Talk:Women in Iran

message: Wow.... that is one hell of a biased article. Must of been written by the iranian government 😂  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.190 (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Could someone remove that "Persian women overseas" junk. It really doesn't belong in here and seems like troll material. We're here to mention the achievments of Iranian or Persian women. You don't see me going to the page about kurdish women or ara women and stating their faults or what a dozen or so of them did abroad thousands of years ago.
Esther was not Persian but jewish hebrew.
Azeris are not 30 million in Iran, this is propaganda created by the pan-turks. They are 9-12 million at best and about 20%, including the mixed ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.31.195 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was originally about Persian women. It includes all ethnic persians (and Tajik and Parsi of India) and also women of Persia (the previous name of Iran). There are other articles for other groups. Please see Kurdish Women page as an example. Here we also include those whose mother or father or some of their grand parents were persian (e.g. half persian-half azeri etc). It also includes those who adopted persian culture for example Iranian christians. Besides the article includes those non-persian women who significantly contributed to Persian culture (non-persian directors who are famous of their Persian movies or non-Persian musicians who contributed to Persian music). There are some issues that all Iranian women share, particularly in contemporary Iran. In such cases the word Iranian has been used in the article. However examples have been selected from Persian ethnics. In summary, this page was made originally for Persian women throughout centuries. For other groups there exist separate pages or there are pages under construction. Please also notice that the word persian does not necessarily mean ethnic persian. In western literature, all people of Persia are called Persian, irrespective of their ethnicity. --Joe Dynue19:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. "Persian" is a cultural word here. I think the article has made this point very clear, right at the begining. As I said, even European iranologists who adopted persian culture may be inculded here. For contemporary Iran, I also suggest people to use the word Iranian instead of Persian in this article. --Joe Dynue10:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have stated that Iran was previously called Persia. I know that Iran was (mistakenly) called Persia by the greeks and then europeans in the past but I don't believe that the whole country was ever called Persia by its people. If this is what you claim please present a proof of it.Definite 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Well, I think this article is in need of a pretty massive rewrite.  It needs copy-edit (which I was here to look at); it needs to be better about NPOV (the first "historical" section is quite rantish); it needs more referencing.  It's also kind of an external link farm at the end, many of which are useless to English speakers.  I'm going to try to copy-edit in my free time, but I think this article needs help from all.  Please be bold., this article needs it. --will 20:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it's as bad as you say. But then again, more material can be added. And I can transfer the pics to a special gallery page, such as the ones seen here: Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia/Iran.--Zereshk 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, after reading the article a second time, I rescind my harsh first and last statements.  --will 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what do you think the article is lacking? I'll do some readings in the next few weeks and see what I can come up with.--Zereshk 02:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In the mean time, I'll make the gallery.--Zereshk 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: Gallery Completed. Provided link. Please feel free to fill it with Public Domain/GDFL/GNU images.--Zereshk 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needs help! 

message: "Although Persian women are often viewed as Iranian, they are not necessarily of any specific nationality or ethnicity."
If they are Persian, they are of a specific ethnicity: Persian.  Persian is not just a language, it is first and foremost an ethnicity.  Then it is a language and if someone is Persian, they didn't become Persian because they can speak the language.  I'm changing it and requesting that no one revert the statement,
Any suggestions why Persian women are renowned fot their beauty? --Vladko 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Persian is not an ethnicity. It is a cultural word (just like the word European). There is no set of genes that define persians. Original Persians married many different races, and the only thing that remained invarient was the culture and language. In Iran Persian is equal to Persian speaker. I hope it is clear now. Sangak 13:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sangak, your explanation about what persian means is interesting. A question I have is about what you mean by "In Iran Persian is equal to Persian speaker." I don't think the word "persian" exists in farsi, are you talking about when the english word "persian" is used in Iran? or are you referring to the word "fars" as a translation of the word "persian?" Also what do you think the situation is when the cultures are mixed? like azaris also have the same new year (bayram). Maybe we should use "Iranian and Persian women" and add an explanation of what the difference is and how it's sometimes hard to tell who is persian and who isn't. --Definite 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the orientalists to thank this confusion for:)--Zereshk 02:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: clarifications

message: Why on god's green earth are Persians constantly referred to as Iranian?  There are expats who moved long before there was an Islamic Republic, they embrace being Persian.  The fact that this redirects to a nationality (in a nation where Persians only barely make the majority) is troublesome.  What are the politics behind redirecting an article about the ethnic Persians to a lumped article about the people in a country?  I guess the squeaky wheels won the day on Wikipedia, again.  --Bobak 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Persian = Iranian mess

