Talk:Iranian Revolution/Archive 1

message: :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)
thread_title:  modernisation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  corruption 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bahá'í Faith 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Muharram 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nomination for worst article 

message: 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)
replies: text: how so? Joeyramoney 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Amphiboly 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page Redirect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allegations without support 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about the Soviet role during and after the revolution? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Some Changes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shorting introductory section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed compromise over intro sentences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AA Milne, Why are you undoing edits of citations? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged Defects in Neutrality and Cleanliness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many "foreign words" 

message: (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)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  issue about Rastakhiz Party dues 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
#Support for the reasons I myself provided above.--Patchouli 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support for the reasons I myself provided above.--Patchouli 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: # Oppose Islamic Revolution was only the second stage of the revolution, as also mentioned in the article. --- Melca 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misc changes 

message: 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 and Michel Foucault support this POV . I put POV tag on this article until this problem is solved.--Sa.vakilian 15:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two POV 

message: 89.241.124.201 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iranian democracy 

message: This is a message from Khoikhoi to me
:I don't think the quote is long at all, but that's just my opinion. I disagree that there should be a separate section in the article just for quotes. They should be moved to Wikiquote instead. Also, I found Iranian Revolution very hard to read due to the POV, cleanup, unreferenced, and expand tags in almost every section? What happened? Khoikhoi 06:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to clean up the article 

message: Although there were clashes between Bazargan's government and some of the revolutionary councils but it was was a revolutionary organization too. "the formal government and the revolutionary organizations. The Khomeini-appointed Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan worked to establish a reformist democratic government." sounds wrong.
:There is abundant evidence that Bazargan considered himself a reformist and that his government came into conflict with Khomeini's plan for replacing the Constituent Assembly with an Assembly of Experts, etc. (see for example: p.216-7, Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah by Baqer Moin) --Leroy65X 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Provisional Revolutionary GOvernment was the official title. At least Keddie uses it. Leroy65X 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "Provisional Revolutionary GOvernment" with you.--Sa.vakilian 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag:formal government 

message: The article needs a serious accuracy check - I've noted a number of serious mistakes here and there. I don't have time right now but later I'll try to list every single infraction. I'd also suggest avoiding sources that violate WP:RS. The article definitely, definitely needs overhaul to fall in line with WP:NPOV. Right now in its current state the article is very anti-revolution. Looking at earlier versions, the article before was pro-revolution. The people editing this article need to cool their POV and find the middle ground. Khodavand 16:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy check 

message: I wrote the most notable groups which I known on the basis of my information. Please check whether it's POV or not and write your idea here. --Sa.vakilian 18:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppositions groups and organizations:POV check 

message: There were some reasonable justifications for this event. When Shah went to U.S. revolutionaries remind Operation Ajax. They feared that U.S. would want to return Shah to power. --Sa.vakilian 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we should but something in about operation ajax. I think that analogy is strained because the 1979 revolution was far more powerful (and especially more anti-Shah) than Mossadegh's movement, but yes we should put something in. --Leroy65X 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They hated and were frightened because of U.S. policies.--Sa.vakilian 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added operation ajax. --Leroy65X 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV:Hostage Crisis 

message: As of Feb 24 2007 there were over 200. I probably put the majority of them there so I should explain: The Iran Revolution is a highly contentious subject and so I wanted to give anyone who wants a chance to check the facts of what I've put in. --Leroy65X 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so many footnotes? 

message: I propose we take off the POV tag at the beginning of the article and deal with POV tags in the sections one by one. I hope we have a consensus that much of the article is not POV. --Leroy65X 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the POV tag at the beginning of the article. I suggest to rearrange this article. --Sa.vakilian 03:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Sa.vakilian: much of text taken verbatim from 
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/warn2/shiism.html
... means copyright problems. It must be rewritten or sooner or later it will be deleted.
I purpose writing something along the lines of: 
:the ideology was populist, nationalist, islamist.  Khomeini was the leader. He took some of his ideas (talk about revolution, the oppressed, gharbzadeh) from Shariati and the Islamic left. The disagreement among revolutionaries over ideology was about velayat-e faqih. While everyone agreed on nationalism-populism-islam, many disagreed that a cleric/clerics should rule. Khomeini believed this was the Islamic way and felt compelled to avoid talking about velayat-e faqih before securing power, and to suppress those who opposed velayat-e faqih after he secured power.  --Leroy65X 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it's against  copyright rule. Therefor I put a comment there which says this part should be summarized. But what you propose doesn't represent what I meant by adding that verbatim. Unfortunately I don't have enough time in these days. Can you please summarize that part.--Sa.vakilian 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still working on the Ideology of the revolution. There are a lot of issues to summarize, include, and weave together. --Leroy65X 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised Ideology of the revolution done. See if it is summarized and wikified to everyone's satisfaction. --Leroy65X 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology of the revolution 

