Talk:2005 Ahvaz unrest

Sources in question

I think pdki.org can't be used as a reliable source because it is a website of a Kurdish group that is in war with Iranian government and reflect their POVs.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

By your logic - all Iranian sources should not be used, since they are biased. Apparently many editors have little understanding on the WP:NPOV and WP:RS and what is the difference between those. There is no problem to use biased sources, as long as the opposite side is presented for WP:NPOV, and as long as the sources are reliable. Even if a source is suspected of POV, it is no way a certain unrealiable source. You should clear this for yourself. Do you have a proof that PDKI is posting deliberately wrong information? I guess no.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem to use biased sources , only if we don't present it as a fact , I mean the reader may know this sentence is a portraying of an opposition group .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it needs a separate page ?

Does the subject of article needs a page due to the WP:notability criterias ? and WP:NNC ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply, yes. Hundreds of dead and injured, with annual commemoration protests, news articles and official stance by Amnesty - all make it notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be an event of 2005 but it's article was made in 2011 . A rather unknown event without coverage , seems to be exact case of WP:notability and WP:NNC.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources

I would like to bring to attention several relevant sources on the unrest: [1], [2], [3].Greyshark09 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should that sources be mentioned in articles about human rights in Iran and they have to have a separate article ? I mean doesn't it means undue wight? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the event had long range implications, such as 2005-2006 Ahvaz bombings, annual commemoration protests and finally large violent protests on 15 April 2011 (during the Arab Spring). More sources on this issue - Gulf Times [4], al-Jazeera (2011 violence report) [5], al-Arabiya (2011 violence report) [6] and [7], Amnesty report (2011) [8]Greyshark09 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it a proved theory that events of 2011 are in connection with 2005 events ? Anyway , the protests of 2011 in Iran are mainly continuation of 2009–2010 Iranian election protests as the Wikipedia article says and may not be connected to 2005 events . More than that , as you see , there are so many protests in the region , and many of them are violent with mortality and morbidity ; then what makes this especial one a candidate for having a separate article ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a "theory", this is according to cited sources - April 15, 2011 "Day of Rage in Ahwaz" was at the sixth anniversary of April 15, 2005 Intifada (or Ahwazi unrest); and was influenced by the Arab Spring as well. Your explanation seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If it had a good media coverage , then why this article is written after 6 years?! And how come this one event may have an article but 22 protests of 2011 in other regions of Iran ( with several hundred times mortality and morbidity ) don't have individual articles and all of them are included in one article?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The media coverage was sufficient, considering the censorship of the Iranian regime, and the remoteness of the province. You are welcome to read the following sources from 2005-2008: BBC, Reuters, The Economist, Academic work, published by "Wiley", The Guardian, Amnesty International - 2008 report, Amnesty International 2006 - Iran: Defending minority rights – the Ahwazi Arabs, Iranian Opposition website, and i can find more if you like. The sources relate to the event as a "sectarian rioting", "ethnic riots", "unrest", "ethnic unrest" and "15 Aril Intifada" / "Ahwaz Intifada" by local opposition sources in Iran. I think WP:COMMONNAME well fits the "2005 Ahwazi unrest" title, though "riot" is also OK. The number of casualties is 20 according to mainstream media, 51-62 according to Amnesty and 160 according to Iranian opposition (less reliable). Still - very much significant, and clearly stands in one raw with the 2009-2010 and 2011 events in Iran. Together with the following Ahvaz bombings, the event is significantly important on historic scale.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

merger/page move?

