Talk:2011–2012 Iranian protests

Sources

These are on the wikipedia current events portal. Shouldn't they be included in the article?

• http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011212162526150718.html
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/iran-cheers-egypt-tunisia-revolts-as-ahmadinejad-stifles-domestic-dissent.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.26.192.159 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

notable

there has been ONE protest, which is perfectly suited to the arab world protests article, others with MORE protests dotn warrant a another mpage (bahrain), this seems like pov-pushing as the bete noir of the west )see the relevant reactions) is lord forbid having a [minor] protest. whats come off it? 1 day, a few people Im not saying it doesnt sdeserve to be on wikipedia, it does, but nothing warrants an entire page for it.

the tags were removed citing "clearly meets notability and referenced" but the prod tag says "However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." for which there was no reason given. please discussLihaas (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there have been a few earlier ones over the last week. However, three hundred thousand people is nothing to sneeze at.Ericl (talk)

350 000 - ha ha ha oh come on.... There were 35 000 0000 :))

21:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• First off, you are NEVER allowed to re-add a PROD once it has been removed, regardless of the reason. The PROD rules state "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." In terms of removing it, it states "You are encouraged, but not required, to also: Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." I will do so now, but I was not required to do so. You were completely out of line by adding the PROD back onto the article.

Second, if you are going to remove content, make sure not to remove references that are used in other parts of the article. By removing the information about the president of Turkey, you messed up the Forbes reference that was used elsewhere and I had to fix it.

Lastly, there are more than enough sources for this article to meet notability standards. If this event turns out to be transitory and there is no long-term effect, then it can be merged back into the general Arab world protests article, but not until the result is known and the protests die off. Also, the protest is not just a few people, it is thousands of people. Silverseren^C 20:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

it also said to explain a reason for removal (i quoted above), and at the time it was only 1 protest not "protests" which meant the other page is more. though it seems more now and 2 people have commented which is a consensus from talk as opposed to the page reverting alone.Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it.

Feel free to delete this:Iran protests 2011.

Kinda beat you to it by a lot. :P Silverseren^C 21:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Headline news article

I expect this will be on the main page shortly. Can anyone direct me to the discussion area where people add news articles to the "In the News" template transcluded on the main page? Master&Expert (Talk) 23:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You can find that at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Silverseren^C 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you haven't added it yet, I hope you don't mind if I do. Silverseren^C 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, you did. Dang, ITN is complicated. Silverseren^C 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I logged off shortly after posting this topic due to circumstances beyond my control, but am now able to check it out. Pretty obvious it's going to be on the main page shortly, if it isn't already up there. 350 000+ protestors? That's major. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate image?

Perhaps a different image could be put up? The current image seems out of line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, agreed. i checked commons but there wasn't anything yet. just a normal photograph of protesters is the way to go. Ocaasi (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Though I wish you luck on finding any images of the protesters. The Iranian government seems to have the entire area locked down and foreign media are being kept out, period. Our only chance would be if one of the protesters sends out some images and they would qualify under free use. Silverseren^C 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think, until we get ahold of an image of the protesters, we should go with the image style that is being portrayed in 2011 Bahraini protests, with just an image of the country and its location. Silverseren^C 17:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the image.... But I would prefer an image showing the incoming of good things rather than outgoing of the bad things... What about using some of the pictures used in Iranian Green Movement? Xashaiar (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that doing so would be biased. We cannot show support for or against the protesters, we must remain neutral, which includes using a neutral image in the article. Silverseren^C 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But Truth is most neutral. I am afraid most of the time the neutrality policy used in wikipedia is in effect a tool of scarifying the truth.... Xashaiar (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What sort of truth are we trying to get across with such an image? Silverseren^C 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The dictators are lined up like ... you know! Xashaiar (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

However, that is not a neutral statement. Even using the term dictator is inherently non-neutral if being used as fact on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on this. But back to the issue, if a free image comes out and shows injured people by basij militia or armed forces all over streets, using it would be fine and neutral and the truth is told. Xashaiar (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, yes. But the current use of a political cartoon is not neutral. Silverseren^C 19:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

There has been a disagreement on whether or not the current Iranian protests should be linked to previous Arab-world protests. One side believes that the Iranian protests were spurred on by events in Egypt and should be classified as related - the other believes that, since Iran is not an Arab nation, grouping the two makes no sense.

