Talk:Women in Iran

Untitled
Wow.... that is one hell of a biased article. Must of been written by the iranian government 😂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.190 (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zeeba94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JoeCacese.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 24 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karinap1. Peer reviewers: Bayesidi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
Could someone remove that "Persian women overseas" junk. It really doesn't belong in here and seems like troll material. We're here to mention the achievments of Iranian or Persian women. You don't see me going to the page about kurdish women or ara women and stating their faults or what a dozen or so of them did abroad thousands of years ago.

Esther was not Persian but jewish hebrew.

Azeris are not 30 million in Iran, this is propaganda created by the pan-turks. They are 9-12 million at best and about 20%, including the mixed ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.31.195 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Persian is assosiated to a sub language developed from the varies indoeuropean accents (I would rather say Aryan tribals whom moved into Iran platoue). Another fact is the inspirations Persian language has gotten during trades, contacts, conflicts and also invations from alien cultures, such as islamic expeditions into Persian empire and Moghol empire.

An amazing fact is that the ALIEN invaders soon became in love with this language served it tremendiously towards a more complexion and beauty! Specially the Moghols IL KHANISM federation gives us enough clue to know period of rennaisance in Persia as well as the language and other artistic arenas.

The above facts fullfilled enough materials to make Persian poetry unic in many fields and specificly the place "HUMANITY" has in Persian artistic expressions is sentral and even prior to the once ethnic or ethnics who spoke this language !

The Universalism of this language has a sentral ICON: HUMAN BEING !

Another specificness is the non subjective ways of expressions. The masculine form of HE and feminine SHE in Persian is the same world "OO", or things are not expressed as masculine - feminine unlike French or Arabic.

The language is rich with poetic literature engaged in philosophy, life, ethics, epics, religion, metaphyzic and universalities.

Many Poets are non Persian ethnics from North India, sentral Asia to Caucasian regions.

An example would be Azeri speaking Arans. At times they are the leading front figures whom produce master work bring new impulses to enrich the Persian Language ! I am not exagerating if I say the Persian language yielded more by Turkic speaking ethinics rather than Persians!

................................................................. .................................................................

Persian is just be one of the iran's total nations and calling iranian womans equal to persian womans is not true so please change the name of persian to Iran if it's possible. Iran is multi national multi cultural country. There are alot of other nations like azeri (Azerbaijani) nearly 30 milion, Kurdi (4 milion), Arab 2 milion), Baloch,etc.


 * This page was originally about Persian women. It includes all ethnic persians (and Tajik and Parsi of India) and also women of Persia (the previous name of Iran). There are other articles for other groups. Please see Kurdish Women page as an example. Here we also include those whose mother or father or some of their grand parents were persian (e.g. half persian-half azeri etc). It also includes those who adopted persian culture for example Iranian christians. Besides the article includes those non-persian women who significantly contributed to Persian culture (non-persian directors who are famous of their Persian movies or non-Persian musicians who contributed to Persian music). There are some issues that all Iranian women share, particularly in contemporary Iran. In such cases the word Iranian has been used in the article. However examples have been selected from Persian ethnics. In summary, this page was made originally for Persian women throughout centuries. For other groups there exist separate pages or there are pages under construction. Please also notice that the word persian does not necessarily mean ethnic persian. In western literature, all people of Persia are called Persian, irrespective of their ethnicity. --Joe Dynue19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Persian" here is not used as an ethnic word. It is a cultural one. That said, we will try to incorporate the name Iranian in as much as we can from now on. The article is not meant to be exclusive.--Zereshk 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. "Persian" is a cultural word here. I think the article has made this point very clear, right at the begining. As I said, even European iranologists who adopted persian culture may be inculded here. For contemporary Iran, I also suggest people to use the word Iranian instead of Persian in this article. --Joe Dynue10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have stated that Iran was previously called Persia. I know that Iran was (mistakenly) called Persia by the greeks and then europeans in the past but I don't believe that the whole country was ever called Persia by its people. If this is what you claim please present a proof of it.Definite 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needs help!
Well, I think this article is in need of a pretty massive rewrite. It needs copy-edit (which I was here to look at); it needs to be better about NPOV (the first "historical" section is quite rantish); it needs more referencing. It's also kind of an external link farm at the end, many of which are useless to English speakers. I'm going to try to copy-edit in my free time, but I think this article needs help from all. Please be bold. , this article needs it. --will 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think it's as bad as you say. But then again, more material can be added. And I can transfer the pics to a special gallery page, such as the ones seen here: List of images/Places/Asia/Iran.--Zereshk 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, after reading the article a second time, I rescind my harsh first and last statements. --will 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what do you think the article is lacking? I'll do some readings in the next few weeks and see what I can come up with.--Zereshk 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In the mean time, I'll make the gallery.--Zereshk 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Gallery Completed. Provided link. Please feel free to fill it with Public Domain/GDFL/GNU images.--Zereshk 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

clarifications
"Although Persian women are often viewed as Iranian, they are not necessarily of any specific nationality or ethnicity."

If they are Persian, they are of a specific ethnicity: Persian. Persian is not just a language, it is first and foremost an ethnicity. Then it is a language and if someone is Persian, they didn't become Persian because they can speak the language. I'm changing it and requesting that no one revert the statement,

Any suggestions why Persian women are renowned fot their beauty? --Vladko 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Persian is not an ethnicity. It is a cultural word (just like the word European). There is no set of genes that define persians. Original Persians married many different races, and the only thing that remained invarient was the culture and language. In Iran Persian is equal to Persian speaker. I hope it is clear now. Sangak 13:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sangak, your explanation about what persian means is interesting. A question I have is about what you mean by "In Iran Persian is equal to Persian speaker." I don't think the word "persian" exists in farsi, are you talking about when the english word "persian" is used in Iran? or are you referring to the word "fars" as a translation of the word "persian?" Also what do you think the situation is when the cultures are mixed? like azaris also have the same new year (bayram). Maybe we should use "Iranian and Persian women" and add an explanation of what the difference is and how it's sometimes hard to tell who is persian and who isn't. --Definite 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We have the orientalists to thank this confusion for:)--Zereshk 02:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Persian = Iranian mess
Why on god's green earth are Persians constantly referred to as Iranian? There are expats who moved long before there was an Islamic Republic, they embrace being Persian. The fact that this redirects to a nationality (in a nation where Persians only barely make the majority) is troublesome. What are the politics behind redirecting an article about the ethnic Persians to a lumped article about the people in a country? I guess the squeaky wheels won the day on Wikipedia, again. --Bobak 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

wedding tradition
I am also wondering why there is an explanation of the persian wedding tradition under persian women. Why is this necessary? Isn't a wedding ceremony in general related to men and women? --Definite 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik women picture
I have tagged it as dubious. That isn't what I'd expect to be "traditional" dress somehow; it has a decidedly Western look to it. Of course, I am ignorant, so let's get the sources for that. The Behnam 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Khorda Avesta quote
From Avesta.org: "We also worship the Ashavan woman, predominating in good thoughts, predominating in good words, predominating in good deeds, well instructed, 3 having power over the masters, Ashavan, (as are) Spenta Armaiti and your females, O Ahura Mazda."

The version used in the article added a lot to this. Besides, most of the inclusions are OR or from unreliable sources anyway, but I thought it was worth illustrating this one. The Behnam 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Leftover pic
This was removed because I got rid of the "Mother Goddess" section. I'm thinking that it could replace one of the Safavid pictures since there are already two, but I'll put it here for now.
 * At second thought this doesn't appear to have the historical value that the others works do, so I don't think we really need it in the article. The Behnam 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletions
I think there should be a discusison on the talk page before anyone removes that much information. That is the best method, from what I can see, there were no citation needed tags placed before The Behnam cited OR before removing almost all of the article or any significant discussion.

Dont you think you should have asked for sources or atleast put citation needed tags on for awhile? I'm going to revert the article for now and place a tag on top that says this article seems to be OR and that citations need to be placed for now.Azerbaijani 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you just take a close look over the edits? I think that Fullstop and I did a good job, but of course I welcome feedback. I asked Sina Kardar for feedback right after I did them but he doesn't seem active.  I wasn't going to write a little summary since nobody seemed to be here and I wanted to improve it fast.  The Behnam 19:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry for "rvv" i meant "rv"  The Behnam 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unilateral mass deletion of half of the article is not really an improvement. You should at least try to get consensus for such sweeping edits. --Mardavich 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well please look over the edits made and tell me your specific objections. Sure it is an improvement if the article is improved by removing that junk.  The Behnam 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * CAIS is a reliable source, and your initial reason for such a massive deletion (which you got no consensus for and which you did not even bother to discuss!) was that the majority of the information came from CAIS. That is hardly a good reason.


