Talk:Iranian Revolution/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Good sources 2 Reply to youre Statement 3 modernisation 4 corruption 5 Bahá'í Faith 6 Muharram 7 POV 8 Nomination for worst article 9 Recommended Book 10 POV 11 Amphiboly 12 Page Redirect 13 Recent Changes 14 Re:Recent Changes 15 Allegations without support 16 Wikipedia’s State of Censorship 17 The Islamic Revolution article 18 The Man Who Claims to Know Everything, Knows Nothing! 19 What about the Soviet role during and after the revolution? 20 Some Changes 21 Ali Shariati's murder? 22 cites 23 Unprotected 24 Shorting introductory section 25 very pro shah 26 Deletion of intro sentences 27 Proposed compromise over intro sentences 28 AA Milne, Why are you undoing edits of citations? 29 Problem with a statement made 30 Neutrality issues 31 Alleged Defects in Neutrality and Cleanliness 32 Too many "foreign words" 33 issue about Rastakhiz Party dues 34 Requested move 34.1 Survey 34.1.1 Survey - Support votes 34.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 34.2 Discussion 35 Has mass cultural focus on Islam "been a 1000000000000000% success"? 36 Misc changes 37 clarity of the lead 38 constitutional monarchy 39 Two POV

Good sources

this is probably the most biased and ignorant article i have read in my life. untruths are a plenty in this page, the shah did not show violence to the people, he was criticized by his peers for showing to little, cancer had taken his energy and he did not have the will or the heart to hurt the people, this went against him. if anything the current regime on the aftermath of the revolution executed 1000's of people, sooo hypocritical!

iran was in economic prosperity, the people had alot of money in their hands, there was relatively good equalitly within the nation, only a communist like the author would say that the revolution has bough prosperity to the people and equality, i would not call a nation with a minimum wage of 2-3 dollars an hour as prosperous the poorest in the shahs period were making more, irans employment was so competitive that it had 1 million foreighn workers working in iran.

all the shah wanted to do was modernize the country elevate it further in the economics side of things, of course igonorance of the population is not fully to blame, the english and the americans were the architects of the scheme and only a minority of khars wanted to have revolution, well i hope those koofts are happy now, iran has been screwed over its economy will take decades to recover after what this 'revolutionaries' have done

ps stop shitting on about the SAVAKS, they were harmless the revoltionary gaurds and there anti fun sentiments, beating up people for showing to much hair or holding hands, or playing music are much worse, iran human rights level has dropped to sewage low the level of brain dead leaders want it to be.

Reply to youre Statement

Listen you Savak lover this rubbish you are talking about brakes my Heart. You dont know about Mohammad Reza Shah, he was an Monster who used the Marchall Plan payed by the USA to a stupid festival in Shriaz while poor people in Iranian cities did not Electricty and did not have enogugh food. Second The SAVAK tortured my two Uncles who could become the most sucesfull people of the World but SAVAK gave them Whips and Electroschocks which you never will understand. SAVAK killed Shariati, Takhti and many Inoccent people and this is not bad. If you are an Iranian then look at the good things which the Islamic Republic did for its people. Many cities have Elctricty and people who lost loved one in the Iran Iraq war are helped. The goverment supports the needs of Students and the Iranian Universities are becoming one of the best in our Region. There are to steps which you can do, one is that you can Complain till youre rest of the Islamic Republic or stand up and help the Country in youre talents because all Iranian can make our Country one of the best

This obviously needs loads. The following may help:

• BBC on the iranian revolution
• A trotksyist prepective on the lead up
• A shia perspective
• From world history

Secretlondon 23:25, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've done a blunt stab at some basic information. I hope it can serve as a starting point. ✏ Sverdrup 00:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas for a breakdown of this topic? (ala Academia) Ambivalenthysteria 09:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if the info exists for such an outline, but this is a possibility if there is enough depth of info, with necessary mods (probably overly ambitious); feel free to mess with this outline as necessary, if people find it to be useful--Confuzion 03:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Precursors to the revolution
  • Condition inside of Iran before the revolution
    • social
    • religious
    • political
    • economic
    • political
  • Who supported the status quo, and Why
    • Members inside Iran - breakdown by ethnicity, race, status, age, gender, education, etc
    • Western Nations - Why certain nations supported the shah
      • United States support
      • UK support
  • Who opposed the status quo, and Why
    • Members inside Iran
    • Nations outside of Iran
• Escalation of tensions
  • Protests
    • Important protests (dates, locations, size, demographics and Why)
      • i.e., Carter's visit to Iran
      • Black Friday
    • Government and Western Response
• The actual revolution
  • Timeline of events for transition of governments
• Consolidation of power
  • Exile of previous regime
  • Purges?
• Post-revolutionary impact
  • Inside of Iran
  • Western/US-Iranian relations
  • Relations to neighboring regimes

I think that sounds excellent. Would make the revolution a lot easier to write about. If you want to put it in header-format (provided no one else has any objections), I'll start filling things in. Ambivalenthysteria 04:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Pjamescowie, those "vague lists" you took out were meant to be possible headers, but converted to list format to avoid cluttering up the table of contents until content is added... restructure if you want, but don't just delete it with no justification --Random|832 16:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's fine.... But I did provide justification..... The lists did look pretty vague and didn't make any sense -even apparently contradictory - as they read originally. Sorry, my mind-reading powers must be at a low ebb! lol. Maybe leave a statement of intent next time..... Make it clear.

