Talk:LGBTQ rights in Iran

Why Does this Article Exist If No One Has First-Hand Information on Homosexuality in Iran

Over half of the references are to commondreams.org. Is that supposed to be a Wikipedia-worthy source of information? And there's not one reference to any studies about homosexuality in Iran, if any such studies exist. If such studies don't exist why bother putting up this article? Because everything that has a US article should also have a parallel for every country?

Added facts/figures re: legal status of transexuals in Iran

See my change here. All are cited to a Guardian article. [1]--Marksspite133 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is moot...

...because it impossible for a homosexual to exist in any form within the geopolitical boundaries of Iran. Of course I cite none other than the most authoritative person on matters pertaining to Iran. <http://www.towleroad.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad-in-.html> 76.104.224.97 05:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ha, ha, very funny. Therefore, like Queen Victoria's reputed omission of Lesbianism from the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, there is no need for intitutional repression. Do you think that'll happen? 71.41.210.146 12:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Article move

This article should be moved to Gay and lesbian rights in Iran or Gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights in Iran for inclusiveness. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

To be more inclusive, the best title would be LGBT rights in Iran. However, its name would then become inconsistent with 49 articles called Gay rights in..., the main article Gay rights, which has nearly 1000 incoming links, as well as the name of the category Gay rights by country Wuzzy 12:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this could be a good precedent for change, especially considering the category "LGBT civil rights." The problem I have with "gay rights" is that it is essentially not inclusive - "gay" is primarily associated with homosexual men. I don't have a problem with "LGBT rights in Iran" though the issue of transgenderism is, in reality, separate from issues of sexual orientation. SouthernComfort 12:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the other articles, I find that there is one called LGBT rights in Jamaica. I think this is probably the best and most neutral title. As well, I think this issue should be brought up in the other articles for the reasons I have outlined. Though of course due to legal recognition of transgender individuals, perhaps my original suggestion of "Gay and lesbian rights" or "Gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights" would be better. I'm not sure really. SouthernComfort 15:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If the title is changed, "LGBT rights in Iran" is the best, for consistency and future-proofing. Getting the other articles changed would then be desirable, but potentially a lot of work considering the incoming links. The Category "Gay rights in..." can only be changed by an administrator after consensus. Wuzzy 15:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "LGBT rights in Iran" or "LGBT civil rights in Iran" would be best as well, as this would allow the article a broader range of perspectives to deal with, as well as allowing us to link to Transsexuality in Iran, since crossdressers, transvestites, and non-operative transgenders are obviously not considered legally female (not anywhere else in the world either, I don't think) and are thus subject to same laws barring homosexual acts, so that relates strongly to this article. SouthernComfort 06:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The one who wants to change this, must change ALL THE OTHER 100 ARTICLES which are named "Gay rights in...". So please rename it into Gay rights in Iran! 亮HH 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that this change has been made and the title is now "LGBT Rights;" the acronym "LGBT" is used throughout the article. But, it is clear in the article and from supporting material (specifically the documentary video "Inside Out" on transexual persons in Iran) that transexuality is treated totally differently from same-sex sexual orientation. Thus each instance of "LGBT" shoudl be reviewed and most of them changed to "LGB." *sigh*

Also, since the existence of LGBT rights is a debated topic (I'm queer myself and of course support our rights, but it is debated) how could the language of this article be made more NPOV? Perhaps all the "LGBT Rights" articles (did someone rename them all as advocated by 亮HH above?) should be renamed, "Legal and Social Status of LGBT Persons in ...."

Thoughts? Vcrs 16:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has already made suggested changes (with regard to "LGBT" vs "LGB") below (does not identify self for reasons of privacy); I think that individual should put in the suggested changes. Unfortunately I can't tell the person this on hir talk page since zie does not i.d. self (totally understandable) but I hope zie sees this and makes the changes. Vcrs 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