 * Seeing as if I and several other users disagree with your deletions and your reasons, I will restore the article until we can come up with some sort of solution. It wont hurt discussing things, and I think its a good idea as everyone should.Azerbaijani 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so The Behnam should clearly state his reasons why he thinks the information should not be in the article, then we can get this discussion going.Azerbaijani 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in the edit summaries. I'd prefer if you would make specific objections.  However I will consider going through each diff and posting 'more' reasoning here, though it is a lot of work to do in response to blind reversion by others.  The Behnam 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the one that acted without consensus, therefore it would be nice if you do not accuse others of making unilateral decisions. It is not my obligation to object to anything, it is you that is trying to delete a good portion of this article, so it is up to you to show your opinion on the deletions.Azerbaijani 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, it would be nice if you could at least not restore the misquote and misconstrued scriptural OR inclusion. I even made a talk page section for that particular part.  You haven't even addressed that; why should I expect to write a paper in support of each diff if you don't even look formulate specific objections to the reasons I gave? This blind reverting in support of crackpot theories, OR, and non-RS really makes WP quite frustrating.  The Behnam 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What misquote? If you havent noticed I have not been really active on Wiki for awhile.Azerbaijani 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I mean that supposed Gathic quote that is included. It is actually the Khorda Avesta, which is basically a Book of Common Prayer.  See .  The Avesta.org translation is quite different.  Anyway, it is misleading to include it here if you consider that the text around it in the scripture, not to mention OR to include here as some sort of definitive statement about Iranian women.  Much here pushes a view, and does this with OR, misconstrued information, and some iffy (or lacking) sources.  I'm just trying to fix it.  The Behnam 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree CAIS is a reliable source. I'm not clear as to why FullStop is gainst CAIS, but I assume it is to do with its' founder who is advocating the conversion to Zoroastrianism, and since FullStop is an Indian Zoroastrian (Hezbollahis version of Zoroastrianism), and an orthodox fundamentalist who cannot digest and accept such a belief, therefore he totaly disregards them! totally! Quite childish of him anyway. ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * @Azerbaijani: "CAIS is a reliable source".
 * Actually, its not. The site that Shapour Suren-Pahlav (aka ParthianShot, previously known as Surena and/or one of the other confirmed sockpuppets) runs is not associated with SOAS/London University, even if his site would like to leave the reader with the impression that that is the case. The CAIS that is actually associated with SOAS is in Australia, and does not stand for "Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies" but "Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies".
 * In contrast, SP's website (est. 1998 on AOL, after 14-Mar-2002 cais-soas.com) is run over a btconnect link from his Mill Hill home in northwest London.
 * The vast majority of the articles/pictures on ParthianShot's website are stolen from legitimate sources, the bulk of these from the Encyclopedia Iranica and other respected academic publications. This way the website gives the impression of being a reliable source while serving as a platform for the owner's home-made opinion. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to distinguish the two: SP's "scholarship" is horrific and in any case, his peculiar writing style is easily identifyable even when he puts someone else's name on an article.
 * As a side-effect, ParthianShot's habit of attributing everything to himself/cais-soas.com raises the ranking of the site in the websearch engines.
 * -- Fullstop 08:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FullStop: If you think that these baseless and childish accusation, that I am Suren-Pahlev and connected to CAIS, help your narrow-mindness here, please be my guest, I have no objections at all (consider it as my charitable donation to you) - just for your own sake please grow up, read some books, open your eyes, release yourself from Parsi superstitions (who are bunch of wannabe Zoroastrians), and come up with proper argument, to convey your points :) ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  21:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering the sock you made, and the promotion of everything SSP, it is anything but baseless. But again it seems you are just avoiding the issues, and instead attacking other ethnicities (and of course blindly reverting).  At this point, you need to bring specific objections as we have provided reasons.  Again, I stress that you read the edit summaries.  Also, in light of the evidence, you may need to consult WP:COI and adjust accordingly.  Thanks.  The Behnam 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, do you have any evidence for your claims besides speculation?Azerbaijani 13:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What difference would it make?
 * It won't instill respect for copyrights. It won't inculcate principles of correctness and validity. It won't inhibit linkspamming. It won't suddenly cause users to address *issues* instead of responding with inconsequential blether.
 * In short, it won't change anything that counts.
 * -- Fullstop 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image gallery
(moved from my talk page) You mind explaining why you re-added the picture of the half-Iranian and the harp player? Obviously you disagreed but it would help if you provided an actual reason. Anyway, I'm thinking of using to replace the harp player. It is from the same location anyway. The only problem is that the image use policy is different between them for some reason. As for Soraya, she is half-Iranian (as her appearance betrays). I'm thinking that we should use a full Iranian as this would be more appropriate for an article about Iranian women. The Behnam 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * harp player: please keep in mind that this is an image gallery and you don't have to "replace" anything; just add yours. Both are historical items of art. Mukadderat 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * half-Iranian: the introduction says: "Iranian women are not necessarily of any specific nationality or ethnicity." You may want to make clarification in the image caption, if you think it is an important fact. Mukadderat 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is a gallery doesn't mean you add an indefinite amount of pictures to it. We should include a few pictures that best represent the topic. Considering that most Iranian women are of full Iranian ancestry I don't consider a half-Iranian a good choice for the purposes of the article. And I suggest the other picture for the harp player simply because it seems a better work of art, though that is of course debatable. The Behnam 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to disregard my direct quotation. Therefore on the contrary, IMO under the current situation "half-Iranian" best represents the topic as well, since I strongly suspect that you are not the only one who thinks that only "pure breed" deserve to represent Iran, Iranian people, and Iranian women. And BTW it looks to me that it is too early to speak about any "indefinite amount". Mukadderat 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I would suggest to avoid the idea that wikipedians have any right to decide who "best represents" Iranian women. Mukadderat 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that images should be included based on relevance to the article, according to Wikipedia rules. See Images But how do you decide for this vague concept? The quote from the beginning is unsourced anyway, as this isn't a real topic. People don't publish articles about the definition of "Iranian women," and I'm inclined to think that statements in this article are generally original synthesis and research.  This problem of subjectivity for too broad topics has arisen at White people too, and the solution there was to take out pictures.  I think it is best that we find some real sources for the definition of Iranian women or else there is no principle to measure against for inclusion.  Thanks.  The Behnam 07:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't understand where you see that "women of Iran/Persia" is a vague concept. Please explain what exactly is vague here . Mukadderat 03:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have a source that really defines the scope of "Iranian women." The concept is basically defined here, in the article, without backing.  I don't really see why there is an article on "Iranian women" anyway, as it isn't a 'special' concept in the real world, but lacking a real definition, it is hard to decide pictures according to relevance as WP recommends.  On a different matter, it doesn't help at all that a crappy previous version is restored and it is claimed that the junk was removed with "no justification", even though I and others put reasons in pretty much every edit summary.  I guess that is just one of the weaknesses of WP; there is always someone around to mindlessly restore garbage.  The Behnam 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

comment
Hi, I'm a third party here, with no real interest in editing. One quick comment though:

The distribution of the seals, which as instruments of trade and government represented economic and administrative control, reveals that these women were the more powerful group in their prehistoric society.