Listen you Savak lover this bullshit you are talking about brakes my Heart. You dont know about Mohammad Reza Shah, she was an Monster who used the Marchall Plan payed by the USA to a stupid festival in Shriaz while poor people in Iranian cities did not Electricty and did not have enogugh food. Second The SAVAK tortured my two Uncles who could become the most sucesfull people of the World but SAVAK gave them Whips and Electroschocks which you never will understand. SAVAK killed Shariati, Takhti and many Inoccent people and this is not bad. If you are an Iranian then look at the good things which the Islamic Republic did for its people. Many cities have Elctricty and people who lost loved one in the Iran Iraq war are helped. The goverment supports the needs of Students and the Iranian Universities are becoming one of the best in our Region. There are to steps which you can do, one is that you can Complain till youre rest of the Islamic Republic or stand up and help the Country in youre talents because all Iranian can make our Country one of the best

modernisation

They wanted the basic Islamic lifestyle to return, in opposition to the Shah's efforts for modernism and progress, which they believed to be westernization.

"modernism", "progress", and "westernisation" are all vague words with political undertones. It almost sounds like we're arguing that the Shah was right, but those stupid people didn't understand how great his reforms were. What, specifically, did the Shah try to achieve that the people opposed? None of these words serve much use here. DanKeshet 18:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

corruption

I am a bit astonished by the assertion that the Iranian revolution has brought a reduction in corruption. Could this be supported by any evidence? Refdoc 21:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It has not brought a reduction in corruption. If anything, the level of corruption during the Shah's regime has sustained, and in some cases, increased since the revolution. To put it bluntly, the royal corruption has been replaced with the corruption of religious zealots. TheSunTheSea 20:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith

In the section on "Internal opposition to the regime" it states that the Bahá'ís were opposed to the regime. This is not true. While the Bahá'ís did suffer quite a bit after the revolution, as noted in the section below the named section, and would have had an easier time with the previous Pahlavi regime, one of the Bahá'í laws is to be obedient to the government of the country they are residing in. The Bahá'ís have had many disagreements with the government, for example on the basis of not being able to go to higher education, but the Bahá'ís have never done something to oppose the regime. -- Navidazizi 00:33, Dec 31, 2004

I agree with this statement. The Baha'is did not oppose the Shah's regime nor do they oppose the current Islamic Republic. While both regimes have not been in favor of the Baha'is, the adherents to the Baha'i Faith are not involved in politics and, as the last user mentioned, they are required to be obedient to their government. -- TheSunTheSea 22:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Bahá'ís have always been obedient to the government, both before the revolution and after, because this is one of the laws of the Bahá'í Faith as enunciated by its founder, Bahá'u'lláh. For the past 27 years, Bahá'í students have been denied access to higher eduction because of their religion. When applying to universities, these students are forced to identify themselves as muslims, which is tantamount to the denial of their religion. Thus, they are denied education. During the past year (2005), the government had promised to change its policies and allow Bahá'í students to attend university, but once again they were denied this basic human right. The Iranian Government continues to oppress Bahá'ís, amid international pressures from the UN and human rights groups.

Muharram

I think the current version "one of the most important months" is a lot better than "most important Shia holiday", firstly it is a whole month rather than a few (holi)days, secondly while full of religious festivals work continues largely throughout the month, making the term holiday somewhat dodgy and finally Ramazan is arguably equally or even more important. Refdoc 00:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV

It says in the first para that Iran post-Revolution was a "theocratic democracy". Democracy? Yes, Iran runs elections. But is it a democracy? NO. Most of the most important position are appointed by the Supreme Leader, who is unelected. Shuld this be changed? Batmanand 14:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this is probably the most biased and ignorant article i have read in my life. untruths are a plenty in this page, the shah did not show violence to the people, he was criticized by his peers for showing to little, cancer had taken his energy and he did not have the will or the heart to hurt the people, this went against him. if anything the current regime on the aftermath of the revolution executed 1000's of people, sooo hypocritical!

iran was in economic prosperity, the people had alot of money in their hands, there was relatively good equalitly within the nation, only a communist like the author would say that the revolution has bough prosperity to the people and equality, i would not call a nation with a minimum wage of 2-3 dollars an hour as prosperous the poorest in the shahs period were making more, irans employment was so competitive that it had 1 million foreighn workers working in iran.

all the shah wanted to do was modernize the country elevate it further in the economics side of things, of course igonorance of the population is not fully to blame, the english and the americans were the architects of the scheme and only a minority of khars wanted to have revolution, well i hope those koofts are happy now, iran has been screwed over its economy will take decades to recover after what this 'revolutionaries' have done

ps stop shitting on about the SAVAKS, they were harmless the revoltionary gaurds and there anti fun sentiments, beating up people for showing to much hair or holding hands, or playing music are much worse, iran human rights level has dropped to sewage low the level of brain dead leaders want it to be.

The POV of the article is pretty neutral; however I do think some of the stats do need citations. As for what you’re saying, here is what is wrong with your arguments strawman and ad hominem-- Klymen

Nomination for worst article

It seems the "Iranian revolution" article is just a forum with bits and pieces of personal feelings. opinions and counter-opinions. Why don't we try to make this a neutral article based on facts?

• You are making highly POV and inaccurate changes and deleting large amounts of content. You are, for instance, deleting anything that could hint at the causes of the revolution. It is also highly incorrect to refer to the entire event as the Islamic Revolution, which was only the second phase of it. Please stop. - SimonP 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is absolutely unbelievable that this is deemed a "good article". It has several huge factual errors, things which can be looked up in any school book. What is the notion of "The Shah agreed to introduce a constitution" about? The Shah was asked to leave by the prime minister, not forced to flee as written here. The executions after the revolution were aimed not only at SAVAK (perhaps even least notably so), but mostly at military personnel, former cabinet members, officials, academics, and even non-monarchists (in later years). These are just examples. And I am surprised to see that this is called impartial, in fact claiming that the population in Iran were poor whereas by all accounts they were in the best economic situation in the entire history of the country, is ridiculous. This article needs serious revision. It most definitely does not qualify as a good article yet, and I feel obliged to remove the "good article" box. Shervink 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)shervink

