Talk:White Revolution

Lack of democratic reforms?
Although there is a merit to criticizing the limited extent of the democratic reforms during the white revolution, the statement that the revolution's program totally lacked such is wrong. As far as I know, it was during this period that women in Iran were given the rights to vote and to run for office in elections. This was one of the major reasons for the conservative clergy to criticize the white revolution. Shervink 11:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)shervink
 * After reading what you posted, I decided to join in on the article and balance out that statement. What do you think of it now? ♠ SG →Talk 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just thought this should be included somehow. Sounds good to me now. Shervink 14:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)shervink
 * This article really needs some sources. I have some books that are about the White Revolution. One of them is by the Shah, it is called "Answer to History". Is it possible to use this book if what is sourced isn't POV? For example, the goals of the White Revolution. The Shah is obvioulsy not an independent source so I am not sure it would be wise to use his memoir, but as of now this article doesn't have any sources. Agha Nader 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader


 * Hi Agha Nader. It's great that you show interest in improving this (and related) articles. If you don't have any other sources at hand, I think using the Shah's writing is ok as long as you clarify that it is from him, so the reader does not get the impression that someone totally impartial has said it. By itself, however, I think it is good (even necessary) to include the Shah's views on the White Revolution. Shervink 16:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)shervink

POV
So the only reason we had white revolution was because of John F. Kennedy? Not very NPOV --Rayis 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the POV is poor in this article, very pro-Shah when he also was cracking down on protest and harming the people's interests. 128.122.89.114 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find the article to be particularly pro Shah, in fact it seems pretty well rounded. The article highlights the ideas behind the White Revoluion which were noble.  It also points out how lack of foresight, poor planning, and corruption led to disastrous consequences in some areas and caused the project to fall far short of what it could have achieved.  It also accurately describes the opposition which was equally gray, motivated in part by a real desire to correct wrongs, and in part by the unquenchable greed of the corrupt clerical class loathe to give up it's cash cow.  There were good and bad players and motives on all sides.--Ff11 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would dispute this, and suggest that the article is anti-Shah. It is stated as a fact that the purpose of the reforms was to gain political support.  That may have been one aim, but is was not the official purpose.  Furthermore to reduce the power of the landowners to the benefit of the peasants is surely a rather leftist policy.  If implemented by a Nasser or a Castro it would be hailed as enlightened, when implemented by a king it is assumed to be a cynical ploy.  Finally, in no way can such a redistribution of land, wealth and power be said to be to "preserve traditional power patterns" - in fact the article overtly claims that the opposite was the intention.203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

POV, Weasel words, inappropriate language and a lack of references
"Extending the Right to Vote to Women, who had no voice and were suppressed by Islamic traditions" is rather biased, even though I would agree with it. However many would argue that given the fact that women in non-islamic communities did not enjoy suffrage for almost as long, it cannot be concluded that it was Islamic traditions which held back universal suffrage. I've reworded it.

Some other conclusions RE the dams and the various other statistics need verification and referencing as well.

Perpetualfail (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful there, just because my bicycle has a particular brand of tires doesn't mean every bicycle has to have that brand. Keep in mind the important questions, who, what, when, etc. This is referring to Iran, not Israel or the USA. If it were Israel, then Judaism would have held women back, or Christianity in its various guises in the USA. The entire world doesn't have to be Islamic for Islam to hold people back in Iran. Or to put it another way: Regardless of what caused discrimination in non-Islamic nations, either Islamic traditions were and still are holding women back in Iran or women in Iran are segregated based on secular rulings and the Supreme Leader isn't a true follower of Islam. Chrissd21 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that assumes that there is only black and white. As I understand it, the majority religion is often used to maintain a status quo only tangentially related to its doctrines.  Islam may be used by an established group to repress women or it may not.  Semitic repression of women antedates Islam; as Greek repression of women antedates Christianity. --Bejnar (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Arguments using statistics that apparently don't exist
"It was true that Iran had made progress with various social programs from the White Revolution, but it was equally true that Iran still had one of the worst infant mortality rates, and doctor-patient rates in the Middle East. It also had one of the lowest percentages of people who were receiving a higher education. For example, 68 percent of the adult population still remained illiterate, and 60 percent of children did not complete primary school. This resentment and anger towards the Shah’s failed reforms seems to unite the people against the Shah, and certainly did not increase any class loyalty towards the Shah, as he had intended. There is however no evidence of these numbers."

If there is no evidence of the numbers, then the paragraph should be removed entirely. If that sentence applies to the rest of the article, then it should be hidden entirely until such time as references, such as they are, are placed on the page. If it's a known fact that there are no good references from the time which would be understandable given the violence and antipathy towards the Shah's reign that happened during the Iranian Revolution, then all non-cited statistics and postulations should be stripped from the article. If that results in a stub, then so be it. I would do it myself but I have no knowledge of the subject matter and no idea what is considered a good reference for WIkipedia these days. I saw a Cleo magazine given as a cite on another article, so my idea of "valid and trusted reference" seems to be remarkably different to the populist view. Chrissd21 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the popular view as expressed in unconsidered edits, isn't the actual consensus among those who discuss these issues. See the discussions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Bejnar (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the main point, Iran has: Adult literacy rate in % of people 15 years of age and older: 82.3% (rank: 94); Percent of students enrolled in primary, secondary and higher education: 73.2%. However these figures are from the 2009 United Nations Human Development Report, cited at middleeast.about.com/od/iran/qt/iran-vital-statistics.htm, not from 1978, a quarter of a century earlier. I suspect,, however, that given the huge amount that has been written on the end of the Shah's reign and its causes in reliable sources, that some figures can be substantiated. You might want to give it a look next time that your in an academic library. --Bejnar (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As it turned out, fixing the fifteen named citations (see below) provided the source for the statistics mentioned in the paragraph above. --Bejnar (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Unknown citations - found
There is a section at the bottom listing some fifteen specific citations entitled "Citations", but there seem to be no references in the text to them. They appear to have been inartfully added in Nwaknine's edit of 16 December 2009, with the numbers in the text that referred to them being deleted since, mostly it seems as so-called typo fixing not noticing the non-standard attempt at footnotes. What is interesting is that many of these empty places where footnote numbers used to be are now marked with citation needed. I fixed the first five of these and will try to get back and fix the rest. --Bejnar (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Remaining ten citations have been fixed. I think that that takes care of the cleanup and citation problems indicated by Jeff3000 in January 2010. If not please let the rest of us know in particular what needs fixing. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Added
i have added an NPOV Template on the page. see other sections for more info. Bruh Moment Master (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

White Revolution → White Revolution (Iran) – WP:NOTPRIMARY Capankajsmilyo(Talk 02:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Nohomersryan (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the other links mentioned in White Revolution (disambiguation) bear equal importance. Capankajsmilyo(Talk 03:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't agree with that. White Revolution (hate group) and White Revolution (Korea) are both little-viewed stubs. Operation Flood, maybe, but I don't think it's appropriate to call that a "white revolution" article. So, oppose. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, |White_Revolution pageview stats indicate this runs even with the only possible competition, but the Operation Flood article is under a different name anyway so its hit counts are hugely inflated for the "white revolution" use. If truly desired, change the hatnote to have a direct link to Operation Flood as well as the disambig page.  SnowFire (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above comments.|White_Revolution|White_Revolution_(Korea)|White_Revolution_(hate_group) - Station1 (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

causation
Please add a section about what and who has caused this reform or revolution? At Last ... (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)