Please note that any editing of this article related to this (including reversion of other editors) will result in a block.

I'm making this section as a forum for mediation; any opinions are welcome. m.o.p 05:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i can not see any relation between 2010–2011 Arab world protests commonscat and this article. if a commonscat really needed, Iranian presidential election 2009 protest can added. it is more related.–ebraminio^talk 08:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why an admin was called in on this. Discussion is already under way on the Arab world protests article about a name change so that it can include places outside of the Arab world. Per that, links and template boxes about the Arab world protests are to remain in this article. Silverseren^C 08:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding the label Arab World protests, misleads the reader into thinking Iran is an Arab country. While the recent protests in Iran, may have tangibly related to the ones in arab world, the template in question, does not belong here, as it essentially labels the protests as a part of the Arab World protests. --Wayiran (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The template should be in this article, but it presently is not. I can't reinsert it because of 3RR. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Silverseren, there's been an edit dispute over whether or not the template should be included. I'd like to gain consensus on this so that we can work further. m.o.p 14:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit dispute is silly. If a reader somehow believes that Iran is Arab because it is in the related section of the template, which indicates that these protests are related to the ones in the Arab world (considering they began as a response to them), then that is that reader's problem, but I sincerely doubt that will happen to many readers, if any. I'm sure a curious reader will then go over to the Arab protests article, which clearly has Iran and other countries in the "Outside the Arab world" section. Silverseren^C 21:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit dispute may have seemed silly to you, but clearly not to many others. The Scythian 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Per suggestion by Master of Puppets, here are some sources that suggest the happenings in Iran and Egypt are related.[1][2][3][4][5][6] --Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll add to that list [7][8][9][10][11]. Those directly group or connect them. These reference them in the immediate context: [12][13][14][15][16]. They are so related it's not even funny. Whether they are literally part of the same movement is a needless debate; as in, it's not necessary for that to be the case in order to place See Also links, or Templates, or Related sections--and especially not while the situation is in flux. Worst case scenario, we can just throw in a quick hatnote that says: Iran is not an Arab country but has been mentioned directly in relation to the ongoing protests around the Middle East.

