Talk:Farrokhroo Parsa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Iran Farrokhroo Parsa 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
پ This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Persian script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Persian script.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Persian).

[edit] She could have been a Bahai

The article says,

"It has been suggested that Farrokhroo Pārsā was a member of the Bahai community, however individual Baha'is deny that this has been the case, submitting that Farrokhroo Pārsā's active participation in politics is in direct conflict with one of Baha'i Faith's basic tenets which prohibits Baha'is from engaging in political activities." (On her personal weblog, Ms Roya Parsay, daughter of Mr Farrokhpour Pārsā (brother of Farrokhroo Pārsā), unequivocally denies that her aunt, Dr Farrokhroo Pārsā, were a Baha'i. See: [1].)

I say that she could be have been a Bahai. For example, Rudy Giuliani is a Roman Catholic even though he has divorced.[2] Just because someone believes in one religious sect, it doesn't mean that she has to conform to every single teaching of the religious sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.14.143 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is completely and utterly irrelevant what her religion was. This article is about a person, and unless her religious affiliation (or anything else about her) is relevant to what she is notable for, there is no reason to even mention it (leave alone have more text on her supposed beliefs than what she was notable for). WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, nor is it a soapbox for what may-or-may-not-be the personal views held by a Wikipedia editor. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It is utterly relevant! Your statement simply shows that you do not know about the history of Iran. Babis and Bahai's were the champions of the equality of women's rights and women's education in Iran. Dr Parsa's execution was largely motivated by the fact that her past actions had been viewed as implementing Baha'i ideologies in Iran. The charge in Dr Parsa's charge sheet "spreading vice" explicitly refers to her efforts in promoting women's rights. Did you know this? You do not need to go that far back into the history. Some three weeks ago the media reported (if you can read Farsi, see here Aftab, 16 April 2008) that Shirin Ebadi has been receiving death threads and the last one has been threatening the life of her daughter. The letter has been handed over to the public prosecutor and made public (and in fact, to his credit, Mr Ahmadinejad has publicly come to the support of Ms Ebadi). In the letter Ms Ebadi is accused of pursuing a Baha'i policy (that is fighting for the rights of women) and unless she stops doing so, she will pay for her disobedience by having her daughter killed. For completeness, the headline of the above-mentioned news item reads: "Ahmadinejad's defence of Ebadi against the anti-Baha'i association". Part of the death thread, quoted below the headline reads: "Ms Shirin Ebadi, we told you that you must abandon your un-Islamic behaviour that accords with the conduct of Baha'is, however you have continued to dance to the tune of foreigners and Baha'is, and you have brought your daughter into the same path. We shall kill her so that you shall know. Pay attention." --BF 05:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats all well and good that you think that was the Mullahs' reason (note well: I do not disagree that it could be a reason). The point is that you (or I or anyone else) do not know it, and you do not have a source for it, and you are adding two-plus-two. It is (for example) equally possible that they put her in front of a firing squad because she was a vocal and prominent opponent of the Mullahs. "Un-Islamic" behavior includes her position against the chador. The "spreading vice" says nothing - there were thousands of people executed with the same rationale.
In any case, I should not have to be arguing this with you. Either you have a reliable source that explicitly says she was was executed *for being a bahai*, or you don't. Do not waste your time rationalizing, and do not put your own interpretation into an article, no matter how convinced you are that it is correct.
If you still think it is not OR, you can try to get an outside opinion at WT:NOR. I am an active participant there so I will see your comment. You may also wish to review the last three comments of this section (ignore the title of the section, its not relevant to the outcome, nor is it an issue here).
ps: My apologies if you think I was condescending in my reply on my talk page. It was not my intention to do so.
-- Fullstop (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] She is historically VERY important and unique

The reason that her name doesn't show up in search engine results is because there are multiple spellings of her name.

