Talk:Iranian Revolution/Archive 2

Deletion of part of lead
The following sentences about the significance of the revolution were deleted with the edit summary claiming "removing WP:SYNTHESIS of disparate sources, one of which is a WP:PRIMARY. Sources can not be used like this" by Kurdo777

''Not so unique but more intense is the dispute over the revolution's results. For some it was an era of heroism and sacrifice that brought forth nothing less than the nucleus of a world Islamic state — "a perfect model of splendid, humane, and divine life… for all the peoples of the world." On the other hand, some Iranians now believe that the revolution was a time when "for a few years we all lost our minds", and which "promised us heaven, but... created a hell on earth." ''

I'm going to ask for a Third Opinion on the deletion. Perhaps the wording could be made more bland with something like -- "Views differ on the positive or negative impact of the revolution. For some it was an era that brought forth "a perfect model of splendid, humane, and divine life… for all the peoples of the world," while other Iranians believe that the revolution was a time when "for a few years we all lost our minds", and which ''"promised us heaven, but... created a hell on earth."  --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoring (in modified form) part of the lead
The following sentences about the significance of the revolution were deleted a couple of months ago (October 28 2010) with the edit summary claiming "removing WP:SYNTHESIS of disparate sources, one of which is a WP:PRIMARY. Sources can not be used like this" by Kurdo777

''Not so unique but more intense is the dispute over the revolution's results. For some it was an era of heroism and sacrifice that brought forth nothing less than the nucleus of a world Islamic state — "a perfect model of splendid, humane, and divine life… for all the peoples of the world." On the other hand, some Iranians now believe that the revolution was a time when "for a few years we all lost our minds", and which "promised us heaven, but... created a hell on earth." ''

I was going to ask for a Third Opinion on the deletion but instead I'm going to change the wording to remove the arguably synthesis wording ''Not so unique but more intense is the dispute over the revolution's results. For some it was an era of heroism and sacrifice that brought forth nothing less than the nucleus of a world Islamic state'' and replace it with ''Views differ on the impact of the revolution. For some it was "the most significant, hopeful, and profound event in the entirety of contemporary Islamic history." while other Iranians believe that the revolution was a time when "for a few years we all lost our minds", and which "promised us heaven, but... created a hell on earth." '' --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Adjusted to 100 days, and at least four threads. The page had far too many dead discussions on it. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

gone but not forgotten
This article does not go to great lengths to emphasis and mention the instrumental role that Taleqani, Masood Rajavi, Shariati, jalal ahmad, etc played in mobilizing the masses and for providing the ideological blue print for the revolution, especially Shariati and hosseinei ershad. And to be honest, the revolution would not have taken place without the Mujahideen Khalq organization. Although their decision to ally Sadaam Hussein was a key factor in delegitimizing their image in Iran, before the revolution they were the most successful at mobilizing the youth and for providing weapons etc. This article needs to also mention small figures such as Mehdi Rezai and all the fallen martyrs who opposed the shah regime and sacrificed their life for the ultimate cause - fighting oppression, tyranny and injustice.

YA SHAHID HUSSEIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.93.171 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is time FOR REAL to fix this biased page full of lies.
I think we have some problems in this wiki. You see, the problem is most of the sources are very biased. I am going to go through this page slowly and point out the mistakes. Hopefully have a discussion and if nobody cares I will edit it. I will not vandalize.

1) "Iran voted by national referandum to become an Islamic Republic on APril 1, 1979". Anyone reading this will think that it was truly free elections and all that. Why not mention how the Islamic republic people harrassed, forced, humiliated people so they "voted" for Islamic Republic?

2) "was massively popular[13]" The problem with this is that the source is refering to opposition publications. And how trustable are opposition publications? They won, and they write the history? This is flawed. I will edit it. Even considering if it was massivly popular, the revolutioneers were 6 milion according to the book. Consideirng that Iran had over 30 milion citizens at that time, I don't see that as many. Also again, opposition. Personally I don't believe it was more than a milion.

3) "heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services" What's the point of this? To try and make it sound like the Shah even though all this couldn't stop the revolution? What about the Shah did not want to stop the revolution? Someone who leaves the country does is not fighting. I can also find sources that says that the Shah gave order not to fire at the people, not to fight them and so on. This is flawed, once again. See source: "The life and times of the Shah, page 142; "The shah would not countenance bloodshed, so he ordered his generals not to shoot" I can find a lot more sources to back this up.

-- I will take a little break here and ask why you people are so biased? Why do you hate the Shah of Iran? Is it of his work to make Iran progress? I haven't even got into the whole thing and I have already found a couple things that were wrong -

[CAUSES]

4) The shah never westernized Iran. He MODERNIZED it.

5) The Shah was not western backed. If the Shah was western backed - he would not have these "fights" with the west. I have sources that say that the Shah did not sign the oil contract with the British because of them paying too little money. I have sources of where the Shah has attacked British and Americans. You call this western backed based on a biased book?

The Life and times of the Shah, Goram R Afkhami; page 64: "In june 1940 the Shah canceleld the credit agreement with the British, arguing that the British had not honored the terms of the agreement". Oh. I didn't know "Western backed leaders" can think for themselves and go against those who back them up.

Same book, page 353 - you can read about Ford crying to the Shah of Iran and evidence that the Shah never was western backed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciAEQMEtgNo - Shah criticizing the British

6) Regarding "social injustice". Please read the book first of all. Secondly it is really funny how you say social injustice based on one page of a biased book that is attacking the Shah all the time. What is social injustice? That Iran had one of the highest GDPs in the world? That Iran gave women voting rights? That the Shah had Food programs for needy mothers and people? And tons of similiarties.

7) Please see 5) for if the Shah was a puppet or not. This we can discuss. I have sources that say no, you have sources that say yes.

8) Regarding that the Shahs regime was seen as oppressive and brutal, corrupt and extravagant. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard.

First of all, there are some problems with this. Three of the sources are from the very same book. And the worst thing is that nobody can see them because they are not available. How can I fight it when I can't find it to read it?

Who saw it as oppresive and brutal? Who saw it as corrupt and extravagant? Books from Mike Evans, Afkhami, Nahavandi, "The other side of the story" does not agree with this.

9) Iran had one of the best economies in the world. Bottlenecks? No. Shortages? No. Inflation? Maybe. But why no mention of it was being fought with? Why make it sound as if Iran was unique with having inflation? I don't see this as one of the major causes. during the 1970s west had worse inflation than Iran, and see - no revolution!

"Before the revolution, most Iranians could afford to buy a flat, but now even rents are not affordable for people like me," said Mahmoud Sardari, a retired government employee who earns $400 a month.

"I had a 150 square meter apartment then and I could afford to travel abroad with my two daughters and my wife. But now with this high inflation I feel poorer every passing day."

Under the Shah, the middle class constituted a majority of Iran's population, said Sardari. "But now Iranians are mainly lower income people." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55A44X20090611

10) Regarding security forces being unable to deal with protest and demonstrations? No. This is wrong. the Shah of Iran ordered not to deal with it. He left the nation. Someone who leaves the nation, can not fight.

Please see 3)

11) Regarding the "extraordinarily large size" and "security forces were overwhelmed" please see 3), 11) and, 2).

12) The Shah modernized Iran. Islam opposed modernization, not westerinzation. Do you see giving women rights as westernization? Giving them rights to dress as they wish? Think and do what they wish?

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

13) "In 1941 Reza Shah was deposed and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, installed by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops. In 1953 foreign powers (American and British) again came to the Shah's aid." Lacking of source.

14) "its autocracy, its focus on modernization and Westernization and for its disregard for religious"

Please mention how he was "autocratic" He did not westernize Iran. Disregard of religious? He was RELIGIOUS himself, who the hell writes these stuff? Some guy living in his basement thinking he is a professor? I shall fix this wiki.

15) "Leftist, nationalist and Islamist groups attacked his government (often from outside Iran as they were suppressed within) for violating the Iranian constitution, political corruption, and the political oppression by the SAVAK (secret police)."

Source necessary.

RISE OF KHOMEINI

16) White Revolution, first sentence, first paragraph. Needs a bit more information on what it did. So people know what satan Khomeini was.

17) Interesting, the only thing we get to know here is that "Khomeini supporters claim". What about what the Shah supporters claim? That this is all a big lie?

1970-1977

18) According to who, did these stages set the stage for the 1979 Revolution? I want to know who this mind reader is.

19) Who were starving? When? Where? Iran had many problems. "Food giving" programs. No one was unemployed (Source: Ne.se/Iran - a swedish famous encyclopedia, that costs to view and is used by everyone in Sweden).

According to de villiers, Iran had one of the best welfare systems, even better than Sweden! (1975 De villiers - check it out)

Therefore this is wrong!

20) Regarding this paragraph (19) - Shall we not write atleast what the monarchist say? Why nothing somethinga bout that the festivals allowed tourism to floruish, industry, job opportunities, money to flow into the nation, recognization of the nation and all that?

21) Unpopular skilled workers? Why not write that Iran LACKED skilled workers, so we needed to get from the other nations in order for the newer generations to get into the workforce? Iran was a "young nation" after alll

22) So many sources of Graham! What about using some different unbiased sources? Or atleast, Shah-supporter sources now that you also use Anti-Shah sources?

23) Excuse me? Oil boom caused inflation, waste and gap between rich and poor? Let's see. The oil boom made Irans GDP rise to 30000 dollars, Read about Nahavandi (he is the source).

Thanks to the oil boom. Iran signed contracts with a lot of nations to buy a lot of things, like hospitals, apparemtns, industries and so on.

Read Shawcross book where he says that food were given to the very poor and to the disabled. So gap between rich and poor? Wow. I have never seen so much bias in my life.

24)Inflation was under control. Even though it was rising. (Page 428) How Inflation was fighted (Page 442) Why only write that? Why not write it all? Why not write it all? Those pages are from Afkhami book.

24) First of all. The Shah did not do because of Jimmy Carter, but because of people being biased and writing lies about him, just like now. Secondly, so why did they denounce the regime? Why try to spread lies?

25) Regarding Khomeinis son Mostafa; according to Afkhami (and many other sources) Mostafas death was natural and NOT SAVAK. Seee page 487. Same thing regarding Ali Shariati. NATURAL deaths. Not SAVAK.

OUTBREAK

26) I am sorry, but how is the Shah pro american? Please see 3).

27) The Shah appealed to United States for support? Source please for this one. Why would the Shah appeal for SUPPORT when ACCORDING TO THE SAME WRITERS, the SHAH had a "massive brutal oppresive very dangerous balhblahbalhblah SAVAK and military and police" - it does not make sense, but I am not surprised - this is what happens when people who have a personal problem with the Shah write wikipedia articles.

28) Many Iranians believe the lack of intervention and the sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level American officials indicate the U.S. "was responsible for Khomeini's victory."[81][85] A more extreme position asserts that the Shah's overthrow was the result of a "sinister plot to topple a nationalist, progressive, and independent-minded monarch."[86]

This one needs it's own section. A lot more and more people are beliving this and I will give sources. Some authors: De villiers, Nahavandi, Afkhami, Mike Evans, Amir Taheri, The book: "Other side of the Story" and so on and so on. I will work on this part.

For example: "By mid November 1979 most experts at the U.S dep of state had come to believe that the United States should be bracing for a post-Shah Iran" page 498. If you continue reading you can read about the US plot.

29) Regarding Abadan Cinema Fire, it should be noted that it was not SAVAK who did it in the end.

30) Regarding Black Friday, Please read this by Emad Bagheri. He is anti-Shah explains the killing. http://www.emadbaghi.com/en/archives/000592.php and Afkhami page 465, 466. Afkhami explains how professional agitators trained in Libya and Palestinian camps showed up and started attacking people and so on. Again, it was not the Shah.

Even Arafat himself confessed that he sent troops to Iran in order to help fighting the Shah.

31) Regarding Muharram protests. "A week later.." Please write that these statistic are OPPOSITION statistic and nothing Official.

Victory of the revolution and fall of monarchy

32) khomeinis return: Why nothing about when he says he has no feelings when returning to Iran?

Consoldation of power by Khomeini

33) I will get to this later.

Casualities

34) I find it funny.. "Which if true". Pro Shah statements have things like that. But not Anti Shah statements? Again, this article is so god damn biased I don't know if it can even be fixed. Only way to fix this page is to completely rewrite it by NETURAL people.

Something should be said about Emad Baghi BEING a Islamic republic supporter, if he says that - imagine how much less it is in reality. It has to be noted.

Impact

35) Soon I will fix this biased "I love Islamic Republic" section as well.

That's all, for now.

Please answer if you have any objections. I will start fixing some things soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javidshahanshah (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A few replies
Don't have time to reply to all the points, but hopefully a few will demonstrate the that above criticism is not serious.
 * {The Revolution] "was massively popular[13]" The problem with this is that the source is refering to opposition publications. And how trustable are opposition publications? The source is Kurzman, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran, (2004), p.121. i.e. an academic book by a US political scientist.How is this an "opposition publication"?


 * The Shah's regime was "heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services"   What's the point of this? To try and make it sound like the Shah even though all this couldn't stop the revolution?THe point is what is unique about the revolution.


 * The shah never westernized Iran. He MODERNIZED it.The Shah considered Westernization to be modernization. Maybe he was right. Maybe not. In any case there is little doubt he introduced Westernization to Iran big time. For example: "In the years before the revolution, Americans "were everywhere in Iran,"  They were "advising its government officials, training its military, building its oil rigs, teaching in its schools, and peddling [American] cars, language, fashions, industrial products, and culture." (Robin Wright, in The Last Great Revolution). http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/features/index.asp?article=f040609_TP_Iran --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer
Haha.... funny. You take three points and say "demonstrate the that above criticism is not serious". As if what you people have wrote is serious?

I will answer.


 * Fine. I do not have the time right now to read his book and look at his methods to see if his research has any leaks. I have a question though, if I find a source that says "it was not massively popular" - what will happen then? And the source would be from a political scientist, perhaps not American.


 * You still did not answer what the point of it is. So what that Iran spent a lot of money on the army and security services? If you had read my other points. I have shown you evidence that the Shah told his heavily financed army and security services to do not stop the revolution, to not fire and I can back this up. Therefore, it makes no sense to have it there.


 * The reason that Americans "were everywhere in Iran" (which is a big load of crap. I remember reading in a book that the amount of Americans were somewhere round 50 000, is that "everywhere" in Iran that had 30 million people? I will try and find this source). The reason there were americans is (oh and, not only Americans) that Iranians lacked skills. The Shah took over Iran when a large majority of it's people could not even read or write! How do you expect the nation to advance fast! America helped, other nations helped. I do not call this westernizing, I call this modernization and it does not take an "expert" to understand this. Javidshahanshah (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You must be one of these two: 1) someone who has personal problems with the Shah and Iran, because it was developing. 2) someone who is trying to act like an expert here.

it's not known as iranian revolution, everywhere it's known as islamic revolution, inside or outside of iran.
very shocking, it is known as Islamic Revolution everywhere, also known as Iran revolution, what is Iranian revolution? Ayatollah Khomeini was the one who led this revolution, yes an ayatollah leading a revolution taken place in a muslim country, perhaps some forget too fast that 98% of Iranians are muslims. I feel so sorry for people who chose "Iranian Revolution" term for this page as an Iranian, I thought wikipedia can do that better than that, this is joke of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.100.124.125 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with this. I think the correct term is "Islamic Revolution of Iran". 216.40.128.27 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a repeat topic --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Who called it the islamic revolution? The islamists themselves. While it is true that various groups inside Iran have called it 'Islamic' or 'Iranian' based on personal political interests, Wikipedia should not be an outlet for political opinions. Thus the naming 'Iranian revolution' is most appropriate as it is the least biased - it reflects that it was a revolution that happened inside Iran and implies nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.107.248 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution or Islamic Revolution!?
[pasted from archive] 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)
 * There was an Islamic Revolution article but it was redirected to Iranian Revolution.

If the name of the article is to be changed there should be a RfC on it. Currently someone has changed every "Iranian Revolution" phrase in the article to "Islamic Revolution," but not changed the title. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

google searches
in google scholar "Iranian Revolution" - about 17,900 results "Islamic Revolution" Iran - about 15,400 results in google books "Iranian Revolution" - About 85,100 results "Islamic Revolution" Iran - About 73,300 results

Doesn't seem to indicate "Islamic Revolution" is prefered by authors and scholars over "Iranian Revolution" - BoogaLouie (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * actually the search results are false and lies, the actual result yields:
 * in google scholar
 * "Iranian Revolution" - about 67,900 results
 * "Islamic Revolution" Iran - about 174,000 results


 * in google books
 * "Iranian Revolution" - About 258,000 results
 * "Islamic Revolution" Iran - About 371,000 results


 * so it Does indeed seem to indicate "Islamic Revolution" is prefered by authors and scholars over "Iranian Revolution" - BoogaLouie (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Ass711 (talk
 * Don't misrepresent me, Ass711. (The post above starting with actually the search results are false and lies, the actual result yields: was posted by Ass711, not me.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * actually the search results are false and lies, the actual result yields.
 * Why the difference in the results? I used quotation marks around my phrases (i.e. searching for the exact phrase). Ass711 did not. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont see how that would make a difference in searching for the 'exact phrase', but i also tried it with quotation marks,
 * here are the results:
 * in google scholar
 * "Iranian Revolution" - about 17,600 results
 * "Islamic Revolution" Iran - about 19,300 results


 * in google books
 * "Iranian Revolution" - About 77,300 results
 * "Islamic Revolution" Iran - About 84,700 results
 * so my conclusion still seems to hold true: it Does indeed seem to indicate "Islamic Revolution" is prefered by authors and scholars over "Iranian Revolution"


 * Iranian Revolution is the more appropriate title. The revolution was not characterized as "Islamic" in the beginning, and included many leftist and secular groups who opposed the Shah. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it wasnt for the islamist and religious groups the revolution might not have even happened. many of the leftist and secular groups united under the umbrella of islamists and Khomeini, and historical archives indicate that the islamists and religious forces were the major force in the revolution (leftists/seculars/liberals were side forces). they decided to unite with the religious forces to make and complete revolution, all the previous attempts before 1979 to cause revolt in iran by the secular and leftists were failures resulting in mass arrests, defeats, exile, and deaths. leftists and secularists attempted to overthrow the shah in the past without religious forces and they are often recorded in history as 'protests', 'riots', 'revolts', 'unrest', but not 'revolution'. hence the 'islamic' in the title emphasizes the major and ultimate force that overthrew the monarchy, suceeded and gained power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ass711 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

more google searches
in google scholar: exact phrase "Islamic Revolution" - about 16,800 results exact phrase "Islamic Revolution" without the word Iran - about 1540 results

in google books: <BR>exact phrase "Islamic Revolution" - About 82,000 results <BR>exact phrase "Islamic Revolution" without the word Iran - About 18,800 results