• Editors are still going around changing things in the article about this, like here. Is anything going to be done by the admins, like has been stated? Silverseren^C 00:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A new combatant enters the ring, eh? Don't worry, Silver seren, I can handle things. Keep building consensus, though. m.o.p 08:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you can't cite those "articles" as some kind of "proof" that the template belongs on this page. Doing is so, is violation of WP:SYNTH, and Egypt protests having been connected to Iranian protests, does not mean that Iran is somehow a part of the "Arab protests" whose definition is protests in Arab world. The heavy-weights like BBC and Economist, clearly make the distinctions, BBC calls it protests in Middle East to include Iran, and Economist does not include Iran at all, in it's shoe-thrower index, exactly because Iran is not an Arab country. Just because some in the Western media, are clumsy and stupid enough to think that Iran is somehow a part of the "Arab world" or "Arab street", does not mean that we have to repeat the same editorial errors here. To give you an example, Evening Standard had printed this [17] on their front page, after several angry letters from their readers, they changed the title from "Arab protests" to "turmoil in Middle East" [18] and printed an apology on their website acknowledging that they had made an editorial mistake to include Iran as part of Arab protests: "Your point is absolutely correct, and we are grateful for you and other readers who have contacted us. We apologise for the error." [19] . You guys are not from the region, you don't understand the sensitivities of labeling Iranians "Arab" or their protests as part of "Arab protests". Like it or not, Iranians do not like to be mistaken for Arabs, it's a very sensitive issue. So no matter how many times, you guys gonna insert this template into this article, given the nature of this topics, and the high traffic of Iranian users here, some Iranian user or editor, will come along, and remove it, so my suggestion to you is to either drop this, or find a more inclusive title for that template to solve this issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The 2010-2011 Arab world protests article is in the process of being moved to 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. So, can you please wait a day or two? The move should be sorted out by them and the template will be changed to reflect that. And then the template and links will apply to this article. Silverseren^C 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to wait? I just made a comment, I haven't edited this article in 4-5 days. If the move, goes ahead, then this is a non-issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's his point, that the move is likely going ahead, and the inclusion or exclusion of Iran from that template will be moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, what you're talking about, the sensitivity of Iranians to anything that could be perceived as classifying them as Arab, sounds like it could be a form of systematic bias by Iranians to push too hard to separate even valid comparisons between Iran and the Arab world, like in this case, which fails to consider the worldwide view. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how it is the bias of the so-called Iranians you are so concerned with, when the two in fact are not one in the same. A greater concern should be of those who wish to combine all things "Iranian" under all things Arab. If anything, that is a form of bias that quickly falls into the realm of revanchism, prejudice, and outright racism. Sort of like saying any person who looks "Asian" is Chinese, etc. Not a nice way to go about viewing a nuance filled world, me thinks. As for the connections Iran has to any of the protests in the Arab world, the connection is nil. The Iranian protests of 2009 never really stopped, while back in 2009, no Arab states suffered any turmoil as a result of the unrest in Iran. More to the point, the current government of Iran supports the protests in the Arab world as much as their own protesters do. Something lost on the English speaking media, sadly. The Scythian 04:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabs hate to be called Persians. Iranians hate to be called Arab. Ancient civilization-scale beef. Got it. However sources--credible, national, international, news organizations have consistently mentioned these countries' protests as related phenomenon. We don't have to take common mistakes and just repeat them, but there's a much higher bar when the 'mistake' of relating the protests has been made over and over in multiple credible sources. 'Arab world protests', has been the WP:Commonname for many news outlets, which we used for the convenience of our readers. And while that's going on, we don't want our readers to be uninformed about other events that share similarities and have been reported on as being related--hence the templates and links. Scythian, the Iranian protests share very clear patterns with other Arab world protests, namely because they are both against authoritarian governments. The government of Iran supports the protests in the Arab world, but not the protests in Iran! That is the common thread, and religion/ethnicity have been only tangential to the major thrust of the demonstrations. Ocaasi (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And this is the greater point, that the Iranian protests are related to the Arab world protests. Iranians don't have to be Arab for that to be true. And nobody is suggesting that Iranians are Arab. Meanwhile, the Iranian government does purport to support the Egyptian protests, but of course are trying to put down their own. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your borderline racist rant, and try to get to the "meat" of your posting here. Plenty of articles and newscasts are linking the protests in Iran to events currently taking place in the Arab world, for various reasons. From Iranian government involvement in Bahrain, to Iranians being "energized" to protest by the events in Egypt. None are referring to Iran as being a part of the events inside of the "Arab world," and certainly not repeatedly. In reality, the protests in Iran that started in Iran in 2009, never really ended. The Iranian protests had zero effect on the populations of the Arabic speaking nations at the time or presently, and largely went unnoticed. For now, western news sources are linking the two, but that probably won't be the case in the long term. I am curious, then. Are the events and protests in Pakistan, currently against U.S involvement in their nation, also apart of the "Arab world" to you? Does anyone who happens to have a certain "look" to you, immediately qualify as Arab in your worldview? If that doesn't reek of bias and outright bigotry, then I don't know what does. The Scythian 18:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you intimating that I'm a racist or that I don't know what I'm talking about. All this is about is the simple fact that there is a connection between this and the other protests that are going on/have recently happened. You are starting to get disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, here come the threats. First vandalism warnings on my talk page about this discussion, and now accusations of "disruptive behavior." The fact that you feel that Iranian editors are somehow biased towards inclusion of Iran in the Arab world was the first accusation of bigotry thrown around here, and it was thrown by you, and is in fact a biased argument to begin with. Now, if you don't mind, lets get back to the topic at hand. The Scythian 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think both of you should just stop. Your argument is not improving this page and Wikipedia is not a forum for you two to bicker with each other. Take it to email if you must. Silverseren^C 22:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone else add this?

