Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Iran/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Background section

For a debate about the new introduction of the Background section, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Mass_duplicates_for_"Background".--walkee^talkee 17:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Why Khameini refused US help

@Saff V.: I add to the article that:

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has refused the United State's offer to help Iran eradicate the coronavirus pandemic."

You change this to:

"On 23 March 2020, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that the US created "a special version" of the virus that was affecting the country. So he has refused the United States' offer to help Iran eradicate the coronavirus pandemic."[174][175]

You write this information as if Khameini refused the US's help because Khameini said "that the US created 'a special version' of the virus that was affecting the country", but this connection is not made in the sources. You also removed this information from Humanitarian assistance section. Please explain. Barca (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It was not delivered so it shouldn't be in that section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked into the Reuters source and it establishes the connection between Khameini refusal and his allegation that the U.S. has bioengineered the virus. It also says that Khameini said: You [America] could be giving medicines to Iran that spread the virus or cause it to remain permanently.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

user:SharabSalam said whatever I wanted to say.Saff V. (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to note that, On top of that, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected the American offer of humanitarian assistance, claiming that the virus was “created by America.” published by NYT.Saff V. (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The NYT source supports that connection, but at the time that you moved that information, there was only the Reuters and Aljazeera sources, which didn't support that connection. Barca (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read the source carefully, for instance, aljazeera said that Iran's supreme leader refused American assistance to fight the new coronavirus citing a conspiracy theory claiming it could be man-made by the United States government.Saff V. (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

References
References

Time line

The section of timeline is included material which can be merged in other section. I think that some material was mentioned in tables .In another hand, this style of writing the section leads to reading material hardly. so I give it a try.Saff V. (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you already create a section like this recently? [1] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't get your mean. For the timeline section, you can see that we have, the number of infected persons or death had been reported for every day while the exact number of them were reported in this table which was inserted into the article. Why is it needed to mention numbers two times? I think it is better to keep the table and remove numbers from the timeline section.

For instance, On 20 March, 1,237 new infections and 149 deaths were reported. or 11 March: The Ministry of Health reported 958 more new confirmed cases and 63 new deaths. @Hzh: I wonder if you leave a comment? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Also I am going to suggest summarizing the following material and adding into "The source of Virus" section. It makes more sense!

• 19 February: 2 people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Qom. Later that day, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education(MOHME) stated that both had died.
• 20 February: 3 new cases were reported by the Ministry of Health. Two of them were from the city of Qom and one from Arak.
• 21 February: 13 new cases were reported. Seven cases are from Qom, 4 from Tehran, and 2 from Gilan Province. Two more people in Iran died from COVID-19.
• 22 February: the Ministry of Health reported 10 more infected cases bringing the total to 29 and two more deaths bringing the total to eight. Eight of the new cases were from the city of Qom and two from Tehran. The following day Iran's Health Minister Saeed Namaki said that one of those who died was a merchant from Qom who traveled regularly using indirect flights between China and Iran after direct flights were suspended between the two countries, and may have brought the virus from China.
• 23 February: the confirmed cases count rose to 43 over four cities and the COVID-19 death toll to eight.Saff V. (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Also this one, I think it is related to the source section, The Iranian government first told Iranian citizens that the U.S. had "hyped COVID-19 to suppress turnout" during its government elections, and that it would "punish anyone spreading rumors about a serious epidemic."Saff V. (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think one possible way of doing it is something like 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Spain, and organise by grouping the events, writing in paragraphs instead of listing by date. For example, you can have a section on "Early cases" up to 23 February 2020 (because this is when a minister suggest that a Qom merchant may be the first infected). Followed this by a section on government measures and infections among ministers and parliamentarians, then a section on Nowruz where it seems that there is an increase caused by travel during the holidays, etc. Hzh (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Such a brilliant idea, I will give it try.Saff V. (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References
References

