Jump to content

Talk:2017–2018 Iranian protests/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"Although Reuters found no evidence" -- WP:CHERRY

The article currently has this paragraph: Journalist, editor and political commentator Bret Stephens wrote that "real democracies don't live in fear of their own people", referring to the crackdown on protesters, and the Internet. He concluded that one of the reasons the protesters were calling for longtime leader Khamenei to step down is because he controls a financial empire that was worth at least $95 billion in 2013.[38][110] Stephen's opinion piece used a 2013 Reuters investigation that revealed that Khamenei controls an organisation "Setad Ejraiye Farmane Hazrate Emam" that had assets in excess of $95 billion. Although Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for self-enrichment. [111]

Look at the last sentence: inspecting the source for that sentence, here [[1]] what it says is this : 

Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei is tapping Setad to enrich himself.

But Setad has empowered him. Through Setad, Khamenei has at his disposal financial resources whose value rivals the holdings of the shah, the Western-backed monarch who was overthrown in 1979.

How Setad came into those assets also mirrors how the deposed monarchy obtained much of its fortune - by confiscating real estate. A six-month Reuters investigation has found that Setad built its empire on the systematic seizure of thousands of properties belonging to ordinary Iranians: members of religious minorities like Vahdat-e-Hagh, who is Baha'i, as well as Shi'ite Muslims, business people and Iranians living abroad.

I'm not certain because I still need to catch up on reading about some of the backstory here, but this seems off. It is only used to contradict any claims of malpractice by Khamenei. But the actual source went on to talk about stuff that was actually quite damning, and seemingly relevant-- how Reuters found that Setad got it's wealth, "systematic seizure"-- yet somehow wasn't included despite the same section being used to make a claim on the same topic. It looks like WP:CHERRY to me. It doesn't seem I can edit the page right now-- could someone either fix this, or give an explanation? (was this report redacted perhaps?)

Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: @Icewhiz: Also, the source says that Setad funds Khamenei's Beite Rahbar compound,that employs over 500 stewards "With those revenues, the organization also helps to fund the ultimate seat of power in Iran, the Beite Rahbar or Leader's House," "Khamenei employs about 500 people in his administrative offices."[2] Khamenei, who's ruling with iron-fist for 30 yrs without standing in elections, has a compound with many buildings, and it is way more larger than Khomenei's house Jamaran (Khomeini ruled for comparatively only 9yrs and never got to build a luxury compound due to Iran-Iraq war). Khamenei also rides around in Chauffeur Driven BMW cars [3]--Peter Dunkan (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
As I have explained in Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#financial empire this whole section has to be actually removed. Bret Stephen is a Zionist Neocons' hawk with a history of supporting illegal lie-based wars in his background. And now he is drawing non-existing links between the protests and the Setad. You don't give space to warmongering hawks who are looking for opportunity to demonize their enemies to justify regime change. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Umm, please answer my question directly. Also, whether someone is a "Zionist" has really no bearing on their reliability on Iran. Being a "Zionist" means one believes a Jewish state should exist, nothing more. There are millions upon millions of Zionists, perhaps billions, who happen to be intellectually honest and rigorous scholars. After all, surely someone believing that Iran has a right to exist (whether in its present governmental form or as a country at all) should not have a bearing on their reliability for info about Israel.--Calthinus (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus /sigh. Tis I, who added this. The reasoning is that Stephens has been branded a Zionist on the TP (As you may have seen), and this inclusion is an effort to find middle ground on my part. Perhaps we can change it to "Although Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for self-enrichment., rather it gives him significant political power" Elektricity (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Zionist can also mean advocate of extreme/right wing pro-Israeli policies which involve among other things illegal settlement expansions, taking over Jerusalem/Al-Quds, vetoing UN resolutions against Israel's human rights violations, advocating wars against enemies of Israel (that is Muslim countries). Bret's record seems to be a prime example of this attitude! --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of what is legal or not has no bearing here - please stay on-topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.61 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus, you would be correct that this was cherry picked. I believe the same piece, or elsewhere, commented on the lavish residence and lifestyle the Supreme Leader enjoys as part of his official position. We have had some editors here call BLP regarding the Supreme Leader - some of them went as far as to redact other editors' talk page commeents due to these alleged concerns.....Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's doubleplusungood, surely that shouldn't be allowed... --Calthinus (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Editors should also take note that their personal opinions, or "branding", of people as "zionists" are irrelevant in terms of editing policy and may actually be bona fida BLP violations.Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do cite it if you have any sources as I have several that state the very contrary. The man lives a down-to-earth austure life in keeping with the Shia requirements of leadership piety. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If that's "piety" then I'll take it any day. You need to take the blinders off of your personal biases and be much more useful as an editor here.104.169.18.61 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz if you are online and have like 5-10 minutes can we discuss zzz's reverts and come up with a good enough text for the first paragraph in background? Elektricity (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to have zzz weigh in on this. Regarding the Supreme Leader's lifestyle, while several Islamic Republic based sources expound on his modesty, deep fiqh, and how servants of the revolution are exalted to be in the presence of such a paragon - we do, umm, have reporting such as this: Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei loves caviar and vulgar jokes, defector claims, Telegraph. has a voracious appetite for trout and caviar; is an avid hoarder of collectables from bejewelled pipes to fine horses .... But the glimpse at the imperial lifestyle of an otherwise austere theologan is groundbreaking. Ayatollah Khamenei is said to be a keen collector with a prized assembly of antique walking sticks said to number 170. The Supreme Leader was once a fanatical equestrian enthusiast and his extensive stables reportedly include more than 100 of the country's leading horses. His cloaks are said to be woven from hair of specially bred camels. .... Ayatollah Khamenei is claimed to have accumulated a sprawling private court that stretches across six palaces, including Niavaran, the former resident of the Shah in Tehran .....Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This Telegraph article is beyond hilarious! Making all sorts of bizarre accusations by citing an anonymous source that can be very well a non-existing phantom! --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz:. No BLP violation when discussing well-known facts to determine neutrality and weight of the sources. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz I don't think so. Claims of detractors are kinda dubious and this appears to be no bueno in my opinion. perhaps you will reconsider my proposal of balance? Although Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for self-enrichment., rather it gives him significant political power and clout The guy lives an austere life, I think that much is almost certain from the vast majority of sources, on the other hand he wields political power and wields it according to others (BOTH WP:RS btw), so I think my middle ground-ish text should be enough. Your thought? Elektricity (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources for the austere and modest life of Khamenei are actually quite lacking - this is something that is often repeated by regime controlled sources. We should not be giving UNDUE weight to this "no evidence" of personal enrichment. We don't know how hard they looked. We do know of other reports regarding allegedly enriched progeny (particularly Mojtaba Khamenei who some see as next in line) - e.g. [4][5] [6] [7]. And finally the distinction between what is "private" as opposed to "public" when you are the Supreme Leader (or even just a run of the mill head of state) is actually quite hard to make - if the state pays for your lodging, food, transport, guards, servants, entertainment, luxuries, etc... What's the distinction between public and private? (an issue with the US White House, the French Élysée Palace, Russian accommodations for the president, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz Although Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for self-enrichment, they concluded that it gives him significant political power and clout which is subject to abuse Elektricity (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Elektricity: You're not a fair arbitrator. I have already explained why this should not be in the article at all, without you even commenting on it! --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Expectant of Light If we are to remove writers just because they are zionists etc, then we will have to remove all of the Iranian authors as well. Are you willing to do that? This has been included to keep WP:BALANCE. Wikipedia does not publish the WP:TRUTH rather we publish what authors and writers have said, even if they are zionists. Elektricity (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not that he is simply a Zionist but an anti-Iranian war hawk without integrity! You don't want to include a highly contentious opinion that has been only made by a single source of such character! --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The "no evidence" blurb is not needed as we aren't saying nor suggesting that these funds are used for self-enrichment. If we were to add such statements or alternatively comment on how Setad funds are not, per Reuters, directed to charity (as they are supposed to within 2 years - When Khomeini, the first supreme leader, set in motion the creation of Setad, it was only supposed to manage and sell properties "without owners" and direct much of the proceeds to charity. Setad was to use the funds to assist war veterans, war widows "and the downtrodden." According to one of its co-founders, Setad was to operate for no more than two years.). Or how releasing property captured by Setad requires said the only hope to recover anything is to pay off well-connected agents in Iran. "By the time you pay off everybody, it comes to 50 percent" of the property's value - then qualifying said statements would make sense. Reuters added the no-evidence blurb, to this very long piece, since the piece itself strongly suggested illicit use of these funds - so they fairly qualified (in a very short sentence) that they actually were not able to uncover evidence for illicit use beyond the actual hoarding of wealth and the corruption that surrounds the process of releasing property seized by Setad.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz If you read the entire report they gist is that he does not use the money, rather he uses/abuses the power the comes with the Setad; and that is what I want to add in order to create balance. In essence, Setad abuses funds, no doubt, but instead of using its funds, Khamenei uses/abuses the influences and power, so as no clear evidence of him embezzling the fund could be found it has been reported that he abuses/uses the power, not the funds. I think that it is a fair and balanced statement to make, which both sides will be able to agree on. Elektricity (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: You are being only desperate here! The argument is that this piece doens't belong here at all! We are not debating what to and not to include for if we were, I would have argued that we have to balance this whole Setad issue by Iranian official sources which would lead to the inflation of a subject that doesn't even belong here and is solely based on a contentious POV by a questionable source! You don't seem to have a chance of pushing your anti-Iranian bias in this case! This whole segment has to be deleted! --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I would leave this qualification out all together (while obviously retains Stephens whose analysis was widely covered). Reuters went a bit beyond just they concluded that it gives him significant political power and clout which is subject to abuse - this self-obvious conclusion (control wealthy organization => power) was stated, however they also suggested quite a bit more than just said power. We don't need to repeat everything they suggested back in that report - in the current context Setad is being mentioned as a verified 95$ billion fund under Khamenei's control - there's no need to go beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC) As a side note - User:Expectant of Light - please WP:NPA against me (I've had some very close friendships with Iranians over the years and I wish all the best for the Iranian people), and please also refrain from making potentially libelous accusations against BLPs (e.g. commenting on their integrity) as you did with Bret Stephens.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Expectant of Light we have debated none of the things that you mentioned. Nor have we agreed on any of them, the majority consensus is that this piece should be included. So lets leave it at that and you step away from the dead horse.We are now debating what to include. You are welcome to participate in that discussion. The piece stays, the only issue is how to word it. Dont drag us back into flintstones when we are going jetson. @Icewhiz I would like to draw your attention towards my tweaked proposal Although Reuters was unable to find evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for monetary self-enrichment, they concluded that it gives him significant political power and clout which is subject to abuse Elektricity (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: What do you suggest? That is it was integral for this war hawk with eccentric views on climate change to push for a catastrophic war based on a proven lie that destroyed a country, harmed thousands of civilians and led to sectarian infighting that has ravaged the country to this date? What a disingenuous way of appealing to BLP! We are not going to whitewash facts about questionable sources to push your biases in this article! But you are already good at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by refusing to comment on the argument. In the yesterday discussion I also explained why the other sources that have covered his contentious opinion are equally questionable.

