly can.

• What evidence do you have that many people did not consider the oil-rich Pavlavi regime highly unlikely to be overthrown? --Leroy65X 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you prescribe the account of some authors as dogma and make the lead paragraph so long.--Patchouli 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph explains the significance of the revolution. In fact, the lead section was longer and full of text duplicated elsewhere in the article before I editted it.--Leroy65X 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed compromise over intro sentences

Although I think the editting I've done has made the article better, I will shorten the two bullets and put the quote and comments on the IRs uniquenss elsewhere in the article to keep the intro short, if that satisfies M. Patchouli --Leroy65X 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am fine with your edits.--Patchouli 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AA Milne, Why are you undoing edits of citations?

They have nothing to do with content or with the NPOV controversy. I put the citations (or the sentences they refer to) there in the first place. --Leroy65X 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a content change in the lead section but that was changed in response to patchouli's complaints. --Leroy65X 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with a statement made

Under Opposition by Neighboring Countries it is stated "This began the eight year Iran-Iraq War, one of the most destructive and bloody wars of the 20th century."

I would like to hear the justification for how this war was more destructive and bloody then the Vietnam War, which has as many as 2-4 times as many deaths. Not to mention World War I and II. The second one having more dead then there are people in Iran total. In terms of death totals, while it is deffinitely severe, it hardly qualifies for that extreme. However, I will not change it without an explanation. --KendrickTrilanus 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No.the Iran-Iraq war is not in the same class as WWI or WWII, but it was very bad. "one of the most destructive and bloody wars of the 20th century," not the most destructive, etc.

180,000 to 300,000 Iranians died and "Iranian officials put the damages of the war, including loss of oil revenue and agricultural output, damage to villages, towns, the cost of compensation or pensions for the dependents of nearly a million killed or maimed and of dealing with a million and a half refugees at US $300 billion." [from Iran - a Country Study, 1989 quoted in Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah by Baqer Moin, p.252 ] --Leroy65X 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Baqir Moin related to Mostafa Moeen?--Patchouli 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Sentences like presented like this aren't neutral: On Feb. 1 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to rapturous greeting by several million Iranians. Now not only the undisputed leader of the revolution,[48] he had become what some called a "semi-divine" figure, greeted as he descended from his airplane with cries of `Khomeini, O Imam, we salute you, peace be upon you.`

Particularly this last part is just ridiculous: "... he had become what some called a "semi-divine" figure, greeted as he descended from his airplane with cries of `Khomeini, O Imam, we salute you, peace be upon you.`"

The radical contingent of his followers, certainly a fringe minority, may have viewed him this way, but even then it's still to subjective a detail to state as fact. Is it too much to ask to at least try to maintain a competent and respectable level of neutrality when dealing with this subject matter? JebheSephid 17:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The huge number and strong religious-emotional attachment of Khomeini's followers is one of the salient characteristics of the revolution. It is not just Moin who has pointed it out. Here's another description of Khomeini's return from another book on the revolution:

"As Khomeini's motorcade inched along a twenty-mile route through the capital [from the airport], many men and women sobbed openly, the joy mixed with disbelief....hundreds ran along side until they dropped from exhaustion. Even conservative estimates numbered the crowd at no less than three million. Iranians wanted change, and the ayatollah's return marked the moment for catharsis." (In the Name of God : The Khomeini Decade by Robin Wright c1989, p.37)

Another reflection of the unique status given to Khomeini is the fact that before him the title "imam" was never used among Iranian Shia to refer anyone other than the historical 12 Imams. --Leroy65X 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that most of this article is sourced to a single book, Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah by Baqer Moin. Not good. An article concerning a subject as vast and complex as the Iranian Revolution should utilize far more than simply a single non-academic biography of Khomeini. JebheSephid 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most of this article"? 20 of the 89 citations are from Moin's book. Yes, this is probably more than any one of the other 20+ sources. Is it so surprising? Moin's is the one major english-language bio of Khomeini written after his death. --Leroy65X 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic is a master of deception especially in the area of government-organized demonstrations using Ansar-e-Hezbollah and Basij financed with the oil revenue from OPEC.--Patchouli 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Defects in Neutrality and Cleanliness

One editor by the name of Doco has designated this article in need of "cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" and questionable in its neutrality.

Sayth Doco: "bad spelling and formatting all over, pov steaithily sneaked in. this needs some good editor."

I ran the article through spellcheck and found a few errors, though there may be still be some proper names mispelled.

So Doco, where is the bad formatting and the "pov stealthily sneaked in"? --Leroy65X 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

.... And thank you 204.52.215.128 for reverting all the corrected spellings and replacing them with the old mispellings. --Leroy65X 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many "foreign words"

Response to Patchouli: I let most of your edit stand but I think it is important to mention the bazaar in connection with the revolution. "bazaari" is more than just a Persian word for merchant. It implies a traditional cultural and social background, etc. --Leroy65X 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

issue about Rastakhiz Party dues

(copied from Patchouli talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patchouli)

Patchouli says:

Unfortunately, Labour and tax laws in Iran is incomplete and doesn't provide a referenced and reliable historical background.

However, based on what I have heard the finance ministry (treasury department) started around 1910 and systematic taxation wasn't the way. Merchants would be taxed because they were the one making money.--Patchouli 04:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leroy65X"

Here's my issue: if you call a fee charged for membership in a political party a "tax" people will be confused and think there was some government tax independent of Rastakhiz Party. If its called "dues" people will know it's a fee charged for membership in that party. --Leroy65X 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Iranian Revolution → Islamic Revolution — Islamic Revolution is the name used by IRIB, IRNA, ISNA, BBC[2], all current officials of the Islamic Republic, Encylopedia Britannica & Encarta. It is the official and common name. Patchouli 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Encylopedia Britannica has neither an entire article on the Iranian Revolution nor Islamic Revolution. My 2006 DVD of Britannica uses both names, as I just became aware. Islamic Revolution is found at (1) Iran→Religious minorities, (2) Intelligence→Iran, (3) Hezbollah, and other places.--Patchouli 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

However, a glimpse of the current version of Hezbollah has Iranian Revolution unlike my 2006 DVD of Britannica.--Patchouli 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support for the reasons I myself provided above.--Patchouli 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Simply because, thats what it's called. "Enghelab Eslami" in Persian, as referred to in the Islamic Republic of Iran. --Rayis 10:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support :) is right --84.255.151.77 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose Islamic Revolution was only the second stage of the revolution, as also mentioned in the article. --- Melca 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Agree with Melca, the Islamic Revolution is only a subsection of the larger revolution. - SimonP 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Melca. The current title is very clear in conveying the subject. I've also heard "Islamic Revolution" used in other references apart from Iran--like militant one of the groups that took responsibility for a US contractor's beheading went under the arabic translation of United Islamic Revolution Brotherhood. I can easily see confusion with the current war on terror and titles like this. 205.157.110.11 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose The elements involved in 1979 Revolution, were of different background with no intention to bring Islamic Regime to power. Except the deprived section of the society, which only thing they wanted was a better life with no choice of system in mind - the revolutionaries were of various political affiliations, from Islamists (Mojahedin-e Khalq and Fadayan-e Eslam); Communists (Fadayan-e Khalq, and Tudeh, etc); nationalists (Jebh-e Meli, Nehzat Azadi, Pan Iranists, etc) as well as the foreign elements such as Palestinians, Soviets, MI6, Freemasons and Mossad despising Shah personally – However, it was after the 1 April 1979 [3] referendum the new system chosen to become Islamic and thus calling it Islamic Revolution is incorrect – yet calling it Iranian Revolution is also incorrect - since it was not a "revolution", but an "uprising"! Thus best thing is just to call it “1979 Uprising”. Surena 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose: The Revolution was Iranian. Islamic Republic wants to ignore the fact. Also western media are only interested in the Islamic aspects of the revolution. It is not right to reduce Iranian revolution to Khomeini's Islamic revolution and ignore other notable leaders. Sina Kardar 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. Khodavand 05:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Surena. Skarioffszky 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Melca. Shervink 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)shervink
9. Oppose, per Britannica. Khoikhoi 03:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose, because "Islamic revolution" is too ambiguous. Iranian revolution is unmistakably always referring to 1979.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose To change the label from 'Iranian' to 'Islamic' is to bow to historical revisionism. The revolution was not only the work of the Ayatollahs, the leftwing forces were of paramount importance in the struggle against the Shah. That is of course something that official Iranian sources prefers to tone down today. Moreover, 'Islamic' is problematic as not all Muslims would agree that the revolution was Islamic, as large sections of the international Muslim community do not recognize the Shia as Muslims. --Soman 19:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per above; also, besides serving a domestic propaganda agenda, doesn't the term "Islamic Revolution" reflect hopes of spreading the revolution beyond Iran's borders, that went unrealized? --Groggy Dice T | C 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I drive a car with Leslie for 1 hour. Next, I dropped him off and continue the drive. Finally, I get in a car accident. Therefore, am I going to be known for driving with Leslie in the 1st hour or the car crash in the 2nd hour?--Patchouli 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Islamic Revolution" gives 1,060,000[4] results while "Iranian Revolution" yields 557,000[5] results at google.--Patchouli 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the items generated by that search, less than half of them refer to this revolution. Many are referencing the SCIRI. - SimonP 00:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of hints in google does not matter much. I don't think journalists are much concerned with the accuracy of the terminology they use in this case. Nor they are normally expert on history of Iran. Britannica's entry is "Iranian revolution". Sina Kardar 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I call myself "A", then are you going to call me "B"? --Patchouli 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not yours (or theirs in this case) to call it anything. Why would the current government have a monopoly on what to call a past event? Shervink 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)shervink

Because the current government is in power and sets public policy. More importantly, even those against the regime agree that the outcome of the revolution was Islamic with the exception of some kooks.--Patchouli 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you going to suggest next, moving United States to Great Satan because thats what Iranian government calls it? WTF are you thinking? Malakaville 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)— Malakaville (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Has mass cultural focus on Islam "been a 1000000000000000% success"?

