Talk:Farah Pahlavi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WikiProject Iran Farah Pahlavi is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

About the added Gay category, Is there any evidence we can be provided with that shows Farah is a Gay icon?--Zereshk 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Disagreement between Editors and Request for Input and Consensus

I vote for inclusion of public opinion about the former empress's memoirs since it was world news when it was published, the first time she had gone on record about her life, her husband's reign, et cetera. Unfortunately, none of the reviews was particularly good, and the New York Times's review reflected the general tone. Mowens35 17:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place of Birth

As far as I know she was born in Tabriz. See The persian article.

[edit] Should she be referred to as Empress?

I think not. Couter-Revolutionary thinks she should. --SandyDancer 14:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Her highest ruling title was as The Empress of Iran. This is an undisputed historical FACT. As she ruled Iran, with her Husband, as Empress, She should be referred to as Empress Farah.--Couter-revolutionary 14:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • However, all imperials titles have been abolished, so she is known as Empress out of courtesy, nothing more.Mowens35 19:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That is the only reason Wikipedia does it, yes. Although in my own view the titles haven't been abolished as no one, except perhaps the Shah himself, has the autority to do so. Wikipedia, however, should refer to her as Empress out of courtesey, yes.--Couter-revolutionary 20:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do we suppose Wikipedia should call someone by a title out of courtesy? Sure, WP should mention the fact some people, principally monarchists like your good self, refer to her as this-or-that out of courtesy, but arguably its a breach of WP:NPOV to describe her as Empress as if it is objective fact. --SandyDancer 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
But guidelines say they are to be known by their highest ruling title. I assume this is out of courtesey.--Couter-revolutionary 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Even the cover of her recent memoir gives the author's name as "Farah Pahlavi". I think just about sets things straight; she is Farah Pahlavi (first name, surname) now, legally, but known, out of courtesy to her former abolished position (as are many ex royals), as Empress Farah, though she calls herself Empress Farah Pahlavi, which is another thing altogether. In any case, what's the hubbub bubs? All this is mentioned in the first graph, clearly and succinctly. Let's move on. FYI Counterrevolutionary, you've caught yourself in a POV hard place by stating "although in my own view the titles haven't been abolished as no one, except perhaps the Shah himself, has the authority to do so." Actually, the government of Iran, which succeeded the Pahlavi dynasty, outlawed any and all monarchical titles and styles about two decades ago. They are, like many ex royal families, now null and void, their titles outlawed by legal decree. Again, let's move on. This is an encyclopaedia, not a coffee klatch of imperial groupies. And FYI Counter, your article about the last heir apparent to the throne of Sarawak uses his regular name, sans the last highest held title he once used and has now renounced, so you're being inconsistent. If Wiki guidelines say ex royals "are to be known by their highly ruling title," then you've got some editing to do. Get busy. Mowens35 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Couter-revolutionary which wikipedia guideline are you referring to? --- Melca 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines,can I believe, be found in previous discussions, there should be a link on my talk page somewhere. Above I stated my PoV, everyone has a PoV, you will, however, note I did not let it influence my argument. I did not try and claim that she is the Empress because no there is no authority to dissolve these titles.--Couter-revolutionary 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Couter-revolutionary i cant find which guideline you are referring to. Please quote it here. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style guideline explicitly states that "Styles and honorifics.. should not be included in the text inline" and "Styles should not be used to open articles on royalty". --- Melca 22:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
These are not styles or honourifics but titles. A style would be, for example, Her Imperial Majesty in this case or The Rt. Hon. in others. A title is different, Empress is a title not a style or honourific. Hope this clarifies things. --Couter-revolutionary 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Any government has the authority to rescind any honors, titles, et cetera, of any former title holders, as is seen clearly in the dissolution of the German empire, the French monarchy, et cetera, all of whose governments formally stripped royals and nobles from their ancestral titles, making such titles null and void and, in the case of Germany, illegal as titles but legal as surnames.Mowens35 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with you but am not using this as a point of argument at the moment, fear not.--Couter-revolutionary 00:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is irrelevant to this discussion whether the title was formally abolished. Is Shah Abbas not "Shah" Abbas anymore just because the monarchy was replaced by a theocracy? Shervink 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)shervink
I personally believe this discuss to be entirely irrelevant; the article is accurate, factual, and fully referenced.Mowens35 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems you misunderstood me. I believe the title should be included, because it existed at the time of the Pahlavi monarchy. That it was later abolished is not a reason to exclude it from the article. Shervink 11:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)shervink
I think you misunderstood me; it is already mentioned in the article. Why are we going back and forth on this? It is already in the article, in the opening graphs and elsewhere.Mowens35 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Because there are people here who will never be happy until Wikipedia tells the reader that monarchies can never be abolished and we are ruled forever and ever by a few wonderful families who are all descended from the goddess Venus etc etc (or "&c" if you fancy being pretentious), and only "marxists" don't accept that ... it grows tiresome, it really does. --SandyDancer 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Was just thinking. Presumably, this article should, by Wiki standards, be titled "Farah, Empress of Iran". Why? Because it seems that Wiki allows the last-ranking title to be used, even when the person has been exiled, the throne abolished, et cetera (see Leka, Crown Prince of Albania, etc). Can we start a vote on this? Just to keep it consistent within Wiki as per other articles of former rulers?Mowens35 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exile section

Is not accurate. I don't have time to re-write it now, but I will later today or tomorrow. The Shah and Empress Farah did not just stay in Egypt. They lived in the Bahamas and the USA, and possibly Mexico (need to research that part) before being given sanctuary in Egypt. It was truly shocking how almost all of the Shah's allies turned their backs on him after the revolution. This should definitely be included. Jeffpw 10:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)