Jump to content

Talk:2009 Iranian presidential election protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.14.33.214 (talk) at 03:10, 21 June 2009 (→Wikinews collaboration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:Controversial (politics)


Whitewash Reverted

i took the liberty of undoing a recent edit that simply consisted of someone replacing everything with a few sentences claiming that "nothing is happening in iran" 69.14.33.214 (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article is at fa:پیامدهای_اعلام_نتایج_انتخابات_ریاست_جمهوری_(۱۳۸۸).
76.205.80.219 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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.[1]

  1. ^ ~~~~
    • Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    • Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Election Live-Blogging (Sunday June 14)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    • Pitney, Nico (2009-06-14). "Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising (Saturday, June 13)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-06-14. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)


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)[reply]

This is not a coup and it has not been proven as such, these accusations should not be made until investigations. This is as much a coup as you can list Bush's win in 2000 as a coup. Just because it is happening in Iran does not make it a coup. Plus a coup does not happen by votes, a coup happens by force. This would be categorized as a fraudulent election (if proven). This is basic orientalism and prejudice and misinformation if classified as a coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.163.151 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three million people protested

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


( 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Reworded. F (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
works for me, thanks 216.231.50.25 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you provide any rules for transcribing Iranian names? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
don't worry! many iranian names are writing different in english than what they really are!! if you saw in news, so write like them! i just wanted to inform it's pronunciation! really it's not very important! --Samic130 (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[1] were categorized as follows.

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

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

Is this blocked in Iran?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great work. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!--Pericles of AthensTalk 10:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've got them all on the commons now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 AthensTalk 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 AthensTalk 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 AthensTalk 10:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Doctored Photo

File:Iranian-rally-doctored-photograph.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.162.59 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good question. Also, it is not a freely-licensed image.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It appeared on a newspaper (??) yesterday/or the day before on the first page.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I added the that. The doctored photogaph appeared on the front page of the hardline daily 'Kayhan' (and I'd thought that it had been picked up by other media and that I'd seen it several times elsewhere, but if that was true, I can't find those copies with a websearch now.) Since the copyright status of the version that highlights the changes (created by the Farsi blogger "Kheirkhah") was uncertain, I tried to get the "original" doctored copy from the daily Kayhan's website that I could highlight myself, but I now find that its original webpage has been pulled, so I can't find another copy anywhere. With that, I'd probably have been able to justify it's fair-usage on historical significance grounds, but I've left it too late now, so I won't dispute its deletion from Wikipedia. Oh well. --Farry (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The original front page is still on the Kayhan's site. But in much lower resolution, obscuring the effects of the 'shopping, so it's actually not much help. Pity. --Farry (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can perhaps enhace it. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've added a citation for the 'shopping (currently the last paragraph in the June-14 subsection), which is (as Calliopejen1 pointed out) probably what I should've done in the first place.--Farry (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. This is one of the instances where it is absolutely not fun to be a stickler for site policies. But unless that blog is the official blog of a reliable newspaper (or otherwise falls under the rare set of blogs that are reliable sources), the assertion about Photoshopping fails WP:RS. Subsequent commentary in a large number of social media sites does not compensate. Nothing prevents anyone at this page from contacting an actual journalist, who may subsequently publish it in a reliable source and legitimize it for Wikipedian purposes. The argument for Photoshopping is a strong one (I happen to agree it's probably right). Yet as Wikipedians, our responsibilities as editors take precedence. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 18:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we need to find it cited by one reliable source. I'm fine with that. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here is one pointing out "photoshopped" stuff. BTW I just had a look at front page from kayhan, the title is "unprecedented tsunami of the nation wrapped up everything".!!!!!--Xashaiar (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. It's a reliable source. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks Xashaiar. I've added to the cite. Taken altogether, that source plus the small-res image on the Kayhan newspaper's own site, plus the image from the blog (which is evidently a larger version of the same image, and the photoshopping issue is self-explanatory to those that understand images), all makes a proven case. --Farry (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but do you know that you have been reverted. The edit comment by the ip seems non-sense.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to check every IP editor's doing here... Wandalstouring (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole section below explaining it, please read it (or maybe I should put it here?) Also, may I have a translation of the swedish newspaper? With automated translation the headline is translated as:
"The regime in Iran manipulates images to President Ahmadinejad's advantage, several bloggers say."
and later I read:
"Earlier this week, published a campaign image of a manifestation of President Ahmadinejad."
None of the sentences says who, when etc. plus all they quote is bloggers. We cannot transform that in a fact that the government photoshopped the image, that would be original research.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the claims that we don't know who, when and where photoshopped, but the version distributed by the newspaper is shown as being photoshopped. I asked Durova to check that.Wandalstouring (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source currently as far as I can understand doesn't say anything the sentence claims. Please provide the relevant section you refer to in the source, which verifies that the photograph was in the front page of the iranian newspaper. I cannot find it.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know these sources. Will trust whatever the more knowledgeable editors decide regarding that. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've made as good a case as most cites. See this thread. We don't want to write a treatise in the cite itself.--Farry (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the official homepage of the newspaper. Supposing standard layout of newspapers, it's highly likely to be the front page, but there's no proof of that beyond doubt. There's no doubt that the original image is presented by this newspaper. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it was presented by the iranian newspaper? The source as it is doesn't verify the sentence, I will change the wording to make it more appropriate to what we believe as likely.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best thing at this point would be to contact Swedish editors who can verify the full content and context of the report. DurovaCharge! 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wandalstouring's question of whether I think the photo was doctored, it would violate WP:NOR to rely on my opinion for that. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to IP) You see Baztab (RS) states everything + "روزنامه کيهان در اخرين شماره خود با مونتاژ عکسي از خبرگزاري مهر، و انتشار اين عکس در صفحه يک خود" (transl. The kayhannewspaper in its the last issue has manipulated a picture from Mehr news agency and has published it on its first page..). Thanks for letting us making the case even stronger. One more RS Persian source is here--Xashaiar (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.parsiblog.com/ is a page about blog creation, hardly a reliable source. Maybe the second source has something but I do not know farsi. I will try to find something to translate it.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baztab and almost all websites are shut down now, so lots of blogs and temporary sites takes their responsibility by just copy-pasting. Everything is now sourced and fine. (see this version too)--Xashaiar (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs, fora, social networking sites etc. cannot replace sources when these become unavailable. The second site you gave does not seem independent at all (and I do not know if it is a newspaper and not a blog). Example titles are over exagerated such as "Million without the stress and congestion of Imam Khomeini Square", "Parliament dormitory incident report brave and new hopes", "Conditions to peace is how we maintain it?" etc. I really understand your worries but wikipedia should be as accurate as possible and this can only be achieved through reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia does not act as a medium for spreading any protest and its writers must be as neutral as possible, I hope none is confused here about this.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have give three non-blog source. What else do you need? Do you want me to get a signature from shariatmadari (from kayhan) for using photoshop. No I can not sorry.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may read about reliable sources here.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what is wrong with "millions of people" in what news item?
BBC says vaguely "hundreds of thousands", according to Associated Press they were "more than 100.000" and president Obama talked about "100.000 people" . No reliable source speaks about "millions" or nearly about a million, which is much more than what it was reported by the mentioned sources (Associated Press and BBC).--81.103.162.59 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOu dont know what you are talking about. the phrase in mojenoesabz is "روزنامه كيهان كه از امكانات عمومي و از بودجه بيت المال اداره مي شود در حالي با بزرگنمايي و مونتاژ عكس همايش حاميان احمدي نژاد آن را سونامي بي سابقه و ميليوني مردم مي خواند كه در همين گزارش اجتماع مردمي حاميان مهندس موسوي در خيابان وليعصر را در دروغي واضح، چند صدنفري مي خواند.

" which says how kayhan lies (:kayhans says the number of ahmadinejad supporter in that days was "millions of people"). You are confusing everything. --Xashaiar (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I read on mojenoesabz (and I also copy paste original): "Million without the stress and congestion of Imam Khomeini Square" (ازدحام میلیونی و بدون تنش در میدان امام خمینی) "Million in Freedom Square protests about the quality of elections and not any of the parties to oppose the total system" (اعتراض میلیونی در میدان آزادی درباره کیفیت برگزاری انتخابات است و نباید هیچ یک از طرفین آن را به مخالفت با کل نظام تعبیر ) "Estimates of the presence of more than one million people in this quiet tale that Congress did not place because, most of them were around in the streets." (برآوردها از حضور بیش از یک میلیون نفر در این همایش آرام حکایت دارد که به دلیل نبود جا، بیشتر آنان در خیابانهای اطراف بودند.)

This doesn't seem very reliable, since it contradicts sources about 100.000 form reliable sources. --81.103.162.59 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the anti-dictatorship rally was estimated 3 millions. So I do not what you are talking about. I do not think further discussion is necessary--Xashaiar (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whom this estimations belong, who characterizes the rally as such, etc. etc. etc. all I'm trying to say is that we must use reliable sources that I haven't seen so far. Indeed, this is not about talking if you have the sources show them, otherwise we cannot use the sentences.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected wording as follows:
  • Source doesn't suggest the photo was published, in fact it doesn't have any words and is not a 3rd party source as per WP:Sources. It is a screenshot of what we suppose to have been published. Could have not been published and we do not have reliable sources that say it was.
  • It is a screenshot.
  • It is a link, therefore it should be written as such.
Consider giving reliable, 3rd party (i.e. not the newspaper itself) sources saying "that image was published there" if you do not agree.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see your correction. Thanks! --John Bahrain (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree! The context of using the term "Gardisten" says clear that Putz was meaning members of the Republican Guard (German: Republikanische Garde / single member: Gardist). If she would have described quasi-anonymous street fighters or "body guards" she had never used the term "Gardisten". - Elysander (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, but we can't mix up the eyewitnessed Arabian speaking men and the guys from Hizbullah. The article from Der Spiegel has them in two distinctive chapters and only suggests that the witnessed guys might be Hizbullah, not excluding other possibilities (there is an Arabian speaking minority in the southwest of Iran). In my opinion, we should present the confirmed sighting of Arabian speaking men and afterwards present opinions what they could be according to Voice of America and Jerusalem Post. If possible we should explain how they arrive at their conclusions and what sources they use. 5k men is for example quite a lot of men for Hizbullah in Lebanon. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the matter up on the RS noticeboard. I received a reply that agreed with User:The Squicks' suggestion that we should make clear that it is a second hand report in the text. The reply on the RS noticeboard said that it also wasn't out of line to just remove the whole thing either. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VOA is also an intelligence network, you contact them if you need someone to help you with delicate things in a difficult country. They know quite a lot of people, however, it's not always certain in what ways they distribute their knowledge. Well, that's nothing to be quoted in the article, but I think quoting them as quoted by der Spiegel like it's in the article now is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CNN claims herethat there are more media sources about Arab involvements. The story about black clad non-Farsi speakers is from twitter. So not all their sources are trustworthy. What a pity to see professional journalism resort to in face of censorship. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks! Guess I'll go ahead, let me know if I acted too quickly. delldot ∇. 21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
maybe not a bad idea to have a section on "international independent solidarity acts" (or something similar). These matters are important. But it depends on other editors.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see doing that, but I'd still have trouble figuring out the relevance of this random website. I mean, when is it notable that someone shows solidarity, and when is it just trivia? delldot ∇. 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. But this is a story in development. Facebook added Persian-tool exactly because of the current situation in Iran, also google-translate (also did for this reason). I find them worth mentioning. --Xashaiar (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty resignations?

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

Aha, I see it reported on the 14th. I'll fix it. delldot ∇. 03:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source removed

According to the source referenced in the article: "Following the initial DDoS and Twitter posts, the Iranian government, which is led by Ahmadinejad, shut down internet usage in Iran to block citizens' access to information, Richard Stiennon, chief research analyst of consultancy IT-Harvest, who has been following the situation on his blog, told SCMagazineUS.com on Monday." This source documents the DDoS attacks and the government's response from as early as Saturday. Someone chopped the sentence in the text so it wouldn't make sense ignoring the source and then someone else removed the sentence because it didn't make sense. I would request those removing chopped sentences to look how they ended chopped before removing them, because sourced sentences shouldn't be removed.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's yet no proper source you quote. Please link where this is posted so we can evaluate the source. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a proper source as it is used, see article and url: http://www.scmagazineus.com/Iranian-election-protestors-use-Twitter-to-recruit-hackers/article/138545/.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Now it's OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elected

Ahmadinejad is officially the elected president of Iran, even if the elections are disputed by opponents. Even if people disagree on that, that's a fact and removing the title means that Wikipedia takes the part of his opponents. That shouldn't be the case, Wikipedia doesn't have feelings, opinion or such, it should be neutral and write down the official names, titles, etc.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official position is that the Council of Guardians is investigating claims of election fraud. We may preserve some reservation about declaring any outcome as long as their decision is impending. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is innocent until proved guilty, he is president until elections are proved a fraud.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources refering to him as president after the election:
He's the president for now, but it's not about nitpicking here. Calling him by his name as long as the situation remains contested is legit and adding "president elect" doesn't improve the article. We don't deny here that he was declared winner of the election. You can look at the Bush and Gore situation for comparison. BILD can not be quoted as a serious source, it's the biggest German tabloid. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post can be quoted as a source and it is not a tabloid. Since he is the president we should not remove the title when this is refered, that is my objection. You can refer to him as you want but removing the title where this is refered doesn't help the article either and it also shows an opinion. You can compare with the "president elected" title that was used for Obama when he won the election. --81.103.162.59 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this sentence?

I'm probably getting myself into the middle of a contentious debate, but I think this sentence should go:

Two Iranian protesters interviewed by a reporter from the The Jerusalem Post on June 16, 2009 said that "Palestinian forces" were helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests.

So two random people said that? I'm sure you could round up two random protesters to claim anything. I don't feel like this has any authority; seems more like a rumor. I don't have any opinion on the question of whether Palestinians are involved, but I sense that some people do and someone who's in the 'Palestinians are involved' camp added this to support their position. Objections to removing this sentence or finding a more credible authority to take the info from? delldot ∇. 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can not delete what you dislike. That is, the sentence stays.(Jpost is RS+quoting+certain sites independent from Jpost with signed articles+ very many Persian language sites...). Therefore there must be a mention of this.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xashaiar, that pajamasmedia.com site isn't independent confirmation as it actually claims that there are Hezbollah fighters from Palestine in Iran helping quell the protests, but Hezbollah doesn't operate in the Palestinian territories and that source is a blog. That isn't credible independent confirmation in my books. The VoA report you found just quotes the Jerusalem Post directly, thus it isn't independent confirmation either. JPost is normally an RS but they preface this report saying that it was rumors and it was hard to tell what was true in the confusion -- read the original article yourself to see this clear disclaimer before they present the interviews with the two Iranian protesters. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing, while it's made clear to be a rumour, it's not an essential one. On twitter were messages about black clothed non-Farsi speaking Arabians using violance against protesters, but all in all, no reliable source about them being Palestinians or even Hamas. We can remove it for now and wait for more reliable reports. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing until we have credible independent confirmation. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Balance With Photos

My impression is that the protests have been largely peaceful. At present there is an imbalance in the number of photos that show protestors acting violently on 13 June. Zbredemear (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has a bunch of photos, and you may be able to find free ones on the web that haven't yet been uploaded. Feel free to add some. Let me know if you need any help or anything. delldot ∇. 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Header quote

I'm not sure what to do with this quote:

"The question mark remains how long Iran’s rulers will tolerate the demonstrations, and indeed how long the protesters will stay in the streets until what many analysts expect will be a Tiananmen moment."
— Neil MacFarquhar, The New York Times, June 16th 2009

We don't usually have quotes at the headers of sections, that's more found in books than encyclopedias. I'm sure MOS discourages it. I'd also be concerned about WP:NPOV because when books do that it's often to sort of set the flavor of the chapter. I'm also concerned again that this is just some dude, I don't know if we want to be giving him this authority by putting his quote at the top like it's us saying it (whereas if we put it in the text we can distance ourselves by saying "this dude said that..." without appearing to endorse it). But I can't figure out where in the text to work it in. Ideas? delldot ∇. 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. delldot ∇. 05:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)d[reply]

Khamenei speech

I got a first translation of the speech of Ayatollah Khamenei. However, I wouldn't endorse the source. Can someone find something more reliable? I think this speech is essential because it makes quite clear how the government intends the issue to be solved. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we should wait for a correct translation. But for now, I think we should mention that analysts (Amnesty International) see the speech as "a green light to security forces to violently handle protesters" (AFP). Agree?--Xashaiar (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed this out citing a partial transcription by the NYT. If you feel this needs more emphasized, you're welcome. There are rumours on twitter about roadblocks by the basijs and the new strategy is to demonstrate on the balconies. So the whole ting may continue without bloodshed. Really clever these guys, this way you also see who doesn't support the opposition. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes there are good plans being pointed out. If things go on the way people themselves are planning, there "can not" be much bloodshed.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial translation of key phrases by The Guardian. Wandalstouring (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Official rendering of the speech in English. I or someone else will integrate it later just in case we misunderstood his Eminence. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ynet and other news oddities

When a statement is referenced in the article most include the details that are relevant and then simple put the reference as a link in the reference section. Except for Ynet news, every item that Ynet is used as a reference includes a mention that it is from Ynet. Example "Two hundred people protested outside Iran's embassy in London on June 13.[19] Ynet has stated that "tens of thousands" protested on June 13." In this example the issue concerning the protest in london simply put the reference to the article as [19]. Perhaps the "Ynet" inclusion is accidental but it also could be deliberate. What I am saying is, if I had a online news organization I would certainly hire someone to advertise and link my articles as much as possible in wikipedia. I leave it to the community to determine how to handle such incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.78.56 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do cite the reporting source in the article if we don't have multiple confirmations. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. So i guess if someone uses this for subtle advertising and stamping of a brand, it is a required exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.78.56 (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

From the article:

A photo of the rally published on the front page of the Iranian newspaper Kayhan was photoshopped in order to add volume to the crowd.
<ref>{{cite news | last = Öhman | first = Adam | title = The Regime Manipulates Images | work=[[Expressen]] | date = June 19, 2009 | url = http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.1611409/regimen-manipulerar-bilder | accessdate = June 14, 2009}} A photograph of the Pro-Ahmadinejad rally appeared on the front page{{when}} of the Iranian newspaper [[Kayhan]] [http://www.kayhannews.ir/images/kayhan//171124_2.jpg], and was highlighted as being [[photoshopped]] on a Farsi blog [http://kheirkhah.ir/media/Image/Weblog%202/Keyhan-ehtics.jpg] which became featured on many social news websites as a result.</ref>

I have removed this source as it is original research, i.e. instead of providing a secondary source claiming that the named paper used the photoshopped picture in its front-page, the writer provided as a source a directory of the website of that newspaper which includes the picture and then as "source" he/she made the conclusion that because the picture is there it has been in the front page of the newspaper.

Please, take a look at the sources since I've spotted some during the last days making their own conclusions instead of providing accurate information that states what the sentences talk about.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right for being wary about it's use on the front page, but he documented its use by the Iranian newspaper beyond doubt. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did he document it beyond doubt? The swedish source doesn't say anything about where or how the picture has been used (if used) by the iranian newspaper. Could someone please provide that section? I don't know swedish so I'm based on automatic translation and maybe that's the reason I fail to see any relevant section. But I don't see any reference to support exactly that:

"A photo of the rally published on the front page of the Iranian newspaper Kayhan was photoshopped in order to add volume to the crowd."

And please whoever has engaged in personal attacks characterizing me "picky" or repeatedly tried to make me have an account, stop it. --81.103.162.59 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the discussion is terminated here. This is a very busy page and we don't split the discussion about one issue. You don't need an account, but like every editor you have to accept the rules. Go to #doctored photo and voice your concerns.Wandalstouring (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree + I've never been outside the rules.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Neutrality highly disputed

This article's neutrality is highly questionable. Unfortunately it equates Mousavi with freedom and democracy. Mousavi does not support reforming the current system, he is a supporter of the Islamic regime and is guilty of crimes post-revolution. There are not many articles revealing this, because they are attempting to characterize him as if he is liberal and progressive, when he is only a moderate technocrat at best.
This is not a revolution but the students are protesting the election because of how it was conducted and presented. This section does not clarify whatsoever this fact but makes it appear as if (like other false American mainstream news reports) the students are protesting the regime as a whole (which they are NOT).
This whole article needs to be revised and anything that says anti-government should be specific as the students protesting are not anti-government, they are protesting against the election conduct. Articles in The Guardian are clear and should be referred to, also there is an article that slightly mentions Mousavi's past [2]XXinfinity (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add your information wherever appropriate. I voiced these black-white concerns ealier on this page and suggested to write an introduction. I wouldn't mind if it included short biographies and political positions of the opposition leaders. The next issue is what their tactics, communication networks and goals are. Wandalstouring (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about his past, thanks for mentioning. Here are more sources:
and the one hidden above from jerusalem post:
You're not very helpful. There's LOTS of material circulating about the events in Iran. Please point out what's special about their presentation of issues. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran does not have consulate or embassy in the US so don't make reference

Some articles might mention the Iranian consulate or embassy in the US as a site of protest but they're wrong, they're either Iran special interest or representative offices and should be listed as such. [3]XXinfinity (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct that in the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Letter?

So what should we do with it, since it seems rather out of place despite being sourced. Should we put it in blockquotes and encyclopedize it as much as possible, or should we move it to Wikisource? --Toussaint (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make clear what you are talking about. Use a reference and point out where this material is from and where in the article it is used. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for English sources about opposition backing down

I have two German sources claiming that part of the opposition has renounced their calls for demonstrations. I would be very grateful if someone could help me to back this up with more, preferably English, sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC says there are conflicting reports. Just wait to see what happens. [[User:John Smith's|]] (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bomb explosion on June 20, 2009

The following reports are from BNO News. I'd count a reliable twitterer. Can anyone confirm them elsewhere? I'd still have problems citing them and Farsi's English site is unreachable.

  1. Fars news agency says the bomb was detonated at the northern wing of Imam Khomeini's shrine. The bomber was killed.less than 20 seconds ago from web
  1. Reuters quoting Fars news agency: the blast occurred near the shrine of Iran's revolutionary founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.6 minutes ago from web
  1. A bomb exploded in Tehran on Saturday, killing one person and wounding two, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported.13 minutes ago from web
  1. BULLETIN -- REUTERS: BOMB NEAR KHOMEINI'S SHRINE KILLS ONE PERSON - IRAN'S FARS NEWS

End Wandalstouring (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All reports are restatements of Iran state-owned media statements, any included statement must mention that the report has not been verified. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a problem here. Because of the restrictions that have been placed on foreign press, the only information is Iranian state run media, which is allied with one of the sides of the conflict (Ahmadinejad-Khomeini). That creates an NPOV problem. At a minimum, I think it should be noted that it's not verified. I've seen some speculation that the bombing may have been orchestrated by the government to discredit the protesters. I think such an analysis from an appropriate source would be worthy of inclusion. --JamesAM (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter by Mousavi

It doesn't seem clear what course he takes. This machine translation from his official news site (Farsi version of the letter) of a letter he wrote to the Guardian Council could argue that he pursues the legal way. Would be grateful if someone could help me get a better translation about his claims what was going wrong with the election. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If translation is something that's inherently vague and disputable, why not include the issue in the article at all? Just attach the open letter as an external link or mention He sent a letter and _______ or something like that in the article? The Squicks (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a short note of content by the guardian, but this letter seems to adress more. It critizes the whole election system as far as I can tell. I consider it an important document for the aftermath of the protests and detailed knowledge would help. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, I would help greately. I cannot dispute that. But an inaccurate translation, which is a distinct and real possiblity, would hurt greatly- giving people a wrong impression of the protests. The Squicks (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benford's Law anomalies in the 2009 Iranian Presidential Election

