Talk:2009 Iranian presidential election protests

Wikinews collaboration

I'm writing wikinews:Civil unrest in Iranian cities after Ahmadinejad declares victory, we'd love it if some Wikipedians would help out too. --Killing Vector (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

external links

guys i'm trying to find high quality photos with this f**cked up internet connection, to add in external links and you easily remove them. Dampaei (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wired ref (#23) doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.107.59 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful photos!

I want to commend whoever came up with those great photos. Especially the burning bus. Medico Dinamico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.142.5 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

great source

More photos, video, updates on this site in english: [1]

Pictures not representative

All of the four pictures currently in the article show things on fire, suggesting the protests are very destructive or violent. Editors should consider finding more representative pictures, perhaps of large crowds, instead of isolated cases of destruction. Tyro (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The source linked above contains a lot of video of large crowds, pictures of police violence and a lot of other things. The problem is that I have no idea how to upload the stuff.U5K0 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are great, but there is no point in having four images showing essentially the same. That is what Commons is for, Wikipedia is not an image repository. I removed a couple. Lampman (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are not of a protest. There are no signs being carried. One picture is obviously of a bus accident. --Chuck Marean 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How about uploading one of the videos? Also, a lot of the pictures at the source above are nothing like the ones currently in the article, which are all of burning things. They are quite different and show police action, mass marches, injured protesters and clashes between police and protesters.U5K0 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are good photographs at Mousavi's FlickR account, though using them here might cause an argument since the protesters believe he is the man who won the election. The person at http://tehranlive.org/ has been getting some shots that might qualify him for a Pulitzer. Rooker75 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fa wiki

Can anyone read/translate Farsi/Persian? That wikipedia seems to have an article of good length, so if someone can translate, that would be nice. 76.205.80.219 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Article is at fa:پیامدهای_اعلام_نتایج_انتخابات_ریاست_جمهوری_(۱۳۸۸).

76.205.80.219 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From some terrible machine translation, it seems that article (and some of the Farsi sources) have considerably more information about internal disputes among clerics than our English article currently does. In particular, it seems Yousef Sanei issued a statement that supporting Ahmadinejad was haraam, and a number of reports have clerics in Qom placed under house arrest. There are also Mousavi updates more recent than the one we discuss. --Delirium (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The MSM has been terrible at covering the events. For up-to-date coverage in English, certain blogs are doing a much better job, such as HuffPost, Andrew Sullivan (who both mention Sanei) and The New York Times' The Lede blog. Much of what they report is necessarily hearsay though, and might not be suitable for inclusion in the article. Lampman (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm here if you need translation. --Persianman123 (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN

Found this link to confirm what I've been hearing over the web, that people were not happy about CNN's lack of coverage of what's going on. [2] Umbralcorax (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

'International reactions to the election results'

I strongly believe that this section should be removed. It belongs on the main article for the election since most of these reactions were to the vote, not having anything to do with the protests. The Squicks (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, some of the reactions were responses to the protests. No reason those shouldn't be here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a list in the infobox of places where protests have been held isn't there? Certainly in my view there should be an international reaction to the protests, as well as to the re-election of Mr. I'm a ninja dad Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for Suspecting Fraud

How about a section detailing reasons why people suspect fraud? Some examples:

- They were released too fast. 40 million paper ballots take longer than that to count. Also, Iran's rules include a three-day wait before the results can be certified, which was skipped. - The results don't make sense in detail. Karubi certainly had significant support, and he was listed with a negligible total. Ethnic voting is common, and even Azeri cities were reported for Ahmedinejad. The official story is inconsistent; one version reported in Farsi has Ahmedinajad winning Tehran, while one reported in English has Mousavi winning Tehran but Ahmedinejad winning overall. - Another set of numbers was leaked today, and it looks completely different: Ahmedinejad third at about 15%, with a runoff between Mousavi and Karubi indicated.

11:40 PM EST, USA

The actual validity of election counts is probably better discussed in 2009 Iranian presidential election, but the contents of that article could be summarized here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need a real introduction why people started protesting. However, it's reliable sources that we need to reconstruct the events leading to the current situation. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Location

Is there any reason to list foriegn cities in the infobox? As I know, many Iranians abroad are protesting around the world, like Tokyo, Japan. But Tokyo isn't on the list, because there're too many cities. I think we should list the foriegn cities in the article but the infobox Contributions/121.32.212.239 (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhas a note in the infobox of "various foreign cities", but leave any by name listings to those in Iran. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Democracy?

