Talk:2009 Iranian presidential election protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good set of references[edit]

The Huffington Post has collected a batch of reliable sources, and we can cite them rather than having to branch off to many different articles.[1]

References

  1. ^ ~~~~
    • Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    • Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Election Live-Blogging (Sunday June 14)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    • Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising (Saturday, June 13)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-14. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Iran's nuclear energy program condemned by "most of the world"?[edit]

Citing from current version article: "Despite Iran's huge oil and gas reserves, those sectors have been relatively neglected in favor of a nuclear energy program which has cost billions of dollars and has been condemned by most of the world, including Israel and the United States, who claim that the program is a cover up for a much larger nuclear weapons program."

Most of the world supports Iran's legal right to a civilian nuclear program, as it is a signee of the Non-Proliferation Nuclear Treaty.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which alone comprises most of the world's countries with its 120 member states, unanimously supports Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program. So, most of the world in-fact supports Iran in this matter.

I will not, for now, make an edit myself - it would not be useful to make an edit only to have that removed by the people who may disagree and simply remove or alter it without notification.

Here is a source: http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/12/323476/nam-supports-iraniaea-talks/

I can attempt to find a primary source if desired.

usotsukuna (talk)

"Sources are reliable for alternative POV as per WIKI:POV"[edit]

There is no such criteria. There's also no "WIKI:POV". I think you mean WP:NPOV. There's nothing in there about "alternative POV". Neutral POV does not mean including nonsense crap from junk sources in every article. We don't put in "the Earth is flat" in the article Earth in order to include "alternative POV".

Quite simply these sources are not reliable. End of story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look, this is straight up POV pushing and the sources are not reliable. Phrasing such as "Western corporate media has been generally criticized for working to provoke the protests" or "Indeed, despite initial denials by US officials..." are textbook examples of POV pushing.

voltairenet.org is a conspiracy website with anti-semitic overtones. World Socialist Website, is also not a reliable source.

aljazeera and BBC are fine but the statement they source is a "response" or commentary on the ridiculous POV statements earlier in the paragraph. Hence once we remove the junk, there's no reason for these to be in there either.

