Talk:Reading Lolita in Tehran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] only facts may be included

This is an encyclopedic article. One can add something only if that is a fact.

look at the following: “…who meet at Azar's house every Thursday morning risking their lives, taking off their chadors and veils, and discussing forbidden works of Western literature, as Islamic morality squads raid in Tehran, and fundamentalists purge the universities' curriculums, and censorship stifles freedom of expression.”

and "...after she left her last teaching post at the University of Tehran years earlier after refusing to wear the Islamic veil. "

only bold statements are facts. the rest are either irrelevant (refers to what happened 15 years before these meetings) or incorrect. If there exist any interview in which Nafisi said such a thing, you should first provide reference and link to the interview and second these statements must be in quotation. What ever Nafisi says is not a fact. It would be her personal idea and claim. -- Mitso Bel

The referenced interview is at the bottom of the page.--CltFn 12:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence either in the movie or in the link which indicates that: 1. In 1995, by having a book meeting at home, Azar Nafisi risked her life. Or by taking off your veil at home you would risk your life in Iran. 2. Her last post was not in Tehran University but Allameh Tabatabaei Univ. and she was not expelled from this University due to refusing to wear the veil. She resigned and for two years the University wanted to brought her back. 3. There is no statement supporting the claim that in 1995 (when Nafisi organized the meetings), Islamic morality squads raid in Tehran, and fundamentalists purge the universities' curriculums !! (which actually happened almost 15 years before 1995 !). Again I would like to emphasize that what ever Nafisi says is her own personal opinion and we should put those statements between quotation marks. What ever she says is not a fact about Iran. Please notice NPOV. -- Mitso Bel

I find these claims very interesting. I realize that evidence for them may only be in Farsi, which I unfortunately can't read. Do you happen to have references in English or any other language that users of en-WP are likely to be able to read? If so, I suggest rewriting the article accordingly and putting in footnotes. -- Hoary 06:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Built-in obsolescence, and extraordinary Chinese

We read: Published in 2003 and it is now in its 15th printing, it has been translated into 12 languages including two Chinese dialects.

  1. In its 15th printing of which edition? (Random House? Fourth Estate? Something else?) And who cares, and who is watching out for a 16th edition?
  2. It is extremely unusual for any book to come out in any dialect of Chinese. Books normally come out in Chinese. (The orthographic conventions may differ.) What does this mean, or what is the source for it? -- Hoary 05:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there was no reply, I deleted this part. -- Hoary 06:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allusive title?

We read:

The book title which alludes to Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita, a story about a 38 year old man who becomes sexually obsessed with a 12 year old pubescent girl and who rapes and molests her over a period of 2 years until she escapes, is an indirect reference to the Islamic regime which took power in 1979 in Iran and whose first step was to lower the marriage age for girls to 9 years old.

Aside from the need for references to the less plausible bits, this makes no sense. The title is Reading "Lolita" in Tehran. It will be obvious to any literate anglophone that this is about Lolita. Where is the allusion? And how can the title be an indirect reference to the Islamic regime? -- Hoary 06:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have sourced the quote, may I suggest that you actually read the book and read the various interviews that Azar had done regarding her book for greater insight for this article.--CltFn 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You have just added two footnotes, pointing to the same web page. This web page doesn't mention either of the two incidents that you are ostensibly sourcing.

How does the title "allude to" Lolita? -- Hoary 05:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about reading the C-Span interview for starters?--CltFn 05:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This one? Done already. So, the title refers directly to Nabokov's Lolita. This is hardly an "allusion". What's the source for the claim that "One of the students, Rosie, was caught by the Islamic regime and executed" or that the government's "first step was to lower the marriage age for girls to 9 years old"? It's these two claims that are followed by a footnote linking that article. -- Hoary 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean you glanced at it? , because had you read it you would have seen those two statements discussed there.--CltFn 12:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that I'd glanced at it, I meant that I'd read it. I have now read it again. It doesn't discuss either. (Unless, perhaps, the markup is so terrible that the relevant bits are there but are not displayed by either browser that I use.) Is it possible that, intending to link to one page, you accidentally linked to another? -- Hoary 13:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It would seem CltFn was only linking to the portal for the interview, rather than the interview itself. I thought the same thing you did. Someone set it straight and I adjusted the other references to the portal to now link to the interview.--Yossarian 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete!