• Some facts that were left out of the article. Here is my take on the last 50+ years of Iranian history. Prior to WWII the British were the biggest influence in Iran. The British were there for the oil. 1953: U.S. backs the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. The CIA admitedly paid for an assasanation. Supposedly he was killed because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Then the U.S. supports the Shah for decades. In 1979 during protests his American trained and equipped troops kill thousands of civilians who were peacefully protesting his American backed regime. Americans are suprised when Iranians throw out the tyrant Shah and take over the embassy of the country that supported him for 25 years. Once in power, the Ayatollas create a strict Islamic state. President Jimmy Carter fails the release of the hostages and a rescue mission ended in the deaths of the rescuers. President Reagan then negotiated the release of the hostages, later to pay back Iran by providing weapons through Israel and paid for by questionable means (Iran-Contra). The weapons were to help Iran fight their war with Iraq. Iraq was using weapons sold to them by the U.S. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers and civilians. In 1983 the U.S. sends Donald Rumsfeld to improve relations with Saddam http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ knowing he kills dissidents, imprisons or kills political opponents, and has used chemical weapons on Iranians and Iraqi's. The most recent revelation that the CIA shuttled captives to secret torture prisons in eastern Europe continues the legacy of American disgrace and dishonesty, which is almost entirely hidden from the American people. And yet again Americans wonder why their government is disliked in the Middle East. My experience in travelling in the Middle East for decades is that the people there do not hate Americans, they hate the hypocritical American government policies. There has yet been an American government that deserves the respect of these people. I can only hope that someday there will be.

"Reagan then negotiated the release of the hostages". This is a rather ludicrous statement since, as Wikipedia mentions, "The release [of the hostages] took place just minutes after Ronald Reagan was officially sworn in as president." The Carter administration negotiated the release of the hostages. Reagan was able to announce the release only through the coincidences of the American electoral calendar. Furthermore, Iran-Contra was as wholly divorced from the hostage crisis as a thing involving the same two nations can be. Again, Wikipedia notes that the hostages alleged to have been at the heart of Iran-Contra -- though this was denied by Reagan at the time -- were held by Hezbollah and taken later. The significance to this article's point of the fact that the US was funding both sides in the Iran-Iraq war -- which fact I do not dispute -- escapes me. There is surely room to improve the article, but ranting about the corruption or hypocrisy of various American governments, however accurate, is not productive. Czrisher 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommended Book

• What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran, Payvand News, March 10, 2006.

POV

Far too polemical and one-sided and needs some rewriting to remove POV and major corrections and clarifications regarding the more controversial issues. SouthernComfort 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

how so? Joeyramoney 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Amphiboly

"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was returned to power in Iran after he had fled the country in 1953."

Did he flee in 1953, or was he returned to power in 1953? - Unsigned comment by 68.51.84.214

According to Operation Ajax, both. Kirbytime 01:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Redirect

I just noticed the page is now redirected to Islamic Revolution of Iran, was this discussed and I missed/cannot find it? If not shouldn't a significant change like this be discussed before the change is made?

My personal view is that titling the page the Islamic revolution assumes that the movement was motivated by religion, whereas the Islamic portion of the revolution only occurred later, even though it had a greater lasting effect. As noted above it's incorrect to refer to the whole revolution as the Islamic Revolution. Secondary is the fact that most people searching google for an article on this subject would be looking for the Iranian Revolution rather than the Islamic Revolution of Iran. CRobey 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The unilateral redirecting of this page has been an ongoing problem. You are quite right that the current title is the better one, and such redirections should be revereted. - SimonP 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Recent changes continuously discarded by someone called “Pecher”. It seems the person in question has leniency to the terrorist regime in Tehran, who insists to portray Islamic revolution as a progressive event in Iran and its’ leader, the man who was responsible of massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in one year, 1.2 million deaths, 300,000 political prisoners, 300,000 disables, the main cause of current poverty, prostitution and drug abuse in Iran, as a holy man and a liberator!

Please assume good faith. Also, the version of the article you are trying to insert is highly POV and filled with unsubstantiated facts not accepted by any mainstream historians. Plecher was quite right to revert these changes. - SimonP 20:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the corrections that I have made to her/his article are "unsubstantiated facts"? Are you an authority in this field? At the end each event mentioned in my revised article, reference(s) given, in contrary to his article; - have you checked all the references, and came to conclusion that my contribution is based on "unsubstantiated facts"?

Re:Recent Changes

"....and filled with unsubstantiated facts not accepted by any mainstream historians"?! What historian? Do you mean "Western Media" that toppled a regime that was no perfect, but at least was going towards right direction, and were replaced with a tyrant and terrorist regime by West. The article that I have re-written based on your own article and information published in "Mission to Tehran" by US General Robert E Huyser; "37 Days" by Dr Shapur Bakhtiar, tha last Prime minter of Shah; "What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran" by Ernst Schroeder; "The last Shah of Iran" Houchang Nahavandi; memoir of Sir Anthony Parsons, the last British ambassador to Tehran prior to revolution, and many other written memoirs and analysis by vetren politician who were involved (directly or indirectly) in that plot, which the Western media have portrayed it as Revolution - Surena ^Talk.

You're filling the article with poorly written conspiracist nonsense presented as facts. Please read WP:NPOV before doing such sweeping changes; you must have the majority of historians on your side to present your POV the way you're doing. In addition, sign your comments, please, and refrain from personal attacks. Pecher ^Talk 09:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your claims regarding Islamic revolution are baseless, and complete falsification of the history. You have included good bibliography list, I suggest that you read them first, then preach and claim an authority. However, if it is poorly written, please forgive yourself, since the article that I have submitted is based on your own, and I only have corrected your mistakes, and removed the historical distortions. Joseph Goebbels was written Hitler’s speeches in perfect German, but what has happened to his propaganda machine? It is better to write poorly than misinform the public - Surena, 11 June 2006.

