Talk:Women's rights in Iran

Hello Sangak I think you should also mention in this article about the difference of modern Persian women's movement, and the ancient one. because the actual Persian women's movement started from the time of Cyrus the Great.

Also I will translatete your article to Persian so we can put it in Persian Wiki as well.

--Kaaveh 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I surely agree with you. I suggest this article to be focused on 19th and 20th century with a short reference to ancient and pre modern movement while Iranian women page is mainly devoted to the ancient Iran and a short reference to the modern one.

Indeed this was my original idea. I think It is very important to keep Iranian women page in a safe position and keeping it away from attacks. Modern movement is very controversial and may produce huge controversies. As such I decided to initial the article. This is inline with the article: Intellectual movements in Iran.

Thanks for translation. I will also try to collect more info. dastetoon dard nakoneh! --Sangak11:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again; I am totally agree with you on this. I will also mark this article on my watchlist to prevent any possible vandalism. Sangak jan are u also going to write about "Kashf-e Hijab" by Reza Shah (the great) which was a landmark in the Persian women's movement in this article? If so, I can find pictures of some "Shir-zans" from the Reza Shah era. --Kaaveh 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can add some info, that would be great. I am planning to concentrate on literary criticism, music, modern art and possibly some medical issues (contraception, family planning etc). I am looking for those women who took ground breaking steps but their names have been forgotten in the history.

Also "influence of Iranian movement on non Iranians in the region (middle east and central asia)" is some thing I am keen on figuring out. --Sangak12:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading this article, I was struck by the wide-spread use of the word "girl" to refer to adult persons, e.g., in the case of a Princeton mathematician. To me the term smacks of sexism, and seems out of place for a page on a women's movement.

Feel free to edit them out--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

numerous appearance of "girl" is due to word by word translation from persian. girl can refers to women of teenage (and younger ofcourse) and also to women of all ages as in "girls of Iran" a common phrase in persian. Feel free to replace "girl" with "woman" if it sounds unusual for English language speakers.Sangak 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

comment from an outsider

Shouldn't this article mention human rights issues in Iran? mirageinred 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No! Human rights issues are discussed here and here. This article covers what Iranian women did themselves not what others (Iranian men and Iranian government) did to women. Sangak ^Talk 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What if Iranian women fought back the injustices? Isn't that worthy of mention? mirageinred 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it will be included! For instance One Million Signatures, Tahmineh Milani's feminist cinema and Shahla Sherkat's magazine, Qamar ol-Molouk Vaziri's musical performance in public (among others) have been included in the article. Please read the section on Women's movement in late 20th century. Sangak ^Talk 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article lead me to think that this is a human rights/women's rights article. I was about to ask if someone would add some content about women campaigning for greater political or occupational freedoms. Maybe this article should be retitled? Persian women's intellectual movements, perhaps?RedPen 03:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Subheadings

The current TOC reads:

1. Women in The Persian Constitutional Revolution
2. Women in The Iranian Revolution
3. Iranian women and contemporary Persian literature
4. Iranian women and Persian music
5. Iranian women and education
6. Iranian women and modern art
7. Iranian women and Sports
8. Women's health in modern Iran
9. Women's movement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries
10. Women's studies in Iranian Universities
11. Women's movements in the Iranian cultural continent

Shouldn't that just be the following?

1. The Persian Constitutional Revolution
2. The Iranian Revolution
3. Contemporary Persian literature
4. Persian music
5. Education
6. Modern art
7. Sports
8. Women's health in modern Iran
9. Women's movement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries
10. Women's studies in Iranian Universities
11. Women's movements in the Iranian cultural continent

-- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

typo

Massive typo:"Such education and social trends are increasingly viewed with alarm by the Iranian secularists and opposition groups" - this should read 'Iranian authorities' not secularists and opposition (check reference 33)

grezoc 82.35.102.252 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible POV

I saw this on the cleanup taskforce list and set out to clean up the spacing on the images. In the process, I decided to fill out the Literature section a bit. However, I added info about one of the books being banned, and upon reflection, I wonder if it's not just a bit out of place in this article. So, if anyone objects to it, feel free to remove the mention.Phyesalis (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zoya Pirzad book.jpg

Image:Zoya Pirzad book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the Pahlavi Dynasty?