There's information in this source about what the IRIB television network is saying. I'm too pissed off at how badly they are lying to add this in neutrally to the article. IRIB is trying to twist things around and say that it was pro-government people that were conducting the funeral and were then attacked by the protesters, when what really happened was the exact opposite. Freaking lying...

Watch your language by the way . 173.178.93.250 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else will need to add this. Just make sure you phrase it as "The IRIB television network stated" or something to that effect so our readers know we're not stating fact here. Silverseren^C 03:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yah, that is the typical cynical spin/lie approach of the IRI. Down is up and black is white. I'll go ahead and add it. The Scythian 03:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, made reference addition. The Scythian 04:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I went and added another sentence about how The Guardian saw things. Silverseren^C 05:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

that was total pov, i reworded. if were going to attack and accuse one side then at the least balance with the other pov. were not pushing an agenda here, this is an encycolpedia not a blog or twitter or facebook.Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup?

What needs to be cleaned up exactly? If I don't get any response here in a day or two, i'm going to remove the tag, because you're supposed to explain on the talk page what needs to be cleaned when you add that tag. Silverseren^C 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes , this article does need clean up . Well only becuase it does not describe if it is justice country or not. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Siverseren, you should note this on the error desk. Noting here will not be much help . Nice try though. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does "justice country" mean exactly? Silverseren^C 00:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahwazi protests

Recently wide protests with significant casualties (at least 15 dead) have erupted in Ahwaz, in the majority Arab populated Iranian south-western province of Khuzestan. The question is whether the Arab protests in Iranian province of Khuzestan are an integral part of 2011 Iranian protests (i added the relevant info on 15-18 April protests in Khuzestan for now), or those are unrelated protests, which should be split into a separate article named "2011 Arab protests in Iran" (or something like that). The background is clearly very different for 2011 Iranian internal protests and 2011 Arab nationalistic protests in Khuzestan. Any opinions whether segregation to be made?Greyshark09 (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the information is enough now to be split into its own article. But if it does get long enough and is split, I think it would be appropriate to have a summary here that links to that article, since they are at least tangentially related. Silverseren^C 10:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Day of Rage ×2

The phrase "Day of Rage" regarding February 14's major protests, then regarding a smaller one on April 15 in Ahwaz, should be in the article text. Many sources support this announced name of a protest day:

February 14

• "Brace Yourself, Iran Wants A 'Day of Rage' Too", Business Insider
• "'Day of Rage' Updates From Iran, Algeria, Bahrain and Yemen", AOL News

April 15

• "Fifteen dead in Iran's Ahwaz", Al Arabiya
• "Iran: Several Arabs killed during 'day of rage in Ahwaz'", Ya Libnan
• "IRAN: Outside the spotlight, Arab uprising smolders in country's southwest", Roula Hajjar for the Los Angeles Times

