Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi/New

Rewrite

This article is now undergoing a major rewrite by everyone who wishes to join in. The key to doing this will be to use proper formatting when discussing changes on the talk page! Sign your posts (~~~~), indent all of your comments with an asterisk * (and colon : for more indenting). Make headings (==Title==) and subheadings (===Subheading===) to make discussions more precise.

*Example comment. ~~~~

:*Example response. ~~~~

::*Another response...
:::...which is very long. ~~~~

Example comment. ♠ SG →Talk 06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example response. ♠ SG →Talk 06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another response.

...which is very long. ♠ SG →Talk 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for divorce of the Shah and Fawzia

Ashraf Pahlavi in her autobiography states that Fawzia was not happy in Tehran and divorced because she wanted to go back to Cairo and that the rumor that the divorce was because of the lack of a male heir untrue. Azalea_pomp

Ah, I see. Well, I suppose it'll do for now. We should probably find a proper source for the real reason (I'm sure there will be something in an old newspaper archive), but it isn't of the highest priority for the moment. ♠ SG →Talk 09:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction rewrite

I've taken the liberty to expand the introduction with more information about Pahlavi's rule. It includes both the positive and negative aspects of his time as Shah. I am certain there will be modifications required as we all discuss changes that need to be made, but we've got a basis, so we can start making some real progress now.

I'm thinking it's a bit too long right now; how about you guys? Also, I should note that the "coup" part might sound a little wrong. Depending on how you look at it, it might not have been a "coup" by Mossadegh, but I'm trying to simplify the intro and not overwhelm the reader with too much information from the start.

So, let's get to work on this! ♠ SG →Talk 10:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph is looking good, but do not refer to him as "Pahlavi". I would say refer to him as either "the Shah" as he is often in the west or "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi". azalea_pomp.

Also, I am not sure the Khomeini and his group should be called the religious right, as they were not right wing. azalea_pomp

Well, they were socially conservative (staunch support of Sharia law), but politically, I'm not quite sure where to place them; Khomeini never really supported communism, and criticized it at times. The people who took part in the revolution, however, varied from Marxists to supporters of theocracy. I suppose we could find something more descriptive than "religious right", but we need to keep it short and simple. Any suggestions? ♠ SG →Talk 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've changed it a bit more, per suggestions from the main talk page. Some of those statements need to be reiterated in the actual article, so that we can source them there (instead of having to source in the lead, which is ugly). ♠ SG →Talk 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say Iran under the Shah had good relations with Israel. From what I have read, Iran had a de facto recognition of Israel, but to say good relations is a bit strong. azalea_pomp
After watching the A&E show, Pros of the Shah: modernization, Iranian nationalist, Iran's high prestige in the world, middle eastern hegemon, women and religious minority rights, rights of the third world, etc. Cons: Rastakhiz, too much westernization which upset the religious (the new calendar etc), youth not satisfied with his dictatorship, inflation, rich/poor gap, etc. Many mentioned his inability to take a strong stand (he would not use maximum force against the revolution, would seem to bend to his critics). azalea_pomp

I changed it to "recognition of Israel" instead, that should take care of that. I think we've covered the basics of what you mentioned about the A&E show (at least, whatever we can without making the lead too long). The actual article itself still needs a lot of work regarding those topics — it seems to be missing large portions of history. ♠ SG →Talk 06:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]