Talk:Shirin Ebadi

I removed the part of the article that claimed Ms. Ebadi is an "unofficial spokeswomen for all Iranian women" because this is simply untrue. In fact, with all due respect to Ms. Ebadi, there are many better qualified Iranian women than her is many different discipline.

Unlike what the Western media likes to report, the situation of women in Islamic Iran has dramatically improved compared to the pro-West previous regime. Statistics speak volumes in this case. As of this year's statistics, nearly 1/3 of all Iranian medical doctors are women, 37% of all university professors in Iran are women and 52% of all university students are females.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a political tool and the 2003 award was just another example. Need I remind you that Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger and Michael Gorbachev has also been awarded this prize?

First: the original text didn't refer to her as an "unofficial spokeswomen for all Iranian women", simply an "unofficial spokeswomen for Iranian women." A subtle difference.

Second, your brandishing of one set of statistics doesn't support your argument very well. What was the situation like in the early years of the Iranian revolution? What was the situation previous to 1979? We have nothing to base your claim against.

Third: to suggest the Nobel Peace Prize is a "political tool" is simplistic. The Nobel committee has certain values and a perspective just like any conservative institution in the modern world; it tends to reflect a certain status quo. In any case, if you are critical of this institution, the place to pursue your issues would be on the talk page of that article. -- Viajero 16:50, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Before the Islamic revolution of Iran, the total literacy rate of Iran was around 33%, and the gap between the litracy rates of men and women was huge. Today the total literacy rate is just over 80% (as of this year's statistics) and the gap is very narrow. The reason for the gap today is due to the old generation. Since Iran's population is very young, in about 10 more years the total litracy rate will be close to 100%.

In the last presidential elections in Iran there were 9 women candidates in the initial phase of the elections, but only one of them received enough votes to move up to the next phase, and she was didn't get enough votes in subsequent phase. Iran has a female Vice President and a number of prominant women parliamentarians. Women's participation in Islamic Republic of Iran in all walks of life, from driving cabs and buses to directing films and plays, is not only unique in the Islamic world, it is also outstanding by any other comparison.

Unlike many other societies where women are artificially promoted, in Iran the progress of women is natural, and thus, at a somewhat slower pace, but it is real and it is rapidly improving. With all due respect to Ms. Ebadi, the fact is that she had little to do with this movement. The improvement of the situation of women in Islamic Iran is withing the scope of the same movement that has also brought electricity, piped water, schools, clinics, radio and TV to just about all villages of Iran. Under the previous regime, you would have been very hard pressed to find a village in Iran with such facilities -- today, you would be hard pressed to find one without them.

In any nation not ravaged by war, the literacy rates naturally increase. Just because the literacy rates increased in Iran doesn't necessarily mean that it's caused by the Islamic Revolution. 128.195.100.178 03:41, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Weaselspeak

• "The selection of Ebadi by the Norwegian Nobel committee is thought by some observers to represent an implicit criticism of American policy in the Middle East, in particular the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. George W. Bush has referred to Iran as a member of the axis of evil, and Iran has also been suggested as a possible target for regime change."

I think this is weaselspeak. Who are these observers? Isn't it more likely that the prize is a criticism of Iran?

Thank you for pointing out this page, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. I had never seen it before. I have now read it and the discussion in the accompanying Talk page.

First, at least one "observer" is cited in the accompanying citation, [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21850-2003Oct13.html) Perhaps you overlooked this? I decided not to cite the columnist directly, as he is not well-known. Rather, I reasoned that since this point of view was presented in a major US (!) centrist daily, that I could offer it as one generic point of view. I find support for this in Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms. Note this exchange:

The point is not to forbid particular words or phrases; the point is to use these phrases as flags that signal unsubstantiated hearsay or personal bias. -- ESP 01:30 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, I don't think we really disagree about the substance of the matter, I'm just a bit bothered that the page doesn't even hint that these sorts of phrases are sometimes useful and OK. Possibly it could do with a couple of counter-examples to show that such phrases can serve a purpose (I'd add some myself, but I'm feeling very lazy). --Camembert