  1. Farrokhroo Parsa[3]
  2. Farokhroo Parsa[4]
  3. Farrokhrou Parsa[5] (Most common spelling); see also Google Scholar for "Farrokhrou Parsa"
  4. Farokhrou Parsa[6]

--47ToConfig (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

thats for looking that up. Is there anything specific that you could find in those sources which we can add? (like the firing squad information you provided). -- Fullstop (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A quick look showed at least two sources which appear to suggest that she was executed because she had directed schoolgirls not to veil, which seems to contradict what BehnamFarid suggests. Any unambiguous statement either way would be much appreciated. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that she wasn't executed for simply believing in the Bahai stuff. According to Page 330[7] Sisterhood is Global: The International Women's Movement Anthology she was charged with "expansion of prostitution, corruption on Earth, and warring against God." The author of the book further states that her advocacy for liberty of female was the cause. Plus, on the same page 330 it is stated that "she was one of hundreds of thousands." In other words, her execution was intended as a lesson to other women who desired freedom in terms of clothing, work, etc.--47ToConfig (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You prove to know next to nothing about the history of Iran; you just consult the Google and come to an instant conclusion. The "hundreds of thousands" has an entirely different origin. These large-scale executions took place in the second half of the 1980s and were utterly unrelated to the executions that took place soon after the revolution. These "hundreds of thousands" were almost exclusively members or ex-members of NCRI (MEK) and it took place when it turned out that they were siding with Saddam Hossein and fighting along-side Iraqi forces against Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War. Ayatollah Khomeini called the membership of MEK as Monafeghin (Traitors) and sent out an executive order that all people who had been charged with the membership of MEK had to be tried (even if they had served their sentences) and if it appeared that they still sympathised with the MEK they had to be executed without delay. This process completely bypassed the judiciary and in every jail three people (the head-officer of the jail, the clergy of the jail and a representative of the interior ministry) decided about the lives of thousands of people. It is estimated that during this period for three weeks some 750 people per day were executed in the Evin Prison in Tehran. On the basis of this and other evidence, MEK has compiled a document in which they come to a number of total executions in all jails in Iran during the last-mentioned three weeks. Evidently, these executions which were primarily aimed at the membership of MEK cannot be brought into connection with the execution of Farrokhroo Parsa. Not least by the fact that MEK was a banned paramilitary organisation during the reign of Shah and was involved in the assassination of some army and security personnel of Shah's regime; after the revolution, they killed the Prime Minister and his entire Cabinet. Please make a deeper study of a history before making comments on "Bahai stuff" and the like. --BF 07:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I emphasise, I never suggested that, explicitly or implicitly. Please read my original text. The fact however is that the policy of "not to veil" was viewed as having constituted an implementation of a Baha'i principle (historically, the first woman in the modern history of Iran to unveil in public was Tahirih, a Babi woman). Please read the text of the letter sent to Shirin Ebadi (I gave a translation of it hereabove) from which you can clearly see that her human-rights activities in defence of the rights of women are seen as constituting her "dancing to the tune of Baha'is". --BF 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It may well be that a general "not to veil" stance was viewed as having furthered a Baha'i principle, but sans any attested specific connection to Parsa, such a view cannot be brought into association with her. That the Mullahs identify a general "not to veil" stance with "Un-Islamic" behavior (and hence having a source among non-Muslims) is also predictable, but again cannot be brought into direct, specific, association with Parsa.
Together these views may in fact be the root of the speculations of Parsa's supposed Bahai-ness, but the fact remains that they are speculations, and even if they weren't, it would be speculative to state that her pro-women's liberties stance derived from her religious beliefs. Such a stance is normal for a highly educated woman who has to assert herself in a patriarchal society.