No, Patchouli, I cannot agree that it has. Some evidence ...

In

Islamist Iran ... one almost never sees a person praying in the street.

[In contrast] the new Islamized neighborhoods of otherwise secular republics (Tunisia, Turkey), ... certain streets are practically closed to cars by the crowd of men in prayer. The political victory of Islamism is the end of true devotion. Mosques are packed in places where they have become sites of mobilization in opposition to a state perceived as particularist, client-oriented, and repressive; but they empty out when Islamism takes power. (Roy, Olivier, The Failure of Political Islam p.199)

The old society and its Western roots is proving to be far stronger than any of us imagined ... People prefer ordinary comforts to lofty ideals ... Our mosques are emptier than ever ... -Ayatollah Muhammad Hassan Khamenah'i, (July 1986, in open letter after quitting his Chairmanship of the Islamic Parliament's justice sub-committee.)

Consequently I'm going to reedit the passage in Post-revolutionary impact. --Leroy65X 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to read:

Internally, some general revolutionary goals for Iran -- particularly the elimination of secularism, American influence in government, -- have met with unqualified successes; others -- such as greater political freedom, governmental honesty and efficiency, economic equality and self-sufficiency, and even popular focus on Islamic religious activity[94] -- have not. [12]

--Leroy65X 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On Day of Ashura and many other days throughout the year everyone prays and marches in the streets. Olivier may have visited Iran on the wrong days.

I think he's refering to friday --Leroy65X 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex segregation in Iran was introduced. Friday prayers were introduced. Compulsory hijab was introduced. Sharia courts were introduced. Compulsory fasting was introduced. --Patchouli 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's complusory activity, enforced by the state. I'm refering to popular stuff, i.e. what people do because they want to. --Leroy65X 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

--Patchouli 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Government enforces the activity it wants for the populace.--Patchouli 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. But surely the government wanted people to pray in large numbers every day on their own. --Leroy65X 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Many do. How can you expect every single human to genuflect in the middle of the sidewalk 24/7? That is unreasonable. There are mosques which proliferated after the Islamic Revolution.--Patchouli 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to sort this out:

YES, governmental religious activity has been a big part of the IRI. Floggings, mosque building, enforced hijab, compulsory fasting, etc.

NO, voluntary religious activity by the masses of people has NOT been ... in the numbers and enthusiasm that the IRI government would have hoped, according to numerous reports: journalists, surveys, Olivier Roy, Khamenei's brother --Leroy65X 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Misc changes

Put in "centuries-old monarchy" This does NOT refer to the Pahlavi dynasty which of course was decades old not centuries, but to monarchy in general which was the system of rule in iran for millinea.

"by referendum" deleted because it makes the sentence awkward. The referendum was just one part of the revolution and is mentioned in the rest of the article.

quotes made indentations. One was a box quote, the other had those huge ugly quotation marks. Now they are of the same kind. --204.169.54.51 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

clarity of the lead

I'm Iranian and I read a lot about Islamic republic but I can't understand this sentence:"a theocracy operating under the principle of divine right." So how could a western reader can understand it.

I replaced it with a clearer sentence:"a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists"--Sa.vakilian 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It means Khomeini believed God gave him the right to rule. The phrase is from Abrahamian. I think it should be in there maybe along with Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. Guardianship is more exact, but Americans/UKers/Canadians (at least educated ones) have all heard about "divine right" from European history. --Leroy65X 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If so, this is Abrahamian's istake. According to Shiism Divine right is the right of Prophret and Imams to govern(Ululamr) and there isn't any other person who has this right as a "Divine right".

What about Veleyat-e Faqih? To quote Khomeini, just as God established the Prophet Mohammad as the "leader and ruler" of early Muslims, "making obedience to him obligatory, so, too, the fuqaha (plural of faqih) must be leaders and rulers" over Muslims today. (Islamic Government p.63) While the "spiritual virtues" and "status" of the Prophet and the Imams are greater than those of contemporary faqih, their power is not, because this virtue "does not confer increased governmental powers". (p.62) Leroy65X 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think constitution of Islamic republic of Iran represents this idea. There is written in the 107th article:"After the demise of the eminent marji' al-taqlid and great leader of the universal Islamic revolution, and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah al-'Uzma Imam Khumayni - quddisa sirruh al-sharif - who was recognized and accepted as marji' and Leader by a decisive majority of the people, the task of appointing the Leader shall be vested with the experts elected by the people.

But this just tells how Khomeini's successor is chosen and that he will have the same constitutional power. Leroy65X 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The experts will review and consult among themselves concerning all the fuqaha' possessing the qualifications specified in Articles 5 and 109. In the event they find one of them better versed in Islamic regulations, the subjects of the fiqh, or in political and social Issues, or possessing general popularity or special prominence for any of the qualifications mentioned in Article 109, they shall elect him as the Leader. Otherwise, in the absence of such a superiority, they shall elect and declare one of them as the Leader. The Leader thus elected by the Assembly of Experts shall assume all the powers of the wilayat al-amr and all the responsibilities arising therefrom. The Leader is equal with the rest of the people of the country in the eyes of law. "--Sa.vakilian 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

constitutional monarchy

Really. I was called "constitutional monarchy" but in practice it was absolute monarchy.--Sa.vakilian 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There existed

1. Iranian constitution of 1906
2. Senate of Iran
3. National Consultative Assembly
4. Prime minister
5. Cabinet

The king was still the commander-in-chief. I can't find a source as to whether the king chose the cabinet members or the prime minister.

In the Middle East at that time this was progressive.--Patchouli 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edition "Iranian monarchy" instead of Absolute or constitutional. But what's your idea about :"The next year the Rastakhiz party was created. It became not only the only party Iranians could belong to, but one the "whole adult population" was required to belong and pay dues to."

I remember somebody called Khamenei a dictator while there existed Constitution, parliment, president, cabinet in Iran.[6] ;-)--Sa.vakilian 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The single party system ended in late 1978. Now, there is a multi-party system, yet the mullahs decide who runs for puppet positions.--Patchouli 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Two POV

There are two POV about Iranian revolution and this article should show both of them. The first one, which this article insists on it, says that revolution had two stage and second one was Islamic. This is the POV of opposition of Islamic republic of Iran and some of the scientists. The other one, which the Islamic republic of Iran insists on it, says the revolution is Islamic basically. But also some notable scientists like Bernard Lewis[7] and Michel Foucault[8][9] support this POV . I put POV tag on this article until this problem is solved.--Sa.vakilian 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Millions of Iranians

"on February 1, 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting of several million Iranians.[10]" Footnote 10 goes nowhere.

Cultural Dimension of the Revolution

As an eye withness of the Revolution i have to say: What i miss in the whole thing is the cultural character of the Revolution. Khomeini said: "This is not a revolution only for ´better eating´. The Islamic Revolution of Iran has a very strong Cultural message. Ignoring it, leads to a lot of misunderstandings.

iranian democracy

89.241.124.201 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC) "It says in the first para that Iran post-Revolution was a "theocratic democracy". Democracy? Yes, Iran runs elections. But is it a democracy? NO. Most of the most important position are appointed by the Supreme Leader, who is unelected. Should this be changed?"

I can tell some people here are very displeased at the presence of a powerful and religious, or faith based country such as iran and therefore vehemently attack it, especially it's democracy.

I think everyone here will agree that the UK is a democracy, at least to a certain extent. The supreme leader iactually Italic textis elected by the supreme council. Just like in Britain, people elect the party but not the Prime Minister. The Supreme Council could be seen as the House of Lords in Britain, which is not elected by the people but apppointed by the also non-elected Prime Minister. In Iran, the supreme council is created by another council appointing candidates and then parliamentary elections of who should hold the positions (i think it is 7 members). The president is elected by the people. Th eparliament also the same. Where in the UK there is a first past the post system (winner takes all) in iran they actualy use a PR system (proportional representation i.e. an election system where the number of seats won are proportional to the number of votes gained).

Also, the supreme leader could be seen as the queen in the UK. Every single legislation, law, policy etc to be passed must be signed by the queen, i think the process is called Royal Concession, or something like that. In this case, you have the supreme leader signing everything. Just like in the UK, traditionally, but not constitutionally, the queen has to agree to signing, but could refuse in protest. This is same with with the iranian supreme leader. He is traditionally supposed to agree because the very fact that the legislation has reached him means all parties concerned have agreed, but could refuse to do so in protest if this document was forced through parliament because the party that did so had a majority.