Well, of course, there is an exception to every rule -- and especially rules of thumb like this one. I think in the last paragraph I give some ideas about what to do with weasel words. Weasel words camouflage hearsay or bias, and should be given extra attention because of this. They should be removed if possible, and left alone if not. -- ESP 03:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you think I am "hiding" POV or bias with the way the paragraph is currently phrased, please feel free to tweak it. However, I would very much like to include this POV in the article. The Peace Prize is obviously controversial and "politicized" and I think it is important to convey this aspect of it. -- Viajero 12:05, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Norwegian Nobel Comittee never discuss the reasons for their decission. Any reasoning on why they give the prize to someone will be speculations and nothing else. The first time this was added it also pointed to the Swedish Nobel Comittee, a non existing body, and to me that indicates a missing understanding about what the Nobel prize is about and what it is not about. -- Gustavf 07:25, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree, it is futile to speculate about the motives of the Norwegian Nobel Comittee. However, I am simply trying to indicate that the Peace can be controversial and is interpreted by people in different ways. The same discussion ensued around the previous Peace Prize for Jimmy Carter. Not to report these kind of issues is not to be a good historian. If you think the text has any implicit bias, let's discuss it. -- Viajero 08:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Khatami doesn't seem to be very pleased with the prize. "The Nobel Peace Prize is not very important, the ones that count are the scientific and literary prizes." [2] (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1066119664306B265&set_id=1) The way I read it, is that the hard-liners dislike the prize, while the reformists like it. There has been speculation that Khatami is under pressure from the hard-liners. I think this is more important than the Bush connection.

---

In defense of all of Viajero's points:

First, Iran is a huge nation with a population of nearly 70 million and with one of the world's oldest and richest cultural heritages. It is a nation of stark socio-economic, ethnic, cultural, and even religious contrasts. It's outright absurd to claim that any single figure in such a diverse, pluralistic society is an "unofficial spokeswomen for all Iranian women." However, Viajero is right to call her an unofficial spokeswoman for many Iranians.

Second, it seems that a lot of users who know far less about Iran than Viajero want to nix a sentence or two under the pretension of avoiding "weasel terms." But every damn article almost will include something like "some analysts say...;" why the selective enforcement has to target this article has been unstated. Perhaps a compromise can hinge on citing particular observers and Iran specialists. I can provide some if anyone thinks that it will be helpful.

The rest of my comments will attempt to back up the other points made by Viajero concerning the political implications of the prize.

That the US administration may have regreted the prize must be mentioned. If anyone aside from Viajero (who certainly does) follows a broad array of international media, you would note the contrasts between US coverage of the award and Europe's; attention in the United States has been largely directed toward bemoaning the slight to the 83-year-old ailing pontiff. Bush's polite, unenthusiastic response paid lip service to Ebadi's contributions, exploiting it as an opportunity to go off with the usual shrill condemnations of the Islamic Republic - a country the US has all but threatened to invade.

While we cannot explain the sources of this contrast in enthusiasm for Ebadi as a matter of fact, some qualified insights must be stated. For one, there is no question that many of Ebadi's views are completely out of step with the Bush administration's. She stands for a non-Western way of looking at human rights. She has declared that "the fight for human rights is conducted in Iran by the Iranian people, and we are against any foreign intervention in Iran."

Ebadi and her colleagues are working to forge an indigenous, Islamic democracy not derived from Western models. She is a pillar of the pro-democracy reform movement with a main support base among middle class, well-educated, urban Iranians - not an exponent of "regime change." She has stated her commitment to this strategy, which has been paying off. The inroads made by native, home-grown reformers have been substantial; pressure from below has been yielding concessions and political reform from above. Iran now has the most advanced (though fledgling) multi-party democracy in the region. Meanwhile, Ebadi has reiterated repeatedly that these inroads are fragile. Consequentley, she has firmly rebuked prospects of Iraq-style "liberation," arguing that progress comes in spite on (not because of) the aggressive posturing after the "Axis of Evil" speech.