message: I am also wondering why there is an explanation of the persian wedding tradition under persian women. Why is this necessary? Isn't a wedding ceremony in general related to men and women? --Definite 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: wedding tradition

message: I have tagged it as dubious.  That isn't what I'd expect to be "traditional" dress somehow; it has a decidedly Western look to it.  Of course, I am ignorant, so let's get the sources for that.  The Behnam 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tajik women picture 

message: From Avesta.org: "We also worship the Ashavan woman, predominating in good thoughts, predominating in good words, predominating in good deeds, well instructed, 3 having power over the masters , Ashavan, (as are) Spenta Armaiti and your females, O Ahura Mazda."
The version used in the article added a lot to this.  Besides, most of the inclusions are OR or from unreliable sources anyway, but I thought it was worth illustrating this one.  The Behnam 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khorda Avesta quote 

message: This was removed because I got rid of the "Mother Goddess" section.  I'm thinking that it could replace one of the Safavid pictures since there are already two, but I'll put it here for now.  
:At second thought this doesn't appear to have the historical value that the others works do, so I don't think we really need it in the article.  The Behnam 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftover pic 

message: (moved from my talk page)
You mind explaining why you re-added the picture of the half-Iranian and the harp player? Obviously you disagreed but it would help if you provided an actual reason.  Anyway, I'm thinking of using this picture to replace the harp player.  It is from the same location anyway. The only problem is that the image use policy is different between them for some reason. As for Soraya, she is half-Iranian (as her appearance betrays).  I'm thinking that we should use a full Iranian as this would be more appropriate for an article about Iranian women.  The Behnam 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to disregard my direct quotation. Therefore on the contrary, IMO under the current situation "half-Iranian" best represents the topic as well, since I strongly suspect that you are not the only one who thinks that only "pure breed" deserve to represent Iran, Iranian people, and Iranian women. And BTW it looks to me that it is too early to speak about any "indefinite amount".  Mukadderat 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, I would suggest to avoid the idea that wikipedians have any right to decide who "best represents" Iranian women. Mukadderat 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that images should be included based on relevance to the article, according to Wikipedia rules. See Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity But how do you decide for this vague concept? The quote from the beginning is unsourced anyway, as this isn't a real topic.  People don't publish articles about the definition of "Iranian women," and I'm inclined to think that statements in this article are generally original synthesis and research.  This problem of subjectivity for too broad topics has arisen at White people too, and the solution there was to take out pictures.  I think it is best that we find some real sources for the definition of Iranian women or else there is no principle to measure against for inclusion.  Thanks.  The Behnam 07:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid I don't understand where you see that "women of Iran/Persia" is a vague concept. Please explain what exactly is vague here . Mukadderat 03:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have a source that really defines the scope of "Iranian women."  The concept is basically defined here, in the article, without backing.  I don't really see why there is an article on "Iranian women" anyway, as it isn't a 'special' concept in the real world, but lacking a real definition, it is hard to decide pictures according to relevance as WP recommends.  On a different matter, it doesn't help at all that a crappy previous version is restored and it is claimed that the junk was removed with "no justification", even though I and others put reasons in pretty much every edit summary.  I guess that is just one of the weaknesses of WP; there is always someone around to mindlessly restore garbage.  The Behnam 02:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image gallery

message: One cannot say whether the woman is Persian or Turkic (who cares anyways?), but just for the heck of it, the Qajars werent really "Turkic" by the 1900's...Hajji Piruz 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Woman