... so there are some -- but not a huge number of -- mentions of "Islamic Revolution" that don't refer to the Iranian Revolution. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * actually the search results are false and lies, the actual result yields


 * in google scholar
 * exact phrase "Iranian Revolution" - about 17,600 results
 * exact phrase "Islamic Revolution" with Iran - about 19,300 results


 * in google books
 * exact phrase "Iranian Revolution" - About 77,300 results
 * exact phrase "Islamic Revolution" with Iran - About 84,700 results
 * ... so there are NOT some -- but a MAJORITY of -- mentions of "Islamic Revolution" that also refer to the event specifically in iran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ass711 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Changing the title of the Iranian Revolution article
Should the title remain Iranian Revolution, be changed to Islamic Revolution, or to some combination of the two such as Iranian Islamic Revolution? Supporters of the current title say the "revolution was not characterized as "Islamic" in the beginning, and included many leftist and secular groups who opposed the Shah". Supporters of Islamic Revolution say "the Ayatollah Khomeini was the one who led this revolution" and there is little dispute that the forces that consolidated power after the revolution have an Islamic ideology. See discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iranian_Revolution#it.27s_not_known_as_iranian_revolution.2C_everywhere_it.27s_known_as_islamic_revolution.2C_inside_or_outside_of_iran. here]. Currently the title is Iranian Revolution, but an editor has changed every mention of the Iranian Revolution in the article text to Islamic Revolution, so it's confusing for readers.--BoogaLouie (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Islamic Revolution" is too broad for this one event; there have been and may yet be other Islamic revolutions in other nations. Perhaps Iranian Islamic Revolution or Islamic Revolution of Iran would work. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with Binkster. I have been a supporter of the title Iranian Revolution for reasons explained here, but I have to agree that adding Islamic to Iranian would help avoid confusion with the Persian Constitutional Revolution. So first choice Iranian Islamic Revolution, second Islamic Revolution of Iran, third Iranian Revolution, and worst choice is Islamic Revolution (for reasons explained above).  --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yeah, but the revolution wasn't Islamic from the get go. So anything with "Islamic" would be POVish. The current title is fine, as it is. But if you want to avoid confusion with constitutional revolution, I'd propose "1979 Iranian Revolution" which is commonly used in academic texts. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as this is a controversial topic, before you can move the page, you'd have to file a formal WP:REQMOVE, a RFC is not the proper venue for this. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even from the get go there was an Islamic angle - the Shah being secular modernism par excellence (for example the Tudeh had nothing but good things to say about Khomeini for years ... until he crushed them.). But the main thing is the result of the revolution was an Islamic Republic. With all due respect to the lefties who sacrificed for the revolution, they lost. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can do that (WP:REQMOVE) next I guess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As always, what do the sources refer to the event as? If there's consistent widespread use of the word 'Islamic' then that word should certainly appear in the article title. If not, the interpretation of other editors on whether or not the event was Islamic in nature shouldn't be relevant with respect to the article title, which (where possible) should always reflect dominant widespread use in the sources. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Checkout the searchs of Google Books and Google Scholar above. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support '1979 Iranian Revolution'  per Kurdo777 above. The academic sources strongly preference 'Iranian Revolution' without the word Islamic, and adding the year to the title would serve perfectly to remove any ambiguity. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I like the question presented and agree that "Islamic" should be included because it reflects the force fueling the overthrow. Perhaps some mention should include the Mujahedin and Marxists that allied with the Islamists.
 * Truth be told, "revolution" is not at all an accurate term for what occurred and a misnomer. Revolution is the POV of Islamic Republic. GoetheFromm (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cannot agree. The regime talks about the revolution, historians talk about the revolution, average Iranians talk about the revolution. It was a revolution if ever there was one. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Revolutions are normally described by the location rather than the ideology of the eventual winners, e.g., American, French, Russian and Chinese. TFD (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: We have a policy (WP:NAME) that determines what the name is, we don't get to choose one that we feel is suitable. I tend to support Kurdo777's proposal, and (assuming he's correct on the academic sources) it follows the policy, too. --Dailycare (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Iranian Revolution is more neutral, academic, and generally accepted. I would also accept Kurdo777's proposal of "1979 Iranian Revolution" (although if we must have the date I think "Iranian Revolution (1979)" might be better instead, but either is OK). Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Binksternet, either Iranian Islamic Revolution or Islamic Revolution of Iran should be fine.Neftchi (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Why hasn't anything been done about this. There was more than one "Iranian Revolution", and the title as it is is simply inaccurate and against academic convention. Should be "1979 Revolution" or "Islamic Revolution" or "1979 Islamic Revolution". Manocihr (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It should remain "Iranian Revolution" because the title "Islamic Revolution" leaves open the question of which Islamic Revolution. Similarly we refer to the "Russian Revolution" not the "Communist Revolution".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.200.228 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
Many academics believe that the revolution was planned by the CIA. Its a well known conspiracy theory. It should be added as a conspiracy theory headline in the article. Neftchi (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please show sources for this theory. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont have all the sources, but here are just a couple: . It shows that there is a conspiracy theory. Neftchi (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Engdahl and his book are not well regarded—he is no scholar and the book was not peer-reviewed. The Iranian.com website is not a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why will the other side of the story be not told?
During my years of using Wikipedia I have always found out that there are a few people who always want their own opinion and views to be published. Anyone who tries to publish their facts will quickly get their articles undoed. If anyone wants to add something new it is not an easy process, especially for a new person. I am not saying it should be an easy process - but it should not be ridiculously hard.

Why is the other side of the story never told? Many academians, many experts, many Iran-scientists, many regular people have voiced that the revolution was a work of CIA and other nations.

I can not go into it fully right now. But here some quick links. This definitely requires more research from the Wikipedia editors. I can not do this all by myself. Because there are powers in this wiki who do not want to write about this, despite the fact that it has been attempted several times, each time undoed.


 * 1) "Jimmy Carter The Liberal Left and World Chaos" a book by Mike Evans. In there he describes fully how CIA and other agencies got rid of the Shah. Mike Evans is/was among others advisor to world leaders.

He also said that he mentioned to the Shah the names of those in US that had big part in this and that he had been in meetings against the Shah (de Marenches 1988, p. 125-126)
 * 1) Alexandre de Marenches (Direcot-General of French SDECE) had told the Shah that Jimmy Carter had determinded to overthrow the Shah and replace him with someone else.

No mention of this at all! It is simple - the same reason the revolution was done by western nations, the same reason nothing is written about this in this article. JEALOUSY. Javidshahanshah (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike Evans may be an expert on "the Rapture" of christians during final days (or a nutter), but not on Iranian history.
 * Couldn't find anything verifying "Alexandre de Marenches (Direcot-General of French SDECE) had told the Shah that Jimmy Carter had determinded to overthrow the Shah and replace him with someone else." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Does one have to be an expert on Iranian matters to count as a source? In that case, I am an expert - let's replace everything with what I have to say. Mike Evans has provided a lot of different sources in his book, reliable sources, unlike Wikipedia which universties does not even see as a reliable source, guess why, because of reasons like this! The other side of the story is almost never told.
 * See the book de Marenches publishd 1988 page 125-126, is it so hard?
 * There are a lot more sources and books. I will get back, but I am sure everyone can understand I can't do this alone. 14:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javidshahanshah (talk • contribs)
 * Once again this proves how "neutral" and "factual" Wikipedia is. There is a reason that no university in the world accepts wikipedia as a source - because of some people have a personal agenda here to write exactly what they believe. I am glad no university and no serious school accepts wikipedia. Awesome! --Javidshahanshah (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Another wikipedia side project
First of all there was no such thing in iran as a Secular civil resistance, all opposition to the shah was ideological , they were either communist , islamist or MKO , the so called seculars were the ones on shah's side or the indifferent.

Second the author seems to think of pre-revolutionary russia when he says the revolution "lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military)", all these were present in pre-revolutionary iran , iran almost went to war with both iraq and bahrain and was pushed back by the major global powers ; the working class were discontented , one israeli diplomat comments that the feelings of the working class in iran was like "fire under the ash" ; there was indeed a financial crisis in iran when later in the article it is said that shah's lavish spending for foreign dignitaries made the lower classes furious , and the military was certainly disgruntled cause if they were not they would have not saluted Ayatollah khomeini on his return to iran and would have carried out a bloodier resistance after the events of the 12-22 Bahman (There were orders directly from shah that the military was to destroy the entire infrastructure of the country should the situation require).

Kermanii (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Like most things in life, such a change like the 1979 events has several reasons and a long lead-up phase. I had a friend who spent her childhood in Tehran, but in 1958 (sic) her father took the (Armenian) family to Western Europe as he was convinced it would blow up one day. Totally forgotten is: In October 1964 full diplomatic immunity was extended to all American military personel and their dependents. According to the book 'Daughter of Persia' (No ISBN NO, just Corgi Book 0 552 13928 9), 'this bill outraged everyone except its sponsors'. A huge US bank loan came Teheran's way soon afterwards, so the writer who was there describes. You can't act like this and expect no backfiring - sooner or later. But I have also seen on other occasions that entries with facts which demonstrate the incompetence of parts of the establishment, seem to fall into a black hole. 144.136.176.154 (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Shah's Widely Acknowledged Brutality
The Shah's government was widely regarded as brutal and repressive. To depict the Shah's regime as "seemingly becoming brutal" is an attempt at false balancing. I propose editing out not only the bad grammar, but the obvious attempt at hiding a viewpoint that is widely held not only by scholars, but more importantly, by Iranians themselves. False balancing undermines the credibility of any article. This would NOT be an attempt to pass judgement on the Shah's human rights record, but rather an attempt to merely reflect a viewpoint held by scholarly consensus. Scholarly consensus, of course, may or may not coincide with reality and Wikipedia does not necessarily demonstrate bias by reflecting such consensus. --Campingtrip (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Weak Writing/ Bad sources/ NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
This article does not read consistently and does not follow the general unbiased and scholarly writing style of other well established articles. Since the Islamic Revolution/Iranian Revolution is considered an important milestone in history (irrelevant of opinion); there should be more effort to clean it up.

