This is an archive of past discussions about 2017–2018 Iranian protests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I checked the source, the 4,000 figure is related to the pro-government rally, not the economic one. I restore the tag by now. --Mhhosseintalk15:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I corrected the inaccuracies and removed the disputed tag. If anyone knows of reliable sources that say "thousands" of protesters, please let me know and I will restore that material.- MrX19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"Tens of thousands" of protestors?
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think we should simply write "thousands" until there is a proper source that details exactly how many people are protesting. We can be sure its at least 1,000 since several hundred protests have been reported in multiple cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughtermaster (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
As an update, I think its currently good since the Reuters article was included. What is stated currently works!
Huh, these protests are actually something
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm seeing claims on twitter that another 3 protestors were killed in Shahin Dej but it's too early to confirm. Worth following though. Postermon1 07:17, 1 January 2018 (EST)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2017
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to 2017 Iranian protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Do we really need to list 28 cities in the lead? I suggest summarizing this and leaving the list of cities in the body of the article, or in a box along the side.- MrX13:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm tagging the article as the lead concentrates too much on the slogans, instead of being a summary of the whole article. --Mhhosseintalk07:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Templates
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
This is a fake news. In fact, the main source for the organization of the demonstrations is telegram and it is easily accessible through anti filter tools which are available for all. The government could easily blocked the foreign services, if wanted. (As we saw in 2009) --Seyyed(t-c)07:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Telegram is a messaging program developed in Russia that was being used to coordinate protests. Two channels on Telegram (Sedaie Mardom and AmadNews)were posting slogans for the protestors to chant and giving instructions on tactics such as how to block roads etc. Postermon1 06:48, 1 January 2018 (EST)
If one needs anti-filter (or unblocker) tools to access certain services then you don't need any sleight of logic to conclude that those services are being blocked. --NightD12:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
See WP:TRUTH. Internet blocking is widely reported by WP:RS which satisfy WP:V. That's the core of the project, not personal observations about the "fakeness" of the news. Since I've clarified this for you, I'm removing the orange tag. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nightdevil: There is difference between Internet blocking and Telegram filtering. There is a separate section for filtering of those services. @CosmicAdventure: I live in Iran and there is only disruption in some 3G and 4G services for few hours. --Seyyed(t-c)14:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
According to Iranian news agencies there is some disruption in several cities in some occasions. [3] However, it is not correct to say:"Iran blocked internet access on the third night as protests grew deadly" --Seyyed(t-c)14:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources verifying that Iran has blocked some internet access (social media and mobile data). [4][5][6][7][8]. Of course that doesn't permit us to say "Iran blocked internet access..." without qualification.- MrX15:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Iranian news agencies are not RS for this subject - freedom of the press does not exist in Iran (per Freedom house press freedom report) - particularly for subjects such as these (unrest against the regime). The only usable sources are external to Iran. Iran press can be factual for what Iranian leaders say, not much else.Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. I write here from Tehran. I use internet at home and at work. You can check fa.wikipedia.org, as well. Most of its editors live in Iran. So, I think we should not write the article, as if there is no internet access in Iran. As I understand, there is some disruptions in some places and some kind of services. For example, disruption of 3G and 4G may be a useful tool which prohibits uploading videos by demonstrators. --Seyyed(t-c)15:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Besides this being an OR claim, per sources we see - [9][10]Telegram CEO Pavel Durov tweeted Sunday that Iranian authorities were blocking access to the popular messaging app "for the majority of Iranians after our public refusal to shut down … peacefully protesting channels.". Most Iranians are blocked (at least for some services). Finding a RS that expands on the identity and affilations of those that are unblocked would perhaps be of use here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I guess you misunderstand the issue. I do not speak about filtering. The discussion is about blocking of the Internet.--Seyyed(t-c)15:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Per this - [11] - As violent protests in Iran continue into their fourth day, the Iranian authorities have restricted access to social media tools being used to organize them, and in some regions have reportedly shut down internet access altogether..Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Found the Mullah. I'm never going to understand how someone can support a corrupt theocratic regime that steals, persecute, jails, and kills its own people. Not to mention the giant lack of human rights. It's no wonder that the people have started protesting violently, especially when it was the regime itself that started all this violence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it isn't, doesn't make my words any less true though. Also, you might wanna stop making edits solely from your own POV on the article. Furthermore, living in Iran doesn't make you a reliable source. Thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi protected edit request on January 1, 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Most news sources are not placing this in their leads or at all in mainline reporting, eg [12]. unauthorized has been used in Iranian gvmt stmts and is reported in that context (e.g. Iranian leaders' challenges) or in reporting on sanctioned pro government protests.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
As you see, these reliable sources have used the qualification and non of them are Iranian. By a simple search, one may find multiple other sources using "unauthorized". That other sources don't use this, does not make us ignore the others. Btw, we're not going to solely rely on the BBC link! --Mhhosseintalk20:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Nary a mention of this term in Reuters current front item [13]. If we were to mention it, we would have to qualify as unauthorized by the Iranian government or some similar NPOVing text. You can definitely google and find uses of this, but if you go through the front page of current reporting - it is not there.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The best wording would be the lede with the first sentence stating they "are a series of protests occurring throughout Iran", with a later sentence stating that "the Iranian goverment has characterized the protests as 'unauthoritzed'", or something like that. You have to attribute something like this as it is the statement of one side in the conflict.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, following up this event. As for authorization I was wondering who else would have the authority to authorize or not, the protests. I mean even without the mention of the Iranian government it is intuitive. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Which of the above sources are attributing 'unauthoritzed' to Iranian sources or officials? This is the term used by the sources themselves! --Mhhosseintalk06:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Initial protests organized by Hardliners
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a claim by some of their political rivals in Iran. It can be added as their claim. However, there is not enough fact to confirm it as a fact.--Seyyed(t-c)08:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I have not participated in the current version lead of the lead[14], however I think it is more neutral. However, let's discuss and reach broader consensus.
Paragraph 1:"The 2017–18 Iranian protests (Persian: تظاهرات ۱۳۹۶ ایران) are a series of protests occurring throughout Iran. Protests began 28 December 2017 in Mashhad, which at the beginning was named "No to High Prices" and protest against the policies of the government of Hassan Rouhani, but its scope went beyond economic problems and turned to opposition to the politics of Iran, particularly against longtime Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei."
It is a precise summary of what has happened.
Paragraph 2:The demonstrations were started by crowds protesting across Iran, including in Mashhad, the second-most populous city, as well as a several hundred-person protest in Tehran, the capital. There were also widespread protests in several other cities.[24] The 2017 events are the largest protest in Iran since the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests.[25]
There was the name of a lot of cities which was moved to the body of the article by User:MrX. I suggest to merge these two paragraph.--Seyyed(t-c)07:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Paragraph 3: Initially, the protests were about the high price of goods and commodities, but later evolved into more far-reaching political demands. Different analyses were presented for the protests among them Rouhani administration's adoption of International Monetary Fund's harsh economic policies[26] as well its failure in management of troubled financial institutions as the actual causes of the protests. Some others postulate dissatisfaction at theocratic nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the cause of the unrest.