WHY does this article mention NOTHING about the extensive rights that Iranian women enjoyed under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi? He wasn't perfect or wholly democratic, but he gave many rights to women. The right to vote, the option to not wear headcoverings, equality with men; come on, you have to mention that!

--Simfan34 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

r —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simfan34 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about what women achieved themselves and not what was granted to them (or taken from them) by various regimes. Having said that, It is a good idea to have a section on that period. Sangak ^Talk 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mehre madari.jpg

Image:Mehre madari.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was appalling and completely redone

I am deeply disappointed in the editors of this article given the state I found it. Given that there is no Women's rights in Iran article, this article must fill that void. The reasoning given on this talk page to keep it circumcised in scope, while completely neglecting the history of the country, and even factually mischaracterizing it, made it completely useless for anyone doing research. An article about Iranian women already exists, it's called Iranian women. Put achievements by women there, which is more appropriate. Or start an Achievements of Iranian women article.

Khomeini was essentially hailed as helping women, while many important gains under the shah were never discussed. In fact, women protested the Khomeini government at the outset. The comments on this talk page by casual readers evidence that people were coming here to find out about the totality of the women's rights movement in Iran; and looking for a well-sourced article that does so. If it is returned to its prior state, I will open this up for a RfC because I was very troubled by what I saw. Statements like "The movement lasted until 1933 in which the last women’s association was dissolved by the Reza Shah’s government. It heightened again after the Iranian Revolution (1979)." are completely false. No women were involved at all in the gains they made during the shah? Not even his family members? Additionally, statements like "Dramatic changes in the labor force might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere unchaperoned." are not only OR, but they are false. Women didn't need chaperones; permission, perhaps, but not chaperones. There were almost no sources supporting such ridiculous pro-Khomeini statements (and such statements also hurt the contention that this article was about women's achievements made by women, since it is giving Khomeini credit for apparently liberating women from their homes...?). --David Shankbone 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. For example the following statement: "Dramatic changes in the labor force might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere unchaperoned." is neither OR nor false. Please read this article at Washington Institute's webpage!! We as editors need to be unbiased. Both Khomeini and Shah did positive and negative things. Sinooher (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/archive/9.2/Iran/Bahramitash.pdf a reliable source? It seems a pro-revolutionary polemic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Being reliable or unreliable has nothing to do with being pro-revolutionary or anti-revolutionary!! The author of the article is an academic in a well knwon canadian University: link Sinooher (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who re-wrote this article, and I was very pleased to hear just yesterday the highly regarded program All Things Considered do an in-depth look at the history of the women's rights movement in Iran, and it comported very, very closely with what I wrote: Despite Odds, Women's Movement Persists In Iran. Regarding the piece above, this is a Post-doctoral thesis, and its claims need to be sourced by multiple, scholarly-reviewed publications. Additionally, the claims in the paper basically make the point that enjoyment of rights was a socio-economic issue, not a gender issue, and if we are to include the claims made by Bahramitash in her thesis, that context needs to be made clear. --David Shankbone 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stoning to be moved to "Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran" ?