@Elektricity: There's no majority consensus. This is a contentious issue with a questionable source. It must not be included or it has to be balanced by several Iranian sources that provide detailed information about Setad as per WP:NPOV --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light we are balancing the article by including this, the Iranians are already mentioned. If you don't have anything meaningful to add to this discussion except saying again and again that Stephens should not be included, perhaps it will be wise to just let us discuss this between ourselves, your opinion has been duly noted. There is no need to repeat it after every single comment. Elektricity (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's a meaningful distinction between "duly noted" and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. My argument is based on standard Wikipedia guidelines, above all WP:NPOV. It's unreasonable if you insist on violating this key policy in support of a POV-pusher. Btw, I was talking about Iranian sources that discuss Setad which is absolutely lacking in this article. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I propose changing to: Although Reuters was unable to find evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for monetary self-enrichment, they concluded that the assets were obtained through systematically seizing thousands of properties from Iranian people and that it gives him significant political clout. Abierma3 (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I support Abierma's proposed fix. --Calthinus (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Abierma3 and @Icewhiz: Although Setad's assets have been built through systematic seizure of private properties, Reuters was unable to find evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for monetary self-enrichment, so they concluded that it gives him significant political power and clout which is subject to abuse Expectant of Light this is a Reuters report that we are discussing btw, not anything written by Stephens. Elektricity (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Elektricity: I support this, however it would be better if you added whose private property was seized -- religious minorities and all the rest, as it is very important. --Calthinus (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Actually, I don't support this. This is not exactly what Reuters was saying as it draws a causal link that doesn't exist in the original. It also omits that Reuters explicitly says that although Khamenei didn't personally self-enrich, it gives him financial clout, so this proposal is misleading (also the "although" clause is awkward).--Calthinus (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's opinion piece used a 2013 Reuters investigation that revealed that Khamenei controls an organisation "Setad Ejraiye Farmane Hazrate Emam" that had assets in excess of $95 billion. Although Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei uses the organization for self-enrichment" All this needs to go. It basically repeats the sentence before - "...calling for longtime leader Khamenei to step down is because he controls a financial empire that was worth at least $95 billion in 2013" - for no reason, except to then take a totally out-of-context quote from Reuters (which badly misrepresents the Reuters article, as other editors have stated above). Instead, stick with the source in question, which goes on to talk about "other tax-exempt bonyad multibillion-dollar “charities” run chiefly for the benefit of their clerical masters" and the "Revolutionary Guards Corps, estimated to control another 15 percent of the Iranian economy", etc. Either that, or just don't include the paragraph. zzz (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Elektricity: Without Bret's contentious POV which draws non-existing link between Setad and the protests, the Reutur's biased pieced would be left without any relevance to the page. Why do you want to out of nowhere include a biased piece on Setad on a page about Iranian protests?! It is interesting that some users continue to advocate this blatant POV-pushing! --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Stephens's piece, in the meanwhile, has been mentioned elsewhere recently - [8] [9] [10] [11]. Seems the takeaway of some citers is the labeling of Iran's regime as a "klepto-theocracy", which might be an interesting tidbit (e.g. "Labeling Iran as "klepto-theocracy", Stephens ....") to insert into our article.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, good idea. It is weird that currently, the article uncritically gives a number of official Iranian views, but when it comes to "Journalist, editor and political commentator Bret Stephens" of the New York Times, some Wikipedia editors think the view is too negative (?) and may need balancing or "fixing" by adding some misconceived WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. zzz (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, a false propagandist description by an infamous partisan source who sits on the American plutocracy and advocates resource wars against Muslim countries. You either don't know what kleptocracy means or know nothing about widespread charity and infrastructural works of Setad that have rendered invaluable benefits to dozens of underdeveloped regions in Iran, or both! At any rate, there's no way you can include Bret's or Reuters' POV by any stretch of WP:NPOV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some sort of undue weight is given to the Stephen's piece considering his questionable eligibility for making such claims. I would search to see if there are more sources in this regard. By now, we'd avoid better questionable pieces with regard to such an important article. --Mhhossein talk 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Any mention of Setad --if need be at all-- has to be balanced by Iranian sources that reveal substantial information about the foundationa's structure, history and services. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No, this is not how wiki works, we don't "balance" reports of highly revered news agencies (btw you keep painting Reuters or "Reutur" [sic] as some American neocolonialist mouthpiece but it is in fact British and one of hte most highly regarded outlets...) things based on the nationality of sources, especially when the nationality in question has a national media situation regarded as particularly concerning and "Not Free". Setad must be mentioned because well-revered sources are reporting extensively on it, and official Iranian views must be incorporated only as is consistent with WP:DUE.--Calthinus (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well-revered sources! Oh! That's how you strike over all the arguments presented so far on how this is contentious, irrelevant, biased, one-sided! --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Expectant of Light: Do we have any significant viewpoint agreement with Stephen? --Mhhossein talk 18:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If I understood you correctly, no, Bret's eccentric POV seems to be unique to his own! Necons are generally good at that! --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no lack of sources regarding corruption, self enrichment, and inefficient spending (e.g. on exporting the revolution to the Levant) by the Islamic Republic. Stephens view is fairly mainstream.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Stay focused! We're talking about Khamenei and Setad! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
EoL, the one who brought up Stephens by saying it should all be removed because he is a "Zionist neocon" was... yourself, it seems. Now that aside of course Iranian views are welcome on the page but we have to portray all views equally. NPOV presentation of differing views give a page vibrancy. On the other hand, removing Stephens while leaving still on the page claims that the protests mainly arose due to climate change, or were fomented by "Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson" and "Israel and Saudi Arabia" for whom hordes of Iranian civilians are supposedly "pawns" -- both quite fringe-y viewpoints -- seems like a staggering double-standard.--Calthinus (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am in agreement with Mhhossein here Some sort of undue weight is given to the Stephen's peace considering his questionable eligibility for making such claims. ie is Stephens noted as an authority on Iran? This discussion seems to have got bogged down with whether the SL spends the billions on widows and orphans, on political fixing, or a private 'retirement fund', all with fairly tenuous connection to these protests. We have innumerable sources that say the protests are motivated by anger at corruption and abuse of power, are there any others that focus on the SLs 'slush fund'? If not, would it not be better to focus on the other sources and forget Stephens? Pincrete (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete: This is another source, an Iranian international law professor (he happens to be Iranian but his degree is not on Iran), higher up in the section: "Didn't Donald Trump and Rex Tillerson vow to ... [reinforce] internal dissatisfaction? Didn't Israel and Saudi Arabia vow to take the war into the streets of Tehran? Why then the real demands of the people are not honored so that they turn into pawns in foreigners' plans?" Neither are noted as authorities on Iran, but while Stephens' view is consistent with many other reports about Iranian anger toward govt corruption, Khorram's is grounded in wild conspiracy theories. If you want to say only experts should be in the section that is a fair point-- so in that case, we must remove Stephens and Khorram as well.--Calthinus (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I was commenting on Stephens, there may well be crap on the 'other side'. I was precisely making the point that anger about corruption is widely sourced as a motive, concern with the SL's billions doesn't specifically, appear to be so - do the crowds even know how much the SL has access to ? Presumably not if the media is as 'govt-friendly' as editors claim. Pincrete (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
AP:The working classes have long been a base of support for Iran’s hard-liners. But protesters have turned their fury against the ruling clerics and the elite Revolutionary Guard, accusing them of monopolizing the economy and soaking up the country’s wealth. Many protests have seen a startlingly overt rejection of Iran’s system of government by Islamic clerics. zzz (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this AP confirms my point, anger at the 'ruling elites' is widely reported as a cause, concern at Khamenei's $95 billion, doesn't appear to be so. Pincrete (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Anger because of "monopolizing the economy and soaking up the country’s wealth." I think it refutes your point tbh. Perhaps I should have embolded that bit. zzz (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