I have studied the Iranin Revolution in some detail, and while this article is imperfect it does reflect the generally accepted scholarship. Please stop edit warring and desist from personal attacks, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - SimonP 18:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are clueless about the Iranian revolution in contrary to your claim. Reading few coffee-table books in comfort of your home, won't make you an authority in this field. The article here has no historical back ups or authenticity, and lack of references at the end of each event mentioned in your article, makes it more unreliable. Again, I suggest that you read the bibliography that has been included in the article, and then you will realize how misunderstood and mislead you are. I have done my best to put you in right direction, which is based on historical facts, but as an old-English saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink”; - With regard to “personal attack”, it is more “personal observation”, and if you care to read Pecher’s contributions, and his disrespect for others' contributions, you will learn that we are dealing with a fundamentalist -- Surena 13 June 2006.

Allegations without support

Various consiracy-theory type allegations are being made in the version of the article that some are trying to support. Something as scandalous as attributing Black Friday to Palestinian militants, as in the comment

But in later years was revealed that it was not the conscripts of the imperial army who opened fire on demonstrators, but a group of Palestinian mercenaries, in Imperial Army’s outfit, brought to Iran via Iraq by unknown sources.

should not be stated here unless it has significant factual support. To include it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

If you would have read the references included at the end of the paragraph, prior to your censorship and deletion of the article, then you would have realized that is factual and based on historical events. It seems it is easier to distort history by shouting "conspiracy theory". As a Greek philosopher once said: It is easier to deny knowledge, than understanding it - People are afraid of knowing the truth. Unfortunately, this saying is applied here, to these pages - a correct article replaced with a hoax story, suitable to Islamic regime and their supporters, about a revolution that until now resulted in 1.2 million deaths, 300,000 political prisoners and a country in a state of disarray. It is a disgraceful act by Wikipedia to permits historical-distortion, and supports the rule of tyranny and terrorism – Surena 13 June 2006.

Firstly, I doubt anyone here is an apologist for the Islamist regime, and your allegations are personal attacks and must stop. Secondly your theories that the Iranian Revolution was a British plot is certainly not the accepted view among scholars of this subject. Academics are hardly noted for their Western propagandizing, but I have never read of one that accepted this theory. If you could cite some who do support this theory, it could be inserted as an alternate view, but there is no way this revisionist view will be the main one presented by the article. Also, this is not the article to catalogue the many human rights abuses of the post-Revolutionary regime. The article already mentions the abuses, and more detail would be better suited to an article such as human rights in Iran. - SimonP 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s State of Censorship

To SimonP - You keep saying Scholars, but how many books have you ever read about Iranian revolution? I believe NONE, otherwise you wouldn’t deny British and Western involvement in that revolute. The problem with most people like you is that they accept whatever Media are feeding them with; -and by watching few TV programs and reading some short essays published in newspapers or few coffee-table books they think that they know everything. I was one of the active members of opposition to Shah and his regime, and now I know how wrong and mislead I was. However, it is too late to change the history, but at least we can inform the future generations about the truth and real events have taken palce during that reolution, and warn them about the hazardous and obstacles on their ways, in quest for democracy, freedom and civil society. You have asked for references, here are few of many books to study in depth, and hopefully you will learn something about "Iranian revolution" and the Scholars that you use them as reference in vain, which will help you not to be so reluctant to accept the not-so shocking reality:

• Mission to Tehran by US General Robert E Huyser
• 37 Days by Dr Shapur Bakhtiar (the last Prime minter of Shah);
• A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, by Ernst Schroeder
• The last Shah of Iran H. Nahavandi
• Memoir of Sir Anthony Parsons (the last British ambassador to Tehran prior to revolution)
• The Seven Sisters; The Great Oil Companies and the World they Made, by Anthony Sampson
• The Rise and Fall of Shah, by Amin Saikal
• The Shah’s Story, by Michael Hoseph
• Power and Principles, by Zbigniew Brezenski
• Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, by W. Lewis & M. Ledeen
• MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service by Stephen Dorril
• Centre Européen d'Information, 1963 Report, Re: Khomeini and Kashani's relationship with Western Secret Services.

The above-mentioned books were the core for correction of the mislead-article here that you are reluctantly trying to propagate and mislead the public. Hopefully after reading the above-mentioned books by the ‘’Scholars’’ and politicians involved in Iran-affair, then you'll be able to ease Wikipedia Police-order and the state of censorship that have been imposed here – Finally as mentioned before, please do not mistake “Personal Observations”, with “Personal Attacks”, try not to be so faint-hearted, and accept critics and prepare to correct yourself, when proven wrong – Truth & Justice will Always Prevail - Surena, 14 June 2006.

The Islamic Revolution article

Someone made a new article today called The Islamic Revolution. Almost all of it's content was created on the first posting, so I'm thinking this is a copyvio. Nonetheless, there is some good information in there, which I think should be used to expand on this article. I was going to nominate it for deletion, but I think this is a better way of dealing with it. I wanted to add {{mergefrom|The Islamic Revolution}} to this article, but it's currently locked. Would someone mind adding it? ♠ SG →Talk 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That article is actuially just a copy of this one, but with a very strong POV added. There isn't much worth merging, so I've simply redirected it here. - SimonP 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! That sounds perfectly good to me. I have a feeling a revert war is about to start, so, just a heads up that this might have to go to VfD. ♠ SG →Talk 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was a corrected version of "Iranian Revolution", which never permitted to be on-line more than few hours, since it was to controversial, and distasteful to Wikipedia Censorship Department. I remember those days when Wikipedia was established, considered to be a safe heaven for free-writers of pro-democracy; it was a forum and e-encyclopaedia of freedom of information, which was not controled by Media propaganda machine, but nowadays it became same as other encyclopaedias, a subservient of state of censorship. Therefore, new motto should be: Wikipedia, The Imprisoned Encyclopedia - Surena 14 June 2006

My suggestion is that you go to Wikinfo. It is a version of Wikipedia that allows both original research and POV articles. They currently do not have anything on the Iranian Revolution, and would gladly accept your piece. - SimonP 13:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

To St. SimonP - Thanks you for telling me about Wikinfo; -I had no knowledge of it; I am so indebted for your permission, that I can publish my work there! Without your enlightening gaudiness, I didn’t know what should I do; I had to put my life on hold, if you would have not tell me about it. You are the Wikipedia' users saviour. Anyhow, do you call this unrehearsed and misinformed published article Original Research? - Surena 15 June 2006.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "this" is. If you mean your version of the article, then the answer is "yes". Pecher ^Talk 11:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest psychological and socio-problems that Muslim Fundamentalists are suffering from is Self-righteousness and being importunes Surena!