BTW, why do you want the inclusion of this sentence: "No civil rights legislation exists in Iran to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation." It's absurd because civil rights legislation isn't possible under the current system in the first place. The sentence makes it appear that such legislation may very well be possible. It's not, since Islamic law, as established by the system (through the Judiciary), does not accept or acknowledge the existence of individuals who are homosexual. It's misleading. SouthernComfort 12:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That sentence is not absurd; it makes sense and is factual, informative and important, and does not necesarily imply that civil rights would be possible. To say that they would be not be possible is a speculative POV, but I don't object to saying it provided the facts (i.e the above sentence) are clearly stated. I am okay with the paragragh as it stands on 12:08, April 1, 2006. Wuzzy 14:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I still find it strange and potentially misleading. What about the article title? SouthernComfort 14:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved

Article moved as per discussion. SouthernComfort 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in literature

There are a few calims in the article about "praising homosexuality" in persian literature. These claims are baseless and a result of misunderstanding. A big part of Persian literature is sufi literature in which sufi poets talk about a love relationship between a man (e.g. poet himself) and a "beloved God" (that is usually portrayed as a human). It is also a tradition that any sufi has a teacher and a spiritual guide. Sufi usually praise that man in their potery, considering themselves as his slave or in his love. They also do not distinguish between a man who reaches the highest level as their teachers and the beloved God. These have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. When these poems are translated to English, a western reader will interpret the distorted translations in western cultural context. This will lead to this misunderstanding. Please notice that this is a very well known style in persian poetry. We need academic sources for any calims. We can not use a personal opinion of a western journalist or blogger who has just started to learn persian language or can not even read in Persian as a source. Only opinions of literary figures who master Persian language worth looking at. --Mitso Bel13:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Qabusnameh

I have a copy of this book. If the author of the sentence in the article about Qabusnama provides us with a reference page or something, I can look into it.--Zereshk 02:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I've merged the article Homosexuality in Iran into here. It had very little information and anything there was already here. Feel free to revert if you think that the other article has a future. Also if anyone has anything to add to Age of consent in Asia#Iran that you can verify feel free. --Monotonehell 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

T rights in Iran

As a person of the Islamic faith and a transsexual I feel compelled to comment. While I recognize that the rights of the GLB in Iran are non existant and this is a bad situation for them. I cannot help but read statements on "heteronormativity" in articles like this and feel slighted. It is as if some authors feel that no one who is transsexual is being honest. The attitude of the whole article seems bent on "Sure Iran is relatively open to transsexuality but that's only as a way to "cure" gay people." The whole transsexuality as a cure for homosexuality argeument went out with disco. So without objections registered I propose the following alteration...

LGB Civil Rights

No civil rights legislation exists in Iran to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Depictions of homosexuality are prohibited in society or in the press, unless it is negative. No organization or political party is permitted to exist that endorses LGB human rights.

The concept of sexual orientation is not recognized in Iran, nor does the Judiciary acknowledge the existence of LGB people and instead believes that all people are normally heterosexual and thus homosexuality is a a violation of the supreme will of God.

As a result no laws exist that protect LGB Iranian from discrimination, harassment or bias-motivated violence, and as a theocratic political system no such laws are permitted to exist. Most Iranian LGBT people remain in the closet about their sexual orientation for fear of being the victim of discrimination, hate crimes, government sanctions, corporal punishments and/or capital punishment.

The only legal recognition for couples is a legal marriage between one male and one female, both Muslim. The Islamic based legal system prohibits opposite sex couples from associating in public, and dating is taboo. Male homosexual couples might be able to pretend that they are just platonic friends, but any type of sexual activity outside of a legal marriage is illegal.

Censorship of the literature and of history has been documented, under the rule of both the Pahlavi dynasty monarchy and the Islamic Republic in Iran. In 2002, a book entitled Witness Play by Cyrus Shamisa was banned from shelves (despite being initially approved) because it said that certain notable Persian writers were homosexuals or bisexuals [2].

___________

All I would do is remove the T from this section of the article and it expresses the situation accurately. The fact is primary T and I people have the right to choose for themselves what gender to live as. Then they are recognized as that gender. (I do not use my registered name on this issue as I enjoy privacy on this matter.) 66.92.130.180 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should absolutely make these changes. I read the article and found it irritating that "LGBT" was used when the article (and other sources such as the documentary "Inside Out") specifically discuss that transexuality is treated totally differently from same-sex sexual orientation. Please, in future, you should feel free to just go ahead and make the changes! I support you & wish all the best to you. Vcrs 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Organization (HOMAN) organized a conference on homosexuality in Iran in 2003 and operates a homepage on LGBT issues in the region [3].