message: I don't understand why you keep removing the  tags from unsourced claims in the lead.  The definitions need sources as much as anything else - otherwise we may be essentially making up a topic.  If it is a claim, it needs an RS source, and 'defining' "Iranian women" involves claims.  This is all basic WP:OR and WP:V stuff - I can't believe I have to tell you this.  We can't invent our own topics, or define topics in our own way - let the RS do the work, and we report on it.
:Stop attacking me and stick to the point. YOU keep re-inserting back your own version of the intro and then putting tags on it and lecture me about WP:OR and WP:V!--Zereshk 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you cut my post, but anyway, this isn't "my version" of the introduction.  If my version was there, it would be much shorter and less dubious (to me, anyway), but I'm not putting anything until I have a source to back it.  All aspects of the lead need sourcing, especially since we are defining the topic.  We, the editors, are not to define the topic as we see fit, but instead must rely upon RS for the definitions in addition to the other content.  If you can make a lead that defines the topic directly from RS, I will be fine with it.  The Behnam 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And which part is exactly a "personal definition" and my "soapbox"? Instead of giving me lectures about WP guidelines and policies, please be specific, and provide the part of the text you think is problematic and why, AND, how to improve it. Prove to me that you can also do other things than just slap on tags and delete Iranian articles. Cheers :)--Zereshk 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, I hate to see you upset like this - let me assure you that I have only Wikipedia's best interests in mind when I edit.  The current lead is a 'personal definition' insofar as that various editors have listed the definition and scope of "Iranian women" based upon what they personally considered correct, instead of relying directly upon RS.  I say this simply because the section has been tagged as lacking sources for a long time - if they had simply forgotten to list their sources when adding content, they'd have listed them by now.  The Behnam 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Instead of reverting discuss with him. --Vonones 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what do you suppose has been going on here all day? We have been discussing - I've had to explain basic principles of WP:OR in a dozen ways it seems.  The Behnam 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just concerned that we aren't able to source any of our definitions, which we need to do regardless of whether or not they seem to make sense to us.  The Behnam 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to source a definition for "Iranian women". Just like we don't need to source a definition of History of Iran or Demography of Iran, etc. These titles are just ordinary phrases, not some technical or scientific terms. Mukadderat 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) It's content, like anything else.  WP:OR applies to content.  If you are going to include claims (in this case, claimed definitions), you need to show that RS directly support the claim.  We can't just write whatever we want and define a topic as we see fit - that's the job of original researchers.  One reason for WP:OR is to prevent original work.  So we need to source the lead's definition (it doesn't help that we include easily disputed claims as part of the definition).  The Behnam 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Shervink, one of the more fundamental problems with this article is touched upon by your statement.  You say that the definition should be obvious enough not to require a stated definition, but you consider that we may need to note the 'scope' of our narrative (which includes countries outside of Iran - this is one of the disputable parts of the definition, BTW).  That we are presenting the scope and definition of an encyclopedia narrative based upon our own judgment, rather than an RS narrative, sets off alarm bells (for me, anyway).  The reason I find this alarming is because, per WP:OR, "novel narratives" are forbidden.  Yet if we have to define the topic ourselves (seeing that we haven't been able to use RS for reference and guidance on this point), and create the article based upon our dictate, we are essentially creating a "novel narrative."  At initial thought, the novelty is not only supposing that "Iranian women" includes women from "Greater Iran," but also that women in this large region can be presented as being unified in this way.  Do you see what I mean? If it isn't clear, please state what seems off about it so that I can further explain.  Regards,  The Behnam 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think things are that dramatic. I think this article merely wants to present some facts which would take up too much space in other related articles. It's a choice of presentation, not OR. Shervink 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The_Behnam: why don't you make a suggestion of how the first sentence of the article should read? I see your point about how one shouldn't try to define things, but the article has to start with something, right? -- Fullstop 16:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: This line زن خوب فرمانبر پارسا was wrongly translated to "The honorable and noble woman". Checking out an on-line Persian-English dictionary shows the obvious mistakes (This line of Sa'di is usually frowned upon by Iranian feminists): 
فرمانبر = Obedient However it was perviously mis-translated to "honorable". 
Heja Helweda 03:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! Do you happen to know where the incorrect translation came from?  The Behnam 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-translations in Sa'di poems 

message: :Image:Soraya shah wife.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Soraya shah wife.jpg

message: This article seems like a mess, look at the number of boxes talking about needing the page being "cleaned up"
--☯µWiki☯  Talk / Contributions  (YouWiki) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup, Stub, Revamp? 

message: I just stopped by this page to learn, and the first line in the 'descriptions and appearance' box strikes me as a little random - perhaps I am misreading it, but does 'women thought they were better than men' need to be in there?  Thank you.
:It was just vandalism—imbecilic as always. I reverted it upon sight. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note from a visitor 

message: perhaps sponsored by some ever dreaming Royalists.
1979 was 9% of iranian women employed and today more than 57% (without Mullahs maybe 70%)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.97.111 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An extremeley trashy Site 

message: Are we now going to do "men" and "women" articles for every ethnic groups?
Iranian women, Kurdish women, Arab women, Greek women, Italian women, Catalan women, Scottish women, German women, Maasai women, Sinhalese women? Or what? 
Yes, there should be a "women's rights / gender issues in modern Iran" article, but not in the form of a cheesy ethnic fantasy piece about Persian womanhood through the ages. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this

message: Where did the quote in the introduction about the dying of hair, and the widening of eyebrows? I have searched and searched, but I cannot find any references to the use of indigo as hair dye. The quote isn't attributed to a specific person either. Someone should fix this, or delete the quote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanatorRider (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in Introduction 