The Man Who Claims to Know Everything, Knows Nothing!

The wise word above 10th century Persian philosopher is applied here to SimonP.

SimonP, claims to be specialized in all the fields of knowledge; -from African history, to the Iranian Revolution, from Russian Culture, to US politics, and so on and so forth. He spends most of his time in here as editor, censoring, communicating, leaving senseless messages, and still he has time to learn to convoy his knowledge to others. He must be either superman, or another Albert Einstein; -and that is hard to believe!

From the style of his writing he mustn’t be older than 30 years of age. Let’s hypothetically say, that he started reading and leaning as soon his mother gave birth to him, and since then he has continued to pursue his knowledge without being in need of eating, sleeping, and other necessities to survive; -he still could have not enough time to gain all these knowledge that he quite arrogantly claims to have an absolute authority in all of them. We have a word for these people like SimonP, the ”Impostors”.

I came to this conclusion recently, when I have corrected and added some historical facts to the Article “Iranian Revolution”, in which he has relentlessly deleted all my contribution! He has claimed that my work has no historical back-ups, which in contrary to his observations, I have included references and bibliography at the end of each event that were mentioned in that article. He claims that my editing are “allegations without support”, and when I’ve provided him with a list of books *[1], and urged him to read them, all of sudden he went absurdly quite.

I was a misled-participant in that so-called revolution, and being involved in researching the event since then. As a result, I am able to claim (to some certain degree), that I know about the topic, while, he claims that he knows it “in detail”.

SimonP, portrayed one of the rootless revolutions in human history as a peaceful event with democratic values, that led Iranians to a prosperity; -the prosperity that he promotes and propagates here, has taken over 1.2 million lives, hundreds of thousand of political prisoners, left a county with a bankrupt economy, and the worst record of human rights, as well as supporting terrorism. I don’t wish to accuse SimonP, but if someone supports a revolution that created the Islamic regime in Tehran, he must be either a super-gullible, or have a tendency to oppression, terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism/fascism.

I believe that his editorial purgatives should be removed, and he should be replaced with someone who is open-minded, tolerant and respects other peoples’ beliefs and thoughts. Wikipedia was established as a “Free Encyclopaedia”, and closed-minded, mislead, dictator-like individuals like SimonP, who subscribe to “My Way or Highway” school of though, transfers Wikipedia to become like other Encyclopaedias controlled by Media Empires and world propaganda machines Surena.

What about the Soviet role during and after the revolution?

I'm surprised that this wasn't mentioned in the article. What did the Soviet leadership think about an Islamic fundamentalist regime coming to power right next door? Remember they intervened in Afghanistan in December 1979 to prevent Islamic fundementalists from seizing power in that country. I have seen various (unproven) theories that the Soviets helped to incite a revolution in Iran, or even that the whole thing was caused by them, that radical Muslim fundamentalists who opposed the Shah were actually communist agents in disguise (yes as crazy as it sounds), and that the Soviets did this because Iran was about to recieve advanced American weapons and aircraft (F-16 jets and the Phoenix missiles). Is there any truth to this? Personally I think it's nonsense. Auspx 04:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Changes

"The CIA used some of it's techniques used in Operation Ajax to help Khomeini to take control of Iran.The CIA even advised that Revolutionary council to use Anti-American Rhetoric to help demonize the Shah as a puppet of the United States.The first actions of Khomeini when he came to power was the mass execution of communists. Khomeini was no favorite of the CIA but anyone was better than a Communist in the eyes of the CIA."

What the hell is this about? Care to produce some sources instead of just assuming things? I don't believe that Imam Khomeini was working with the CIA, and this above paragraph contradicts the rest of the article completely. It is just plain wrong, incorrect, and misleading information, which should be removed.

To the person below me, why don't you learn something. I am complaining about information presented because it just assumes, and there are no sources. You denying that the Shah killed anyone is just plain ignorant. He killed thousands of people, and SAVAK are even worse. They were the ones who killed innocent civilians who were in the streets. To say that they were harmless is an insult to the memory of those innocent people who died as a result of the Shah's opressive and dictatorial regime. After the Revolution, SAVAK agents and Monarchists were killed, as well as those fighting the revolution, WHICH IS NATURAL. Every revolution begins with executions of high ranking members of the former regime, and of course counter-revolutionaries. Look at Russia, China, Cuba, etc. You are ignorant.

ALSO ANOTHER THING: Please could somebody change the title of the article to the "Islamic Revolution", as this is the proper and correct name for it. It was not the Iranian Revolution, and you can ask anybody that. Iranians or non-Iranians with knowledge of the Revolution call it the Islamic Revolution, because that's what it was, a Revolution for Islam.

• In the second paragraph, it is mentioned that the shah was in power since 1941, with a brief interruption in 1953. I think for the purpose of understanding some of reasoning behind the Iranian revolution in 1979, it is important to refer to the removal of his father Reza Shah, by the British government, who was a very popular leader and also to operation AJAX in 1953 which resulted in the removal of democratically elected primeminister Mossadegh. Often the history of events will lead to the culmination of other events, and in this case the Iranian people have been yearning democracy for a long time. There have been some references to British involvement in the 1979 revolution, which may also have some weight. Also, based on the events of the last century, it is clear that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 was the hope for a new democracy in Iran, which did not happen, so renaming the page title to Islamic revolution in Iran might be better. Amrix 12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ali Shariati's murder?

