Peter Dunkan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Greyshark09 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 336: | Line 336: | ||
: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.--[[User:Peter Dunkan|Peter Dunkan]] ([[User talk:Peter Dunkan|talk]]) 06:39, 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.--[[User:Peter Dunkan|Peter Dunkan]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with [[WP:POV|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).[[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 06:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:45, 4 January 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Tens of thousands" of protestors?
This claim doesn't have a source backing it up. No such figures in the given source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmdata (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8vNH0Giw3M "IRAN - 28 Dec. 2017: Thousand protest chanting “Death to Dictator”" Ethanbas (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Controversial claims
"several thousand-person crowds"!!! The source does not support the claim.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm removing the tag since I verified it vs. another source. This one claims "thousands", with 4000 in Tehran. Banedon (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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. --Mhhossein talk 15:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The article should be checked based on the reliable sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:21, 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.- MrX 19:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- The article should be checked based on the reliable sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- 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. --Mhhossein talk 15:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2017
'31 december': second paragraph, first line, 'outzsaid' should be 'out said' Stefan Verdorie (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done Karl.i.biased (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I presume they meant "outside" ... 50.0.121.95 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
POV problem of the lead
I'm tagging the article as the lead concentrates too much on the slogans, instead of being a summary of the whole article. --Mhhossein talk 07:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Fake:Blocking Internet access
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 that an internet service in Iran? 50.0.121.95 (talk) 11:08, 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)
- Telegram? Is that an internet service in Iran? 50.0.121.95 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Telegram (messaging service) is what they mean. – Athaenara ✉ 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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. --N
ightD 12:42, 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. [1] 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). [2][3][4][5][6]. Of course that doesn't permit us to say "Iran blocked internet access..." without qualification.- MrX 15:10, 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 - [7][8]
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)
- Besides this being an OR claim, per sources we see - [7][8]
- 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)
- 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)
@Sa.vakilian: That's fine that you live in Iran, and in your locale, you've not experienced disruption. WP:NOR applies here, and again, please re-read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @CosmicAdventure: I know the policies and just tried to add exact information. I used Icewhiz's suggestion. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:44, 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)
- @HistoryofIran: Here is not a forum.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:51, 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)
Sex segregation in Iran
Hijab is related to sex segregation in Iran.--2601:C4:C001:289E:8D3C:199:5C5:D176 (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
28 Cities in the lead
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.- MrX 13:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. As this event widens, mentioning each site is a bit too much.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with moving the list of cities to the "Background" section. However, the list shouldn't be deleted.--2601:C4:C001:289E:8D3C:199:5C5:D176 (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
International reactions
Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Jeremy Corbyn, and Federica Mogherini have all remained silent so far.[10]--2601:C4:C001:289E:8D3C:199:5C5:D176 (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Map of protests
Does anyone have an updated version of the map depicting locations of protests? Postermon1 13:32, 1 January 2018 (EST)
- VOA Farsi's map covers Dec. 31. --N
ightD 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You can also use the map in the box of the persian wikipedia...it's the first image of the article. Negarich (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Templates
I started a template on the protests. Right now it's broken and incomplete. I imagine it will have things like "timeline", "background", "people", "reactions". Feel free to edit it. Template:2017–18 Iranian protests Also, I'm trying to make this [11] into a module. Module:2017-18 Iran protests detailed map (Template:2017-18 Iran protests detailed map) --Monochrome_Monitor 19:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Edit- Module:Iranian insurgency detailed map suits the purpose of the latter.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi
@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. --NightD 19:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. He is not a leader in these protests.- MrX 20:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with that. Following your edit, I removed this, too. --Mhhossein talk 20:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Given that the demonstrators have been calling for the return to power of the crown prince, [12]
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)
- Given that the demonstrators have been calling for the return to power of the crown prince, [12]
He's not leading ,but he's a leading figure Gregorius deretius (talk) 21:54, 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.- MrX 22:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
About the monarchists' inclusion ,i believe that it's right,because there is reports of protesters chanting pahlavi's name , waving flags of the imperial state of iran and most protesters also have shown some simpathy to reza shah,the first emperor of iran . Here are the sources : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42529576 Gregorius deretius (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Correction : Reza shah was the first emperor of the pahlavi dinasty Gregorius deretius (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Gregorius deretius: In your last edit you claimed that "consensus has been reached" and you re-inserted "Monarchists[13]". 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)
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..- MrX 01:13, 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. --Mhhossein talk 06:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- nightdevil Is "Monarchists" in the infobox justified by RSs or per a consensus here? --Mhhossein talk 13:37, 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. --N
ightD 13:55, 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. --N
Unauthorized protests
These sources describe the demonstrations as "unauthorized":
- Iran’s leaders were confronted by unauthorized protests in major cities... (New York Times)
- ...added significance as a counterweight to the unauthorized economic protests. (La Times)
- ...for what was initially a scattered round of unauthorized protests in a country... (La Times)
- The rally Saturday came after two days of unauthorized demonstrations across the country. (Fox News)
- The demonstration comes after two consecutive days of unauthorized protests... (Haaretz)
- Unauthorized, spontaneous protests engulfed Iran’s major cities for a third straight day... (Slate)
The qualification "unauthorized" needs to be in the first line. --Mhhossein talk 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Most news sources are not placing this in their leads or at all in mainline reporting, eg [14]. 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! --Mhhossein talk 20:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nary a mention of this term in Reuters current front item [15]. 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)
- 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! --Mhhossein talk 20:48, 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)
- 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)
Semi protected edit request on January 1, 2018
'Background' : 'Causes' Last paragraph, last line, it states "do no not" when it means (and should be changed to) "do not" 74.88.66.164 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done - Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 23:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead
I have not participated in the current version lead of the lead[16], 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)
@Laughtermaster: Regarding your edits on the lead, please write your idea here. This will prohibit later edit war. Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:39, 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)
Initial protests organized by Hardliners
According to the Guardian initial protests were organized by Hardline clericsagainst moderate policies before it backfired. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/31/protesters-who-spread-fear-and-violence-will-be-confronted-says-iran
Can this be confirmed and added to the article?
UmdP 08:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
Infobox:Parties to the civil conflict
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Request for Comment started below: See #RfC: Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?- MrX 16:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018
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)
- Done --N
ightD 12:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
International Supporters of the protests should be added
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 sources explicitly saying that certain countries have provided support for the protesters, please refrain from adding names to the infobox. --N
ightD 13:31, 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. --N
ightD 14:06, 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.- MrX 14:18, 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. --N
- Unless you have reliable sources explicitly saying that certain countries have provided support for the protesters, please refrain from adding names to the infobox. --N
RfC: Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?
Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?
Previous discussions: #Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, #Infobox:Parties to the civil conflict
Indicate support and oppose, and your reasoning.- MrX 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose: per reasons mentioned above: 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 --N
ightD 17:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC) - Oppose:There is not any organized group as monarchist in Iran and we can not consider pro-monarchy people as monarchists.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - The arguments for not including this in the infobox are compelling. Neither cited source [23][24] explicitly says that monarchists are a party to the conflict. No doubt, there are monarchists who are protesters or who support the protestors, but that in itself does not establish monarchists as having a significant role in the protests.- MrX 17:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support: Not only the crown prince is supporting the protests but there are underground monarchists groups participating in the protests and since the late 90's,a pro-monarchist sentiment is growing in the country . The sentence 'monarchists' in the infobox does not refer to an single organization ,but to a group .So i support the inclusion Gregorius deretius (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strike All and WAIT. We don't know really who is behind this. Students and "Working class" should be struck as well (and it seems more complex than this - protest is out dispersed in smaller poorer cities). If the protest isn't crushed soon, we'll probably have a better handle on whose in on it in due time.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strike All and WAIT. I agree with Icewhiz. The sources behind students and working class is a bit vague. At the very least, the term monarchist should be removed. Here is a more updated source stating that protesters are generally workers under the age of 25.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughtermaster (talk • contribs) 19:46, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose this suggests a level of organization that doesn't seem supported by the bulk of reporting Chetsford (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strike All and WAIT Per Icewhiz. Going to remove "working classes" as well. Their sole mention to the exclusion of anyone else makes it seem like the protests are some kind of working class uprising. It's still yet to be shown that this is the case. Brustopher (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Casualties
@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."[25] 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.- MrX 17:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Name of the protests
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?
- Nothing of the sort. These protests were abrupt, unplanned and lack any central organization or clear ideological persuasion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Causes
| causes =
- Economic and financial issues
- Economic hardships[2]
- Government corruption[2]
- Rising unemployment[2]
- Adoption of harsh IMF regulations[3][4][5]
- Opposition to Iranian involvement in regional conflicts[2]
- Religious and human rights issues
- Resistance to compulsory hijab
- Opposition to the theocratic government[6]
- ^ correspondent, Saeed Kamali Dehghan Iran (2018-01-02). "Iran protests: how did they start and where are they heading?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2018-01-02.
- ^ a b c d Reuters (30 December 2017). "Protests over alleged corruption and rising prices spread to Tehran". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 29 December 2017. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
{{cite news}}
:|author=
has generic name (help); Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ آنا, خبرگزاری دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی -. "مهمترین اقدامات فوری دولت و مجلس برای پاسخ به مطالبات اقتصادی مردم درگفتوگو با ۷ اقتصاددان". خبرگزاری دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی - آنا (in Persian). Archived from the original on 31 December 2017. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ 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.
- ^ "شباهتهای اعتراضات خیابانی به گرانیها در دو دهه 70 و 90". نود اقتصادی (in Persian). Retrieved 31 December 2017.
- ^ CNN, Phil Gast and Dakin Andone,. "Here's why the Iran protests are significant". CNN. Retrieved 2018-01-02.
{{cite news}}
:|last=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The above was much clearer than the current version. --2601:C4:C001:289E:C78:5B5B:B2:7A3A (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
IMF sources
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_C 00:38, 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. - MrX 00:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- The close and comments in this RfC about using Iranian media sources is probably relevant here. There should be at the very least a degree of suspicion about using any sources subject to Iranian press laws. --Brustopher (talk) 01:08, 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_C 02:02, 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)
- 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_C 02:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- The close and comments in this RfC about using Iranian media sources is probably relevant here. There should be at the very least a degree of suspicion about using any sources subject to Iranian press laws. --Brustopher (talk) 01:08, 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)
- There are some critics by the non-governmental analysts against the current administration economic policies: [27], [28]--Seyyed(t-c) 07:54, 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)
- 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?
- Karl.i.biased (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- 1) There's no consensus here.
- 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_C 23:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Iranians protest 2017-18 based on the province.jpg
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
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.[29] 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_Monitor 13:00, 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?
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_Monitor 15:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Dubious slogans as anecdotal evidence
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.- MrX 17:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
End of Protests
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)
- The dating was fixed. Editorial error. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- My sources also don't say it is completely over. But it's just about over. But I didn't know how to reflect that in the subsect title. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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. [30].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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. [30].Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests?
Should the infobox list the adoption of harsh IMF regulations as a cause of the protests?
Proposed content and sources
|
---|
References
|
- MrX 23:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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 [31][32][33] for the inclusion of this, and now also a paragraph[34] 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_C 23:59, 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_C 03:45, 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)
Translating non-English source titles to English
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_C 05:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. We'll do so in my first chance. Now I'm leaving. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
pro-establ. rallies removal
@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)