There are many examples of shoddy research and weak writing. I will provide a small glimpse into the many shortcomings the article has:

EXAMPLE TEXT FROM ARTICLE BELOW

Poor writing overall

Weak and/or shoddy references and citations

"Iran has elected governmental bodies at the national, provincial and local levels. Although these bodies are subordinate to theocracy what? are the bodies of government subordinate to theocracy? or are they subordinate to the judicial branch of Iranian government which happens to be part of a theocracy? again unclear – which has veto power over who can run for parliament (or Islamic Consultative Assembly) and whether its bills can become law – they have more power than equivalent organs in the Shah's government. Iran's Sunni minority (about 8%) has seen some unrest.[231] While Iran's small non-Muslim minorities do not have equal rights, five of the 290 parliamentary seats are allocated to their communities.[232]

Definitely not protected '''Really? "Definitely not protected?" what is this 9th grade?'''have been members of the Bahá'í Faith, which has been declared heretical and subversive. More than 200 Bahá'ís have been executed or killed, and many more have been imprisoned, deprived of jobs, pensions, businesses, and educational opportunities. Bahá'í holy places have been confiscated, vandalized, or destroyed.[233][234] More recently, Bahá'ís in Iran have been deprived of education and work. Several thousand young Bahá'ís between the ages of 17 and 24 have been expelled from universities for no particular reason.[235] The reliability of this source could be disputed, in fact this whole section seems little to do with informative research and more to do with emotional ranting

I think the writing style of the paragraph below speaks for itself

Whether the Islamic Republic has brought more or less severe political repression is disputed. Grumbling once done about the tyranny and corruption of the Shah and his court is now directed against "the Mullahs."[236] Fear of SAVAK has been replaced by fear of Revolutionary Guards, and other religious revolutionary enforcers.[237] Violations of human rights by the theocratic regime is said by some to be worse than during the monarchy,[238] and in any case extremely grave.[239] Reports of torture, imprisonment of dissidents, and the murder of prominent critics have been made by human rights groups. Censorship is handled by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, without whose official permission, "no books or magazines are published, no audiotapes are distributed, no movies are shown and no cultural organization is established. All forms of popular music are banned. Men and women are not allowed to dance or swim with each other. "[240]"

While this is one small part of the article, I am of the opinion that the whole article needs to be seriously reworked.

Reworking should include:

1. Better writing

2. Removal of emotional fodder (whether it's pro, anti, whatever)

3. Addition of more scholarly analysis of the revolution's impact

4. Removal of bad or unreliable sources

5. Addition of more reliable sources

6. A more cohesive organization of thought

7. A more unified writing style to make it more readable

Future editors should look at the French, Russian, Chinese, etc Revolution articles to get an idea of what this article should aspire to be. I believe most historians and foreign policy analysts from any country would agree that the Iranian/Islamic Revolution marks a milestone in political transformations in the Middle East on par with the previously mentioned revolutions.

Thank You,

IA


 * I second this. I haven't read the entire article, but I noticed the definitely' and added a citation needed to the sentence. CA Jim (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Much stronger ref for all the claims, tightened grammar and language use for the section flagged. --Smkolins (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

workers' councils (shoras)
Perhaps we could add a small section on the workers' councils which were set up during 1978-1979. This is briefly mentioned in wiki articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_councils and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura

"Shuras have also been a feature of revolutions in Islamic societies, such as in the Iranian revolution of 1979, where they were formed by workers and held considerable power over parts of the economy for a year before being dismantled."

For a reference, see http://books.google.ca/books?id=BFzOVmj1iCIC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=iran+workers'+councils+shuras&source=bl&ots=7eLsHBTisd&sig=3qIsKJsA_R5FdLnHaX24L1RST3w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z6aZUd-vDqn0iwLlkIC4Bw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=iran%20workers'%20councils%20shuras&f=false

or

"Despite moments or periods or instances of working-class or popular power immediately following revolutions (including, impressively, workers councils following the Iranian Revolution) - Peter Waterman (born 1936)

http://www.amandla.org.za/special-features/debating-left-strategies/169-debating-left-strategies-peter-waterman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Shariati and Taleqani
Possible to add a picture of these? The part they played and the immense influence they had in the pre-revolutionary period goes without saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit to remove POV
Greetings,

This article isn't bad, however it lacks many details, and at times the information in it seems to have a strong pro-Islamic Republic POV/bias, and it does not take into account the Shah's side of the story very well. I will be copyediting the article to remove POV and make the article more neutral. I will also add additional details to this article as well. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Video Game based on the Revolution
A video game based on the events of the Revolution, titled "1979: The Game" is currently in production. Is it appropriate to mention this on this page? Gorrrillla5 13:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

3
I have read the article & it looks biased (not neutral) towards the Islamic republic

If you agree with me, please post here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.104.84 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please remove/edit "democratic-theocratic hybrid constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979."
No offense to anyone but this is an absurd statement. A constitution cannot be a democratic-theocratic hybrid. If one looks at what democracy (all types) is, it will be clear that a constitution can be democratic-theocratic hybrid only in theory. Furthermore, Khomeini was the Supreme Leader and the position of the Supreme Leader still stands today. Which means that there are little to none democratic principles in the constitution of Iran. I would like to edit that sentence and put instead:

"allegedly democratic, theocratic hybrid constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979."

In order to keep my proposal politically unbiased, let's put ""allegedly democratic" which means that democratic elements might be present.

In addition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index.

Enixzhd (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Some problems
The lead completely ignores the fact that up until November 1979 the Tehran government was run by Mehdi Bazargan and other National Front politicians, who all resigned en masse after Khomeini refused to condemn the seizure of the US embassy by his supporters. The Tehran government from Feb 1979 to Nov 1979 was not run by Khomeini or the Islamists, a fact that is verified by every reliable source. The government in its current form does not appear to have come into being until after the 1980 elections which brought the Islamic Republic Party to power. There are many other issues with this article, but they should be addressed step by step, starting with the nature of the revolution and the first revolutionary government. The article also ignores the predominance of leftist revolutionary groups until the 1980 elections. Laval (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also fairly OR to claim that there is some kind of unified "ideology" behind the revolution, per Ideology of the Iranian Revolution. This is a very POV and OR argument as there was not one ideology but a variety of conflicting ideologies, including the different varieties of Marxism, nationalism, and Islamic reformism. For these arguments to claim Khomeini as the ultimate ideologue of the revolution is pure propaganda - Western historians and analysts generally dispute these claims and argue that the revolution began as a grassroots uprising involving many different leftist and reformist groups with the Khomeini camp being the eventual victors. Considering how many sources there are, including in this article, there's really no reason for all these errors and omissions. Laval (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * While you have made some interesting points, a lot of what you have said can be considered revisionist history. From day 1, the Ayatollah Khomeini ruled Iran (don't forget he was the one who appointed Bazargan), something virtually every souce mentions. During Bazargan's premiership, Khomeini was the ultimate head of the government as leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Council (the predecessor to today's Guardian Council). It was in effect a government within a government, just like today. The Revolutionary Council was backed up by komitehs, led by hezbollahis who used strong arm tactics to beat and break up opposition. The Komites were led through the mosques, and since Khomeini was a Grand Ayatollah, the lower level clerics had to follow his orders. By mid 1979, they were helped by the Revolutionary Guards, whom carried out the same tasks. And finally, the Islamic Revolutionary Courts ordered the imprisonment and executions of opponents. Any reliable article/book on the revolution will mention these.


 * All of those groups fell outside of Bazargan's jurisdiction. Bazargan had no real power. Just like now, at that time Iran's government was in effect a government within a government. It had appearance of democracy and fair elections, but in reality was controlled by a group of unelected clergymen. During the 1980 elections, the Islamic Republic Party won primarily because the Revolutionary Council vetted/barred most of the opposition candidates. It was no fairer than any of today's Iranian elections. Virtually every reliable book written about the revolution mentions everything that I have stated.


 * I am not sure why you say there was no unifying opposition and ideology. The Revolution was led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, and he was the ultimate creator and leader of it. This article also says that the Islamic author Ali Shariati in a sense was the ultimate ideologue of the Revolution (although it should be expanded). But without Khomeini, there would have been no revolution. Nobody during the protests were carrying the hammer and sickle flag, or chanting for nationalism; they were holding Khomeini's picture and wanted an Islamic Republic. Those groups (nationalists, Marxists, etc.) had a relatively small following in Iran at the time, thus Khomeini was the main revolutionary leader. As one state department official said, "Khomeini turned all of the little volcanos into a big volcano". The other opposition groups (National Front, leftists, etc.) all joined in during the latter stages of the revolution, hoping to capitalize on Khomeini's successes.


 * The problem is this (something many informed books recognize): The people taking part in the protests believed that an Islamic Republic would be a republic of social justice, freedom, and liberty. Even the most secular people in the Muslim world had little animosity towards Islam. Islamic extremism is only a relatively recent phenonema, while Europe was tearing itself apart in religious wars for centuries, the Islamic world enjoyed peace and progress. As a result, few people (no matter how modern they were) had any experience with religious extremism in the Islamic world.