To be entirely fair, Pincrete would be right in that "elites" or "clerics" generally doesn't necessarily logically equate to Khamenei. But this isn't a case of improper synthesis-- we do have a source, Bret Stephens, who makes the connection. Pincrete finds Stephens WP:UNDUE, but I disagree. Look, I'm a lefty and vehemently disagree with the man on many things but he is a prominent political analyst, writing for the New York Times, one of the most prestigious papers to write for in the world, and he is fairly mainstream within the right-wing despite some of the defamation he has received on this talk page ("propagandist"). What is fringe and quite WP:UNDUE is Ali Khorram's statement that the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia turned the protestors into "pawns". That we are talking about Stephens as the main problem but not Khorram is bizarre, and should be alleviated.--Calthinus (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The alternative is to just leave only the official Iranian opinions, and change the section title accordingly. zzz (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Using the 10 Year test - most of what is in "Analyst Opinions" at the moment will go - most of the Iranian sourced opinions there are of little note. Stephens is better - but won't last 10 years - mainly since we will have bona fida post-mortem expert opinion and analysis emerging in the months and years after the event. That the uprising was against the klepto-theocracy (of which this 95$ billion fund is but one example - and Stephens lists others) - has actually been repeated in various forms (clerical corruption and hold on the economy) by many. We should represent this view - as it is a wide view. I think that until we have a better analyst - Stephens is good. Majid Mohammadi, Ali Khorram, Ahmad Tavakkoli - should all go - these were published in regime controlled sources and we already amply source the regime's position (from much more notable figures who made official statements!). Sadegh Zibakalam Should probably go as well.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, they should be deleted, as I stated before when they were in the Background section under the title "Causes". zzz (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I was certainly NOT saying that we should have only govt info, merely that reaction against the corruption and power of the 'clerical elite', religious foundations, RevG's is VERY widely reported as a cause, the SL's assets much less so. The Iranian analysis section could certainly be pruned very heavily, but that isn't the subject of this thread - coverage of the Stephens claims and the SL's 'slush fund' are. Pincrete (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: has proven to be a single-minded anti-Iranian campaigner here with his unqualified "regime-controlled" nonsense! I have explained times and again that there is no such thing as arbitrary regime control in Iran. Media work under the law as is the case with every other country in the world that has a constitution and a parliament. Yet his personal secular/atheist convictions tend to bias him against any notion of an Islamic Republic. Furthermore, even if we agree that the media in Iran are controlled (which I would still find a meaningless notion in any context), this implies that only POVs that are "against the regime" are repressed, not the POVs that don't clash with "the regime". And for what it's worth, Iran has a powerful and vibrant academia with academics widely discussing sociopolitical subjects. This is while if you are interested in particularly "anti-regime" POVs you can easily consult secular Iranian academics in the diaspora and nobody will object to that! But just drop your bigoted, unqualified "regime-controlled" rheotric. You've made us all tired and are blocking any progress in this discussion! --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
As I was pinged, Iran's press is described as follows:
  1. By RSF "The media are mostly under the Islamic regime’s close control and there has been no let-up in the persecution of independent journalists, citizen journalists, and media outlets. Media personnel are still constantly exposed to intimidation, arbitrary arrest, and long jail sentences imposed by revolutionary courts at the end of unfair trials. Despite an improvement in its international relations, Iran continues to be one of the world’s five biggest prisons for media personnel." (yes - RSF is using regime control).
  2. By Freedom House "Conditions for the media in Iran are highly repressive. Certain topics—including criticism of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—are subject to long-standing redlines, enforced in part through harsh online and offline censorship. Journalists are silenced and forced into self-censorship through harassment, arbitrary detention, and prison sentences for vaguely defined offenses."
  3. By HRW Space for free speech and dissent remained highly restricted, and authorities continued to arrest and charge journalists, bloggers, and online media activists for exercising their right to freedom of expression.. See also various incidents (not complete): e.g. [12] [13] [14]
  4. By Amnesty International The authorities cracked down further on the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, arbitrarily arresting and imprisoning peaceful critics on vague national security charges. Those targeted included human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, bloggers, students, trade union activists, film makers, musicians, poets, women’s rights activists, ethnic and religious minority rights activists, and environmental and anti-death penalty campaigners.. See also various incidents (not complete): [15] [16].
The degree to which such repression is lawful under Iranian law or not is actually immaterial for our evaluation of whether Iranian regime controlled media can be RS regarding protests against the Iranian regime. Though the existence of repressive legislation does ease in verification of repression, this is not needed in this case as we have ample secondary specialist RS providing clear statements on the matter at hand.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, Icewhiz is neither anti-Iranian, nor a bigot etc, drop these childish accusations or you will be reported for WP:CIVILITY. You have added nothing constructive on this talk page. Instead, you've been calling every source which you don't like (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) for bias, accusing/attacking other users, whilst favouring non-reliable sources that fits your POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Setad funds Khamenei's Beite Rahbar compound,that employs over 500 stewards "With those revenues, the organization also helps to fund the ultimate seat of power in Iran, the Beite Rahbar or Leader's House," "Khamenei employs about 500 people in his administrative offices."[17] Khamenei, who's ruling with iron-fist for 30 yrs without standing in elections, has a compound with many buildings, and it is way more larger than Khomenei's house Jamaran (Khomeini ruled for comparatively only 9yrs and never got to build a luxury compound due to Iran-Iraq war). Khamenei also rides around in Chauffeur Driven BMW cars [18]. Also, Khamenei's son Mojtaba, according to the Guardian and French newspaper Libération, among other sources, is widely believed to control huge financial assets.[19][20] Even former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his former ally, accused Mojtaba Khamenei of embezzling from the state treasury.[21] In 2009, Britain froze $1.6B assets of Mojtaba Khamenei[22]
Also see Disclosure of wealth of Khamenei’s sons by Hashemi Rafsanjani "On the direct orders of the Supreme Leader Khamenei, the supreme judicial authority has condemned Mehdi Hashemi, the son of senior regime official Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, to ten years in prison, with the regime using the son to indirectly beat the father. The action, which came in retaliation for Rafsanjani’s revelations about the involvement of Khamenei’s own sons in corruption and amassing personal fortunes, has prompted Rafsanjani to threaten to reveal more regime secrets."
“The wealth of Mojtaba, Khamenei’s second son, is estimated to be three billion dollars, most of which was deposited in banks in the UAE, Syria, Venezuela and some African countries,”
"Mojtaba Khamenei has claimed ownership of vast tracts of land in the city of Mashhad and turned them into his private fiefdom. The mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Ghalibaf, also granted Khamenei’s second son ownership of a few hectares of the much-sought-after prime state-owned real estate in exclusive areas of the nation’s capital, including the upmarket Abbas Abad neighbourhood."
"Khamenei’s third son, Massoud, meanwhile, who is responsible for running many of the Supreme Leader’s extremely lucrative institutions, has amassed more than $ 400 million in banks in France and England, as well as a further $100 million in banks in Tehran. Masoud also holds the monopoly to sell products for the French car manufacturer Renault in Iran."
"Khamenei’s youngest son, Maitham, married the daughter of one of the most famous traders in the Iranian market. He is a partner with his brother Massoud in the Renault franchise in Iran, as well as being appointed as an Executive Director in Khamenei’s office and holding directorships of other affiliated institutions."
"Khamenei’s elder daughter, Bushra, married the son of President Khamenei’s office director, Mohammed Jelbaidjani. As the first daughter, Bushra is doted upon by her parents, who cherished her to the point of ordering streets and routes down which the convoy of vehicles taking her to school as a child might be travelling to be closed and sealed off. During her childhood, one bodyguard would be stationed in front of the school doors, while two others would stand outside whichever classroom she was in for the duration of her classes. Her personal wealth is estimated to be around $100 million."
"The Supreme Leader’s other daughter and youngest child, Huda, is another prized jewel of the family. Married to a member of a prominent religious family in Iran, Huda, who has a keen interest in designer clothes, fashion, and jewelry owns her own upmarket beauty salon, which is guarded by regime personnel. Like her sister, Huda’s personal wealth is estimated at around $100 million."--Peter Dunkan (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter Dunkan I believe we should discuss this, but not in the level of detail shown here -- that might turn into a borderline WP:COATRACK section. However, I think it would be great work if this were all added to Ali Khamenei's page.--Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I think so too. I agree with you.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and HistoryofIran: None of those liberal US-located, corporate/government-funded institutions can be neutral and objective when it comes to IRI. IHR has been widely criticized for bias towards Western governments already. This includes Amnesty which moreover has, despite its pretensions, accepted funds from notorious Amreican oligarchs such as the Rockefellers who have been the most sworn enemies of Islamic Republic ever since 1979 revolution. (The family actually gave shelter to the pariah Shah after he escaped Iran). So no! You have to drop your secular prejudices against an Islamic Republic. IRI sources have to be used to balance any article on IRI in respect of WP:NPOV and to lower the already overdue WP:BIAS --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: The USA is a free country where anyone with merit can become successful, and a president is elected every four years, then he must and can only once more stand in election again. Unlike in Iran, where one man rules with Iron-fist for over 30 years, controls the media to portray him as god, controls over $100 billion in addition to the Iranian economy, let his personnel "revolution guards" and his close associates have massive money, and he issues diktats with regards to everything, for the vetted but elected president to carry out! And you had the nerve to talk about former Iranian dictator "pariah Shah", don't forget the "pariah Khomeini" lived most of his life in exile in Iraq, enjoying Saddam's support, protection and hospitality, then Western country France, again enjoying their support, protection and hospitality. Then briefly got to rule Iran before dying under excruciating pain from cancer given by god.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: What I see here, is at least a highly disputed material. However, I support its removal and would like to stress that per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --Mhhossein talk 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Mhhossein, you can't delete the whole long-stang Wikipedia with highly reliable sources (sources that are not controlled by one, and as such don't glorify any dictator) because you think it's highly disputed material. By the way, whether or not Khamenei is a marja, is diputed by many top clerics and even Khamenei himself. So that should be removed from his article.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter Dunkan: Insisting on restoring this disputed content is open to charges of disruptive editing since no consensus was reached to include these OR contentious claims. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors support inclusion - myself included. Expectant of Light and Mhhossein are sole objectors - and are not using policy based arguments (other than a claim this is "disputed material" (it is attributed) and "highly contentious" (editor opinion carries little weight - and against this is attributed and in RS).Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Questionable use of WP:OR and WP:ONUS to remove well-cited background material