That simply isn't true. Having more seals doesn't mean you have more power, any more than a native american woman who gets to choose chiefs has more power. In ancient Iran, men still controlled the political and public realm.--Urthogie 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a projection from the source: "In ancient societies, holding a seal was a sign of power, and was of 2 kinds: personal and governmental." Maybe we should attribute it to the source explicitly in the text, and mention this claim about power?  The Behnam 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's considered original research to say they had more power unless a source says that. Where does this source say that?--Urthogie 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * , right in the beginning. I personally disagree but it is there, so I recommend explicit attribution.  The Behnam 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I beginning to wonder whether that paragraph is at all relevant to an article on "Iranian women", in the sense ... do the people of 5000 years ago qualify as Iranians? 4th-3rd m. BCE is before the Indo-Iranian split.
 * With respect to being a seal-holder: Having a seal wasn't itself remarkable. It was a symbol of power, but the conclusions are not quite water tight. And whats remarkable in this case is the the distribution of those seals. Although the cited archaelogist concludes the women had more power, there could also be other reasons for this distribution, for instance (just hypothetical rambling here), seals were given to the dead women so they could identify their men in the next life. My point is, almost nothing is known of their culture and traditions, so the seals could really mean anything.
 * Then again, while there is no doubt that pre-historic societies were generally male-mediated, does that also mean all communities without exception were male-dominated? I think not. But that doesn't of course mean that that was the rule.
 * -- Fullstop 10:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article contradicts mainstream anthrpology. It is ridiculous to give such undue weight to a single source. It's pretty obvious that it is biased towards the Iranian womens' history, which is why it's claiming that they somehow are the one sole counterexample to thousands of years of human history. It's not surprising to me though-- non-scientific sources do patently ridiculous science reporting all the time. --Urthogie 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is probably fine to leave out. This article has bigger problems right now.  And is this even a topic that deserves an article? It seems to just attract a bunch of exaggeration, distortions, OR, etc.  Of course if the CAIS stuff was re-removed this would be helped a bit, but I don't see why 'Iranian women' are so special that they need an article.  I have some theories as to why someone would want such an article, but I don't think it would be very AGF to state at this time.  The Behnam 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For same reasons as Urthogie's... I'm in agreement with leaving it out. -- Fullstop 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, are there any pending/unaddressed issues with respect to the "massive" "deletions"? -- Fullstop 12:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sure ParthianShot may still have issues, but they haven't prevented any compelling case against anything in specific, so it should be OK to restore the sane, non-CAIS version of the article. The Behnam 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Working Progress
This article is in a working progress, and not a court case - Please enrich the article by adding to the article, with appropriate references, rather than removing entries, which are already supported by proper citations, since they are not according to your personal taste, or do not correspond with your religious dogma. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk)  21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'proper' attribute you give to these citations has been questioned, so please address the issues rather than avoiding them by launching personal attacks against other users. Thanks.  The Behnam 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should make it NPOV by adding your own preferred sources, but don't just blank entire sections you don't like. --Mardavich 01:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those sections are problems that need to be removed, and have poor sourcing. And you mindlessly restore a wrong and OR-included Avestan quote that I've brought up a few times already.  You keep ignoring specific issues, and not talking about specific issues.  The Behnam 02:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot keep claiming "seek consensus first" while not actually participating constructively in consensus-building. The Behnam 02:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus-building here, I see you unilaterally blanking whole sections. --Mardavich 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well observed Mardavich – “ yek suzan be khodet bezan, yek javālduz be digārn” is perfectly applied to Behname here. Obviously he cannot understand this Persian proverb, since he is not an Iranian despite his assumed name! ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  05:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please address the issues. It takes two to build consensus, and the issue of CAIS was brought up higher on the page.  Also object to specific diffs if you like.  I gave reasons in the edit summaries.  You have presented no case aside from "no consensus" yet have shown no willingness to address the issues that led to the removal of inappropriate information.  Thank you for your time.  Cheers! :)  The Behnam 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Behnam, It seems you are prescribing the medicine of "addressing the Issue" to everyone, withouth realising this is best medicine for yourself! So why don't you take your own advise and address the issue, rather than deleting the contents of the page totally? Thank you! ← ← Parthian Shot  (Talk)  05:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * HELLO??!!! Will everyone please quit the "you don't address the issues" stuff and actually IDENTIFY the issues you want the other party to address?
 * One point per line please so that the others can quote.
 * Thanks -- Fullstop 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the editor stole the quote from here, which correctly attributes it to Aiwisruthrem Gah 9 AND Visparad 3.4, the former being a fragment of the latter. Visparad 3.4 invokes various Amesha Spenta (hence the insertion into the hymn of the Amesha Spentas that is recited at the Aiwisruthrem Gah). The expression 'righteous woman' has is in any case a highly nuanced meaning since it derives from asha (truthful, righteous, straight, orderly, lawful, in accord with the laws of the religion, ...). The expression "righteous woman" occurs only once in the Gathas, when Zoroaster presides over the wedding of his daughter. The word is used by the groom, speaking of how his bride will be a proper 'righteous woman' serving the (other/cause of the) righteous. "Zoroastrians considered total equality between men and women.[] False citation!!! The article says nothing of the kind. The nearest thing it says is "one can conclude that for the prophet, the criteria necessary to receive salvation are the deeds of good mind - therefore, power, gender, position, and rank have no part in the judgment." The author of further analyzing the texts, not Zoroastrians. This is radically different from "Zoroastrians considered total equality between men and women." Bull, beginning to end, including the false citation (just like the previous one). We know very little about Zoroaster's society, but it does not appear to have been significantly different from the Indo-Iranian one. They were *definitely* neither equestrian nor warriors, and indeed Zoroaster is extremely critical of both. That "women fought alongside their men" is pure OR - they *may* have *defended* alongside men, but to assume they were some sort of amazonians is super crud (see more on how the editor came to that conclusion below). More OR: That "they held in an equal status with men" is neither evident in the texts, not has that ever been inferred. That piece about the Greeks is downright absurd: The Greeks didn't even exist at the time of Zoroaster ("Avestan society"), so once again the author of that wonderful OR cites out of context (presuming the cited source refers to women at all, which is certainly not given). Actually, the clause that reads "this so called upside-down society both fascinated and horrified the male dominated Greek culture" has actually has absolutely nothing to do with Avestan society. The editor pulled it out of a different context (see next point) and stuck it into "Avestan society". This incredible social equality, at such an early age, is irrefutably attested, not only by a host of classical writers, but also by a wealth of archaeological evidence; in many mound- burials in the former Soviet Union, it is by no means unusual to find remains of women warriors dressed in full armour, lying on a war chariot, surrounded by their weaponry, and significantly, accompanied by a host of male subordinates specially sacrificed in their honour; nonetheless, these young Iranian warriors, as evidenced by the archaeological remains of their costumes and jewellery, do not seem to have lost their femininity; they remained "feminine as well as female" as a great contemporary German scholar puts it.[3] Besides being a wonderful example of disastrous sentence structure (yes, that whole paragraph is ONE sentence), it is also a wonderful example of how one can really screw facts up, particularly when one STEALS from other articles while doing it. Amazingly enough, Avestan society (leave alone its "social equality") is not at all attested, by *ANY* writer, classical or otherwise. Except for Zoroaster himself, none. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. More out-of-context absurdity follows...
 * I'll start with the "Pre-Islamic Iran" section:
 * The supposed quotation "We venerate the righteous woman ... " (Gathas - Aiwisruthrem Gah 9) is doubly-false citation. First, Aiwisruthrem Gah is not a Gatha. It is a time of day, and the quotation is a fragment inserted into the hymns when they are recited at that time of day. The name of the text the editor confused it with is "Ahunavaiti Gatha", and verse 9 of that text nothing whatsoever to do with women.
 * Next quotation: It is these people who, with their actions, promote the world though righteousness." (Visparad 3.4) This is a valid citation, but like the mis-quote above in a false context. Like the previous quotation, it is nicked from the above-mentioned link, which is a worthwhile read for those interested in Zoroastrianism. Don't expect it to reach the same conclusions as the out-of-context quotations.
 * Now a typical example of how some users will misinterpret a source:
 * Now a real doozy: "[women] also periodically they actually ruled [men]" . How many attested female monarchs were there in Iran? One? Two? Actually only Purandokht comes to mind, among what, 50? 60? 70? attested male monarchs. How "periodic" is that? Oh, wait. The editor means in Avestan society! How many monarchs do we have named in the Avesta? One? Was it female? Nope. Ok, lets give the editor the benefit of the doubt and count Rustom and other mythological monarchs as having been of "Avestan society": How many mythological kings do we know of? About a dozen or so. How many female? Zero.
 * "In that unique Avestan pastoralist equestrian warrior society, women fought alongside their men; not only they were held in an equal status with men, but also periodically they actually ruled them; this so called upside-down society both fascinated and horrified the male dominated Greek culture;[2]"
 * the next part continues in the same vein, sparsely cited, and when cited, completely out of context:
 * The screw-up begins with the first word: "This ..." : where the editor is presuming to tell us that what follows reflects "Avestan society", which was the subject of the previous sentence. Because the paragraph is a copy-and-paste from another source, "Avestan society" is infact NOT the subject of the text. But lets go on anyway,...
 * "... incredible social equality, at such an early age, is irrefutably attested, not only by a host of classical writers, ... "
 * " ... but also by a wealth of archaeological evidence ... " : Yes! BMAC! Southern Andronovo! What did they discover about women there! But, no, sadly enough something quite different...
 * "in many mound- burials in the former Soviet Union, it is by no means unusual to find remains of women warriors dressed in full armour [...] 'feminine as well as female' as a great contemporary German scholar puts it."

