Talk:Kashf-e hijab

Weasel words

Pahlevun: Would you mind elaborating on this? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. This article is about a controversial topic and I assume that it was written this way to prevent a possible conflict in future. Words like "Western", "Scholars" and "Historians" are vague, ambiguous, inaccurate and aimed at creating an impression. Putting conclusional statements as facts, without proper attribution resembles illicit generalization. Reliable secondary sources are used in the article, however, the tone is of a tertiary source making evaluative summary out of them. Pahlevun (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's attributed by full names in references. --MehrdadFR (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:INTEXT. Pahlevun (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea indeed, I double checked. Still, regarding "Historians" please keep in mind that they all write the same regarding forcing, humiliation and alienation, so there's nothing ambiguous about it. If you insist, it can be done (you can even do it by yourself), but makes little sense. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue that I raised is not resolved yet. I assume that you are the architect of the current article, so I ask you to provide quotes from the sources. Let's begin with Historians state that this would have been a progressive step if women had indeed chosen to do it themselves, but instead this ban humiliated and alienated many Iranian women. Pahlevun (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to remove the deeply charged emotional language from the article, or at least to sandbox it in quotations and counterbalance it with the opposing viewpoint? As is, the article seems like a propaganda injection into Wikipedia. Jaimalalatete (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I support your suggestion: please remove emotional words. This article is far from neutral. As stated below, it contains a section about negative criticism, but not positive criticism. --Aciram (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made attempts to address this issue. The text was riddled with weasel words, insinuating that his was a horrible thing comparable to acts of Hitler (it actually said that not even Hitler had done something similar!), and phrases similar to "the hijab was a sign of virtue" rather than the more neutral and correct "the hijab was considered a sign of virtue by conservatives" - expressions that does not blatantly or openly takes sides, but on a closer look gives a deeply biased view of the subject from a Pro-hijab veiwpoint rather than a neutral one.--Aciram (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article

I respectfully dispute the neutrality of this article.

Consider that the people have very strong feelings about the Shah. This could result in corrupted data and misinterpretation. We need to consider how polarized the views of people are about the Shah.

We need to present both the negatives and positives of this ban.

Warm regards, 184.22.213.198 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This page is not about the Shah but Kashfe Hijab. The sources used appear neutral to me. And this policy was indeed as aggressive as the sources depict. Well, no better you can expect from a dictator. --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Strivingsoul

I also dispute the neutrality of this article. To be specific, the most flagrant bias can be spotted in this section: "The conservative view on unveiled women made them vulnerable to sexual harassment, while the hijab protected women from harassment because conservative men regarded them as more respectable. In order to participate in anti-Shah protests without being subjected to harassment, many women also started to wear the veil as protection. It was thus no longer considered a hindrance, but empowerment enabling access to public spheres without facing sexual harassment, since traditional customs made veiled women more respected, and thus less exposed to sexual harassment."

Not only is this paragraph not backed by any sources, it is worded in an incredibly misleading way. In what universe is it empowering to feel forced to wear a hijab in order to avoid harassment and participate in public life? One would usually call this oppression, not empowerment. Pazazzi (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The article seems like it was written by a propagandist. I agree that it is not neutral. It is a one-sided article about a three-sided topic. Jaimalalatete (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed not a neutral article. It gives a one-sided impression. It contains a section about negative criticism: it does not contain a section about the positive effects. For this to be a neutral article, it must contain both positive and negative criticism. Now, it only contains negative criticism. I needs a section of positiv criticism as well, for it to be regarded a neutral and encyclopedic article.--Aciram (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is good with no neutrality problem. This action did not have any positive effects recorded in history because it was a governmental order which was accompanied by killing or arresting anyone who refused it. It's quite clear that no one appreciates something which is implemented in an inhuman way. Even Shah, himself, decreased the severe way for implementing his order, after refusal by the society. --Doostdar (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from a discussion about subject of this article, we should focus on improvement of the article itself. The issues in this article has been raised since two years ago, and they have not been resolved yet. It suffers from excessive citations, editorializing, weasel words, etc. Pahlevun (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all the title of the article is wrong because "unveiling" (in Persian: کشف حجاب) is not restricted to this event merely but unveiling has happened in Iran many times and even in contemporary Iran we see "unveiling" by female artists and other women. Second, the unveiling by Reza Shah order was not a highlight in history because unveiling was started in earlier periods and Reza Shah decided to broadcast it. So it's quite natural that no one documented many of the details on that event. As I said "unveiling" (in Persian: کشف حجاب) is a general term and it's not correct to attribute it to Reza Shah merely. --Doostdar (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what this article is about, Doostdar. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion some how this article can be merged with its aftermath Goharshad Mosque rebellion to be more clear. --Doostdar (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Talk on article, not me! I'm not the target! --Doostdar (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The book A History of Modern Iran by Abrahamian is used as a citation for these two parts:

1. "Despite all legal pressures and obstacles, the largest proportion of Iranian women continued to wear veils or chadors, contrary to widespread opposing claims"
2. "Earlier in the mid-1930s, only four thousand out of 6.5 million Iranian women ventured into public places without veils, almost all in Tehran and consisting mainly of Western-educated daughters of the upper class, foreign wives of recent returnees from Europe, and middle-class women from the minorities"

I checked pages 84, 94 and 95 and I can assure that the first phrase is not backed by the source (I have not checked other citations, but Abrahamian clearly does not support that). In the second phrase, the source is discussing the situation before the event took place (while the article does not), and though it mentions the number 4,000, the part "only out of 6.5 million" is editorialized by the editor. The user who added this part seems long inactive, but this is the kind of problem that exists in almost whole article. Pahlevun (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Abrahamian in his book believes that a large part of Iranian women like old women continued to wear veils or chadors. Goharshad Mosque rebellion is an aftermath of this public backlash. Don't you agree with that? I don't see any questionable claims there. --Doostdar (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My personal opinion on this matter is irrelevant to this topic. A source should support the content it is used to do, but the source clearly fails to support the first instance. The tone of Abrahamian is not "only four thousand out of 6.5 million", he is simply describing the social norms before the event took place. Words such "only" and "out of 6.5 million" –the latter is not mentioned at all– are used to make a point that the source does not make. Pahlevun (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun: The content you're questioning was added by the page creator but he is not active at the moment to be responsive as to which source supports the content (I mean #1). Before making a true judgment, other sources need to be addressed, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahlevun. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Abrahamian's book was the only book that I could access at that time. Pahlevun (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Viel

Hijab is not a viel. There should be some tidying up.49.178.171.232 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

What is a "viel"? Unless one is German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.40.110 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Veil. Sorry.49.178.171.232 (talk) 08:30, 8 January 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:

• 1979 Iranian Women Day's protests against Hijab.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (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:

• Iranian Revolution Women.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing by Aciram

This user promotes claims which contradict the given sources, claiming they were “free” to choose dress althought books speak about widespread discrimination. There are other issues as well, a reception part is a pure example of false balance, because it was universaly condemned inside and out, and I see she removed scholarly comparisons with Stalinist and Fascist regimes. That’s called whitewashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.112.179.185 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This article had, for a long time, intense problems with bias, which was be seen in this talk page.

The bias was directed toward portraying this event as one of the worst that had occurred in the history of the country. It was compared to the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin. It was phrased in weasly ways to make it appear as if 100 % of Iranians disaproved of the reform, and that almost all Iranian women started to wear the hijab again as soon as the ban was lifted in 1941.

This was obvious misinformation. The opinions about the reform was different within the country. For example, the women's movement supported it, and some women had started to unveil prior to i;, and after 1941, women did indeed have the choice to weil or unveil, although there was some discrimination if they veiled. This is fully verifiable in the referenced text books.

Because of this, the neutrality of the article was heavily contested for years. Basically, it stated the official policy of the currect Iranian regime: that all Iranian women wanted the hijab, that all oposed the reform, that the reform was one of the worst atrocities ever to occurr in Iran, comparable to the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin; and that almost all started to wear the veil again.

Eventually, a couple of years ago now, the article was corrected for neutrality. In its currect state, the article offer a more balanced view: the obvious propaganda comparissons to Hitler and Stalin are removed; it presents both the views of those who oposed and those who supported the reforms; and it states that women were free to veil or unveil after 1941, even though there were some discrimination faced for veiled women in the period of 1941-1979. All of this is referenced.

For the last couple of days, we have an IP-user who edits this article based in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He/she demands that the article be edited to conform to the official view of the Islamic Republic: that the reform was comparable to atrocities of Hitler and Stalin; that every Iranian universially oposed it; that women were not free to veil or unveil in the 1941-1979 period. The user have erased referenced information in the article that contradicts this, questioned the article's neutrality, accused a user (me) of bias and tried in several ways to adjust the article to fit the bias view of the Islamic Republic, from which this IP-adress is editing.

I will now warn this IP-User: if you continue, you will be reported and may risk being banned from editing.

To other editors: I ask that this article be protected. Considering the current events in Iran, this subject is obviously extremely sensitive. Thank you!--Aciram (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I request that this IP will be blocked. Even civility rules alone justifies action from wikipedia. He has referred to me as "rv bigoted, biased Swedish bimbo".--Aciram (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It was Homa Katouzian who made such comparison with totalitarian regimes. An UK-based academic from Oxford, and you removed it simply because of personal bias. Even Reza Shah, his mother, son and family distanced themselves from this event, so it was universaly condemned. You claimed that then feminist movenment adored repressive policies, which is a blunt lie. Not even Westernized women supported it. Finally, yes, I do live in Islamic Republic of Iran, 99% of Iranians voted for it, and your primitive hate can not change it. Swedish regime obviously brainwashed you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.112.179.185 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Please quit making personal attacks. Discuss the content, not the editor. Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