It sure has not taken long for this page to become controversial again. Here we see Expectant of Light using "OR" to [remove a well-cited statement] that had been on the page for over a week (see here [[23]], from 7 days ago, I bet it was earlier but I'm lazy). Naturally I reinstate it [[24]] -- it is flatly ridiculous to describe something cited to a Reuters investigation as "OR". Then, in almost no time, Mhhossein comes and reverts me for EoL, this time using WP:ONUS [[25]]. I find this pretty bizarre -- there has not been a talk page discussion afaik for this well-cited and long-standing material on the page. This use of WP:ONUS looks much more like an exploitation of the rule to create a previously nonexistant controversy and then find a way of removing material they don't like. I don't think this is what the WP:ONUS was intended for. I await the thoughts of other wikipedians not involved in this edit conflict. Cheers all,--Calthinus (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

...and you just removed a plenty of well-sourced materials for the same reason. --Mhhossein talk 18:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually that was in line with [a near universal consensus that Khorram had to go] especially if Stephens did -- the only objector was EoL whose argument was that Western sources are all bad (seriously, try that one at RSN, I dare you.). Look if we want to make policies into baseball cards, I would also have a massive case of WP:UNDUE to make on that one which has been discussed at length on this talk page. Are you seriously going to defend having conspiracy theories on the page?--Calthinus (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
A Reuters report is not OR. Opinions published in Iranian Regime controlled media are UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought the "Khamenei controls a financial empire that was worth at least $95 billion in 2013" had been discussed previously. IMO the statement is so vague as to be almost meaningless and is borderline COATRACK since any relevance to these protests is implied, but not stated. The statement even lacks the courage or clarity to say what this figure is (some kind of semi-charitable foundation I believe which has also been accused of being used for political fixing), in what sense he controls and spends it and what the connection to the protests is. It's pure innuendo. The fact that Trump or May control 'empires' of billions isn't a good enough reason to insert the information in articles where they are mentioned. Either connect the dots to tie the info to these protests or it looks crude. Pincrete (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete I proposed adding a couple of lines that showed that he did not personally benefit from the wealth. It was in the source as well, but it was met with....ahem...vehemence. So I have just taken a short break, until the article is stable, and will resume editing then. Elektricity (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder whether it is relevant to THIS article at all (as opposed to 'his' page). We have tons of sources linking these protests to frustration with corruption and privilege in general - very few linking the protests to anger about this particular 'fund'. It reads as an implied 'dig' at the SL, without ever establishing any link to the protests. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Elektricity I am sorry for any "vehemence" you may have received from me, but this cherrypicking "solution" was and would again be worse than not having the info at all.
Pincrete it's very interesting you bring up May and Trump, and I think you make a vvery good argument (though I think the proper policy to link is SYN, not COATRACK or OR -- something becomes a COATRACK due to length and this was about one or two sentences). The May-Trump analogy is interesting because it shows our differences -- see, if there was a similar large-scale national protest in the US or the UK with people calling for removal or even "death" to Trump or May, railing against the decadence of governing elites while the poor struggled to get by, and so on... then I would absolutely support having Trump's or May's personal "financial empires" be reported on. --Calthinus (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The only reason for me making a Trump/May/Queen Liz analogy is that it is easy to find a single sentence that might say how much they personally or professionally 'control', without any indication of how it ties to the article/subject in hand. There are tons of sources that point to a widespread discontent with the power and wealth of the entire elite in Iran, very few that make the connection with this 'fund', which the source is at pains to say is probably not for personal use. Standing on its own, the sentence makes no connection to these protests. And no, we wouldn't automatically assume that UK or US discontent with the rich benefitting themselves was synonymous with anger against Trump or the Queen personally. Pincrete (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Calthinus that it is relevant to mention given the economic focus of the protests, and the fact that they are directed at Khamenei. Elektricity, it is certainly not stated in the source that he "did not personally benefit from the wealth". It is simply not known what he does with it - not the same thing. zzz (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Then can we have some sources that say the protesters are complaining about the SL's billions! It takes several leaps of logic to go from protesting about their own economic woes and protesting about the relative privilege of the elites to protesting against this specific fund - which nobody seems to know what it is for. Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
We have sources that they are complaining about the ruling clerics "monopolizing the economy and soaking up the country’s wealth". I don't see any leap in logic. The ruling clerics have these secretive "charities"/funds - Khameini's being the biggest one by far, of course - which is how they soak up the country's wealth. zzz (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Signedzzz, Icewhiz, and Calthinus:$100 billion Setade Ejraiye's accounts are secret even to the vetted so-called Iranian parliament!
"Just one person controls that economic empire – Khamenei," "No supervisory organization can question its property," "Its books are off limits even to Iran's legislative branch." [26]--Peter Dunkan (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no question it is about $100 billion, and it is Khameini's. Worth mentioning in my opinion. zzz (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The content is not in dispute. It only could be in dispute if Mhhossein/Pincrete/Expectant of Light could show that Reuters is an unreliable source. Or, that protestors' discontent was not at all directed at Ali Khamene'i..... chants of "marg bar diktator!" would seem to nip that argument in the bud however! ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Though people in Iran might not be aware of a specific bank account or offshore wealth fund, the protests were around economic disparities and for some it also related to the accumulation of wealth by certain clerics. It is worth citing Khamenei's wealth as long as sources meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't questioned whether Reuters is a reliable source, nor have I questioned that the SL has access to a large fund, the sources and purpose of which is unclear, but which may well be used partly for political fixing, and which is certainly not subject to the kind of parliamentary - or journalistic - scrutiny normal in the west. What I question is whether any source except possibly Stephens makes any connection whatsoever between the recent protests and this 'fund'. If sources exist that make that connection, please provide them, then we wouldn't need ingeneous arguments about "the people are complaining about clerical privilege, here is an extreme example of clerical privilege, therefore the people must be complaining about this fund", (or even if they aren't, let's just slip it in anyway) which is blatant SYNTH. If this sentence is used it should be part of the Stephens comments, making whatever connection Stephens makes to the present unrest. Otherwise it's a bit of mud-slinging which hardly any sources connect to the present unrest, and which isn't even very informative since it doesn't attempt to make clear what the fund is, nor how it is used. This isn't the Khamenei page, nor even the corruption in Iran page. Simply find sources that say the people are angry about the 95 billion, I haven't seen any, though I've seen tons that say they are angry about clerical, and other privilege. Pincrete (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC) ..... ps since when did editors' own interpretations of crowd chants become acceptable arguments around here? Pincrete (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete, the issue is whether the material is relevant so as to go in a Background section (which is where it was). Your argument has been that it is SYNTH, but in a background section it makes sense to use stuff that we deem relevant to setting the stage and as Icewhiz points out, this material should not be deemed SYNTH in a background section [[27]]. But furthermore, there is a clear connection between Khamenei's "empire" and the protests which is not just my argument as I outline below.
As Reuters noted, the source of Khamenei's "financial empire" is the systematic seizure of properties from religious minorities, Iranians abroad and etc, and this is part of a broader pattern of corruption and exploitation through which a clergical and governing elite grows richer while the common people - who were once the bedrock of the theocratic state - grow poorer and angrier, as has been attested by various sources. Although Reuters did not find conclusive evidence that Khamenei enriched himself, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he did use the impoverishment of his people to bankroll what Reuters diagnosed as a "financial empire" that he uses to empower himself politically. As you noted, ordinary Iranians are quite probably unaware of the details of 'how elites including Khamenei got richer while they got poorer and poorer, but as Resnjari alludes to, they don't need to 'how. They do know that it happened, not least because of the obnoxious decadence of the elite in the face of their suffering, epitomized by phenomena like "Rich Kids of Tehran", an Instagram account where the progeny of the regime elites flaunted their wealth during a time when the common people were enduring horrible economic times in part due to sanctions [[28]], and indeed that account has been connected to the protests by Business Insider [[29]]. There have been revelations about the wealth/lifestyles of Khamenei's own progeny as well, including one by Hashemi Rafsanjani [[30]].
As you can see, the connection is clear: Khamenei participated in the corruption that resulted in the growth of a wealth disparity between the elites and the commoners, the commoners protest against the excesses in which he played a not-insignificant role, so therefore how he acquired the "financial empire" he uses for political purposes is relevant and not SYNTH. Best of all, it is not just wikipedia making the connection between Khamenei's financial assets and the protests: so do Laura Secor[[31]]. And Hamid Yazdan Panah [[32]] hits even harder on this point:
And of course there was also Bret Stephens who said more or less the same himself but despite being prestigious NYTimes analyst, was removed because, as Elektricity put it, before I came on this page, sources that had been "branded as Zionists" were deemed unacceptable (what the hell...).
I rest my case: Khamenei's "financial empire" is not unrelated but a result and not-insignificant part of the processes that led to the growth of a wealth disparity which was precisely what the protestors marched in the streets to denounce. This cannot by WP:SYNTH because it is not just my argument, it is also Stephens' and Panah's as you see above. --Calthinus (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete:, the main issue is not about protestors chants but the motivations and reasons of the protesters protesting. Apart from economic disparities, clerical privilege and their wealth accumulation have been cited as an issue for some protestors. In light @Calthinus: of this a sentence or two is warranted on the wealthy disparity situation in the country to give background context in the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done, now hopefully the details about Setad, which has now been connected to the protests by Panah, can be restored. --Calthinus (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a background section. It is not OR. It has been brought up by some sources in relation to the current protests (where corruption as well as "Death to Khamenei" chants have been an issue). This is not SYNTH. It should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to including the claim as part of Stephens as here. What I object to (and other editors SHOULD also object to) is tacking a sentence in WP voice which basically says "Khamenei controls 95 billion", but which does not even attempt to put in context what this money is (is it under his bed? in the Bahamas? Or is it the part of the state budget which he controls?) nor attempt to establish what the relationship to the unrest is. If the relationship between the protests and the fund was as clear cut as editors claim - there would be tons of sources reporting that. The ingeneous arguments made above simply highlight the fact that sources don't exist to make thst connection and it is very possible that the Iranian people don't know much about this fund. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete:, i know where your coming from. To allay concerns you brought up, the bit that says "own private financial empire" on Khamanei covers his assets as a background context thing without being too specific and turning the article into a fork about Khamanei. @Calthinus:' wording of the sentence in the background section struck the balance and should cover things that other editors like @Icewhiz: brought up.Resnjari (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Regardless of what you personally think, sources have made the connection, and it is not just Bret Stephens. Panah already mentions that sanction relief that Iranians were betting on ultimately ended up in the pockets of Khamenei's "financial empire". We could mention its net worth in the context of that-- i.e. add "of $95 billion" and then cite Reuters -- rather than pointing out in a way you consider "crude". Also, regarding "how" he controls it, well it was I who fought to include how he ended up controlling it. I do also have sources on what the media knows about what banks it is stored in and what not but personally I don't think that is relevant and that would actually turn into a borderline COATRACK.--Calthinus (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why editors are so adamant of defending a sentence that says "Khamenei controls 95 billion", the claim is already seemlessly incorporated into the 'Stephens' where it is given context. On its own its contextless and does nothing to link to the protests apart from by insinuation. The sentence 'stuck out like a sore thumb' the first time I read the article - what on earth was it supposed to imply - his departmental budget or his private retirement fund? We have tons of sources that say that the crowds are angry about 'elites', including clerical elites. Some sources identify anger against Khamenei, some against Rouhani, I don't know who else. We should be able to frame a text that records that anger (including the sanctions relief possibly), attributing if necessary. IMO it actually weakens the criticism to use this sentence and to put it into WP voice. We might just as well put "Khamenei is a crook" and not bother with any context. Pincrete (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete please read my post. I am not anymore defending having a sentence that says "Khamenei controls 95 billion". I agree with you, at this point, that is inappropriate. I want it incorporated as three words "of 95 billion" where it is already discussed. That's all. (and if you read the source I posted, Panah, it is clear this is not "insinuation" as it spells it out clearly -- sanction relief didn't go to ordinary Iranians but instead to state firms and Khamenei's empire, that is why people are mad, because it didn't go to them). I'm sorry if I'm being adamant. I came to this talk page because of flagrant cherry and POV-pushing ("Zionists must go") from the other side. I'm willing to yield on this point, but please respond to my actual proposal-- three words in a section that already talks about it.--Calthinus (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I was in part expressing frustration rather than responding directly to you. I believe the '95 billion' estimate is already incorporated into the Stephens comment, I don't see any need to repeat the figure, but wouldn't get too upset if done in context. I also tried to make it clear that I did not object to incorporating the 'Panah' (probably attributed) comments about "sanctions relief mostly benefiting state firms and the Supreme Leader Khamenei's own private financial empire". The "zionists must go" arguments - IMO have probably 'put editors' backs up', rather than influence the discussion so as to make the article more neutral. Of course the Iranian regime is going to blame everything on 'outside agents', but equally, of course (some) US commentators are going to do their best to 'throw mud'. Both should be reported, but without our endorsement unless reported by the majority of RS. Pincrete (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with that, and I think that is the best way to observe NPOV. --Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The Reuters analysis, which Panah links to is here. It's Jan 2017 and therefore of little value to this article, but I'm linking in as it might be 'of interest'. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, it's a good article. --Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, you either remove this whole section for being contentious and non-neutral and promoted by Zionists war hawks or biased corporate media, or we have to balance the whole issue using Iranian official sources. So don't try building a skyscraper based on a foundation of mud! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC) --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

