Talk:2009–10 Iranian election protests
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009–10 Iranian election protests article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the Persian Wikipedia.|
|A news item involving 2009–10 Iranian election protests was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 14 June 2009.|
|Text from Death of Naser Amirnejad was copied or moved into 2009 Iranian election protests#Casualties with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Death of Naser Amirnejad.|
|Text from Sohrab Aarabi was copied or moved into 2009 Iranian election protests#Casualties with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Sohrab Aarabi.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 14 days may be automatically moved.|
- 1 Good set of references
- 2 Propaganda against Iran
- 3 Lead
- 4 "Filter" isn't the right term
- 5 "Russian backing"
- 6 Twitter Revolution
- 7 Updating
- 8 Requested move
- 9 No longer about the election.
- 10 Amazed how you can claim such things
- 11 Protests over?
- 12 Saeeda Pour-Aghaie
- 13 POV Check Nomination
- 14 Beautiful
- 15 Benford's Law and fraud in wikipedia article
- 16 Source #122 dead link -- found a new copy
- 17 File:3rd Day - Mousavi Supporters Rally.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 18 Dead link
- 19 Dead link 2
- 20 Nokia Siemens
- 21 Page renamed?
- 22 Protection
- 23 Death of Neda Agha-Soltan
- 24 Iran's nuclear energy program condemned by "most of the world"?
Good set of references
Propaganda against Iran
The US media, led by the New York Times , is continuing its concerted propaganda campaign against Iran over charges that the government stole the June 12 presidential election. There is not even a semblance of objectivity in the media coverage, which parrots the charges of the opposition headed by defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi as fact and dismisses the government’s claims as lies.
The opposition is lauded as democratic and reformist, while incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his supporters are portrayed as virtual fascists. One would scarcely imagine that the two men represent rival factions within the same ruling establishment.
Responsibility for the violence in the streets of Tehran is attributed entirely to the government and its security forces.
No connection is drawn between these events and the broader situation in the region, where the US is waging two wars, on Iran’s eastern and western borders, both aimed at establishing American hegemony over the oil-rich territory.
Suggestions that the US and its intelligence agencies are involved in the turmoil in Iran are dismissed as ludicrous, fabrications by an Iranian government trying to divert public opinion. This, in a country where Washington overthrew a democratically elected government in 1953, propped up a brutal dictator, the Shah, for more than a quarter of a century, and has carried out covert CIA operations in the recent period involving the use of special operations troops on Iranian soil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think you have some valid points. The whole article is biased and clearly violates the NPOV guidelines. The problem is that it's hard to find unbiased media sources because the psychological warfare of the US is working too well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The Iranian government refused to do anything about these accusations, one would think that if they truly had won fairly they would not mind a recount or something of the sort, but they did not. Anyone who spoke out against them was cruelly silenced, so please tell me how the hell the government is not oppressing its people!? This is a violation of the human rights that every man and woman on this earth are born with! Granted, the majority of the American news media today might as well be a wing of the government, but Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the founder of the suicide boy scouts, and a holocaust-denying twelver who believes that israel is the spawn of Satan and must be destroyed along with half of the world to rush the coming of the Twelvth Imam. He doesn't seem like a person that should be in charge of a country. If you haven't gotten my point by now, here it is: You are lying and also supporting a murderous madman. If you disagree, PLEASE state why I am wrong, give an example, and don't just say that America's evil CIA Conspiracy is trying to blow up Iran's oil and covering their tracks with media bias. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Protests following the 2009 Iranian presidential election against alleged electoral fraud and in support of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi occurred in Tehran and other major cities in Iran and around the world from June 13, 2009 until August 5, 2009.
- Do we have sources supporting the claim that the protests ended on August 5? From what I have read, they didn't. This article is not about the election, which admittedly has ended, it is about the protests, after all. Colchicum (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"Filter" isn't the right term
The current version makes abundant use of the term "filter", as in "web filter" and so on, but I don't think this is a proper usage. A filter is a device for a user to isolate what is desirable from a larger collection of desirable and undesirable content. For example, you might set an email filter to show mostly useful content but not spam. By contrast, the "web filter" responds to the user's action simply by refusing to do it. That's not filtering something useful out of a mixture. If people don't want to use the plainer term "censor" all the time, they should at least say "block" and "web blocking", not "filter". Wnt (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Just letting whoever included it know (184.108.40.206 on 03:33, 29 August 2009; I don't know how it lasted this long), I've removed "with possible Russian backing" from the line "Some called the controversial election results a coup with possible Russian backing (or "کودتای ۲۲ خرداد" in Persian—the Anno Persarum 1388 Khordad 22nd Coup d'etat)" from the introductory paragraphs. I read all three cited sources and none mentioned Russia. Instead, they seem to all be cites for calling the election a "coup." If you would like to present sources to defend this interpretation, please do so. Otherwise, please don't insert such unreferenced lines into sentences that give the appearance that they are referenced. TheSlowLife (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this a joke? I had never heard this before reading the Washington Times article. To have this "nickname" in such a prominent position feels tacky. I'm sure the west would like to feel they had their part in the whole thing, observing over whichever web service they prefer, but it kinda demeans the efforts of all the people who actually were there, fighting for a great cause, and not just tutting over images on their lunchbreaks thousands of miles away.
I'm not sure to what extent the movement was/is organised over twitter, and I understand it was quite important in some respects, but the demonstrations would have taken place with or without the western media, that much I know.
So if it is Iranians nicknaming it the Twitter Revolution then thats great ... but if it is just some US journalists, then I have never heard anything more tacky in my life. --Luke85uk (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Omid: i agree, i live in Iran and been attending in almost every elections. never used Tweeter ! its blocked in Iran and i do not have the sufficient knowledge to use it.
No longer about the election.
The election was really only the beginning of a greater Green Revolution. The people of Iran, tired of the abuse they have to put up by their government for 30 years (it's been 31 years now), saw a glimmer of hope with the reformist candidate Mir Mousavi. Even though the majority voted for him, the Islamist government of Iran have rigged the votes to swear Mr. Ahmadinejad for a second term. Thus started the Green Movement to overthrow this illegitimate government, with the election being just one of the grievances, when the main one is the utter lack of respect towards freedom and human rights that the said illegitimate government has demonsrated 31 years since its inception. In short, this is now a protest against the whole Islamic regieme itself, no longer just about the elections. For this reason, this article should be renamed to 2009-2010 Iranian anti-government protests or 2009-2010 Iranian opposition protests, or just Green Revolution (Iran). Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Its not an abuse thats been going on for 30 years, its been only going on for 4 years (under ahmadinejad) when stricter islamic rules were applied. Initially this green movement was against the coup government of Ahmadinejad and Revolutionary Guards who rigged Election, which majority of green movement supporters (up to 3 million in tehran) supported. when some of the protestors later got radicalized and demanded ouster of khamenei, many of the initial green movement supporters stopped protesting with them (evidence is given by smaller number of green protestors protesting in ashura 2009) because majority didn't want to seek conflict with the major opposing side (i.e. fundamentalists and hardliner supporters) and still supported reformist leadership. Its not really a protest against 'the whole Islamic regieme' since 98% of the population of iran follows islam as their religion, and 70% support sharia being the principal source of legislation. much of the protest against the Islamic regieme is being done by exiled and fringe opposition groups abroad, and many of those opposition groups have been portraying the movement in their own view (i.e. being against islamic regime) whereas the mainstream green movement has been protesting against the hardliner leadership that supported the coup government and is maintaning dictatorship.
you really have to get the check your facts and sources before referring to the exiled/fringe groups for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ass711 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no way to validate the claim that "98% of the population of iran follows islam as their religion". The Iranian government may consider 98% of the population of Iran as Muslims. The law that no-one can ever convert away from Islam, by there logic, implies that 98% of the population is Muslim. Obviously this is inaccurate to the true feeling of the population (think about it, most of the population of Iran are under 30 and many are influenced by the west). Where is the fact "70% support sharia being the principal source of legislation" from? Maybe many would agree to this by fear anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Amazed how you can claim such things
Next to this being obviously the most biased article on the entire wikipedia (and it's not descrete at all), I am amazed how some of these Green fanboys can still claim these protests which ended half a year ago are still "ongoing".Kermanshahi (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- They are, albiet not as flamboyant as the initial June protests. If you actually actively kept track of the events, you'd realize the opposition movement is still alive. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Citing the timeline there has only been one entry for march 2010, I feel that the protests (Major) have ended as there are no sources that claim otherwise. The movement may not be over but this article is NOT about the movement but the protests that followed the election. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- The protests are indeed not over. A new one is being planned on the Iranian election day (June 12th) to contest the alleged electoral coup. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable references to prove this claim? To be honest I do not think anyone will know when the protests are really going to be over but seeing it is no longer in the news (For almost 2 months now seeing the timeline) I do not see how the protests can be called "ongoing" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The protests are completely dead, there hasn't been anything for months, the last proper protest was in december 2010, the last small student rally to do with the green movement was in february but this timeline has been completely misused. Any news in Iran is put on there as if it's an election protest, the entry for March was just some news, not even a demonstration, now someone added news about a strike in Sanandaj and Mahabad to protest Kurdish executions (which has nothing to do with Mousavi, the elections or the Green Movement at all) on the timeline as entry for may.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And you know, there have always been some small student protests in Iran, continuously before and after 1979, you could add these whenever they happen to the timeline and than claim the post-election protests are ongoing for ever but than this completely breaks the wikipedia rules and it's obvious that's done not to contribute to wiki but to make political propaganda.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous when I said "the protests are not over". When I said that, I mean that they have not been completely forsaken (seeing that a new one is being planned for election anniversary), and I make no explicit mention of some of the other protests against the Islamic Republic that don't exactly tie into the Green Movement. While the Green protests have been put on hold for a while, I wouldn't call them "dead" just yet, until Mousavi and/or Karrobi decide that they aren't working and cry uncle. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I don't think the protests are deemed over, it may sound quiet and not so flamboyant but the opposition is not dead. There hasn't been any reports of the Green movement giving up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Giant Blue Anteater, would you agree to call the protests over now? There has been nothing for months and months and there was no protest on the election aniversary, since Mousavi called it off. The Green Movement may not have officially disbanded itself, however if there will be new pro-reformist protests next year or in 2 years time, or something, than I think we can agree that, those protests should have an entirely different article for them. It's just like theses 2009 protests are not in the same article as 1999 protests.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
An article about her has been proposed for deletion. Apparently she was a protester killed by security forces. There are no sources I can find in English about her, I speak no Farsi, and Google Translate of Farsi is pretty hopeless, so I can't really assess the facts or notability of this case. Here's the Google Translate of the fa.wikipedia article on her: and here's a Persian BBC article, in case anyone feels inclined to write about her. Fences&Windows 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
POV Check Nomination
I hold no particular standpoint in this dispute, but the article is hideously one-sided, with virtually no information or views from the ruling party given. There are lengthy quotes from Moussavi which provide little encyclopaedic value, yet are given undue weight in the article, which contains no quotes from Ahmedinijad or the ruling coalition. I know POV doesn't mean providing equal weight to all parties, but at least all views should be represented in at least some form. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article is a scandalous Mousavi-propaganda page, full of misinformations, heavily POV sentences, unreliable sources and unbased claims. This is something you would expect to find on the blog of some Green supporters, not on wikipeida. It should definetly be checked for neutrality and IMO the whole thing should be re-written and the page should be protected to prevent wikipedia from becoming a propaganda outlet for the Iranian Green movement. Kermanshahi (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is beautiful. While it's a bit unpolished on some parts (trivia section at the end etc), it's just brilliant. I don't know how much people worked on it, but I must say, thank you. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Benford's Law and fraud in wikipedia article
The wp article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law gives the Iran elections result as an example of election fraud validated mathematically. There should be a section detailing that forensic case and the science behind it.
I will watch that there is no tampering with that article.
G. Robert Shiplett 01:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
An article we can't read beacuse we have to pay for it, linking to a blog which sais "Like most Americans, there are few things I would like to see more than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hateful President, to be voted out of office. Elections in thuggish, authoritarian states like Iran need be treated with the utmost skepticism and scrutiny" - These kind of unreliable POV sources should be avoided, especially in an article like this, which should infact be completely re-written because it is full of shameless propaganda, rather than any real facts at all.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ahmadinejads-basiji-run-a-regime-of-rape-murder-to-suppress-critics/story-e6frg6so-1225776888607 If that's not suitable, then click the dead link and then do a search for the article title. All that's needed now is to replace the source. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
File:3rd Day - Mousavi Supporters Rally.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:3rd Day - Mousavi Supporters Rally.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
|A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.|
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
diff " Some of the monitoring technology was provided by Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture of Nokia, the Finnish cellphone maker, and Siemens, the German technology giant." - Nokia Siemens provided voice call monitoring capability -not internet monitoring technology - for more info see Nokia Siemens Networks -please feel free to correct this. However please note that 2009–2010_Iranian_election_protests#Internet_censorship is not the right section.Imgaril (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Why was the page renamed to the new title? The timeline section doesn't mention any election-related protests happening after 2009. There is no current discussion about it either. --Emesik (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Mark Arsten (talk) According to HumanRightsWatchlink "Neda Agha was several kilometers away from protests, she was struck in a traffic jam, and there were no Basij forces when she was killed" a/c to FoxNews,CNN etc. "she was going to protest and she was killed by Basij". Why Rezashah4 (talk) is removing HumanRightsWatch report and posting FoxNews lies in this artice?
- Why Rezashah4 (talk) is removing Russian/Iranian point of view which cited with rt.com & BBC Farsi links. whole article is Pro American. I am not removing American point of view but Rezashah4 (talk) is removing Russian/Iranian point of views.SpidErxD (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Death of Neda Agha-Soltan
- You dispute won't lead to an end any time soon because the dispute is based on at least several errors. SpidErxD, you made up a personal standard, "authentic", and then go about trying to get consensus on whether HumanRightsWatch report is more authentic than FoxNews,CNN,BBC etc. reports. Since it is your own personal standard, consensus will never come on that issue. FoxNews,CNN,BBC etc and HumanRightsWatch are all independent "reliable sources," which is the terminology Wikipedia uses. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Some sources are "high-quality" reliable sources then others (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria), but that is in regards to scholarship vs. news organizations vs. biased or opinionated sources. See Some types of sources. None of HumanRightsWatch report, FoxNews,CNN,BBC etc are scholarship, so your point is moot. Rezashah4 and SpidErxD, WP:LEAD is clear in requiring that the lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. Neither this edit and the one before it regarding Neda Agha-Soltan define the topic. There is no Neda Agha-Soltan subsection heading in the 2009–10 Iranian election protests article, so how can you say it summarizes the body of the article with appropriate weight? The answer is that it doesn't and does not belong in the lead. The phrase "her last moments" is vague and emotional and needs to be clarified. The use of "peaceful nature" and "suppressed" are opinions, not facts. A sentence such as "The Police and the Basij (a paramilitary group) used batons, pepper spray, sticks and, in some cases, firearms on the protesters in an effort to control the protest." should be used and the information about Neda Agha-Soltan be limited to the body of the article and not included in the article led. Regarding the accusation that the Basij killed Neda Agha-Soltan or the assertion that the Basij could not have killed Neda Agha-Soltan, there are conflicting reports and it is only an accusation. The sentences in this article should reflect that. Readers can go to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan of they want more details. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Iran's nuclear energy program condemned by "most of the world"?
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.
I can attempt to find a primary source if desired.
- Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
- Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Election Live-Blogging (Sunday June 14)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
- Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising (Saturday, June 13)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
- "Iran election protests turn violent". CNN. 13 June 2009. Retrieved 13 June 2009.