Two unreliable sources

During this edit, material with an unreliable source was added to the article. Also, another unreliable source was used for the latter sentence. @Hzh:, Isn't it better to remove this material that needs a reliable source to support it? they were mentioned as a fact!Saff V. (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C:I think the restriction of the page to avoid using unreliable sources might be violated. I wonder if you take a look at this material? Prisoners in the western Iranian city of Hamadan rioted against the authorities' refusal to release them in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak. They clashed with IRGC guards and set a part of the prison on fire with some of them succeeding in escaping.source Prisoners in the city of Mahabad, in Iran's Kurdish region, also attempted to escape. Shootout occurred inside the prison; two people were reported killed while dozens managed to escape.sourceSaff V. (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that mentioned riots in Iranian prisons in Shiraz, Aligudarz, Hamedan, Tabriz, Saqqez, and Khorramabad - [2][3][4][5]. They said some of those were reported by IRNA, perhaps you can check and see if the news items are given there. I assume that the facts are correct, but perhaps better sources can be given. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: thanks for answering. I think that we have to be sure that there is a relation between Riot in prisons and the spread of the virus.Saff V. (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The one from Middle East Eye says that Hamedan's prosecutor told IRNA that the unrest there was "over the excuse of the coronavirus outbreak", so presumably the riots would involve concerns over the virus outbreak, whether the concerns are real or not we don't really know. Perhaps it can be reworded. If you can find the IRNA source it would be useful. Hzh (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I find the source, he said that the fear of infecting the virus was a pretext for the prisoner! For other prisons, more research is needed.Saff V. (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll adjust it using better sources. Hzh (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for editing the material. About Saqqez Prison, I find this claim, Mohammad Jabbari, Kurdistan's prosecutor told IRNA that the reasons for the escape of the Saqez prisoners were not the fear of the outbreak of coronavirus. the negligence of the officers during the sharing of food is, and other reasons are under investigation. Is there another claim be against it?Saff V. (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: Can I ask you to take a look at Prisons section, I think we give it an inappropriate weight.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Gov

Governmnent removed internet speed and bandwidth limit add that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A few comments after copy editing

Hi, I have tried my best to copy edit this page over the last few days for the GOCE request from Saff V. The article is a bit scattered, which is to be expected given that it is about a complex, developing situation. A few comments:

• The amount of sentences that recite the number of infections/deaths/recoveries on a given day is probably excessive. Maybe these numbers should be given only for a few key days, while folks wanting more details can find them in the table?
• The section about officials who contracted COVID-19 is very repetitive. It might be easier to read if it was converted into a table with columns something like name, position, date infection confirmed, and died (Y/N).
• There were a lot of references to the "Ministry of Health", the "health ministry", etc. that I change to "the MOHME" for consistency. If these are actually referring to different entities, I apologize. Also, if "MOHME" is not a widely used acronym I have no objection to using "Ministry of Health" or another term instead. Finally, it wasn't clear to me whether it should be "the MOHME" or just plain "MOHME". The article about it uses both.

Stay safe and healthy! Regards, Tdslk (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Povish edits by Alex-h

Some of his edits on this article seemed less than neutral. He is trying to write opinion as Fact which is the clear violation of WP:YESPOV.

• It is the claim of Karim Dahimi but he wrote it as Fact with no attribution.
• He wrote that "Several other prisoners are reported killed in Shiban prison, also in Ahwaz." while it is the claim of Radio Farda, but he didn't attribute it!

Another violation is using of unreliable sources (here and here).

As the Last violation, the Source stated the worry of a spokesman for the United Nations Human Rights Commission about prisons in countries including Iran, but he wrote that "...his worries about prison conditions in Iran."Really?Just Iran?

@El C: Can I ask you to leave a comment? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment is as follows: if you're going to talk about someone, at least give them the courtesy of a ping — don't do it behind their backs! Alex-h, this does not look good. We already discussed you taking liberty with sources when it comes to Iranian topics. Unless you have a good explanation for these edits, a topic ban from the Iranian topic area, overall, seems like the next logical step, I'm sorry to say. So, please explain in detail. El_C 13:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, first I want to acknowledge that I'm not an academic by any means, so my abilities may not be good enough for what is required in this article, even if I try my best (and I have been). If that's the case, I'll be the first to propose to walk away from the article, and if there is a chance that I can learn something here that will allow me to continue to contribute positively to the article, then I would be grateful for the opportunity since this is a topic I feel I can make (and have made) good contributions to.

Now about Saff V.'s complains.