This paragraph contains some analysis about the causes of the protests. It looks Neutral. However, we can add more analysis to cover the issue.
Paragraph 4: In some cities the demonstrations turned violent with protesters attacking police and setting cars on fire. At least twelve people have been killed in the protests, and hundreds of people have been arrested by Iranian police.
I added the first sentence yesterday. However, I think more information such as "internet censorship by the government" and "Damage to the public properties by the protesters" should be added.--Seyyed(t-c)07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the article is evolving too fast (as events are evolving) for a stable lead. I agree that the partial Internet blockage should be in. I think the list of cities present in some of the lead versions - should be shortened. I also think the lead should summarize estimates for dead, wounded, arrests, damages to property, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I did not intend to start an edit war. My intent was to summarize the lead as it seemed a bit specific and off-topic. Also, there were a few redundancies and grammar issues that I sought to fix. By ideas basically include keeping the lead as accurate as possible. Since the protests are in their early stages, it would be best to be broad and accurate rather than specific and incorrect. As long as the lead is general, neutral, correct, and short than I'll have no problem with it. I think we can always expand on analysis and background later in the article. Looking forward hearing from other thoughts. I apologize for editing without reading this section first. Won't happen again!Laughtermaster (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your idea. The first and last paragraphs look fine. The second one relates to the background and causes. It tries to help the reader understand the context. --Seyyed(t-c)10:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
change "As of 2 January 2018, a total of 21 protests and 1 security force member have been killed." to "As of 2 January 2018, a total of 21 protesters and 1 security force member have been killed." 27.32.25.197 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
@Gregorius deretius: The source that you've provided does not mention the last crown prince as a leading figure of the protests, it just reports his reaction. Mentioning him as a leading figure in the infobox is misleading. Please stop the WP:EDITWAR. --NightD19:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that the demonstrators have been calling for the return to power of the crown prince, [15]Some protesters have been calling for the return of the monarchy and the former shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the United States, has issued a statement supporting the demonstrations, his response is relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that the protestors do not have a leader. Lead figure would seem to mean someone who has taken an active role in leading the protests. Posting on a social network from the comfort of one's home in Bethesda, Maryland does not seem like it would qualify someone as a lead figure.- MrX22:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gregorius deretius: In your last edit you claimed that "consensus has been reached" and you re-inserted "Monarchists[16]". I don't see any such consensus, or even a discussion other than your preceding comment. I don't really have an opinion about this content, but I do know that it was previously removed by Mhhossein. What is your basis for claiming that consensus has been reached?- MrX00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Because the only part that was cleary not factual was reza pahlavi's role in the protests ,so it was approved for removal ,but overall ,monarchists are really participating in the protests ,not only most protesters are supporting regime change,but a great number of protesters are sympathetic to the former shah . Gregorius deretius (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, that has nothing to do with consensus. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. That's how decisions about content are made. We don't simply include material because it's factual..- MrX01:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the mention. Please, don't restore it unless you have reliable sources directly saying Monarchists are part of the civil unrest. --Mhhosseintalk06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The provided sources do not justify it. There's a huge leap from protesters "chanting pro-Shah slogans" to "Monarchists" (activists who try to restore the throne to the heir apparent) being an on-the-ground party to the conflict on a par with students and the working-class protesters. Liverpool F.C. fans may cheer Man City to annoy Man United fans, it doesn't make them "Man City"ists. --NightD13:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
International Supporters of the protests should be added
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Since the beggining of the protests ,The US government and israel had openly supported the protests .
Trump as always ,send lot of tweets endorsing the protests and benjamin netanyahu said in an interview that the protests in iran are a signal of hope and he also said that iranian and israelis could be friends again when the iranian government is overthrown.
So i believe that the countries that support the protests should be added in the infobox. Gregorius deretius (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Unless you have reliable sourcesexplicitly saying that certain countries have provided support for the protesters, please refrain from adding names to the infobox. --NightD13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gregorius deretius: Tweeting and wishing luck is not the same as providing support to the protesters on the street (as with money, arms, etc.) reach a consensus on the talk page before adding names to the infobox. Again with the giant leaps. --NightD14:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. If anyone is providing support - it is covert and hasn't been published. The most we got is various world leaders supporting the cause of the protesters.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. "support" by other countries does not belong in the infobox. Besides, Tweeting and other propaganda is really not support anyway.- MrX14:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Infobox:Parties to the civil conflict
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I think adding the name of Monarchists and IRGC in the conflict is not correct. There is not an organized Monarchists group in Iran, but there are some people among demonstrators who are pro-monarchy while some others who are pro-secular democracy. On the other hand, the source which is provided for IRGC's participation, clearly states that “If this situation continues, the officials will definitely make some decisions and at that point this business will be finished.” So we can not add it before it happens. --Seyyed(t-c)08:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It is a bit too soon to really pin anything on anyone on the protesters side. Cries supporting the Shah have been documented by several RS, and on the other hand some pro-regime official are using monarchists as a way to discredit the demonstrations. At the moment - I don't see any real reliable sourcing on whom (if anyone - sometimes these things are spontaneous) is standing behind the protesters. I think this is more of a situation of leaving this empty (no groups) - or alternatively listing various possible groups, in which case monarchists should be in. Regarding IRGC - it seems they are getting involved per the latest - [17][18][19] - but are holding off at the moment from a "really hard crackdown" (that would lead to a high casualty count).Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
According to the source IRGC has just threatened to engage. Therefor, our deduction of their participation is a kind of WP:OR.--Seyyed(t-c)09:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Here they claim IRGC killed some protesters - [20] and here - [21] that a IRGC soldier was shot by a protester. And they are threatening to use an "iron first" but haven't yet - [22].Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
There is written "According to the reports, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) soldier was shot by an assailant using a hunting rifle in Najafabad, about 350km south of the capital Tehran. However, Al Jazeera could not independently verify whether the IRGC member was the same police officer who was reported as being shot by Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency on Monday night." We can add it but with a notice that it has not been confirmed yet.--Seyyed(t-c)11:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@MrX: There is a claim that not all of the casualties relate to the protesters, but some of them are killed during the conflict accidentally. For example "Two more, including a teenage boy, were run down and killed by a fire engine stolen by protesters in the western town of Dorud on Sunday—a story emphasised on state television."[23] How can we clarify it in the infobox, lead and the body of the article.--Seyyed(t-c)17:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Sa.vakilian, generally, if something can't be summarized in a few word or a simple statistic, it should be left out of the infobox, but explained in the body of the article. I removed the fire engine material because it seems only marginally related to the protests and there was only one local source. I defer to others more familiar with the subject as to whether this material is important enough to include in the article, and whether the two casualties should be included in the number of killed in the infobox.- MrX17:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: I mean the figure in the infobox is not clear enough and lead to misunderstanding. We should clarify that this some of the casualties were killed accidentally.--Seyyed(t-c)17:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Has this protest movement have a name yet? Such as in 2009 it was called the Green Revolution/Movement or in Ukraine, the protestors called themselves Euromaidan, or the Occupy movement in New York and London, does this current one have a name? Or maybe a media name such as Aryan Spring or the Youth Awakening? Like how the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions were called the WHite or Lotus Revolution and Jasmine Revolution?
The picture of Iranians protest 2017-18 based on the province transfers the wrong information about Iranians protest. In other word by looking at the picture any one can think that protests cover all cites in Iran but in fact at Lorestan Province, we see protest just in two or three cites. This picture contains undue wight information without reliable source. Saff V. (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
NCRI/MEK shamelessly co-opting protests
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Maryam Rajavi seems to think she speaks for the protestors, but of course that's farcical (and downright insulting). She writes for a primarily English audience from outside Iran. I'm not sure if Iran truly believes NCRI is fomenting the protests or just trying to find a justification for calling everyone opposing the regime "terrorist", but some western news orgs seem to think they are a legitimate pro-democracy group.[24] Can we clarify the MEK's ignoble and decidedly non-secular history somewhere? Especially if they are to be invoked at all, say, in the reactions section.--Monochrome_Monitor13:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There's not really much need to do anything like that yet, because the article barely mentions them. But if such a matter were to be included in the article, it would be vitally improtant not to give the pro-MEK position undue weight. The fact that they've mostly been sidelined in the press coverage in general indicates that it is a fringe position. But for the time being there's no need to clarify anything about the MEK in the article because there's nothing to clarify. Brustopher (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Shia militias in Iraq and Syria?
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A story from Baghdad post has Shia militias in Iraq and Syria deploying in Iran to surpress the protests. Could portend a lot more bloodshed. If it comes to pass, will be added to the infobox. I'll see if anyone spots them on twitter.--Monochrome_Monitor15:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Dubious slogans as anecdotal evidence
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As explained in this article (removed by MrX), there's no any evidence for alleged pro-monarchist, pro-MEK and non-interventionist slogans, there's no any poster, placard or similar. Footages themselves are dubious because they don't show anyone chanting such slogans and may be forged, and even if true they have been used by media as an selective and anecdotal evidence for misrepresenting the nature of demonstrations. So why was an article by The Balkans Post removed? There are already similar independent media like The Baghdad Post. It's funny to label it as an WP:UNDUE because article is already biased and inclined toward representing economic protesters as "anti-establishment". --MehrdadFR (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my edit summary, that publication does not seem to be a reliable source. The article you linked is an opinion of someone unknown. Perhaps you can find a couple of reliable sources to support your proposed edit.- MrX17:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
End of Protests
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Some doubts about the recent edit claiming an end to the protests. First, it's not February yet and second it looks like the protests are still going on. Postermon1 14:46, 3 January 2018 (EST)
I'm seeing claims that there are protests outside of Evin Prison as well as in Dezful. Are we sure it's not premature to declare the protests over? Postermon1 14:55, 3 January 2018 (EST)
This is an unconfirmed tweet "Source: A massacre's happening in prisons in #Iran. Torturing everyone they've arrested(#Lorestan).They ask them to make fake confessions in front of the tv saying they were trained by Mossad. They've burned one of the prisoners' tongue #IranProtests" Postermon1 15:03, 3 January 2018 (EST)
Not reliably sourced (debka!). IRGC has deplyed and is claiming it is over... A claim regimes often make. Whether it is only time will tell. [25].Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
hmm, I didn't see in Western sources that I checked any mention of new widespread protests. There has been a significant decline and by tomorrow we will most probably see further confirmations by reliable sources shall this be really true. but anyway, you see more interested in the protests that the Iranians themselves are! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Everyone is interested in the protests. If they were successful it would've been a seismic shift in global balance. Postermon1 15:24 3 January 2018 (EST)
The political unrest will not be successful for it has little support among the intellectuals since nobody is interested in the "seismic shift" you are anticipating for nobody likes the country destroyed in a Syrian-style civil war, but that seems like Saudi/Neocons/Israeli wet-dream! ;) --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Causes
Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
^جهان|TABNAK, سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و. "توکلی: اعتراضات خیابانی قابل پیشبینی بود". سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و جهان|TABNAK (in Persian). Retrieved 30 December 2017.
I think we need English-language mainstream sources like in the other bulletpoints to substantiate this as a cause, especially in light of the editor who claimed "[t]here is only one such (government associated conservative leaning) analyst that has suggested that adoption of IMF rule is the reason behind the protests."[26]El_C00:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The specific cited sources may be unusable, but there is no policy requiring sources to be in English, so that is not a reasonable argument for opposing content. - MrX00:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
That; and, because this is an ongoing event, we should adhere to especially strict standards for the sources cited. The other bulletpoints do this with their sources. Not to mention that the reader gets no sense of what this IMF rule is even about(!) and what effect it has on the population and the economy. This bulletpoint is lacking in so far as the standards of the English Wikipedia are concerned, in general. El_C02:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Some Iranian critiques are blaming the general Neoliberal economic policies of the government that have been historically promoted and advised by the IMF under Structural adjustment. These had precedence in Hashemi Rafsanjani's administration who was considered the political patron of Rouhani in some ways. However the bullet list wording was not accurate. These rather be described as IMF policies, not IMF regulations. I think we should also avoid imposing WP:BIAS on Iranian media, there are restrictions when it comes to anti-establishment moves and views, but there is a widespread and rich range of critical opinion published in Iranian media by academics and experts on particular government policies for few other than radical secularist expatriates, feel the problems stem from the theocratic structure of the government in Iran rather than simply bad policies. And btw these recent unrests in Iran lack any support among public figures in Iran including reformists and principlists (or "conservatives" as western MS rather call them) despite the frenzy in Western media and Trump admins' gleeful support for the unrest. We may not dwell too much on this on Wiki as per WP:FORUM but I thought it was necessary to give an "insider" view of Iranian politics in order to help foreign editors here avoid simplistic judgements on the media situation in Iran. As with the rest of the world things are not so black and white here! --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
According to WP:BIASED:"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."--Seyyed(t-c)06:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Some Iranian government officials are blaming the IMF measures. That the protesters have - is unclear. Iranian media is completely unusable for anything but the government line - it is operating under duress, and particularly in a situation like this it is bound by a very tight regime leash. We could perhaps say that the Iranian government has blamed IMF measures or something similar.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There are some economic analysts as well as academicians who blame IMF but not governmental figures. Even some of them like Fariborz Raisdana are secular activists and the Iran's state media do not cover them. On the other hand, the main stream economists in the government like Masoud Nili are pro IMF. Therefor, your simplification is not useful. In fact, most of the Iran's economic policies during the past two decades have been in line with the IMF suggestions. --Seyyed(t-c)07:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: Like I said, such blanket statements on Iranian media are not useful and even valid. For example I know it's hard for eurocentric perspective to digest that Iran's supreme leader is in fact the biggest critique of Iran's economic policies but when the mainstream media in the West have a habit to systematically ignore even the public statements by the Iran's supreme leader, then the average westerner can't know any better. --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There are indeed differences of opinion within the Iranian regime (which is not monolithic) which are covered by the Iranian media - economic policy being one of them. However coverage of counter-regime forces, such as these protesters, is highly suspect.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose removing the bulletpoint As someone who was the guy who added this line to the infobox in the first place (although, I wasn't the one who added it to the wikipedia, i just translated it from the Iranian article). I have to say the following:
1) The notion that only government affiliated or government-supporting critics alledged that the IMF measures are responsible is completely wrong**. I am not that fluent in Iranian politics, but it was in fact the current government that spearheaded the deal with the IMF (so they are responsible for the fact that the deal struck the population so hard). And the whole idea that the IMF deal is responsible for the protests is actually more popular among the conservative wing of Iranian politics (the presidency and most of the ministers in Iran currently are reformists). So in short, this is certainly not the view of the government.