Both uses of "Day of Rage" should be reported here in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I had Day of Rage in there for April 15, but it was removed by Kurdo, not to mention the removal of info about arrests and such, all in the name of WP:UNDUE, which is something Kurdo has been seriously misusing on this page. I mean, of course. I'm sure he'd feel much better if there was no information about the protests at all in the article, but, unfortunately, I found more sources and he can't just say that they're all unreliable. So, instead we get "trimming" in the name of WP:UNDUE, removing information about arrests and government censorship. Silverseren^C 20:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the UNDUE guideline ought to be distorted by using it to completely remove information that is widely reported. Certainly, it can be used to prevent this widely reported information from taking over the article, but a mere mention is absolutely allowed. An examination of the case looks like Kurdo777 is preventing a neutral telling of the Arab side of the story. Per WP:NPOV we should tell the reader about "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. I'm just not sure how to deal with this properly. Any information I try to add in just ends up getting removed. I mean, he said Al Bawaba has no editorial oversight, which is obviously not true. Silverseren^C 21:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"obviously not true" because you say so? Where is your proof that this random "news, blogging" site has editorial oversight? It's up to you to establish that Al Bawaba meets the threshold set by WP:RS. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of you need to be mindful of WP:NPA which tells you to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Binksternet has also violated the terms of his conditional unblock, by what appears to be a resumption of his stalking of me. My only concern here is the implementation of Wikipedia policy . As for WP:Undue, the material should be relative to the article subject and coverage given in the media. The event in question is one of dozens of events that are subcategories of 2011 Iranian protests, but as it is, this particular event is given more weight than events that were much more widely reported and relevant to the topic, that is what we call WP:Undue. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm here because the Al Arabiya source was brought up on the reliable source noticeboard, and I commented on it there. I came here to see how it was being applied. Regarding UNDUE, the guideline is not a blank check authorizing the complete removal of widely reported events. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You're sort of walking a fine line here. Last time, you also had a similar excuse for stalking me , that didn't help your case though, did it? As for Undue, it is certainly not a blank check for removal, but by the same token, being sourced is not a license for automatic inclusion in a page , that's why we the editors take careful care of what we add into an article, and the relevant appropriate weight of the content. We don't just dump whatever we can fish on Google that suits our POV, into a page, and then cry it's sourced, it can't be removed or trimmed down. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel like it might be better to just make a separate page for the 2011 Alwazi protests and just do a summary style section here with a main page link. Silverseren^C 01:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVFORKing will not solve the problem. If this particular event deserves a separate article, then so does every other protest listed on this page, all of whom have had FAR MORE media coverage than this event. It won't pass WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Also, the title itself would be a clear violation of WP:AT. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

While you, on the other hand, extremely violate WP:BASH. Listing off a whole bunch of links to policy pages is not a discussion argument. You're just using them to obfuscate the discussion, instead of using a word-based rationale.

As for what you're actually saying, the protests in Ahwaz are extremely different from the rest that have been occurring in Iran. One main thing that points to this is that it is involving people, Arab Iranians, who haven't been involved with the protests themselves and are protesting for a different reason, rights for themselves as a people. Furthermore, this article is meant to be a hub article discussing everything occurring with protests during the year. But that doesn't mean that separate protests involving different peoples in Iran can't have their own articles that are just linked to from here, especially when we're considering protests that are significantly different from the other protests that occurred earlier this year. Silverseren^C 04:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's still a WP:POVFORK. You're avoiding the key points here. Does this news event have lasting effects? No. Does this event have passing or lasting significance and continued coverage in the media? No. Does this event have diversity of sources or has been mainly reported by "media channels under common control or influence " ? You may say yes, but most people will say no. There is not even a Wikinews article for this event! It's simply not a notable news event with lasting effects worthy of a separate topic. Your rational that this would be a topic about a "separate people" who " haven't been involved with the protests themselves and are protesting for a different reason" (1) shows your strong POV, and soap-boxing tendencies (2) is a confession that this section doesn't even belong in this article to begin with, which was my original position. Therefore, the section should be merged into Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran or Politics of Khuzistan. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In this regard i would like to point the attention to the 2005 Ahwazi unrest, where Kurdo has been perticularly active, trying to delete the article, later trying to erase most sources (claiming unreliability and UNDUE) and eventually trying to rename it. I would ask other editors to show some attention to the ongoing actions in the second article as well, and give your opinion on the rename procedure there.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:2011 Iranian protests.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:2011 Iranian protests.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)