{{Tone}}

I took the liberty of rewritting the first paragraph. I agree with the user below that the tone is unacceptable. jaaronw 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow When I read this sentences "Since the revolution of 1979, LGBT rights in Iran are non-existent due to fact that it is a fundamentalist Islamic Republic that sees heterosexuality expressed within a traditional marriage as the only permitted sexual orientation," I could tell that this article was going to be poorly written. This is problematic for at least one of two reasons: either the author(s) is saying that there are no special rights for LGBTQIetc. people, which is basically contradicted at the end of the paragraph, or he is saying that there are no human rights at all, which is a bit bombastic, as the human rights situation in Iran isn't that dire (it's not North Korea, or the Holocaust.) I suppose there is another option, which is that the author is claiming that LGBTQIetc. people are fundamentally sub-human and have no intrinsic rights; I'm assuming that's not the case. This article seriously needs to be reviewed and de-politicized, if for no other reason than intelligibility. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi, can someone please explain to me what the problem is? Khoikhoi 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In Iran there is legally no "homosexuals" or "gays" or "lesbians" - there is only people "practicing homosexuality". In Islam in general there is also no "homosexuals" only "homosexual practices". User:Outerlimits has no education in the Iranian or Islamic legal systems and wants to impose his POV here. It is a form of sneaky vandalism. Khorshid 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In Turkey, there are three minority groups that are officially recognized: Armenians, Greeks and Jews. But wait, aren't we forgetting someone? We don't need to follow the opinion of governments all the time, the same apllies here. "Officially", no one is gay, lesbian, or bisexual in Iran—but does that make it so? Can we say for certain that out of a country of 68 million, everyone is heterosexual? I'm sure there are plenty of people that are too afraid to come out, and for obvious reasons. What we need are reliable sources that back up our claims... Khoikhoi 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That argument is about whether sexual "prefereance" or "orientation" exists and is not proper for this page and has nothing to do with ethnic groups. The issue of black vs white or Kurds or any ethnic group is separate from sex. Many people would be offended to have gays lumped in with their civil rights cause. Khorshid 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that POV is not represented, please add it (and make sure you provide reliable sources). However, WP:NPOV dictates that all POVs be mentioned, even ones that you disagree with. Also see Wikipedia is not censored. Khoikhoi 06:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah what kind of nonsense is this person talking about? I was passing by and saw him/her removing information like it's profanity! --Jay

As another user has pointed out, the article should include Iran's belief that there is no homosexual orientation, but that doesn't mean it should be the only point of view expressed, let alone adopted as the one governing this article. Clearly the persecution of gays reflects badly on Iran, but the cure for that is not to pretend it doesn't exist by expurgating it from this article. Expurgating uncomfortable information is not appropriate on Wikipedia, so I'll be undoing the censorship. - Outerlimits 07:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't read your comment before I read Khorshid's, but as I said above, all POVs should be heard. Therefore I recommend that Khorshid contribute to the article. Khoikhoi 06:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What this user Outerlimits wants to do (who also used sockpuppet IP) is alter the legal definitions used in Iran. In Iran no one is legally executed or imprisoned for being gay or lesbian. This is not about whether they exist. In Iran people are executed or imprisoned because they take part in homosexual practice. The Iranian legal system considers those people as legally heterosexuals. Its not difficult to understand. People like Outerlimits should not impose their POV on legal systems they are not familiar with or on countries they know nothing about! It's called Eurocentricism. Khorshid 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whose version is right or wrong, but I see that you're removing sourced parts of the article which you apparently don't like. I can't judge on quality of the sources, but that's up to you to discuss with the fellow editors. And please stop calling your opponent "vandal" in edit summaries. Both to User:Outerlimits and you: Existence of WP:3RR does not imply blanket permission to anyone to revert exactly 3 times a day (and I've seen people blocked for trying to do that by means of "gaming the system"). I agree that Eurocentricism should not be imposed on the articles, but neither the "European" view, if relevant, should be removed from them. Duja► 12:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He is definitely a sneaky vandal as his edits show, and an IP check will show he has used sockpuppets, and I suspect also that Outerlimits himself is a sockpuppet as every time I have reverted him he is there to revert me instantly. Also you should fix your tone and be more civil since you are new to this discussion. Khorshid 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I find it interesting that you clearly ignore that I have been making discussion here and requested the help of another user and you still make accusation against me that I am not engaging in discussion. That is messed up and shows bias and frankly I am getting tired of this thing on WP. Khorshid 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Khorshid is wrong in just about everything he's said here. His statement that I've used "sockpuppet IP" is maliciously false. His statement that I wish to "alter" the legal term is false: I've been reinstating the actual legal term used, which is "homosexual tendencies", and he's been changing that to "homosexual practices". The reference cited uses the term "tendencies", and that is the term we should also use. As for reverting: I will gladly hand off to other editors the duty of ensuring that Khorshid does not censor out the portions of the article he's embarassed by, and the duty of ensuring that he does not misrepresent the cited sources, if they are willing to pick it up. This article was replete with a lot of misrepresentation (moving the context of quotations and similar dishonest rhetorical tricks); the version to which I've been reverting has fixed these. There may be more to fix, but that would be a good starting point. - Outerlimits 13:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a liar. I have not removed the "tendencies" part of the quotation as you falsely claim, and anyone can compare the versions. You write in the article that "Iranian government's policy of calling for the execution of those who are homosexual." That is nonsense and Iranian government has never stated this. My version states the accurate "Iranian government's policy of calling for the execution of those who practice homosexuality." So stop lying.

Also HOMAN is not an Iranian organisation but an American one based in Los Angeles. Practice of homosexuality is illegal in Iran and so HOMAN has no base of operations there, thus it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to hold a conference on homosexuality in Iran. That is clearly BS and unless you have third-party source for that (like a newspaper report) then that doesnt belong in the article. Khorshid 16:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Outerlimits is not "fixing" anything. He is sneakily injecting his own Eurocentric POV into the article and wanting to use this article as a soapbox for Anti-Iranianism. This is similar to the motives of Peter Tatchell. I believe we have rules against using WP as a political and activism platform. Khorshid 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Outerlimits also has no leg to stand on when he makes his claims due to his constant removing of the accuracy tag and the sources tag. Someone who is interested in providing facts would not go around causing problems and harassing other editors by reverting them all the time. I was not the one who started this cycle, but it is interesting that Iranians are usually made into scapegoats for this and that. Spare me your racism. Khorshid 16:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also there is no reason to put the Article 111 of the penal code in the introduction since there is the full legal basis provided in the Legal section of the article. Khorshid 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I compared the versions and it is OBVIOUS that Duja is plain wrong in his/her attack against me and I demand an apology. The "source" which this person claims I removed was already in the article but in a different section! The only "source" I removed was the HOMAN crap which was FALSE and did not meet WP:V as already explained and the Article 111 of penal code WAS ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE! Iranian editors should take note of this sickening prejudices that cause people to point their fingers at me because I am of non-Western background. Because I am different. This is incredible. Khorshid 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And as I said the TAGS ARE VALID SINCE MUCH OF THE ARTICLE IS NOT SOURCED. Yet Outerlimits CLEARLY REMOVED TAGS AND MADE FALSE CLAIMS THAT THE ARTICLE IS ACCURATE AND SOURCED. Sorry for shouting but I am sick and tired when people falsely accuse me and ignore the fact THAT I WAS DISCUSSING AND WAS IGNORED BY THE SNEAKY VANDAL WHO CONTINUED REVERTING ME. Have I made myself clear to everyone??? I hope so. Khorshid 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, hold on. I didn't attack you personally and I don't see a need to apologize. I was criticizing your namecalling other fellow editor a "liar", "vandal" and "racist", "soapbox for Anti-Iranianism" in the context of mere content dispute, and you continue to do so. Both of you did not spend a word about the contents of the text and credibility of the sources, partly until now, but just revert-warred for about the 4 days. The discussion you started with Khoikhoi was, as far as I can see, at his initiative, and I still don't see anything in it about the article contents, but ad hominem attacks against Outerlimits. I wanted to point out the WP:1RR policy. Everyone here is entitled to his POV, be it "Eurocentric" or "Iranian-centric", but both POVs should be represented fairly in the articles. Yes, the IP in question was likely Outerlimits's one, but I fail to see the relevance of that; forgetting to sign up is not a grave instance of sockpuppeting. Whoever is engaged in contents dispute should abide the same rules. I'm certainly not personally interested in the topic, and I can't judge quality and credibility of the sources. Yes, the exact legal phrasing of the Iranian law should be placed in the article. For other sources, phrasing of type "according to..." certainly helps clearing up what is whose opinion, rather than presenting it as the universal truth. Removing "accuracy" and "sources" tags in the middle of grave content dispute doesn't help Outerlimits's cause as well. Duja► 14:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC?

Maybe we should ask wider community for their input? I guess gay rights are of interest to many editors. Alex Bakharev 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The major problem with this article and the Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran is POV (the biggest problem) and accuracy (also lack of sources). I think if "cool and detached" editors who are willing to do research on these topics can come here we would have a good chance of seeing these problems solved. But I want to emphasise the importance of people not altering Iranian legal definitions to suit their POV and for commentary on the legal issues to be sourced. Khorshid 10:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Iranian law

Any reason why this article should not be plcaed in the category Iranian law? Wuzzy 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Morwen - Talk 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT MISTAKE

the first sentence implies that the iranian people have denied having any gay people in iran. THIS IS NOT TRUE!! the source for the statement is the speech of ahmadinejad, in which he said in farsi:

"ma dar iran hamjensbaz mesle shomaha nadarim"

(here is the youtube video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI

THIS DOES NOT MEAN "we do not have homosexuals in iran", it means "we do not have homosexuals *in the same way* as you do", what he said has been badly mistranslated, what the proper meaning was is that in iran, homosexuals are not as open as they are here, they are more underground-ish. what he said was mistranslated, if you can speak farsi, you would know what he meant. that sentence should be taken out POST HASTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.155 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

fixing the opening sentence: removing "in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran."

im removing that section because it is untrue, as these news stories point out:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3458605,00.html http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBLA05294620071010 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/no-gays-in-iran-an-aide-says-make-that-not-many/

in the articles, it is clearly explained that what ahmadinejad meant was not 'there are no gays in iran" but rather "compared to American society, we don't have many homosexuals". Siavash1989 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for registering. The references you brought are just media spin. Please bring an article which shows that it was an actual mistranslation. If what you are saying is true, there have to be articles which clearly show it was a mistranslation; all I am seeing is his media adviser saying he was misquoted. That's not the same thing at all. We have multiple sources all saying he said it, and no reliable sources which say he was misquoted. I am reverting back to the original version. Jeffpw (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

wait, this is your position "We have multiple sources all saying he said it, and no reliable sources which say he was misquoted" :

Reuters = unreliable news agency

New York times = unreliable news agency

are you being serious? this is bias in its truest form. you have an agenda: to make people feel worse for gays in Iran, instead of actually informing people. regardless here is the proof, it is broken up into different sections because it is actually more than one proof:

(PART A)

what *you* have is a bunch of people who don't speak Farsi, who hate the man, who want to dehumanize and humiliate him saying that he said there were no gays in Iran, but what *I* have is the MEDIA ADVISER saying he was misquoted and thats not what he meant, now keep in mind this man speaks fluent Farsi, heard what the president said and actually cleared things up because he heard what sort of rubbish CNN was saying about it.

(END OF PART A) (PART B)

if the media adviser said the president meant "there were not that many gays in Iran" as opposed to "no gays in Iran", then that means the official position isn't what you say it was, now is it? if the adviser says something, the president has to approve it, which means that the president agrees that he was misquoted, which means his policy is that "there are not that many gays in Iran" as opposed to "there are no gays in Iran". either way you look at it, the official position is *not* "there are no gays in Iran".

(END OF PART B) (PART C, now this one is a tad longer)

you want an article which shows it was an actual mistranslation? YOUR articles prove it was because, and stay with me here, I'm doing a little thing called logical reasoning, it might be a tad complicated, but I'm sure you can get it if you try hard enough:

1. Ahmadinejad said something in Farsi, which was translated by a woman who was in a hurry to catch up to him as he spoke (because she was a translator)

2. this is what she said as the translation (and pay attention because this is where it gets messy): "we do not have gays, like in your country". good? ok, we can move on:

3. darn, i was wrong, this one is more messy, now look closely at the following sentence that billy said to jimmy: "my parents (my country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents"

now look at the two possible endings for it:

"my parents (our country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents (your country), because we're poor and don't have any (ie. we don't have ANY gays)"

OR

"my parents (our country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents (your parents), because ours are purple and yours are white (they exist in a different way than your country)"

3.5 Ok, did you understand what the point of those two sentences was? if not, I'll tell you, the word "like" can have different meanings, usually people get the right meaning when they are speaking, but sometimes they don't, depending on the circumstances. anyway, on with the logical reasoning.