To hazard a guess, I'd say the editor who "cited" Rolle didn't read Rolle's book. He didn't even bother to check what Rolle's book was about. How do we know this? BECAUSE THE TEXT (and citation) IS A WORD-FOR-WORD COPY OF a article originally published in 2003 on www.chn.ir The editor then stole that article for his own website, first at home.btconnect.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/Oric.Basirov/origin_of_the_iranians.htm and finally at www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/Oric.Basirov/origin_of_the_iranians.htm Oh, whoever wrote that article (prolly not Basirov) messed up on several points, including badly confusing the Scythians with the Sakas: The Indo-Scythians (Sakas) of Central Asia are not related to the Scythians of Asia Minor. They have the same name but are not the same people.
 * a) Rolle's find was highly unusual, and
 * b) Renate Rolle is an authority on Scythia and Scythian archaeology, and was speaking of a set of Iron Age graves in the Ukraine that reveal accomplished women horsemen/archers.
 * So,... what is a citation of Rolle doing in an article on Iranian women?
 * The rest of the "Pre-Islamic Iran" section is pretty much the same as after The Behnam's "massive removals". It still contains some fluff that doesn't sound right (and hence needs quotation and proper attribution). But thats it.
 * -- Fullstop 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ps: the name of this talk section should be "work-in-progress" not "working progress".

Woman
One cannot say whether the woman is Persian or Turkic (who cares anyways?), but just for the heck of it, the Qajars werent really "Turkic" by the 1900's...Hajji Piruz 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mei.jpg
The claim that this is a Persian woman depicted has no source. The image description page doesn't provide a source for this claimed ethnicity any more than the caption does, and the caption doesn't. Hence I tagged it with Fact. Vonones, please explain why you have removed the tag without providing a source. The appropriate action is to provide a source, but you didn't. Please reason with me. Thanks. The Behnam 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This user took the picture on a wall, no source is needed since he took it. Description makes it obvious they are Persian. --Vonones 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * His description of it calls it a "Persian woman," but he doesn't qualify as an RS. We need a source specifying that the woman pictured is actually a Persian woman, rather than simply a woman pictured in a Persian work of art.  Do you understand what I am getting at?  The Behnam 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I do but he took the picture no fact tag is necessary, you need to take the issue up with him. --Vonones 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vonones. No source is needed. First, it's a 17th century painting on a wall in Persia. It must be presumed that the woman depicted is Persian. A source might be needed if it was claimed otherwise. WP:OR has an exception for photographs. Second, the woman actually does look Persian. --Evb-wiki 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I can put a fact tag on the caption if it is supposing a claim that requires a source. We aren't able to launder unsourced claims because they are a caption.  I will bring it up with the uploader though (even though he is usually mean to me).  Thanks anyway for discussing and keep watching.  Cheers  The Behnam 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * @Evb - you are saying that you agree that it is obvious, not that you agree that captions are 'exempt' from direct investigation, right? As for its obviousness, generally we can't agree to include OR just because we think it seems obvious. Images are exempt so long as they don't advance anything new.  As such, you can have an original picture of a famous cathedral - this isn't OR because it can easily be confirmed by looking at a non-fair use picture elsewhere online.  That is the primary reason for exemption - to encourage the use of free (and original) images.  In this case it isn't the picture itself that is being called OR, I am calling the 'caption' OR (and the image description).  Both of these result from an editor failing to source the description.  The remedy is to find a source calling the woman pictured in this particular Persian work of art as a Persian woman herself.  Until then, a cn tag is warranted.  The Behnam 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, I agree that no source is needed . . . for the reasons I've stated. This means that I do not agree that the cn tag is warranted. --Evb-wiki 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for the caption or not? Until we do, the tag stays. The Behnam 03:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up that you all may be talking past each other. Evb-wiki and Vonones appear to assuming that Persian and Iranian are the same thing. The Behnam is pointing out that you can't actually tell if the girl is specifically from southwestern Iran (which is where Persia is), and not just generically Iranian.
 * Evb-wiki/Vonones: you guys could't know better, but you've just been subject to a misunderstanding that unfortunately continues to be propa gandized gated on Wikipedia. In reality, Persian not-equals Iranian not-equals Iranian (hover over the three links to see where they go). Also scroll up this page to the "The Persian = Iranian mess" section for more info.
 * -- Fullstop 05:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a mistake that many users keep making. Particularly those like The Behnam that are not an Iranian and do not know our history and country well. "Iran" was officially called "Persia" before 1935. An official decree was issued for that by the King of Iran. All official documents in latin language issued from before then, including the Safavid court, uses the word "Perse". There were no ethnicity tags back then. Therefore you could be an Azeri and still be "Persian", as for example the Azari Safavid monarchs called themselves. And the picture depicts the royal court in Isfahan.--Zereshk 08:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if I accept your claim that this is being used in the sense of nationality (she is from the country of Persia), you are still making an assumption. How do we know that she is not a foreigner to Persia? Even as a member of the court, she may be a slave or otherwise a foreigner to the country.  However, this type of discussion isn't critical to the tag itself.  I'm not asking for a 'good reason' justifying your original claim about her ethnicity/nationality/whatever; rather, I simply ask that we directly source any claim.  Until then, the tag stays.  The Behnam 13:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your tag is merely based on Original Research. The burden is up to you to prove she is a foreign slave or not Iranian, because it constitutes Original Research on your behalf. The painting is Iranian. The court is Iranian. The painter is Iranian. You are basically asking for a 16th century souring that she is Iranian. And besides, why do you have a problem with she being Iranian?--Zereshk 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A tag asking for unsourced information to be sourced is "original research?" That's mind-boggling. Must I operate under the assumption that your assumptions are correct? No, seriously, you are making the affirmative statement (that she is Persian or Iranian or whatnot), so you must source it.  This is like any else on Wikipedia.  I present the possibility that she may not be Iranian (a foreigner, perhaps a slave) simply to get your mind going and help you realize that we need a source, but apparently my attempt did not work.  I'm surprised you don't know this - you've been on Wikipedia longer than I have.  As for "Iranian," it is original research for us to assume anything about the woman in the painting based upon other information about the painting - we need an RS providing direct and explicit support for the claim that she is Persian.  It is as simple as that - no original research.  The Behnam 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Youre asking for a source that says that the people in an Iranian painting of an Iranian court in Iran by an Iranian painter are Iranian. Now how ridiculous is that? On what assumption are you claiming that she is not Iranian? They didnt need foreign slaves. Give me a reason why they would. Otherwise think of another reason to claim she isnt Iranian.--Zereshk 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it ridiculous to support Wikipedia policy against original research. As such, I don't consider it ridiculous to ask for a source to be provided for unsourced information, regardless of how reasonable it may seem to you or others.  I am not claiming that she isn't Iranian or that she is a slave, but merely raising the possibility to you so that you realize that we need to use sources on Wikipedia.  So how about you just find a source that explicitly describes the woman pictured as "Persian?" It's as simple as that, assuming that you derived your statement from sources but forgot to note them.  This will, however, be much more difficult if your claim is indeed original research (as I suspect).  If this is the case, then for the future, please don't add original research to Wikipedia, Zereshk.  Thanks in advance for compliance. The Behnam 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you like the caption be changed to?--Zereshk 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, if we can't verify that it is Persian woman pictured, the image shouldn't even be the article. I'll remove it for now, as nobody has been able to source the claim despite a sufficiently long 'courtesy' period I gave (out of generosity, as technically unsourced claims can be removed immediately - they shouldn't even be on Wikipedia in the first place).  In order to even be considered for this article (much less be necessary or illustrative/useful), basic relevance to the topic must be established, and while the definition provided in this article's lead has always been OR, I'll guess that we at least need to know that this is a picture of a Persian woman in order to merit inclusion.  The Behnam 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Except you forget one thing. Not having a source from 400 years ago that says the figure in a painting is Iranian, (and that being only according to you), does not establish "irrelevancy". I changed the caption.--Zereshk 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing the caption doesn't make the image itself any more pertinent to "Persian women. "It isn't so much about "establishing irrelevancy" as your failure to establish "relevance," as relevance needs to be demonstrated in order to merit inclusion (hence we don't add NASCAR stuff to the article).  Again, the burden is on you to demonstrate that this picture is relevant (the affirmative statement) to the topic "Persian women."  By adding it to the article, you are presenting it as relevant (as an irrelevant image would not be added), so please back this up with sources that directly associate the two.  If you cannot do this (as you and others haven't been able for awhile now), the picture has no place here.  I'm hoping that you will stop removing cleanup tags (such as OR or CN tags where there are unsourced statements) and restoring items that haven't been shown to be relevant (the picture) unless you actually solve the problem by getting sources.  This talk page section has amply revealed that you have included content based upon your original research and assumptions, and it is deeply disturbing that you not only maintain OR content in the article, but also seek to suppress any tags that warn the reader of the policy-violating content you have maintained.  I sincerely hope that you will recognize the importance of WP:NOR and show respect for the readers by providing them sourced, relevant, and quality content.  The Behnam 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, in my above statement I meant to use 'Iranian women'. Sorry - a leftover from our previous discussion on this matter.  The Behnam 22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edits are now bordering on vandalism. Which part of the caption sentence "17th century Iranian painting depitcs women in Safavid court of Iran" is not relevant to the article? Yove been basically dodging all of my questions and throwing meaningless and absurd accusations to get your way, while destroying the article. Citing WP policies is not going to justify your edits. You are basically against having that picture no matter what caption is used. That's not hard to see.--Zereshk 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets see if I can explain it:
 * Sticking with what is immediately evident: we have a depiction of a someone pouring something. Right?
 * Lets add some (what I think are) safe assumptions: a) its a 17th century painting, b) what the person is pouring is wine/mei. Ok so far?
 * But everything else is hard to establish. Assuming that it depicts a woman, what else does the picture tell us? That 17th century women drank wine? Served wine? Dressed as boys? Had no chests? Liked red? Showed their hair? Wore rakish hats?
 * So, all we can actually say with any degree of certainty is that the picture is of a "17th century wall painting at Chehel Sotoun palace, Isfahan, Iran." I even suppose it would even be ok to say "17th century wall painting of a young girl pouring wine (Chehel Sotoun palace, Isfahan, Iran)." What is missing are *details* that tell the reader something specific about "Iranian women".
 * Do you see what I mean? -- Fullstop 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It IS a woman, there's no mistaking that, and that makes it immediately evident. Here's why: She's wearing a skirt. Guys dont wear puffy skirts like that. If you look at the full painting, youll see her shoes have high heels. All the men in the painting have mustaches 20 inches across, and are armed, and have turbans. The boys have a whispy puberty beard sticking out from under their turbans too. Since the king is present in the painting, therefore by cultural norm of Persia, all women in the court must be part of the andaruni (women who are not required to wear any Hijab) and are part of the court. So I think it is safe to say therefore that you agree on the caption "17th century wall painting of Safavid court depicting woman, Chehel Sotoun palace, Isfahan, Iran." Do we?--Zereshk 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that you consider it to be a woman depicted. This doesn't at all relate it to the topic "Iranian women," particularly because nobody has been able to source the claim that the woman pictured is Iranian.  Just keep away from OR from now on, and you will find that this problem doesn't show up so much.  BTW, your restoration of the image as 'relevant per talk page' completely misconstrues this discussion, both by claiming that relevance has been demonstrated (when it hasn't) and implying that your restore was 'per' some sort of agreement, which we also don't have.  Please show respect for discussion and the readers by solving problems instead of ignoring them.  Thank you. The Behnam 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The caption doesnt make that claim. The caption doesnt make any claim about her ethnicity or her Iranian-ness. It only says: "17th century wall painting of Safavid court depicting woman, Chehel Sotoun palace, Isfahan, Iran." That's enough for relevance. Thanks again for your cooperation.--Zereshk 09:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Behnam, from reading your comments above I can only characterize your actions as gaming the system and wikilawyering . There is no point in ascerting that the image does not depict an Iranian woman, and even saying that it is OR, when that is not even claimed by the author. It is relevant to the topic of the article because it is a depiction of a woman in an Iranian palace. You are using the letter of the policy on OR to avoid consensus, and are therefore violating the spirit of policy. That's how I see it at least, and I would like to ask you to please reconsider your actions. Thanks. Shervink 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm definitely not "gaming" the system by tagging the need for sources for claims (WP:OR and WP:V being key policies), asking that a source be used to show that a particular image is at all relevant to a topic (again, WP:NOR, instead of our personal opinions), and other cleanup. Essentially I'm supporting the system by making sure that this article is not exempt from its content rules (or at least trying to warn the reader of non-compliant content) In fact, I find it a tad offensive that you violate AGF so in characterizing my edits, especially without showing any evidence.

