Talk:2009 Iranian presidential election protests/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

International reaction in the Timeline section

Since the international reaction to these events is a developing process, I think it should be reflected in the "Timeline" section, so readers can track the development. Obviously, coverage should be very brief, so as not to duplicate the "International reaction" section. Recent additions of mine in this regard were deleted in good faith. I'd like to know what people's thoughts are on the matter. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, we give them too much emphasize in the timeline that should be limited to events in Iran. A brief summary about worldwide demonstrations somewhere in the article would be OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Please check for WP:RS. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Photos

This photographer has a bunch of Wikipedia-compatible photographs of the protests, including some of Mousavi with crowds in recent days:

--ragesoss (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of 2009 Iranian election protests

I created Timeline of 2009 Iranian election protests as a see also to the Timeline section here. We need to start aggressively paring down the Timeline section here, now. We also need to drive the "current reporting" there as well, I think.
Also, can someone who knows how begin archiving this talk page? It's becoming unmanagable.
— Ω (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Timeline of the 2009 Iranian election protests (added the article "the"). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Good call, thanks. Now we just need to work on paring down the section on this page... It's too large/working too slowly for me to do it, now.
— Ω (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I pared it down to about 10 lines per day, except for June 14 and 20, which were particularly eventful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the whole Timeline section to the Timeline of 2009 Iranian election protests page IAW WP:SIZE and WP:SPINOUT.
— Ω (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fraud announcement by the Guardian Council

I posted an Guardian Council announcement from Iranian TV. The council did admit that fraud took place. This particular wiki article deals with the protests but my addition deals with analysis of the results by the Iranian Government. Would a better place for this be the Iranian presidential election, 2009 article or should it appear in both places? I glanced at the election article and I couldn't find this announcement in the election article. After Khamenei stated that he saw the hand of God in this election, the Council's finding is a pretty big deal. EricLeFevre (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should provide some discussion of the fraud here and a detailed discussion somewhere else because this article is too big. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:SUMMARY, I'd say have the main part at the elections article and summaries here. I don't think the article is so long that we need to be sacrificing information here yet. The readable prose is only 33 KB, well under the limit of 50. delldot ∇. 15:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian Council didn'ta dmit fraud, only that in some provinces there were more voters than there should be, however, it seems you could vote anywhere in Iran as long as you were a citizen of Iran. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

protest in Nashville

A protest in Nashville, Tennessee, USA took place today. The only source I can find right now is YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh1-rinGV9U

I am not sure if just this source is enough. Where should this go in the article? Just in the main caption box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlaterDeterminant (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I thin various other protests in the US summarizes the situation. It's about Iran, not the US presidential election. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

info box

The info box should be change, it looks bad. --76.118.224.35 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the whole article is too large and needs to be broken up. EricLeFevre (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

June 22

The information someone edited about June 22 actually happened on June 21st and has already been added to the article. Could one of the editors correct that? EricLeFevre (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out which info you're talking about, can you quote it here? (Or feel free to correct errors like this yourself). delldot ∇. 15:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
"The Guardian Council, the body in charge of supervising and certifying the elections in Iran, declared the incumbent President Ahmadinejad winner after dismissing the vote challenges, according to a front page report on CNN.com. The report said that PressTV, a semi-state run television network in the nation announced the decision via a spokesperson for the group. They said that while they agreed that in up to 50 cities votes were higher than those eligible to vote, but that it was not enough to result in anything beyond further investigations." Timeline got moved to a separate article, but that event appears twice, once in the June 21st section (last paragraph) and again on the first paragraph of June 22. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of CNN

These sentences, currently in the "Use of Social Networking" section, strikes me as rather POV, and it doesn't have any citations:

  • "CNN has been consistently inflaming hate towards arab people by showing along with old videos of people in turmoil, clips from an old movie in which a woman is half-buried into the ground and being stoned. But that is a clip from a movie, as said. That is false and unethical reporting, and many have witnessed the fact."

Should it be removed? --72.70.246.64 (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call, that's not appropriate. Someone else must have already taken it out, I can't find it anymore. delldot ∇. 14:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Serious problem in Farsi version of article

The following text appears in the Farsi version of the article describing America's reaction to the protests (alignment may be wrong):

امریکا: در روز ۱۴ ژوئن جو بایدن معاون ریاست جمهوری امریکا گفت که در مورد نتایج انتخابات ریاست جمهوری ایران تردیدهای واقعی وجود دارد.

Through Google Translate, this is what it says in English:

America: the day on June 14, Joe Biden vice president said that America presidential election results in Iran are real Trdydhay.

As I understand this, it seems that the Farsi version says the U.S. government acknowledged the election results as legitimate, when Biden's reaction was the exact opposite. I truly hope that Google Translate got this wrong. If not, then this is a very serious miscommunication which will have to be corrected by someone who understands the language as soon as possible. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The google translator is wrong: that Buden's statement in Persian means: Joe said that there are "real doubts" about Iran's election.--Where is my vote? (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And best of luck. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The following article discusses censoring technology

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.57.116 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statements by foreign parties

I just recently added the statement made by the Korean UN General-Secretary Ban Ki-moon. Looking over the various statements by foreign government spokesmen, I see that it is predominantly European (spare US, Japan, Bermuda, Canada, Australia, which, with the exception of Japan, are nonetheless "Western" countries). Is this the case across the globe? I know Brazil, China, India, and Russia are not saying much due to their crucial economic relationships with Iran, but are we underreporting non-European leaders in the foreign input on this protest?--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Map of International reaction

Map of countries by reaction to the 2009 presidential election
  Iran
  Countries that have welcomed the results
  Countries that have expressed doubts over the results

On what referenes this map based, many of the countries that showed on the map as supporters of results are not mentioned in the article and there is no any references that these countries really support the resutls.

  • To the anonymous poster above, It seems evident that the map is derived from the text within the section.
    — Ω (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what text you're basing this on - unless there's an article about international reaction that got lost, or someone vandalised the page, I agree completely with the anonymous poster. The only positive reaction mentioned is Russia; there's no explanation for China, Brazil, India, Afghanistan, among others. Additionally, what do the two shades of blue and green mean? I have moved the image to the talk page until someone figures out what's going on here. Recognizance (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really know. I only looked for a second, and I think that Russia is one of the few that I really sampled (it's on the bottom after all)... Really, I don't think that the map adds much to the article anyway, and it could easily be considered... non-neutral? I'm not really sure how to express it, but I can easily see that it could be criticized.
— Ω (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The map depicts countries' stances based upon the international reponse section. Those who have supported the offical results are coloured green and those who've expressed concerns are coloured blue. The paler shades of colour represent the European Union and Arab League. Aogouguo (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tidbits in the news

From Washingtonpost.com and this report in The Nation discussing Rafsanjani's efforts to conveine the Assembly of Experts. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on splitting information gathered on the Iran election to date

The Information gathered to date is important as is, and any editing or split should be done as a separate subject. This is near to raw information and will be a good base to research and study as future events are revealed in and about the Iranian election and demonstrations. Future facts and information will shed more light on the information contained to date, or the information contained will shed more light on future facts and happenings. Like in forensics, the original scene can never be duplicated once it is contaminated or destroyed, so should events as they are happening be treated as a scene that can never be duplicated. Flacotaco (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We could split with the speech of Khamenei. before it were election protests, now these protests attack the Supreme Leader who supports the official result(Referring to [1], The first article will still be long, but I see little hope for other solution that wouldn't be WP:OR. One further suggestion would be to make a separate article from the international reactions. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Flacotaco's forensics and raw data comparisons, keep it together. With a developing story, splitting could divide important elements in the story, obscuring their interrelationships. Given the restriction on independently verifiable media sources, the multiple perspectives and collective oversight incorporated into this developing entry have provided both a higher level of objectivity and a broad pan on the events. There are few other sources that approximate such a full, vetted picture of the developments following the 2009 election in Iran. Splitting would remove important parts that picture.Nimpokhte (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2009 Iranian election protests

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2009 Iranian election protests's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "yahoo":

  • From International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election: "International protests over Iran election crackdown". Yahoo! Canada. 15 June 2009. Retrieved 16 June 2009.
  • From Melbourne: "Melbourne Radio Stations Australia > Melbourne". Yahoo — geocities. Retrieved 2008-10-02.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First one is correct, I'll put in it there if someone else hasn't. ArchabacteriaNematoda (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Martial Law?

The introduction's last line states that the supreme leader initiated "martial law" and it cites the nytimes. No where in the article does it mention martial law or any enactment by the supreme leader. Anyone have any news on this? If there is no martial law strictly put into effect by the supreme leader, that line should be deleted. RapidFire50 (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it now, it can be re-added if we can find a source that verifies that. delldot ∇. 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that it's de facto martial law, whether Iran's govt. officially calls it that or not.TreadingWater (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

YouTube as a Source

Is YouTube considered a valid source these days? We have no way to confirm the authenticity of any the referenced videos, and many of the videos referenced here come from anonymous/pseydonymous or clearly biased sources (based on the pseudonym of the submitting agency). 98.235.79.159 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We can present them with a disclaimer for confirmed authenticity. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that CNN, BBC, Al Jazeira, etc... are all utilizing YouTube and Twitter as a source, I can hardly see how Wikipedia could be faulted for following the "consensus" that is being developed by the mainstream media. I saw a segment on The News Hour the other day covering this exact topic[1], and their commentators all agreed that as long as you consider the source somewhat carefully and look for confirmation of the information then internet sources can now be considered as valid (within reason). It's not really a clear-cut topic, but it seems clear that for some topics (like this one) YouTube can very much be a valid source.
— Ω (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The professionals do check several unconfirmed reports for similarities and then present them as fact. Also, they don't report everything from twitter. However, if we do the same to check these unconfirmed sources is WP:OR. Feel free to argue for a new interpretation of guidelines at the concerning WP pages, but here you are most certainly wrong. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
...says you. Not everyone agrees though, and there are members of the mainstream media who are talking about this as well. This is a relatively new development in the world, so check out how things are changing (which is why I referenced the analysis peice from PBS, above).
— Ω (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to move something don't argue with me about the WP:RS policy, but ask User:Jimbo Wales or other bigheads what they think are appropriate measures. I know that we are almost limited to these questionable sources because conventional journalism is already running dry today and it doesn't seem to get better. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think its ok to use them as long as we're just talking this developing story, especially if they've already been used by other media sources. Once this is no longer current news maybe we can get better sources.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some videos from Youtube which are not viewable from outside the US because of copyright issues. Asciilp88 (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing videos on Youtube is acceptable, although the ideal sources to cite should be text-based. If a Youtube video is cited, the author or uploader of the video is the one that should be cited as the source, not Youtube itself. Said author/uploader should also meet WP:RS guidelines. For example, if a video on Youtube was put there by CNN or the BBC, it should be cited as by CNN or BBC. But a random video uploaded by some random protester off the street is not acceptable as a source. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is far from ideal, but I think we are almost forced to accept YouTube videos in this situation, given the iron hand of the Iranian leadership not allowing media to report on what's happening. One good thing that may come out of this are refined guidelines re. when YouTube videos can be acceptable, and how to bring them up to that level.TreadingWater (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

British response to protests

There is probobly enough information in this article to create a separate section devoted to the response of the United Kingdom. There is also a lot of notable information that is not included. Iran seems to be blaming the UK in general and the BBC in particular, witness this exchange on Iranian state TV. EricLeFevre (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Iranian regime seems to be blaming the entire western world for these protests, but I can see what you are saying. The international reaction section is currently tagged as being out-of-date, but if the section grows much more it may need to be parsed off as another sub-article altogether. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Silly me, there already is one. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point. That much more relevant in the context of Iran now detaining British Embassy workers in Tehran. Unclear to me why Iran is focusing so strongly on the UK rather than the US. Unwise policy. In any event, a seperate UK section probably makes sense.TreadingWater (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

LIES ON WIKIPEDIA

I am sorry but it seems wikipedia is being used to promote certain political views. That is not the job of an encyclopedia, which reports factually on what is out there. I removed the section "flag controversy" because the links put there to authenticate the information in article, did not tally. The links are completely unrelated. Please delete the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.13 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Persian Awakening? or Iranian Awakening?

Persians are not the only ethnic group in Iran so why is it called the Persian Awakening and not Iranian Awakening? Also the the source doesnt work and there is no mention of an actual title as Persian Awakening, so how appropriate is this title? Baku87 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Persian is not an ethnicity. In general every Iranian is called as Persian too. For people of Persian ethnicity, we say "Ethnic Persians" and not "Persians". --Wayiran (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Persian refers to the Persian people, which is the dominant ethnic group in Iran, to say all Iranians are called Persian is a bit far-fetched, so it seems to me out of place to call this Persian Awakening, I suggest we change it to Iranian Awakening out of good faith. 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
While it is true that Persian is not an ethnicity, no "persian" ever refers to themselves as such. It also carries baggage for the Iranian diaspora in the English speaking world, in that it usually harks back to the monarchy. Also Azeris, a powerful minority, are not Persians but "Turks" yet they pervade the echelons of power in Iran. Other ethnic groups easily fall in to the same category. I agree with the suggestion that the term be revised to be the Iranian Awakening as this is more in keeping with the universal viewpoint that this election revolution/protest is happening to the Iranian people, not simply the Persian people. MPJLC (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran hasn't been known as Persia since 1935.TreadingWater (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

When does the blood dry?

There have not been new developments. It is not being covered in periodicals. This is no longer a current event. 72.129.92.179 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

it is not being covered Well, thats somewhat correct, if you live in Iran. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading the usage guidelines on {{Current}}, it probably is correct to remove this for now (which I've done). If it begins cropping up at the top of news broadcasts again (if/when something changes, for example), then re-adding the mbox would certainly be appropriate.
— Ω (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have removed the reference of a coup d'état as this situation does not meet the definition. – Zntrip 19:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it orientalism? Claiming that using electoral fraud to change the results of an election is a coup might be stretching the meaning of the term but I don't see how that could be called orientalist.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because, as has been said, a coup d'état is regime change characterized by violence, ie the American Revolutionary War, French Revolution, even the "Iraq War" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Here, there are protests, true, but in Iran the dispute is one of legality and election result authenticity and is characterized by "nonviolent demonstrations" and legal investigations. If a warlord takes command of Tehran, then it would be a coup, but calling this a coup is like saying Barack Obama's election was a coup following a revolution that would have began with the protests of the Civil Rights movement.

I don't think it's clear whether this is a coup or not; there are shades of grey re. what does and does not constitute a coup, and this falls into an area of ambiguity.TreadingWater (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A coup does not neccessarily happen by military force or violence. There are several types of coup. And as other aspects of politics, the definition of coup may change through history. Secondly, unlike what a user has mentioned below, it was the use of force and note voting power that created this situation. The SMS network (which was one of the main communication networks for Mousavi's supporters) was disabled hours before the election, and was not enabled on the days after the election. The riot police was present in the streets of Tehran and police force entered Ministry of the Interiors. The voting centres were closed down hours before the official deadline with the excuse of "shortness of ballot", while the government had printed millions of extra ballot papers this year. The definition of coup, according to Wikipedia: a coup is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military. As you can see there is no mention of use of violence to depose a government. And it doesn't talk about a regime change, it talks about deposition of a government. Another definition for coup, according to Princeton word net: A sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force. Once again, no mention that this change of government has to be done by force. Blackberry000 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Power in Iran

If you want to know the Hierarchy of Power in Iran to improve this article see this:

File:Marsh grfk 1260x943.jpg
--Samic130 (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see this hierarchy chart as very helpful, thanks for posting it. Perhaps we should go into more detail in the article about the key players like Rafsanjani and Khatami, etc. With so much of the protest movement driven underground now, regime change at this point is far likelier to come from the top rather than the bottom. The public divisions which have surfaced between key leaders is hugely important, we've almost never seen since this since they took over in 1979. This article should probably have more about the leaders given the way events have unfolded especially over the last several days. Any thoughts on this from other editors? TreadingWater (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, it's very likely to be a copyvio....
— Ω (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
you don't need to put it into article! although all copyright notes are under the picture --Samic130 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see the copyright notices now. You should fix the description and the license on the image page before someone who actually cares about this kind of thing comes along and deletes them. As it is currently set up (lacking and description and with blatantly incorrect licensing), and admin who comes across it can and likely will instantly delete it. Just because the image is not (yet) in the body of an article makes absolutely zero difference.
— Ω (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
can you fix the copyright description? i don't know which section i must select! --Samic130 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
as i has deleted now! it is here --Samic130 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You can present it using Template:External media. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing poorly sourced material

WP:BLP says "Persons are assumed living unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise." Until reliable sources are provided, I am removing inadequately sourced material naming individuals as dead. I will protect the page and suspend individual editing rights as necessary to enforce our policy. Tom Harrison Talk 17:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

More neutral/discriptive title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page to the particular title proposed here, although it seems like there might be support for finding a different one in general. Dekimasuよ! 14:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Iranian election protests → 2009 Iranian election aftermath — The response to the election in Iran obviously involves more than just the protest(s). This was a good title at first, but I think that the events here have grown beyond just the protests. Also, considering Iranian history and the Islamic traditions of public mourning after 40 days, this is likely to become more involved over time.
— Ω (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

:Agree The protests have not panned out into something notable. If they deserve a separate article from the 2009 election page, it should be entitled something like "aftermath," "reaction," etc. 72.129.92.179 (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (I've stricken this comment out, since it seems that people are going to focus unwarranted attention on it. My intent in proposing this was never to suggest any lack of notability, regardless. This seems to be an intentionally inflammatory statement as well.
— Ω (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Its actually very notable, unless you've been under a rock. The problem is its grown far beyond election protests to a major split in Iran's government and religious organization. I'm not sure if "aftermath" is the right word though.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
yea, agreed. I thought about "result", but that seems a bit too bland. I'm certainly willing to hear suggestions.
— Ω (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm wanting to say fallout, or perhaps scandal. Kind of like how Nixon's Watergate affair is titled watergate scandal. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • agree It makes more sense. --Conor Fallon (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I don't like the general term "aftermath", which is just some letters papering over empty space. With "protests" people immediately have an idea when they see the name of the article what it is about, while "aftermath" could mean anything from a parliamentary debate to a civil war. The suggestion that this event is not notable just because it didn't get immediate governmental support is absurd - see Albany Movement, for example. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It's fine by me if the consensus that the specific word "aftermath" is inappropriate, I'm not particularly attached to it. As I said above, I'm open to suggestions. At this point, "protests" somehow doesn't seem appropriate is all. In some aspects, using the "protests" description seems inadequate and limiting, as well. What has occurred and is occurring now in Iran seems to be much more then simple protests.
Regardless, as you can see, I've stricken the comment above regarding notability. I dont' think anyone seriously questions the notability of the event(s), and I don't think it's constructive for us to expend more energy discussing it.
— Ω (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree for now. It's not clear how the situation develops. Currently the main issue are the protests and I'm perfectly comfortable with the article's title. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Has the blood dried yet?

There have been no developments in over a month. The article still refers to the protests as "ongoing." At some point, this article is going to have to recognize the end of these protests. An appropriate aftermath section can point to anything that develops. As is, this is not a current event anymore. 72.129.92.179 (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to "colourful revolutions" in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia

Maybe the article should note the analogy of these 3 events (described In literature as a single scenario) to what's happened in Iran lately. Each of these, though apparently spontaneous, was the result of extensive work of Western agancies who trained and funded indigenous activists. In each case protests started from claims of electoral fraud and the slogan of fighting for democracy, with the support of Western media 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, this was part of the article early on (and a major component of the news coverage, very early on). It's just a matter of finding a way to work it back in to the article, really. At the moment, both this and the Iranian presidential election, 2009 are suffering from a bit of information overload...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
While coverage has to follow whatever sources people can find, I should point out that foreign influence does not mean that a movement is not spontaneous and representative. For example, it is well known that the Black Panthers began with a founder in China, the sale of crates of copies of the Little Red Book from an unspecified source, and citing this inspiration. As such those opposing it thought of themselves as doing "counterintelligence" (COINTELPRO), even as they committed grave crimes against Americans to suppress political activism. So remember this isn't an either/or situation - not in the U.S. and probably not in these other countries. Wnt (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a revolt not a revolution. And there's no reliable source really claiming to know what the Iranian people as a whole want (the best we have is the pre-election survey by terror free tomorrow). The information flow is rather limited. So all in all, we lack reliable sources and we can only quote that some people compared it to revolutions, however, we should point out what the difference between the current events and a revolution are. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where the discussion about what actually may or may not be occurring is coming from (although, I could certainly infer it), but it's generally irrelevant to this issue. The fact is, I remember that a large issue on election day was that the government was (paraphrasing from memory, here) "determined not to allow a 'Velvet Revolution' to take place". The coverage of that official view was widespread, and the pervasive attitude very likely precipitated the events which followed by polarizing attitudes on both sides. None of this is speculation or political posturing (at least, not by me), it was what was reported just before and on election day.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You can say that there was this opinion in the early stages, but this is yet certainly not a series of events that compares to the colorful revolutions. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether or not one thing actually compares to another. Reliable secondary sources reported that the position of government officials early on was that they were concerned with suppressing the possibility of a "velvet revolution" occurring in Iran.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Etekaaf

I just started a small article on Etekaaf. Would someone who knows something about the practice, and/or knows how it is involved with the protests, please contribute further information? Wnt (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you post this notice on Talk:Islam and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Basij point of view. Militant responses to the Basij militia

Inside the Iranian Crackdown. Wall Street Journal. July 11, 2009.

Great article about the Basij, from their point of view about the protests. Also, discusses some militant responses to the Basij:

Protesters, most of them young, fought back. "You saw young people on both sides mobilizing with vengeance and willing to kill," said Issa Saharkheez, a political analyst in Tehran, in an interview shortly after the election. Mr. Saharkheez was subsequently arrested in detentions that followed the unrest.
At the height of the street battles, in Sadaat Abad, a middle-class neighborhood in east Tehran, young men and women organized themselves into an unofficial militia to fight the Basij, with a "commander" taking responsibility for each street. Every afternoon, they would meet to prepare for the evening's expected battle, according to a 25-year-old student who was involved with the group.
They collected rocks, tiles and bricks from construction sites and spilled oil on the roads, an attempt to sideline the Basij's motorcycles. When a Basij rider would go down, the young men would beat him, according to the student. Women stood back, screaming "Death to the Dictator" and stoking bonfires in the street. Older supporters remained indoors, throwing ashtrays, vases and other household items from their balconies and windows onto the Basij motorcycle riders below.
"There was a war going on here every night," the student says. "We are not going to stand and let them beat us."

I don't have time right now to incorporate any of the info into the article. Hopefully, some others will. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing text. This Basij explain that so many people showed their opposition, despite being kicked and beaten, that even his girlfriend don't support Basij's violence anymore, but continue to believe himself and the basij own THE truth: "protesters are manipulate by and working for the West and need to be beaten". Yug (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up External Links

I've just now cleaned out the External links section, which was (once again) growing out of control.

The policy on External links is fairly involved, but the point is that links should be limited and directly relevant (See especially WP:ELNO). We don't need links to every single YouTube video, news report, series of pictures, or whatever. There are currently 148+ references which include basically every news publication and internet posted video on the subject already, so re-listing them all in External links is redundant anyway. The remaining list of "coverage at" is comprehensive, and also doesn't advocate any position in and of itself.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Josh Shahryar/NiteOwl's Green Brief

I'm surprised wikipedia has not caught up on this. This guy has been tireless compiling all the news stories from Iran and writing an extensive report about it for the past 37 DAYS.

http://iran.whyweprotest.net/green-brief/

Even though most of MSM has quieted down, he's been doing it non-stop. How could you guys have missed him?

75.48.14.89 (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) F. Rosenfeld

Lead

Protests following the 2009 Iranian presidential election against alleged electoral fraud and in support of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi occurred in Tehran and other major cities in Iran and around the world[2] from June 13, 2009 until August 5, 2009.

Do we have sources supporting the claim that the protests ended on August 5? From what I have read, they didn't. This article is not about the election, which admittedly has ended, it is about the protests, after all. Colchicum (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Iranian Protesters Mobilize on Social Media Web Sites". Retrieved 15:50, Monday, May 13, 2024 (UTC). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ "Iran election protests turn violent". CNN. 13 June 2009. Retrieved 13 June 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

"Filter" isn't the right term

The current version makes abundant use of the term "filter", as in "web filter" and so on, but I don't think this is a proper usage. A filter is a device for a user to isolate what is desirable from a larger collection of desirable and undesirable content. For example, you might set an email filter to show mostly useful content but not spam. By contrast, the "web filter" responds to the user's action simply by refusing to do it. That's not filtering something useful out of a mixture. If people don't want to use the plainer term "censor" all the time, they should at least say "block" and "web blocking", not "filter". Wnt (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Russian backing"

Just letting whoever included it know (69.196.172.142 on 03:33, 29 August 2009; I don't know how it lasted this long), I've removed "with possible Russian backing" from the line "Some called the controversial election results a coup with possible Russian backing[9][10][11] (or "کودتای ۲۲ خرداد" in Persian—the Anno Persarum 1388 Khordad 22nd Coup d'etat)" from the introductory paragraphs. I read all three cited sources and none mentioned Russia. Instead, they seem to all be cites for calling the election a "coup." If you would like to present sources to defend this interpretation, please do so. Otherwise, please don't insert such unreferenced lines into sentences that give the appearance that they are referenced. TheSlowLife (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Twitter Revolution

Is this a joke? I had never heard this before reading the Washington Times article. To have this "nickname" in such a prominent position feels tacky. I'm sure the west would like to feel they had their part in the whole thing, observing over whichever web service they prefer, but it kinda demeans the efforts of all the people who actually were there, fighting for a great cause, and not just tutting over images on their lunchbreaks thousands of miles away.

I'm not sure to what extent the movement was/is organised over twitter, and I understand it was quite important in some respects, but the demonstrations would have taken place with or without the western media, that much I know.

So if it is Iranians nicknaming it the Twitter Revolution then thats great ... but if it is just some US journalists, then I have never heard anything more tacky in my life. --Luke85uk (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Omid: i agree, i live in Iran and been attending in almost every elections. never used Tweeter ! its blocked in Iran and i do not have the sufficient knowledge to use it.

Updating

This article is in need of some general updating. --Kylelovesyou (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Iranian election protests → 2009–2010 Iranian election protests — Relisting (it appears that the move template was added after January 14). Ucucha 02:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The protests seem to ongoing, even though Western media have stopped reporting it. Shouldn't the title be changed to reflect this?

Here you can see some recent protests, which shows that it hasn't stopped: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pG7wEQAuUU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ2urTPUGf0

--The monkeyhate (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, came here to suggest it myself. username 1 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. 2009 refers to the date of the election (it can also be "Protests after the 2009 Iranian election"). Alefbe (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I corrected the proposed new title per WP:DASH. Ucucha 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Amazed how you can claim such things

Next to this being obviously the most biased article on the entire wikipedia (and it's not descrete at all), I am amazed how some of these Green fanboys can still claim these protests which ended half a year ago are still "ongoing".Kermanshahi (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

They are, albiet not as flamboyant as the initial June protests. If you actually actively kept track of the events, you'd realize the opposition movement is still alive. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Saeeda Pour-Aghaie

An article about her has been proposed for deletion. Apparently she was a protester killed by security forces. There are no sources I can find in English about her, I speak no Farsi, and Google Translate of Farsi is pretty hopeless, so I can't really assess the facts or notability of this case. Here's the Google Translate of the fa.wikipedia article on her:[2] and here's a Persian BBC article,[3] in case anyone feels inclined to write about her. Fences&Windows 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda against Iran

The US media, led by the New York Times , is continuing its concerted propaganda campaign against Iran over charges that the government stole the June 12 presidential election. There is not even a semblance of objectivity in the media coverage, which parrots the charges of the opposition headed by defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi as fact and dismisses the government’s claims as lies.

The opposition is lauded as democratic and reformist, while incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his supporters are portrayed as virtual fascists. One would scarcely imagine that the two men represent rival factions within the same ruling establishment.

Responsibility for the violence in the streets of Tehran is attributed entirely to the government and its security forces.

No connection is drawn between these events and the broader situation in the region, where the US is waging two wars, on Iran’s eastern and western borders, both aimed at establishing American hegemony over the oil-rich territory.

Suggestions that the US and its intelligence agencies are involved in the turmoil in Iran are dismissed as ludicrous, fabrications by an Iranian government trying to divert public opinion. This, in a country where Washington overthrew a democratically elected government in 1953, propped up a brutal dictator, the Shah, for more than a quarter of a century, and has carried out covert CIA operations in the recent period involving the use of special operations troops on Iranian soil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.238.22 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have some valid points. The whole article is biased and clearly violates the NPOV guidelines. The problem is that it's hard to find unbiased media sources because the psychological warfare of the US is working too well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.101.122 (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Iranian government refused to do anything about these accusations, one would think that if they truly had won fairly they would not mind a recount or something of the sort, but they did not. Anyone who spoke out against them was cruelly silenced, so please tell me how the hell the government is not oppressing its people!? This is a violation of the human rights that every man and woman on this earth are born with! Granted, the majority of the American news media today might as well be a wing of the government, but Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the founder of the suicide boy scouts, and a holocaust-denying twelver who believes that israel is the spawn of Satan and must be destroyed along with half of the world to rush the coming of the Twelvth Imam. He doesn't seem like a person that should be in charge of a country. If you haven't gotten my point by now, here it is: You are lying and also supporting a murderous madman. If you disagree, PLEASE state why I am wrong, give an example, and don't just say that America's evil CIA Conspiracy is trying to blow up Iran's oil and covering their tracks with media bias. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful

This article is beautiful. While it's a bit unpolished on some parts (trivia section at the end etc), it's just brilliant. I don't know how much people worked on it, but I must say, thank you. --187.40.183.173 (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Protests over?

Citing the timeline there has only been one entry for march 2010, I feel that the protests (Major) have ended as there are no sources that claim otherwise. The movement may not be over but this article is NOT about the movement but the protests that followed the election. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The protests are indeed not over. A new one is being planned on the Iranian election day (June 12th) to contest the alleged electoral coup. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable references to prove this claim? To be honest I do not think anyone will know when the protests are really going to be over but seeing it is no longer in the news (For almost 2 months now seeing the timeline) I do not see how the protests can be called "ongoing" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
[4] [5] Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The protests are completely dead, there hasn't been anything for months, the last proper protest was in december 2010, the last small student rally to do with the green movement was in february but this timeline has been completely misused. Any news in Iran is put on there as if it's an election protest, the entry for March was just some news, not even a demonstration, now someone added news about a strike in Sanandaj and Mahabad to protest Kurdish executions (which has nothing to do with Mousavi, the elections or the Green Movement at all) on the timeline as entry for may.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And you know, there have always been some small student protests in Iran, continuously before and after 1979, you could add these whenever they happen to the timeline and than claim the post-election protests are ongoing for ever but than this completely breaks the wikipedia rules and it's obvious that's done not to contribute to wiki but to make political propaganda.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous when I said "the protests are not over". When I said that, I mean that they have not been completely forsaken (seeing that a new one is being planned for election anniversary), and I make no explicit mention of some of the other protests against the Islamic Republic that don't exactly tie into the Green Movement. While the Green protests have been put on hold for a while, I wouldn't call them "dead" just yet, until Mousavi and/or Karrobi decide that they aren't working and cry uncle. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think the protests are deemed over, it may sound quiet and not so flamboyant but the opposition is not dead. There hasn't been any reports of the Green movement giving up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.7.17 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Giant Blue Anteater, would you agree to call the protests over now? There has been nothing for months and months and there was no protest on the election aniversary, since Mousavi called it off. The Green Movement may not have officially disbanded itself, however if there will be new pro-reformist protests next year or in 2 years time, or something, than I think we can agree that, those protests should have an entirely different article for them. It's just like theses 2009 protests are not in the same article as 1999 protests.Kermanshahi (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Benford's Law and fraud in wikipedia article

The wp article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law gives the Iran elections result as an example of election fraud validated mathematically. There should be a section detailing that forensic case and the science behind it.

I will watch that there is no tampering with that article.

G. Robert Shiplett 01:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

An article we can't read beacuse we have to pay for it, linking to a blog which sais "Like most Americans, there are few things I would like to see more than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hateful President, to be voted out of office. Elections in thuggish, authoritarian states like Iran need be treated with the utmost skepticism and scrutiny" - These kind of unreliable POV sources should be avoided, especially in an article like this, which should infact be completely re-written because it is full of shameless propaganda, rather than any real facts at all.

No longer about the election.

The election was really only the beginning of a greater Green Revolution. The people of Iran, tired of the abuse they have to put up by their government for 30 years (it's been 31 years now), saw a glimmer of hope with the reformist candidate Mir Mousavi. Even though the majority voted for him, the Islamist government of Iran have rigged the votes to swear Mr. Ahmadinejad for a second term. Thus started the Green Movement to overthrow this illegitimate government, with the election being just one of the grievances, when the main one is the utter lack of respect towards freedom and human rights that the said illegitimate government has demonsrated 31 years since its inception. In short, this is now a protest against the whole Islamic regieme itself, no longer just about the elections. For this reason, this article should be renamed to 2009-2010 Iranian anti-government protests or 2009-2010 Iranian opposition protests, or just Green Revolution (Iran). Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not an abuse thats been going on for 30 years, its been only going on for 4 years (under ahmadinejad) when stricter islamic rules were applied. Initially this green movement was against the coup government of Ahmadinejad and Revolutionary Guards who rigged Election, which majority of green movement supporters (up to 3 million in tehran) supported. when some of the protestors later got radicalized and demanded ouster of khamenei, many of the initial green movement supporters stopped protesting with them (evidence is given by smaller number of green protestors protesting in ashura 2009) because majority didn't want to seek conflict with the major opposing side (i.e. fundamentalists and hardliner supporters) and still supported reformist leadership. Its not really a protest against 'the whole Islamic regieme' since 98% of the population of iran follows islam as their religion, and 70% support sharia being the principal source of legislation. much of the protest against the Islamic regieme is being done by exiled and fringe opposition groups abroad, and many of those opposition groups have been portraying the movement in their own view (i.e. being against islamic regime) whereas the mainstream green movement has been protesting against the hardliner leadership that supported the coup government and is maintaning dictatorship.

you really have to get the check your facts and sources before referring to the exiled/fringe groups for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ass711 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to validate the claim that "98% of the population of iran follows islam as their religion". The Iranian government may consider 98% of the population of Iran as Muslims. The law that no-one can ever convert away from Islam, by there logic, implies that 98% of the population is Muslim. Obviously this is inaccurate to the true feeling of the population (think about it, most of the population of Iran are under 30 and many are influenced by the west). Where is the fact "70% support sharia being the principal source of legislation" from? Maybe many would agree to this by fear anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.203.31 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Source #122 dead link -- found a new copy

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ahmadinejads-basiji-run-a-regime-of-rape-murder-to-suppress-critics/story-e6frg6so-1225776888607 If that's not suitable, then click the dead link and then do a search for the article title. All that's needed now is to replace the source. 204.126.204.10 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:3rd Day - Mousavi Supporters Rally.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:3rd Day - Mousavi Supporters Rally.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nokia Siemens

diff " Some of the monitoring technology was provided by Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture of Nokia, the Finnish cellphone maker, and Siemens, the German technology giant." - Nokia Siemens provided voice call monitoring capability -not internet monitoring technology - for more info see Nokia Siemens Networks -please feel free to correct this. However please note that 2009–2010_Iranian_election_protests#Internet_censorship is not the right section.Imgaril (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Page renamed?

Why was the page renamed to the new title? The timeline section doesn't mention any election-related protests happening after 2009. There is no current discussion about it either. --Emesik (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

POV Check Nomination

I hold no particular standpoint in this dispute, but the article is hideously one-sided, with virtually no information or views from the ruling party given. There are lengthy quotes from Moussavi which provide little encyclopaedic value, yet are given undue weight in the article, which contains no quotes from Ahmedinijad or the ruling coalition. I know POV doesn't mean providing equal weight to all parties, but at least all views should be represented in at least some form. 87.113.52.102 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is a scandalous Mousavi-propaganda page, full of misinformations, heavily POV sentences, unreliable sources and unbased claims. This is something you would expect to find on the blog of some Green supporters, not on wikipeida. It should definetly be checked for neutrality and IMO the whole thing should be re-written and the page should be protected to prevent wikipedia from becoming a propaganda outlet for the Iranian Green movement. Kermanshahi (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! Five years passed, the article has changed little from its blatant anti-Iranian propagandist content to one that properly reflects the view point of Islamic Republic of Iran or alternative sources about the claims and deeds of the so called Green Movement. For a few examples, the article doesn't mention whatsoever the results of the vote recounts that affirmed the elections official results. It does not mention the police officers, pro-Ahmadinejad students and Basij members killed by Green Movement violent rioters. It fails to mention the role of Western corporate media in uncritical promotion of fraud allegations. I will hopefully research and at these information along with the supporting sources to the page. Until then the balance and POV issues tags are in order. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax
Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Steal the 2009 Iran Election?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Iranian_presidential_election_protests/Archive_2&oldid=1142397805"