Many anti-Ahmedinejad activists attacked the websites of Ahmedinejad and the government, rendering them inaccessible. Pro-democracy websites have asked people to use both simple and and more sophisticated hacking tools. The regime's websites (for example ahmedinejad.ir) are currently inaccessible.

Does it seem strange that "pro-democracy" websites would advocate censorship of sites that promote alternative viewpoints, especially official sites like ahmedinejad.ir, therefore denying them even the basic right to respond to allegations of electoral fraud? And isn't censorship one of the charges made against this regime? Perhaps its just a coincidence that information sources are being targeted and censorship is not the true intent but an unfortunate side-effect in the struggle for freedum. Contributions/68.193.255.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

If your intent is to start a debate, please note that Wikipedia is not a forum. Sourced, neutral information about cyberattacks may be included in relevant articles, but talk pages are not appropriate places to start debates over rights of response etc. Do you have a suggestion for a better way to characterize these websites other than "pro-democracy"? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IPs general point is valid. We shouldn't be characterizing groups in this way. We should refrain from labeling the opposition as "pro-democracy" anywhere. We should stick with "opposition" or something along those lines. --Elliskev 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with Wikipedia policies. I felt the statement contradicted itself and was trying to draw attention to this discrepancy. I would approve of a more neutral label. I see nothing wrong with "anti-Ahmedinejad," that seems very accurate, or "websites purporting to be pro-democracy," if this detail improves the article. Contributions/68.193.255.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

What about pro-Mousavi? --Ilivetocomment (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

pro-Mousavi is also no alternative because not 100% of them/anyone may be pro-Mousavi in essence, they may "just" be anti-Ahmadinejad for example, or any other reason. The same is valid for "anti-Ahmadinejad", they may very well be "anti-electoral fraud". Labelling people into one group is no good. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Photos

this Flickr photo set has a lot of good photos under a free license. However, I wonder if the uploader is really the author. Any comments? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's just copying the #iranelection Twitter feed images. Those authors would be the license holders, and it will be a mess. I don't think it would be appropriate to include (ignoring the reality that someone has managed to shoot 175 pictures of value is that little time without having the camera stolen or destroyed by now). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

I think it's necessary to have a separate section to highlight and keep track of casualties and the number of wounded and killed people

OurAri (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the tension between Israel and Iran, I would deem the Haarezt source far from neutral, if not overtly opposed to the current regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nboccard (talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[User:Nboccard] 17 June 2009

Good set of references

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.

This is a Coup

i saw somebody delete coup from article
please see this link to understand there is a coup in iran:
http://news.google.com/news?q=Coup+iran
also it needs a special part Samic130 (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Three million people protested

See Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Protests. The Squicks (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry featured on news.google.com

It's the first time I've seen Wikipedia linked as a news article on Google News. I thought it should be mentioned...

I believe this is a fair use of the screenshot, but I'm unsure how to describe it. Someone pls help. Thx.

Wikiak (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• A screenshot of Google News
  A screenshot of Google News

Including Twitter in the links

Considering that Iranians are using Twitter as one of the primary means of communication, as are sympathetic Westerners, would it not make sense to link to this for those who want up-to-the-minute coverage that is less "reputable" yet far more "on the ground" than traditional media news? Some links: [3] [4] Esn (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea, though it may not technically line up with our external links policies. But the iranelection twitter page seems to be one of the primary sources of info at this point and I think a link to it is quite appropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that Iranians are using Twitter as a major means of not only gathering info, but also organising some of their protests, warrants inclusuion. Andrew's Concience (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not agree, it's sources are virtual people, could well be bots that generate random comments. Even if the whole planet used it twitter does not report news (=confirmed facts), but personal rumours (=unconfirmed personal opinions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.162.59 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph confusing

I moved "(also called "Coup of 12 June" or "Coup of 22 Khordad" based on the date in the Iranian calendar)" to the second paragraph and it was reverted. I get why now but I still find this first paragraph confusing. The way it is worded now makes it sound as if the current protests are being called this rather than original vote. Can someone clarify and maybe we can come up with a more clear first graf.lyonspen | (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

yes i undo it because your sentence was incorrect! note that this "electoral fraud" is calling "coup" but your sentence had the meaning that the "protests" is calling "coup"!

maybe my sentence is incorrect grammatically please correct it as my English is not very good. Samic130 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. I understood why you reverted it. But it still a little confusing, so I moved it down to the overview. Hope that works.lyonspen | (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now it's even more confusing. Lets talk about changes here before we add them to the first paragraph. This is quickly becoming a problem. Thoughts?lyonspen | (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

really??!! i thought i corrected it!! what is confusing? can you please say which part? thanks --Samic130 (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I changed it a little. Does this work? Lets leave it for a little while and try to get some consensus OK? lyonspen | (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

( oh no!