You did mention consensus. I get a feeling that certain users don't understand consensus very well. Consensus does not allow groups to 'agree' to include OR or otherwise contravene policy. The relevant quotes from WP:CONSENSUS are:
 * "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies."
 * "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it."
 * "There are a few exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page. ... Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a Wikiproject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply."
 * "In practice, a lot of people look in on an issue and check to see if a (mere) majority exists in favor of their position. While this quick and dirty rule helps you to figure out what to spend your time on, it is obviously *not* the same thing as finding the actual consensus (or what it will end up as). To do that, you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree, and in more complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace should also be checked. If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable."

I believe that these quotes should be enough to explain my position, though I encourage you to read the rest of the document - it's quite a thriller. The Behnam 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, I did not mean to offend you. But I find it surprising that you of all people, who not too long ago said that personal attacks were at times both "understandable" and "forgivable" (meaning that it is sometimes ok to disregard WP:NPA), seem so concerned about the letter of policy here. I don't see why someone needs a source to say the obvious, namely, that a woman on a painting in an Iranian royal palace is relevant to the topic of Iranian women. What is it exactly you want a source for? That the painting is in Esfahan? That it is a woman? As I understand you claim that it is not an Iranian womnan. Assuming you were right (which is close to impossible), that would not even be a problem since there is no such ascertion in the caption of that image. It simply says it is a woman on a painting in an Iranian palace. What part of that is unreliable?!Shervink 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have questions about my approach to the Artaxerex mess, please take them to my talk page so as to not further muddle this page. I shall, for now, assume that you accidentally brought an unrelated user conduct ArbCom case to this page, as I'm hoping that there is no ad hominem at work.  I hope you understand.


 * Anyway, back to the topic. Simply put, we need to base our narrative off of sources.  The obviousness of a claim or association, as judged by us editors without looking to sources, is in blatant disagreement with WP:OR, which requires that we rely upon sources in deciding content, and we must cite these sources via intext citations for the purposes of WP:V.  I personally don't insist that she is specifically not Iranian, but I do insist that we rely upon a source in deciding whether or not this painting is relevant to the article.  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it was originally included because editors assumed that it was an Iranian woman (making it 'relevant' to the topic), and so included it.  However, if this justification cannot be supported by sources, he claim to relevance also cannot be asserted.


 * I noticed that the goalpost moved once it seemed that no source could back the "Iranian" ethnic/cultural/whatever assumption made of this woman, and has now moved to "the woman is depicted upon an Iranian wall," and therefore is a worthy illustration of the topic "Iranian women." I don't understand how this follows at all, so please explain.  If we are writing about women of nationality/cultural/ethnic identification "Iranian," how is a picture of what we presume to be woman who happens to be pictured on an Iranian wall telling us anything about the topic? We don't even have any RS supposing that any woman pictured in Iran is pertinent to "Iranian women."  If they drew a picture of the Queen of England in Iran, would it then be right for her to be pictured in the article? No, of course not - the image of her is not about "Iranian women" at all.  But if we cannot (by RS) demonstrate the relevance to the topic for the picture under discussion here, how does are situation differ from the hypothetical 'Queen of England' depiction? Gotta go, cheers. The Behnam 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead
I don't understand why you keep removing the Fact tags from unsourced claims in the lead. The definitions need sources as much as anything else - otherwise we may be essentially making up a topic. If it is a claim, it needs an RS source, and 'defining' "Iranian women" involves claims. This is all basic WP:OR and WP:V stuff - I can't believe I have to tell you this. We can't invent our own topics, or define topics in our own way - let the RS do the work, and we report on it.