This article argues that you can prove that the election results were being manipulated. --78.52.238.150 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, however, we can first cite it as WP:RS when it gets published by the scientific magazine to which it has been submitted. Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources.
And he surely is an established expert - as this shows, for example. --78.52.238.150 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interview in German where his profession is given as astrophysicist. That doesn't make him necessarily a renown statistican. I know Benford's law and his finds would certainly reveal an illconstructed attempt of election fraud, but we can't cite him until his article gets accepted by a scientific magazine or you prove beyond doubt that he's renown for his works on statistics. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might also take a look at the opposite position maintained by an US statistican based on the same law. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a non-event

Just like the Iran student protests of 1999, this won't result in change in Iran.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.188.210 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is anything but the 1999 protest. You call this a non-event? How absurd. And besides: this talk page is no place for your personal thoughts, but rather a venue for ways in which to improve the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History is wrote every single day, we can't say what will happen. Yug (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create a New Article, the topic has changed from election protests to revolution now

On June 20th the choice the current government of Iran to get violent on the peaceful and suspected legal demonstrations that occurred that morning changed the entire focus and story that is being told. As of that date June 20th, the protests changed and instead of being about the election results, it is now focused at the Supreme Leader and the complete overthrow of the current regime and have new elections not under the Supreme Leaders control.

Therefore I believe that everything on and after June 20th really should have its own topic on Wikipedia as the topic is not about the elections protests anymore, those are over and this is about the life and death of Iranian's and how far they are willing to fight for their freedom.

24.23.250.53 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Jay j@wc.tc[reply]

The way things are looking on the ground now (with the incredible amount of violence as of today), I am 99.99% certain that a new article will be initiated soon. However, on the very first day of any revolution which has not yet toppled the opposing regime, it is perhaps a bit hasty to create an encyclopedia entry on it, as opposed to a short Wiki news article. Give it a few days. I'm sure you'll see an article by then when we all have a better perspective of what is going on.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree giving a day or two is just fine, I am just bringing it up because I myself have no idea how to create a new article but thought I would at least suggest it. Hey if I don't see it in a few days I will go ahead and try to learn how to create new articles.

As for what it should be called, I would call it "2009 Iranian Rebellion", and if and only if the regime is toppled then you would change the name to "2009 Iranian Revolution" as it isn't officially a Revolution until they win.

As for why I believe it should be created sooner than later, is that the elections article is a week old and really is old news, and has little information and hard to find any information on what is going on NOW which I truly believe has little to do with the original topic which was the elections. It also seems that the 2009 Iranian elections protests article is pretty much complete and people don't seem to be interested in changing it too much with the huge amount of new information as to where it would fit and the controversial nature of the information. From day one of the elections results wikipedia was a great place to get updated information about what was going on until today. Now there is no more updates as to what is going on because it is just too complicated, as it is pretty much a war scene with battles going on in multiple cities, and the only information available on the web or any media at all is pretty much twitter, utube, and blog searches instead of wikipedia. With a new article that would all change and there would be a place on wikipedia to get updated information about the rebellion going on now, and could be added to and edited without having to clutter or put controversial information into the elections articles. The longer wikipedia waits, the more chance that crucial details may never be added to the article for historical content, and that the public wont be as informed to make educated decisions on how they talk about, share, and make decisions on what is happening. This isn't just news, this is History.

Well there you go-- Jay 24.23.250.53 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.250.53 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities to „colourful revolutions” in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia

Th analogy of these 3 events has been described In literature as a single scenario and now events In Iran seem to repeat it. Each of these events, though apparently spontaneous, was the result of extensive work of Western agancies who trained and funded indigenous. Each of these events started from claims of electoral fraud and the slogan of fighting for democracy and with the support of Western media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If there is some sort of official news analysis which discusses this topic, feel free to include and cite it in the article. Otherwise, what is this section for?--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ See [55] listing Google-indexed forums where this was posted.
  2. ^ [56]
  3. ^ [57]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Iranian_presidential_election_protests&oldid=297659651"