The article on Shariati states he died of natural causes in London. Here, we learn about his assasination. which of the two articles is true? Jasiok 17 August 2006 (UTC)

cites

I would like to see some citations in the 'Khomeini takes power' about CIA involvement.

Unprotected

This was not marked as protected. Semiprotection shouldn't normally be used for more than a few days, and I'm not sure why full protection was used here. Let's see if the vandalism resumes. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

--- I don't know how to create the template: "opposition of neighbouring regimes" I changed 'many hezbollah weapons to 'some', i haven't seen a huger count then 3 supposedly! iranian hezbollah-rockets, and remember most are thought to be 'home-made' furthermore the assumptions that iran (or syria) is the sole facilitator of hezbollah are ridiculous, and i have unfortunately to point out again the propaganda function of wiki in obscuring history. Someone putting 'all' the responsability on iran, will probably edit articles about syria to say the same. It should be checked;) 80.57.242.54 07:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shorting introductory section

I propose to shorten the intro section and move information therein into other sections of the article - "precursors to the revolution", "pre-revolutionary conditions inside Iran", "early protests", etc. Any objections? --Leroy65X 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

very pro shah

the article claims the shah pushed through "universal suffrage" (i.e. women's voting rights). This is a fallacy since the guy was a repressive dictator nobody had any rights. what an idiotic thing to put in the article

People had more rights than under the Islamic Republic. He was an good dictator.--06:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot poosibly say that he was a good dictator. People do not have revolutions when their is a lack of discontent.

Deletion of intro sentences

these bullet points in the intro have been deleted by Patchouli

The revolution was unique for the surprise it created in the world stage:

*It was the first modern revolution where ideologies like nationalism and populism took a back seat to religion. Islamism -- the revolution's (ultimate) ideology -- was until then unheard of, or at least considered by outsiders too conservative and otherwise ill-equiped to inspire a revolution.^[1]

This lead is extremely misleading. It is well-known that many revolutionaries like People's Mujahedin of Iran were Marxists and other liberals who didn't like sharia and compulsory hijab. After all, just look at the number of Iranian expatriates and how the European nations deal with Iranians who a visa for travel after the Islamic Revolution. If it were all about Islam, then now there is enough Islam to nauseate people. Why do so many people want to permanently leave that hellhole? [Patchouli comment]

1)Who ended up in power as a result of the revolution? liberals and leftists? or religiously motivated Islamists?

The Islamist.--Patchouli 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

2)The argument is not whether ... things are not so good in Iran now, it is whether religion played the leading role in the revolution. Non-religious Marxists and liberals were defeated by Khomeini's forces.

The Islamists overcame other factions.--Patchouli 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

3)You don't have to be in favor of (traditional) sharia to be religious. Ali Shariati considered himself religious. He was a modernist.

4) Is it not true that People's Mujahedin of Iran strongly deny being Marxist? That they consider themselves Islamic, much like Shariati?

I don't really know. I just know that the U.S. State Department calls them "Marxist."--Patchouli 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

5) And finally, what have I added or subtracted from the article that lacks neutrality?? --Leroy65X 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

*It overthrew a regime many considered safe from overthrow. Iran was a member of OPEC and benefited from a huge infusion of oil revenue (following the tripling of the price of oil brought on by the 1973 oil crisis) available to either placate discontent among the public or army, or crush it with its large and feared security apparatus.

His explanation left as a message to me is

"Nothing was unique. You haven't studied the dates of the sequences. If you think a few demonstrations and killings are a revolution, then you need to restudy history. There were demonstrations and killing in the U.S in the 1960s. There were/are demonstrations and killings in China during Tiananmen Square, Sudan, Uganda, Nepal, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, ....

If Khamenei would leave with a few demonstration and deaths, then the Islamic regime would have been gone long ago. --Patchouli 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)"

(Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leroy65X")

Patchouli, Here some questions for you:

• If the IRI was "not unique," I ask when was there an Islamic "modern revolution where ideologies like nationalism and populism took a back seat to religion"?

It wasn't all about religion. Listen to http://www.iranian.com/Pictory/2003/February/prom.mp3-- if you understand Persian.10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also well-known that Khomeini initially made promises to appease the Marxists and other liberals.

Yes he did, but A) that doesn't disprove the contention that the revolution was uniquely religious, B) He soon realized, if he didn't know already, that he had more power, more support than those non-religious groups. --Leroy65X 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• The September 8, 1978 `Black Friday`, where rumors swept the country of thousands killed, and which was followed the next month by demonstrations and especially strikes in the ports and banking, and oil industries, is considered by historians to have finished off the Shah. For example
• Yes, rumors, not in fact.

the Black Friday killings spread the opposition throughout the country. It was no longer merely the big cities which were in open revolt. Khomeini's cassettes and statements were circulated deep into the countryside. ... All this turmoil meant that the security forces were stretched to the limit. From mid-October, for example, the authorities in Neishabur, and ancient but small town in the north-east, were short of security personnel. .... [p.194-5, Khomeini by Baqer Moin, Thomas Dunne Books, c2000]

• Every author's words should be taken with a grain of salt. There are embellishments, too. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had over $8,000,000,000 invested in the United States and sky was not falling.

How do we know this is true?

Can even billions of dollars worth of cash stop an economy paralyzed by strikes and government law enforcement overwhelmed by protesters and insurgents?

And why haven't you answered the question: `If the IRI was "not unique," when was there another Islamic "modern revolution where ideologies like nationalism and populism took a back seat to religion"?`--Leroy65X 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrations may not topple a government, but strikes that hamstring the economy certainly can.