message: Sav.akilian I think this is wrong:
:On February 12 the committees of Islamic revolution (also known as "komitehs" from the French comite) established in mosques. Khomeini put Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani in charge of the komiteh.Arjomand, Turban for the Crown (1988) p.135
There were committees in 1978. 
:The first "komitehs" (from the French comite), or committees, "sprang up everywhere" as autonomous organizations in late 1978. They mobilized people, organized strikes and demonstrations, and distributed scarce commodities. After February 12, many of 300,000 rifles and submachine guns seized from military arsenalsBakhash, Reign of the Ayatollahs, (1984), p.56 ended up with the komitehs who confiscated property and arrested those they believed to be counter-revolutionaries. In Tehran alone there were 1500 committees. Inevitably there was conflict between the komitehs and the other sources of authority, particularly the Provisional Government.Bakhash, Reign of the Ayatollahs, (1984), p.57 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroy65X (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may right. I doubted. I'll try to find a reliable source.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were also many Communist committees. Let us not forget that the Communists were perhaps the strongest in terms of militia force. Khorshid 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Committees

message: I think that two articles are too much and that it should only be one article GLGerman 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge: with article [[History of the Islamic Republic of Iran]] 

message: As is mentioned above, this article is too long. I propose trimming Ideology of Iranian revolution  and Revolutionary organizations  and creating separate articles of these sections if editors demand it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I made template:Iranian revolution.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have created a Organizations of the Iranian Revolution  article so we can start trimming down the Iranian Revolution#Revolutionary organizations section --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim down article 

message: ===Causes of the Iranian Revolution===
I've forked off a Causes of the Iranian Revolution article and trimmed down the section of the same name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More trimming 

message: I've forked off a Causes of the Iranian Revolution article and trimmed down the section of the same name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Causes of the Iranian Revolution]]

message: Unless I hear strong objections I'm going to trim the Post-revolutionary impact section because there is already a History of the Islamic Republic of Iran article covering that topic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of the Islamic Republic of Iran]] article

message: Next I'm going to trim from this section as there is already a Organizations of the Iranian Revolution article --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Revolutionary_organizations Revolutionary organizations ]

message: Why has the article been downgraded to a C rating? 
Which means it "is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. ... [and]  may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. ... [and] may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. ...  [Is] useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. 
There should be discussion of and explanation about this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it might be because it's too long, and those 2 Neutrality tags. I agree that the post-1980 needs to be trimmed to make the article more readable. But it's good if we can make sure the content is available in more specific articles before deleting them. Aryan (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  downgrading of quality rating 

message: ===I propopse trimming the post revolutionary section drastically===
... and putting stuff in the History of the Islamic Republic of Iran article. 
<BR>Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long 

message: ... and putting stuff in the History of the Islamic Republic of Iran article. 
<BR>Any objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I propopse trimming the post revolutionary section drastically

message: these two sections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution#Iranian_dissent_and_its_suppression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution#Domestic
have tags saying: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (December 2007)
But there is no discussion on the talk page and the tags have been there a year now. If we don't get some discussion soon I'm deleting them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, a neutrality tag needs a section on the discussion page to further elaborate on that. If not, it is just a subjective view of an editor without further explanations. Give it a month and delete them if no one makes a comment on them. Aryan (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 1/2 months having gone by I will remove the tags. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tags 

message: *sugestion: shorten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Post-revolutionary_impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Ideology_of_Iranian_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Organizations_of_the_revolution
all of which have there own spin off articles
*nothing about the bani sadr era and his impeachment
I confess that I am as responsible as anyone for the length of the article and will work to make it more concise. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article still too long and other problems 

message: re: an edit by an anon editor with an edit summary reading: constitutional monarchy is incorrect. it was a dictatorship/absoulte monarchy. 
I propose we stick with a simple monarchy and islamic republic in the lead, rather than dictatorship and islamic republic. Monarchies can be democratic or undemocratic,  as can republics - islamic or otherwise. 
Few doubt the islamic republic is more democratic than the shah's regime, .... but is it a democracy? If not, labeling the monarchy a dictatorship and the IRI an Islamic Reupblic implies dictatorship disappeared with the monarchy. 
Also, in fairness to the shah, we now live in a more democratic climate worldwide. following the fall of the soviet union, there is much less public tolerance for dictatorship.  Who knows how the shah's regime might have ended up by now if it had survived.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dictatorship or constitutional monarchy? 

message: Still a big mess with too much repetition and facts missing. I will add info on the National Democratic Front (Iran) and the Muslim People's Republican Party. 
Does anyone have an objections to a fork article on Casualties of the Iranian Revolution? --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewriting 

message: someone needs to make it about 1/5th the size it is now.  this is breaking my browser  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.8.99 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to reduce the size. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is way too big 

message: I removed the following sentence:'...its replacement with an Islamic republic which turned out to be an Islamofascism under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution.' because though the labelling of Iran's regieme as an 'Islamofascist', has the effect of distorting the article's neutrality. --86.41.202.32
:Well done: "The term Islamofascism is a controversial neologism...." ... "The term, "Islamofascism" has been criticized by scholars[10] and journalists alike. It is considered historically inaccurate and simplistic by scholars of history[11] and politics.[12], and is criticized as being generally used as a pejorative or for propaganda[13][14] purposes." The term doesn't fit --Englishazadipedia (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamofascism"