Talk:Roxana Saberi

The subject of this article is in the news because of her apparent arrest, and is likely to become the focus of significant journalistic and diplomatic attention (if she has not already done so). In addition, as a working journalist (including on-air work), she is a noteworthy personality. Wolit (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that she is a Jew and pressumptively a citizen of Israel? Should it also be mentioned that she was under surveillance for years and was observed taking pictures of Iran's nuclear sites? Should it be mentioned that, given the daily threats by Israel's leaders to bomb Iran, that they just MIGHT be a tad worried about an American "journalist" hanging out at such sensitive spots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.65.21 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Those claims could be mentioned if they are published somewhere: what are your sources, 76.199.65.21? Erxnmedia (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's irresponsible to suggest, without providing any evidence, that Iran is daily threatening to bomb Israel. Ms. Saberi is an Iranian citizen with dual US-Iranian citizenship. Her press credentials were revoked in 2006.

Suggested move

This incident is notable; the person herself, not so much, as per WP:1E. This page probably should be renamed "Roxana Saberi espionage case" or something else that introduces the reader to the notable event rather than to the less-notable individual who happened to be its focus. Also, the biographical material about her should be trimmed so that it is more WP:SS for an event-themed article. Thoughts? Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree.

1. It's not really an espionage case
2. There are others that have gotten the same treatment
3. If you want you can introduce an article on "Islamic Republic of Iran jailing of journalists on trumped up charges for political purposes", and point to the biographies of individual detainees, but people will give you a hard time
4. All things considered, she as an individual is not that un-notable that she needs to be deleted or renamed to satisfy some Wikipedia principle (it's possible to be too slavish to rules and Wikipedia has hundreds of them)

Erxnmedia (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

--Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)did i just read here, on this very page, that the person (her name is roxanna saberi) was incidental, therefore not as "notable" as the incidence itself...of course i beg to differ...anyway what is being done currently to ensure the speedy realease of said political prisoner? because i am sure as heck doing everything in my power to have her and other political prisoners throught the world to secure their freedom.

=

Could this article possibly be more biased against Iran?

Could this TALK PAGE be more biased against them? Why is there no exploration of the espionage charges against Ms. Saberi? And incidentally, why this article and the western meida uniformly avoid the term "convicted" in their copy? This article is a good candidate for an activist screed, hardly worthy of even a free encyclopedia.

I suspect it may be because the Iranian government hasn't released any information (apparently even to her lawyers) regarding any evidence supporting the espionage charges. It's not easy being even-handed when one side works so hard to appear the villain. Epstein's Mother (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to Times Online, Saberi had made copy of what we'd term "classified document" while working as a translator:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6274496.ece

And appearantly, visited place Iranian citizens are forbidden to visit. As comparison if US citizens visited Cuba, we are subject to punishment.

75.172.79.147 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In my country at least, this info just showed up today so it still needs to be add to the article - and sure needs to - but before, there was a cloud of mystery on the case. But for your own advise Mr "FirstTalker", the words convicted or sentenced ARE used. But I agree that the part "Accusation of espionage" is an obvious euphemism and think it should be changed. As for spying or not spying : she is still convicted but the charge is reduced because she obtained a copy of a report (on US strategy on Irak) but apparently never used or transmitted it (so much for making her a US spy). A behavior that is clearly "close to" spying but not so uncommon today in western journalism - even by journalists in their own country. I haven't read about the other point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.100.140.83 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Iran is not a "totalitarian" regime by most standards, and is more free than many in the West give it credit for. Still, operating without press credentials in a state that is, at best, cool towards a free press, is pretty equivalent to espionage. It doesn't mean she was spying for a foreign government, though, which seems to be the important clause in the case (her sentenced was reduced apparently because the appeals court did not agree that Iran and the US had "hostile relations"). Regardless, I am posting because one of the possible motives for her sentence being reduced seems odd to me. It assumes that there are but two political camps in Iran, conservatives and liberals. However, Iran is not the West, and I would guarantee that every analyst who has actually studied Iran sees three camps: radical conservatives, pragmatists, and reformers. This was a victory for the pragmatists and reformers, and most likely the pragmatists. But to frame this in simply liberal vs. conservative language is embarrassing, as the pragmatists tend to be pretty conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.147.33 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Accusations of a double standard" POV?

It seems to me that the "Accusations of a Double Standard U.S. cases" portion of the article seems to be written in a bit of a POV slant, and should be revised a bit (the portion didn't even use the modifier "accusations" originally). It also seems a bit out of place, as this is an article about Roxana Saberi, not her case. Maybe a seperate article should be created regarding her case and trial?

What do you guys think? Tominator93 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

well. Many other issues covered in this article are addressing "her case". Otherwise Saberi herself as a person is not an important journalist to deserve having a wikipedia page. A big part of the article is accusing the Iranian regime of abusing Saberi for political purposes. Aren't those speculations biased and POV? I think this section will be needed to make this article balanced. Perhaps some minor edits will make the paragraph suitable for wikipedia. There are quite a number of articles out there in the media on this subject (a number of them were listed as citations to this paragraph). Sinooher (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that Iranian counter points to accusations leveled by American authorities should be included in order to give the article balance. However, "Accusations of a Double Standard" is going of on a bit of a tangent, as it is not a counterpoint to any of the previously mentioned accusations. It is getting into a whole other argument altogether, one that has less to do with Roxana Saberi, and more to do with broader diplomatic relations between the U.S. and middle eastern countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm not saying that the double standard argument isn't a valid point: what I am saying is that I don't think it is quite relevant enough to this article to be placed here. Which is why I reiterate, maybe a separate page should be created for her case, and the broader diplomatic implications of said case.