Be that as it may, it may perhaps be ok to state Parsa was viewed as ... because of ... . But if there are no sources then don't add any -- in this specific context it is not ok to refer to unrelated sources (e.g. Ebadi) in order to substantiate the existence of general views. This article is specifically about Parsa, and general views about the women's rights movement belong in the more general article on Iranian women. Then, over here you can also say "For details on the general view, see <whatever>." -- Fullstop (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You show yourself as a sceptic. As a matter of fact, all the points that you raise are discussed in the sources that I had given (which you have mysteriously removed), one of which was a massive article written by an Institute in Iran, funded by Ministry of Culture of Iran - this Institute deals with all matters related to the modern history of Iran; the Institute officially publishes its findings on a regular basis (although I do not often agree with the premisses of their arguments, nonetheless their publications are serious ones and of high academic quality). There is a huge body of literature around Babis and Bahais in Iran, both inside and outside Iran (the ones produced inside Iran do not portray Baha'is favourably), so to say that I may have speculated is simply not true. You just say, as a matter of factly, that Dr Parsa was a "highly educated woman". As you have seen from her biography, her mother happens also to have been a highly-educated and outspoken woman. Have you not wondered how comes that this has been the case? The answer is, without wishing to generalise, that universal education is a fundamental tenet of the Baha'i faith and consequently you notice that at a certain point in the modern history of Iran thousands of families have given their daughters a decent education just as a matter of religious duty. An outside observer would marvel at the phenomenon, but if you know the background and the history, then you will realise that this phenomenon has its root in a social movement to which Babis and Bahai's contributed greatly - again, I should not wish to generalise, but it is a fact, attested by friend and foe, that Babis and Baha'is treat their daughters on equal footing as their sons. This is a photograph of a girl's school in Tehran (taken ca 1911), which was one of the schools that Baha'is established in Iran at the time: [8] (the photograph is vector scalable, so please have a closer look at its details - I have given an English translation of the text written on the blackboard, which you can find on the page of the photograph). What you immediately notice is that none of the women/girls covers her head (recall the damning charge laid against Dr Parsa and notice that this photograph dates from 1911 and Dr Parsa became Minister of Education in 1968, i.e. over half a century later). So, please do not say that I am speculating. I emphasize, there is a considerable body of literature in Iran on the subjects of Farrokhroo Parsa and Amir-Abbas Hoveida having been Baha'is, and this does not leave any space for anyone to speculate. I personally do not know for sure whether Farrokhroo Parsa was a Baha'i; in contrast, I know a great deal about Amir-Abbas Hoveida, some of which was reflected in the text that you have so mysteriously removed. I therefore insist that the entry be restored to its original form, with perhaps some minor changes here and there. As I said, I personally do not know whether Farrokhroo Parsa was a Baha'i or not, but the prevailing view in Iran amongst the ruling class is that she was a Baha'i and her execution had a great deal to do with this perception. It is therefore not correct to say that this biography is about Parsa and not about her religion; she and her parents were part of a movement that in Iran is perceived as a "Baha'i conspiracy"; you cannot simply separate Dr Parsa from her real or perceived religion (if she were not the person she was, I would have entirely shared your view and perhaps would not have mentioned her religion, real or perceived, at all). You will have to read the history of Iran and realise that in particular Babis contributed relatively considerably (given their small size) to the Constitutional Revolution of Iran (unfortunately, Baha'is lagged behind in this revolution, as they were explicitly forbidden to interfere in politics); if you read the history of Iran dealing with the Constitutional Revolution, then you will realise that anti-revolutionaries called all the revolutionaries as Babi's, thus undermining the authority of these people in the eyes of the general public who viewed Babis as apostates (and they were indeed apostates from an Islamic perspective). Dr Parsa, if not a Baha'i, certainly falls into this category of people. Finally, I do not comprehend how you bring Ms Ebadi into the discussion. In the biography of Farrokhroo Parsa there was/is not a single mention of her, and the recent event that I wrote about to you only showed the prevailing perception amongst some people in Iran, that women in Iran asking for their basic rights must be working for Baha'is. If that perception exists today, it certainly existed in the Iran of the 1980's. --BF 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fullstop, I am still eagerly awaiting to see your changes reversed. Further, you may wish to have a look here: The History of Bahá'í Educational Efforts in Iran. Kind regards, --BF 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
One more time, and this time please PAY ATTENTION: If you do not have a source typing *exactly* Parsa with *exactly* Bahai, then you may *not* use infer that connection yourself. To do so violates WP:NOR.
Further, do *not* try to justify the connection. Wikipedia is not a forum, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
Moreover, I do not need convincing that there is a general perception that women's rights are tied to Bahai beliefs. That general perception is however not the subject of this article.
I have already told you a) how to phrase an allusion to the perceptions, b) in which article the Bahai<->Women's rights association belongs, c) that your "sources" cannot be used to substantiate a connection between Bahai<->Parsa (meaning, don't source your allusions here).