The section on stoning is not addressing a gender issue as the stoning law is not biased toward men or women. The number of men subject to stoning has been always higher than women. Ofcourse women right activists also campaigned against stoning but as a human right issue and not a women right issue. I suggest the section be moved to "Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran" article. Any idea? Sinooher (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this is not a gender-specific issue. In fact, more men have been subjected to stoning than women. I moved the section some time ago, but it was restored by an editor who is stalking me. AlexanderPar (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty international said stoning disproportionately affects women. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a false claim, more men have been stoned than women. I am removing the subsection, this is not a woman's issue, it's a human rights' issue. I'd advise you against reverting, keep in mind that you stalked me to this page, and stalking is against Wikipedia's rules. AlexanderPar (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"The majority of those sentenced to death by stoning have been women. Women do not receive equal treatment with men under Iranian law and before Iranian courts. Also, because illiteracy is higher among women they may be more likely to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit and to receive unfair trials."[1] Do you have any sources to back up your claim that more men are stoned than women? All we need to include something here is a claim that is supported by multiple reliable sources, whether or not it is true. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to get into this game with you. Even if what you're claiming was true. (which is not, just look up the names of the known victims) that would still not make stoning, a Women's rights issue, as the Sharia law on stoning applies to both genders. Stoning is a Human rights issue. Every subject has its place, and stoning belongs on Human rights page, not Women's rights page. What matters here is that most sources discussing stoning, classify it as a Human rights issue, and we should follow what the classification of the majority of the sources on the topic is. AlexanderPar (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you've managed to insert a logical fallacy or intentional error in almost every sentence.

You - "Even if what you're claiming was true. (which is not, just look up the names of the known victims)"

• This is trivial original research, this is your excuse for going against the sources. Aside from being false, this is absolutely unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

You - "that would still not make stoning, a Women's rights issue, as the Sharia law on stoning applies to both genders. Stoning is a Human rights issue. Every subject has its place, and stoning belongs on Human rights page, not Women's rights page."

• It is not up to you to make that decision. We follow the sources, and if sources establish that a women's right issue in Iran is stoning, we include it in the article "Women's rights in Iran."

You - "What matters here is that most sources discussing stoning, classify it as a Human rights issue, and we should follow what the classification of the majority of the sources on the topic is."

• This article is a subtopic of the larger umbella of "Human rights in Iran." Women is a smaller group than Human, and thus the set of issues here is a strict subgroup of the issues in Women's rights in Iran. If we were to reject one subject because it's a "Human rights issue" we would have to reject all of them. Logic asside, here are some sources that connect stoning to Women's rights.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

So if we're going to get into another editorial dispute, how about you tell me what exactly you think would be necessary in order for this material to be included on this page, so that I can find it demonstrate to all your complete disregard for sanity. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider you a neutral editor worth arguing with. Stoning is a Human rights issue, that's what most sources say. Yous is just a synthesis of sources to push a fringe point of view. If you revert again, I will simply report you stalking me and you will be blocked for that. You had no prior edits or history on this page, before you decided to stalk me in the middle of another dispute on another page. AlexanderPar (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's a human rights issue that especially impacts women. That makes it both a human rights issue and a women's right issue. We have multiple reliable sources establishing this fact. We have no reliable sources disputing this. The only source disputing that this is a women's rights issue is you. Please stop embarassing yourself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

May I ask a question as someone who's never edited this article, and who never or rarely edits articles on this topic? This is a subject about which I'm informed solely (but regularly) through Anglophone news media, with all the biases that implies. I think it's fair to say that these media tend to report the stoning or threatened stoning of women more often than those of men; if it's true that a higher proportion of those who are subject to stoning are men, then it would seem that this betrays a bias in Anglophone news media. However (and this is my point), it also means that those who use English Wikipedia will expect to see stoning addressed in the article. It has to be there. We have to answer the questions that readers are likely to bring to the article. Could I suggest that the issue of stoning be presented in that context? That is, I see no reason to exclude it as a concern of women's rights, since it clearly is to Western readers, but with the kind of caveat and proportional explanation AlexanderPar has offered, with perhaps then a "See also" or "Main article" notice at the top of the section. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Alexander when he says most of those executed by stoning are men. He's contradicting sources when he says that, while providing none of his own. Though I am open to the suggestion of a "main" or "see also" template, with a short summary and explanation of how it relates to women's rights here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that stoning affects more men than women would have to be carefully sourced, and it may be that no single statement would be satisfactory. It may have to be couched as one of those qualifying sentences: "Although most human rights organizations or whatever sources find that (etc, with footnote), some (footnoted) point to evidence that … ." WP:UNDUE should apply. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I see this is being approached purely on the level of deletion. I reiterate: English-Wikipedia users will expect to see contemporary stoning addressed in this article. If the issue has been misrepresented in Western media, the section should be rewritten to state the situation accurately. But it must be addressed, not suppressed on the specious reasoning that men are affected too. For instance: men can be raped, but no one would argue that the history of rape law doesn't belong in an article on women's rights. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol @ Alexander's edit summary, "Yes, but not all human rights issues are women's rights issues, and stoning is not cosnidred a women's rights issue by most sources."