4. in order to deny the complete and utter non-existance of something, the word "ANY" is usually applied, like so:

"my parents (my country) don't have any boats (gays), like your parents"

this sentence doesn't need a second part, because we have already concluded that what billy said to jimmy was that his parents didn't have any boats at all, unlike jimmy's parents, who had several.

if he meant there were no gays in Iran at all, what he would have said would have been " we don't have any gays, like in your country". anyone who can speak, would add the word 'ANY' to a sentence like that to make sure the correct meaning is harvested (because, remember the word "like"? its tricky to use it). now, to any sane person with a decent mastery of linguistics, if the following sentence

"in Iran, we do not have any gays, like in your country"

is not missing the word "any", then it would be SAFE to assume that the sentence was denying the existance of gays in iran. now, lets look at this again, using everything we just learned:

1. Ahmadinejad was quoted to have said:

"in Iran, we do not have gays, like in your country"

2. the media said that what Ahmadinejad said was:

"there are no gays in Iran"

3. we just concluded that in order for him to, without any doubt, have ruled the existance of gays in Iran, he should/must/would have used the word 'any', somewhere in that sentence.

4. thus, by using our heads, we can easily conclude that there is at least a slight possibility that what he meant is not what the media said he meant.

5. now lets explore the possibility a little more: the word "any" is 3 letters, and easy for a translator to say, and seeing as how it is a very critical word to the overall meaning of the sentence, it is unlikely that it would have been left out if the president had actually said it.

ALSO, since i speak Farsi, and so do many other people you could ask, the president never uses the Farsi equivalent of the word "any" in his sentence, and seeing as how in any language, such a word would be critical to the meaning of the sentence, it is very unlikely that he left it out when he was speaking, which means the possibility that the media mistranslated/misquoted him is now pretty reasonably high.

6. finally, we have the MEDIA ADVISER coming and saying that he was indeed mistranslated/misquoted. suddenly, if we use simple logic, the possibility that Ahmadinejad actually did deny the existance of gays in Iran is shrunk to something near 0, or a very low number.

7. now, as reasonable people, if there are 2 possible solutions to a problem (such as getting the sides of a square with an area of 9 cm2), and one is much more likely to be correct (sides are 3 cm each) than the other (sides are -3, and since -3*-3 = 9, it could be true), we don't use the one with the lower correctness possibility, we choose the one with the greater possibility of being correct (sides are 3 cm each). see what im saying here?

(END OF PART C)

therefor, we should not conclude that the official position of the government is that there are no gays in iran, because of the preceding reasons.

i know you are going to skim over what i just wrote (because there is a high possibility that your denial defense mechanism is going to kick in and try to prevent you from reading what could prove you wrong), and go back to your mission of misinforming people, regardless, here are some more articles which support my position:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iran-ahmedinijad-never-s_b_68225.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301043,00.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm

have a good day. Siavash1989 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In spite of its patronising tone, I did read all of your post. you are trying to use your ability to speak Farsi to make the claim that Ahmadinejad did not make those remarks. That's original research and has no place here. The second batch of "news" reports do not give a reliable secondary source saying it was a mistranslation. The only report which actually directly illustrated your argument is the informationclearinghouse article. You don't actually think we could use such a source in an article on Wikipedia, do you? It is clearly a site with a rabid anti-west POV and no claim to neutrality at all. More to the point, there are multiple reliable news sites saying Ahmadinejad said that. you have a few saying his media adviser claims he was misquoted. Do you have a site which says independently that he was misquoted? Do you have any news organizations which say "Oops, sory! We relied on his translator and he was misquoted?" Until you do, the sentence stays as far as I am concerned. And by the way, you might try going to the Ahmadinejad and trying to delete it there, too. I'd be curious to see how it flies. Jeffpw (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