1989 election video released by contra-regime activists on 8 January

@Pincrete:, regarding this revert, your claim of off-topic .. no connection to protests especially if internet access was 'turned off' in Iran ... might belong on 'his' page is WP:OR as the connection is made in the sources cited:

  • "The timing of the video’s release, 28 years after Khomeini’s death, comes at a time of widespread anti-government protests in Iran that have demanded over the past two weeks the departure of Khamenei." [1]
  • If this is a deliberate leak, the timing is quite interesting at a time when widespread protests in Iran have created a dangerous uncertainty for the regime..[2]
  • The Financial Times piece is about the on-going protests and is title "Iran’s supreme leader blames US-Israeli plot for protests" and covers Khamenei remarks on Tuesday (9.1) while stating that on Monday (8.1) "Many demonstrators chanted “death to Khamenei” in the biggest public attacks against the supreme leader since he came to power 29 years ago.
    He suffered further embarrassment on Monday when a video recorded in 1989 went viral that showed previously unseen footage of Mr Khamenei saying he was not religiously qualified to be supreme leader. The video was taken as Iran’s Experts Assembly, a top decision-making body, prepared to elect him to the post after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini."    [3]
  • The BBC also makes the connection, as may be seen here - Clip from 1989 of Iran's Supreme Leader emerges on Social Media - BBC News - when in the lead sentence (0:05-0:13) the presenter says that "comes as Ayatollah Khamenei blames foreign enemies for the recent unrest" Further talk at 1:50-2:20 regarding the timing of the leak - which according to the expert interviewed was received at the height of the protests (but the journalist vetted it - and released a few days later).

The WP:RS presented clearly connect the two - and this is but a sample of the sources available.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Leaked Video Embarrasses Iran’s Khamenei, Implicates Rafsanjani, Asharq Al Aswat, 10 January 2018
  2. ^ Shocking Video Clip From 1989 Shows Khamenei Elected Only For One Year As A Caretaker, Radio Farda, 9 January 2018
  3. ^ Iran’s supreme leader blames US-Israeli plot for protests, Financial Times, 9 January 2018
I wasn't able to read the FT (££), but the others seemed to be saying that the video was being circulated mainly OUTSIDE Iran, although the others spoke of co-incidence and embarassment, it wasn't clear whether this was 'international' embarassment. The material has been put on 'his' page and I thought that was where it belonged. There was no indication that the video was impacting/had impacted in any way on these protests. The two events happening around the same time may damage his 'image' abroad but nobody seems to be saying that the video has even been viewed within Iran. If restored, it should at least be made clear WHO had been able to see it and WHERE the 'embarassment' has been felt. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I provided quotes from FT to here. The sources presented above clearly make the connection. If it is disseminated outside of Iran - you can be fairly sure it percolates inside as well - regime control is not "air tight". As for whether this will have (or did have) an impact on the protests or the suppression thereof - at this point it is WP:BALL. This is a clearly relevant release of an embarrassing (per RS provided) video during regime efforts to suppress the protests (to wit - on 9th January, the next day, Khamenei was out speaking on how foreign enemies are behind this and etc. (as you may see in the FT source - or in several others). The timing of the release is what makes this clearly relevant - per the RSes provided. Stating WHO/WHERE saw this - requires BALL/OR. It was online and on several international news outlets. Estimating information flow into Iran is not an easy task - though generally there is flow (as you may see, we even have some Iranian based editors on Wikipedia. Perhaps not all people in Iran get access - some do).Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I watched the 'BBC Global', she specifically says that the video is unlikely to have any immediate impact but may have long term consequences. The only connection made in the sources is that these events are happening at the same time and the video MAY have been released now intentionally to embarrass the regime. 'Iranians probably haven't seen it' is not my main reason for excluding, however IF most haven't seen it, it's hardly surprising that the impact has been mainly outside Iran. Any coverage of almost any event in Iran in the last 25 days is going to mention these protests, but mention in the same sentence proves nothing except co-incidence. What is the connection? How has the video impacted on the protests? We can't answer that because the sources don't say, because the answer is probably not at all but it may have damaged further the international image. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It may have been a failed attempt to influence. Maybe it did influence. Or maybe protests will flare up again. Regardless - you going over to WP:OR and asking me to WP:OR - for the most part, we know what's going on inside Iran at a significant lag and via a distorted mirror (due to suppression and censorship). I will OR this, however, if you are an Iranian inside Iran and you want to disseminate info to Iranians - you often bounce this off foreign media - as you have close to zero chance pushing it locally (media is state controlled, so you have word of mouth) - the outside info, that is suppressed to some degree, then tends to percolate slowly back in (or sometimes very fast). This is a highly explosive item - that was released during the protests (and apparently intended to be released a bit earlier - the reporter sat on it). It is clearly connected to the protests by several RS. We don't need to attempt to analyze possible effects other than state that according to X,Y,Z this may have been an attempt to influence.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
We are going round in circles on this, can we see what others think? I don't dispute any of the facts on this, I simply don't see sources establishing much of a connection to the protests, and therefore I don't see a text which would make clear how this has impacted and where and with whom. Perhaps if it is covered further, a connection/impact may be clearer - which may well be on 'foreigners' and exiles rather than on Iranians. (The video was I believe released on Facebook, a few column inches from this coverage, we say that Facebook is banned, or heavily controlled within Iran. OR is not permitted in the article, but is OK on talk.)Pincrete (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It was initially released on facebook - but within 24Hrs got carried on multiple international outlets, and outlets such as Radio Farda([33]) - that attempt to broadcast to Iranians. It got summarized into shorter clips (e.g. this on (English audience oriented - subtitles/text)). The initial medium it was released on - was irrelevant - within 48 hours copies of this were across many different internet mediums, as well as repeated on satellite TV and radio broadcasts (that reach Iran). It would not be OR to say this information has reached some Iranians inside. Iran is a closed state - but it is "more open" than say the old Eastern bloc or North Korea. Iranians travel abroad (including to the United States - in fact, some of the sons and daughters of the regime's leaders live and study in the US). It is possible to speak to people abroad. There is internet (most of the time). People own TVs and radios. To reach people inside North Korea (where there is no internet, and TV/radio sets (rare) are sold pre-set to a single station) - you resort to Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea - as the North Korean regime attempts to block all non-state information. The situation in Iran (or modern day Russia) is more complex - instead of focusing on blocking (or defense) - the regime is focused on media offense by flooding the airwaves with its version of the truth - subverting and countering foreign information. So in short - the initial release via Facebook is quite irrelevant here. It probably got some echo in Iran. How much? that's already hard to gauge.... Even if you could run an opinion poll on such a matter in Iran - those responding to such a poll would be wise to say they heard nothing of the matter - even if they did.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no connection, too. There should be RSs making such a connection and merely finding sources with titles on the Protest which don't make the required connection the within the context, is not enough. --Mhhossein talk 19:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the timing and the subject-matter make it connected and relevant enough that it should be described in this article. zzz (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll - Bert Stephens

This was published in NYT (and syndicated onwards) as well as referred to by others in RS. Should the following be in:

References

  1. ^ Stephens, Bret (6 January 2018). "Opinion - Finding the Way Forward on Iran". Archived from the original on 6 January 2018 – via NYTimes.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Editorial, Post (1 January 1970). "No — the GOP's not playing the Trump-psych game and other comments | New York Post". Nypost.com. Retrieved 9 January 2018.
  3. ^ "Reuters Investigates - Assets of the Ayatollah". Reuters. Retrieved 8 January 2018.

Please indicate Yes or No with a reason.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging all users with 7 or more edits on the talk-page (semi-automated - apologize if you already commented. @Expectant of Light:, @Icewhiz:, @Pincrete:, @Calthinus:, @Signedzzz:, @Mhhossein:, @Elektricity:, @Peter Dunkan:, @HistoryofIran:, @MSGJ:, @MrX:, @Stui:. We already discussed, at length, the contents in each of these 3 straw polls however there seems to be a disagreement on what consensus, if at all, was reached. Please keep your !votes in each straw poll short and to the point here (we already have walls of text above...). If need be we'll open a RfC(s) - however that is a longer process than a simple straw poll (which for at least some of these may be clear cut enough).Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A tired NO! You seem to have a particular interest in this eccentric Zionist war hawk to open up a new talk after you failed the last time to achieve consensus for forcing your POV in the article! You've better forget about the dead horse and stop discrediting yourself any further!! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The source puts the 95 billion in context and should be kept. Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Comment, given that we are in a situation in which ordinary reporting and 'hard news' are both difficult, I think the key policy is not RS, since many commentators inside and outside Iran are speculating based on limited info and many have their own agendas. Any claims not reported by multiple RS should be attributed and judged on both WEIGHT and the extent to which they represent a distinct viewpoint. A lot of time has been wasted here on "they are zionist-neocons/they are in the pay of the regime/they are exiled opponents of the regime" arguments, to which the reply in many cases is "yes", but that's what we have available - so we should attribute and balance the overall coverage. This is not a comment about this specific text, but rather on all three 'straw polls'. Pincrete (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Correct, polling is not a substitute for discussion but in fact we are weighing arguments here as well and gauging the opinions based on arguments of the community. Currently, there is only one participant who has expressed his opposition, but his argument seems to revolve around attacking Bret Stephens' character as an "eccentric Zionist war hawk" which is... not a constructive argument and in fact a possible BLP violation.--Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We can have a meaningful discussion about exactly what of Stephens and which Iranian comments should be included, but what has been happening is wholesale removal of both - that I don't endorse at all. My principal objection previously was to the use of Stephens to justify a WP-voiced statement about Khamenei's 'financial empire', now that the claim has been given context - and attributed - I no longer object to its use, so count me out as an 'objector'. Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Straw polls serve a purpose. In this case we can clearly register the current position after very long wall of text dicussuons. The straw poll here is formatted as an RfC (without the template)- but can close faster (and we are still in currentish event mode) if there is a clear consensus . Hopefully this will allow us to hammer out was stays in, at least in the interim, without repeated edit warring. If we are to open full fledged RfCs, the straw polls may allow us to focus on a smaller number of issues.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you deny any of what I wrote? No! In fact nobody has to this date! Pro-Israeli/secularist/corporate sources are at best reliable for their own POVs and some definitely not worth any weight. This is due to the fact that Islamic Republic has challenged the entire secularist/Zionist/corporate order. And again, if we are to acquiesce to including these misinformed, disingenuous, biased POVs, then the other standard wikipedia guideline WP:NPOV comes into force which means we have to balance the section by sources by the other side. Are you people just willing to acknowledge application of this standard universal Wiki guideline. Your refusal so far to acknowledge this shows we are facing a prime case of WP:BIAS in this article. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes Bret Stephens is very notable, and for this reason he has a Wikipedia article. Unlike the non-notable without Wikipedia article people whose field is not even journalism or political commentry, but still the Iran-regime related editors are persistently editwarring to include their non-notable, unreliable, unsourced, openly biased opinions.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll - commentary published in Iranian media

Third issue being edit-warred, should the following diff1 + diff2 be in the article:

References

  1. ^ Zibakalam, Sadeq. "تجربه تلخ را تکرار نکنیم" [Let's not repeat the bitter experience]. روزنامه شرق. Archived from the original on 7 January 2018. Retrieved 6 January 2018. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ جهان|TABNAK, سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و. "توکلی: اعتراضات خیابانی قابل پیش‌بینی بود". سایت خبری تحلیلی تابناك|اخبار ایران و جهان|TABNAK (in Persian). Archived from the original on 31 December 2017. Retrieved 31 December 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ PARHA-NP.V.5.1.1. "مدل خارجی برخورد با ناراضیان". روزنامه شرق. Archived from the original on 31 December 2017. Retrieved 31 December 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Please indicate Yes or No with a reason.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • No. Per multiple respected expert sources on the matter (RSF Freedom House HRW Amnesty International) The media are mostly under the Islamic regime’s close control (RSF), there is no freedom of the press in Iran, and coverage that isn't favorable to the regime is suppressed and those publishing it are persecuted (jail, and even possible tortue and death). Opinions regarding the regime (and protests against the regime) published in regime controlled media are highly biased in favor of the regime. Furthermore, these opinions were solely published in regime controlled media outlets and were not disseminated widely. We already amply cover the regime's position as we have Khamenei, Rouhani, IRGC, members of parliament, etc. etc. on record. We have little need to add opinion pieces (or interviews) of not particularly notable people (some with little relevant expertise) to represent the regime's opinion. Publication in non-RS regime controlled sources, and lack of commentary on these opinions, would show they are clearly UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes Why do you need a new poll when we already discussed that these figures are highly notable relevant experts?! Your regime-controlled nonsense has already been refuted time and again! Drop that and get a life! --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No WP:UNDUE + non-RS. zzz (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Prune heavily the later 2/3 of the Ali Khorram piece is simply a rant (from Trump/Tillerson). The first 1/3 may well be said already. The rest should be pruned where it repeats points already made elsewhere in the article. Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Prune heavily. Certainly partisan politicians (like Ahmad Tavakkoli) are not worthy of a section entitled "analysis". Opinions garnered from Iranian media and academia should ideally come from reliable secondary sources - not dodgy state-run websites. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No per WP:DUEWEIGHT. If these are noteworthy opinions, someone should be able to find additional sources that cite them. This is a fundamental part of WP:NPOV.- MrX 13:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong No for Khorram and Tavakkoli -- Khorram is peddling conspiracy theories in 2/3 of his quote and the rest, as Pincrete observed, is useless as it's already stated. Tavakkoli is UNDUE for reasons stated above, and his IMF claims are one of many irrelevant scapegoats used inside Iran, claims that have little to no support afaik outside of Iran. On the other hand, I actually see no problem with Zibakalam, as long as it is made clear that he works for Iranian press, although what he says may be already well-covered so I'm agnostic on him.--Calthinus (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be as hard as you on Tavakkoli, though it could easily be summarised to half the present length. The trouble with applying RS and WEIGHT too drastically on opinions on this subject is that we are going to conclude that no Iranian opinion is RS, because of censorship and any piece in the NYTimes etc automatically has tons more WEIGHT than any Iranian opinion. Even if we privately think that Iranian sources are largely simply blaming 'the usual subjects' and peddling a 'regime-acceptable' line, there is value to knowing the opinions which are being written (and read) in Iran. I tend to defend these to the extent that they represent a distinct viewpoint as much as the individual's or newspaper's weight. Pincrete (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No per the reasons already explained by ZinedineZidane98 and MrX. Abierma3 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes WITH Caveat (n.b if the community does not accept the caveat, then consider this a NO). These should be included, but condensed and scaled down to no more than 2 lines.

    Reformist Iranian academic Sadegh Zibakalam blamed the disillusionment of the Iranian youth, while Conservative politician Ahmad Tavakkoli and Ali Khorram blamed them on fiscal policies of the government

    Elektricity (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No Ahmad Tavakkoli is part of the Iranian regime, and he is prohibited by Iran regime law from looking into corruption of Khamenei's at least $95 billion empire, do anything but glorify Khamenei and regime. With regards to Ali Khorram, first he's not notable, he does not even have Wikipedia article!--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Followup

Seems there is some support for various "prune heavily" options, some for No, and little for straight up yes. @Elektricity:@ZinedineZidane98:@Pincrete: - as supporters of the "prune heavily"/"Yes WITH Caveat" - could you please agree on text for this option (blockquote, with references - do ZinedineZidane98 and Pincrete agree with Elektricity's prune?)? I think we should post it here, and see if the scaled down version has support.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I won't be around during today, Elektricity's prune seems a good starting point, but I would expand somewhat if the choice were mine. His cut seems too brutal. We aren't 'endorsing' opinions by including them, simply representing what is being said inside and outside the regime by sources that we know to be fairly partisan. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
We had an earlier consensus to remove Khorram entirely and as Pincrete observed, without the 2/3 of conspiracy theories he contributes... nothing new to the article. Regarding the remaining two, here's an attempt at pruning which hopefully addresses all legitimate concerns that have been raised: Conservative Iranian politician and economist Ahmad Tavakkoli blamed the protests on economic conditions experienced by the poor, for which he blamed the Rouhani administration and the policies of International Monetary Fund[126]. Sadegh Zibakalam, a reformist Iranian academic and pundit, blamed the protests on the lost hopes of young educated unemployed Iranians, who he said felt betrayed given the Rouhani administration's earlier promises of change. He also opined that use of monarchist slogans was only the youths' way of expressing their anger at the establishment, not an indication of real support for Pahlavis[128]. Thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I could support that summary, linking 'Pahlavis' for clarity and also adding (briefly) that Zibakalam, sympathised with the grievances but thought the protests were counter productive. Possibly also "the problems faced by average depositors caused by non-regulated financial institutions" - if bank problems aren't covered elsewhere. I think that covers everything of note. Pincrete (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I could agree to this, Pincrete. Can't speak for others but I would.--Calthinus (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete  Done, I added your suggestions as well. --Calthinus (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The supporters of "prune heavily" have to explain why they want to diminish POVs by these descent Iranian professionals and academics and continue to exacerbate the Western perspective bias in this article, but not by regurgitating the same "regime-controlled" non-sense that has been refuted several times on this article. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I am someone who has defended the Iranian opinions more than most here, I recommended pruning because a) because there is no point in including 'rants' against Trump, that have no analysis in them b)to express these analyses more succintly in some instances (we are required to paraphrase rather than long quotes - even in translation, the original publisher has copyright) c) there is no point in incuding opinions if they have already been made by govt spokesmen for example and which are in the article already. Assigning WEIGHT to these sources is difficult and comparing an Iranian source with, for example US ones, is comparing "chalk and cheese', but I think what we want is a range of opinions from within Iran and from expat sources, as well as some US ones. Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No Ahmad Tavakkoli is part of the Iranian regime, and he is prohibited by Iran regime law from looking into corruption of Khamenei's at least $95 billion empire, do anything but glorify Khamenei and regime. With regards to Ali Khorram, first he's not notable, he does not even have Wikipedia article!--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Iranian President Power and protests

Icewhiz tends to push "The Iranian president has little power compared to Khamenei" into the background section. Unless the source regards it as a background, we can't have it in the background section per WP:OR. @Pincrete and MrX: Could I have your opinion on this? --Mhhossein talk 20:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

NPA please (and I actually did not add this - I contested the revert). The claim of OR is spurious as this is sourced to Reuters that says exacly that. It is even a 2018 Reuters source covering the protests - so claims of SYNTH are irrelevant. Beyond the solid sourcing here, the current position, power, and last elections (well, not for the SL, just the president) - is clearly relevant in regards to protests in which the protesters have been chanting "death to..." both of them (per multiple RSes, I believe we have CNN in the article for this at the moment).Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It's verifiable in the source. Is there a contrary viewpoint that is underrepresented in the article?- MrX 🖋 20:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's OR, it may not be the most constructive way to inform about how powers are seperated (if we need to say more than we already do, and if we cannot link). Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Note I also added the 2017 elections (for the president, candidates are vetted by a council controlled effective by the SL). We could wikify the 2017 elections and Government of Islamic Republic of Iran (which is not in a great state). Separation of powers... Would be stretching it. The structure itself is arcane, multi layered, and very complicated to explain - however end of the day all of the organs are at the very least under strong indirect influence and some (e.g. the army and IRGC) report directly to the SL. Reuters summary is probablt better than trying to explain this here, but we can wikify.Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There is basic info in the source used and it might justify a sentence or two, but I agree we can't explain the whole caboodle. I alas probably don't have time immediately. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
the source says so, we rport what they say. As per Pincrete the entire explaination will take too much space. Elektricity (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Mr: Did I object its verifiability? I'm saying: "how can we use it in the background section when it's not a background for the article?" What's the relationship between this and the unrest, according to the source? --Mhhossein talk 18:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: The source plainly establishes that it is background related to the protests. The name of the source article is "In jab at rivals, Rouhani says Iran protests about more than economy". - MrX 🖋 18:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm seeing the title. Which part of the source "establishes that it is background related to the protests"? --Mhhossein talk 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Demonstrators initially vented their anger over high prices and alleged corruption, but the protests took on a rare political dimension, with a growing number of people calling on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 78, to step down.

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."
— Reuters

- MrX 🖋 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That's from another source. Anyway, I really doubt that the source is saying that "the president has little power" was a background for the unrest. That's just an explanation by Reuters on the political power of Iranian leader. I mean, protesters never shouted why the president has less power than the leader. --Mhhossein talk 19:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Considering that the protestors are reported to have shouted "death to the dictator" and that Iran reportedly (per regime controlled sources at least) had free and democratic elections for the President in 2017 it is quite DUE for us (following such explanations in RS) to explain the Iranian power structure, following which the previously uninformed reader might be able to understand whom and why the protestors were referring to. Without such background material, a previously uninformed reader would be unable to understand the motivations and actions of the protestors.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz: If there was a source clearly regarding that as a background you would not have to make such Original Researches. Mr: Would you mind responding to my previous comment 19:37, 18 January 2018)? --Mhhossein talk 18:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Background means the information in an article that helps the reader to understand the larger context. That applies whether it we are discussing a source article or this article. Pretty much what Icewhiz said.- MrX 🖋 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I added such sources. 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. - this is satisfied with the current soourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
MrX: So, can we add every thing related to the article just to "help the reader to understand the larger context"? OR says:"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." --Mhhossein talk 19:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
You can add anything that respects our policies and has consensus. The material we are discussing now does not imply any more of a conclusion than that made in the source itself, as far as I can tell.- MrX 🖋 19:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
MrX: Thanks for the response. OK! The conclusion we are discussing is that 'the president power degree' was a part of background for the protests or at least it had an impact on that or had a direct relationship to it. Could you please say how the source is making such conclusions? --Mhhossein talk 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I said nothing about the source making conclusions. You don't seem to grasp the Wikipedia vernacular definition of "background". It doesn't mean "the reason for" or "the cause of". Background simply establishes the broad context for a subject. It can mean "history leading up to" or "additional detail about" or just "extra information". These may help:[38][39] - MrX 🖋 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
"Background simply establishes the broad context for a subject" but it should follow the one of the wp:or, being a core content policy. We can't just push anything WE think is related. As always, Reliable Sources determine what to write and what not to! Btw, I don't know why you are referring me to those links.--Mhhossein talk 19:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Every one of these background facts is sourceable - they may not be sourced to articles about the protest, but it is being slightly ridiculous to claim they are OR. We cannot assume that every young reader knows the political system of Iran, nor how it came into being, nor the overthrow of the Shah, nor about Khomenei, all of which 'set up' what modern Iran is. It would be doing a disservice to the reader to not present this info in a succinct and neutral fashion. There might be text which can be improved or cut or added to, but objecting to basic background info is ... fairly absurd IMO. Pincrete (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC) … … ps do you mean WP:Ver? Pincrete (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete: No personal attacks, please. Btw, who did object "basic background info"? Can you say what the relationship is between the protests and the power degree of Iranian president ? --Mhhossein talk 19:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have already explained that the Supreme Leader has little executive power. SL appoints some heads and sets the general directions of the state but he has little to no say on legislation and government policies since the executives may or may not honor his general recommendations when doing policy-making. This is while the government proposes the annual budget to the parliament and appoints the CB head and controls many state companies. And I have read an expert estimate that public assets owned by IRGC and SL combined even when applying the most overvaluing bias constitute less that 9% of assets owned by the government. So practically the government in Iran has near total control over state-controlled economy. These vital qualified facts don't reflect in western analyses that mainly rely on shallow formal reading of the Iranian constitution. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll - Khamenei's "private financial empire" and poor rich/gap

Second section being edit warred, should the following two sentences appear in the third paragraph in the background beginning with In 2006,.... (the first block in this diff.:

Relevant pre-section text in paragraph: In 2015, Iran negotiated a deal with the great powers of the world in exchange for economic relief. Many Iranians hoped relief from sanctions would result in economic prosperity; however, benefits have not reached the average Iranian.[1]

2 sentences in dispute:

sentence following: CNN's Hamid Panah argued that these distributional developments in the economy helped stoke the protests.[3] Recent economic hardships have appeared to incite economic protests and shine light on government corruption.[7]

References

  1. ^ Economic protests in Tehran continue to challenge Iran's government Archived 30 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ Steve Stecklow, Babak Dehghanpisheh (22 January 2014). "Exclusive: Khamenei's business empire gains from Iran sanctions relief". Reuters. Retrieved 14 January 2018.
  3. ^ a b c Hamid Yazdan Panah (3 January 2018). "Listen to what Iran protesters are really saying". CNN. Retrieved 14 January 2018.
  4. ^ "Reuters Investigates - Assets of the Ayatollah". Reuters. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
  5. ^ Stephens, Bret (6 January 2018). "Opinion - Finding the Way Forward on Iran". Archived from the original on 6 January 2018 – via NYTimes.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ "Iran, plagued with poverty and drought". Iran Human Rights Monitor. 5 November 2017. Retrieved 14 January 2018.
  7. ^ Iran: Protesters Decry Economic Mismanagement, But Also Express Broader Frustrations Archived 31 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine

Please indicate Yes or No with a reason.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - following a comment on my talk-page, I added the text before and after (in a green text quote) the section in dispute.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Clearly relevant well sourced background information explaining why protesters are allegedly chanting "death to the dictator", sources of corruption and economic hardship of the poor (who, this time, are the ones doing the protesting).Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Well-sourced uncontroversial basic background info. zzz (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No as before! Nothing has changed! Like I have said time and again, you either remove this whole section for being contentious and non-neutral and promoted either by Zionists war hawks or biased corporate media, or we have to balance the whole issue using Iranian official sources. But only stop pushing it and take a note of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's laughable that this source claims that the released assets have gone to setad when it's widely acknowledged by objective analysts that no a dollar can be transferred to Iranian accounts due to international banks' continued refusal to work with Iran's CB. What is more laughable is attributing the economic divide to the Seta, a foundation that has contributed to poverty eradication in this country like no other government body! So these parts have to removed for now and this article has a long way to go until resembling anything neutral. It's ironic that you do not move a finger to add a section on foreign support but continue to insist on this biased fallacious POV. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I would prefer to see the Panah quote attributed but the content should be kept. Relevant and not undue. Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as per reasons given by Pincrete.Resnjari (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, an unimpeachable source talks about corruption and poverty? Ridiculous that this is even in dispute. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No - The material is combined in a way that seems too much like WP:SYNTH and we cannot state someone's opinion in Wikipedia's voice (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). It's not clear to me that Iran Human Rights Monitor is a reliable third-party source.- MrX 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • MrX in a message pinged you to on Icewhiz' tp, I note how the WP:SYNTH claim is misleading. The source is not us, it's Hamshid Panah on CNN (others make this connection too-- i.e. Bret Stephens, etc). He makes all the connections and all the sources I used for that section are precisely the ones he used. Diff of attribution to Panah: [[40]]. The reason you were disappointed to not see that attribution on the current page is precisely because Expectant of Light deleted it [[41]]. Now understanding that, do you still think this is SYNTH?
    • Additionally regarding teh 33%, I stuck to the IHRM because that was the source Panah used. But the economic data it cites (i.e. for the last quarter of 2017 for Iran) shouldn't be hard to find at all. I suggest, if IHRM is an issue, that we replace it with that.--Calthinus (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus Yes, I still think it's synthesis. If you would like for me to change my vote, please be specific (link & paragraph(s) in an objective source) where I can find "sanctions relief went to state firms and Khamenei's "private financial empire", while in late 2017 the vast majority of Iranians lived in extreme poverty and the gap between the rich and poor had increased greatly." What is strongly implied here is that the poor are getting poorer because Khamenei is raiding Iran's treasury. Also, 33% is not "vast majority". - MrX 🖋 14:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The current text is Instead, the benefit from sanctions relief mostly went to state firms and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's own "private financial empire" Setad,[42][43] estimated at $95 billion in 2013.[44][45] In 2017, according to the Iranian Chamber of Commerce, 33% of Iranians lived below the poverty line. CNN's Hamid Panah argued that these distributional developments in the economy helped stoke the protests.[42]. I do not see this "strong implication" you claim, the text is making no implication that "the poor are getting poorer because Khamenei is raiding Iran's treasury." On the other hand, people in Iran are angry about the distribution of wealth, which is more nuanced than the crude deduction of "Khamenei is stealing" which no source afaik directly says. I assume basic intelligence on the part of our readers who will know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. --Calthinus (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be better if that whole quote could be attributed (to Panah), I tried to indicate a quote with the use of " "s on the term financial empire. I realise that might be difficult to do while maintaining 'flow'. I think attributing there is important and might assuage MrX's objections. Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Pincrete Well MrX did concede he now sees my understanding of Panah of valid [[42]]. But I wouldn't be against this idea necessarily. Here's an idea, although it does have problems: we could do CNN's Hamshid Panah noted that economic factors were also a factor, noting that "An estimated 33% of the population lives in poverty. 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". Irrelevant of that though, this idea has two problems I'm not sure how to deal with-- we lose the source for the 33% which as its ultimate source is not in Panah's quote (actually tbh we should hunt down the original source, probably in Farsi, that said that), and furthermore we'd lose the previous compromise the two of us had reached about the $95 billion. Tbh I'd be willing to drop the $95 billion if that meant we'd reach consensus but I'm hesitant as I suspect there are people on "both sides" who would object to this solution.--Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I like your suggestion .... the 95 billion is anyhow in Stephens and the actual figure isn't that important IMO, the substantive point being that money is under 'regime/SL control'. My general attitude is that because of the shortage of 'neutral hard news' the more we attribute the better. A solution would be needed for the '33%', possibly placing it before ' Hamshid Panah noted' .... btw, Panah is writing in CNN, but is not 'CNN's' if I remember correctly (ie he's not staff), I think he's an Iranian exile lawyer working in the US. Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Pincrete and I went at this for a day and finally reached a conclusion. The text that resulted, which was deleted by Expectant of Light [[43]] was well-attributed, not SYNTH, well sourced, and highly relevant. Arguments based on sources being "Zionist" as EoL did (note: there is no evidence Panah is "Zionist" in the correct meaning...) are unacceptable. --Calthinus (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
After seeing MrX's comment, and before seeing your's, I tweaked the article to fix an edit I made earlier based on the HRM figures. I removed some stuff sourced to CNN which didn't seem to be stated in the source, and looked unhelpful anyway. At this point, I still think it is worth adding: "Instead, the benefit from sanctions relief mostly went to state firms and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's own "private financial empire",[2][3], estimated at $95 billion in 2013" zzz (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Signedzzz and MrX I have restored Panah's attribution and the statement about hte gap as those were important. I removed "vast majority" as I agree that's not helpful. MrX, I will be pointing out the paragraphs momentarily. --Calthinus (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Does anyone object to just adding "Instead, the benefit from sanctions relief mostly went to state firms and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's own "private financial empire",[2][3], estimated at $95 billion in 2013." to the article as it is now? I don't think anything else is necessary. zzz (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Please add that. Also, I pinged you both on my talk page (here for anyone who else wants to see) where I demonstrate how my original text was not SYNTH (while the gap comes from IHRM so I support removing that now). For the purposes of everyone, let me point out that my original statement did not state "vast majority", instead it said 33%-- the one who changed it to say "vast majority" was... Expectant of Light (see here: [[44]]). --Calthinus (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok good, I'll add that for now. zzz (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Mhhossein, are you sure there is agreement between the two of you? [he seems not as sure about at least one thing he had said now...] --Calthinus (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I think some editors are of the opinion that we should write what is "true" in the article. I on the other hand, would like to include whatever the reliable sources are reporting. If the reliable sources report this (as they DO) then we should include this. Even if these are "biased western media", and the "zionist hate media" reports. Elektricity (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Yes One man, Khamenei, who has been ruling for over 30 years, controls over 95 billion dollars, (for those who don't know big that is, 1 billion=1000 million!), and its accounts are secret even to the so-called Iranian parliament! Protesters are chanting for his and corruptions death. It obviously should be included.--Peter Dunkan (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: Peter Dunkan found to be a sock puppet. --Mhhossein talk 05:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  • No The current wording is POV since no other sources say that Setad is Khamenei's OWN firm (I think this is what User:Mhhossein was trying to say). It's just Panah's and/or CNN's POV. Reliable sources, among them Reuters and NyTimes, say that he "control"s it. The "empire" qualification is just used by the Reuters independently with CNN and NyTimes quoting it while referring it to Reuters. I see that Mhhossein used, "charitable foundation" and I don't see it much accurate neither, since NyTimes has used "supposedly" before it. Also, The "Reuters found no evidence that Khamenei is tapping Setad to enrich himself." So, I don't think we need to go through the details in this background. Moreover, the only source mentioning Setad as a background is CNN's Panah. --Saff V. (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Headscarf politics: Compulsory hijab

Compulsory hijab was previously listed as a cause of the unrest. Why has it been removed?

Iran is the only country in the world that requires foreign women like this Chinese musician to wear a headscarf. In other words, the government is not just violating the civil rights of their population but also foreigners.--2601:C4:C001:289E:A8C7:79D9:309F:5390 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of these sources do not refer to THESE protests. We need substantial coverage in a significant number of WP:RS describing the hijab laws as a major cause of these protests to list it as such. No one doubts that some Iranian women and many exiles object to this law, but that does not mean it caused these particular protests. Pincrete (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Here is an article published on 3rd January 2018 which clearly refers to these protest. Listen to what Iran protesters are really saying:
"Take the video, uploaded on December 31, of a young woman standing alone in Tehran, wearing no hijab and waving her scarf in front of her. The bravery such an act requires cannot be underestimated in a country where the government can arrest and punish a woman for not wearing a hijab in a social media post, let alone in public." --2601:C4:C001:289E:A8C7:79D9:309F:5390 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The CNN is an opinion piece, not a news report. If objection to hijab were a major cause of these protests, we would reasonably expect to see 1000s of people protesting about it, not one or two. We don't put into articles what we think are the 'real' causes. Pincrete (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There is more than enough evidence that Iranian females dislike being degraded by their regime. "Iranian women arrested for removing mandatory hijabs in public protest", ABC News, Feb. 2, 2018 --2601:C4:C001:289E:3C20:C0C:5577:C15A (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see the Girl of Enghelab Street article for additional information.--2601:C4:C001:289E:3C20:C0C:5577:C15A (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue is whether THESE protests are linked to laws about female attire. I have no objection to this being a 'see also', but it has not been linked to these recent events. Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Compulsory hijab as a significant cause of the protests

User:ZinedineZidane98, could you please explain what is 'ridiculous' about this edit of mine. Firstly, an infobox is a summary of the main points in the article, so, where in the article is it suggested that 'hijab' was a main cause of these protests (the ones starting 28th Dec)? The reffed incident was a recent relatively minor incident, on a completely different scale to the main protests. The 'hijab' protest is down as a 'see also', which is where it belongs. Putting the 'hijab protest' above 'economic woes' as a cause of these protests, is what is ridiculous and is not supported by the majority of sources - the appropriate criterion for inclusion in the infobox. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Extending the Protests

I made this revert since it had nothing to with the "2017–18 Iranian protests". --Mhhossein talk 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to discount dervishes. So, we going to delete them because they are dervishes? It is a clash of political Islam versus spiritual Islam. --2601:C4:C001:289E:9957:9065:F6EE:9381 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
ِ@Persepolis1400: For attention. --Mhhossein talk 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Parties

Why the page has not parties who participate in the protests. As we know that seculars, monarchists, women (White Wednesday movement), Re-start movement and labours (who organized riots in every days) are protests to the government. GTVM92 (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not describe protestors as belonging to such parties. zzz (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree, certainly not 'prime movers'. Pincrete (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You need sources to make such changes.--Calthinus (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Although I did happen to come across this: [[45]]. Not that I'm saying this is a major driver of the protest but it certainly was present and can be mentioned. Pincrete where do you think would be most appropriate to place this? It says they "overlap"... not sure how to deal with that (I see a new page has been created) --Calthinus (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That 'hijab' protests have coincided is not in doubt ... whether there is much connection to these country-wide 'economic' protests is much more so. I don't see sources making much connection, so would not favour anything more than the briefest mention (or as now a 'see also'). Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
While covered jointly at times, it is not clear they are connected. The Hijab protest is more a "well off Teharan thing". The big (but short) wave of large and violent protests (this article) started outside of Teharan, and to a large part was in various backwaters (and less central cities) by less well off individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC on "Should the 'Damage to public property' include this material?"

Hi all. Just a note to let you all know that an RFC which had been opened by @Mhhossein:, which was archived to Talk:2017–18_Iranian_protests/Archive_1#Should_the_'Damage_to_public_property'_include_this_material?, has been closed. It should not have been archived without being closed, but there we are. Irrespective, the clear consensus within that request for comment was yes, the text proposed by Mhhossein should be included in the article. Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to ping me here, or post to my talk page. Apologies for the delay in closing this RFC, there is a backlog of closure requests at requests for closure that I'm working through. Cheers, Fish+Karate 11:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Thanks for the closure. --Mhhossein talk 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Follow-on (?) protests

Street violence has been perking up again - for instance - Five Iranian security officers killed at Sufi protest in Tehran, Reuters, 20 Feb 2018. The Dervish protests are probably notable in their own right - the question we should be asking ourselves are whether they should be standalone - or here. Women-led hijab protests are also on-going to an extent - Iranian police arrest 29 for involvement in hijab protests, CNN, 3 Feb 2018 - but here we do have a separate article - Girls of Enghelab Street - and my view is that at least in the beginning they were separate (back in December).Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I recommend creating a separate page since these are not related at all. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017–2018_Iranian_protests/Archive_3&oldid=951676481"