• What evidence do you have that many people did not consider the oil-rich Pavlavi regime highly unlikely to be overthrown? --Leroy65X 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you prescribe the account of some authors as dogma and make the lead paragraph so long.--Patchouli 15:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph explains the significance of the revolution. In fact, the lead section was longer and full of text duplicated elsewhere in the article before I editted it.--Leroy65X 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed compromise over intro sentences

Although I think the editting I've done has made the article better, I will shorten the two bullets and put the quote and comments on the IRs uniquenss elsewhere in the article to keep the intro short, if that satisfies M. Patchouli --Leroy65X 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am fine with your edits.--Patchouli 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

AA Milne, Why are you undoing edits of citations?

They have nothing to do with content or with the NPOV controversy. I put the citations (or the sentences they refer to) there in the first place. --Leroy65X 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a content change in the lead section but that was changed in response to patchouli's complaints. --Leroy65X 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with a statement made

Under Opposition by Neighboring Countries it is stated "This began the eight year Iran-Iraq War, one of the most destructive and bloody wars of the 20th century."

I would like to hear the justification for how this war was more destructive and bloody then the Vietnam War, which has as many as 2-4 times as many deaths. Not to mention World War I and II. The second one having more dead then there are people in Iran total. In terms of death totals, while it is deffinitely severe, it hardly qualifies for that extreme. However, I will not change it without an explanation. --KendrickTrilanus 00:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No.the Iran-Iraq war is not in the same class as WWI or WWII, but it was very bad. "one of the most destructive and bloody wars of the 20th century," not the most destructive, etc.

180,000 to 300,000 Iranians died and "Iranian officials put the damages of the war, including loss of oil revenue and agricultural output, damage to villages, towns, the cost of compensation or pensions for the dependents of nearly a million killed or maimed and of dealing with a million and a half refugees at US $300 billion." [from Iran - a Country Study, 1989 quoted in Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah by Baqer Moin, p.252 ] --Leroy65X 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Baqir Moin related to Mostafa Moeen?--Patchouli 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Sentences like presented like this aren't neutral: On Feb. 1 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to rapturous greeting by several million Iranians. Now not only the undisputed leader of the revolution,[48] he had become what some called a "semi-divine" figure, greeted as he descended from his airplane with cries of `Khomeini, O Imam, we salute you, peace be upon you.`

Particularly this last part is just ridiculous: "... he had become what some called a "semi-divine" figure, greeted as he descended from his airplane with cries of `Khomeini, O Imam, we salute you, peace be upon you.`"

The radical contingent of his followers, certainly a fringe minority, may have viewed him this way, but even then it's still to subjective a detail to state as fact. Is it too much to ask to at least try to maintain a competent and respectable level of neutrality when dealing with this subject matter? JebheSephid 17:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The huge number and strong religious-emotional attachment of Khomeini's followers is one of the salient characteristics of the revolution. It is not just Moin who has pointed it out. Here's another description of Khomeini's return from another book on the revolution:

"As Khomeini's motorcade inched along a twenty-mile route through the capital [from the airport], many men and women sobbed openly, the joy mixed with disbelief....hundreds ran along side until they dropped from exhaustion. Even conservative estimates numbered the crowd at no less than three million. Iranians wanted change, and the ayatollah's return marked the moment for catharsis." (In the Name of God : The Khomeini Decade by Robin Wright c1989, p.37)

Another reflection of the unique status given to Khomeini is the fact that before him the title "imam" was never used among Iranian Shia to refer anyone other than the historical 12 Imams. --Leroy65X 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that most of this article is sourced to a single book, Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah by Baqer Moin. Not good. An article concerning a subject as vast and complex as the Iranian Revolution should utilize far more than simply a single non-academic biography of Khomeini. JebheSephid 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most of this article"? 20 of the 89 citations are from Moin's book. Yes, this is probably more than any one of the other 20+ sources. Is it so surprising? Moin's is the one major english-language bio of Khomeini written after his death. --Leroy65X 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic is a master of deception especially in the area of government-organized demonstrations using Ansar-e-Hezbollah and Basij financed with the oil revenue from OPEC.--Patchouli 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Defects in Neutrality and Cleanliness

One editor by the name of Doco has designated this article in need of "cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" and questionable in its neutrality.

Sayth Doco: "bad spelling and formatting all over, pov steaithily sneaked in. this needs some good editor."

I ran the article through spellcheck and found a few errors, though there may be still be some proper names mispelled.

So Doco, where is the bad formatting and the "pov stealthily sneaked in"? --Leroy65X 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

.... And thank you 204.52.215.128 for reverting all the corrected spellings and replacing them with the old mispellings. --Leroy65X 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many "foreign words"

Response to Patchouli: I let most of your edit stand but I think it is important to mention the bazaar in connection with the revolution. "bazaari" is more than just a Persian word for merchant. It implies a traditional cultural and social background, etc. --Leroy65X 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

issue about Rastakhiz Party dues

(copied from Patchouli talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patchouli)

Patchouli says:

Unfortunately, Labour and tax laws in Iran is incomplete and doesn't provide a referenced and reliable historical background.

However, based on what I have heard the finance ministry (treasury department) started around 1910 and systematic taxation wasn't the way. Merchants would be taxed because they were the one making money.--Patchouli 04:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leroy65X"

Here's my issue: if you call a fee charged for membership in a political party a "tax" people will be confused and think there was some government tax independent of Rastakhiz Party. If its called "dues" people will know it's a fee charged for membership in that party. --Leroy65X 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Has mass cultural focus on Islam "been a 1000000000000000% success"?

No, Patchouli, I cannot agree that it has. Some evidence ...

In

Islamist Iran ... one almost never sees a person praying in the street.

[In contrast] the new Islamized neighborhoods of otherwise secular republics (Tunisia, Turkey), ... certain streets are practically closed to cars by the crowd of men in prayer. The political victory of Islamism is the end of true devotion. Mosques are packed in places where they have become sites of mobilization in opposition to a state perceived as particularist, client-oriented, and repressive; but they empty out when Islamism takes power. (Roy, Olivier, The Failure of Political Islam p.199)

The old society and its Western roots is proving to be far stronger than any of us imagined ... People prefer ordinary comforts to lofty ideals ... Our mosques are emptier than ever ... -Ayatollah Muhammad Hassan Khamenah'i, (July 1986, in open letter after quitting his Chairmanship of the Islamic Parliament's justice sub-committee.)