I'll try to explain the event and you say what we must write: when the election was finishing, military changed the result and began to arrest people! before that the government's form was like a democracy but after that it changed to fascism! this, happened in few hour and by the military! now that specify a coup occurred in iran. so how do you write it? --Samic130 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

it's not something that Protesters call it! it is what happened! the main thing and the most important thing is that there is a coup! so it must be in first words!! --Samic130 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. But others may call it "restoring order" or something. We strive for NPOV I am not in Iran but I understand tensions are very, very high and that there is some bad things happening and I sympathize with your point of view but Wikipedia is not CNN. It works by consensus and methodical citation, verification and NPOV. Can we leave the first paragraph as is for a little while and see if there is more comment?lyonspen | (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

oh! it's not MY view!! it's a truth! please see this link:
http://news.google.com/news?q=iran+coup
this specify that it's not "A" view but a "professional analysis".
wikipedia can use that. --Samic130 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the first paragraph of the first story that you are referring to (Boston.com), which we should note is clearly labeled "opinion": "Disenchanted Iranians fleeing violent militiamen known as the basij have been shouting out their verdict on the phony vote count. They are calling it a coup d'etat." I think that's exactly what the lead is now saying.16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyonspen (talk • contribs)

i changed that article and replace with another one! but there is more than 1600 article in http://news.google.com/news?q=iran+coup that declare there is a coup!! how can i choose one of them?!! can you? --Samic130 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not saying choose one article. I am saying that describing the election as a "coup," while it certainly may seem true, is an opinion and needs to be qualified as such. I am OK with the change you have made that adds "analysts". Lets see what others think.lyonspen | (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

i just added some more references. first one is from Abbas Milani so now i think it qualified. lets see others opinions. --Samic130 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally okay with calling this a "Coup", because that is supported in at least a few places. But the term "Coup of 12 June" or "Coup of 22 Khordad" does not appear in any sources you've used. So until you find a source that uses these terms, do not put them back in the article. johnpseudo 18:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph needs to be trimmed or broken up or something. It's daunting when you open the article. We should shoot for a tight summary paragraph.lyonspen | (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rally Photos

Does anyone have access to a photo of one of the big rallies they could add? AdRem (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

the photo from link 45 has been deleated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.96.184 (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture from Farsi version of article

Although there are few images in the main body of the Farsi version of this article, this one appears midway down. It looks like the back of a man who has been badly beaten: [5]

Are there any Farsi readers here? Is this something that deserves note in the English version? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

that man is one of the demonstrators that have been beaten with baton.--70.189.42.28 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is getting battered constantly by vandals, I would like to propose a semi-protection

{{editsemiprotected}}

 Not done: The {{editsemiprotected}} template is meant to be used by non-autoconfirmed editors to allow them to insert changes into semiprotected pages, not to request page protection. To request page protection, you need to go to Wikipedia:Request for page protection and follow the directions. An admin will then have a look and decide if protection is needed. Celestra (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that much vandalism currently, and we should know full well that the only people who can actually speak Farsi or know anything about what is going on are going to be IPs and new accounts, if they can get past Wikipedia restrictions on open proxies and TOR sites that is. So let's not protect this at all. Wnt (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Revolution, Twitter Revolution and Facebook Revolution

Also widely called the "Green Revolution" because of presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi's campaign color, or "Twitter Revolution"[6] and "Facebook Revolution"[7], alluding to its being the first political unrest of this scale aided by Web 2.0 networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGroup (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dudes lets try to source better before doing claims like this: There have been events in other places named "Twitter revolution" too, as well as Green Revolution. The events are fluid and we should stick to the factual before making historical claims that will be discarded. Certainly inside of Iran Twitter has been irrelevant, with radio and SMS playing a much more larger role. We should not color our experience from the outside, or the experience of a few lucky ones with the knowhow to break censorship, the need to provide reliably sourced material and to avoid recentism. Please read WP:RECENTISM--Cerejota (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of 'Green' seems to me to be a near universal thing among reliable sources IMO. Green, the color of traditional Islam, was and is a Mousavi campaign symbol. The Squicks (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The exact term "Green revoultion" occurs in reliable sources many times (it's not completely common, but its mentioned many times). See here, here, here, and here. The Squicks (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically its not a revolution until its won. Until then its at best 'a revolt'. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Twitter and the State Department

The article says: "Although Twitter did delay the scheduled downtime, it did not do it because of the contact with the U.S. State Department."

The footnote cited does not support this statement. Twitter says that the state department "does not have access to our decision-making process." It neither confirms nor denies whether the state dept made a request, polite or otherwise. They merely assert their independence. Co149 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. F (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

works for me, thanks 216.231.50.25 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Police now neutral - great article

There's a fantastic article by Robert Fisk here about the events of the day - he's one of the few Western journalists who's been able to move about in the country. It should be included, but I'm busy today so I hope someone else can do it. Esn (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

IRC?

I have to say, this Twitter company has managed some kind of economic miracle. I remember this protocol called Internet Relay Chat that dates back as long as NNTP and email. I seem to recall it being used as long ago as Tiananmen, but here's evidence from the first Gulf War.[8] But then one day in April I wake up and it's suddenly the private property of this one company and they have everyone singing their praises from Obama to Iran. But just out of curiosity - is there anyone in Iran who is using just plain IRC rather than "Twitter" per se? Wnt (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, discussion pages aren't for chatting about the event, just about the article and how to make it better. Twitter isn't the same thing as IRC at all and has a completely different use model, so the comparison isn't relevant to this article. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, IRC might not be sexy, but asking to look in reliable sources for this is entirely legitimate use of a talk page. IRC is usually referred to in RS as "internet chat rooms" or variations thereof. And yeah, twitter is overrated and an exercise in marketing and not technology.--Cerejota (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with looking for reliable sources on the use of IRC in this, but using the discussion page to call Twitter names in order to make an unrelated technology look better is silly. There's a reason that Twitter is in the spotlight and IRC is not—IRC isn't built, while Twitter is, to interface with cellphones and other SMS devices, which are playing a major role in current events.

So, please do go look for reliable sources talking about IRC's effect on the protests. Until they are found, though, there is nothing to say about IRC that is relevant to this article. Any axes to grind against Twitter—or anything else, of course—can kindly be left at the door. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mousavi or Moussavi?

Title says it all. All the news networks call him "Moussavi" while the wikipedia article for the guy names him "Mousavi". Which is correct? Or are they both correct... --Ilivetocomment (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

as a iranian, the correct pronunciation in english is "m u: s æ w i:" so i think Moussavi is better!--Samic130 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any rules for transcribing Iranian names? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

oh! i don't think so! i'm a student and i'm studying electronics! i'm not a linguist! but if you want to know an special name, please write it for me and i'll write correct pronunciation. btw. i'm in tehran for one more day and then i must go to a province and i'll come back next week! so if you want some name, please hurry up! thanks --Samic130 (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I honor your engagement, but English news sources spell his name Mousavi, making it perfectly legit to cite them that way. To prove them wrong, we need a big gun like official rules for translating Persian names. Perhaps you have a brother or sister or someone else who knows someone(a linguist) who can point us to where such rules are established (a task that shouldn't worry the IRG). I'll give it myself a try, but German libraries aren't exactly where you find out how to spell Persian names in English. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Targeted government sites

I wikilinked the list of sites targeted in the DDOS appeal, and soon had someone saying it was against external links policy. The way I see it, an article about election protests ought to list who is being protested against. Why say that protestors are targeting some media when you can say which media, and link to articles on Wikipedia about them? This is the list I'm referring to:

Sites targeted for DDOS in a widespread appeal were categorized as follows.