-- Fullstop (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the para as previously noted. It is now up to you to write the section at the relevant article. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Fullstop, you seem not to have read my above statements: The references to which you refer are the very references that you have thrown out! I cannot be held responsible that you do not read Farsi and/or the material at issue have not been translated into English; there is a huge body of literature produced in Iran, all alleging that Amir-Abbas Hoveida and Farrokhroo Parsa and a host of other people were Baha'is. Further, I am not using Wikipedia as a forum (I do not know where you have got the idea from), for Baha'is or non-Baha'is. As a matter of fact I am an agnostic and for me people's religions are utterly irrelevant. May I request you to take the time and read my text of the biography before you edited it? You will then realise that nowhere had I said that Para was a Baha'i; I only had said that some say that she was a Baha'i and some counter that allegation --- and for these "some"s I had given the appropriate references. --BF 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read what you wrote before I whittled it down to stay on topic. As I have said over and over again, it was flat out OR. a) You were leading the reader with the "it is noteworthy that ..." stuff. b) You dragged in a comparison to Hoveyda, Habib'ollah Khan and general position of the Baha'i community. c) By way of these examples you were attempting to explain why Parsa was considered a Bahai.
But you *may not* do any of these things! You cannot claim that Parsa was considered a Bahai just because someone else was considered a Bahai. That conclusion is original research, and the use of material that is only orthogonal to the topic is also original research.
As I told you right in the beginning, do *not* argue! Your argument is *your* argument -- it does not matter if it has merit or not, it is still your own. This too is original research.
As for ABC alleging that Parsa was a Bahai: that factoid is in the article, it is cited, so enough already. Enough! The general identification of Bahais<->women's rights is NOT the topic of THIS article!
-- Fullstop (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fullstop, let us bring this discussion to an end. You keep repeating your earlier statements and I suppose that I am not doing differently. The fact is that if my personal views on this matter do not count, then no-one else's count: I know the context, I know the individuals, I know the history, I know the background, I know the language, I know the culture, I have been personally part of that section of the history. On what account are you making the statements that you are making? The perception and the conviction (as evidenced by countless books and articles that have been published in Iran in the course of the past thirty years on the subject matter) in Iran is that Hoveida was a Bahai and that he brought another Baha'i, namely Farrokhroo Parsa, into his cabinet to implement Baha'i policy in Iran. You may not know it, but when the reforms introduced by Farrokhroo Parsa were announced, Ayatollah Khomeini and several other high-ranking Ayatollahs (such as Falsafi) openly accused Shah of having become a Baha'i (actually, Ayatollah Khomeini in his open letter to Shah directly puts this question to him: "Have you become a Baha'i?" --- the documents are all public and you can read them if you can and wish. Finally, I really marvel at the way you are working: you edit an entry on a subject purely on account of your main language being English; the discussions of the past days have not shown to me that you know any of the underlying details. It looks to me like someone writing or editing a Wikipedia entry on the subject matter of splitting an atom without having studied physics. You cite, for instance, Keyhan without, I suppose, having read it and verified its contents --- in my case, I had read all the references that I had cited. Please ponder on this, as it looks very worrying to me that people who do not know even the rudiments of a subject matter are editing entries on that subject matter for an international encyclopaedia. Specifically, you have not shown any degree of openness to what I have been offering you in terms of background information --- you have kept repeating the same mantra all the time, not realising how patronising you behave (well, I have to be frank with you): you constantly say, implicitly if not explicitly, that you know better, while the undeniable fact is that you know nothing on this topic; from what you have written to me I have not gleaned any sign, not a whit, of knowledge on this topic; I am mystified by the confidence that emanates from you and your behaviour. End of the discussion, as I do not wish to invest any more time on this issue. I maintain however that my original text is far superior to what you have made of it (I see your text as a violation of its original, truly). Good luck. --BF 01:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
You are "mystified" because you are not thinking. Here is a clue: I have read and responded directly to your statements numerous times, and not once have you reiterated what I have said.