 * However, you are right, Khomeini was not an ideologue of the Revolution. Ali Shariati's works was. It was in a sense was a liberation theology style of Islam, with many elements borrowed from Marxist theory. As a result, even Marxist-Communists joined in the Revolution, believing that revolutionary Islam similar to Marxism, being progressive, anti-capitalist, and favoring social justice. They were legally part of the theocracy until 1983! The democracy advocates on the other hand believed that the government would be democratic and free. And the average Iranian (many of whom weren't that religious and/or involved in any political ideology), simply followed Khomeini because they saw him as the "hero" who would fix everything and partially due to Shariati's works. Khomeini frequently told people that the clergy were only helping people revolt, and they had no intention of ruling. The revolutionaries in effect handed over complete power to a clergyman (Khomeini), and then believed that he would relinquish it. It was a fallacy, and Khomeini never gave up his power.


 * The main reasons Bazargan and the National Front were given positions in the government were 1) to generate an illusion of freedom to the Iranian people, and 2) to persuade the US and the West at the critical moment to abandon the Shah's government (which they did at the Guadalupe Conference on 3 January 1979). Otherwise, the National Front never would have come to power. Khomeini manipulated everybody, and won. His theories of velayat-e-faqih and hardline religious fundamentalism were never were revealed until after he was in power (something any reliable, objective source will recognize), and he largely rode into power on Shariati's back.


 * I hope I have addressed to your concerns. This article does need some serious work (which I am planning to do). However, what you have written is not exactly a problem that this article faces. I will try to empasise the role of Shariati and others, but ultimately during the entire revolution, Khomeini was its leader. Cheers. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

General Overhaul and Expansion
I plan to carry out a major overhaul and expansion of this article, and its related articles. For such an important event in Iranian and global history, a better article is needed. The current article is muddled, contradicts itself at times, and most importantly lacks detail.

I have been studying numerous sources relating to the revolution, and I will begin adding the information/sources regarding the outbreak and events of the revolution itself, followed by expanding the rest of the article, including the related articles. I will also resolve POV issues (while there is little direct POV, the lack of information in this article indirectly results in some POV).

This revolution is a possibly one of the most poorly understood events in modern history, both by Iranians themselves and Westerners. The current article itself is reference to that fact. Hopefully my revisions to the article will make the events of the revolution clearer. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Update
I realized that the article has become too long. In addition to continuing my copyedits and expansion, I will shorten my previous contributions, and afterwards transfer them to the Timeline article. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Undoing User:Partridgeinapeartree edits
User:Partridgeinapeartree has made a series of edits (e.g., ) which seem problematic b/c they 1) seem to inject a significant amount of "narrative voice" into the article, 2) seem to inject a significant amount of POV into the article, and 3) make questionable use of references.

After having looked through the edits, my first impression was that a blanket revision of User:Partridgeinapeartree's edits was appropriate, but unfortunately there are so many edits since September, 2013 that it doesn't look like blanket revision will be easy.

This seems like an unfortunate case where a rouge editor has had his/her way with an article over a series of months, to the point that it's difficult to undo the damage. Unfortunate, b/c this article seems like it should be of fairly high importance. I'm surprised no one caught this earlier.

At this point, the course of action I'd like to take is to revert to a version pre-User:Partridgeinapeartree (i.e. revert to September, 2013 version). I know that would cause some collateral damage, and I wanted to see if there were objections before making the revert. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello NickCT,


 * I am the user that you have been refering to.


 * First of all, I will be the first to admit that mistakes are possible whenever editing any article. My goal (of completely revamping this article) makes the risk of making mistakes even greater. My extensive edits of previous articles could not have been achieved without the helpful input/critique of others.


 * But your good faith attempt to blanket revert every single one of my contributions unfortunately is not helpful (including making what I felt was an insulting reference to me as a "rogue editor"). I have spent countless hours researching and compiling numerous sources related to the revolution, providing numerous citations, and attempting to create a clear, uniform, and unbiased article to the best of my abilities.


 * If you felt that I have made mistakes, injected POV, and/or misinterpreted my sources, please provide specific examples for me, it would make my task much easier. (I do not know what you mean about a "narrative voice". Previously the article flip-flopped between contradictory positions of various sources, and made it nearly impossible to understand the actual course of events).


 * Prior to my revisions, this article was simply atrocious. Numerous editors posted on this talk page attesting to that fact (the most common complaints were that the article was incoherent, biased heavily in favor of the mullahs, etc.). You can read my previous posts to this talk page to observe what my goals are for what I feel was a deeply flawed article, as I have attempted to keep the talkpage updated with my plans.


 * Good luck. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * did indeed have some mistakes that you described. However, the later editor should not have reverted it (especially after calling it "unsourced POV") since most it was still correctly cited from new sources I added (primarily Manouchehr Ganji's "Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of the Resistance"). Nevertheless, since I realized that it was a problematic edit (that I eventually would have corrected myself) I did not pursue the matter. Either way, I do not feel that it is a correct representatation of the general content of my edits, since I had made some unusual errors in that one.


 * But should not be any problem at all. The first source I put was Kurzman citing "Laleh'ha-ye Enqelab" (that being from a post-revolutionary Iranian newspaper). In addition, numerous Wiki articles give estimates of casualties in a conflict in this format (example Yom Kippur War) when there are different estimates. The second source I put in (from Baghi via the current government) clearly states that 32 people were killed during the 1963 riots. As for the third source, Saeed Soltanpour (who led the Writer's Association protests in 1977) was indeed executed by the Islamic Republic, so I am not sure which part of that is problematic.


 * If you find anything else that you feel is amiss, please feel free to show me, however in the meantime I will continue with my revisions (I had been busy for some time, so I was unable to post as much as I did previously). Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Partridgeinapeartree - I appreciate you may have been operating in good faith here and a few of your edits seem good and appropriate. "Rouge" may have been too strong a term.
 * Regardless, my feeling is that a lot of what you've put in needs to be undone and doing so looks like it will be tough. I'd like someone other than you or I to review your edits and decide whether a blanket revision is appropriate here.
 * re "narrative voice" - A narrative tone is a tone that sounds like it's telling a story (e.g. "On a sunny day in May, John walked happily through the park"). Generally more formal tones are more advisable (e.g. "On May 1st John walked through the Park. The weather was reported to be clear. John later stated that he was happy during his walk"). See Writing_better_articles for more details. NickCT (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Women protest photo
Short explain of recent edits and reverts between me and Sean.hoyland - during International Women's Day, Iranian women generally protested for "more rights" and for various social and political purposes or ideals. Some of them protested for Khomeinism, some of them for Communism, some for headscarf, some of them against, etc. Presenting photo which contains so many women marching just for one of specific purposes is heavily misinterpretation and attempt of politization, and that's precisely what Soroush90gh has done. --109.165.166.4 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Hamideh Sedghi, author of Women and Politics in Iran (Cambridge University Press, 2007, page 251), explains Khomeini proclamed hejab decree for public sector in June 1980, and given photo is from March 1979. So it's obivous manipulation with little historical sense. --109.165.166.4 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken and should self-revert. Numerous high quality academic sources state that mandatory veiling in the workplace was introduced shortly after the revolution and that women protested that on International Women's Day, among other things, in March 1979. You should understand that it is simply not possible to build an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's policies if editors edit based on what they believe to be the case. That is not how it works here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've tried to send you message on private page but it wasn't possible. You actually didn't do anything wrong because indeed reliable source state so, but it's just partly true and this book which I gave deals primary about Iranian women and it contains numerous informations about headscarfs. Source states (same page 251): On March 9, 1979, the government announced that it endorsed “reasonable, not compulsory, hejab.”. So it must be chronological mistake, in that time they only could protest about announcement of plans for hijab, not because it was "mandatory".. Next sentence after decree (June/1980) says this: Thousands of women reacted with determination: they engaged in street protests, lobbied, organized private and public meetings, handed out leaflets, and published newspapers.. So it's actually isn't about something what I believe or not, it's just mixing of two events. There's no doubt that thousands of women protested against it (as other side for it), just it happened year later. If some book states "mandatory veiling in the workplace was introduced shortly after the revolution", problem is that you can not know does it mean one month later or one year later. This other books helps. Since it's obivous mistake and you gave good source (I like to see University Press) it would be good to rearange the words: "social protest which include family laws, announcement of mandatory veiling...". I'm leaving next moves to you, just trying to help. Thanks for your time and interest. --109.165.166.4 (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Improvement
As I had stated previously, it was my intention to improve this article. After a long and delayed process, I have finally completed the main section, concerning the primary course of events, and it is ready to be saved. Afterward, I will also make some revisions to the historical background and consolidation of the revolution. However, for the most part, I will make those edits on their respective pages. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit that I am about to make now concerns the main course of events of the revolution, beginning from late 1977 to early 1979. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda?
What do you mean by propaganda? The entire section is reliably sourced, and to my knowledge none of the facts are false, and no one has ever argued they are false. Bosstopher (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletions
94.253.251.230 made some wholesale deletions of source material which I have rvted here. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC) <BR> His edit note says "(restoring to stable, NPOV version)" but judging from the article history the deletions started in April here (see complain above) from another address, so not exactly stable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP editor in question made a comment here which I planned to look into but never really got round to. Bosstopher (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

About the English grammar and style
Some of this was apparently written by one or more people for whom English is not a first language. This is especially noticeable in the "Historical background" section. I would encorouge those people to get their material checked by a 3rd party before submitting it, to maintain the overall quality of the article. __209.179.16.138 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had originally thought that this article was edit protected, so I went ahead and did some minor tweaking. Someone should go over this article and do some more work. __209.179.16.138 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-reliable propaganda material by User:BoogaLouie
Inputs by this user in section about women is notorious misinformation and they don't have any basic in Iranian law or history. As a lawyer and Persian speaker I can translate any official law since 1979 if needed. --94.253.253.216 (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Just one example, this is what Iranian law says regarding marriageable age: Legal age is 20 years for males and 18 years for female, but in specific cases it can be reduced to 18 and 16 respectively.