A - I have never alleged that all human rights issues are women's rights issues.

B - You can't prove that "stoning is NOT considered a women's rights issue by most sources." This is a negative statement. You can't prove a negative.

C - As I have said repeatedly, stoning is both a human rights issue and a women's rights issue, and this is established by multiple reliable sources. We don't need most sources to consider it a women's rights issue. We simply need multiple sources to establish that it is a women's rights issue. We consider weight with respect to the article's topic, not with respect to the topic you and I are disputing: stoning. You say "stoning is a human rights issue", but certainly some sources consider it a women's rights issue. So with respect to women's rights, certainly stoning deserves some weight.

I'm wasting my breath of course. You've shown a willingness to outright lie about policy, so of course you'll remain willfully ignorant of the subtlties of WP:WEIGHT. A NPOV tag will have to suffice. I think readers who browse Wikipedia have gotten used to seeing that tag, with the understanding that lunatics are attracted to controversial articles like this one, determined to push their POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AlexanderPar posted to my talk page asking about my interest in the article; that discussion is here, but I'd like to repeat some of my last response on this page, where it's more appropriate. There was a highly publicized case in the news earlier this month concerning a woman in Iran who had been sentenced to stoning. The New York Times reported on the case in a series of stories: here's one, then here's the report on the lifting of the sentence; more to the point about En-WP readers' expectations, here's a page of comments from NYT readers who were responding to a blog post that compared that case to the recent execution of a woman in the U.S. It's a legitimate question to ask: if the execution of a woman by the U.S. is treated in the context of capital punishment, not women's rights, why should the stoning sentence of the Iranian woman, now lifted, be treated as such? But the question is a real question, as you can see from the range of responses at the NYT, and should be addressed — certainly it shouldn't be a forbidden topic. Readers will expect to be given a context for understanding these and other reports in an article on Women's rights in Iran. If you believe these reports are exaggerated, or false, or that stoning as a penalty is misunderstood, the article needs to explain that with sources; it should not suppress mention of stoning. A WP article should answer the questions that readers will bring to it. If the answer is "stoning is not specifically an issue of women's rights," then fine; give a short paragraph and link to a fuller explanation of the use of stoning as sentence in Iran elsewhere on WP. But the existence of activist groups that expressly address stoning as it affects women is prima facie evidence that it's perceived as a women's rights issue by a significant group of people. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put the heading back, but cut it down to a couple of sentences. There's no doubt it is perceived as a women's issue by women's organisations, including womens organisations in Iran, so we should cover this. However, the bulk of the text (the casualties, the saved, the cases etc) should be in the Stoning article - if Alexander Par has ceased his campaign to remove all reference to the practice of stoning in Iran from that article also. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well well well, I see that AzureFury has canvassed you here too. Some things never change I guess. I never did "campaign to remove all reference to the practice of stoning", so please do not lie and misrepresent my position. The section as it is, should be moved under a new larger section header called "campaigns" that includes both the One Million Signature campaign and Stop stoning Forever campaigns as sub-sections, both of which were by the way initiated and run by the same group of activists. Also, this is an Encyclopedia that should discuss a topic in general academic terms, this is not a campaign site or the Amnesty International`s monthly report to list every individual case involving the word stoning . By Cynwolfe`s own logic comparing stoning to rape, you do not see the names and descriptions of of every rape victim listed on the rape page, this is no different. AlexanderPar (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)