 * Stop attacking me and stick to the point. YOU keep re-inserting back your own version of the intro and then putting tags on it and lecture me about WP:OR and WP:V!--Zereshk 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you cut my post, but anyway, this isn't "my version" of the introduction. If my version was there, it would be much shorter and less dubious (to me, anyway), but I'm not putting anything until I have a source to back it.  All aspects of the lead need sourcing, especially since we are defining the topic.  We, the editors, are not to define the topic as we see fit, but instead must rely upon RS for the definitions in addition to the other content.  If you can make a lead that defines the topic directly from RS, I will be fine with it.  The Behnam 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a topic, it should be easy for you to source these definitions. I personally feel that the definition reflects the opinions of the editors rather than RS, which would make it OR in addition to unsourced. But please, just get the sources instead of suppressing the tags warning the readers about the problem here. WP is not a soapbox for personal definitions and conclusions - please stick to using RS from now on. Thanks a lot. The Behnam 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And which part is exactly a "personal definition" and my "soapbox"? Instead of giving me lectures about WP guidelines and policies, please be specific, and provide the part of the text you think is problematic and why, AND, how to improve it. Prove to me that you can also do other things than just slap on tags and delete Iranian articles. Cheers :)--Zereshk 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, I hate to see you upset like this - let me assure you that I have only Wikipedia's best interests in mind when I edit. The current lead is a 'personal definition' insofar as that various editors have listed the definition and scope of "Iranian women" based upon what they personally considered correct, instead of relying directly upon RS.  I say this simply because the section has been tagged as lacking sources for a long time - if they had simply forgotten to list their sources when adding content, they'd have listed them by now.  The Behnam 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of reverting discuss with him. --Vonones 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, what do you suppose has been going on here all day? We have been discussing - I've had to explain basic principles of WP:OR in a dozen ways it seems. The Behnam 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to respectfully disagree with The Behnam. Forgetting about the distinction of "persian" vs. "Iranian", the term "Iranian woman" may have only three meanings, solely for the reason of English language: unfortunately the adjective "Iranian" may have rather different meanings: "women of Iranian ethnicity", i.e., "female Iranian peoples" "women of Iranian nationality", i.e., "female Demographics of Iran", and finally, "women of Iranian culture", which, may be associated both with Iranian/Persian society, as well as with Iranian diaspora. In all these meanings one does not really need any reference or quotation: wikipedia policy WP:VERIFIABILITY does not require attribution in evident statements, such as "copper is a metal" or "women of Iranian nationality".

Now, this article states that it is about the third case: women of Iranian culture, and this is not POV, it is simply limiting of the scope of the article, and editors have full rights to define the desired scope. If this is a genuine intention, tyhen there should be a page Iranian women (disambiguation), listing the three meanings I mentioned. However to my uneducated opinion now there is nothing much to say in the article, e.g, Women of Iranian ethnicity (besides that they are very beautiful). Therefore may I humbly suggest that the article incorporates all three aspects. If someone enfulled with wisdom can write more than 5 sentences about Female demographics of Iran, no one will prevent him from making a separate article later. Inshallah. Mukadderat 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned that we aren't able to source any of our definitions, which we need to do regardless of whether or not they seem to make sense to us. The Behnam 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't need to source a definition for "Iranian women". Just like we don't need to source a definition of History of Iran or Demography of Iran, etc. These titles are just ordinary phrases, not some technical or scientific terms. Mukadderat 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm ... I don't see why we need any definition in the first place. This article seems to deal with women of a certain region of this world (Iran in this case), and since both "women" and "Iran" are well-defined, there is no point in looking for a source to define women in Iran. The only source of confusion might be "what is meant by Iran" (Greater Iran or the modern state Iran), and based on what we wish to include in the article, it is quite simple to clarify in the intro which one is meant. See Women in Arab societies for comparison. There is no definition there either, I presume because no one feels any necessity for it. Shervink 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's content, like anything else. WP:OR applies to content.  If you are going to include claims (in this case, claimed definitions), you need to show that RS directly support the claim.  We can't just write whatever we want and define a topic as we see fit - that's the job of original researchers.  One reason for WP:OR is to prevent original work.  So we need to source the lead's definition (it doesn't help that we include easily disputed claims as part of the definition).  The Behnam 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that the current lead is not a definition. Why would anyone need to define women of a certain country? Of course there is no source doing such a thing, because "women of Iran" is not something with an independent definition. If one knows what women are and what Iran is, one knows what this article is about. The aricle is not there to define anything new, but to present detail on something which is otherwise well known and well understood, presumably because the topic is not sufficiently covered in other articles. Shervink 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Shervink, one of the more fundamental problems with this article is touched upon by your statement. You say that the definition should be obvious enough not to require a stated definition, but you consider that we may need to note the 'scope' of our narrative (which includes countries outside of Iran - this is one of the disputable parts of the definition, BTW).  That we are presenting the scope and definition of an encyclopedia narrative based upon our own judgment, rather than an RS narrative, sets off alarm bells (for me, anyway).  The reason I find this alarming is because, per WP:OR, "novel narratives" are forbidden.  Yet if we have to define the topic ourselves (seeing that we haven't been able to use RS for reference and guidance on this point), and create the article based upon our dictate, we are essentially creating a "novel narrative."  At initial thought, the novelty is not only supposing that "Iranian women" includes women from "Greater Iran," but also that women in this large region can be presented as being unified in this way.  Do you see what I mean? If it isn't clear, please state what seems off about it so that I can further explain.  Regards,  The Behnam 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think things are that dramatic. I think this article merely wants to present some facts which would take up too much space in other related articles. It's a choice of presentation, not OR. Shervink 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The_Behnam: why don't you make a suggestion of how the first sentence of the article should read? I see your point about how one shouldn't try to define things, but the article has to start with something, right? -- Fullstop 16:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Esther painting
I noticed the painting of Queen Esther by Edwin Long. What exactly is it doing for the article? Does it tell the reader something about Iranian women? Is it even an accurate representation of Queen Esther? The Behnam 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a painting. Paintings are depictions, and hence not "accurate representations" by default. The caption says painting. And Esther was a woman, and married to the King of Persia or Iran. The image is therefore a useful example of a woman of pre-Islamic Iran, which is what the section next to it is about.--Zereshk 01:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Behnams argument makes absolutely no sense here. Paintings are never accurate representations. The Behnam, you seem to make a lot of bad faith assumptions and make claims and act on them without any proof. Any user who makes a claim as to prove it, whether that claim is to add something or remove something. Lets stay calm, and please do not make unilateral decisions such as removing images which you dont think should be included. There are other users and we should all work together. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just concerned that it may not be the best picture for this article, just as an anime/manga/whatever depiction (there used to be one, believe it or not) isn't very informative. If it isn't attempting accuracy, it may be misleading to include.  What qualities is it trying to demonstrate?  It may suggest that Esther dressed like that, or looked like that, which is not known.  Does it say anything about Persian women? Wasn't she Jewish anyway, of the exiles? Do any RS bring up this picture when narrating "Iranian women?" (though they don't really do that anyway it seems)  I'm not so worried about this one that I'll remove it from the article or anything like that, but it seems a tad random, so I'm hoping that you can help me clear up issues.  The Behnam 04:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's very informative. For example you yourself find it odd that she was Jewish. As if being Jewish excludes one from being Persian.--Zereshk 09:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, perhaps you could explain in what way you find it informative? We could then add that to the caption, and people who do not immediately recognize its usefulness would be better informed? -- Fullstop 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course. There is plenty to say about her. She is after all a prominent example of women in Pre-Islamic Iran. And we have an entire section on women in pre-Islamic Persia in the article. That constitutes thousands of years. Women must have been doing something then. Esther is a very good example. Just by browsing thru books at my immediate disposal for example the caption can say one of these:
 * "Esther is the celebrated Queen of Persia for which Purim is celebrated today." (The JPS Guide to Jewish Women: 600 B.C.E.to 1900 C.E. Taitz, Emily, Henry, Sondra, Cheryl Tallan. The Jewish Publication Society. ISBN 0827607520 p.40)
 * Esther's story "sharply elucidates the status of women not only in ancient Pesia but also in many parts of contemporary soceity".(Esther and Ruth. Patricia K. Tull. 2003. Westminster John Knox Press ISBN 0664226701 p.12)
 * "Esther and her shadow have always been in Iranian Jewish women's lives. She has become the paragon of the good wife." (The Flying Camel. Loolwa Khazzoom. 2003. Seal Press ISBN 1580050956 p.40-41)--Zereshk 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But this particular picture? The Behnam 04:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a painting of the person we're talking about.--Zereshk 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, I've tripped over a coule of things that you may be able to clarify:
 * With respect to first and third quotations: indeed, Esther's rescue of her people made her a hero, and hence the reason why Purim is celebrated. And indeed, Esther is the paragon of the good Jewish wife, after all Esther risked her life for the Jewish people, putting her duty as Jew before her duty as wife. Are these attributes a hallmark of Iranian women?
 * >>Esther's story "sharply elucidates the status of women not only in ancient Pesia but also in many parts of contemporary soceity"
 * Specifically speaking of the "Book of Esther" and not Esther, Tull (p.12, as per your cit) writes
 * "More specifically, the events at the beginning of Esther sharply elucidate the constricted world of women not only in ancient Persia but in many parts of contemporary society."
 * there are few things I dislike more than faked citations, not only because its insulting, it tells me that the person citing them has not learnt to accept that they too can be wrong. Since moreover I will never again trust someone who has faked a citation, I do hope you can resolve this anomaly with dispatch.
 * Nonetheless, "the constricted world of women" (in contrast to your summary as "status") does indeed quite accurately reflect the lives of women "in ancient Persia but also in contemporary society." I'm certain that you too will agree that this is an excellent caption to accompany the picture of the painting.
 * -- Fullstop 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You dont need to trust me. Im not asking you for that, as I already know you dont (otherwise you wouldnt be arguing on something as so obvious as Esther's place among Persian woman). Just check my refs and we can take it from there. That's why I provide them. So that we can discuss why I used the word "status" instead of "constricted", for example. Scroll down that same page. You will see the author use the word "Status" when questioning the circumstances of that age. So my decision to use the word status was not that off the mark. Perhaps we can break down the sentence into two quotes to make you satisfied? And if not, there is always another quote we can use for the caption.
 * About the 1/3 captions, you are misquoting. (shall I use the word fake quote?). The third sentence uses the exact phrase "Iranian Jewish women's lives". Is that not clear enough?
 * Besides, I can supply you with more quotes, if you dont like any of these. Thanks to this great country of America, I have an excellent library at my disposal, with no shortage of such books.--Zereshk 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But aside from this all, I am not sure why there is so much resistance to include Esther in this article. It's like me asking you why should we include Radharani in the article of Women in India.