This user has inserted this: the legal age of marriage for girls was reduced to 9 (later raised to 13), obviously a notorious lie, and fine example of anti-Iranian Islamophobic bigotry. --94.253.253.216 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This portion of the article is HIGHLY biased and needs to be overhauled. It mentions nothing negative regarding Iran's treatment of women, which is ridiculous considering the country treats women as second class citizens. It does not mention that they are FORCED to wear a hijab, or that they need a male relatives permission to travel outside the home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partingsweetsorrow (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're claims are simply bizarre and it reflects medieval Islamophobic stereotypes. Women were not "forced" to wear a hijab, it was restoration of domestic dress-code by will of the people, because earlier dictators FORCED unveiling, along with many other decentralization examples. They do NOT need a male relatives permission to travel outside, it's nonsense which can't be find in Iranian law. Another nonsense is your input of punishment which does not exist in practice, in law, and even in Shia religious texts. --109.60.6.184 (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if by "will of the people" you mean "by decree of a fascist theocracy", they are still forced to wear a hijab per the Penal Code of Iran.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: In a similar manner as many other countries which maintain their own dress codes. For example, "German laws prohibit Islamic dress" while it allows Christian attire and some strict local dress codes are seen in education systems of countries. Mhhossein (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those are imposed by fascist autocrats. It is Iranian law's lack of democratic legitimacy that is in violation of human rights.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by fascist autocrats? Human right in what sense? Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the sense of article 21 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neither of which are upheld by the Iranian state.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The First Non-Violent and International Revolution
Aside from the fact that Iran's revolution was a seminal event in world history for the politics it helped to inagurate, it should be explained in this article that Iran's revolution was the possibly the first (relatively) peaceful and non-violent revolution in history (or at least the biggest that occured up until that time). It was the predecessor to today's non-violent color revolutions.

Prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, whether it was the American, French, Russian, Chinese, or Cuban Revolution, a revolution was synonymous with an armed rebellion, a coup d'etat, or rowdy violent mobs. The aggrieved classes would take up arms and revolt, whether it was through urban barricades, pitchfork and gun wielding mobs, or guerilla warfare in the countryside. While obviously such revolutions still occur today, the Iranian Revolution was the first to overthrow a government without the use of violence. Instead of an armed uprising by dedicated revolutionaries as previous events were, it was a "strike against politics" as Michel Focault called it, a masssive and paralyzing rejection of the state by its own people. While the aftermath was bloodier, the revolution itself was largely nonviolent both by the government and the people. The traditional "rowdy mob" was replaced by well-disciplined protest marches, and there were no guerillas or insurgents either (the last two days being the exception). International pressure helped to stave off any coup d'etats.

Khomeini was compared to Gandhi in this sense by contemporary journalists (at least prior to the Iran Hostage Crisis). While he may not have personally believed in non-violence, he accepted them in a cynical manner as the only way to overthrow a government with the 4th most powerful military on earth, and a pervasive security service which could root out organized insurgencies. Drawing from the peaceful elements of Shia Islam (such as passively accepting self-sacrifice for the common good), and modern theories of non-violence of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Khomeini planned to defeat the government not by fighting, but by peaceful protests (for example, protesters would be unarmed, and place flowers into the barrels of soldier's rifles). The Shah was more than willing to fight violence with violence, and was more than prepared to fight off an armed revolutionaries (as he did against guerillas during the early 1970's), stop coups, or use brute force against violent, rowdy mobs (such as during the 1963 Moharram Uprising). But the Shah's government (and no other government at the time) were prepared for a mass, organized rejection of the state by peaceful citizens, who only peacefully marched and demanded the Shah to step down. Unlike the Chinese at Tiananmen Square, the Shah was not willing to use his military to crush unarmed civilians in order to stay in power (although some did die, both from the Shah's troops, and certain hardline revolutionaries, such as at Cinema Rex).

More importantly, it was the first "international" revolution in an increasingly globalized world. All of the Shah's alleged abuses of power were exposed through the use of international media, both by Iranian exiles and Khomeini in exile. In turn, the internationalization of the revolution effectively pressured the Shah from using force against the protesters for fear of angering human rights groups and foreign governments. The revolutionary leaders also skillfully manipulated foreign media as well into creating anger against the Shah both inside and outside of Iran (ironically Khomeini even declared at one point that the BBC was "my voice").

This revolution was possible through means of mass communication. In previous revolutions, there was little mass communication, thus one had to actually be a member of a revolutionary group in order to organize an uprising. If that did not occur, rumors and word of mouth would help create a rowdy, disorganized mob. But modern techniques allow the information to reach millions of people, and thus organize them through those methods. If the 2009 protests in Iran were nicknamed the Twitter Revolution, the 1979 events should be referred to as the "cassette tape revolution". Millions of Iranians heard about Khomeini through the use of cassette tapes, and protests were organized via the tapes.

While peaceful, color revolutions may be taken for granted today, it should be remembed that it is a relatively recent phenomena. Iran's revolution was the first major one to overthrow a government in such a fashion. What was once an unheard of event is now the norm in global revolutions, and war, coups and violence are rapidly becoming the exception, not the norm. Partridgeinapeartree (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the "Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi" page, under "revolution":
 * "'In February, pro-Khomeini revolutionary guerrilla and rebel soldiers gained the upper hand in street fighting, and the military announced its neutrality. On the evening of 11 February, the dissolution of the monarchy was complete.'"
 * This would conflict with the above subject "The First Non-Violent and International Revolution."
 * Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.149.234 (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Salarabdolmohamadian
Please do edit war and do not add unsourced material to Wikipedia. If you continue adding material without consensus, you risk being blocked from editing.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Iranian Islamic Revolution appears be be supported by some, so perhaps have another RM on that option. Number  5  7  11:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution → Islamic Revolution – Based on the policy governing titling of the articles, we have to adhere to independent, reliable English-language sources to select the title. A search through the sources shows that "Islamic Revolution" gets 9,980,000 results while the current title gets only 2,990,000 results. Even if we only consider the google books, the results will be 612,000 and 305,000 for "Islamic Revolution" and "Iranian Revolution", respectively. Mhhossein (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose there has been more than one Islamic revolution In ictu oculi (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say there's no other "Islamic Revolutions" (their quality or goal were Islamic), I say the "Revolution" happened in Iran is called "Islamic Revolution" (quality/goal and name were Islamic). Mhhossein (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if there have been other "Islamic Revolutions", if this one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that the term refers to, and is the WP:COMMONNAME of the event, then the page should be "Islamic Revolution" according to the article titling principles.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Islamic revolution shouldn't even redirect here. Eleutheure (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what do those sources say? Are you ignoring them? Mhhossein (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose this is not the only Islamic Revolution, indeed the Prophet Mohammad's revolution and events leading to the establishment of the First Caliphate would be the proper target for the requested term -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't properly the only Islamic Revolution of Iran either, there was the conquest of Persia by the Islamic Faith overturning Zoroastrianism as well -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems like the this is a reasonable move. Names violating neutral point-of-view are okay if they are the common name.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is unambiguous, but "Islamic Revolution" is highly ambiguous. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't oppose a change to Iranian Islamic Revolution. Eleutheure (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to BrownHairedGirl and Eleutheure I got a similar suggestion. How about moving to Iranian Islamic Revolution. Mhhossein (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, the 1979 revolution looks like the primary topic for "Iranian Revolution". I am not a great fan of selecting primary topics, so I wouldn't oppose a move to Iranian Islamic Revolution ... but if we do want to disambiguate, then Iranian Revolution, 1979 is shorter and more precise. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Brown HairedGirl:As far as the sources say, there's only one Iranian Islamic Revolution. This proposed title does not need disambiguation. Mhhossein (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


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

"Through the guardianship Velayat that I have from the holy lawgiver" quote
"[T]hrough the guardianship [Velayat] that I have from the holy lawgiver [the Prophet]..."

I doubt that "holy lawgiver" here refers to the Prophet Muhammad (s). It more likely refers to God, who is the sovereign authority in Islamic theology. What is the original Persian/Arabic used? There is a good page in Persian explaining the different uses of "hākim" in Shia jurisprudence. See: http://www.wikifeqh.ir/%D8%AD%D8%A7%DA%A9%D9%85_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D9%81%D9%82%D9%87

I presume the interpolation into the quote is in the original i.e. it was made by Moin (2000:204). If so, I understand that it cannot be changed, however, a clarification in the footnote may help.

Furthermore the link to the source in note 144 is broken i.e. the resourc is no longer online — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajamda (talk • contribs) 12:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hajamda: Just like the former point by you, I would like to ask if you can find other versions of this speech. Mhhossein (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I do not have any written source for a translation of the quote. Furthermore, without access to the original quote I am unable to check what "holy lawgiver" means here. Hajamda (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"On the day of his arrival" Khomeini quote
"On the day of his arrival Khomeini made clear his fierce rejection of Bakhtiar's government in a speech promising 'I shall kick their teeth in. I appoint the government, I appoint the government in support of this nation'.[133]"

Is this from the Behesht-e Zahra speech? Having listened to an IRIB version of the speech this seems like a misleading translation removed from its context. The Persian is "...man tu dahan in dowlat mizanam. man dowlat taeen mikunam, man beh poshtibaniye in mellat dolat taeen mikunam..."