Someone deleted sourced info and I'm not sure why. I added a "Criticism" section in which I added sourced info. Someone took out the citation from the Chronicle of Higher Ed. I'm not sure why. I put it back in. If it's deleted again, I'll put it back in again. It seems rather dishonest to delete references.--Modern Muslimah, 15 October 2006

Please do not delete sourced infos. If you would like to add something, source it. If you hate Islam or Iran etc, here is not a place to show it. CltFn's edits on Azar Nafisi and Reading Lolita in Tehran have been reverted repeatedly by several users. If you want to add sourced info, go right ahead. But do not delete other's sourced edits, even if it is not according to your personal political interests. --Mitso Bel00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Proof that Nafisi used veil for 15 years at University: Nafisi taught at Iranian universities more than 15 years (1981-1995). Revolution happened at 1978. Therefore she used veil during all these years.[1] proof that Nafisi and her students did not risk their life by taking off their veils at a private class in 1995 in Iran : 1. According to Iranian rule, if you refuse to wear veil in public, the punishment is up to 76 lashes. Disobedience was punished by monetary fines, up to seventy-six lashes [2] 2. In a private classroom where all the attendents are women, no muslim will use veil !!! veil is just for those places where different sexes are present. According to Iran Daily, 6 October 1997, Parliamentary deputies submitted a plan to make girls' schools a "no-male zone," which will require all teachers and staff to be women. Today there exist many schools where girl can take off their veil while at the school. Therefore taking off veil in a private class where students and teacher are all women is not risky !!! 3. Nafisi was teaching western literature at Tehran university for many years without risking her life! Howcome did she risk her life when teaching the same books at home?!! She discussed Great Gatsby at her class in Tehran University and in her own words she put Gatsby on trial in her class.Proof that a big majority of Iranian women welcome khomeini's call for wearing veil: Ayatollah Khomeini enforced Iranian women to follow Islamic dress code on March 7th, 1979. In Azar Nafisi’s viewpoint Islamic dress code was the symbol of oppression imposed by Ayatollah Khomeini after revolution. She wrote in her book wishing the death of Ayatollah Khomeini: The day women did not wear the scarf in public would be the real day of his death and the end of his revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini established the new regime after a referendum (March 30 and 31, 1979) in which more than 98% of Iranian people voted for his policies. Before revoluion, Iranian women were forced not to wear veil for almost 50 years.1 In summary, Khomeini issued his order about veil in March 7th and referendum happened in March 30-31. 98% of Iranians voted for Khomeini's policies. Nafisi is among those 2%. She can not speak on behalf of Iranian women. Why forcing Iranians to wear veil is restriction of freedom but forcing them not to wear veil is not restriction of freedom ?!! Nafisi praises freedom of women before revolution while criticizes post revolutionary Iran!! --Miso Bel13:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nafisi's account flashes back to the early' days of the revolution (1978-1981), when she first started teaching at the University of Tehran amid the swirl of protests and demonstrations. In those frenetic days, the students took control of the university, expelled faculty members and purged the curriculum.[3] These were not at 1995-1997 when Nafisi hold her private class. --Mitso Bel13:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
About the universities where she taught: Azar Nafisi taught in three Universities: Tehran University, Free University and Allameh Tabatabei University. But Her last post was at Allameh Tabatabaei university. She was expelled from Tehran University (not Allameh Tabatabaei Univ) due to refusing islamic dress code.[4][5]--Mitso Bel15:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
About the word diverse I think we have to put it between quotation marks. There were only one person (Mahshid[6]) in her class who used to wear veil before revolution. And this woman was jailed for five years because of her "affiliation with a dissident religious organization” (which is today known by US and Europeans as a secular terrorist group). So the only person who used to be religious, had a serious political problem with the regime. So there were no normal religious member in her class. How many percent of Iranian women experienced jail after revolution ? If you take a sample of Iranian women at those time, would you come to such a sample ? I strongly believe that the selection of those 7 students was biased. --Mitso Bel17:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please see Ruhollah Khomeini. The user is question has been vandalizing that article consistently, quoting non-existent sources. Please make sure that he does not ruin these articles. SouthernComfort 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CltFn writes