She started with threating me just because of my IP location, its clear from history. I discussed only content and nothing more. Aciram also confuses this 5 year long event with unveiling in general, which lasted later and even today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.112.179.185 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care who started it. Get WP:Consensus on your proposed changes here, like an adult. Wikishovel (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

To me, it seem apparent that this user is not able to have a constructive and civil discussion about the issue. For example: they say the reform was "universially" condemned, although the article already have references to the contrary, which to me suggest that such a discussion would not be honest. The references are there: anyone can check them. The article in its currect state is not biased: it already clearly states that there were different opinions in Iran about the reform, and they have references. Still, the user claim the article is not neutral, and want it to claim it was "universially condemned". That does not demonstrate that this user supports neutrality. The user call me "brainwashed by the Swedish regime", which clearly demonstrate that this is not a serious user. I see little meaning in a conversation with this user. The article should be protected from being subjected to bias editing. --Aciram (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the same issues from your side, because even tag and removing irrelevant photos irke you. The basic issue here is that you confuse two things: 5-years-long decree and unveiling in general. The article is about the decree only. Perhaps you confused it as you don’t know Persian, so OK. No one had positive view about decree, especially after its consequences. Not even unveiled Westernized women. In intro, you claim something contrary to virtually all listed books. Seems like you haven’t even opened it. You assumed bad faith based only on my IP, because you obviously held Iranophobic bigotry. A fact. You also start threatening and to brag about “regime” which further shows your bias, like every Iranian citizen of is part of the government or we all have the same views. My comment about Swedish regime was an ironical response to your using the same vocabulary. Unlike you, I’m not calling here to mute you. Wikipedia ain’t a totalitarian site, all people can object, so can you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.112.179.185 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked the books Aciram added and as expected, she’s confusing the decree and unveiling. Perhaps her ignorance of Persian led to this, as native term is often literally translated as unveiling, but in literature it refers to the decree. The current text states that Afzal Vaziri campaigned for forcing policies, but in linked book she favors clothing plurality and is against forcing. I hope Aciram can understand that favoring unveiling doesn’t imply favoring forced unveiling of all women. Parvin Etesami is another similar example, favoring liberalization of dress code, not the decree. Is Aciram aware that every larger Iranian city has a street named after her? Would that be possible if she really supported the decree? I kindly suggest Aciram to correct this confusion, this article should treat the decree, and material she added can be transferred to general articles like Hijab in Iran and etc. 5.116.52.138 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Protection of page

This article is being exposed to persistent bias editing from an IP based in the Islamic Republic of Iran, who appear to adjust it by removing referenced information to fit the official narrative and policy of the Iranian regime.

This article had, for a long time, intense problems with bias, which was be seen in this talk page.

The bias was directed toward portraying this event as one of the worst that had occurred in the history of the country. It was compared to the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin. It was phrased in weasly ways to make it appear as if 100 % of Iranians disaproved of the reform, and that almost all Iranian women started to wear the hijab again as soon as the ban was lifted in 1941.

This was obvious misinformation. The opinions about the reform was different within the country. For example, the women's movement supported it, and some women had started to unveil prior to it, and after 1942, women did indeed have the choice to weil or unveil, although there was some discrimination if the veiled. This is fully verifiable in referenced text books.

Because of this, the neutrality of the article was heavily contested for neutrality for years. Basically, it stated the official policy of the currect Iranian regime: that all Iranian women wanted the hijab, that all oposed the reform, that the reform was one of the worst atrocities ever to occurr in Iran, comparable to the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin; and that almost all started to wear the veil again.

Eventually, a couple of years ago now, the article was corrected for neutrality. In its currect state, the article offer a more balanced view: the obvious propaganda comparissons to Hitler and Stalin are removed; it presents both the views of those who oposed and those who supported the reforms; and it states that women were free to veil or unveil after 1941, even though there were some discrimination faced for veiled women in the period of 1941-1979. All of this is referenced.

For the last couple of days, we have an IP-user who edits this article based in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He/she demands that the article be edited to conform to the official view of the Islamic Republic: that the reform was comparable to atrocities of Hitler and Stalin; that every Iranian universially oposed it; that women were not free to veil or unveil in the 1941-1979 period. The user have erased referenced information in the article that contradicts this, questioned the article's neutrality, accused a user (me) of bias and tried in several ways to adjust the article to fit the bias view of the Islamic Republic, from which this IP-adress is editing.

I will now warn this IP-User: if you continue, you will be reported and may risk being banned from editing.

To other editors: I ask that this article be protected. Considering the current events in Iran, this subject is obviously extremely sensitive. Thank you!--Aciram (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aciram and 5.112.179.185: please WP:Assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. There may be a misunderstanding which can be solved by discussion rather than WP:Edit warring. Please keep the discussion civil, and try to arrive at a compromise on the content of the article. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)