Many users at the AFD felt that the page name was "loaded" and/or that this content could be merged into another article. It seems further discussion is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The terms "Ahwazi unrest" and the likes, are loaded terminology only used by partisan separatist groups , their affiliates, or Human Rights organizations quoting them. The region's official name is Khuzestan and ALL the reliable news sources use this terminology to describe the region or the news events associated with the region. BBC, Reuters, The Economist, Financial Times just to name a few. So per our policy on WP:AT, the page should be moved to 2005 Khuzestan unrest or 2005 unrest in Khuzestan. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• agree .. furthermore, I believe this article should be merged with Khuzestan. The term "Ahwaz" just means someone from the city of Ahwaz and to use it as an ethnic term is new and non-mainstream irredentist concept. The term Khuzestan also is the most common and popular term. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• agree Khuzestan is the region and most people still refer to "Ahwaz" as the city and only that. It has no ethnic connotations for the majority of Iranians. Nokhodi (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• agree per wikipedia policies and the nominations: Reliable sources and wikipedia policies get the final say on names, notability, ... Xashaiar (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge the page, if not agree with rename as stated in the AfD conclusion "The result was keep but possibly merge or rename". I would recommend the merge into a more mainstream article on the protests. As stated there, I am not sure having a separate article for each and every protest, in every city would be useful. However, if merge is not supported, the title obviously would need to change, the current name has a clear bias. Farmanesh (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge, if not, agree with rename, merge could be the best solution for this article.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, the editor might be trying to game the system, after unsuccessful attempt to gain consensus for removal of the article, and currently a deliberate vanadalist POV editing of the article - to make it seem very defferent, and trying to rm it by backdoor rename and merge. I ask the editor Kurdo777 to reach a consensus via the talk page and achieve NPOV and WP:RS article, instead of acting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT - which might draw sunctions.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me there is a lack of assuming good faith (WP:AGF) here. Might help if you read Accusing others of bad faith.Farmanesh (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me, you as well should read it. I cannot assume good faith upon removal of any WP:RS which claims a high casualty rate, while pushing a blogger post on "The Economist" who said 5 people died; extensive edits to make the event seem less notable (while removing WP:RS); This is called gaming the system.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me with a "you as well should read it" type of answer. I think we might be better of to wait till the discussion about the merge/rename is closed. Based on that, we can move forward with a better perspective.Farmanesh (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Regarding the discussion over rename - it is not clear what is the target name ("that" or "that") and even more unclear whether it is a final rename or just a step towards merge. Quiet strange and non standard procedure is made here...Greyshark09 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge, if not, agree with rename, per user:Farmanesh. (according to AfD conclusion) *** in fact *** ( contact ) 21:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Nominator's note: Just wanted to say that I support the merge option as well. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge: Giving extraordinary weight to this especial event among similar other protests in Iran is not reasonable . We may merge this to the article Politics of Khūzestān Province as said the AfD . The section's name in the article should be protests of 2005 --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and alternative suggestion: according to WP:RS it should indeed remain "Ahwaz unrest" or "Ahvaz unrest" according to academic source (RC Elling State of Mind, State of Order: Reactions to Ethnic Unrest in the Islamic Republic of Iran - Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 2008 - Wiley Online Library, "...The first, which will be called the Ahvaz unrest, took place in the south-western Iranian province of Khuzestan, which borders Iraq, and in particular in the regional capital of Ahvaz...") and of course the media. The naming can be changed to Ahvaz, rather than Ahwaz, according to WP:COMMONNAME - like the articles on Ahvaz and Ahvaz bombings). Therefore i suggest it can be changed from "2005 Ahwazi unrest" -> "2005 Ahvaz unrest".Greyshark09 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ali's revert

User named Ali (in Persian script), please note that a reason to your revert as "POV edits" is not logical as your revert was done to another revert. You are welcome to help decide the pathway of this article, however please address the issue of WP:RS deletion, POV pushing, and general bullying against the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep repeating gaming the systems and similar phrases do not legitimize your obvious POV edit. Removing information and replacing it with what you like is no acceptable in Wikipedia. You must discuss your points such as Military instead of police, number of causalities and so on with reliable sources.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Aliwiki. The article must be neutral and factual. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 06:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Kurdo's version neutral (the Economist article for instance has a little more to say on the underlying social/ethnic tensions. It also mentions another 'serious riot' in Ahwaz three years earlier). But it looks at least a bit less biased to me than yours, Greyshark. How about expanding that version (in a less accusatory way, I'd suggest) instead of reverting it? - Peace, Ankimai (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo's revision is anything but neutral. I don't claim my version of the article is ideal, but you have already witnessed that instead of suggestion and cooperation to improve the article and find better sources, the article has been butchered with no mercy and without any consideration of other views. I wouldn't mind checking every source and find a compromise, but it seems Kurdo and some of his friends are not open for dialogue. I'm calling Kurdo and his Persian group for the last time to prevent edit warring, and i propose full cooperation for reliable and complete article.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)