on my talk page, where other interested parties may not see it: as I have a long list of articles that I am working on and researching I do not spend too much of my time arguing with people who delete information which is sourced , or who have not taken the time to even read the book of the page they are editing. All the info I added is sourced and can be found in the reference if they would bother to read them.

Questions are raised, both above and in revisions of the article that CltFn is quick to revert, about the veracity of the content of the book. The references that CltFn has given, when relevant at all (see my comment that's now at the foot of the section above titled "Allusive title?"), have been to summaries of the book that show no sign of independence or research.

Let's look at something that should be straightforward. Which universities was she teaching in, when did she leave them, and why? Her publisher's web page (which Mitso Bel links to above), says that "in 1980, Nafisi was expelled from the University of Tehran for refusing to wear the veil" and that "after a long hiatus from teaching, she took a full-time job at Allameh Tabatabai University where she resumed the teaching of fiction." Also, "Azar Nafisi begins with a description of a dream she fulfilled in her final years of life in the Islamic Republic of Iran: to hold a private literature workshop with a select group of dedicated students" (my emphasis). So, if Random House has got it right, yes, it's true that (in CltFn's preferred words) "The book narrates the personal and intellectual events of a private literature class she started in Tehran after she left her last teaching post at the University of Tehran after refusing to wear the Islamic veil" IFF (i) "last" applies to a teaching post at that university and (ii) it's more important here to know where she was teaching many years before than where she was teaching at more or less the same time.

If CltFn is too busy to discuss, I suggest that he or she should step back from this article, or at least refrain from mindless reversion. -- Hoary 09:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, the statement in the current version of the article reads: The book narrates the personal and intellectual events of a <<private literature class>> she started in Tehran after she left her last teaching post at the University of Allameh Tabatabaei. I am not a native speaker of English language. The private class started at 1995 and ended at 1997. Nafisi left Allameh Tabatabaei Univ at 1995. So I think the statement is correct. What is your opinion ? --Miso Bel12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it would depend on the times in the year; I mean, if she finished at the university in June and started the private class in October (just an imaginary example!), it would be true; but if those months were the other way around (just another imaginary example!), it would not be. -- Hoary 14:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the first paragraph of the book:In the fall of 1995, after resigning from my last academic post, I decided to indulge myself and fufil a dream. I chose seven of my best and most committed students and invited them to come to my home every Thursday morning to discuss literature. [7] The private class did not have overlap with her position in the University. Is that convincing ? --Mitso Bel14:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to source what you claim

WP:Citing sources explains the importance of specifying sources. Of course it's true that the huge majority of WP articles specify sources in a most perfunctory way, if at all, but (i) bad practice elsewhere is not an excuse for bad practice, and (ii) sources for claims in this article have already been demanded. Anyone who's ever written about any newsworthy subject will know that -- regardless of the best way to cite when writing about, say, physics or linguistics -- footnotes are much handier than is the author/date system. Wikipedia:Footnotes explains how to create proper footnotes. Creating them is simple, so please do it. Thank you. -- Hoary 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another editor's opinion (or, What Must Be Done)

First: I haven't read the book, so I'm just doing this purely on the basis of the articles (formerly) bad grammar and poor references.

1. I've had a thorough look through this (by "this" I mean the article), as well as the linked sources. This needs lots, and lots of sources (and not just this one: ", but I'll get to that train wreck in a moment). Everything I labeled as needing a source, or that I hid with code, has no textual basis in any of the links provided. Now...whoever was using "http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1731" continuously as a reference (or called it an "interview), despite the fact that it almost never had anything to do with the text it was applied to, is very, very naughty, and needs to see me after class. That particular site is little more than an ad for the book anyway, and I think I only maintained it ONCE in the 4 or 5 times it was used.
2. I've labelled this for cleanup. I've done what I can with the English usage, but this is quite fragmented in terms of information. Someone who's read the book needs to come up with a PLOT SUMMARY, then needs to apply the stuff discussed in the Background section to it. Lotsa work to be done here.
3. Don't revert my edits. That is, feel free to put back the info I removed, do what you like, fight it out, I don't care, but don't remove all the grammatical and style stuff I've fixed. That'd be mean.
4. Quotations are in quotation marks. Not italics. Just thought I'd mention that for those who don't know.

Now, I don't mean to be vitriolic with all this, but you guys need to use some common sense. Remember, above all, POV. I've removed some pretty blatant examples.

--Yossarian 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually , if you haven't read the book , you are missing a lot of background in your attempts to edit this page. Don't you think you could take a walk to your local bookstore and get the book and read it?? A lot of material is actually discussed in the book itself--CltFn 15:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure you could. Being as I'm just playing devil's advocate here, it'd probably better for someone a lot more familar with the text to do so. I haven't missed anything in so far as I've corrected grammar and asked for citation on things I'm fairly certain that were not in the book (as well as cleaning up POV...that is, attacks on the author, sopboxing about the Iranian state, etc.). If you've read the book, why don't you be a good sport and cite page references and such? I'm afraid I'm not really that interested in starting a fourth book when I'm already reading three. --Yossarian 00:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: is there a distinction between the "University of Tehran" and " the University of Allameh Tabatabei", as the article seems to go back and forth. Someone needs to make that constant if they are not distinct.
Yes, these two Universities are different and Nafisi taught in both of them. I've already explained these issues above. Unfortunately many of those who are editing neither read the book nor are familiar with Iran and Nafisi. I don't think there is any thing which is unclear. But there are lots of political issues about this book and this page. --Mitso Bel01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Tahrir-ol-vasyleh

I don't understand why this was added. I can understand some link, via Nafisi's criticisms of the Ayatollah, but it seems tangential at best and disconnected from the article. Perhaps explaining the significance would be sufficient, but simply putting the link is confusing and misleading. Michaelbusch 04:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that the Tahrir-ol-vasyleh article is presently flagged "few articles link to this one", but that is not a reason to add the link here. Michaelbusch 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The part about sex with children connects the books.--Patchouli 04:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is not described in the Tahrir-ol-vasyleh article at the moment. This would be an easier discussion to have after that article has been improved. Michaelbusch 05:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover of book

Should it be mentioned that the cover pic has been cropped and is from an original press picture in Iran? In the original the girls are reading an Iranian newspaper and a picture of Khatami is in the background. See [8] and [9]. Nokhodi 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Very important issue. The photo was taken 3 years after Nafisi left Iran while the story of the book is mainly about 1980s. Also the photo shows how much Iranian girls were interested in ongoing debates over the parliamentary election and also a relative freedom of press at that time. Additionally it showed that girls with more conservative dress were also there (something censored in the cover). This is in full contrast to the message of the book.Sangak 14:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the next to last sentence is relevant to this article. I've revised Sangak's edits to be in accordance with WP:NPOV. Michaelbusch 18:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think what Sangak said is valid, especially the part about the image being used without permission of the photographer and altering it. Of course it should be neutrall, but the fact is the publishers and Nafisi used the image without permission.Nokhodi 21:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If either of you can provide a reference documenting that the image was used without permission or in violation of copyright, this information is suitable for inclusion. Until such a reference is available, it is not. I must also disagree with Sangak's statement that 'this is in full contrast to the message of the book', but if we started to debate that, both of us would be guilty of WP:OR. If it is that important (and I don't think it is), someone can contact Nafisi or her publisher. Michaelbusch 22:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am busy with other projects. Good luck with writing the article. Sangak 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't indirectly ctiricise the soldiers who fought in the Iran-Iraq War - when she heard her students joking about the dead soldirerws (as quoted in this article) she is saddened by their behaviour. She feels sorry for the men and boys who fought in the war.138.253.199.69 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReading_Lolita_in_Tehran_6122.html"