I think it would be fairer to translate as "...I will smack the mouth of the [interim] government. I appoint the government. With the support of this nation I appoint this government...". A new source needs to be found for the quote (e.g. with a better translation) or the weakness of the translation can be noted in the footnote together with the improved translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajamda (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hajamda: Thanks for reminding this point, but as you know we have to rely on the sources. Do you think there are other versions of this speech presented by reliable sources? Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I do not have any written source for a translation of the quote. Maybe Dan Geist's source for the quote can be checked. I made some other suggestions in case an accurate source which matches video footage cannot be found. Hajamda (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the fulltext of the lecture in Farsi. Can you read it? Mhhossein (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution → Iranian Islamic Revolution – This RM is opened following the former one per Number 57's suggestion and per the fact that this proposal had apparently some supports there. Mhhossein (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support It seem a reasonable enough name and clarifies the intend and effects of the revolution. It turned Iran into an Islamic state and created a "unity of religion and state" that makes it stand out in global politics. Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support clearer title. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is taking the end by the beginning, there was a myriad of competing groups in the revolution, the islamics being just one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooyou (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dooyou: How about adhering to reliable sources? Mhhossein (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Before Islamic Republic referendum, some political groups suggested various name for ideology of Iranian revolution such as the Republic (without Islam) or democratic republic. But Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, asked people to vote to the Islamic Republic, not a word more and not one less word. Therefore, complete and right name for this revolution is Iranian Islamic Revolution. Saff V. (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose per Dooyou and we don't call the French Revolution the French Republican Revolution or the Russian Revolution the Russian Communist Revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename it "Iranian Shia Revolution" as it established Shia Islam and laws as official religion and laws of Iran.--Seyed Akbar (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It's usually referred to as the Iranian revolution, in english texts. I've literally never seen the phrase "Iranian Islamic Revolution" used ever. Brustopher (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Brustopher: How about these sources, , and ? Mhhossein (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources either call it the "Islamic Revolution" or "Iran's Islamic Revolution" none of the sources you've linked refer to it as the "Iranian Islamic Revolution."Brustopher (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Not a single source can I find for the words Iranian Islamic Revolution. Perhaps instead of making up an OR title we can get a sourced one? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything is wrong with the current title. Charles Essie (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Current title is unambiguous and well-attested in reliable sources. Proposed new title is less concise, controversial, and many (perhaps all, I gave up on checking them all) of the claimed sources above don't even use it! No contest. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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

Remove Westernization
The Islamic Revolution DID NOT westernize. In matter of fact, they did the OPPOSITE of Westernization. In matter of fact, they became anti-western. Also, the country is not even modern. I just want to see if we should remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kianlolcat99 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Iranian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326213807/http://webstorage1.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/mc/forums/published/americanvalues13.pdf to http://webstorage1.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/mc/forums/published/americanvalues13.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413172900/http://www.irdc.ir/article.asp?id=822 to http://www.irdc.ir/article.asp?id=822
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123063337/http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-8.html to http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-8.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616114459/http://www2.unesco.org/wef/countryreports/iran/rapport_1.html to http://www2.unesco.org/wef/countryreports/iran/rapport_1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713231109/http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=15&Country=IR to http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=IR&indicatorid=15
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813115438/http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=15&Country=TR to http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=TR&indicatorid=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal eyewitness report at odds with most of the content and tenor of this disgraceful article
I just read this article since I am currently writing my memoirs of the time I lived near Meshed in Khorasan from September 1977 to January 1979. The picture given here covering that period bears no resemblance whatsoever to my personal experience as an eyewitness on the spot. It appears to be composed entirely by exiled Iranians in the USA whose POV is so biased against the Iranian people whose revolution got rid of a brutal dictator that I had to burst out laughing repeatedly at the ridiculousness of the account. "The Shah was liberalizing, negotiating, kindly giving way on all sides, agreeing to the demands, removing the SAVAK hardliners and replacing them with moderates, releasing political prisoners, giving every freedom to the people". This is just utter makebelieve written by the cronies of the Shah.

I was not surprised to find all the sources were US-published books written by exiles. The most quoted source the the book by the Shah's widow, which is cited no less than 26 times! I mean, how prejudiced and un-NPOV can you get?

The reality that I witnessed with my own eyes was the opposite. The Shah was every bit as bad, if not worse, that Saddam Hussein had been in Iraq. The prisons were full to bursting with political prisoners, who were regularly tortured to death for fun. Demonstrations were machine-gunned from helicopters as a matter of course. Tanks were sent into poor suburbs to crash through and demolish mudbrick houses, crushing the occupants to death as they went. It was a reign of terror. The people were extremely brave, to go on demonstrations and fearlessly chant slogans against the Shah and face wild machine-gunning from the air.

This kind of nonsense article is the worst I have ever seen in Wikipedia in a historical article that purports to be neutral. It is shameful in its entirety. It is a naked and pathetic piece of prejudiced propaganda.

Words fail me. Is this really the Wikipedia I know and love? It's by far the worst I've come across to date. MacPraughan (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Low estimate for casualties is suspect
I have Charles Kurzman's The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran in front of me, and it is not clear that the list provided on p.109 is intended to be a summary of all casualties between August 1978 and February 1979. Kurzman opens the list with "According to one collection of "martyrs of the revolution"", and the figures that follow would appear to there for the purposes of illustrating the escalation of violence. Kurzman does not suggest that the total of the figures listed can be used as a "low estimate" for casualties. The volume to which Kurzman is referring would appear from the sources page to be a list of the details of some individuals who died during the disturbances. We even quote the line which makes this fairly evident:

""On martyrs of the revolution see Laleh'he-ye Enqelab; this volume, published by a religious institution, features photographs of `martyrs of the revolution, ` including name, age, date and place of death, and sometimes occupation; the method of selection is not described."

I doubt anyone will respond, but I'll remove the claim in a few days unless anyone can demonstrate I am mistaken. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian Revolution
There is no reason the Russian Revolution should be included in the See Also section....it has absolutely nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

background:
During this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=729906483&oldid=729708965&title=Iranian_Revolution&type=revision

a footnote was added, with (apparently) some incorrect wikitext in the "ref" tag.

That (apparently incorrect) wikitext was as follows: ""

no such "section"
It appears that the "section" called "== All the Shah's Men ==" did not exist at that time (Revision as of 04:37, 15 July 2016) [URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Revolution&oldid=729906483] and it also still does not exist, now.

Perhaps the phrase "All the Shah's Men" was intended to be the title of a book? I tried (unsuccessfully) to find a time when a "section" by that name ever existed. What I found was, ... that there is an article (in "article space") called "All the Shah's Men".

My conclusion is that the intent of that new footnote that was added on 15 July 2016 (apparently with some clumsily coded wikitext inside the "ref" tag) was to "point to" the article about [the book] "All the Shah's Men"; ... or, else, maybe to reference the book ("All the Shah's Men") itself.

Request for Comments
Any advice? about how to fix the (apparent) mistake that was made on 15 July 2016 ... ?

If there are no responses, then I intend (eventually) to edit the article and remove the "hash mark" ("#") character from the wikitext of the "ref" tag. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"case closed"
If anyone is not happy with this one-character edit, then ... you are (of course) still welcome to chime in. However, that would be surprising, at this point.

Unless that happens, then ... with no dissent, the motion passes. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Iranian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227000031/http://internews.org/visavis/BTVPagesTXT/Theislamicrevolution.html to http://www.internews.org/visavis/BTVPagesTXT/Theislamicrevolution.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806025221/http://www.jubileecampaign.org/home/jubilee/iran_profile.pdf to http://www.jubileecampaign.org/home/jubilee/iran_profile.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612174856/http://imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7094 to http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7094
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027141210/https://www.quandl.com/WORLDBANK/IRN_SE_TER_ENRL_FE-Iran-Islamic-Rep-Student-enrollment-tertiary-female to http://www.quandl.com/WORLDBANK/IRN_SE_TER_ENRL_FE-Iran-Islamic-Rep-Student-enrollment-tertiary-female
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227000031/http://internews.org/visavis/BTVPagesTXT/Theislamicrevolution.html to http://www.internews.org/visavis/BTVPagesTXT/Theislamicrevolution.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040926063841/http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue37/Afary37.htm to http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue37/Afary37.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970126220214/http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/shia.htm to http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/shia.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930053541/http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/02/curme/curme.htm to http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/02/curme/curme.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iranian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020172459/http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/enUploads/Article/Files/201331_makale2.pdf to http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/enUploads/Article/Files/201331_makale2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Flag icons
Would you mind correcting the flag icons of the infobox? -- M h hossein   talk 20:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * . What do you mean by "correcting", exactly? Pahlevun (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See the flag icon used for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for example. -- M h hossein   talk 18:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The flag is called from Template:Country data Iran. What's the problem with it? Pahlevun (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 21:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Iranian Revolution → Islamic Revolution – I think it's better to change name with the official name using in Iran. In Iran, we had three revolutions. GTVM92 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME In ictu oculi (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use Islamic Revolution (Iran) since both "Iranian Revolution" and "Islamic Revolution" are ambiguous. Another possibility would be Iranian Revolution (1979). I favor the former because it requires less knowledge on the part of the reader (the date is more likely to what the reader is looking for than whether it was in Iran or involved Islam).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish: Wouldn't you prefer your latter option with the date, then? — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I care. Iio, above, says Iranian is more common than Islamic, so I guess I could lean toward Iranian Revolution (1979).  I have not personally done a common-name analysis.  Both should end up at the article (i.e., one should be a redir), since we can't predict which name someone will try (especially if they're disambiguation-savvy; I usually guess at disambiguation rather than use the search engine, and I'm right about 85% of the time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Under current policy, the fact that there have been other revolutions in Iran is irrelevant, see French Revolution (disambiguation)... France has had even more but there's still an article at French Revolution on one of them. Andrewa (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above עם ישראל חי (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