It is really very, very simple: the putative association of the Bahais with the women's rights movement is not pertinent to an article on Parsa unless you can come up with a source that directly and unequivocally states that such a relationship has a direct bearing on Parsa.
This is not rocket science. Tens of thousands of Wikipedians understand it. Policies are not there to make your life miserable. They are there to make the encyclopedia better.
I also cannot understand why you refuse to put the material where it belongs, and instead keep on insisting on putting it here. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Having assaulted my text, you have now moved to question my ability to think. That is some progress! Have you ever read Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden"? If not, here is a sample of it for you:
Take up the White Man's burden —
Send forth the best ye breed —
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild —
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
That is the way I see things that have been unfolding over the course of the past week: you feel qualified to edit an entry about whose subject matter you know nothing, have never studied any of its original historical material, etc. Why? Because it is, in your own words, "not rocket science". That says a great deal about your general attitude. I can tell you, I know British history since the earliest times, more generally I know European history since the earliest times (the same applies for the American history), but you never see me editing any of the Wikipedia entries on any subject matter related to these histories. Why? Because I have my knowledge of these histories through secondary sources; I have never done independent research on these histories. Now I see that you unashamedly declare, if not in words, in action, Iran's history as something a "white man" would do in his leisure time. That is a painful realisation for me. In year 2000, Mr GW Bush did not know the difference between Spain and Mexico, not to mention the difference between Shia and Sunni. Two years later he invaded a Middle-Eastern country in order "to bring democracy" for them. You are drinking the same water and you are breathing the same air, and you do not realise it; you accuse me of not thinking, while you are full of yourself and think how the history of a country, of which you even do not know the language, should be written. You cite, for instance, Keyhan, without realising that there are two Keyhans, one published in Tehran and one in London. The two have the same name, but are diametrically different; one is hard-line pro-Khomeini, one is hard-line pro-Pahlavi. Have you read any of these newspapers that you have cited? Please read Kipling's poem, as that will tell you things that must be so deeply part of you that you even do not realise it.
Lastly, nowhere in the biography had I said that Parsa was a Baha'i; the things that you allege about women's movement, etc., are all your fantasies; please read my text. Actually, I do not know what you are talking about. If your conclusion is that I do not think, well, you are entitle to conclude whatever you wish.
Let us end this discussion, as any further discussion is only likely to intensify our bad feelings towards each other (actually, I have difficulty breathing when on this page, so poisonous is the air). Let me be frank with you, the image that I had from your from our earliest encounter was not a positive one and the exchanges of the past few days have only confirmed me in my original beliefs about you. You are just a condescending person who does not know his own limitations and is given to the habit of pontificating on matters which are far outside the realm of his competence --- as I said earlier, you think that English being your first language entitles you to write the history of another nation without the slightest knowledge, whatever. In my opinion Kipling's above-mentioned poem summarises your mental attitude. Actually, I believe that even your Wikipedia username is a Freudian slip; you consider yourself as the last authority on all matters; you conclude every sentence. --BF 13:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Your 'white man' spin is altogether unworthy of response, as is also your mind-reading vis-a-vis my wp username, or my "mental attitude."
Its unfortunate that you prefer to ignore the the issue, and not surprising that you feel frustrated. Just as you are frustrated about the bagh issue, image copyrights issues, CSDs, AfDs, the EL links issues, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. None of these issues are about content, nor are they about you.
Just FYI, I didn't cite Keyhan. Someone else did. Also FYI, I harbor no "bad feelings" towards you -- if I did I wouldn't try so hard to try to make you understand that you are off on a tangent. In fact, I think that you have the potential to be a good writer, and with a little less passion and a better understanding of WP principles, you could become an excellent contributor. But you will probably consider this opinion "condescending" or mere "pontification" too. Ah, well. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Killed with a firing squad

Farrokhrou Parsa was killed with a firing squad according to a number of sources.[9]

  1. Information Please Almanac: Atlas & Yearbook, 1981. - Page 41
  2. Assassinations and Executions: An Encyclopedia of Political Violence, 1865-1986, Page 208

--47ToConfig (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

many thanks. I have added that to the article. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)