This coincides with the non-violent, democratic values and principles of the the Nobel committee, which has wanted to promote the cause of moderate Muslims since the September 11 attacks, attempting to avert a gulf of religious intolerance in both the US and the Islamic world, especially after the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. She is not an appendage or tool of the Bush administration's Iran policy. In fact, she comes far closer to the Nobel-model since she favors gradual domestic reform from within Iran, not by imposition.

In this sense, Ebadi is a critic of Bush policy; and she has already noted that the administration's rhetoric and actions has buttressed - not weakened - hard-liners domestically. From her standpoint, the threat of external enemies has been used to justify the internal abuses of power by the hard-liners.

Furthermore, only the naïve and most provincial in the United States would fail to understand why a home-grown democratic reformer from Iran might not want to be seen as a toady for the US within Iran. With US troops surrounding both Iran's eastern and western fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan), US support of the once pro-Saddam anti-Iranian terrorists within Iraq, and Bush "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, hard-liners can hark to memories of the Shaw's regime and fear of war in a country where the horrors of the Iran-Iraq War are vivid memories.

To understand this, you need a century of historical context that few Americans have. Before the coup the Iranian nationalist movement headed by Mossadegh rejected a situation in which the British government had received more tax revenues from Iranian oil than Iran's, while Iran suffered from abject poverty and half of all newborns died upon birth.

For having the audacity to restructure the country's leading industry under Mossadegh, the US provided guns, trucks, armored cars, and radio communications in the CIA-assisted '53 coup against Mossadeg, which subjected Iranians to over a generation of rule by the Shah's state of terror and secret police. In addition, oil profits were divided between the Shah's regime and the a new international consortium; in turn the British were awarded 40% of the country’s oil revenues, five US firms (Gulf, Socony Vacuum, Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Texaco) won another 40%, and the rest went to Royal Dutch Shell and French Petroleum.

While the Shah had a support base among some sectors of society, the vast majority of poor and rural Iranians who remember him despise his rule. Even Secretary of State Madeline Albright apologized in 2000 for the '53 CIA role, stating: "...it is easy to see now why so many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Conseqentley, the US is tainted by this past support of the Shaw. Due to the confluence of these memories, the international context today, and domestic realities within Iran, the United States is generally viewed as a lurking threat within Iran - even among reformist elements in the middle class. And the last thing Ebadi wants is a reputation as a Bush administration toady within Iran.

Ebadi does not favor Bush's approach (direct interference in Iran's internal affairs); she does not tie her reform agenda with pro-American stances within Iran. She favors constructive engagement with Iran to strengthen the hands of the reformers within the Iranian regime, although the lesser of the evils (such as the president) yet meet her standards. She merely wants moral support from the West; and does not want to be tainted by appearing too close to a Bush administration dreaded among many elements of Iran society- even among reformers. In stark contrast, the black and white rhetoric emanating from Washington paints a picture of a monolithic totalitarian evil, disregarding moderate elements within the regime.

In short, any informed observer will be well aware of the contrasts between Ebadi's approach to Iranian democratization and Bush's Iran policy. Thus, the article has to present the qualified interpretation that the prize may have given credence to Ebadi's tactics, while critiquing Bush administration policy. Viajero is right to insist that those paragrahs remain. 172 23:27, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

'Kevin Bacon' game

From User:Ark30inf: "Users attempting to insert criticism of George W. Bush or the Invasion of Iraq by playing the 'Kevin Bacon' game with him in every unrelated article that they can while fooling themselves/rationalizing that they are NPOV."

No, the subject of the article has been the one criticizing Bush's Iran policy. The article is merely conveying pertinent information. Now if you see flaws in the article's text, go ahead and make a case pointing out violations in NPOV policy. But no serious person is going to be convinced by a snide comment and a silly quip. 172 11:24, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)