I believe all houses, councils and the parliament are much more democratic and share democratic features than that of the UK.

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines

We need to clean up the article

This is a message from Khoikhoi to me

I don't think the quote is long at all, but that's just my opinion. I disagree that there should be a separate section in the article just for quotes. They should be moved to Wikiquote instead. Also, I found Iranian Revolution very hard to read due to the POV, cleanup, unreferenced, and expand tags in almost every section? What happened? Khoikhoi 06:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Finding no one who agrees with me that the quote is too long I will stop complaining about its length and work to resolve complaints about POV and cleanup. --Leroy65X

Put away the bullshit and tell the truth!

There needs to be a section for the huge amount of people who still supports the Shah and believes that the revolution was west funded and planed.

I suggest you reading more and see the supporters at for instance: www.rastakhiz.org (You can see more websites if you go in the "links" page)

THE REVOLUTION RUINED THE COUNTRY AND STUNTED IT'S CULTURAL PROGRESS INTO THE NEW ERA. IT IS THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO IRAN AND IT DROVE OUT MANY IMPORTANT PEOPLE TO THE US, WHERE EVERYONE IS FREE TO DO AS THEY CHOSE. IRAN WAS FREE IN THE 1960S, IT WAS A GOOD PLACE TO BE. NOW LOOK AT THE COUNTRY'S CRIPPLED ECONOMY, AND SUPPRESIVE GOVERNMENT. IT'S TRULY SAD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.51.62 (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Shah was installed by the West when President Mossadegh was overthrown, so why would the West be behind the Islamic Revolution? Coconuteire 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Coconuterie. The Shah was not installed by the west. USA and countries like UK etc didn't like the Soviet, and they didn't want to risk seeing the Shah go to the Soviets side. They wanted to make Iran a muslim country to stay against Soviet. The Shah was making Iran too strong, they was fearing it. The Shah didn't want to be their slave. We DEMAND a damn section about this, and a big one too. As almost ALL young people that are Iranian, and yes, I know because you are AMERICAN, AMERICANS that wrote this article and have no damn idea about anything so shush! Iranians regret the revolution, go to Iran and see. The young people are supporting Shah, they are supporting the Lion and Sun flag. During Shah's time, Iran was important. Iran was something, it's not Iran anymore, It's Islamic REPUBLIC of Iran - Don't CALL IRAN, IRAN TODAY, because MORONS are running it. Iran was FREE! Iran was known in foreing countries, not for supporting terrorism, hate and evilness. Our currency could be exchanged at foreign banks, it was worth a lot! We had good diplomatic relations with other countries. We helped countries such as as UK with loans, when they got their water problem. This ARTICLE is completely Anti-Shah and Anti-Iran, but Pro-Islamic Republic and all that crap. The truth is that there are MANY people out there, people that run sites like www.rastakhiz.org and fight to get the truth to the people. THe west was behind this all. Don't believe in their lie true PERSIANS! We will change everything once Iran is back in our hands. RUX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rux (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

why would amypme believe anything coming from a rashtikhiz supporter. The very notion of a single political party with forced membership and dues is abhorent to anyone with the slighest notion of democracy.

71.213.202.52 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Gene

The very notion of a single political party with forced membership and dues is abhorent to anyone with the slighest notion of democracy

True, but so is an life long unelected cleric with absolute final decision on everything. GTBOB12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.191.62 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rux, this article isn't anti-Shah and anti-Iran, and it's definitely not pro-Islamism, fundamentalism, call it what you will. It attempts to be educational. You don't like it? Why don't you spend the countless hours researching the topic, and write your own damned article. People put work into this: be respectful.

The Shah was installed by the CIA--this is common knowledge. Both the administration as well as world-wide academia achknowledge this fact quite openly. Why the hell would the West want an Islamic regime in Iran? Your statement about that made absolutely no sense; if you knew anything about the aims of Western policy at all, you'd realize this.

Second, you keep talking about how you young Iranians remember the good ole' days, how good it was in the 60s, how good and free it was under the Shah. First off, it wasn't a bloody democracy, so cut the crap. If you supported the Shah, everything was just peachy; but anyone who'd go and say the slightest thing, publish the least-offensive article in a newspaper about the regime, would meet a swift and grim end. Secondly, if you're the "young Iranians" then you weren't there during the revolution, were you? At the very least, you weren't old enough to understand anything. And if you were old enough, then you can't honestly associate yourself with the youth of Iran, any more. I know Iraninas personally; I know both old and young Iranians. And from both age groups I get the same thing: the revolution was a terrible mistake, yes, but educate yourself (EDUCATE, rather than rely on websites and anything you hear online: READ!) on the issue before you start throwing ridiculous accusations such as that. And for God's sake, drop the whole "We will take back what's ours and bring the Mighty Persian Empire back! Freedom to the People! Fight The machine!" garbage. It got old in the 90s.

Knowledge is power.

Cheers,

GK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.85.160 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. You make no sense. A lot of iranians today now see their mistake and support the Shah. A lot of them want the shah back, thats is not the only site, there are hundredres of blogs and websites that support the shah. There are books etc that proves that the west was behind the revolution. But of course, you guys don't want to write that because this website is so pro-western and anything that trashes west isn't there. Wikipedia doesn't work, because of people like you. This is so anti-Shah and anti-Iran. Each time I add a little text or section that there are still a lot of people out there that regreat this, and there are a lot of people that says that the revolution was financed and staged by the west like usa, uk etc - it gets removed. Good job. +1 to censorship on Wikipedia, everyone know it occurs anyway. RUX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rux (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinions aside, Wikipedia is a free online encylopedia. Because of this, it is supposed to be unbiased, even on an piece about the Iranian Revolution. If you don't believe me, open up a real Encyclopedia up to the Iranian Revolution and see what is written. Opinions, even those about the Iranian Revolution, are best saved for blogs and forums, not Wikipedia.

--69.95.181.116 (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag:formal government

Although there were clashes between Bazargan's government and some of the revolutionary councils but it was was a revolutionary organization too. "the formal government and the revolutionary organizations. The Khomeini-appointed Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan worked to establish a reformist democratic government." sounds wrong.

There is abundant evidence that Bazargan considered himself a reformist and that his government came into conflict with Khomeini's plan for replacing the Constituent Assembly with an Assembly of Experts, etc. (see for example: p.216-7, Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah by Baqer Moin) --Leroy65X 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also "formal government" is a wrong expression. It was a temporary government which should manage the country and established new State.--Sa.vakilian 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Provisional Revolutionary GOvernment was the official title. At least Keddie uses it. Leroy65X 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Provisional Revolutionary GOvernment" with you.--Sa.vakilian 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy check

The article needs a serious accuracy check - I've noted a number of serious mistakes here and there. I don't have time right now but later I'll try to list every single infraction. I'd also suggest avoiding sources that violate WP:RS. The article definitely, definitely needs overhaul to fall in line with WP:NPOV. Right now in its current state the article is very anti-revolution. Looking at earlier versions, the article before was pro-revolution. The people editing this article need to cool their POV and find the middle ground. Khodavand 16:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

The article carries the warning:

"This page is 61 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles"

And now you Sa.vakilian have added SEVEN different expansion tags??? I have to consider this vandalism --Leroy65X 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These are very important issues and we can't neglect them.At least we should list them and write somr paragraphs about them. --Sa.vakilian 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I put them back per your plan to set up seperate article if they get too long. They are part of the revolution, though whether they are "very important" is a matter of dispute.

I've been working on the article for some time, and all these new sections will screw up its readability, but I confess the organizations do need to be at least described and I have not done so. I propose a section titled something like

Organizations of the Revolution,

with a paragraph or so for each one. --Leroy65X 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. We don't need too many sections which I made. I propose a section for events, a section for organizations, a section for parties and popular movements.--Sa.vakilian 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

*??? events:Including 12 Farvardin, Election and refrandom of constitution , 13 Aban and so on.
*Revolutionary organizations: The committees of Islamic revolution, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,Jihad of construction, Oppressed mobilization(بسيج مستضعفين)و)...
*Parties and Movements Islamic republic party, Student's followes the path of Imam , ...

--Sa.vakilian 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Sa.vakilian, I'm rewriting your intro with an emphasis on a quick descrption of dates of the revolution. I'm going to eliminate the stuff about the revolution having "two parts", at least in the intro. I am assuming you are in favor of this. (It was there before I started editing this article and I assumed it had the consensus of editors, but obviously it don't. I have heard Iranians talk about it, but have found nothing in print about "two parts")

I guess wikipedia policy is to keep the intros short so I'm going trim down the first part of the article and merge it with your "intro" so there is only one intro. Judging from that editor who deleted my quote in the old intro there should not be block quotes in the introductions. --Leroy65X 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Good article criteria a good lead shouldn't be more than 4 paragraph.

It's already four paragraphs long.

I want to a summary about this revolution in lead and write something about its importance and situation in Intro. I mean we can write why it has recognized as a revolution

That part is obvious. Just describing the revolution makes it clear it was a genuine revolution. Its not a disputed issue. --Leroy65X 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

and what is its idealogy. This is my suggestion and we should debate on it. If you disagree with putting them in ntro then we can make a new section and call it "Revolution and its ideology" before or after "Reasons for the revolution".

On the other hand I'm sure that opposition of Islamic republic believe in "two parts" theory thus we can't remove it from the begining of the article. --Sa.vakilian 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT it isn't a major issue. Obviously there is a natural split in the revolution between between the rebellion itself and then the revolutionaries in power, and the disimpowering of the non-Khomeinists is an issue. But I can't find anything that says the revolution is divided into "two parts." The editor who wrote it seems to be long gone. -- Leroy65X 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I should express my idea again. I leave the idea of introduction. There's important informations about importance and situation of revolution and we can make a new section about revolution and explain its importance, ideology and organization in it.--Sa.vakilian 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK the intro needs a brief basic description of what, when, why. I will fight to keep my stuff about the uniqueness of the rev and the differences over the revolution's results. How about using, expanding the first two paragraphs? --Leroy65X 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with writing an intro about "what, when and why" of revolution ,I don't insist on it. We can write a new part for "Iranian Revolution's ideology" . But lead is very good and we shouldn't add anything to it.--Sa.vakilian 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree the lead is good. --Leroy65X 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideology section and other rewriting

This is getting to propagandistic. I'm going to have to tag it. --Leroy65X 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Ideology of revolution" section is not "encyclopedic", it's an editorial about why the revolution represented true shia islam. It's POV. --Leroy65X 16:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's POV and the others should participate and make it NPOV.--Sa.vakilian 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is quoting Foucault. He is widely criticized by both friends and enemies for his praise of the Iranian Revolution

...Since their publication, the reputation of these writings [by Foucault] has grown rather than diminished and they have helped us to conceptualize gender, sexuality, knowledge, power, and culture in new and important ways. Paradoxically, however, his extensive writings and interviews on the Iranian Revolution have experienced a different fate, ignored or dismissed even by thinkers closely identified with Foucault's perspectives.

Attempts to bracket out Foucault's writings on Iran as "miscalculations," or even "not Foucauldian," remind one of what Foucault himself had criticized in his well-known 1969 essay, .... (from [10])

I didn't quote his ideas but quoted the slogans which he mentioned in his report.--Sa.vakilian 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another problem. You misquoted:

`... the main slogan was "Independence, Freedom, and Islamic Republic".`

you cite an article: http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/111/11101106.pdf, but that article (which is not very complemenatry of the islamic revolution and its sex segregation BTW) says it was "one of the most popular slogans," not "the main slogan." --Leroy65X 16:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with one of the main slogan. --Sa.vakilian 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with quote below: its verbatim which means its in violation of copyright law, and while Wright (the author of the quote) is a reputable correspondent, she is NOT an authority on Shia Islam.

That power explains why Ayatollah Khomeini emerged as a natural leader to unite both secular and religious opposition against a twentieth-century dynasty. Islam, which makes no distinction between the powers of Caesar and God, had also long been a nationalist force in Iran. Shi'ism also had been a source of national identity — even among those less than devout.[47] --Leroy65X 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand this problem but as an Iranian Shi'a I don't have any problem with it. Is there any source which has contradiction with it.--Sa.vakilian 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ayatollah Khomeini's commandment for Bazargan

There is an imortant document which shows Khomeini knew and represented what he wanted since arrival in Iran. Unfortunately I couldn't find it in English.

This is the commandment in Persian: جناب‌ آقای‌ مهندس‌ بازرگان‌ بنا به‌ پیشنهاد شورای‌ انقلاب‌، برحَسَب‌ حق‌ّ شرعی‌ و حق‌ّ قانونی‌ ناشی‌ از آرای‌اكثریت‌ قاطع‌ قریب‌ به‌ اتّفاِق ملت‌ ایران‌ كه‌ طی‌ اجتماعات‌ عظیم‌ و تظاهرات‌وسیع‌ و متعدد در سراسر ایران‌ نسبت‌ به‌ رهبری‌ جنبش‌ ابراز شده‌ است‌ و به‌موجب‌ اعتمادی‌ كه‌ به‌ ایمان‌ راسخ‌ شما به‌ مكتب‌ مقدس‌ اسلام‌ و اطلاعی‌ كه‌ ازسوابقتان‌ در مبارزات‌ اسلامی‌ و ملی‌ دارم‌، جناب‌عالی‌ را بدون‌ در نظر گرفتن‌روابط‌ حزبی‌ و بستگی‌ به‌ گروهی‌ خاص‌ مأمور تشكیل‌ دولت‌ موقت‌ می‌نمایم‌ تاترتیب‌ اداره‌ی‌ امور مملكت‌ و خصوصاً انجام‌ رفراندوم‌ و رجوع‌ به‌ آرای‌ عمومی‌ملت‌ درباره‌ی‌ تغییر نظام‌ سیاسی‌ كشور به‌ جمهوری‌ اسلامی‌ و تشكیل‌ مجلس‌مؤسسان‌ از منتخبین‌ مردم‌ جهت‌ تصویب‌ قانون‌ اساسی‌ نظام‌ جدید و انتخاب‌مجلس‌ نمایندگان‌ ملّت‌ بر طبق‌ قانون‌ اساسی‌ جدید را بدهید. مقتضی‌ است‌ كه‌اعضای‌ دولت‌ موقت‌ را هر چه‌ زودتر با توجه‌ به‌ شرایطی‌ كه‌ مشخص‌ نموده‌ام‌تعیین‌ و معرفی‌ نمایید. كارمندان‌ دولت‌ و ارتش‌ و افراد ملت‌ با دولت‌ موقت‌ شما همكاری‌ كامل‌ نموده‌و رعایت‌ انضباط‌ را برای‌ وصول‌ به‌ اهداف‌ مقدس‌ انقلاب‌ و سامان‌ یافتن‌ اموركشور خواهند نمود. موفقیت‌ شما و دولت‌ موقت‌ را در این‌ مرحله‌ی‌ حساس‌ تاریخی‌ از خداوندمتعال‌ مسئلت‌ می‌نمایم‌.روح‌الله الموسوی‌ الخمینی‌[11]

I tried to translate it but it was too difficult and I might make some mistakes. Please correct it and put it in Iranian revolution#Khomeini returns to Tehran

He appointed his own competing interim prime minister Mehdi Bazargan on February 4.

According to his commandment to Bazargan:

"On the basis of suggestion of Revolutionary Council, according to religious right and legal right which originated from the vote of certain majority of Iranian nation for leadership of the movement which has been represented in the vast gatherings and wide demonstrations in total area of Iran and because of mu trust on your solid faith in holy school of Islam and my information of your precedent in Islamic and national fights, I appoint you without taking into consideration your relationship with any parties and dependence in especial group to for formation of temporary government to arrange organizing of country affairs and especially perform referendum and refer to public vote of nation about turning the country into Islamic republic and formation of "Establishment council" from the representatives of people to approve of constitution of new regime and election of representatives of parliament of nation on the basis of new constitution... "

--Sa.vakilian 12:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That translation you requested is rough because the first sentence is the size of a normal English paragraph. It seems you did most of the job though and I gave it a shot (although my interest in wikipedia is with regards to history).

According to his commandment to Bazargan: "Respected Engineer Bazargan. Based the recommendations of Revolutionary Council, and in accordance with the religious rights and legal rights which originated from the vote of overwhelming majority of Iranian nation for leadership of the movement which has been represented in the vast gatherings and wide demonstrations in total area of Iran and because of my utmost trust on your solid faith in holy school of Islam and my knowledge of your precedent in Islamic and national endeavors, I appoint you. This appointment was taken without taking into consideration your relationship with any parties and dependence in especial group and was taken in order for formation of temporary government to arrange organizing of country affairs and especially perform a referendum and refer to public vote of nation about turning the country into Islamic republic and formation of "Establishment council" from the representatives of people to approve of constitution of new regime and on the basis this new constitution, the election of representatives of parliament of nation. It is necessary that you appoint and introduce the members of the temporary government as soon as possible in concordance with the conditions I have clarified. Government and military officials and citizens of the country are urged to cooperate fully with your temporary government and adhere to reach the goals of the holy revolution and establish order to the affairs of the country. At this sensitive juncture of history, I praise and ask God for your success and that of the temporary government.’’ Ruhollah Al-Musavi al-Khomeini

I do not have time right now to refurbish the translation, but I think you can take it from here. --alidoostzadeh 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I dont know where exactly you wish the translation to be pasted, but here is my non-rigorous translation:

"Based on the proposal of the Revolutionary Council, by the canonical and legal rights vested unanimously by the vote of the Iranian nation for the leadership of the movement as has been expressed in the vast gatherings and ubiquitous demonstrations across the country, and by virtue of the trust I have in your firm belief in the holy tenents of Islam and your resume in past Islamic and national struggles, I appoint you the authority to establish the interim government without consideration of any affiliation to any parties or dependence on any factional groups, so as to arrange the organization of the affairs of the state, and to especially make preparations for a public referendum by which to transform the state into an Islamic republic, and the formation of "The Council of the Founders" from those elected by the people so as to legislate the constitution of the new state, and to hold elections of representatives of parliament on the basis of the new constitution."

"It is imperitave that you nominate the members of your cabinet as soon as possible under the conditions that I have specified. All public offices, the army, and citizens shall furnish their utmost cooperation with your interim government so as to attain the high and holy goals of this Islamic revolution and to restore order and function to the affairs of the nation. I pray to God for the success of you and your interim government in this sensitive juncture of our nation's history. Ruhollah al-Musawi al-Khomeini."

Hope that helps.--Zereshk 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Chosen translation

I propose this translation on the basis of former ones:

Ayatollah Khomeini appointed Bazargan as the prime minister of "The Provisional Revolutionary Government" on February 4 1979 According to his commandment:

"Based on the proposal of the Revolutionary Council and in accordance with the canonical and legal rights which originated from the vote of overwhelming majority of Iranian nation for leadership of the movement which has been represented in the vast gatherings and wide and numerous demonstrations across Iran and by virtue of my trust on your firm belief in the holy tenets of Islam and my knowledge of your precedent in Islamic and national struggles, I appoint you the authority to establish the interim government without consideration of any affiliation to any parties or dependence on any factional groups, for formation of temporary government to arrange organizing of country affairs and especially perform a referendum and refer to public vote of nation about turning the country into Islamic republic and formation of "The Council of the Founders" from the representatives of people to approve of constitution of new regime and to hold elections of representatives of parliament of nation on the basis of the new constitution. It is necessary that you appoint and introduce the members of the temporary government as soon as possible in concordance with the conditions I have clarified. All public offices, the army, and citizens shall furnish their utmost cooperation with your interim government so as to attain the high and holy goals of this Islamic revolution and to restore order and function to the affairs of the nation. I pray to God for the success of you and your interim government at this sensitive juncture of our nation's history.’’ Ruhollah Al-Musavi al-Khomeini ,."

I like Zereshk's translation much better. I did mine in a hurry. --alidoostzadeh 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to the authors of the article to sift thru an optimal translation. However, I'd like to mention that whichever one u pick:

• It should be "interim govt" not "temp govt". Interim is the exact proper translation.
• Words like "because" should never be used in official text.

mer30.--Zereshk 06:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppositions groups and organizations:POV check

I wrote the most notable groups which I known on the basis of my information. Please check whether it's POV or not and write your idea here. --Sa.vakilian 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Where to put "Ayatollah Khomeini's commandment for Bazargan"

The commandement is 13 lines long and simply says Bazargan should be premier. It is so long, I think we should leave part of it in the The Provisional Revolutionary Government section, (for example):

"Based on the proposal of the Revolutionary Council and in accordance with the canonical and legal rights which originated from the vote of overwhelming majority of Iranian nation for leadership of the movement ... I appoint you the authority to establish the interim government ..."

and put the full text in the quotation section at the end of article.

--Leroy65X 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We translated it because of its importance. It shows dome important notes about the legitimacy of new government, its duties, its characteristics, etc. I disagree with your proposal because it doesn't represent these points. Furthermore apparently there isn't any English site or book which translate it completely. In my viewpoint it has a key position and even we can put your proposal in Iranian revolution#Khomeini returns and the monarchy falls--Sa.vakilian 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This commandment shows how Mr. Khomeini thinks in democratic manner. " ... with the canonical and legal rights which originated from the vote of overwhelming majority of Iranian nation ...". It says that the vote of the people plays a majore role in Islamic state. Sa.vakilian translates the term "Arabic: شرعی" as "canonical". Anything which is "Arabic: شرعی", it is in fact based on Sharia. Therefore Mr. Khomeini beleives that the vote of the people is the basis for a state to be Islamic, otherwise it is not Islamic! As this is a controversial subject among Islamic scholars so I think the commandment should be highlighted. Farhoudk 09:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

umm, interesting ... though I suspect you can find plenty of quotes by Khomeini contradicting the idea that the support of the majority is necessary for the state to be Islamic.

... But what do you think of my question? should we put the whole commandment quote at the end of the article in the Quotations section? --Leroy65X 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Iranian conservative parties from one side and Iranian secular parties from the other side try to show that Mr Khomeini does not beleive the role of the people in Islamic state. They have different ideological backgrounds but regarding this point they have surprisingly the same idea. The conservative parties: since they are trying to confront reformists. The secular parties: since they are trying to show that they are liberal democrates. I think Mr Khomeini was the first one who introduced the vote of people as a criteria to find out that a state is Islamic or not. And I can show you plenty of quotes by him to justify this idea. Best. Farhoudk 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the right of translation belongs to me, Zereshk and Ali, thus it doesnn't violate copyright rule.--Sa.vakilian 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, would you agree to replacing canonical with shariah, or at least putting sharia in parentheses next to canonical?

" ... with the canonical (sharia) and legal rights which originated from the vote of overwhelming majority of Iranian nation ... "

More and more english-speakers know what sharia law is these days, and there is quite a difference between Islamic sharia and catholic canon law (canon law in christianity just covers church matters not public law). --Leroy65X 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you and you wanted to add some comma. --Sa.vakilian 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The translation needed some gramatical changes. see: [12] --Leroy65X 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Sa.vakilian 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But "Arabic: شرعی" does not mean sharia. It means "based on Arabic: شرع" or "based on sharia" or "sharia based" or "sharia related". In fact "sharia" (Arabic: شریعة) is noun but "Arabic: شرعی" is adjective. Farhoudk 05:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

POV:Referendum of 12 Farvardin

This sentence is not appropriate:

"while other groups were misled by Khomeinist statements giving "a democratic interpretion of the future Islamic Republic."

What does other groups means? Does it mean all other group or some of them? What does "Khomeinist" means?

Keddie actually said IRP and I will use that instead. "Khomeinists" are the cores supporters of Khomeini who believed in velayat-e faqih. --Leroy65X 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Using "misled" is "Keddie"'s judgment and some other like Lewis or Wright may have different POV. In fact there is an endeavor in Islamic republic to bind Islam and democracy. It's not liberal democracy but there is elections almost every years and about 60% of Iranians participates in it.--Sa.vakilian 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That non-Khomeinists were misled is not just Keddie's judgement but the judgement of many observers, scholars, historians. See for example http://gemsofislamism.tripod.com/khomeini_promises_kept.html#Islamic_Clerics (that website is anti-khomeini, but the sources it quotes are not.) --Leroy65X 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I know but there is 2 problem. The sentence is unclear as I told and there's another POV that its natural when you fulfill an election in religious society more religious persons and ideas gain victory.--Sa.vakilian 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On they other hand Iran's leaders believe in Islamic Republic as an elected and popular government. Khamenei repeatedly (and I believe honestly) remind that people can choose their representatives in different situation and even leadership is based on public election. There may be different POV about democracy. Somebody expects liberal democracy and somebody else represents Islamic one. The first one believes that he/she misled and the second one believes that he/she fulfills his/her promises. --Sa.vakilian 08:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Democracy has a well-defined meaning in political philosophy. There is simply no such thing as "Islamic Democracy". There is not a single occurance, as far as I know, of a scholarly article, book, or established theory, describing the basis for this ill-defined term. Tell me one person using this term which is not within the power circle of the Islamic Republic. "Elections" by themselves are not a measure of democracy. The USSR, Saddam Hussein, Parviz Musharraf, China's people's republic, and the so called "Democratic" republic of (east) Germany, all hold/held elections. None of them are/were in the least bit democratic, however. Shervink 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)shervink

POV:Hostage Crisis

There were some reasonable justifications for this event. When Shah went to U.S. revolutionaries remind Operation Ajax. They feared that U.S. would want to return Shah to power. --Sa.vakilian 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, we should but something in about operation ajax. I think that analogy is strained because the 1979 revolution was far more powerful (and especially more anti-Shah) than Mossadegh's movement, but yes we should put something in. --Leroy65X 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They hated and were frightened because of U.S. policies.--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added operation ajax. --Leroy65X 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why so many footnotes?

As of Feb 24 2007 there were over 200. I probably put the majority of them there so I should explain: The Iran Revolution is a highly contentious subject and so I wanted to give anyone who wants a chance to check the facts of what I've put in. --Leroy65X 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I propose we take off the POV tag at the beginning of the article and deal with POV tags in the sections one by one. I hope we have a consensus that much of the article is not POV. --Leroy65X 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag at the beginning of the article. I suggest to rearrange this article. --Sa.vakilian 03:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideology of the revolution

Sa.vakilian: much of text taken verbatim from http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/warn2/shiism.html ... means copyright problems. It must be rewritten or sooner or later it will be deleted.

I purpose writing something along the lines of:

the ideology was populist, nationalist, islamist. Khomeini was the leader. He took some of his ideas (talk about revolution, the oppressed, gharbzadeh) from Shariati and the Islamic left. The disagreement among revolutionaries over ideology was about velayat-e faqih. While everyone agreed on nationalism-populism-islam, many disagreed that a cleric/clerics should rule. Khomeini believed this was the Islamic way and felt compelled to avoid talking about velayat-e faqih before securing power, and to suppress those who opposed velayat-e faqih after he secured power. --Leroy65X 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it's against copyright rule. Therefor I put a comment there which says this part should be summarized. But what you propose doesn't represent what I meant by adding that verbatim. Unfortunately I don't have enough time in these days. Can you please summarize that part.--Sa.vakilian 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Still working on the Ideology of the revolution. There are a lot of issues to summarize, include, and weave together. --Leroy65X 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised Ideology of the revolution done. See if it is summarized and wikified to everyone's satisfaction. --Leroy65X 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rearrangement

These four sections have close relationship with each other:

1. 5 1979: The Shah leaves and the Revolution succeeds
2. 6 Khomeini takes power
3. 7 Foundation of Islamic republic
4. 8 Consolidation of power by Khomeini

In fact they weren't separate in practice. I suggest to merge " Khomeini takes power" in one of the other. --Sa.vakilian 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronologically they are close but revolutions are very eventful. It's not bad to have four sections covering the revolution over the year 1979 though I agree the section titles ought to be changed and the sections rewritten. --Leroy65X 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your proposal?--Sa.vakilian 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See if you like what I did. Here is my organziation now.

5 1979: The Shah leaves and the Revolution succeeds

5.1 Khomeini returns and the monarchy falls

6 The Islamic republic

6.1 Khomeini takes power

6.2 Revolutionary organizations

6.2.1 Revolutionary Council

6.2.2 The Provisional Revolutionary Government

6.2.3 The committees of Islamic revolution

6.2.4 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps

6.2.5 Oppressed mobilization

6.2.6 Hezbollah

6.2.7 Jihad of construction

6.3 Establishment of Islamic republic government

6.3.1 Referendum of 12 Farvardin

6.3.2 Assembly of Experts of Constitution

6.4 Post-revolutionary Parties and movements

6.4.1 Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line

6.4.2 Islamic republic party

7 Consolidation of power by Khomeini

7.1 Hostage Crisis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroy65X (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

this is my proposal:

5 Victory of revolution and fall of monarchy 
5.1 The Shah leaves  
5.2 Khomeini returns and takes power
5.3 Revolutionary organization
5.3.1 Revolutionary Council 
5.3.2 The Provisional Revolutionary Government 
5.3.3 The committees of Islamic revolution 
5.3.4 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps 
5.3.5 Oppressed mobilization 
5.3.6 Jihad of construction 
6 The Islamic republic 
6.1 Establishment of Islamic republic government 
6.1.1 Referendum of 12 Farvardin 
6.1.2 Assembly of Experts of Constitution 
6.2 Post-revolutionary Parties and movements 
6.2.1 Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line 
6.2.2 Islamic republic party 
6.2.3 Hezbollah 
6.2.4 Other parties 
6.3 Clashes among revolutionaries
6.3.1 New arrangement: Liberals, Leftist, Islamist
6.3.1 Hostage Crisis 
6.3.2 Resignation of Provisional Revolutionary Government
6.3.3 Challenge between President and Islamic republic party
6.3.3 Cultural revolution
6.3.4 Civil war and terror
6.3.5 The Interim government of the Islamic Republic
6.3.6 Consolidation of power by Khomeini 

I can explain it later. --Sa.vakilian 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight change in rearrangement

My hesitation is the difference between Revolutionary organizations and Post-revolutionary Parties and movements.

For example, according to my information the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps "was established by a decree issued by Khomeini on May 5 1979," but it is in Revolutionary organizations not Post-revolutionary Parties and movements.

The Islamic republic party was started "within a few days of the Khomeini's arrival in Iran," so that's before "Islamic Revolution's Victory Day" but it's in Post-revolutionary Parties and movements.

And Oppressed mobilization and Jihad of construction - weren't they started after victory day too? They should be in Post-revolutionary Parties and movements.

My solution: Merge Revolutionary organizations and Post-revolutionary Parties and movements.

Put them all under Revolutionary organizations and movements. --Leroy65X 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to merge all revolutionary and post revolutionary in one section: Revolutionary organizations and movements. I separated Establishment of Islamic republic government from New arrangement of revolutionaries What's your idea about this:

5 Victory of revolution and fall of monarchy 
5.1 The Shah leaves  
5.2 Khomeini returns and takes power
5.3 Revolutionary organizations and movements
5.3.1 Revolutionary Council 
5.3.2 The Provisional Revolutionary Government 
5.3.3 The committees of Islamic revolution 
5.3.4 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps 
5.3.5 Oppressed mobilization 
5.3.6 Jihad of construction 
5.3.7 Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line 
5.3.8 Islamic republic party 
5.3.9 Other parties
6. Establishment of Islamic republic government 
6.1 Referendum of 12 Farvardin 
6.2 Assembly of Experts of Constitution / Constitution of Islamic republic
6.3 Establishment of first parliament and state
7. New arrangement of revolutionaries: Liberals/conservatives, Leftist, Islamist
7.1 Hostage Crisis 
7.2 Resignation of Provisional Revolutionary Government
7.3 Challenge between President and Islamic republic party
7.4 Cultural revolution
7.5 Civil war and terror
7.6 The Interim government of the Islamic Republic
7.7 Consolidation of power by Khomeini 
8. International position
8.1. Muslim World
 8.1.1 Islamic republican discourse vs Nationalist autocratic discourse
 8.1.2 Iran-Iraq war   
8.2. West block
 8.2.1 Iran-U.S. relation
 8.2.2 Iran-Israel relation
 8.3.3 Iran-Europe relation
8.3. East block
8.4. Iran-third world relation
9. Post-revolutionary situation during 1980s
 9.1. Political situation
 9.2. Social situation
 9.3. Economical situation
 9.1. Cultural and Religious situation

--Sa.vakilian 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm This article is getting long. I'd put 'Islamic republic party at 5.3.4 not 5.3.8 before Construction Jihad and Revolutionary Guards to keep it chronological (in order of when they were created). Otherwise I guess it's OK. --Leroy65X 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I accepted your suggestion. We can move some part of article to subarticles as we did in Hezbollah. But as I told before, we should complete the section then move some part of it to subarticle.--Sa.vakilian 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Slight change in rearrangement

Here are my differences:

The section New arrangement of revolutionaries: Liberals/conservatives, Leftist, Islamist sound too much like a euphemism, and the Opposition to the revolution has been eliminated. The story of the post-revolutionary years 1979, 1980, 1981, was one were the revolution was consolidated in the hands of Khomeini and the so-called "khomeinists" (Islamic republic party, hezbollah, republican guard, etc.) in the process repressing groups that were formerly part of the revolution -- the guerillas, national front, national democratic front, the muslim people's republican party, etc. These groups opposed their suppression and sometimes fought back. It's more than a "new arrangement". This happens in every revolution I suppose, we should spell it out.

This needn't be POV. We can explain that the groups were suppressed because "... khomeiniists believed their opposition to theocracy was against Islam."

Here's my other problem: Your outline has 14 categories and subcategories for Post-revolutionary impact section, were before there were 3.

9 Post-revolutionary impact

9.1 International

9.2 In Iran

I think the article is mutating into a History of Iran after 1979 article rather than an Iranian Revolution article. There should be something on what's happened after the revolution, but something brief because there already is a History of Iran after 1979 article. History of Islamic Republic of Iran

So here's my idea:

5 Victory of revolution and fall of monarchy 
5.1 The Shah leaves  
5.2 Khomeini returns and takes power
5.3 Revolutionary organizations and movements
5.3.1 Revolutionary Council 
5.3.2 The Provisional Revolutionary Government 
5.3.3 The committees of Islamic revolution 
5.3.4 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps 
5.3.5 Oppressed mobilization 
5.3.6 Jihad of construction 
5.3.7 Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line 
5.3.8 Islamic republic party 
5.3.9 Other parties
6. Establishment of Islamic republic government 
6.1 Referendum of 12 Farvardin 
6.2 Assembly of Experts of Constitution / Constitution of Islamic republic
6.3 Establishment of first parliament and state
7. Consolidation of power and opposition 
7.1 Hostage Crisis 
7.2 Resignation of Provisional Revolutionary Government
7.3 Challenge between President and Islamic republic party
7.4 Cultural revolution
7.5 Civil war and terror
7.6 The Interim government of the Islamic Republic
7.7 Dissent and its suppression 

And then put much of this text ....

8. International position
8.1. Muslim World
 8.1.1 Islamic republican discourse vs Nationalist autocratic discourse
 8.1.2 Iran-Iraq war   
8.2. West block
 8.2.1 Iran-U.S. relation
 8.2.2 Iran-Israel relation
 8.3.3 Iran-Europe relation
8.3. East block
8.4. Iran-third world relation
9. Post-revolutionary situation during 1980s
 9.1. Political situation
 9.2. Social situation
 9.3. Economical situation
 9.1. Cultural and Religious situation

... in : History of Islamic Republic of Iran. Salam, --Leroy65X 16:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I made that article:)) and I think we should cover from Jan 1978 to Dec 1981 completely. Of course there are separate articles for some of them like "Iran-U.S. relation" and we write it here in brief. We can merge them but we can't move them completely.

As I found you disagree with 7 and 7.7. and agree with others. in the case of 7.7. I disagree on "Dissent and its suppression". Because dissent has ended at that time and consolidation is correct. Also we can't say "Consolidation of power and opposition " because Banisadr was President. We can use "from Coalition to Consolidation" or something like this.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--16:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When did dissent end? MEK was dissenting. Bani Sadr was dissenting. The suppression of dissent was a major part of the revolution. It has to be included. Here is my new idea:

5 Victory of revolution and fall of monarchy 
5.1 The Shah leaves  
5.2 Khomeini returns and takes power
5.3 Revolutionary organizations and movements
5.3.1 Revolutionary Council 
5.3.2 The Provisional Revolutionary Government 
5.3.3 The committees of Islamic revolution 
5.3.4 Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps 
5.3.5 Oppressed mobilization 
5.3.6 Jihad of construction 
5.3.7 Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line 
5.3.8 Islamic republic party 
5.3.9 Other parties
5.4 Dissenting revolutionary organizations and personalitiesw
5.4.1 Iran Freedom Movement
5.4.2 National Front
5.4.3 National Democratic Front
5.4.4 MEK
5.4.5 Ayatollah Shariatmadari
6. Establishment of Islamic republic government 
6.1 Referendum of 12 Farvardin 
6.2 Assembly of Experts of Constitution / Constitution of Islamic republic
6.3 Establishment of first parliament and state
7. Consolidation of power and opposition 
7.1 Hostage Crisis 
7.2 Resignation of Provisional Revolutionary Government
7.3 Challenge between President and Islamic republic party
7.4 Cultural revolution
7.5 Civil war and terror
7.6 The Interim government of the Islamic Republic
7.7 Dissent and its suppression  --Leroy65X 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued debate on arrangement

It has been improved but there are some problems.

1- Dissent was after establishment of Islamic republic government not before it. Because dissent took place in winter 1359(February and March 1981) and then civil war took place during spring of that year.

Dissent took almost two years earlier during summer of 1979. For example in August 1979 41 newspapers and periodicals are prohibited. (Kayhan 20.8.78-21.8.78, quoted in Schirazi p.51) Many, if not all, of the dissenting organizations listed were in existance before Oppressed mobilization, Jihad of construction, and certainly Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line --Leroy65X 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But MEK and Freedom Movement of Iran were participating in Islamic republic parliment and Bani Sadr was the president. In fact "Terror and civil war" had two separate periods. In the first period some conflicts happened among new government and federalists(Kurds, Turkmans, ...) and anti Islamic groups (some liberals and communists) in 1979. Then other conflicts happened among Islamic republic party, Gourd of Islamic revolution ... and MEK, Freedom Movement and Bani Sadr. We can call the first one "conflicts with anti-Islamic republic movements" and the second one "Anti Velayat Faqih movements Sa.vakilian(t-c)--16:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we replace conflicts with anti-Islamic republic movements with suppression of secularist groups "conflicts" is not descriptive enough, there wasn't just a conflict there was a suppression. "anti-Islamic republic movements" has "anti-Islamic" in it. People read that and they think the National Democratic Front wanted to close down masjids. The "anti-Islamic republic movements" were against the islamic republic because they wanted a secular republic.

Now what else are we working on? this is getting complicated. :-) --Leroy65X 17:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

These were not just seculars but there were ethnic movements which wanted Federalist rights and clashes took place. I suggest "Early conflicts/clashes". It's NPOV and includes all of the conflicts of 1979.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But it still covers over who won the fight. Suppression of secularist and federalist groups or Early suppression of opposition is better. -Leroy65X 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2- I prefer to merge "Dissent and its suppression" into "Civil war and terror".

I hope you do not. Iran Freedom Movement and MEK placed a much bigger part and NF, NDF, IFM were not involved in terror --Leroy65X 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain more what do you like to write in "Dissent and its suppression" .Sa.vakilian(t-c)--18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a new article about time line of revolution which will reduce our problem(En Sha Allah).Sa.vakilian(t-c)--06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar to what is in here: [13]

Are you OK with these?

5.4 Dissenting revolutionary organizations 
5.4.1 Iran Freedom Movement
5.4.2 National Front
5.4.3 National Democratic Front
5.4.4 MEK
5.4.5 Muslim People's Republican Party --Leroy65X 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why do you put MEK in this part while it participated with Islamic revolution until 1980. In 1979 "Iran Freedom Movement" and "MEK" were beside revolutionaries not against them. Even they participated in elections in 1980. But In winter and spring of 1979 the most conflicts took place between militia of leftist,federalist,sectarianist on one hand and army,revolutionaries and government on the other hand. Even there were ethnic conflicts. But "National Democratic Front", "National Front" and some other secular parties just had some newspapers which had been banned in summer. I suggest not to divide this part to subsections, because then we have problem with put each one here or there. You'll find more information If you look at timeline. Excuse me but I think you've been confused. Sa.vakilian(t-c)--19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All those groups who eventually fell out with Khomeini and the IRP are similar even if some fell out in 1979 and some in 1981. They all opposed theocratic Velayat-e Faqih. And Khomeini and the IRP knew they opposed Velayat-e Faqih even if, for example, he put IFM's Bazargan in power as Prime Minister for a while.

They are important as part of the revolutionary history even if they weren't part of the victorious group.

I'm sure its late were you are. maybe we should take a break ---Leroy65X 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article won't looks good if we put BaniSadr story before establishment of Islamic republic and also write MEK assassinated head of Judiciary system. I mean we can't write the events of 1981 and then return to 1979 and going forwards and backwards. I prefer to reduce ideological coherence to increase chronological one.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Its OK with me if we put a story on Bani Sadr after the the establishment of the Islamic Republic so long as we have stories on both the groups that won and the groups that lost (such as I listed above) in the history of the revolution.

Also, there is bound to be some contradictions in article chronology because the groups didn't all start and operate at the same time. For example, your arrangement of sections right now has a section on Muslim student Followers of the Imam's Line and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps before Referendum of 12 Farvardin. Both organizations were started after the referendum. It's not in historical order but I doubt many readers will object.

I will be back monday. Salam alaika. --Leroy65X

15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Musaddiq

Surprizingly, even though this article talks in detail about the roots of the Iranian Revolution, it somehow ignores the 1950s period. This period that was dominated by the nationalist government of Mohammed Musaddiq was the front-runner in gathering the anti-Shah sentiment that was however adopted by the Islamists after Musaddiq was overthrown. [14] --bandishhh 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the article does mention mossadegh a little, but the NF played only a small role in the Islamic revolution.

His strong policy of Westernization and close identification with a Western power (the United States) despite the resulting clash with Iran's Shi'a Muslim identity.[22] This included his original installation by Allied Powers and assistance from the CIA in 1953 to restore him to the throne .... Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi held power until the 1979 revolution with a brief interruption in 1953; when he had faced an attempted revolution. In that year he briefly fled the country after a power-struggle had emerged between himself and his Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the country's oil fields and sought control of the armed forces. Through a military coup d'etat aided by a CIA and MI6 covert operation, codenamed Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was overthrown and arrested and the Shah returned to the throne.

--Leroy65X 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Committees

Sav.akilian I think this is wrong:

On February 12 the committees of Islamic revolution (also known as "komitehs" from the French comite) established in mosques. Khomeini put Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani in charge of the komiteh.

There were committees in 1978.

The first "komitehs" (from the French comite), or committees, "sprang up everywhere" as autonomous organizations in late 1978. They mobilized people, organized strikes and demonstrations, and distributed scarce commodities. After February 12, many of 300,000 rifles and submachine guns seized from military arsenals ended up with the komitehs who confiscated property and arrested those they believed to be counter-revolutionaries. In Tehran alone there were 1500 committees. Inevitably there was conflict between the komitehs and the other sources of authority, particularly the Provisional Government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroy65X (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

You may right. I doubted. I'll try to find a reliable source.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There were also many Communist committees. Let us not forget that the Communists were perhaps the strongest in terms of militia force. Khorshid 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

104K!!!

Is this a joke or what?! The article is huge and unreadable. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a PhD thesis! Please, for the love of humanity and all that is wholesome and good, clean this nightmare up. See also WP:SIZE. Khorshid 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's too long. The deal is Sa.vakilian and myself are esentially the main ediotrs here and we are not in agreement over the structure. Sa tending to emphasize the heroism of the revolution and myself wanting to make sure the critics of the rev are not excluded.