wait, i was trying to use farsi? i wasn't aware i was! thanks for pointing that out. but, wait a minute, i just read what i wrote over, and only a small, small section of it says anything about my speaking farsi, in fact, its not even one of my main points, its a small section of a main point. but wait, there's more! my longest arguement, the one i thought you would not read, or if you did you would not read carefully enough to understand, actually isn't about farsi at all! it was about the translation, i analyzed it for you and pointed out the fact that in order for ahmadinejad to have denied the existance of all gays in iran, he should/would/must have used the word "any". please read it again, there is no original research, its called logic, logic is an acceptable source, in fact, i think all of mathematics comes from logic!

second: you don't want to use informationclearinghouse? thats fine, mind you, the webpage is actually built by an american citizen (whaaaa. oh.) at the very least, ill make my first argument again, maybe this time you will read it:

1. you say the supposed policy of the iranian government towards gays is that they do not exist.

2. you think that the policy is so because you think the iranian president said it (thats fine, for the sake of argument, lets just say that is what he said (even though its not).

3. a few weeks later, the media adviser, a man who is picked by the president to clarify what the president has said, says that what the president meant to say is that there were not that many gays in iran.

4. since the media adviser is in fact, an official, approved by the president, and is supposed to carry out the president's wishes regarding what is to be said, and since what the president says is state policy (according to what you think), and what the media adviser says has to be approved by the president, THEN, doesn't that mean that the state policy is "there are not that many gays in iran"?

i know that you understand what i just said, i know you understand my point, and agree that it is quite valid, so therefor, we have 2 options:

1. we can argue more until i convince you (which might take some time, seeing as how you don't seem to want to budge on this)

2. we can just change the sentence to:

"...in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran, though this is disputed", and put a dispute tag on this article.

OR

"...in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran, though this may be a misquote"

which do you want to do?

PS. the issue here is not that ahmadinejad said something about gays, we know he did, the issue here is that he was misquoted, i really don't see why you can't seem to accept this, the media adviser said he was misquoted, which is a pretty powerful piece of evidence, i think. its like this:

bush saying "i dislike black people who kill other people, as well as whites who kill other whites, and hispanics who kill other hispanics, and any other person who kills other people", and the german newspapers printing this as "BUSH: I DISLIKE BLACK, WHITE AND SPANISH PEOPLE", because the newspaper didn't speak perfect english. then, dick cheney comes along and says "the president doesn't hate black people, he hates it when people kill themselves".

if that had happened, and cheney came and said bush was misquoted, the germans would no longer think bush hates black people, because the issue had been clarified. i dont see why this works for you, but not for iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.155 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying before this. I must have overlooked it on my watchlist. I thank you for engaging in dialogue instead of a revert war, which doesn't improve the Wikipedia one iota. How's this for a compromise? We can add "...in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran, though this is disputed", with the ref that now exists for the first part, and one of your refs for the part which says that it is disputed. Then both the statement of Ahmadinejad is represented, as well as that of his media advisor. Honestly, we cannot leave out ahmadinejad's statement without readers thinking we are obtuse or whitewashing. However, it is perfectly acceptable to say that the translation has been disputed. I will make the change, and look forward to seeing your response here. Cheers, Jeffpw (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, that seems fair enough. Siavash1989 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensual/non-consensual

The article makes the claim (with a dead ref I removed [4]) that the law makes no distinction between consensual and non-consensual homosexual conduct. However this is not supported by the fact that various cases have been brought up in Iran where people were charged with & executed for (homosexual) rape as highlighted by HRW et al. My guess here is that the law criminalises homosexual conduct (liwat?), with the death penalty as an option, but also criminalises rape, homosexual or not, and people will usually be charged with rape (perhaps in addition to homosexual conduct) if the sex is alleged to have been non-consensual and will often receive a harsher penalty for it. If any refs could be found to help clarify this it would be much appreciated Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Commenting only on the ref removed. Please restore that, dead links aren't deleted per se but improved either by finding where the article has been relocated to or using the wayback machine to show what was there. Banjeboi 07:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Armed Forces

I'd change "civilian law" to "criminal law" as the crime of sodomy both applies to the military and civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.200.239 (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)