message: Maybe a sportswomen section can be created?
::http://www.parstimes.com/sports/women/history/
::http://www.parstimes.com/sports/women/ --Bowser2500 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sportswomen 

message: The file :File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at :File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days.  Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use candidate from Commons: [[:File:InternationalWomen'sDayIran1979.jpg]] 

message: The comparison table falls under WP:DISPUTED because it doesn't take into account the change in cultural trends. The rise in literacy rates for instance cannot be simply attributed to the Islamic regime.--AnarchistFakest (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not disputed because it's based on pure facts. Everything in past 35 years is result of policy by Iranian government and it's comprehensive programs, and as I can see you as dissident just WP:DONTLIKEIT because facts doesn't fit in your political agenda ("regime" is a derogatory term and it showed your blanking is motivated by personal views). --109.60.7.0 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The illiteracy rate decreased because time has passed. It's not fair to compare past and present. It's obvious that with population growth, global technology growth, etc. illiteracy will decrease. If the government isn't preventing people from going to school, it doesn't matter who is governing. People will go to school and go on. And none of the past and present regimes were preventing people from going to schools. Aminabzz (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070522232907/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=8071337793166478323 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8071337793166478323
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070105062055/http://www.time.com:80/time/photoessays/policewomen/ to http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/policewomen/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding latest POV attempts by neo-orientalist heads: claim about alleged banning women from universities is not true, see: "Facts about women in universities in Iran" (Mehraspand , 2014) and "Did Iran Really Just Ban Women From Universities?" (Pourahmadi, 2012). Also, inserted domestic violence in Iran is not neutral article, its based on political pamphlet which has been removed from the internet. --MehrdadFR (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor POV attempts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Women in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027141210/https://www.quandl.com/WORLDBANK/IRN_SE_TER_ENRL_FE-Iran-Islamic-Rep-Student-enrollment-tertiary-female to http://www.quandl.com/WORLDBANK/IRN_SE_TER_ENRL_FE-Iran-Islamic-Rep-Student-enrollment-tertiary-female
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://baharnewspaper.com/News/92/05/05/15831.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011111127/http://kargah.com/history_of_iranian_photography/qajarwomen/index.php?other=1 to http://www.kargah.com/history_of_iranian_photography/qajarwomen/index.php?other=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Which "unconstructive edits" you're talking about? There's a vast review about history of clothing, all referenced to tens of academic books, and beyond it someone added garbage section which claims something completely otherwise. Furthermore, someone excluded other properly referenced sections, so I restored it. Introduction was without any single source and with bizarre claims. --188.40.183.139 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aranya 

message: Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison table 

message: Some of comparisons in the table in Islamic Republic of Iran part, history section make no sense. Because it is clear that with population growth in time, the percent of literacy among people will grow too Aminabzz (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison table 

message: I am curious why there is such a huge gap from the end of the Sassanid Dynasty until the Qajar Dynasty. I want to work on this period. Suggestions anyone? ----Abscarab (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing section on arrival of Islam in Iran 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: "Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, wife of Ahmad Shah Qajar classic work, From Darkness to Light, published two years before the Islamic Revolution (1968-1969) ". However, from my searching, 1. Authur of said book was Badr al-Moluk Bamdad, a lady born in Tehran in 1905, while one of the wives of Ahmad Shah Qajar, Badr al-Molouk was born in 1897 in Tabriz. They couldn't be the same, and 2. the so called Islamic Revolution happened in 1979, said book was first published before the revolution. Hence the period couldn't be (1968-1969).  Please enlighten me to see if I'm correct. I'm working on the translation of this article into traditional Chinese. Thank you for your attention.ThomasYehYeh (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the writer or anyone help clarify the following? Thanks 

message: I've got no chance to read the referenced book, I thus have hard time understand the real meaning. Maybe a rephrasing can help. Thanks.
“After periods of imposed restrictions, women's educational attainment continued its rise through the Islamification of education following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, peaking in the years following radical changes in the curriculum and composition of classrooms.”ThomasYehYeh (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the writer or anyone help elaborate the following? Thanks. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Women in Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "books.google.se":
From Women's suffrage: Heinonen, Jarna and Vainio-Korhonen, Kirsi (2018) Women in Business Families: From Past to Present. Routledge. 
From Hijab by country: Stephanie Cronin: Anti-Veiling Campaigns in the Muslim World: Gender, Modernism and the ..., p. 229-236
From Women in Afghanistan: Julie Billaud: Kabul Carnival: Gender Politics in Postwar Afghanistan
From Kashf-e hijab:  
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Women in Iran]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion