Talk:2017–2018 Iranian protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposal: Move the section "Expert analyses" from "Background" (moved by Elektricity to middle ground)

Interrupts the article to insert POV between Background and Timeline. Gives WP:UNDUE prominence to a small number of Iranian commentators.

• Support move [1] zzz (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Reactions does not have the same meaning with "Expert analyses". Even if, we want to move it to somewhere else, the reactions is not a correct one.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Sa.vakilian would you agree with moving it to either after or before "Reactions"? Please clarify what you are opposing.zzz (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Move. And I'll add - most of these so called "expert analyses" should be struck as WP:UNDUE being reported only in regime controlled, non-free, and highly biased Iranian media. We already amply represent the regime's direct position - we should not over represent "approved opinions" in the regime's approved and controlled media. We should stick to true experts, not under regime control, that might have insight on the motivations and causes here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please drop once and for all this senseless "regime-controlled" rhetoric. Step a little out of your narrow Eurocentric world and get some sense of post-modern humility before Eastern cultures and their unique social systems. Not all nations have to form their society according to your liberal dogmas. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Move More neutral and standard phrasing for notable comentators. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Also I think present position does NOT make sense, Background -events - reactions makes MORE sense. Pincrete (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not sure we should categorize all of these pundits and scholars as "experts". As a general rule, I think it's best not to include opinions or analysis unless it has been widely cited (2-3 sources). That way, we know that editors are not simply picking commentary favorable to their own viewpoints. in other words, WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 15:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete and MrX: I meant to say, "move the entire section further down the article". (Which I tried to do earlier [2]) Sorry that wasn't clear! I agree they should not be called "experts", though. And I am in favour of deleting them entirely. zzz (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking we could make it a subsection of Reactions, but let's see what others think. I think the heading should simply be changed to Analysis (or Analyses).- MrX 16:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

These are not mere "reactions!" These are expert analyses and have to be given even higher prominence than the journalistic ones! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

They're are not mere reactions, but they are reactions. No, they do not need to be given higher prominence, especially with only one source each. Again, WP:DUEWEIGHT is one of the tools we use to make sure that we are covering subjects from a neutral point of view.- MrX 19:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not reactions. "Reaction" usually describe political positions but these are academic analyses. And there are many similar views by Iranian analysts inside Iran. This page covers only three . Btw, these are very notable Iranians especially Tavakoli and Zibakalam and they also happen to be on opposite camps hence WP:NPOV honored. Moreover we should be wary of the general anti-establishment bias of Western corporate media again Iran and work to lower WP:BIAS. We don't want this article to include only foreigners. This is after all about Iran and there have been Western analysts that have already criticized disproportional weight given to this event in the West. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We already include the regime position. We should definitely include the positions of notable Iranians who are in exile outside of Iran and are able to speak freely.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose These are reputable academics with nuanced critical understanding of Iranian politics. You don't want to exclude Iranian academics and pundits from an incident that concerns their own country! Plus you don't want to exacerbate WP:BIAS of only covering what the Westerners think about this Iranian development while their analyses hardly show any nuance, discernment and distinction but broad generalizations and sweeping indictment of the entire clerical establishment! I believe we need even more analyses by Iranian academics. This page has already given too much weight to secular Western commentators and their stereotypical understanding of Iranian politics. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support No such thing as freedom of speech and freedom of press in the country, therefor sources from the country (which are under the regime's control, as Icewhiz said) should not be trusted. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Note I think I should also remind WP:NOTDEMOCRACY! We should not view these surveys as a voting ceremony! But we are conducting a policy-based discussion and what ultimately matters is the substance of arguments not the number of those who support or oppose which means commentators have to respond to counter arguments. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• BOLD edit acting per WP:BOLD I have moved the section to a more appropriate place and renamed it academic opinion, because that is what it is, "opinion". Elektricity (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elektricity: You shouldn't have before reaching actual consensus. Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy where only votes matter. Supporters must respond to counter arguments. Nobody has responded to counter arguments until now. Btw, even many of what the other sources have said are either opinion or POV. And like I have said, experts and academics should be given greater weight due to their expertise. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light there is overwhelming consensus that this doesn't belong where it was. Many are opposed to including it int he reaction as well. I have provided the best middle ground possible. Instead of a muddled up reaction section, we have a new section, and instead of a muddled up timeline we have a good flow in the article. Both sides should be happy with this middle ground. I have added back the reliably sourced material as well. Let's leave this formatting discussion and close it,s o we can move forward on actually editing the text of the article. Elektricity (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your good-faith but I'm afraid the compromise comes on a poor ground. But I shall wait to see if others who are opposed agree with the compromise or not. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the opinions in this POV sections are UNDUE - and there is no particular reason to separate them from other reactions if we retain them.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz I think placing the section right before the reactions is a middle ground, perhaps you would reconsider your position, given that I have made efforts to balance this section as well. Elektricity (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your location and title is better'. The contents should be redacted - as there are several UNDUE opinions there. Maybe re-title to analysis or opinions - without academic - as we might add non-academic opinions (e.g. various experts that are not academics yet not government) and "academic" is a bit of puffery here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz how about "Analysts' Opinions"? Elektricity (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - edited it in.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is now locked, but the title could easily be simply 'Analysis', or if present title is kept, 'Opinions' should be lower case. Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

financial empire

What does this mean ? Khamenei controls a financial empire that was worth at least $95 billion in 2013 Source is NYT, which I cannot read (££). Is this the Iranian GNP, the Govt budget or some kind of private fund? The text should make clear what the sum is plus in what sense he controls it. Pincrete (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the source has been slightly misrepresented:

"A better way of describing Iran’s dictatorship is as a kleptotheocracy, driven by impulses that are by turns doctrinal and venal. Note how quickly the provincial protesters turned their sights on the supreme leader: Maybe it’s because they know better than most how thoroughly he’s fleecing them. As Steve Stecklow and his colleagues at Reuters reported in 2013, a supposedly charitable foundation controlled by Khamenei, known as Setad, had assets worth an estimated $95 billion."
— The New York Times

Here is the Reuters article cited by the Times.- MrX 03:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As in many similar regimes, the leader has quite a bit of wealth siphoned off to his, and family members, name.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

These are not the leader's personal property. He and his family live such a modest life that you can't even begin to imagine! The man has actually banned his sons from engaging in business. And these properties have been administrated by the supreme leader as part of the law. According to Shia Jurisprudence properties that have been abandoned or don't have a private owner will go under administration of a Shia jurist who will spend those properties according to the Sharia injunctions (charity work, religious seminaries and ministry) etc. Even some of his critiques have admitted that the man's financial record is fully sound and healthy. A famous example is statements by the expat. Ataollah Mohajerani who once admitted publicly that Khamenei's financial record doesn't even have a grey spot. ( I can provide word by word translation of that lecture). And even Reuters admits that they "found no evidence that Khamenei is tapping Setad to enrich himself" However I don't deny that on the bureaucratic operational levels there might have been sporadic cases of illegal exchanges such as one that articles mentioned at the bottom. So such allegations of "owning a financial empire" have to been taken critically. The protestors' also never pointed to this issue in their slogans as far as I know. So that article seems to be only trying to induce their own political agenda against the Islamic Republic. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If he lives a modest life then I must be living like a homeless. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

a) the phrasing is currently so vague as to be almost meaningless ... b) what bearing does it have on the protests? Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Don't speak for everyone! Do you have sources for what you say? Btw, WP:BLP applies to talkpages too. Violating it may invite sanctions on your account. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and HistoryofIran: Your interpretation is wrong. This not his own money but the money belongs to the office of the supreme leader and does not inherited to his family.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Everbody appears to agree that whatever this money is, it has no direct relation to the protests. Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We need stronger sourcing connecting the two. There has been some connections by the media, e.g. - CNN "And the nuclear deal has done little to improve the economic realities that ordinary Iranians face, with sanctions relief mostly benefiting state firms and the Supreme Leader Khamenei's own private financial empire.".Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And Reuters article I quoted above negates just that! As well the statement by Ataollah Mohajerani I linked. Persian editors can confirm my translation. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed this whole part for lack of consensus! BY THE WAY! I didn't know Bret Stephens is a Neocons Zionist hawk! No wonder he can draw non-existing links between things as he remained an advocate of the Iraq war even after the no-WMD scandal! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually - this was published in the New York Times this week. Bret Stephens should be included.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Published by New York times, but the author is a hawkish pro-Israel partisan and is making a highly contentious case here. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It was also covered in a secondary fashion by the New York Post - New York Post, as well as being syndicated fairly widely - e.g. Bisbane Times and Seattle Times. So - definitely more DUE than other opinions that are currently in there. Editor opinions on Stephens are irrelevant. What is relevant is what RSes have picked this up.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not editors' opinion. It's right there in his page. And New York Post is the worst corroboration you could pick. It is owned by the notorious Zionist magnate, Ruport Murdoch, and known for its history sensationalist, biased and inaccurate reproting, as has been the case with several other Ruport Murdoch's subsidiaries such as the scandalous News of the World --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick point: Murdoch has made a number of quite anti-Israel comments, and he's even been known to be fairly anti-Semitic. He's not a Zionist in the way you mean it. I get your points regarding his history with sensationalist reporting, but different newspapers have different standards, even within his own empire. Some are more trustworthy than others. Stui (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Murdoch is know for having close relations with BB Nethanyahu and he's been granted investment along with Rothschilds in the Golan Height's gas [3] and there are even suggestions that they've been behind the agitation for regime change in Syria and support for the Anti-Assad rebels. Very meaningful that the corrupt Murdoch's empire is picking on these exaggerated anti-Iranian claims of "financial empire" --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request2 on 9 January 2018

Please update number of arrest in lede (currently 1,000) and infobox (currently 2,024) to 3,700. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)

References

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A lot of critical analyses on US/Israel/KSA support for the unrest

• Why Saudi Arabia’s crown prince should be worried about Iran’s protests [4]
• Trump rails against Iran over its human rights record. But he spares allies. [5]
• Iran’s regional enemies watch unrest, searching for leverage [6]
• Iran's enemies would be wise not to wish for regime change [7]
• This POV by Iran's top persecutor is also worth mention: Iran prosecutor blames CIA, Israel, Saudi for protests [8]
• Enemy triangle created recent unrest in Iran: Ayatollah Khamenei [9]
• IRGC Praises Law Enforcement for Ending Riots Created by US, UK, Israel [10]
• Why is Trump’s man in Iran, Michael D’Andrea, missing from conversations about the protests? [CIA role] [11]
• Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand What’s Happening in Iran [12]
• Glenn Greenwald on Iran Protests: Trump Tweets “Time for Change” While Backing Dictators Worldwide [13]
• Don’t Get Too Excited About the Protests in Iran [14]
• Former CIA Chief Slams Trump for Derailing 'Peaceful Political Reform' in Iran [15]

[More critical sources on foreign support added to the list, from diverse groups] --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much sourcing for support - aside for the Iranian regime blaming external enemies and some of the parties mentioned above offering moral support to the protesters - words of encouragement. Obviously all of the regional players are watching what is transpiring in Iran - but as of yet - we don't have sources covering them doing much beyond saying a few words.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

These verbal diplomatic supports may be an indication of something much bigger. Read this intriguing "sinister" analysis by Robert Fisk! Sounds very real! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to oppose any inclusions that give this as fact. We can, and should mention that the Iranian government has blamed them for the uprising, followed by statements from protestors confirming or denying this. Iranian government blames (These guys), however the (protesters) have stated that thier struggle/protest is against (these guys) Elektricity (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

But the verbal support is undeniable. It's already there in the International reactions section. And the allegations of material support has been reflected by Western media too. So we are having a fact, a pov, as well as critical analyses of the fact and the pov by analysts. All should be given their due weight in a separate section I believe. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed this [16] which Expectant of Light keeps adding. As I stated, the subject is covered already by comments from Iranian officials throughout the article. Adding a section that implies the objective reality of foreign support is unacceptable. zzz (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We add the section because several RSs in addition to Iranian officials have pointed out and criticized the foreign support. They are linked above. And there is a very substantial allegation of CIA conspiracy raised by two sources and we've just had Iran's Mohsen Rezai revealing more information about it. And btw the comments by Iran's FM, Zarif, and prosecutor chief Montazeri were not covered anywhere else in the page. So your insistence on removal despite being informed about this discussion and despite my edit descriptions was not reasonable at all. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Are you a "person of high office, such as a monarch, earl, or pope"? And no, there is no "substantial allegation" that the protests are the work of the US + UK. And this "discussion" consists of people telling you that, so stop claiming it's anything else. zzz (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:Be nice! So far you are the only one objecting and there has been a summary agreement before you. As for the substantial allegation I have at least provided three sources. You can't pretend you didn't notice them! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"the only one objecting"... except that of the three editors responding in this section, all three have objected. zzz (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Elektricity implied he doesn't oppose including it as a POV. And Icewhiz didn't respond to my response. And nobody is any longer responding. @Elektricity and Icewhiz: I ping them to have their words in case they have more words. I also welcome others watching commenting. We have several RSs with critical POVs on foreign support. Some already mentioned above. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing concrete here. We have the regime saying foreign enemies are behind this (heck - I added IRGC saying so again today with this diff). Other than that we have some media speculation that foreign players may be involved (and surely there is speculation to be had) - but not much beyond speculation. The Fisk piece you pointed out is again nothing but speculation. And a few words of support. Would I be surprised if the CIA / Mossad / GIP / MEK were involved (either from the get go, or at a later or even future stage (e.g. supplying arms to rebels)? Nope, I wouldn't. Do we have any RS backing this up at the moment? Nope. All we really have is some, and not that much, speculation that maybe some foreign power is involved - and the Iranian regime who is keen to blame foreign power as well as generally discredited/vilified local factions (e.g. MEK and the monarchists).Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

But it's not our job to ascertain the substance of claims. What concerns us is that there are several POVs and analyses on this claim thus warranting inclusion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not have any RS backing up this claim made by the regime. We do have a few opinion pieces mentioning this as a possibility and not much else. We definitely can't say anything in Wikipedia's voice and I don't see any opinion that would clearly pass UNDUE (and even those opinions I do see, that are not Iranian, are fairly guarded and reserved).Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning what Iranian official have said on this with some detail is not definitely undue for they are among the most relevant parties to this incident. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We already cover in the article various sayings of Iranian officials on this matter.Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't cover all and I believe they warrant a separate section that deals with the whole notion of foreign support both made by Iranian officials as well as those by foreign analysts. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: More critical sources on foreign support added to the list, from diverse groups --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Spanish article

The Spanish article of the protests was removed from the front page because it was outdated. Since in English there is a lot more information about the timeline, if someone is interested in translating it I'd be happy to help out, as well as with the proofreading.--Jamez42 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Large scale changes by User:Signedzzz

@User:Signedzzz let's talk about your changes here. As they are quite large scale, please discuss one paragraph at a time. Elektricity (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk, ok: first, what did your revert achieve, in terms of article improvement? zzz (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Signedzzz We are discussing the changes that you want in the article, not editor behavior. You should say "My changes improve the article (like this) and (this)".It is you who wanted the change, not me. So you need to get some sort of consensus for it. Lets try again.Elektricity (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a new article about a current event. Large changes are to be expected. Some of zzz's changes seem to me like an improvement. What are you objecting to specifically? Objecting to large changes is OK for a GA-class article or a B-class article that has been stable for years - it is not a valid reversion rationale for an article such as this one.Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Are these the 'major changes'?. My initial reaction is that neither editor should have edit-warred so as to get the article locked. Pincrete (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I did one (1) revert. [17] zzz (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, my main point wasn't to cast blame, but rather to establish what was being discussed. Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I probably should have left it for someone else. However it was clear that User:Elektricity hadn't read what he was reverting. User_talk:Elektricity#January_2018_reverts It seems he has a habit of being a self-appointed Wiki-police, after all of 300 edits. zzz (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@zzz we are all "self appointed police" as we all contribute to create wikipedia. This Talkpage is here so we can discuss the article, if you want to discuss my behavior, you are free to contact an admin. Moving on, I have some concerns about your changes, which I will outline below. Lets discuss them here during the protection period. I am sure we will be able to come up with a version which is acceptable by all. The first thing is that your text "The US and analysts studying Iran believe that hard-liners started the protests as a means to embarrass Rouhani." is a generalization. Which "analysts" are these? Are all of them of the same view? If not why the blanket statement? If there is dissent how do we find balance? Which analyst is better? So why create more chaos? This is my first concern. Then you quoted AP and added Rouhani had been complaining about government money going to religious institutions, which are seen as the power-base of the hard-liners, for several weeks prior to the protests. But here again you took a few words out of the complete sentence. The complete sentence was Weeks before the protests, Rouhani publicly complained that large parts of the government budget went to religious institutions, largely seen as power bases of the hard-liners, seeking to deflect blame over the economy. You did not mention the last part. I have left a number of edit summaries in my reverts that editors who cannot be bothered to read the complete story should perhaps edit in a less controversial article, where blunders like this are not liable to be misconstrued. Let us talk about these two and then move on to the next edits. Pincrete and Icewhiz your input will be helpful as well. Elektricity (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The claim that the protests were started by hardliners (even possibly Ahmadinejad who was even allegedly arrested) - and then got out of hand - does have some legs as it was fairly widely reported. I think this should be in - with proper attribution (though in this case, I've seen these repeated by many sources - I don't think this is a single analyst opinion).Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz How about attributing this to a couple of Third party RS (not published from UAE etc.) and then giving dissenting opinions? I for one am not comfortable with the blanket statement. And the official stand of US remains "nebulous" at best, so I am not sure we should include it in clear cut words. your thoughts? Elektricity (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The US position seems generally supportive of the protests - but at this point mostly rhetorical and not anything material (at least overtly). Regarding the hard-liners "starting it" - AP [18] rolls with Both the U.S. and analysts studying Iran say hard-liners initially fomented the economic protests to put pressure on Rouhani but quickly lost control of them.. VOA said this a few days ago in some detail - [19]. in REFL - [20] they attribute this to Naysan Rafati "Some hard-liners welcomed the initial protests, but what they may have hoped would serve their factional interests in the short term appears to have unleashed more fundamental grievances that go much deeper," says Naysan Rafati, an analyst at the International Crisis Group.. Here too they tie the first protest in Mashad to hardliners - [21]. In this New York Times piece from 29.12 - [22] they also address this claim at some length. I think we can fairly say this speculation has been widely repeated - which is why AP from yesterday didn't even bother trying to attribute it (and going through this at the present - I'm not really sure who started this speculation, but I do see it repeated quite a bit).Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz I still do not find enough to warrant the blanket statement "hard-liners started the protests as a means to embarrass Rouhani". Yes there is speculation that the protests may have started out in a hardliner city, but this is a matter of opinion, we cannot state one opinion and remove all others. If we are going to give space to opinions I think we should give balanced opinion like this "According to some analysts such as (name) and (name) the protests may have been triggered by hardliners, but others such as (name) and (name) say that (they were instigated by economic unrest/started by the middle class youth suffering from economic hardships under Rouhani/ *anything you may want to attribute)" and we should just remove US for now. Elektricity (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This might be a case of "all of the above are correct". We should attribute this as an opinion (note - no one thinks the hardliners intended this to "blow up" as it did) regarding what initially started this out. I agree it shouldn't be in Wiki's voice (however zzz did add this qualified - it shouldn't have been blanket reverted by rather tagged with, perhaps, a "who" tag).Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz This is just one concern, there are more on almost every line. If we agree to attributing and providing dissenting opinions, we can move on to the next line. We can create the actual text of both together. Elektricity (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Elektricity, I haven't had time to 'chip in' on this, but I shared some of your concerns about the 'some analysts .... started by hardliners, but got out of control' text. AFAI can see this is very much speculation and diificult to trace to any ultimate source ... although picked up by a number of sources, it has a slight 'chinese whispers' feel. That the speculation has been repeated makes it notable, but I cannot see how much weight to give it, nor exactly what text is supported by RS. Pincrete (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus: Can Iranian regime-controlled sources be used for this article?

There are many reliable sources that correctly say Iran does not have free media. I believe 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. The head of Iranian media is appointed and dismissed by Khamenei. I say remove incidents that are only covered by Iranian regime media, from this article.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Meaningless So long as you're trying to push your "dictator" rhetoric here, you're undermining your own neutrality. If you think Iran's SL is a dictator, there are others who don't. Just don't pretend your views is fact. The question of Iranian media has been already raised and discussed on this page. They are reliable at least for their positions. And since there's a wide range of views discussed in Iranian media and that there are internal rivalries between these media outlets, verifiable and non-verifiable news are usually distinguishable. And I already told you only the head of IRIB is appointed by the supreme leader. It is ridiculous to suggest that "Iranian media" can be lead by any one man! --Expectant of Light (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment We should pay attention to the WP policies and guidelines and 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..."."

Iran's media can not be compared to the Ba'athist Iraq regime's media or North Korean media. At present, the main source of the western media to cover the events such as the number of deaths are Iranian media. We should consider that not all of the Iranian media are controlled by the state, but there are media who are pro-reformists. In addition, Iran's state broadcasting organization which is controlled by the government has covered the protests since former Saturday. It is the best source to cover the state's viewpoint. Surprisingly, this time the Iran's state media viewpoint is more resonated in the western media, however, this article has use it only one time!--Seyyed(t-c) 05:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• CommentWhy we using US regime media for Afghan,Iraq War articles? When its clear most of MainStreamMedia supports US wars in MiddleEast.115.167.58.171 (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, most of the "mainstream media" in the West opposed the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Because the US "regime" allows a free press. That's why news wire services based in the West are considered reliable (AFP, AP, Reuters, etc) - because they are not controlled of influenced by state power. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This is irrelevant but Iraq was an exception because the case for war was so blatantly farcical. However the mainstream media did support almost every other war effort. Btw do have a look at Corporate media. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It's quite hilarious to have pro-regime trolls genuinely trying to defend the objectivity of state-run media in Iran (whether "reformist" or "conservative"). For any disinterested reader who is curious, I invite them to merely take a look at presstv.ir or Fars News, ISNA, etc, to see how reliable such sources are. Yes, they are marginally better than Ba'athist, and significantly better than North Korean or Turkmen, but still miles and miles away from being worthy of an encyclopedia! This is really not worthy of discussion. Journalists are jailed and executed in Iran, and there is no such thing as media independent of the state - for that you have to go to "opposition" outlets based overseas, like Radio Farda or BBC Persian. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you say of hazards of WP:BIAS? Are you suggesting that only non-Iranians have the authority to report on Iran not the domestic media? And what do you say about the fact all of these opposition media base most of their news on the domestic media? It takes too much to argue that domestic media have no reliability for developments unfolding under their nose. And like I have said times again only the IRIB is state-run. You'r conflating things! --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely everything you said there, is incorrect - and I'm sure you know it. BBC Persian and Radio Farda are staffed by Iranians. "Opposition" media have their own sources for news - they do not rely on state-run sources. IRIB is not the only state-run corp - ALL official, licensed media in Iran, from the tiniest newspaper like Reselat to the biggest News services like Press TV or Hispan TV, are state-run. You know this. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong. BBC and Radi Farda don't have sources inside Iran! So they have to rely on domestic sources for domestic news, of course, after doing their own cross-examination. IRIB and its subsidiaries are state-run which includes PressTV and Hispan TV. Resalat and other newspapers though are not state-run. And having official license for publishing is pretty much a universal norm, right? But having said all of this, I don't know how being state-run in and of itself discredit reliability. BBC of England is also state-run but that doesn't affect is reliability. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Pure obfuscation. I'm not going to bother to respond. Don't feed the trolls. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

As you wish! But remember next time you may have to respond but in ANI for violating WP:Be nice! --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You should much more worried about getting blocked for multiple 3RR violations over the past couple of days than worrying about supposed slights to your dignity from the above user, EoL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.61 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's a weird discussion: Thorough out the history of WP, ignoring some exceptions, sources had been assessed in a context with the portion to be added clearly presented. This discussion is not going anywhere for this reason! Btw, there should be a RFC if a specific content is disputed. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Iranian based sources are utterly unreliable for this topic, with the exception of stating the regime's position. Per Freedom House and Reporters without Borders - there is no freedom of press in Irand and journalists are routinely jailed for anything that whiffs as anti regime reporting.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: This looks really unfair that Iranian reporters and analysts would be censored. Your suggestion would lead to neglecting broad range of Iranian viewpoints, even if they were criticizing the government, because there the freedom of press is problematic in Iran!--Seyyed(t-c) 22:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be unfair that Iranian journalists are uder strict censorship in Iran, jailed for reporting the "wrong" way, and even occasionally executed for insulting the prophet (often in conjuction with a conviction of insulting the Supreme Leader which carries a jail sentence, not the death penalty). However fairness is besides the point. Press acting under strong state influence, as in Iran, is simply unreliable... In particular when reporting about anti-regime events.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This position is contentious. In Iran there's a law that has been in effect ever since the 1979 public referendum. Those who are found in breach of the law are therefore punished accordingly. You may not like the law as a secularist or an atheist just as do the radical Iranian secularists but after all it is the law and enjoys the support of the majority to this day. And the anti-blasphemy law is pretty much the norm in many Muslim countries. At the end of the day, it is the radical secularists in Iran who are often the subject of legal repression but they make up a minority. And there's a vast variation of views that fall between radical secularism and devout Islamic revolutionarism that according to your position have to be all ignored. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This position is not contentious outside of Iran. Cases such as the killing of Zahra Kazemi or the original (later reduced) death sentence to Adnan Hassanpour are well documented. In any event any critical outside view of Iran's press - e.g. Freedom House: Iran, Reporters without Borders, Iran: One of the world’s biggest prisons for journalists shows them to be under strict regime control - part of a wider trend of suppression of free speech - Amnesty International: Iran (which documents also lesser suppression against journalists - e.g. "In July, an appeal court sentenced journalist and blogger Mohammad Reza Fathi to 459 lashes on charges of “publishing lies” and “creating unease in the public mind” through his writings."). In fact, it would be contentious to say there is freedom of speech or press in modern Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

@Icewhiz: Apparently your hate of Iranian state controls media lead leads to such tag! ( tag non-notable bits from Iranian regime controlled media) The reference of first paragraph, Radio Farda, is not Iranian media at all! The reference of the second and fourth one, Shargh, is not a state control media! The third one, Tabnak, is a conservative but not regime controlled media! The "Iranian regime controlled media" has clear meaning. It means the media controlled by the regime. Thank for your attention. Therefor, I remove your tags.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was wrong to tag Radio Farda (though this is not a great source). Shargh and Tabnak are both published in Iran. All Iranian media published in Iran is under the regime's control or influence - per RSF and Freedom House. Journalists are routinely jailed (and occasionally worse) and are under direct and indirect influence. Sourcing opinions that appearing ONLY in Iranian media, which is under state control, is UNDUE. In addition there are possible BLP and reliability issues when using such a source.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

published in Iran does not mean "Iranian regime controlled media". If it were so, then they would not need to jail them. It means they can write something which lead to government's action. You see, we have never found a news which tells the government has punished a repoter of IRIB, because it is a state control media, however as you have mentioned above, there are many journalists who have published something, which the government dislikes. I do not ask you to be fair, just try to be rational. Your act against any Iranian source is completely a kind of censorship. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no freedom of the press in Iran - to think otherwise is laughable. That's why such sources need to be very carefully screened.104.169.18.61 (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary - it is the avoidance of the use of sources which are heavily censored. Per RSF Iran is one of the world's biggest prisons for journalists. The Iranian media publishes views that are acceptable to the Iranian regime (which does have a range of opinions within - from Rouhani "reformists" to IRGC hardliners - however all such positions within are approved by the Supreme Leader, and all support the existence of the theocratic, non-democratic regime) - publication of unacceptable views/news may lead to warnings/threats, jail, or as in the case of Zahra Kazemi to "according to the medical examiner was raped, tortured and killed by Iranian officials following her arrest in Iran". If we want to source inner-regime opinions and statements - Iranian media can be acceptable. If we want to source what is happening on the ground (facts) or opinions/views of anti-regime (or even ordinary Iranians) - it is not.Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-democratic based on whose standards? Yes, there are always journalists who clash with the establishment for harboring extreme secular anti-establishment views. And there have been cases of mistreating some reporters by the security employees. But these make up a fraction of thousands of journalists who work freely within the framework of law and constitution. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Journalists do indeed work "freely" as long they follow the regime's guidelines. Indeed, only a fraction of journalists are jailed - the rest, apparently, avoid publishing work that would get them jailed or "mistreating by the security employees" (and without euphemism - rape, tortured and killed at least in Zahra Kazemi's case). Regardless, we have significant RS stating that Iran's media is heavily censored and that freedom of the press does not exist - particularly in issues regarding regime stability and the Supreme leader (and some protesters, we should note, have been chanting "death to...").Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Zahra Kazemi's case was indeed a horrible one but rare. We can also name journalists that have been murdered by CIA or suspected to have been murdered by CIA but I don't know how that doesn't discredit the entire American media! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And as for "Journalists do indeed work "freely" as long they follow the regime's guidelines." The other way of saying this is "as long as they follow the law" which is the norm in every other country! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The norm in many other countries, and particularly those in which we consider the media to be a RS, is that journalists are able to speak freely and "insult" whomever they wish.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light that's just a really bad argument. Iran is considered an "authoritarian regime" by experts and has a press that is considered "not free" -- of course the "laws and norms" are different under an authoritarian regime than a free state like Germany, so following them is not "the same" in both cases. Your argument does not logically obtain itself, and as for American journalists murdered by the CIA any time recent enough to be relevant to coverage of these protests... ? --Calthinus (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

These indexes are ideologically biased. They are based on liberalist dogmas. Democracy is not a granted value or principle in any philosophy department. There are and have been philosophers who question democracy and favor other forms of government such as republicanism. And Iran is an Islamic Republic, that is, an Islamically moderated democracy under oversight of a virtuous charismatic leader who is himself monitored by a publicly elected body, Assembly of Experts. We can't rely on Western dogams to question a government structure that has emerged from a different civilization. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I should point out that they're not questioning a government structure; they're questioning whether Iranian media is a trustworthy source. Because of state suppression and the undue influence of the government on the media, they are not free journalists, so they cannot necessarily report accurately. That's the way journalism is in Iran. Stui (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no such a thing as state repression in Iran. These are just your POVs that you people are trying to push. Anyone who is loyal to the constitution can express his/her opinions in Iran without restriction and this already takes place in on a wide scale. And talk of "free journalism" is pretty much based on a liberal dogma. Scientists and philosophers are still debating whether there even is such a thing as freedom both in the philosophical and sociological sense. And there's already a literature on "corporate-controlled" mainstream media in the West. The very fact that these protests are given so much prominence while Bahrain's years of ceaseless crackdown on the Shia majority in the country, or Saudi's razing of an entire Shia neighborhood to the ground in Awamiyya don't even get a fraction of the coverage are good comparative examples of corporate interest influence in media coverage. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand, we have numerous independent sources confirming state suppression of the media in Iran, and on the other hand, we have a few lone voices saying that there isn't. I'm inclined to believe independent agencies rather than you. I've known Iranian ex-pats who state that they do not trust their media because they've witnessed raids on dissenting newspapers. I appreciate anecdotal evidence isn't everything, but it does reinforce the idea that newspapers are not free to criticize the government beyond certain narrow limits.

In this country, newspapers are free to publish what they want. Yes, there are some corporate controls, but anyone can blog without fear of reprisal, even if you have opinions that run counter to the wellbeing of society. Stui (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

They are not really free. Many critics of ISrael have been suppressed for example to this date. And politics and coporate interests do influence reporting even without you noticing. There are countless known examples. Just one Example! I propose not using anything critical of Iran from the corporate-controlled CNN. They've been widely covering the 2009 protests in Iran while suppressing reports of Bahrain crackdowns which is a close US ally. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If you read the article, CNN published it; I would guess that they're choosing not to endanger reporters in Bahrain by publishing it on CNNi – however it was shown in the States. Criticisms of Israel are not prevented by the government; there are many who are openly critical of Israeli policies (and I'm one of them!). Amnesty International isn't prevented from being critical of the Bahraini government, either. Neither is CNN (e.g., this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/10/opinions/wyden-mcgovern-bahrain-arms-sales/index.html). While I don't doubt that some practical decisions are sometimes made by major news organisations and there is always going to be bias, it's nowhere near the same level of state suppression. Stui (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a substantial issue. I can provide counter examples. So as you see it is difficult to make sweeping generalizations. Therefore, I argue again. As for Iran reporters are free to report anything within law. (This is at least what the law says). And admittedly there have been cases of abuse or undue restriction as with every other country. Icewhiz was citing the example of Zahra Kazemi. She was suspected of espionage and later died in custody which is sad and bad. But again Iranian media are still running articles on her death "freely." (After all, I am opposed to this unqualified employment of "free" which is a consequence of the simplistic liberal ideology. We humans are never fully, truly free. We can argue we are way more restricted than we think we are free especially considering the pernicious influence of the capitalist order on our lives.). --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Iranian press does seem to be, to a degree, "free" to publish somewhat sanitized descriptions (e.g. - not mention of rape in this piece you quoted) of incidents of suppression of journalists. However, one might argue that such publications (even when sanitized to a degree) serve as warnings signs to other jounralists, bloggers, dissidents who might consider doing the same. The occasional warning sign, such as Sina Dehghan (per [23] Prosecutors asked that Dehghan be sentenced to death for “insulting the prophet' as well as to 16 months in prison for 'insulting the supreme leader'. for instant messaging.... In any event - WP:RS clearly establish that the press in Iran is under severe censorship and regime guidance. The "freedom" to publish about suppression of journalists and other speech does not make the press free or uncensored. Most regimes who suppress the press attempt to reduce the need for violent suppression by overt (with various degrees of sanitation) or covert messaging.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have talked about ideological bias of these liberal institutions that report on "freedom of the press". As I have already explained, I don't think there's any such thing as "freedom of the press" anywhere in the world. There are all sorts of bias that affect the media around the world but these are not equally captured if any by the corporate-funded liberal institutions. Btw, as for your Dehghan's example that's very clear. According to the Islamic law, insulting the Prophet of Islam invites very severe punishments. So there's nothing arbitrary about this ruling. The prosecutors were simply applying the law. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:TEXTWALL. WOW. All your screaming about the bias of sources is irrelevant. WP:RS reigns supreme here. WP:TRUTH is a good read. Basically: "Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.". So, I'm going to remove this orange tag, if you have specific statements which are not supported by the ref, then tag those refs appropriately. If you don't believe a source is reliable, open up an RFC. If you disagree with what a reliable source has said, well, basically ... too bad. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not WP:TRUTH. We are evaluating the bias of the sources that make allegations against Iran. RSs can be biased according to Wiki guidelines. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and share that guideline here please. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 January 2018

Remove the mention of "leaders" of protesters in the infobox. The source does not mention any of the names given as leaders, nor have they been named elsewhere. At present this is merely OR. Elektricity (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. All we have is various claims (including by the regime - which has been basically blaming every bogeyman possible (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, MEK, Monarchists, and probably a few more) - See also discussion at Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#RfC: Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?. At this point, it is still unclear who is behind this and who is leading this - all we have is quite a bit of speculation.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Agreed. It could be spontaneous. It could be led. It could be anyone. At this stage, there isn't enough information from reliable sources to indicate who is leading the protests – if indeed anyone is. Stui (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely - This has been discussed before and IRGC is not an objective source. By the way, can we quit edit warring or start blocking the offenders? Having a padlock on a current events article is not a good outcome.- MrX 17:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - We can attribute it to IRGC but "leaders" is not an accurate description. Nobody is Iran is saying that the unrest didn't have domestic origins or it had a leader. Unemployment, increase in prices, political dissatisfaction etc are widely acknowledged to have been responsible. But the idea is that foreign enemies have been trying to direct, influence and infiltrate the course of the protests towards regime change. And this at least on the level of motivation has already been suggested by several foreign analysts. We were already discussing in Talk:2017-18 Iranian protests#A lot of critical analyses on US/Israel/KSA support for the unrest to include this idea. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but whose idea? Yours? Saying that Israel and the US are playing a special role in the protests is like saying Bush did 9/11, both silly. And the claim regarding the US and Israel are coming from Khamenei, what a surprise. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the section I linked at all? And what would be the problem with properly attributing these allegations to their sources without writing in Wikipedia voice? This is a standard Wikipedia practice per WP:NPOV. --Expectant of Light (talk)

@Expectant of Light there are no allegations that the "leaders" of the riots are these guys. Perhaps you can provide a source where it is clearly and unequivocally written that "Leaders of the riots are (USA/ISRAEL/MONARCHISTS/XXXX)"? If you cannot come up with a source that says this, there is no reason to argue further. Elektricity (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I already said it clearly there are no such leaders but there have been reported attempts at directing the protests towards regime change. IRGC, Iranian chief prosecutor and Iran's supreme leader are some sources that have alleged this. Robert Fisk has also proposed the idea. See the talk section I linked above for links. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because that IRGC chief and Kharmenei are both very reliable figures that we can trust. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal per Icewhiz, at the moment it is unclear if/who is 'leading' this. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Iran's flag was burned

@Jamez42: according online video (confirmed and published by Tasnim News Agency) Iran's flag had been burned during 2017–18 Iranian protests. So the security guard arrested offender based on this source 1 , 2, 3. In other hand this event faced with reactions of Iranian people and they blamed protesters who burn Iran's flag. 4. This burning hadn't been seen during 2009 Iranian Green Movement. It is the note that would be nominated in this page, what is the problem? Saff V. (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

As stated in my edition's summary, the main reason was WP:DUE. A single protester burning the flag and being arrested seems, at first sight, as an isolated incident. My question would be, has this happened in other protests? Is it more or less common for protesters to burn their country's flags? Have protest leaders promoted the burning of flags? Have other arrests been made because of this? I see that the Washington Post's source only quotes Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a "hard-line Iranian cleric". Have other persons expressed their disagreement? If not, this seems like an isolated statement again. I should also comment that there are editors that are concerned of the reliability of the Tasnim News Agency as a source. If other sources have confirmed the incident they should be included.--Jamez42 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason the flag got burned is because most Iranians do not view that as the 'real' Iranian flag. They view the Lion and Sun flag as the true flag of the country. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you conducted a survey? I don't think this move would be popular with even 5 percent of Iranians. The person must have been either a ardent monarchist or a Kurd separatist in either case a tiny minority in Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Burning of flag of every country is not insignificant issue that needs to give wight for underline its importance. ONE protester burned the flag or ten protesters did it, it doesn't matter! Every people in Iran blamed the protester who burn the flag by their demonstrations.I try to find more sources!Saff V. (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 January 2018 (3)

1. - The first paragraph in 'Background' section is Original Research and unsourced.
2. - The following material in is also original research. The source is old and has nothing to with the subject of the article.

"Since 1989, Ali Khamenei has ruled Iran as Supreme Leader, making him the second-longest serving head of state in the Middle East (after Oman's Sultan Qaboos), as well as the second-longest serving Iranian leader of the last century, after Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi."

Both of the above items should be removed. @El C: would you mind taking care of it? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein how is this WP:OR? I think we can source this to these , sources. I fail to understand how this falls under OR. Elektricity (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

...and I fail to understand how those sources can make a connection between those ORs and the subject of this article. Your sources even don't support the disputed context, let alone resolving the OR issue. FYI, see WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." In other words, how does those sources use the text as a background for the unrest. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The first para. is also misleading. It describes Iran's policy as "conservative and religious" whereas it could've very well described it as "revolutionary, anti-Imperialist, anti-capitalist" etc. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein Both sources give background of the current protests. We are talking about the inclusion of this text in the background of current riots. What sort of extra clarity is needed? Elektricity (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elektricity: Be specific plz. What parts of the disputed content are used by your suggested sources as a 'background' for this incident? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Expectant of Light comment, "Iran has followed a conservative, religious approach towards domestic and international affairs," among others, has no place in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

How does it not belong in the article, especially in the background section? Are you disputing that Iran is conservative or religious in their political system, or are you saying that "conservative, religious" is NPOV? There are reliable sources abound for this description i.e. "Unlike the U.S. system of governance, church and state are inexorably linked in modern-day Iran, and religious precepts form the backbone of Iran’s political structure." It could be described as "revolutionary, anti-Imperialist, anti-capitalist," but also as "anti-democratic, oppressive, and abusive of human rights" Seems to me that "conservative, religious" is a more neutral way to describe Iran. Abierma3 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

References

@ The CFR article has the byline "Who calls the shots in Iran on economic policy, security, and responding to domestic calls for reform? A look at the government's organization chart indicates how complicated the answer is." It is about the background of current riots and it has the words "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, is the second-longest-serving head of state in the Middle East". I think that is what the article says right? Elektricity (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Abierma3: Is "Since 1989, Ali Khamenei has ruled Iran as Supreme Leader, making him the second-longest serving head of state in the Middle East (after Oman's Sultan Qaboos), as well as the second-longest serving Iranian leader of the last century, after Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi" supported by CFR as a background material to this article? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose background info on the supreme leader, he whom protesters are chanting against (including "death to..."). Is present in several pieces of coverage on the topic in RS. This is definitely not OR.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per what Icewhiz said. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Reuters says The Supreme Leader is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and appoints the heads of the judiciary. Key ministers are selected with his agreement and he has the ultimate say on Iran’s foreign policy. By comparison, the president has little power. This is inaccurate. According to an official announcement by Iran's supreme leader's office, selection of three ministers, i.e. defense, foreign affairs and intelligence are coordinated with the supreme leader. And as for ministries of education, higher education and culture, while the supreme leader have certain general concerns for their policies, he doesn't interfere in selection of their ministers. So the idea that President has little power is very inaccurate. We can't therefore take the Reuters's article as fact but at best a POV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  Reuters is RS. Tasnim, IRGC's informal news agency operating in a country with severe censorship and suppression (per RSF and Freedom House), is not (though probably reliable for attributed supreme leader stmts). The supreme leader himself (or his office) is not a RS regarding the nature of the Iranian regime.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Reuters is RS but it is biased. And you are just regurgitating the same points that have been already refuted several times on this talkpage. As for Freedom House, it is a US-government funded organization therefore politically, financially and ideologically biased. Moreover, despite having little knowledge of Iranian internal politics, you continue with your sweeping claims of "regime control". Like I said, all media are controlled either by governments or corporations. And as for Tasnim. It only publishes what was originally published by Iran's supreme leader website. To the very least, SL's announcement passes as a POV reducing Reuters' statement to a POV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If Icewhiz has little knowledge of Iranian internal politics, then you must have none. I completely agree with him. I like how you call every reliable source you don't like (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) for biased, whilst seeing 'sources' such as Khamenei accusing the US/Israel of being behind the protests as completely reliable. Stop trying to push your own POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way - Reuters and Supreme Leader's statement do not in fact contradict one another. The defense ministry in Iran is responsible for funding/logistics/planning of the armed forces. The minister is, of late, a brigadier general (last 4 appointments - since 2005). The actual combat command of the forces is by the general staff - which is headed by a major general of late - and reports to the Supreme leader (who is the commander in chief, if you will, of the forces). The secDef in Iran is actually less important than the Chief of the General Staff which is somewhat anamolous. Overall command, however, of the forces resides in the Supreme Leader - which is actually paralleled by many presidential systems (with the Supreme Leader (not the Iranian president) akin to the president) - including the US, France, and many others (as you may see here - Commander-in-chief). As for Iranian politics - I am aware of quite a bit. There are indeed some inner nuances - however the difference between the Supreme Leader approved "reformists" and Supreme Leader approved "hard liners" are really two fairly close shades of grey - and while things are somewhat more complex than a straight up old-style dictatorship (but so was the Soviet system - post-Stalin at least) - quite a bit of power resides in the person of the SL with the rest being contained in a rather small inner-clique.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot see what is OR about this text, it's sourceable background info. Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Having been a political sciences MSc student and an avid observer of Iranian politics for the last 10 years, I believe I may know far more about Iranian politics than everyone else on this page. But regardless, as per WP:NPOV Wikipedia must include all significant POVs be their biased or non-biased. You probably need a better grasp of Wikipedia content policies. Definitely he views of Iran's top leaders have to be included for neutrality. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light: Well then you've wasted 10 years of your life, because you don't seem to have much knowledge in Iranian politics, you just say the same as every other Mullah supporter does. And no thanks, I know enough about its policies, perhaps you should read them yourself, since half of your posts are calling other sources biased whilst favouring a dictators words. When you're not doing that, you're attacking Icewhiz by making silly accusations of him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You are again in violation of BLP and WP:Be nice! Next time you will have to respond in ANI! Everyone could claim to know stuff but knowledge is demonstrated by citing facts and sound arguments not just letting out some disparaging words against a group of people or editors and then expecting everyone else to just accept your prejudice! --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The leader has also said he never interferes in executive affairs. He only sets the major directions which may or may not be honored and implemented by the parliament or the government. For example the leader was not optimistic about the nuclear deal and he only half-heatedly approved the talks and he was completely disappointed with the outcome as everybody now is in Iran including the president. He's been promoting his notion of economy of resistance which has not been taken seriously by the government despite pretensions. So governments have a lot of space for their own role. Governments also set and control the annual budget (by parliament approval) including that of the official state media giving them leverage to pressure the state-media to their own favor as well as many clerical organizations. They also set the central bank policies. Hence the government in Iran is far more powerful than in parliamentary systems which may sound ironic! --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per, well per wikipedia and google. If anyone else is going to open an RFC-like edit request, use the template to create two subsections for surveya nd threaded discussion. Elektricity (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: there is obviously no consensus to remove this content from the article. Next time please wait for consensus before using the {{editprotected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Do we need consensus for removing challenging and unsourced materials from the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein, this is not "unsourced" btw. Two , Reliable sources give this information while discussing current events. Elektricity (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You mus be kidding. Firstly, I see no source in at the moment for the first para. Secondly, does CFR mention Khameini's leadership period as a background for the incidents? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elektricity: I repeat the question; "does CFR mention Khameini's leadership period as a background for the incidents?" --Mhhossein ^talk 17:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support No need to go back so many decades, we have articles covering the history. The first paragraph is unnecessary. zzz (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

At some of editors here giving Wikipedia a bad name!

Looking from outside, I - and possibly many other people with minimal critical thinking - can clearly see that this article is heavily biased with an anti-Iranian Government tone! What happens here is pretty much what has been going on for years on the Syria War page in the Wikipedia... Lots of anti-Assad and anti-Iran rhetoric in here... Isn't this website supposed to be free?!? It looks like many of you are only replicating the mainstream media, pushing US-Israeli agenda. Do you seriously think that you'll change the ground situation by waging a Wikipedia war?!? ._. Many people - including some young boys in the US Army I know - already suspect their lives are being used for the benefit of the US-Israeli economical and political goals in the Middle East, and they're obviosly not going to waste their precious lives in the name of Israel. I laugh at your shameless and obscene attempt of changing people's minds! But I feel sad because you are giving Wikipedia a bad name as a very biased website! 189.81.56.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"At some editors her give Wikipedia a bad name" - the English language just got slaughtered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.61 (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It was not intentional, I just don't know how to edit my own posts here in this website and did not notice the misspellings when I pressed "publish". But why being so mean towards a new user like me? Who do you think you are to make fun of or lecture others on how proper english should be? Just for your info: I don't like to brag about it, but even though English is not my native language, I'm a PhD candidate and I'm sure I have spent more years studying than you did!... Now you just reminded me of the reasons I don't want to start posting here as an active user, it is because part of the Wikipedia community is somewhat too toxic to my taste, just like you were toxic. @ On topic: I can still see that some users keep on reverting any change that mentions the monarchists or People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran's involvements in those demonstrations! 2804:D47:2E37:4000:2D9E:16A7:C33F:A86C (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is due to Wikipedia's systemic bias and not much can be done about it. We can only try to balance things a little bit by using alternative reliable sources. --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think the article is so biased, as you described. However, you can register to improve the article based on policies and guidelines.--Seyyed(t-c) 22:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do think it is heavily biased and seeing the way some changes were made so quickly I can only think some of the editors are trying to push an agenda here, hiding crucial information from the casual reader (in a way to mislead people into thinking the protests are widespread and that there is no external meddling nor violent groups infiltrated in them!!!). Do you want one example? Early versions of the article mentioned monarchists and their role in those protests, but the last time I checked the info was removed... SO I ask you, do you consider The Telegraph a reliable source? Have a look at this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/06/perfect-storm-woes-led-iran-protests/ ! It clearly mentions the monarchists have an active role in the protests, so how come they're not listed as leaders? Google "People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran" on Google News search engine and you'll have a long list of recent news mentioned that organization and their active role in the prostests across Iran and elsewhere... Some sources also claim one of the reasons Iranian people are not so engaged this time (if compared to 2009~ protests) is that they prefer a known evil (current estabilishment) to an older known evil (American backed monarchy!). So why hiding it from the readers? 2804:D47:2E3E:7A00:2888:B59D:573:D1AB (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing: The way I see it, what some editors are trying to do here is to edit the article so that it looks like the government crackdown is aimed at peaceful protesters! It intentionally hides the fact that there are external organizations and countries meddling into it, promoting violence in a way to put the blame on the government/law enforcement if say they kill some "terrorists" who attempted against the lives of civilians or military personnel... The entire US (and allies) rhetoric on the matter revolves around Iran government being brutal, but we known that in fact some of those external organizations are listed as terrorists, and we know some of the so-called protesters were in fact infiltrated troublemakers, and those were the ones targeted by the Revolutionary Guard and security forces. So again I ask you, why isn't it mentioned? And why crucial info on this matter gets removed once posted by someone here? 2804:D47:2E3E:7A00:2888:B59D:573:D1AB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I kind agree. See this talk where we all already discussing the addition of various information/analyses about foreign support/influence. However MKO's support has to also to be mentioned somewhere. I will look into sources to see what exactly they have to say. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Re:"it (The Telegraph) clearly mentions the monarchists have an active role in the protests, so how come they're not listed as leaders?" Well what Telegraph says is "Exiled opposition groups, such as the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), which has limited but growing support inside Iran, and monarchists, have seized upon the moment and welcomed the protests. ... So it comes nowhere near saying they had an active role, nor that they led! Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I laugh at your shameless attempt at trying to change the ground situation by waging an edit war here in Wikipedia. Like many others here, you only see what you want to see... As per the very same article, let's read: "The PMOI, a formerly listed terrorist group which now operates largely out of France, has played a key role in organising major demonstrations in Iran since its inception in the 1960s. One of the PMOI’s activists in Tehran told the Telegraph that it was its aim to seize on the protests to call for the fall of the regime. “Calls were given on our Telegram channels a few days before the demonstrations,” said the activist, a 29-year-old engineering student who gave only the name Mohammed for fear of reprisal. “This is the group’s slogan: protest at any time, at any place. “We have helped come up with times and meeting places for people to gather,” Mohammed said in voice messages sent via Telegram. " 2804:D47:2EF0:B800:3DE9:DA8A:96A7:14FA (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

So as anyone can see, and unless you do not consider Telegraph a reliable source, there are some organizations behind the protests. They use an app called Telegram (a whatsapp of sorts) to share info among themselves and have organized a few days before the protests erupted. They went as far as setting up time and places for people to gather, so yeah, they do sound like leaders to me! 2804:D47:2EF0:B800:3DE9:DA8A:96A7:14FA (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to your point about Monarchists, now you want to change the discussion. Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL at you! Since the beginning my point is: There are external agents and organizations organizing the protests, be it monarchists or whatever name you call it they are the two sides of the same coin, AKA opposition groups who organized themselves with the support of the US-Israeli-Saudi Cabal... There's another news source clearly mentioning people inside Iran (in Tehran more precisely) do not want to engage this time because they know some of the demonstrators and linked to the old Shah/Monarchy regime and they do not want to change a known evil to another. So don't come here pretending there's no external meddling in this conflict! 2804:D47:2EF0:B800:64C0:31F7:5288:16F2 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?

There is a clear consensus against including monarchists in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict. There is also substantial significant for removing all parties to the civil conflict from the infobox.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 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 monarchists be included in the infobox as a party to the civil conflict?

Indicate support and oppose, and your reasoning.- MrX 16:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests/Archive 1#Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi
• Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests/Archive 1#Infobox:Parties to the civil conflict

---

• 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 --NightD 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 [24][25] 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)
  • That's either supposition or original research; none of the RS actually say that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:32, 11 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.— 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)
• Oppose. I had to go back a few edits to find the actual infobox that included this and it appears to be WP:UNDUE. Elektricity (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like all 'conclusion' (and 'categorisation') claims, all one can do and still remain factual is to cite the onclusion-maker as an author (and that claims's standing in the larger body of evidence)... an infobox's seeming authorative conclusive 'truthiness' is no place for that. TP ✎ ✓ 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strike All and WAIT. per Icewhiz and others.Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Remove all and wait (we don't strike-out text in articles). There's insufficient information at present. Even the sources that go vaguely near this are engaging in supposition, rumour, prediction, and reporting on announcements of what might happen and what they can't confirm.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:32, 11 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.

Current event

• Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei says that Iran has extinguished the unrest and has foiled attempts to turn legitimate protests into an insurgency to overthrow the Islamic Republic. He went on to identify the United States, Britain, Israel, the People's Mujahedin of Iran and "a wealthy government" in the Persian Gulf among Iran's foreign enemies. (Reuters) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakari07 (talk • contribs) 19:29, January 9, 2018 (UTC)

  I guess that could go under 'Reactions'.- MrX 20:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This has to be given greater weight. I recommend adding it to the lead. And Reuters's coverage is very minimal and defective. Iran's PressTV provides many more statements from that speech. [26] --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light, no, this should be included in the Reactions section, where the rest of Khamenei's statements are. You can source this to "Iran's PressTV" if you want, but this will get half a line at most. Elektricity (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This event was an intra-Iranian affair influenced from the outside. I'd rather cut the crap on foreign propaganda. Wakari07 (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be crap, but the regime's strategy, just about from the beginning - though initially not by Khamenei himself, was to cast the instigation here to a host of (known & obvious) external bogeymen as well as discredited internal/exiled forces (e.g. MEK, Pahlevi supporters). As well as to declare the protests as "over" (also when there was little merit to this claim). There's little to support this beyond the regime's statements and speculation (as these are the obvious bogeymen - yes - there has been external speculation). The regime has even taken the extra mile in a embracing the protesters as having initially legitimate grievances that were subverted by these "nefarious" external actors. So - this is bound to stay in (as the regime's claim, merits of the claim aside, have significance in terms of the regime's counter-protest strategy). What we are really missing is actual coverage of whomever was pushing this off initially inside of Iran (as well as whomever was allegedly possibly influencing/supporting them).Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

NBC says the protests "end" or "may have calmed". For me, those who "initially pushed it off" are likely either back at their jobs or jailed by the regime now... Wakari07 (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

People eventually talk. Or flee. Or are in jail and then flee. As for calm - we're in "wait and see" - as:

1. To a large extent the regime is blocking coverage of protests and declaring them over.
2. These things have a tendency to "flare up" again once the embers are smoldering - particularly in weekends with nice weather. See the commentary in NBC's piece (which is claiming calm - which is not a 100% thing now, more of a 80-90%) - ""The Iranian government dodged a bullet, thus far. Now it's a race against time for the government," said Holly Dagres, a Middle East analyst and curator of The Iranist newsletter. "Very real grievances remain and they will need to be addressed in real-world terms. If they don't, expect protests to flare up again and who knows what that will lead to."".Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What the supreme leader of the country has to say on this specifically Iranian event is of paramount importance! It is amazing that people here from the West try to enforce and exacerbate the already existing pernicious systemic bias by trying to diminish every Iranian view on this, I repeat, Iranian development! And yeah @Icewhiz: can still pretend this is just a paranoid projection by Iranian leaders despite US and Britain's checkered record of subversive interventions in our region and beyond as well as all the critical media analyses that already mention, examine or argue the notion of foreign support/interference! Time to get a little above your eurocentric prejudices! --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never said it was paranoid - in fact it is a perfectly rational strategy by the Iranian regime to blame various external forces. The regime claims themselves may be correct, incorrect, or partially correct (and the regime's strategy is rational regardless). What is lacking at the moment is WP:RS (as in non-regime controlled sources with credible sourcing who are not saying "according to ISNA/Tasnim/etc.") - pinning this on anyone specific.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

For the tenth time on this page! Your regime-controlled rhetoric is worn-out, meaningless, and biased. As per WP:NPOV we have to include statements by Iranian officials. Drop your senseless regime-controlled rhetoric once and for all. I have seen nobody harboring such an egregious bias against the Iranian government except probably Donald Trump! --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We should include statements from the supreme leader (or anyone else), if they are widely covered in sources. The political/government rank of the person is not really a factor in whether—or how, we write about it. I disagree with your earlier assertion that it has to be given greater weight. That's a little bit like an appeal to authority argument.- MrX 13:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 January 2018 (4)

The infobox currently says "at least 3 killed in custody". The Guardian source says in its header "At least three demonstrators believed to have been killed in custody" then later "Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent human rights lawyer, told the Guardian on the phone from Tehran that at least two other protesters had died in the jail … … "I spoke to a prisoner in Evin prison and I was told that three detainees had lost their lives,” Sotoudeh said".

I propose that the infobox text SHOULD say "at least 3 believed to have been killed in custody" There are other reports of deaths and 'suicides' in custody, but only one death seems to have been reliably confirmed. Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I'll note this is true also for deaths outside of custody (last number we have is a week+ old - the regime has stopped reporting this) and number of arrests (the regime did release a number today - so we can assume the actual number is greater or equal to the number released). Arrests, Killed in protests, and killed in custody all rely at the present mainly on regime releases (with perhaps some leaks), which are not reliable in these circumstances - but are probably a lower bound.Icewhiz (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  Note - Alarming Reports Of More Protesters Dying In Custody, Radio Farda, Iran: authorities must investigate five deaths in custody following protest crackdown, Amnesty International - reports from today put this at 5. 1 confirmed by regime currently.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to other suggestions as to phrasing, possibly "5 detainees reported to have been killed in custody, one two deaths have been confirmed." (using Amnesty phrasing and source). As you say this is a volatile 'rumour-y' situation and we will only have confirmation either from authorities or when the 'dust has settled'. Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.- MrX 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Official confirmation of two deaths in custody (one officially described as 'suicide'). I hope someone can update the edit request accordingly as I am offline all of Wed. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please specify exact wording and give source which verifies it. (I suspect you are trying to get too many details into the infobox - may be more suitable in prose.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Modified request

1) Infobox Replace current text "at least 3 killed in custody", with:

5 detainees reported to have died in custody

(Guardian source says "at least 3", but uses "killed", Amnesty International (and Radio Farda above) says 5 but says 'died' not 'killed', Reuters below includes official confirmation of two deaths, described as 'suicides').

2) At end of present Casualties section, add:

On January 9 2018, The Guardian and Amnesty reported that 3 detainees had died while in custody in Tehran's Evin Prison. Amnesty reported a further two detainees having died in custody in Arak and Dezfoul respectively. Iranian judiciary officials confirmed the Arak death and one Evin death, saying that the deaths were suicides.

References

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 January 2018

There is an referenced sentence in Pro-government rallies, "The pro-government demonstrations were orchestrated by the government, and many of those 4,000 attending were bused in and given the same or similar placards with Khamenei's photo on them." It either needs to be removed, a reference added to it, or add . CherryPie94 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Source: Iran Confronts 3rd Day of Protests, With Calls for Khamenei to Quit, New York Times, 30 Dec 2017. State television stations showed marchers carrying banners in support of Mr. Khamenei in Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city ... Typically, pro-government demonstrations are orchestrated by the state, and many of those attending are bused in.. Some text modification is due - e.g. adding a typically at the beginning.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Khamenei's Twitter response

"US Pres. expressed concerns. Do you have no shame? US police killed about 800 people in 1 year! US used any means possible to suppress people during the OWS movement. You've killed innocent people. You had false suspicions of a mother/w her child in the car & killed her!" Khamenei 9 Jan 2018

Can we add this?--2601:C4:C001:289E:9957:9065:F6EE:9381 (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what "mother/w her child in the car & killed her" incident Khamenei is referring to?--2601:C4:C001:289E:9957:9065:F6EE:9381 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The mother w/ her child is probably referring to Shooting of Philando Castile. While some of Khamenei's comments have merit, I'm not sure he understands that local police in the U.S. are not under the control of the federal government. If this is noteworthy commentary (cited by third part sources), I guess it could be added under reactions.- MrX 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking about adding it as a reference to the "2017–18 Iranian protests#Twitter" section.--2601:C4:C001:289E:9957:9065:F6EE:9381 (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Views of Ahmad Tavakkoli

As I said in my initial edit - while interesting and notable with regards to his own career and other populist/conservative views on Iran's economic situation - Tavakkoli's partisan opinions can't be taken as objective or particularly pertinent here. Illustrating the views of one particular politician is giving UNDUE WRIGHT in my opinion. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Tavakkoli is not really partisan. He has been basically critical of every Iranian administration after the revolution. In fact he is known for being a moderate and reserved politician and very principled person. A "principlist" in true sense. That was precisely the reason I added his analysis whereas I could've chosen many other Iranian politicians. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Every notable analysis, be it partisan or otherwise, covered by RSs can be here. We don't judge, we just assess the reliability! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And the source is Tabnak.ir - which is neither reliable nor notable. Including a quote from a random politician sourced to Tabnak.ir is Original Research. - ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The original source is Farsnews which is fairly reliable. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/28/world/iran-news-agency-duped/index.html

Yes, and there have been a handful of more follies by Farsnews. But Tavakkoli's interview is verifiable as are most of Farsnews reports. We may only treat contentious claims solely made by Fars with reservation. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Tavakkoli is WP:UNDUE. This has been published only in a regime controlled/influenced source.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Regime-controlled" nonsense has been already refuted on this talkpage several times. He definitely warrants inclusion as per WP:NPOV and notability. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Add the following under January 10 section: Hundreds of demonstrators extended their protests outside Iran’s Evin Prison. Iranian protesters were reported to be tortured, and family members were intimidated, according to their relatives.source--Peter Dunkan (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Background

@Calthinus: I noticed you reverted one of my edits. Did you pay attention to my description, i.e. "The source used here belongs to 2016, how can it explain the background for an incident happening in 2018?!"? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my revert. Of course it is applicable. It describes how long Khamenei has ruled. That is relevant. If you're going to say we can only use sources from 2018 for stuff that is background, not directly protests, then I'm sorry, that's an absurd requirement. This is relevant material for the page. --Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:OR: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." It's interesting that you think a 2016 source is directly related to this 2018 incident! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course I do. Most of the background section is probably based on sources that are not from 2018. For crying out loud, that is why it is called background, it sets the stage. Perhaps, by your logic, we should just delete the entire section? I'm terribly sorry but that is not a good argument.--Calthinus (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I made no argument, I just reminded you the policy. All materials which are supported by sources not directly related to the article topic are removed. I'll restore the tag unless you can express a policy-based comment supporting you. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You do "have arguments" and they are bad ones. Math is WP:NOTSYNTH anyways. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I said anything regarding WP:NOTSYNTH? I can't remember.... --Mhhossein ^talk 18:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes sir, you asked me for a policy. "Arithmetic" is not OR. But it doesn't matter anyways. We have a source. Your argument is that we can't use a 2016 source for a 2018 event. But the 2016 source is not used to cite anything about stuff that happened in 2018. Instead it cites the simple arithmetic reality: Khamenei's reign is the second longest. So your argument is incredibly misleading and not based in policy.--Calthinus (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

So, I did say nothing regarding WP:NOTSYNTH. You are missing the point, as far as I see. That ""Arithmetic" is not OR" does not apply here since we're not discussing an "Arithmetic-related" issue. Per WP:CALC " Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Which of the above is related to our discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You are harping on a tangent. A 2016 source was citing material that was not about 2018 so your entire argument is not valid.--Calthinus (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That's getting even funnier, since you are providing enough "argument" showing your revert was "not valid". --Mhhossein ^talk 19:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the 2016 source directly related to the topic, as the policy demands? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, as is reliably sourced on the page, a major feature of the protests have been calls for Khamenei to end his reign [[[[27]]]], the second longest. --Calthinus (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Another OR. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not OR. One could perhaps call SYNTH, but not for a background section. Not that finding a 2018 source for this would be difficult...Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed-- here's one [[28]]. But rather than replacing, I'd like to see how this one plays out on the OR noticeboard where Mhhossein started a thread. It will be interesting for future reference.--Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My two cents. I may say a bkg section is due but not by only relying on POV sources that mention Khamenei's long rule in a negative light. Khamenei is not a monarch and IRI is not a hereditary monarchy as in KSA or UK. The leader keeps the position so long as he is deemed qualified by the relevant legal body, Assembly of Experts. --Expectant of Light (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit against former consensus

@MSGJ: Please note that this edit is effectively against the consensus formed here in this discussion which was verified by an admin. Regards, --Mhhossein ^talk 19:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all there was no consensus, but a change was made by an admin who agreed to Mhhossein's proposal and edit request, and that change remains in the article to date. Secondly, I made that edit on 3 January 2018, and the admin gave his agreement to Mhhossein's proposal, and made the change on 4 January 2018.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Offshoot topic

On a related matter, we have the pictures in that section captioned 'pro-establishment rally' somehow. There was broad agreement that counter-demonstrations should be described as 'pro-government'. Pincrete (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that discussion and I've participated in that. That issue has nothing to do with this already discussed matter. I have told my opinion regarding "pro-government" dispute. This is an offshoot topic.--Mhhossein ^talk 19:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

‌‌ That these protests were pro-government is a blatant misattribution by Western "RSs"! There has been not a single slogan or picture in support of the administration neither in those reported by Iranian sources or Western. I think we should go by PressTV description which describes them for what they are: pro-establishment rallies. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No, PressTV is a government mouthpiece, and if it calls them "pro-establishment" thats bizarre because in modern English that phrase has become slightly pejorative. --Calthinus (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have restored 'pro-government', apart from this being a clearer and simpler term, it makes no sense to use the term 'pro-establishment' when it is nowhere explained or used in the text. Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

In English it has indeed become pejorative for it apparently used to refer to the non-elected self-interested ruling powers, i.e. the corporations that control both parties regardless of who is elected. But in Iran far from a pejorative it has a positive significance. It describes the ideological principles of IRI as enshrined in the constitution, the SL, etc. So again one should be avoid of imposing a Eurocentric view on this unique cultural domain. And that the IRI "mouthpiece" has it with accuracy rather than the Western RSs is just a further disservice to "the regime-controlled" argument. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 January 2018

MOS:BOLDAVOID: The title of the article is not used naturally in the first sentence. It should be changed to "A series of protests are occurring throughout Iran," or something to that effect without forcing use of the clunky phrase "2017–18 Iranian protests". Hameltion (talk, contribs) 04:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sam Sailor 22:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The protests have been quelled by now.

Just a thing, the protests have been long suppressed by the clerics and the Basij,so i do not think it should be listed as "Ongoing" by now. I request that the article is updated to reflect the protests have been suppressed and no concessions were handed, as no more news of violent protests are being reported. Not even the timeline is being updated, which means they fizzled out,so why is it still listed as "Ongoing"? 78.99.4.204 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We should probably update it, you're right. It was probably "ongoing" because due to some erhh... content conflicts... the page had been locked for many days.--Calthinus (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The main protests have been more or less quashed but videos of "civil disobediance" are still coming in and it seems methods have changed to things like labor strikes (going back to the regime-approved economic narrative).--Monochrome_Monitor 17:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems the street protests have, for the time being, died down. However there still are hundreds or possibly thousands in jails (some were released) and there is a chance this will flare up again. So - it's not a 100% call it is over - despite regime claims (made also when this was "live") that it is over.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I rephrased slightly such that it is no longer implied that they ARE continuing, nor that they have finished. Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Pincrete your fix looks good, thanks.--Calthinus (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As I have said here before on this page, unfortunately there's a strong bias favouring the US/Israel/Saudi Cabal in Wikipedia! The protests are obviously ongoing only in their hearts and minds... LOL Shame on them! Do you really think that using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to push your agenda will deceive young American boys and girls into fighting US/Israeli/Saudi wars in the middle east?!? 2804:D47:2EC0:8E00:4C84:6F6F:3BC:3394 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light, please sign in and sign your own name every time you post a comment. This is beyond obvious to be you. --Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not that user, you fool! I am an IP user who posted some days ago criticizing some of you Israeli-Saudi trolls who give a bad name to Wikipedia, and I also mentioned the reason I cannot be bothered to sign in is because the community here is, sadly, very toxic and unfriendly towards new participants. Thank you for proving my point: You cannot deny the fact that you are extremely biased against Iran so you resort to personal attacks! ;) 2804:D47:2EC5:BA00:911:8974:BD47:5CBF (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And by the way... The article still does not mention the active participation of the monarchists and some terrorists organizations, so having the protests' status marked as "ongoing" is the least of the problems here!2804:D47:2EC5:BA00:911:8974:BD47:5CBF (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And by the way the article DOES mention both monarchists and a claimed terrorist cell. Pincrete (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, whatever. Yes, you're a totally new participant, yet you've come to the conclusion after all of two posts that an entire community is "toxic"..... right, believable. I hope you're aware that soapboxing is not allowed on talkpages, and I will be removing any WP:FORUMesque posts that do not seem to be aimed at bettering the page. Calling users names and regurgitating conspiracy theories is not productive, and will not be tolerated any longer.--Calthinus (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 January 2018

There seems to be broad support -- and no explicit objection -- based on the above threads for removing the paragraph quoting the Iranian professor of international law, Ali Khorram, who blames the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia for the turning the protestors into "pawns" (his word). This sort of WP:FRINGEy conspiratorial speculation, by an academic whose field is not Iranian politics, is not WP:DUE for inclusion. Please remove it.--Calthinus (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, the later two thirds should go, (from the Trump/Tillerson rant). I'd defer to the opinions of others as to whether the opening (failure to learn economic lessons) is worth keeping- though similar points are made by the next para down. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

NN commentator in non RS. The whole thing should go.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ali Khorram is not notable per Wikipedia standards, his field is not Iranian politics, and the source is not reliable. It should be removed.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

His field is international law and international relations! Btw, "the pawn" is not a very accurate translation. And the man's views have been covered by notable sources in Iran. And being in addition a former diplomat he is definitely notable at least in Iran. And his statement regarding foreign intentions to instigate unrest are paralleled in many other sources. I have complied a list of these sources here so that we can dedicate a separate section to the foreign support debate in this page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesnt matter, his expertise is not Iranian politics and he is peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories while the rest of his quote just reproduced what the section already has (economic discontent). He must go. Also, your list is incredibly misleading. Where is any evidence of meaningful outside support, not just words? I see none.--Calthinus (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

What he says is simply parrotting the govt line - which we cover, or should. There might be a case for keeping some of what he says if it were a remotely distinct argument, but it isn't. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Several analysts, Iranian and non-Iranian, official and non-official, are postulating or giving weight to the idea of foreign support. It is strange that you suggest a global conspiracy by diverse groups to push the IRI view! Please take a look at the talk section that I linked before parroting the same tired narrative again and again and again! The fact that foreign powers have been pursuing regime change in this region is beyond dispute. Bin Salman for a random example has stated it very openly that they want to drag the regional conflict into Iranian borders. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Which source is covering his opinion? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

EoL, I dont know if youre being disingenuous but its starting to seem like it. Salman never says in that source that he is providing material support to the protesters. That is what "support" means. Not speculation based on vague past statements.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That all sorts of 'foreign' regimes would love to see the current regime fall is a given, that the Iranian govt blames those outside forces is predictable, but should be reported by us. But how many times do we need to repeat it? Some in the country imagine that 1000s of their fellow citizens are being manipulated by outside forces, it's a standard way to deflect criticism. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making a statement on the nature of the alleged foreign support, or to which degree they are factual/verifiable or not. I'm saying there are a lot of sources that discuss, examine or speculate about this idea, hence they warrant inclusion in the page. And btw, no Iranian official has argued that all or even a fraction of protestors are directly manipulated by foreigners. They admit protests have genuine domestic origins but the foreign enemies were diverting it towards riots and violence and Iranian intelligence actually claimed that they had dismantled a foreign-supported terrorist cell with a plan to bomb public places. And the telegram channel that was organizing these protests and encouraging violence is alleged by Iranian and some opposition sources to be linked to various foreign intelligence agencies such as KSA, Turkey and/or Mossad. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)