• Governmental and hardline news: Kayhan,^[9] Ansar-e Hezbollah,^[10] Hezbollah of Iran,^[11] Islamic Republic News Agency,^[12] Fars News Agency,^[13][14] Raja News,^[15] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,^[16] Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting,^[17][18] Al-Alam News Network,^[19] Iran-newspaper.com^[20]
• Office of Ahmadinejad & Khameneie: Supreme Leader of Iran,^[21] President of Iran,^[22] Sokhangoo.net,^[23] Ali Khamenei^[24]
• Strategic Planning: President's Deputy for Strategic Planning and Control,^[25] Dolat^[26]
• Police, Ministry of Interior: Ministry of Interior (Iran),^[27][28] Center for Strategic Studies, ^[29] Basij^[30]
• Central bank, commerce banks: Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran,^[31] Bank of Industry and Mine,^[32] Bank Melli Iran,^[33] Bank Saderat Iran^[34]
• Oil, gas, petrochemical: Ministry of Petroleum of Iran,^[35][36][37] National Iranian Gas Company^[38]
• Economy, trade, exchange: Tehran Stock Exchange,^[39] Iranian Oil Bourse,^[40] Iran Ministry of Commerce,^[41] Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Mines,^[42] Trade Promotion Organization of Iran,^[43] Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance,^[44] Econo.ir,^[45] Bonyad-e Mostazafen va Janbazan^[46]
• Judiciary: Ministry of Justice (Iran),^[47] Dadsetani,^[48] Judicial system of Iran^[49]
• Transportation: Iran Ministry of Transportation,^[50] Islamic Republic of Iran Railways.^[51]

Wnt (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to document the cyberwar of both sides in an article. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this blocked in Iran?

Is this article, or the Farsi version, blocked in Iran? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Only the Kurdish version of Wikipedia is blocked in Iran. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

incoming document?

On twitter appeared a rumour about "real election results". I don't know how much significance it will gain, but possibly we should cover it. Here's the link. This blog claims to be citing the Guardian and seems to refer to the mentioned document. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "twitter revolution" needs a separat definition of itself. I have tried to start this up. Here's my text:

The mentioning world wide of the term "twitter revolution" started for real from June 15th 2009 with the iranian election protests. "What can we do to help?" was the question often popping up in the the twitter communication - the tweeting. From Iran via twitter.com the answer was very simple and straight: You are already doing something - by following us - following the election protests". So, the iranian twitter revolutionaries themselves felt clearly that anybody following the twitter stream in relation to the election protests in their country were participating in and therefore part of the twitter revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiania (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are referring to this leaked message to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni: http://www.operatorchan.org/n/src/n11736_1245149082636.jpg

The translation:

• number: ------
• date:13 jun
• attachment: ------

Islamic Republic of Iran, ministry of interior

• Minister of Interior

To: The Supreme Leader, Hazrat(sir) Ayatollah Khameni

Salam Alaikon

Due to your express of concern to the results of the tenth election and (your) very own discretion to retain Mr. Ahmadinejad as the President at this sensitive times, the plans are set so that the results that will be published would be expedient to the regime and the revolution, and all the necessary measures have taken for the likely events following the election, the head of the parties and candidates are under heavy surveillance.

so, only for your information, we present you with the real results of the election.

the sum of the ballots: 42,026,078

Mir Hossein Musavi Khamene: 19,075,623

Mehdi Karrubi: 13,387,104

Mahmud Ahmadinejad: 5,698,417

Mohsen Rezai Mirqaed: 3,754,218

Invalid: 38,716

Minister of Interior Sadegh Mahsouli

• signature

I seriously doubt Admadinejad came third, or that Mehdi Karrubi got nearly 3 times as many votes as him. Despite what you think, a lot of people in Iran support Admadinejad's hard-liner stance on the West. Iran would not be stupid enough to leave something like that lying around, anyways. --Ilivetocomment (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's presented as a fact by the renown Süddeutsche Zeitung quoting in detail. We have to mention this as an important rumour, however, making clear that we have no idea about authenticity. That's my suggestion. Currently, I try to make sure that the translation is correct or that the document is at least readable, because I do have some doubts about that. I know, it could be a hoax but even than an important one because it got at least also cited by the Guardian as "truth" leaked out at the cost of a live. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New freely-licensed photos

I have been in contact with a photographer in Tehran, who agreed to freely license a bunch of great images of yesterday's protest. I've added a couple to the article but many more should be uploaded to the commons for future reference, and we might want to consider replacing the infobox image with something more representative of the protests (i.e. not tons of burning) now that we have more options. Go to http://www.flickr.com/photos/39541291@N07/ and check out the photos! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