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

Date of start of the Revolution
The article states that the revolution was launched in 7 January 1978, the date when the article "Iran and Red and Black Colonization" was published. Although the article did launch heavy protests, I do not think it should be written as this specific day. I would prefer the start date being in 1977 or 1978 since as early as 1977, there existed many forms of protests against the person of the Shah, SAVAK, Rastakhiz party, etc... Fahambnd (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's extensive contact/secret engagement with Khomeini
In 2016, these two reports were published:


 * BBC: "Two Weeks in January: America's secret engagement with Khomeini"'
 * The Guardian: "US had extensive contact with Ayatollah Khomeini before Iran revolution"

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * CinemaRexFire.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ali Khamenei in Iranian Revolution protests.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ali Khamenei in Iranian Revolution protests.jpg

US supported?
I’ve checked the sources and it’s some kind of conspiracy claiming USA supported Islamic REevolution and Khomeini considering that the Shah was US number one man and Islamic Revolution was from onset anti American and anti Western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.84.62.242 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Iranian communist with books.jpg
 * The shah is gone.jpg

Request Move 13 April 2016
Iranian Revolution to Islamic Revolution because The Islamic revolution is the correct way to say. In matter of fact in Iran, they say Islamic Revolution (I am iranian). It is also more used

RfC: Iranian Revolution "supported by the United States"
The lead sentence currently reads:

RfC questions: RFC posted: 03:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In the lead sentence, should who was supported by the United States be removed?
 * 2) In the infobox, should "United States" be removed from the list of the Revolution Council/Interim Government's supporters?
 * Support removing both as proposer, because they fail verification and do not summarize the body.
 * Newsmax says the US "supported" Khomeini, but Newsmax is listed on WP:RSP as "marginally reliable" (WP:MREL), with the notation, Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints.
 * The Guardian and BBC say that Carter had "extensive contacts" and "engagement" with Khomeini, but not that the US "supported" Khomeini or the Council of the Islamic Revolution
 * Our article Iranian Revolution itself doesn't say in the body that the US "supported" Khomeini or the Council. At Iranian Revolution, the text of the body tracks the sources, saying the US had discussions with Khomeini, but not that the US "supported" Khomeini, or "assisted" or "aided" or "approved" or anything like that. The closest our article comes is that it says According to historian Abbas Milani, this resulted in the United States effectively helping to facilitate Khomeini's rise to power. The attributed opinion of one historian shouldn't be said in wikivoice in the lead, and saying the US effectively helped facilitate Khomeini's rise to power is different than saying Khomeini was supported by the United States
 * We have a WP:SPINOFF article about this at Jimmy Carter's engagement with Ruhollah Khomeini, and that article (based on the same sources) also doesn't say the US "supported" Khomeini
 * In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the US supported the Shah, and the lead of that article says that, and the US is listed on the Shah's side in the infobox. The lead is consistent with the body and the sources. However, in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, to suggest in the lead and infobox that the US "supported" Khomeini against the Shah is not, well, supported, by the body or the sources For these reasons, we shouldn't say "supported" in the lead or the infobox. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove but add as a supporter of the Shah. As far as I know, the US supported the Shah not Khomeini. Even if they had contact with Khomeini it was probably because they were trying to save the Shah.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep both.
 * 1)  You need to read the BBC article. It says Persuaded by Carter, Iran's autocratic ruler, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, known as the Shah, had finally departed on a "vacation" abroad and also says two days after the Shah departed Tehran, the US told a Khomeini envoy that they were - in principle - open to the idea of changing the Iranian constitution, effectively abolishing the monarchy. and also Washington had already tacitly agreed to a key part of Khomeini's requests by telling the military leaders to stay put. Do you think this is not "supporting Khomeini"? This source disagrees with you.
 * 2)  I also want to remind you that another source is also used in the article and you didn't mention it. This one says: " In the book Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos (2009), Dr Mike Evans explained how the US government decided to end Shah's regime in Iran and promote Khomeini's Islamic regime after a meeting with the UK and German officials in Guatemala. US government transferred 150 million dollars to Khomeini's bank account in France to support him. Here we have another article, written by same author. This one says: Khomeini could never have succeeded with the Islamic revolution without the assistance – unwitting or otherwise – and support of Jimmy Carter.
 * 3)  Also, Newsmax article is written by Larry Bell. I don't know him but he is a professor and probably a reliable source.
 * 4)  Here is another source. The West's Role in the Shah's Overthrow, written by two reliable authors, says: there are still many unknowns concerning the role of the West, especially the United States, in the Islamic Revolution. Why, for example, did the West seek inroads to the Islamists instead of supporting the legal alternative to the shah and For his part, President d'Estaing recalled that it was Carter who argued that the shah could no longer be in power and must leave the country.
 * 5)  More sources are also available and i can provide more if you want but i think mentioned sources are enough for now. This is not a new story and Carter's support for Khomeini was known since the very first days of the revolution. Even the Shah himself knew this.
 * 6)  "As far as I know" is not a good reason for erasing important information like these. If this is not supported by the body of the article, so the body should be edited, not infobox.Mountain That Rides (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC) — Mountain That Rides (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 7) *About the above sources from Mountain That Rides: Mike Evans (author) is a pundit not a scholar or historian. His books are self-published. The publisher is called "Time Worthy Books". Here's their website: – the front page is all about Mike Evans. The only author they have is Mike Evans . All the books they've published are written by Mike Evans . Jimmy Carter famously threatened to sue Mike Evans over what he wrote. Even if Evans is an RS (he's not), Evans argues that Carter unwittingly aided Khomeini. This is the same argument made in the IsraelNationalNews and Middle East Quarterly articles you linked to. Arguing that Carter made mistakes that helped Khomeini is not the same thing as arguing that the US "supported" Khomeini, in wikivoice, in the lead and infobox. Larry Bell (architect) is an architect and a climate change denier who has a blog at Newsmax.com (which, again, is yellow at RSP).  Not even close to an RS. Finally, the SPA tag made me look at Mountain That Rides's contribs and I noticed that before this editor edited this article, this article used to say that the the US backed the shah. See Dec 18 version. Each one of Mountain That Rides's 9 edits so far (contribs) have been about changing the article from US-supporting-the-shah to US-supporting-Khomeini. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  00:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich, You must read the full text, not just the headlines. Especially "The West and the Islamic Revolution" section of the Middle East Quarterly article. Which is not about Carter's mistake, but about his support for Khomeini. The same article says "Either way, the abandonment of the shah backfired in grand style." I don't think you can deny this fact that the Shah was abandoned by the US. Also, here is another source which says "American policy towards Iran has been a blunder from the times of the Shahs onwards, beginning with disastrous American support for the Shah’s reign of terror and his White Revolution and continuing with secret support for Khomeini only recently declassified." I think you need to explain why you think BBC's article is not about the US support for Khomeini.Mountain That Rides (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Abandoning the shah is not the same thing as supporting Khomeini. The source you link to is (apparently) an unpublished paper written by a student. Not an RS. The BBC article is not about the US support for Khomeini because the article doesn't use the word "support" or anything like it to describe US relationships with Khomeini. We have no RS support for saying this in wikivoice–it's an argument some scholars have made to varying degrees, and this is reflected in the body of the article. Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  21:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove both Even one of the sources that "supports" the text (namely the BBC one) does not actually support the text. This material does not come close to WP:V for inclusion in the article, let alone the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove both. This RfC with the arguments given above, proves that this content is, at the very least, a disputed issue, therefore at the minimum it doesn't deserve WP:WIKIVOICE. If this controversial understanding is actually notable and has to be included it should be done only in a sub-section and definitely not the lede. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove both - a typical case where any kind of vague contacts and discussions involving the United States are massively exaggerated to portray a major involvement.--Staberinde (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove both. The United States was reacting to a very fluid situation in a country it was allied with. "Supported by" doesn't do justice to the complexity of the situation.--Eostrix (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove both. As someone who has extensively studied the revolution and its aftermath, this is honestly conspiracy theory stuff. "Engagement" - yes; "support", absolutely not. Simonr116 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove both. Nothing in any sources suggests active support (at most passive engagement, with a still unknown, who had popular support). Khomeini's explicit assurances to act favourably toward US interests, seem the only new info here. At most US may have 'smoothed the path' for the inevitable handover. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Move back to Shah. Replace with version from before 7 January 2020. is who moved the text. They got reverted once then moved it again. How is this even a discussion?  · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Addition edits
User:HistoryofIran has edits reverted as shown below:

Do you "Support" the edit should be readded or "Oppose" the edit that should be kept.?

—76.71.120.76 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid RfC. First, the statement is not brief, contrary to WP:RFCBRIEF; second, the statement includes a table contrary to the same guideline; third, I can find no evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been observed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lotusi95. Peer reviewers: Wafflesandpancakes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)