 * You can put your cynicism back in the box. It doesn't fly with me any you know it doesn't.
 * As for some "something so obvious," if it was really so obvious, people wouldn't spend time and trouble on it. So stuff the gratuitity and answer the question (reiterated again below).
 * >>Just check my refs and we can take it from there.
 * I did check your refs and they are not up to par, not least because you faked it. In any case, íf its as "obvious" as you apparently think it is, it shouldn't be necessary to try for pseudo-RS.
 * >>So that we can discuss why I used the word "status" instead of "constricted", for example.
 * We don't need to discuss it. You faked a citation, I caught you on it, you don't have to try a "we can discuss". You can say "sorry". There are no other options open to you.
 * And, its not "constricted" - its "constricted world of women" - that you tried to pass off as "status".
 * >>About the 1/3 captions, you are misquoting. (shall I use the word fake quote?)
 * A quotation - fake or otherwise - is what occurs between quotation marks. What a misquote is - and I am quite surprised you don't know this since it belongs to your modus operandi - is explained at the Wikipedia article on misquotation. While a fake quotation is very obviously intended to deceive, a misquotation may - for example - be simply due to misunderstanding. All three of your quotations are misquotes, only the second one - incidentally, the only one I checked - is a flat out fake.
 * >>The third sentence uses the exact phrase "Iranian Jewish women's lives".
 * Yes, and? In case you hadn't noticed, the references you provide are not about Iranians, but about Esther, the Book of Esther and about Jewish women (Iranian or othewise).
 * In contrast, the subject of this article is about Iranian Women. While this could theoreticall extend to all Iranian women, Jewish or otherwise, Persian or otherwise, royalty or otherwise, "kept" or otherwise, Esther is not a particularly good example without the "Jewish" context, which is at present not represented in this article.
 * >>But aside from this all, I am not sure why there is so much resistance to include Esther in this article.
 * Perhaps you need to turn the question around and ask yourself why you are hanging on to it with such vehemence. The point is that Esther is not relevant to an article on "Iranian Women".
 * Now, I don't completely agree with that position, but it is technically correct and hence a completely valid question. Blowing if off with "its obvious" is illiterate. Either you have a valid reason, or you don't, and if you do, then you should be able to express it so that I can understand it.
 * >>I have an excellent library at my disposal, with no shortage of such books
 * I think we can all imagine what "such books" entails, in which case I think we can safely pass. In any case, you don't have anything I don't have.
 * And if matters are "so obvious," you should be able to make your point without leaving your desk.
 * Make your point. Clearly. You needn't provide any references unless I ask for them.
 * And perhapy you ought to keep your sentences short. This may help you avoid non-sequiturs like "the painting of Esther is informative because Esther is the reason the Jews celebrate Purim" or "the painting of Esther is informative because Esther is the model Jewish wife."
 * So, to reiterate what I asked before but didn't get an answer to:
 * Zereshk, please explain in what way you find the picture of Esther informative?
 * -- Fullstop 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Zereshk, to reinterate: "the constricted world of women" described for Esther does indeed quite accurately reflect the lives of women "in ancient Persia but also in contemporary society." Since you proposed that quotation yourself, I take it that you agree that this is an excellent caption to accompany the picture of the painting? -- Fullstop 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we make up a caption that is drawn from all 3 phrases (whichever ones fit best), and yet the caption not use judgemental words, but rather informative ones? Or am I asking too much here? The word "constricted" can be perceived way too negative. I dont think the author of that string meant to single out Persia as a bastion of female constrictiveness from the rest of the world, but putting the word "constricted" in the caption no matter how we write the sentence will no doubt have that misleading effect. I'm open for any of your caption proposals.--Zereshk 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mis-translations in Sa'di poems
This line زن خوب فرمانبر پارسا was wrongly translated to "The honorable and noble woman". Checking out an on-line Persian-English dictionary shows the obvious mistakes (This line of Sa'di is usually frowned upon by Iranian feminists): فرمانبر = Obedient However it was perviously mis-translated to "honorable". Heja Helweda 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Do you happen to know where the incorrect translation came from? The Behnam 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

==

This article is highly sexist. No other countries have separate articles for their women, and there is no separate article about Iranian men. Why are Iranian women considered a seperate species who need their own special article? Why can't this information be incorporated into other articles pertaining to Iran and its people?Magpyr (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup, Stub, Revamp?
This article seems like a mess, look at the number of boxes talking about needing the page being "cleaned up" -- ☯µWiki☯  Talk / Contributions  (YouWiki''') 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Note from a visitor
I just stopped by this page to learn, and the first line in the 'descriptions and appearance' box strikes me as a little random - perhaps I am misreading it, but does 'women thought they were better than men' need to be in there? Thank you.


 * It was just vandalism—imbecilic as always. I reverted it upon sight. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

An extremeley trashy Site
perhaps sponsored by some ever dreaming Royalists.

1979 was 9% of iranian women employed and today more than 57% (without Mullahs maybe 70%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.97.111 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this
Are we now going to do "men" and "women" articles for every ethnic groups? Iranian women, Kurdish women, Arab women, Greek women, Italian women, Catalan women, Scottish women, German women, Maasai women, Sinhalese women? Or what?

Yes, there should be a "women's rights / gender issues in modern Iran" article, but not in the form of a cheesy ethnic fantasy piece about Persian womanhood through the ages. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

wellspoken +1 DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Quote in Introduction
Where did the quote in the introduction about the dying of hair, and the widening of eyebrows? I have searched and searched, but I cannot find any references to the use of indigo as hair dye. The quote isn't attributed to a specific person either. Someone should fix this, or delete the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanatorRider (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sportswomen
Maybe a sportswomen section can be created?
 * http://www.parstimes.com/sports/women/history/
 * http://www.parstimes.com/sports/women/ --Bowser2500 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg
The file File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Universities
User:Binksternet, please check out WP:RS a little bit. This sentence - On August 20, 2012, 36 universities announced that 77 courses would become male-only for the following school year placing severe restrictions on female university students who make up 60% of the student body. - isn't suitable for article because it's simply false. Just because it's widely reported (thanks to Iranophobic propaganda) it doesn't make it reliable, because it's speculation and nothing has been implemented. There's list of universities in Iran and you can find official websites, try to find even one with states anything about gender-only curses. Or "separated classes", also announced in Western media year before and year after stupidity above. Basically, every year the same controversial head of the same university announces "gender separation", but on university website there's no word about it. Newest photos taken few days ago shows mixed seminaries.