These are great photos - but it will be easier to use them and keep them if they have dates clearly indicated. I assume that by "yesterday" here you mean June 16 in Iran? Wnt (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The dates are in flickr like normal, and dates and times are also in the EXIF data. Yes, June 16. The flickr album page indicates the location. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got them all on the commons now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The pictures look great, but I noticed the vast majority come from June 16th. I would like to place a June 15th photo in the corresponding section of this article. In any case, I believe the message in the poster shown in this image File:Tehran protests (28).jpg captures the essential mood and thoughts of the protesters. I think it should be used somewhere.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right now all we have is the 13th and the 16th. I could email back the photographer and see if he has other photos, or others can hunt on flickr (though be careful to avoid copyright violations by checking that all photos in the stream are from the same camera, of the same resolution, not published elsewhere etc) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re photo 28 the problem is that the person holding the sign is blocked by the person in front - kind of awkward/confusing composition. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add this photo, File:Tehran protests (17).jpg, as well. It shows a protester holding up a picture of M.H. Mousavi. The latter is, after all, the key politician who the protesters are rallying around for support of their cause.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This one I'm not sure of because it is kind of borderline free/nonfree considering it highlights a nonfree photo as teh main object of the shot. Probably not enough to be deletable as such but I don't think it's our freest, best work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There are mourning marches by Karroubi and Moussavi, however, I didn't see an image of both of them together. Can you tell the difference between their organizations and eventually get one pic of a Karroubi march? I know, I'm demanding a lot, but it would help us greatly improve our coverage if we could tell apart the different movements and their importance. Thanks a lot and best luck. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article

• The lead currently doesn't summarize the article, but explains how things started. I suggest to move that information to an introduction and rewrite the lead.

• The reaction of important clerics isn't sufficiently covered. Montazeri is a problematic source because he has been ousted as successor of Khomeini. This leads to the general problem that we give hardly background information about the people involved. What role did they play in 1979? MSNBC here points out they all were at least activists back than and that there are striking similarities in tactics.

• The government reaction seems more complex than presented. There's news about a meeting of the Council of Experts, a part of the government that could depose Khamenei, under the leadership of Rafsanjani, who lost the last election against Ahmadinejad and claimed election fraud. However, I have hardly news about this and would be grateful if someone could help me expand this. Ali Larijani, the head of the parliament seems no diehard supporter of the current president, so this position should also be covered. We currently paint too much a black and white picture. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On your first bullet point, I noticed this right away. People who work on this article must keep WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and WP:SUMMARY in mind. This article needs to be Wikified. So far I've removed a bunch of uncited material and fixed a few citations that had tag errors. But there is much more to do.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining. I felt lonesome with a big task and wanted some input before I whack away things. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctored Photo

File:Iranian-rally-doctored-photograph.jpg

Doctored photo

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.162.59 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Who doctored the photo presented as such? If there's some uknown person, then why is this photo important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.162.59 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Also, it is not a freely-licensed image.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It was twittered that the counterprotests weren't that large and this was used as a proof. Licensing and unclear origin seem supportive for quick deletion or at least removal from the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Twitter cannot be used as a source, so I believe this shouldn't be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.162.59 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It appeared on a newspaper (??) yesterday/or the day before on the first page.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think in any event it's not so essential that it be put here. People can understand that a photo is doctored without seeing the photo itself (or could go to the reference to read further). Not inculding it would make room for more free photos of the protests. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Arab involvement are very dubiously sourced and should be removed

In the current version of the article is these two sentences:

According to unconfirmed reports, Iranian authorities have enlisted foreign Arab militant groups to assist in quelling protests. Voice of America reported that the government recruited up to 5,000 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah militia to clash with protesters. [52] In addition, On 16 June two protesters told The Jerusalem Post that Palestinian Hamas members were helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests. Hamas, which had formally welcomed incumbent Ahmadinejad's ostensible reelection victory, receives arms and funding from Iran, and its members have often received training there.[53]

The first source is a German language Der Spiegel article which mentions, I used Google Translate to try to decipher it, that a Voice of America reporter said that there was 5000 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters where in Iran and were going to help help with the crackdown that coming evening. So far, this is the best source of evidence we have of the claim that the Lebanese Hezbollah is involved, a source that is second hand and is saying that another source said that Hezbollah fighters were going to get involved. I think this second hand foreign language claim is very dubious and I believe the whole claim of Lebanese Hezbollah involvement should be removed until a higher quality source is found.

The second claim is that Palestinian Hamas members are in Iran beating on protesters. This is based on an Israeli newspaper report from which I will now quote the main claim:

"The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the young man went on, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."

Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran.

On Monday, he said, "my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too."

It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." His hope, he added, was that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.

When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi'ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. "Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets… The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want… [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country."

So this report that Hamas is involved in the Iranian crackdown on protestors is from two Iranians in the street, one carrying a knife and very pro-Israel (which is not common in Iran) and the other who thinks that telling the world that Hamas is involved is the most important thing that those outside of Iran should know? This doesn't sound like a credible source for these claims and I question whether it rises to the level that it should be included in Wikipedia. There is no independent confirmation that Hamas is involved.

--John Bahrain (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that in the quotes provided by the Israeli newspaper, the protesters don't even mention the name Hamas, but rather "Palestinian forces" or "Palestinian animals." So it is unclear why the Israeli newspaper refers to them as Hamas. This reinforces my claim that this JPost story about Hamas involvement in the crackdown on Iranian protesters is very dubiously sourced. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In defence of Der Spiegel, the most renown German news magazine. Rejecting it is like rejecting the Washington Post or the New York Times. I'm a native German, so maybe my translation helps to shed some light on the issue: The journalist Ulrike Putz(you can email her) has eyewitnessed how Arabian speaking men hit with chains on fleeing people. Afterwards she refers to the claim that there are Hizbollah fighters helping the government according to the source "Voice of America". That doesn't exclude the presence of other Arabian speaking men. She neither identifies the Arabian dialect.

"Irgendwann gerät auch die Menschentraube, in der ich stehe, ins Visier der Gardisten. Mit hassverzerrten Gesichtern kommen sie kettenschwingend auf uns zu, drohen, uns mit ihren Crossbikes zu rammen. Rechts und links werden Flüchtende niedergeknüppelt. "Macht, dass Ihr wegkommt", schreien die Männer auf Arabisch."

Sometime also the cloud of people, in which I'm standing, comes to the fore of the "guardsmen". With their faces distorted by hate they come towards us, swinging chains, threatening to ram us with their crossbikes. On the right and on the left fleeing people are being clubbed down. "Get away", are the men shouting in Arabian.

"Nach Berichten des Senders "Voice of America" sollen bis zu 5000 libanesische Kämpfer der Hisbollah-Miliz dem Regime beim Showdown zur Hand gehen."

After the reports of the broadcasting station "Voice of America" there should be up to 5000 Lebanese fighters of the Hizbullah-militia helping the regime with the showdown.

Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Wandalstouring for the translation, that clears thing up a bit. I now think that it is appropriate to mention that something like the following:

"Ulrike Putz, writing for Der Spiegel, reported that she witnessed Arab speaking men who along with a group of Republican Guards were using chains on a fleeing crowd of protesters."

I think that more accurately captures the what she saw and it doesn't use unverified second hand reports. I will add this now to the appropriate section. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I corrected your statement. Nothing about them working alongside IRG units. She adresses the Arabian speaking men as "Gardisten" (tradionally selected soldiers, no real translation available, household divisions or bodyguards are suggested translations) and I translated as "guardsmen" because they clearly aren't selected. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your correction. Thanks! --John Bahrain (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm restoring the Hezbollah and Hamas bits, since the only reasons given for removing them were that they were reported in a German and an Israeli newspaper, respectively. Der Spiegel and the Jerusalem Post are high quality, reliable sources, and the fact that the Der Spiegel article was in a foreign language doesn't make it any less reliable. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jalapenos do exist, I think that you misread my comment. I did not say that I was removing them because they were reported in a German and an Israeli paper, please reread my comment and do not distort my points.

I am again removing the long claim about Hezbollah until the original Voice of America source is found -- if this is a VoA report, then we should be able to find the original source. If the best source we have is a German language article saying that another English language publication claimed that Hezbollah may become involved is the best we can do, we are stretching the principles of Wikipedia's RS guidelines. Please find a reputable clear source that makes the claims.

I am also removing Hamas claim as you have not found a high quality source. Jerusalem Post is a reputable newspaper but the quality of this report is very dubious. I encourage you to read it yourself. If you do want to reinclude it, I recommend that you stick very close to what is reported in the article, such as quoting the protesters whom JPost quoted. The current description of the JPost article in question in this Wikipedia article obscures its use of very dubious sources, which is deceptive and unfair to the readers of Wikipedia.