This is just violation of Wikipedia policy. Please do not restore this material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I ever say "Sources are reliable for alternative POV as per WIKI:POV"?? Where do you quote this from? Here is my edit explanation quoted verbatim: "The sources are reliable for alternative POV as per WIKI:NPV. Take it to talk page in case of disagreement." Wikipedia:NPV as you see is an official shortcut to "Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View".
But as for your charges: Both Voltaire and WWS are websites critical of US foreign policy, imperialism, corporatocracy and corporate media, and these make them reliable sources for alternative POVs to existing POVs that are heavily based on sources with conflict of interest with the subject they are reporting: 2009 Iranian elections. As for the charge of "conspiracy theory", if you're referring to Meyssan's book on 9/11: The Big Lie, the claim that 9/11 was a false flag or inside job is a significant minority opinion so much so that it has already a hefty Wikipedia entry. So it is not a fringe pov to discredit Voltaire.org according to wiki rules for reliability. So as I said, for a just a little balance of POVs in this page which is clearly biased and relies on biased sources for this subject matter, the POVs should be included.
Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax
Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Steal the 2009 Iran Election? Strivingsoul (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Voltaire nor WWS nor petras (whoever that is) nor the other source are reliable. Note that Meyssan's book has an entry in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories, and NOT in the article on 9/11 itself. It does represent fringe POV. And no it shouldn't be included, any more then Mayssan's view's should be included "for balance" on the 9/11 article. You are misunderstanding what NPOV means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong! True that Meyssan's POV is cited in 9/11 conspiracy theories but if anything that proves that his POV is popular and notable enough as a minority POV to deserve a Wiki article. Indeed the record of Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories shows that since years ago, non-official theories about 9/11 form a significant minority viewpoint in US and even the majority opinion in some other countries! So POVs alternative to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory are not a fringe opinion. And that's why Meyssan's POV and those of others with a similar POV don not discredit them as reliable sources. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Again, you're misunderstanding WP:NPOV. It is completely irrelevant whether Meyssan's crazy ideas are "popular" or a "minority POV". All that matters is whether they're treated seriously in reliable sources. Please read WP:NPOV again, in particular the WP:GEVAL section. Also, read WP:RS. You can also look at WP:BALASPS where the key words are "a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources". These ideas are NOT treated seriously in reliable sources. They are WP:FRINGE and giving them "equal weight" or even mentioning them at all in any kind of serious way is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.
Or look at the actual article on 9/11. Not the one on 9/11 conspiracy theories. In the 9/11 article, Meyssan is not mentioned. The only mention of conspiracy theories in that article is that they exist, with a link to the appropriate article. IF there was an article on Conspiracy theories about the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests then MAYBE these sources COULD go in there (even then, that would tend to run up against WP:PRIMARY).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find your negative connotations with "conspiracy theory" objectionable. Please note that in the context of 9/11 incidents, the US government official explanation is by definition a conspiracy theory, for it also claims a conspiracy by a caveman in Afqanistan who along with 11 lackeys somehow managed to outwit the most sophisticated and powerful intelligence and military apparatus in the world. There are many researchers, technicians, journalists and even academics who find that theory as "most crazy" of all especially considering the fact that there's no concrete evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 (that's even admitted by the FBI). But ultimately which side we agree with or which theory we think is "crazy" is really besides the point here, for what matters here with respect to Wiki rules is whether that particular POV by Meyssan discredits him as a source. My argument is that his POV about 9/11 is not a fringe opinion. The evidence is that POVs alternative to official 9/11 explanation have been notable enough to warrant a Wiki entry. The opinion polls I linked also prove that they are not fringe but at least a significant minority. Myessan himself has also been notable enough to warrant a Wiki article.
But as for the conditions of this page, I'm going to open a new section and explain why this page is so seriously biased and lacks alternative POVs critical of the actions and claims of the Green Movement. The alternative POVs are very substantial and have been mainly published by Iranian government sources and also discussed by some critical western sources (I linked two instances here and have added some more of them in the article itself which you insisted on deletion). And that's also why I had added POV issue tag to the page. Note that this issue has also been raised by other users in the past. Strivingsoul (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are now engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Feel free to ask for an outside opinion from uninvolved, unbiased editors, for example at the NPOV dispute board or at WP:RSN. They'll tell you the same thing.
And you've pretty much laid out your cards in terms of "conspiracy theories" and made it perfectly clear that you are here to push these conspiracy theories onto Wikipedia articles. Basically, you're in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But some of those "crazy conspiracy theories" seem to have been already qualified to have their wiki entries which by your logic suggests that hundreds of those editors are "crazy". But any way, this talk is over and I will restore the materials in due time by providing corroborating sources (to your disappointment!). The page will hopefully be substantially balanced by major alternative POVs. Strivingsoul (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Iranian presidential election protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2009 Iranian presidential election protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Iranian presidential election protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus that it wasn't a revolution.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


2009 Iranian presidential election protests → Iranian Revolution of 2009 – Harmonization with Iranian Revolution. – Article editor (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Article editor, Dicklyon, 210.6.254.106, and Philg88: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not capitalize "for harmonization", but only for proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also likely to be controversial given the subject matter. Article has been moved around a few times, but always at some title containing "protest", not "revolution". "2009 Iranian protests" and "2009 Iranian election protests" each have about 4x as many GBooks hits as "2009 Iranian Revolution". 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done @Article editor: Please start an RM at the talk page if you wish to discuss further. Thanks.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see how this can be called a revolution given that it didn't result in regime change. Number 57 11:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 52 external links on 2009 Iranian presidential election protests. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 55 external links on 2009 Iranian presidential election protests. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 Iranian presidential election protests. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Iranian_presidential_election_protests&oldid=1196545502"