Other thing, you can not put However, factfish.com reported... after BBC link. FactFish is database run by programer, not some reliable institution itself. It's reliable because it refers to World Bank, and WB refers to UNESCO. Data from UNESCO is most reliable in this case because numbers are precise and they come from official institutions, so only "stronger" source would be data from Iranian ministry of education. BBC and other media outlets are irrelevant for statistic, not because it's British, implies for any kind, including Iranian. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The data from factfish, drawn from WorldBank, is a WP:Primary source, not as good as data which is weighed and digested by humans: a WP:SECONDARY source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sourcing. Raw data needs a human curator, not a machine collator.
 * Your removal of the whole paragraph is a violation of WP:POINT. Of course you know that there is a story to be told about Iranian women in university, about the various restrictions placed on them as described in the scholarly journal Middle East Report. You have chosen to delete the whole thing rather than to accurately represent what has been published in a high quality source. We should not hide this issue from the reader. If you are concerned about the wording, change the wording. Please read the Middle East Report piece and respond. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong, statistic data for cases like this one or let's say population of cities are always based on official data. Wikipedia as encyclopedia is based on facts, not politically motivated rumors. Claims from 2012 is based on Telegraph article written by Robert Tait, Israeli-based journalist. So of course I know story about various "restrictions" claims spread by Iranophobic haters frustrated by fact that Iranian women are most educated on Earth. Rumors were denied by Iranian ministry, described as unconstitutional by officials, some media even stated it was not proposed by any academic institution but politicaly motivated US media. Even Huffington Post described it as "misleading and sensationalized headlines". MERIP isn't scholarly journal but News agency like many others, it's article again relies only on rumors, speculations and even misinformations. I could deny all sources using Iranian references (given in text), but I didn't simply becaues it's irrelevant to "Women in Iran". If Wikipedia keeps rumors then there's a place for that - higher education in Iran. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, these comparisons between present and past regimes make no sense. (in every country) For example, look at literacy; it is obvious that with population growth the literacy will grow too. It is not a good comparison to say the past regime was bad! Aminabzz (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparison table
The comparison table falls under WP:DISPUTED because it doesn't take into account the change in cultural trends. The rise in literacy rates for instance cannot be simply attributed to the Islamic regime.--AnarchistFakest (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not disputed because it's based on pure facts. Everything in past 35 years is result of policy by Iranian government and it's comprehensive programs, and as I can see you as dissident just WP:DONTLIKEIT because facts doesn't fit in your political agenda ("regime" is a derogatory term and it showed your blanking is motivated by personal views). --109.60.7.0 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The illiteracy rate decreased because time has passed. It's not fair to compare past and present. It's obvious that with population growth, global technology growth, etc. illiteracy will decrease. If the government isn't preventing people from going to school, it doesn't matter who is governing. People will go to school and go on. And none of the past and present regimes were preventing people from going to schools. Aminabzz (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070522232907/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=8071337793166478323 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8071337793166478323
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070105062055/http://www.time.com:80/time/photoessays/policewomen/ to http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/policewomen/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Poor POV attempts
Regarding latest POV attempts by neo-orientalist heads: claim about alleged banning women from universities is not true, see: "Facts about women in universities in Iran" (Mehraspand, 2014) and "Did Iran Really Just Ban Women From Universities?" (Pourahmadi, 2012). Also, inserted domestic violence in Iran is not neutral article, its based on political pamphlet which has been removed from the internet. --MehrdadFR (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Plus, about gallery: presentation given by User:Rupert loup is (1) irrelevant to the text, already illustrated by four directy related images, (2) highly selective - it shows indoor women from family album and some young girl in nature, in contrast to the four photos consisted of two Iranian Arab women (with abaya and battula) and two women with chador. Among those seven photos, none are illustrating how average Iranian woman looks like. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
This article breaks the following wikipedia NPOV (Neutral Point of View) guidelines:

Impartial tone:

Several sections in the article are written in such a way to promote an argument or a point of view in iranian politics, examples:

"The Iranian women who had gained confidence and higher education under Pahlavi era participated in demonstrations against Shah to topple monarchy. (no citation)" by what measure or analysis?

"Ayatollah Khomeini seemed to express appreciation for women's issues after he took power. In May 1979, Khomeini addressed his audience and spoke about Fatimah" 'seemed', is subjective and shows the obvious bias of the author. Also breaks the words to watch guideline.

"Many Iranian women participated in the Iranian Revolution, the social changes being greeted by a majority of women (photo),[44] but opposed by a minority of secularized women.[45]" Citation, but statistics not given, nor how and when this data was collected.

The comparison table in the "Islamic Republic of Iran" section shows the increase in literacy rate, graduation rate, and age of marriage of women before and after 1979. 1979 was the year of the islamic revolution so using this date as a before & after comparison point is suggesting parallel between islamic revolution and an increase in womens freedom in iran, without giving solid evidence to enforce this claim. This is an impartial argument to make, why not use 1975 or 1985 as the before & after comparison point?

Bias in Sources

"With the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Western media said that women's rights declined" This claim was made by western and non western media, but by framing this as western media only the author revealing their political affiliations and attempting to impose them on this article.

" In 2010, 531 young females (aged 15–29) from different cities in nine provinces of Iran participated in a study the results of which showed that 77 percent prefer stricter covering, 19 percent loose covering, and only 4 percent don’t believe in veiling at all" The citation for this is considered largely biased, there are many surveys which contradict these results. A counterargument is not given.

No Citation

"A very small, but vocal, minority of thoroughly Westernized women from the upper class who totally opposed wearing of headscarves was democratically overwhelmed and defeated, and many of them left the country." Once again no statistics are given to prove that women opposing headscarves are more likely to be westernised, upper class, or in the minority. This might be considered true in common discourse about iranian politics but you need to cite sources and evidence, wikipedia is an encylopedia of proven facts and knowledge. This sentence also breaks the impartial tone guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usn1994 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's all properly sourced by very reliable, academic literature. You don't put NPOV tag if you just don't like it. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your reponse to a multiparagraph NPOV dispute is a single sentence which doesn't address any of the main issues raised in the NPOV dispute. Removing an NPOV tag without reaching a consensus is against the rules WP:NPOV.


 * Consensus with an IP? It was you who probably stated "there are many surveys which contradict these results", and where are them? Nothing, only your personal claims. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)



"It's all properly sourced by very reliable, academic literature." Is it Wikipedia policy to based statements from books most of us don't have and where actual quotes aren't provided? I just keyed in "What do Iranian women feel about the veil" on Google and got this. First result? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/28/iranian-women-hate-hijab-tehranbureau "Why so many Iranians have come to hate the hijab". The report is Thu 28 Apr ‘16 09.00 BST.2607:FEA8:239F:F18F:5A7:D2D2:9435:E0FA (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * 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
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://baharnewspaper.com/News/92/05/05/15831.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011111127/http://kargah.com/history_of_iranian_photography/qajarwomen/index.php?other=1 to http://www.kargah.com/history_of_iranian_photography/qajarwomen/index.php?other=1

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) 03:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Aranya
Which "unconstructive edits" you're talking about? There's a vast review about history of clothing, all referenced to tens of academic books, and beyond it someone added garbage section which claims something completely otherwise. Furthermore, someone excluded other properly referenced sections, so I restored it. Introduction was without any single source and with bizarre claims. --188.40.183.139 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comparison table
Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Please edit the article. Lexy iris (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparison table
Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Needing section on arrival of Islam in Iran
I am curious why there is such a huge gap from the end of the Sassanid Dynasty until the Qajar Dynasty. I want to work on this period. Suggestions anyone? Abscarab (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Painting santur.jpg

Can the writer or anyone help clarify the following? Thanks
"Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, wife of Ahmad Shah Qajar classic work, From Darkness to Light, published two years before the Islamic Revolution (1968-1969) ". However, from my searching, 1. Authur of said book was Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, a lady born in Tehran in 1905, while one of the wives of Ahmad Shah Qajar, Badr al-Molouk was born in 1897 in Tabriz. They couldn't be the same, and 2. the so called Islamic Revolution happened in 1979, said book was first published before the revolution. Hence the period couldn't be (1968-1969). Please enlighten me to see if I'm correct. I'm working on the translation of this article into traditional Chinese. Thank you for your attention.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Can the writer or anyone help elaborate the following? Thanks.
I've got no chance to read the referenced book, I thus have hard time understand the real meaning. Maybe a rephrasing can help. Thanks.

“After periods of imposed restrictions, women's educational attainment continued its rise through the Islamification of education following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, peaking in the years following radical changes in the curriculum and composition of classrooms.”ThomasYehYeh (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Relief of Sassanid King giving flower to his Queen.jpg

Orphaned references in Women in Iran
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Women in Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "books.google.se": From Women's suffrage: Heinonen, Jarna and Vainio-Korhonen, Kirsi (2018) Women in Business Families: From Past to Present. Routledge. ISBN 9781351796583 From Hijab by country: Stephanie Cronin: Anti-Veiling Campaigns in the Muslim World: Gender, Modernism and the ..., p. 229-236 From Women in Afghanistan: Julie Billaud: Kabul Carnival: Gender Politics in Postwar Afghanistan From Kashf-e hijab: ISBN 978-0-252-07189-8 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1979 Iranian Women Day's protests against Hijab.jpg