2) The fact that the western media didn't mention this prominently cannot be basis for removal. We are talking about view point popular in Iran. Why would we care what the western media thinks?
That line is well sourced and I haven't seen a single argument against it, apart from the erroneous claim that only english-language sources can be added to wikipedia. Karl.i.biased (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus, so You can't add it, not until you demonstrate that the protesters have been saying something about the IMF. Not a single analyst. That's not good enough. El_C23:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Peter Dunkan: We have to reflect what the sources report not our personal opinions. And it's ironic that you have rushed to accuse my good-faith, explained reverts as edit war whereas you yourself have a history of editawr for which you needed to defend yourself on ANI. Tasnim is also a quite reputable news agency in Iran and you can't argue those photos are fake. They have been covered by other sources. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
All Iranian media are controlled by Khamenei. So not reliable for this article. Also, photos uploaded by individuals are not reliable, unlike photos that were published in reliable sources.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Reliability is not defined by the source, but by quality of content. Please do not confuse reliable sources with POV sources. A source can both be reliable and POV; on the other hand it can be "neutral" and not reliable. For this matter - blogs, self-published material, unverified websites, newpapers without editorial board are not reliable. On the other hand academic sources and authors, government sources, newspapers with editorial boards are typically reliable (even if they are POV).GreyShark (dibra) 06:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests?
Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
The consensus is against the infobox listing the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests?
^جهان|TABNAK, سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و. "توکلی: اعتراضات خیابانی قابل پیشبینی بود". سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و جهان|TABNAK (in Persian). Retrieved 30 December 2017.
Oppose. Happy to change my mind when there is sufficient evidence that this is a well-established cause, cited in reliable sources. Note that there is a single user edit warring [29][30][31] for the inclusion of this, and now also a paragraph[32] about the (seemingly, single) conservative analyst behind this claim. I don't necessarily disagree with the analysis, just with how well-established it is. There is no consensus for this addition, with not a single other editor supporting it being added in its present form. El_C23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support As I told above, there are the other analysts such as Fariborz Raisdana, who believe the economic policies lead to protests. However, I don't insist on mentioning IMF policies. We can just say harsh economic and monetary policies for lower class.--Seyyed(t-c)03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
What are you supporting, then? I don't mind mentioning lower class hardship and resulting discontent, but the "IMF rules" part doesn't seem to be proven (or that well explained) to us English-speaking editors. El_C03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Support I noticed El_C has made other edits to diminish the significance of pro-establishment rallies and now trying to diminish a significant pov here. There are several Iranian experts and sources (some covered in the article already) that blame Rouhani's general Neoliberal policies which is the ideology advised and promoted by the IMF. And IMF has been widely criticized for advocating policies that are detrimental to national economies and social stability. Read the IMF#Criticisms. So it's quite a mainstream pattern. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Per User:El_C. The idea that the average protestor is angry about the way the government has implemented IMF policies seems fairly ridiculous. I would need to see neutral sources. zzz (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This is, at best, unclear. How is Iran following IMF's economic policies? Voluntarily? This is unlikely. Given IMF's poor political reputation, I cannot see a reason why any Iranian politician would announce that Iran must follow IMF's policies voluntarily. If this is not about voluntary compliance with IMF's policies, but it comes as a result of some loan from IMF, more details are needed as to the package deal that Iran may have made with the IMF. If some political commentator has made some arbitrary comment about similarities between Iranian fiscal policies and those advocated by the IMF, then this is just the personal opinion of someone and it would be WP:UNDUE to give this opinion prominence. Overall we currently have very few details and vague allegations to support the alleged Iran-IMF connection, so until this gets cleared-up, I am opposed to any mention of the IMF in this article. Also, I would suggest that comments should be confined to the issues involved, and should not be directed at contributors. I don't think anyone is trying to "diminish" anything, and this line of argument should stop. Dr.K.04:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Certainly not in wiki's voice. We can say that some in Iran's regime (and I use the distinction between regime and formal government - the supreme leeader and IRGC are essentially channels outside of the control of the government) have speculated so and that this was repeated in regime controlled media.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Note that protesters (e.g. - see coverage in CNN here) have not been shouting "down with the IMF" (or similar slogans). They have been shouting "Death to Khamenei", "Death to Rouhani!", and "Clergyman have some shame; free our society!".Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose.The regulatiosn were not just adopted, someone adopted them, the protests are against that someone. I agree with Icewhiz. Furthermore this inclusion will be WP:UNDUE as well, as pointed out by Dr.K.. So from where I am seeing this, both of these issues should be adressed before moving this in, and that looks unlikely, highly unlikely. Elektricity (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Protected
Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Howdy, I've protected this article per request. Please let me or any other administrator know when consensus has been reached so that this article may be unprotected. Thanks!, Nakon06:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Mhhossein has been persistently editwarring in this article with many editors, without ever getting consensus. Nor the content in question was well-sourced, neither was there a violation of 3rr.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I will have to delegate this dispute to the Edit Warring noticeboard, which has already been reported. That group will be able to handle the dispute better than I can. Thanks, Nakon07:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Peter Dunkan: The article history is already fulled by your reverts! Your repeated baseless accusations is getting annoying. See the admins comments ([33], [34]) showing how meaningless your accusations are. --Mhhosseintalk07:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Instead of cherry-picking diffs and arguing with me, try to get consensus for what you want to add, instead of editwarring. The article is not flying away!--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI, this has been reported at EW 07:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The source reliability is questionable and your proposed text does not seem be an accurate representation of the article.- MrX15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The reader should at least know what the non-English source title says, in English. This ought to be the responsibility of whomever is adding a respective non-English source. El_C05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The page is protected for the next three days, but feel free to do the title translation here on the talk page in the meantime, and myself or another admin we'll see to it being added to the article. El_C08:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. As for this interview with Ahmad Tavakkoli the the link title reads "Tavakkoli: The protests were predictable." But I just learned that Fars News is the original source of the interview. Fars's title reads: "Tavakkoli in an interview with Fars: "The government's wrong approach to Structural Adjustment policies coupled with two grave deficiencies/The head of the Central Bank is responsible". Btw, Tavakkoli's interview is an extensive analysis of the problem. The man is highly notable in Iran and he heads an anti-corruption and pro-transparency NGO. I think his interview deserves greater representation in the article. He's not just blaming IMF SAPs but also government's mishandling of the banking system as well as the general unaccountability and irresponsiveness of the government. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Edit request
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There are some problems with the following sentence in the 'Counter-protest rallies':
"On 3 January, again pro-establishment rallies were orchestrated by the government, and many of those attending were bused in and given the same or similar placards with longtime leader Khamenei's photo on them." The CNN source says that there were some counter-protests but does not describe how the protests were organized. On the other hand, the Washington Post source, says that the rallies had "hallmarks of previous state-organized gatherings". There's no mention of "busing" and such things. I suggest the following version:
"On 3 January, thousands of counter protesters[1] held rallies in support of the government,[2] across the country.[1] According the Wsahingtonpost, the rallies appeared like "state-organized gatherings."[3]"
Pinging @El C: for attention. Regards. --Mhhosseintalk16:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "many of those attending were bused in" must be removed, because the source was talking about what "typically" happens. I'm indifferent about the rest of the proposal.- MrX16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Credit for falsification of these sources goes to @Peter Dunkan:. I had explained this in my revert but he insisted on the bad version. And for preventing this obvious error I was accused of edit-warring! As you see, there were also two photos that were removed. Please restore those two also. Btw, a mention of slogans and positions by the protesters is worth mention. A PressTV report mentions them. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Crushing of a terrorist cell
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
According to Iranian sources, three IRGC members were killed dismantling an anti-government terrorist cell in northwestern city of Piranshar. The terrorist cell which possessed weapons and explosives is said to have been assigned with bombings and murder of innocents in Iran in order to escalate the unrest. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The CNN source specifically mentions "the state-run Islamic News Agency (IRNA) reported, citing Iran's Intelligence Ministry." I don't think we should uncritically pick up these news offered by Iran's Intelligence Ministry, as reported by IRNA. Further, we should not use WP:WEASEL expressions like "According to Iranian sources" to describe these two very specific and biased sources. Dr.K.06:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is widely reported in Iran by other sources and CNN has also covered it. Why do you want to censor what reliable sources have covered? We can also attribute the news directly to the intelligence ministry. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is widely reported in Iran by other sources and CNN has also covered it. I can only go by what source you provided in your edit above. If there are other sources, then provide them, instead of personally attacking yet again. Stating that the Iranian Intelligence ministry is not a provider of unbiased news, is not censorship, it's a statement of fact. Only POV-pushers would equate this with censorship. I hope you change your approach, for the sake of your own credibility as an editor. As far as CNN covering it, they did. But, as I said above: "The CNN source specifically mentions "the state-run Islamic News Agency (IRNA) reported, citing Iran's Intelligence Ministry."" Don't make me repeat myself. Dr.K.07:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not personally attacking but your unnecessary fault-finding to me indicates bias. I didn't say intelligence ministry is a news source but they are a source for what they say. Other Persian sources covering the intelligence statement: [35][36][37][38][39][40]--Expectant of Light (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
We may say Three IRGC members were killed in the northwestern city of Piranshar. Iran's Intelligence Ministry claimed they were acting against an "anti-government terrorist cell".Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Anything coming from official state-run news sources in Iran (which is all of them) must be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. As has been demonstrated countless times in the past, and as a simple visit to any one of their websites at this very moment will reveal. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
CNN has a reputation for fact checking, so this material should certainly be considered for inclusion, with attribution. I agree that "claim" should be changed to "said".- MrX13:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 5 January 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Elliott Abrams criticized The New York Times for what he considers misleading coverage of Iran's protests, and that the news coverage diminishes the value of Iran's protests and limits it to the economic sphere. While in his view, judging by the slogans, the political dimension of the demonstrations is also significant.[85]"
The second sentence here is a fragment, combine the two. --Joshualouie711talk19:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Partly done - I kept two sentences, but restructured both for grammar and clarity. Let me know if I made it worse.- MrX21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
According to an Iranian intelligence ministry announcement on January 4, three IRGC members were killed dismantling an anti-government terrorist cell in northwestern city of Piranshar. The terrorist cell which possessed weapons and explosives is said to have been assigned with bombings and murder of innocents in Iran in order to escalate the unrest. [1][2]Expectant of Light (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion
For the time being I added this line to the lead which is well-known and verifiable. I will add the sources in my first chance. I think it is vital to keep a balanced lead for this crucial development.
Iranian officials have acknowledged people's economic grievances and their right to peaceful protests but have accused enemies for instigating the violent unrest. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
"due to their significance"- they have little or no significance, as per this article. "In the meantime, pro-establishment rallies have also been held across the country, with participants condemning the violent unrest and US interference and supporting Iran's supreme leader.[25][25][25]" -at a minimum, the second half of this sentence should be removed, along with its bizarre triple-repeated Iranian source for what all the "protesters" think. zzz (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think the official position on the protests is not significant? I think they are highly significant because they are the ones facing the protests, after all. And usually a fixed-theme of the pro-establ. protests is slogans in support of the supreme leader and against foreign enemies. This has been standard since the 1979 revolution. This time opposition to the violent unrest has also been added to the mix. And the para. doesn't have to mention each and every slogan by the protestors and their ratio. But the slogans that have been more widespread. And for this we go by what the sources have reported. And that's precisely what I did. Btw the pro-establ. rallies dwarf the anti-establ. rallies and that's why they deserve more weight in general. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
No doubt that they are much much larger. Even when foreign journalists are not allowed to film, the official media cover these demos live and there are countless videos of them available on Iranian news agencies. And even foreign sources have actually admitted that the pro ones dwarf the anti ones. And then vast pro-government crowds – dwarfing in numbers (if not in enthusiasm) the demonstrators, march in their hundreds of thousands to condemn the street protests, holding pictures of their beloved leaders above their heads. The regime calls the protests “finished”.[41] --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, from Robert Fisk a notable senior journalist who specializes in Mid-East, acknowledging what Iranian media have already widely reported. What else do you want? Here's CNN reporting two thousands attending only in Tehran only three days after the start of anti- protests. An eyewitness in Tehran said nearly 2,000 people had gathered peacefully for a pro-government rally. State-run Iranian broadcasters showed demonstrators waving the Iranian flag.[42] The size and significance of the pro protests is beyond dispute. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
No one disputes thousands attended. That is no sign of significance however. I'm not sure why you think they were significant. They were broadcast on national tv, that's really the only significance.zzz (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, RS reported that they happened - as anyone could predict they would. RS do not use them as a measure of support for the establishment however. zzz (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
They all describe it as pro-government and specify their clearly pro-establ slogans. You are just quibbling over the obvious as in the other section. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
So I guess you accept they have no significance. Perhaps you agree the mention in the lead should be reduced, then. zzz (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Adûnâi and Elektricity: There has been a thorough discussion here on the pro-establ. rallies, their verifiablity and significance to be given more detail and weight. Western media usually tend to ignore or downplay these meaningful rallies but Iranian media give them due coverage. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm also arguing for greater weight and detail. Yes, western media can only highlight "government-staged" as if millions of people are marching on the streets, chanting slogans and smiling on gun points! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This is what is being reported by RS - staged rallies. Regarding your OR argument of the motivation of people, well, stage rallies are held in North Korea and various parades in the soviet bloc (e.g. May day, WWII victory parade, various protests) were also very well attended with slogan shouting and smiling people.Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This entire section has numerous grammar and syntax errors, exhibits substandard writing form not concordant with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|standards] and displays a lack of neutrality on the subject.
