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)