Consequently I'm going to reedit the passage in Post-revolutionary impact. --Leroy65X 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to read:

Internally, some general revolutionary goals for Iran -- particularly the elimination of secularism, American influence in government, -- have met with unqualified successes; others -- such as greater political freedom, governmental honesty and efficiency, economic equality and self-sufficiency, and even popular focus on Islamic religious activity[94] -- have not. [12]

--Leroy65X 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

On Day of Ashura and many other days throughout the year everyone prays and marches in the streets. Olivier may have visited Iran on the wrong days.

I think he's refering to friday --Leroy65X 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex segregation in Iran was introduced. Friday prayers were introduced. Compulsory hijab was introduced. Sharia courts were introduced. Compulsory fasting was introduced. --Patchouli 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's complusory activity, enforced by the state. I'm refering to popular stuff, i.e. what people do because they want to. --Leroy65X 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

--Patchouli 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Government enforces the activity it wants for the populace.--Patchouli 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. But surely the government wanted people to pray in large numbers every day on their own. --Leroy65X 23:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Many do. How can you expect every single human to genuflect in the middle of the sidewalk 24/7? That is unreasonable. There are mosques which proliferated after the Islamic Revolution.--Patchouli 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to sort this out:

YES, governmental religious activity has been a big part of the IRI. Floggings, mosque building, enforced hijab, compulsory fasting, etc.

NO, voluntary religious activity by the masses of people has NOT been ... in the numbers and enthusiasm that the IRI government would have hoped, according to numerous reports: journalists, surveys, Olivier Roy, Khamenei's brother --Leroy65X 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Misc changes

Put in "centuries-old monarchy" This does NOT refer to the Pahlavi dynasty which of course was decades old not centuries, but to monarchy in general which was the system of rule in iran for millinea.

"by referendum" deleted because it makes the sentence awkward. The referendum was just one part of the revolution and is mentioned in the rest of the article.

quotes made indentations. One was a box quote, the other had those huge ugly quotation marks. Now they are of the same kind. --204.169.54.51 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

clarity of the lead

I'm Iranian and I read a lot about Islamic republic but I can't understand this sentence:"a theocracy operating under the principle of divine right." So how could a western reader can understand it.

I replaced it with a clearer sentence:"a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists"--Sa.vakilian 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It means Khomeini believed God gave him the right to rule. The phrase is from Abrahamian. I think it should be in there maybe along with Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists. Guardianship is more exact, but Americans/UKers/Canadians (at least educated ones) have all heard about "divine right" from European history. --Leroy65X 17:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If so, this is Abrahamian's istake. According to Shiism Divine right is the right of Prophret and Imams to govern(Ululamr) and there isn't any other person who has this right as a "Divine right".

What about Veleyat-e Faqih? To quote Khomeini, just as God established the Prophet Mohammad as the "leader and ruler" of early Muslims, "making obedience to him obligatory, so, too, the fuqaha (plural of faqih) must be leaders and rulers" over Muslims today. (Islamic Government p.63) While the "spiritual virtues" and "status" of the Prophet and the Imams are greater than those of contemporary faqih, their power is not, because this virtue "does not confer increased governmental powers". (p.62) Leroy65X 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think constitution of Islamic republic of Iran represents this idea. There is written in the 107th article:"After the demise of the eminent marji' al-taqlid and great leader of the universal Islamic revolution, and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah al-'Uzma Imam Khumayni - quddisa sirruh al-sharif - who was recognized and accepted as marji' and Leader by a decisive majority of the people, the task of appointing the Leader shall be vested with the experts elected by the people.

But this just tells how Khomeini's successor is chosen and that he will have the same constitutional power. Leroy65X 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The experts will review and consult among themselves concerning all the fuqaha' possessing the qualifications specified in Articles 5 and 109. In the event they find one of them better versed in Islamic regulations, the subjects of the fiqh, or in political and social Issues, or possessing general popularity or special prominence for any of the qualifications mentioned in Article 109, they shall elect him as the Leader. Otherwise, in the absence of such a superiority, they shall elect and declare one of them as the Leader. The Leader thus elected by the Assembly of Experts shall assume all the powers of the wilayat al-amr and all the responsibilities arising therefrom. The Leader is equal with the rest of the people of the country in the eyes of law. "--Sa.vakilian 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

constitutional monarchy

Really. I was called "constitutional monarchy" but in practice it was absolute monarchy.--Sa.vakilian 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There existed

1. Iranian constitution of 1906
2. Senate of Iran
3. National Consultative Assembly
4. Prime minister
5. Cabinet

The king was still the commander-in-chief. I can't find a source as to whether the king chose the cabinet members or the prime minister.

In the Middle East at that time this was progressive.--Patchouli 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edition "Iranian monarchy" instead of Absolute or constitutional. But what's your idea about :"The next year the Rastakhiz party was created. It became not only the only party Iranians could belong to, but one the "whole adult population" was required to belong and pay dues to."

I remember somebody called Khamenei a dictator while there existed Constitution, parliment, president, cabinet in Iran.[6] ;-)--Sa.vakilian 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The single party system ended in late 1978. Now, there is a multi-party system, yet the mullahs decide who runs for puppet positions.--Patchouli 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Two POV

There are two POV about Iranian revolution and this article should show both of them. The first one, which this article insists on it, says that revolution had two stage and second one was Islamic. This is the POV of opposition of Islamic republic of Iran and some of the scientists. The other one, which the Islamic republic of Iran insists on it, says the revolution is Islamic basically. But also some notable scientists like Bernard Lewis[7] and Michel Foucault[8][9] support this POV . I put POV tag on this article until this problem is solved.--Sa.vakilian 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)