Most of the neutrality issues can be seen in the second paragraph, which reads mostly as an opinion piece, but the first paragraph contains the confusing sentence "About incidents of 2009, world didn't play serious role but In 2018, we will not be silent." I considered nominating the section to be checked for neutrality, but honestly it seems more of a lapse in English and proper formatting.
Latest comment: 6 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion
User:Peter Dunkan is persistently editwarring to remove well sourced material from the article by weird allegations such as "ran media fully controlled by Khamenei, so not reliable for this article". I've reported his clear violation of 3rr, but meanwhile, the fire truck incident is verified by the Dorud governor. The incident is covered by multiple sources ([43], [44] and etc.) --Mhhosseintalk06:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no consensus that those sources are reliable. And even if they are, you need to get consensus to add them in this article. Because media in Iran is not free. It's controlled, that too by Khamenei and his henchmen! As I said previously, find a reliable source over which Khamenei has no control, then add it, or get consensus first.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@ --Mhhosseintalk I think we can discard the opinion of Peter Dunkan (talk) in this matter as far as I am concerned, however I think that we should source this to an English source IF we can find one, otherwise national news from tasnim can be included in my opinion. One more thing, perhaps you can open up a discussion about the releavtn issues that caused the war/protect, so we can talk about them here on talk page. Elektricity (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Peter Dunkan (talk) I find your opinion to be against wikipedia policies. And I have commented to show that. If you have any other way I can show that, I will use those words. It may be harsh, but you are wrong to assume that all Iranian media is controlled, and I have pointed that out. Elektricity (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Peter Dunkan: Your conduct on this page is not constructive at all. Apart from edit warring, you're making some hyperbolic statements about Iranian media. Yes, supreme leader of Iran is legally the highest authority but it doesn't mean he interferes in the media daily reporting. There are laws, regulations and red-lines that the press should honor as with the rest of the world. Beyond that they are free to do as they wish. And whether you like the establishment or not is a matter of personal opinion. Just don't push your political opinions here. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Expectant of Light: As someone who violated 3rr multiple times, and probably editwarred the most on this article, and someone who writes stuff like "Saudi/Neocons/Israeli wet-dream." You clearly is in no position to accuse or judge other people's conduct. As Icewhiz pointed out, what is well-known worldwide, that Iran does not have freedom of press.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The Iranian media is generally considered to be under the control of various inner-regime factions, see - Freedom of the Press 2017: Iran, Freedom House -- "Conditions for the media in Iran are highly repressive. Certain topics—including criticism of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—are subject to long-standing redlines, enforced in part through harsh online and offline censorship. Journalists are silenced and forced into self-censorship through harassment, arbitrary detention, and prison sentences for vaguely defined offenses.".Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, supreme leader is a red-line. But I don't know how that affects Tasnim or PressTV reporting of the pro-establishment rallies for example or how it suggests the press are constantly checking their daily reports with the SL office for authorization. That's just impossible. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps they know what they need to write in order to stay out of trouble. per Reporters without borders: One of the world’s biggest prisons for journalists: Media freedom was one of the key demands of the revolution that toppled the Shah and swept Ayatollah Khomeiny to power in 1979, but it is a promise that has never been kept. The media are mostly under the Islamic regime’s close control and there has been no let-up in the persecution of independent journalists, citizen journalists, and media outlets. Media personnel are still constantly exposed to intimidation, arbitrary arrest, and long jail sentences imposed by revolutionary courts at the end of unfair trials. Despite an improvement in its international relations, Iran continues to be one of the world’s five biggest prisons for media personnel.[45] (or via trial and error, error leading to jail, achieve the same approximate results). Iranian media simply can not be used for reporting on protests against the regime - with the exception of reporting what the regime (or factions within) are saying.Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: Really why? Tasnim News Agency is not simply a local news agency. There's a video clip in this source showing the Dorud governor describing and verifying all these incidents. --Mhhosseintalk16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: The material seem propagandistic to me. According to our article, Tasnim has strong links with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). That would seem to make it an undesirable source.- MrX16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: Are you trying to say that the incident has not happened because Tasnim is reporting it or the clip depicting Dorud's governor is fake? two different things are being mixed here and I have to repeat User:Greyshark09's comment: "Please do not confuse reliable sources with POV sources. A source can both be reliable and POV; on the other hand it can be "neutral" and not reliable."
I really don't know if those sources are reliable or not, but I do know that there is a consensus to treat sources within Iran with suspicion. Also, it seems odd that this relatively minor and disconnected incident would merit a paragraph, yet we don't have similar paragraphs that describe the events surrounding the deaths of ~20 protesters.- MrX17:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no such a "consensus". Reliability is a context-related concept! Btw, the incident was covered by multiple sources because it was somehow different from others. OK, you said your opinion, as did I. --Mhhosseintalk18:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. It would be WP:UNDUE to cover this incident in such minute detail, while the rest of the deaths are just given in short numerical form. I also note the sensationalist titles of the Iranian media covering the event: "The big crime by the rioters in Dorud" and "The murderer of Two Droud citizen was captured". Also note the phrasing: The perpetrator was arrested by the Iranian intelligence members, after he had hid in Tehran. So much for presumption of innocence; the guy has been declared a "perpetrator" in Wikipedia's voice. How can this type of biased journalism be allowed to enter a Wikipedia article? Dr.K.18:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The head of Iran's media is appointed by longtime leader Khamenei. The Iranian media is ordered to treat him like god, always praise him, and never write a bad word about him. Otherwise the writers lives are turned into hell. Iran is not like democratic countries where the press are free to critize the leader. In controlled Iranian media, the regime and Khamenei are always praised.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Peter Dunkan: You mean the head of IRIB right? Don't conflate things! As for accusation of edit-warring, I was trying to achieve consensus via edit descriptions which was successful and constructive until you dropped in reverting content without citing any policy but simply for not liking sourced views that were there. You also removed two photos of the pro-establ. rallies. Can you explain why? I want to restore them. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Others! i wanted to say that the firetruck incident is important. Other than wide coverage in Iranian media, it helps understanding the nature of causalities many of which is because of rioter's violence. But we rather attribute the report to the Iranian media to address some editor's negative view of Iranian media, despite I believe these concerns are a little far-fetched. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
And I don't know what "contentious claims" are being avoided here? An official, i.e. governor of a city, has verified that an incident had happened and even there's video showing him saying this. What's wrong here? --Mhhosseintalk08:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
As the neutral editors above pointed out: The Iranian regime-controlled media, which is prohibited from ever writing anything against the regime and Khamenei, cannot be used to cover protests against them. But Iranian media can be used for other purposes. It's like using Ba'athist Iraq regime's media to cover protests against Ba'athist Iraq and Saddam Hussein, or using North Korean media to cover protests against Kim Jong-un. Also, again as pointed out by other editors, the incident is minute, and there's no need to give it undue weight.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please don't tone your statements with your personal political views. Calling Khamenei a dictator or repeating the same points about Iranian media over and over don't help your cause. Respond to particular counter-arguments to your blanket statements on Iranian media and why the incident is important. --Expectant of Light (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I have removed this material as it still does not have consensus for inclusion. If anyone disagrees that there is no consensus in this discussion, I would be happy to discuss it further here.- MrX18:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Why this article mainly focus on Anti Govt Protests? there have been many Pro-Govt protests in recent days
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Should the 'Damage to public property' include this material?
Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments12 people in discussion
Technical close of this stale RFC, which has been archived already. Consensus is to include the material suggested by Mhhossein. I will note this on the main talk page. Fish+Karate11:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the 'Damage to public property' section in the article include the following materials:
According to Mehr News Agency, video captured by closed circuit cameras at a fire station in Dorud, on 31 December 2017, showed rioters entering the station, attacking the staff and damaging fire trucks.[1] In another incident, also in Dorud, rioters hijacked an on service fire truck which they abandoned; the truck then collided with a car killing a father and son on board, according to the state broadcaster.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
Support inclusion: The materials is well-sourced and well-attributed. The fire truck incident is verified by the Dorud governor and News agencies such as Agence-France Press, Reuters and CNN have mentioned it attributing it to the state broadcaster. The incidents are important enough to be included in the article. --Mhhosseintalk19:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - I still think that this material is somewhat WP:UNDUE, and the level of detail is disproportionate to the detail included about the 20+ other people who have been killed. Dorud is the 80th largest city in Iran, which further suggests that this material doesn't merit inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS. That said, my knowledge about Iran's government, society, and culture could fit in a small thimble with room to spare, so my opposition should be weighed accordingly.- MrX20:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm going to be a little more frank. Well, I suggest you to review WP:UNDUE once again before using it next time. Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So, be it the 1000th largest city or even smaller, we rely on the sources dealing with the incident. We would add the details of the death for the rest of the fatal incidents, if there were enough sources. A glimpse at WP:NOTNEWS shows that it's merely thrown here by you, because it has nothing to with this well-sourced/covered incident absolutely. How does NOTNEWS prohibits the inclusion of this content? Also, we are not here to "weigh" you original researches, i.e. your self analysis of Iranian culture and etc, but to act based on the RSs. --Mhhosseintalk21:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Only reported in unreliable state-controlled Iranian media - which is completely unreliable regarding these protests. We shouldn't parrot the Iranian's regime's line of portraying the protesters as vandals. This is not widely reported in actual RS - at most you have passing mentions of this in CNN.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You're back to your blanket statements on Iranian media. So have this to the contrary: western corporate media have a general bias against Iranian establishment, hence not giving weight to the overwhelming nationwide protests which are beyond verifiable. Likewise not willing to admit violence on the side of rioters. And in minimum, you have acknowledge that Iranian sources are reliable for their own positions. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: What's your idea if the Iranian source is removed and the text is written based on the international reliable sources?--Seyyed(t-c)13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Show such sources. Note that if your international source is reporting what an Iranian source reported - it is still Iranian regime sourced. It might, however, increase the merits of inclusions per WP:BALASP (attributed back to whomever reported it originally).Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz:Your position lead to a biased article. When an international source like [46] repeat it as a fact, then it does not mean "Iranian regime source". Your broad interpretation of "Iranian regime source" is completely against WP policies and guidelines and I think any experienced user can approve my position. Do you like to ask Jimmy Wales.--Seyyed(t-c)13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
euro-news is not a great source, and it doesn't repeat this as fact. euro-news in a very short piece says "Two other people died when protesters are said to have seized a fire engine and ran into a car." - so they are not saying this happened, they are saying this is said to have happened (and a proper journalistic piece would've specified by whom - but in this case you found an extremely short summary headline piece (without an author)). If you find a reputable source saying this in a factual manner - you can report it as fact here. Otherwise this could be included attributed back to whomever said it if it is repeated (with attribution or "said to have") by enough reputable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It is easy to check the reliability of euro-news in wikipedia. (WP:RS) In addition, when a source does not want to accept the responsibility of the text it can say "according to ..." or something like that. Or at least it can say "it has not been confirmed yet." However, when a source writes something as a fact and does use such phrase, it clearly means it has reported it as a fact. Your judgement is against WP policies, thus I do not find any reason to reject it and you can not remove anything with such strong source without violating WP policies.--Seyyed(t-c)13:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
euro-news is RS. It is not a top-tier source. And in this case - it does not repeat this as fact, but says "are said to have" - so they are reporting that other (unnamed in this case) sources have said this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Conditional support The text can be reduced by 1/3 and should ONLY be included if attributed to initial source (state broadcaster or Govt). Pincrete (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Per WP:UNDUE and also Iran's highly regime-controlled media cannot used as reliable source for protests against the regime and Khamenei. Obviously, the head of Iran's media is appointed and dismissed by Khamenei, and Iran's media is banned from saying anything that may seem even a bit against Khamenei or the regime, while it is forced to glorify Khamenei as much as possible. Although the incident was later verified by reliables sources, it still was originally reported by Iran regime member, and it still is WP:UNDUE.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It's ironic that you keep bringing up the same false points after having been refuted several times on this page. For the third time, Iranian media are not appointed by the Supreme Leader. Only IRIB is! And that Iranian media don't find excuse to criticize a wise charismatic leader doesn't mean that all officials and news media outlets are checking their daily statements with the SL's office! And the most ridiculous argument is that you still want to discredit Iranian media reporting even after they are reported by the so-called reliable sources too! I can't think of a more blatant example of WP:BIAS and contra WP:NPOV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose It seems a lot of detail to include when similar damage is likely happening all the time in larger cities. The article shouldn't be a news blotter, so simply noting damage to public property seems to cover the need. Seanbonner (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Seanbonner: Thanks for the comment, but consider that the unrest have settled down to a large degree, so probably no more items are going to be added. Also note that that these specific events of Dorud was covered by at least 3 major news agencies, let alone news websites! I completely agree with you that "the article shouldn't be a news blotter", that's why we're not going to cover every minor events. However, this inclusion is justified by the coverage and importance of it. --Mhhosseintalk07:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Support: The incident was covered by multiple news agencies and numerous news outlets showing its notability for inclusion. I think, the volume is just in accordance to the degree it was covered by the sources. Regarding other deaths, there's no such details for many other deaths, so the current version has due weight.Saff V. (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Support : This is important issue and has been mentioned in the several international reliable sources. However, too many details look unnecessary. My suggestion is something like this:Two other people died when protesters are said to have seized a fire engine and ran into a car.[47] Then, it would not be considered as UNDUE (@MrX and Seanbonner:)--Seyyed(t-c)13:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Support as per, lets see, common sense, it actually happened, it was reported by neutral third party sources, it was accepted by both the protesters and the government in social media, it is included in majority of other similar articles, it adds value to the article etc. etc. You know just your everyday benign reasons for inclusion. the argument that "its happening all over" beguiles me, how is something that is happening all over the country in major cities NOT included? Elektricity (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick straw poll: Should we include Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's arrrest in the lead?
Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
The lead is a little imbalanced toward the ideological aspects of the protests, in my opinion. I'm wondering what other editor's think about including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's arrest in the lead. It seems like a pretty significant development and it has been covered extensively in sources.
After reading some comments here and reviewing conflicting sources, I don't think we can verify that Ahmadinejad has been arrested at this point. Anytime sources like the NY Post, Breitbart, and The Daily Mail are breathlessly reporting something that blue chip sources are not, I'm extremely skeptical. I'm sure we will know more soon.- MrX21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
No! No! - First off what does it got to do with the protests? Second of all this news is unconfirmed and denied by several Iranian sources. It has to appear nowhere in the article! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC) [Update: Initial reports say that Ahmadinejad's attorney has categorically denied the news.[48]
Well, if President Obama were arrested for inciting unrest during a nationwide protest, it would be a huge deal. I'm not sure why the former president of Iran being arrested for his role in a protest is not also a huge deal. - MrX20:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, especially by a Trump administration who is looking for scapegoats in the democratic camp! Similar case with Rouhani who has been blaming everything on Ahmadinejad since his first day in office! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
YesNot Yet. Arrests of senior politicians, such as Ahmadinejad, should be mentioned in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC) While highly noteworthy - this all goes back to a single report in Al-Quds Al-Arabi (which is re-reported by several outlets). If and when we have second report - yes.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This is widely reported in WP:RS. Iranian Sputnik is not a RS. However, RSes are qualifying this - as reportedly (by Al-Quds Al-Arabi) arrested. So we should as well - and not use Wikipedia's voice until this is actually confirmed with reports beyond this.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
But again all that doesn't raise the news beyond the status of a rumor. We need to wait especially given the denial by Ahmadinejad's attorney that I linked above. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes Leopoldo López's arrest during the 2014 Venezuelan protests was a major aspect about the manifestations, these arrests should be included if confirmed.--Jamez42 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
No per @MrX: The source is not certain and says "It was revealed that former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have been arrested ". If it were an informed news, then we could add it to the lead.--Seyyed(t-c)13:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No There is only one source for this. Everyone is running with this through that source, and they state that he "may have been kept under house arrest", which in Iran means that a powerful figure is told to stay indoors. It is not like he is languishing in prison. IF we mention him, we should mention house arrest, not arrest, and WHEN we mention him, we should have at least 2-3 independent sources to confirm this. Too soon for the present. Elektricity (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"Pro-establishment"
Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion
As someone that hasn't edited in the article and is somewhat uninformed of the protests, why are the counter protests called "pro-establishment" instead of "pro-government" like in the Venezuelan protests? Does the anti-establish protests ask for broader reforms besides a change of government? --Jamez42 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The Gdn actually says "pro-government counter-protesters", while CNN has "Supporters of the government", I haven't checked the others. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Counter-protests/counter-protestors/counter-demonstrations sounds more neutral to my ears, but we also need to be clear about what those counter-protests consist of.- MrX19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I was the one who changed this to pro-establishment rallies because these rallies are not supporting the administration/government but are supporting the Islamic Republic in general specially as enshrined in the supreme leader. Hence most of the slogans being about the supreme leader, opposition to foreign influence, and opposition to violent unrest. Whereas there's little expression of support for the government of Rouhani. So these protests have to be properly called pro-establishment not pro-government. This distinction is well-established in Iranian politics. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. But journalists are free to publish in blogs, or even in cooperatives. In any case by objective standards - Freedom House Press: UK 2017, Freedom House Press: US 2017 the press is fairly free in most of the west, and journalists are free (at least presently) to insult and disparage our "supreme leaders" - to wit - Several have suggested various foul things regarding the mental faculties of Trump and they haven't been jailed, as of yet, for insulting the Supreme Leader - Freedom House Press: Iran 2017 - which would be an issue in Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe because you don't have leaders with the moral quality, wisdom and integrity of a charismatic revolutionary religious leader with millions of devout followers. Some might think that comparison with a hawkish sexually-decadent racist greedy businessman-turned leader is beyond ridiculous. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
All 3 use pro-government. I will replace "pro-establishment" since all RS use "pro-government". Some instances will be able to replace with "counter-protest", which is fine obviously, but it is not specific enough for many uses, as per MrX. (Sources that use "counter-protest" also use "pro-government"). zzz (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Signedzzz: All those sources that describe it as pro-government are inaccurate. The nature of the protests are totally verifiable by Iranian sources coverage. And you should not make changes before consensus is reached! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Even from western sources that mention the slogans (in support of the leader) it is evident that these are pro-establ. And you have Iranian sources confirming that. SO it is not much original research than a correct interpretation of the sources. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In this context, pro-gov and pro-estab are synonymous, but pro-gov is clearer and is the term used by the majority of sources. I'm not even sure what 'pro-estab' means EXCEPT pro-the-established-political-order (ie the Govt.). Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It could mean supporting the social order (of the great revolutionary Islamic republic) as opposed to just the regime - which might be why regime controlled media is preferring pro-establishment vs pro-government in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I didn't notice these recent exchanges. In Iranian political culture, there's a clear distinction between what they call the Islamic Establishment (primarily enshrined in the Constitution, the Supreme Leadership, the revolutionary legacy, the ideal of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and some of the organizations affiliated with the supreme leader) whereas the government/administration is considered as not so much integral to the establishment as is to the the political parties that win it. Hence, people in Iran can be (as often have been and are) quite supportive of the establishment but even radically opposed to the governments/administrations. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
There may be such a distinction in Iranian discourse, but unless RS are explicitly saying that the 'pro' camp are opposed to fundamental change, but support govt change, then the difference between the two terms simply fudges the issue. I'm sure that in both camps there are a range of opinions about what/whether change needs to be made, but the bottom line is that the two camps are broadly seeking or opposing major changes, economic, social or political. The 'pro/anti' govt terminology is simpler, clearer and is what is used by the majority of sources. It is often the case that the nuances of both sides don't become fully apparent until after the 'dust has settled'. It would be WP:OR for us to put an interpretation on the sources which they do not support. Pincrete (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
In more technical RS Western publications, one would use pro/anti-regime and not government to make clear that the opposition is to the regime as a whole and not just to the cabinet/government (which is subservient to the Supreme leader (who has direct control over some functions and indirect control over others) as well as the parallel council of guardians). However it seems that news reporting (which is what we use for contemporary events) has stuck to pro/anti-government. Saying establishment, on the other hand, is a NPOV violation (and is only used by Iranian regime controlled sources and possibly some external allies).Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Done - 
Monarchists[16]". I don't see any such consensus, or even a discussion other than your preceding comment. I don't really have an opinion about this content, but I do know that it was previously removed by Mhhossein. What is your basis for claiming that consensus has been reached?- MrX 00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done. Not sure what you're requesting. El_C 23:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Partly done - I kept two sentences, but restructured both for grammar and clarity. Let me know if I made it worse.- MrX 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Last_week_of_2017_in_Iran_towns.png){kind=link}