We should be aiming to provide accurate information to our readers, not presenting dubious information as fact. I look forward to your cooperating in further improving this section. --John Bahrain (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the information, as you have still not adequately explained your removal of it. It's unfortunate that you find it appropriate to cloud the issue by directing unfounded accusations at me, such as the insinuations that I distorted your points, that I haven't read the Jerusalem Post article, or that I didn't stick very close to what was reported in that article-- all of which are false. As to your latest comments on the actual issue: since Der Spiegel is a reliable source, and it says that there was such-and-such a report on Voice of America, it is a verifiable fact that there was such-and-such a report on Voice of America, which is what the paragraph states. I find your attempt to argue with this highly peculiar. As for the Jerusalem Post article, your concern seems to be that the paragraph should make known to our readers that the claim came from two protesters. I completely agree, which is why the paragraph as I wrote it states exactly that. If you think it's important that the paragraph also state other details you mentioned, e.g. that one of the protesters was carrying a knife, you can always add those details, but it would probably be best if you explain why they are important. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Der Spiegal is as much of a reliable source as The New York Times or Time Magazine, I believe that it is certainly notable here. I agree completely with Jalapenos do exist. The Squicks (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi "The Squicks",

I actually did include the Der Speigal direct eyewitness information in this edit [54]. What I am think is not appropriate is to use the very brief mention in Der Speigal of a potential Voice of America report that 5000 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters are helping out Iranian forces in quelling the protests. No one has been able to find the original VoA report. There is a group in Iran called the Ansar-e_Hezbollah which is very conservative and it may be being mixed up with the Hezbollah of Lebanon. See this part of the Ansar-e Hezbollah (Hezbollah of Iran) article that deals with their involvement in the 2009 Protests in Iran: Ansar-e_Hezbollah#2009_Coup_Protests. I think that we are committing a great error by using this second hand knowledge that has no other actually first hand knowledge or even other sources to back it up especially when it is easy to confuse the two groups. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are perfectly valid concerns, and those are the sort of thing that I would write on a blog or in a letter to the journalists.

But your observations, while I agree in large part, are still original research. Here's what we have. We have an ironclad reliable source making a statement, Voice of America, and then another ironclad reliable source, Der Speigal, quotes that statement. This is notable. This is newsworthy. The groups may very well be wrong, but they are both solid sources. The Squicks (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that we can't find any such Voice of America article. I've searched their website as well as Google News. I encourage you too in case I missed something. Given this happened 3 days ago, it should have been confirmed by at least one other source by now, but nothing even though there are tons of reports coming out of Iran daily. --John Bahrain (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your concern that either Der Spiegel or Voice of America confused Ansar-e Hezbollah with Lebanese Hezbollah is a sensible one. I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be the case, which is one of the reasons I wrote "according to unconfirmed reports". I wouldn't make too much out of the difficulty in finding the VOA source, though. It was probably in a radio program, a medium which is hard to search. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The nature of 'Voice of America' is that their reports are often in other languages and in limited release.

The fact that the report is hard to find, in my opinion, is completely irrelevant. We have a reliable source already, DS. We can just say in the article, According to Der Spiegel quoting Voice of America, (...)". The Squicks (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious symbols

I think the topic needs to include the impact of religion including the religious symbology used by the protesters. For example, see the discussion at http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/day-of-mourning-protests-called-by.html

171.161.160.10 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We have not yet covered the tactics and strategy of the protesters. There are some hints that their leaders and some of them were activists in 1979 and this mourning seems like playing the same game while on the other hand they seem clearly deescalating the use of violance by the protesters. However, we need more reliable information to write a balanced coverage. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of pop culture

I think the popular culture section, with its one reference to pirate bay, should go. Like a lot of trivia sections, I don't think the trivia is relevant enough to the subject or notable enough to be included in the article. Also I'm concerned about how these sections tend to act as magnets for other non-notable trivia ("and dead prez wrote a song about it..."). Not to mention it's a stubby little section with one short paragraph in it, which is discouraged by MOS. Any objections to taking it out? delldot ∇. 20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Every point that you made is completely spot on. All I can say is that I agree. The Squicks (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Guess I'll go ahead, let me know if I acted too quickly. delldot ∇. 21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Faculty resignations?

Did the 120 faculty members resign on june 14 or 16? The timeline has both. delldot ∇. 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)