Want to help? :-) --Leroy65X 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw you wrote "my god, 104k! what is this??? this article is an unreadable mess". I've proposed this strategy as we used in Hezbollah. In that article we had gathered a lot of information and article reached 177kb. Then we made numerous sub-articles and moved unnecessary information to them. I insist on this strategy because my experience shows that wikipedians rarely work on sub-articles.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case I suggest waiting until we achieve consensus on the structure and then make sub-articles.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is the strategy then I think it would be a good idea to start making the subarticles. What is the consensus issue? I think the best way is to have a template. Khorshid 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't reach consensus about structure of the article and we can't make sub-articles while the sub-titles are fixed. I propose working on this article for few weeks and when it become complete and NPOV move some parts to sub-articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

If you notice to our model[15], you'll find that we have several phases: 1- Stub and start: From beginning to July 2006: In this stage there is just one archive. 2- Controversial: From July to October [16]: There were controversies in numerous cases and POV and other tags were put on the article and 6 archives were made for discussions. At the end we reach consensus on the structure and then POV tag was removed. 3- Completion and move to sub-articles: From November 1 to January 31[17]: In this stage we completed the article and moved some part of it to the sub-articles. 4- Verification and clean up: From February 1 to March 31[18] 5- Good article Nomination

Now this article was in stage 1 until January 2007. It has entered the second stage from January. This stage lasts until we achieve consensus on the structure and NPOV. At present just 2 parts have POV tag. Then we start the next stage.

This article is not as hard as that one. So please be patient. And trust in God.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

== i agree

Merge: with article History of the Islamic Republic of Iran

I think that two articles are too much and that it should only be one article GLGerman 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose the merger. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" was established after the overthrow of the Shah, so there isn't much overlap. Besides, the Revolution was important enough by itself to warrant a separate article. —Sesel 04:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, two separate entities important enough to have a separate article each. 124.170.153.60 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that this article be merged with the one written on the History of Iran. It make more sense and it shows clearer picture than what it is now.It may be wrong to treat it under types of revolution because it is not academically upheld as one. Edobor Erhabor M. TASUED, IJEBU-ODE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.144.27 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• I am very strongly against this merge. The Iranian Revolution was a very important event in Iran's history, and deserves to have its own article. Also, the current article is large enough.--SJP 00:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons listed above. I suspect the merge would dilute the importance of the event, which may or may not be the intent of the author requesting the merge? the explanation for the request makes no sense... "the two articles are too much"... please clarify. --travisthurston + 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the merger for reasons listed above. The revolution was a very importatn event not only in Iranian history but in world and Islamic history. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason for this. This article is perhaps not detailed enough (neglecting to mention the decisiverole of the Bazaari, etc, etc).-Kingbabi 3 March 2008

Trim down article

As is mentioned above, this article is too long. I propose trimming Ideology of Iranian revolution and Revolutionary organizations and creating separate articles of these sections if editors demand it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I made template:Iranian revolution.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have created a Organizations of the Iranian Revolution article so we can start trimming down the Iranian Revolution#Revolutionary organizations section --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article is way too long. I've been trying to figure out what should get cut out, but I am having a hard time with this. I also think that the order of the article needs to be changed. It would be better if it was in chronological order.--69.95.181.116 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Referendum"

Is it just me, or does this article seem downright inadequate? What I'd really like to know is about this 98% approval of an islamic state. However brainwashed the authors of this article might be, everyone should realise that no vote ever gets that much unity. What was the turnout exactly? Who was allowed to vote? Who wasn't allowed to vote? What are the different views on its legitimacy? My humble guess is that the whole thing was a farce, done under in a climate of fear, intimidation and emergency, with numbers and results being rigged. I also suspect I'm not the only one who thinks so. Wikidea 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"everyone should realise that no vote ever gets that much unity" - really?

More trimming

Causes of the Iranian Revolution

I've forked off a Causes of the Iranian Revolution article and trimmed down the section of the same name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

History of the Islamic Republic of Iran article

Unless I hear strong objections I'm going to trim the Post-revolutionary impact section because there is already a History of the Islamic Republic of Iran article covering that topic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revolutionary organizations

Next I'm going to trim from this section as there is already a Organizations of the Iranian Revolution article --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

downgrading of quality rating

Why has the article been downgraded to a C rating?

Which means it "is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. ... [and] may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. ... [and] may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. ... [Is] useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.

There should be discussion of and explanation about this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

it might be because it's too long, and those 2 Neutrality tags. I agree that the post-1980 needs to be trimmed to make the article more readable. But it's good if we can make sure the content is available in more specific articles before deleting them. Aryan (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Article too long

I propopse trimming the post revolutionary section drastically

... and putting stuff in the History of the Islamic Republic of Iran article.
Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tags

these two sections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution#Iranian_dissent_and_its_suppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution#Domestic

have tags saying: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (December 2007)

But there is no discussion on the talk page and the tags have been there a year now. If we don't get some discussion soon I'm deleting them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, a neutrality tag needs a section on the discussion page to further elaborate on that. If not, it is just a subjective view of an editor without further explanations. Give it a month and delete them if no one makes a comment on them. Aryan (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

2 1/2 months having gone by I will remove the tags. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article still too long and other problems

• sugestion: shorten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Post-revolutionary_impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Ideology_of_Iranian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Organizations_of_the_revolution

all of which have there own spin off articles

• nothing about the bani sadr era and his impeachment

I confess that I am as responsible as anyone for the length of the article and will work to make it more concise. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

creating fork for Background_of_the_revolution

Does anyone object to making Background_of_the_revolution a seperate article and trimming down the existing section? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I have created a new fork article called Background and causes of the Iranian Revolution. It contains the old Causes of the Iranian Revolution article which is redirected to Background and causes ...

Next project: trimmming down the background section of this article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the section on Historical Background incorrectly implies that Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi shared not only the same divine right position within Iran but that they also wielded the same amount of power and influence. Reza Shah was considerably more powerful and could be construed as a dictator, while his son was mostly a playboy, and a figurehead, before the 1953 coup. The suggestion that he was "restored" by Western forces suggests that afterwards he occupied a position that was identical or nearly identical to the position he had held before. This is historically inaccurate, as Iran was a Constitutional Monarchy - and one in which the Shah did not wield a large amount of power - before Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed as a more absolute Shah after Mossadeq's overthrow. If there are no objections within the next two or three days I will edit this section, with a link to the already-existing Operation Ajax page, which contains most of the relevant information. I will endeavor to ensure the length of the article is not increased by a significant amount.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagesiah (talk • contribs) 07:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

dictatorship or constitutional monarchy?

re: an edit by an anon editor with an edit summary reading: constitutional monarchy is incorrect. it was a dictatorship/absoulte monarchy.

I propose we stick with a simple monarchy and islamic republic in the lead, rather than dictatorship and islamic republic. Monarchies can be democratic or undemocratic, as can republics - islamic or otherwise.

Few doubt the islamic republic is more democratic than the shah's regime, .... but is it a democracy? If not, labeling the monarchy a dictatorship and the IRI an Islamic Reupblic implies dictatorship disappeared with the monarchy.

Also, in fairness to the shah, we now live in a more democratic climate worldwide. following the fall of the soviet union, there is much less public tolerance for dictatorship. Who knows how the shah's regime might have ended up by now if it had survived. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article rewriting

Still a big mess with too much repetition and facts missing. I will add info on the National Democratic Front (Iran) and the Muslim People's Republican Party.

Does anyone have an objections to a fork article on Casualties of the Iranian Revolution? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I have created it.

Now how about a fork article on Consolidation of the Iranian Revolution? Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the editors who have made corrections to my typos and such, but ancien regime is not a mispelling, it's a term for a pre-revolutionary government. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is way too big

someone needs to make it about 1/5th the size it is now. this is breaking my browser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.8.99 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to reduce the size. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Islamofascism"

I removed the following sentence:'...its replacement with an Islamic republic which turned out to be an Islamofascism under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution.' because though the labelling of Iran's regieme as an 'Islamofascist', has the effect of distorting the article's neutrality. --86.41.202.32

Well done: "The term Islamofascism is a controversial neologism...." ... "The term, "Islamofascism" has been criticized by scholars[10] and journalists alike. It is considered historically inaccurate and simplistic by scholars of history[11] and politics.[12], and is criticized as being generally used as a pejorative or for propaganda[13][14] purposes." The term doesn't fit --Englishazadipedia (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution or Islamic Revolution!?

This revolution everywhere with known Islamic Revolution. It also called on the Iran, Islamic Revolution. Being Muslim trait is typical of this revolution. Mohsen Abdollahi (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This ought to be discussed before any title change is made. There were significant elements in the revolution who did not want an Islamic Republic or realize that is what Khomeini had in store for Iran.

For example: Throughout the 1970s, a coalition of revolutionary forces - Marxists, Islamic socialist, nationalist democrats, leftist intellectuals, the underclass, students, writers, clerics, frustrated merchants -- all agitated against the Shah, joinging forces in creating a popular revolution that is inaccurately called Islamic. After all, economic grievances, longings for greater democracy, frustration with the Shah's secret police, leftist antiroyalism, the rising expectations of a growing middle class, and the sheer excitement of defying an all-powerful king, played just as big a role in the revolution's gathering storm as did Khomeini's undefined Islamic utopianist visions. ... As is often the case with popular revolutions, the unity that ensures the revolution's success crumbles once victory has been achieved .... The victor usually writes the history, and here the victor called its revolution Islamic. And so did the rest of the world. (from: The soul of Iran: a nation's journey to freedom By Afshin Molavi)

Another issue is that the article might be confused with the general idea of an Islamic Revolution, not what happened in Iran in 1979.

the article was originally entitled Islamic Revolution and was moved to the current title in 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_revolution&action=history --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)