For the first two edits, Saff V. is complaining that I didn't attribute the sources. The information I added came from Radio Farda (and sources that Radio Farda interviewed). I thought that attribution was optional depending on each case, and didn't realise that there was a strict rule that said we were supposed to attribute always, really I didn't. In these cases, I thought that adding the source at the end of the text was indicative of where the information was coming from. If I'm allowed to continue editing here, then I'll always attribute everything from now on without exception (if that's really what is required here). If there are exceptions to the rule, then I would have expected some kind of talk page discussion where we can determine when attribution is necessary, and when it isn't. What's confusing in all of this is that Saff V. has also made many edits without attributing:

[6] [7] [8][9][10][11][12]

For the third edit, Saff V. is complaining that I used APA.AZ as a source. When I first looked up the source at RSN, it was unclear whether the source was reliable or not:[13]

I then checked APA.AZ for inline citations, and saw it was included in other Wikipedia articles:[14]

My guess was that if this source was unreliable, then either Wikipedia itself would not allow me to insert it, or someone would raise the issue on the talk page or in an edit summary. I thought there would be room for debate if someone thought the source was not appropriate. I don't mean to turn this back to Saff V.'s edits, but Saff V. accusing me of using weak sources is a paradox since he has use many weak sources in his edits:

• https://www.tabnak.ir/
• https://www.farsnews.ir and https://www.aa.com.tr
• https://www.tasnimnews.com/
• https://www.dw.com

About the 4th edit, the information I added is about Iran, which is what this article is about. I could have mentioned "Iran and some other countries", which is what it's in the source, but because this article is about "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran", I only added what I thought was related to this article (information about Iran). Some editors here have been removing information that they say is not related to "2020 coronavirus pandemic in Iran", and Saff V. didn't seem to have a problem about those: [15] [16] [17] [18]

Mainly I have been trying to edit in a similar way that others have also been editing here, including Saff V. Like I said before, if I'm not qualified to edit this article, then let me volunteer to walk away from it. If I have made mistakes, like other editors have, then I can try to learn from them and help the article grow. I appreciate your guidance here. Thank you for taking the time to review my response. Alex-h (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Alex-h, you don't need to provide inline attribution necessarily, just attribute your additions to a reliable source. And no, Iran and [other countries] would have been the neutral presentation in this case. My concern is that you may be too close to Iranian topics to do so. That's why you got a final chance to mend your ways in this regard a few months ago. I don't mind extending that one last time, so long as you understand that further violations will result in a topic ban from all Post-1978 Iranian topics, without exception. Anyway, my solution to you is as follows: when in doubt, propose on the talk page first. El_C 15:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @El C:. I'm going to take a break from editing this article, and try and learn better the editing pattern by other editors to make sure I get it right from now on. I appreciate you giving me another chance, and will do my best to not let you down. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

January section

I advise you to pay attention to my edit summary instead of accusing me to remove material! As I mentioned, It is an allegation and needs to be attributed, but you wrote it as the FACT! Be aware that it is not just my opinion, see this discussion! Second, the news was published in April, you wrote it under the January section, Notice that it is just the claim of three individuals, you can't consider it as Fact which occurred in February. so for these reasons, I move it to the appropriate section.Saff V. (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I pointed to February in my edit summary for revert, but in fact, I meant January.Saff V. (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., even if the report was made in april, this happened in January. Why did you remove it from the January section? (twice?) It is an "allegation" by "two health ministry officials, a former ministry official and three doctors"[19] - how many more official people need to say for you not to remove this? Barca (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the same here. Saff V. is turning things that have happened and are backed by evidence into "allegations from the press". Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging admins @El C: @Vanamonde93: I think it's about high time a thorough investigation is made of Saff V. This user has pushed IRI pov under the radar long enough, an authoritarian regime with significant constraints and abuses against human rights (mentioned in the lede of the Iran article for example), and which clearly isn't afraid of killing/jailing people to stay in power, as seen in the 2019–20 Iranian protests among other events. How long rope is this user gonna get? I've just recently caught him cherry picking information from sources twice [20] [21], and I barely watch modern era Iranian-related articles. Also, I find it interesting that when a source is mentioning something that isn't pro IRI, then Saff doesn't hesitate to add "according to said source", but when it's a source beneficial for the IRI, it's mentioned as it was a pure simple fact. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"an authoritarian regime with significant constraints and abuses against human rights (mentioned in the Iran article for example), and which clearly isn't afraid of killing/jailing people to stay in power, as seen in the 2019–20 Iranian protests among other events." This is a POV comment!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that card isn't gonna work. I've literally backed it up. Also, some more food for thought [22]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Its a flame-baiting comment. There was no need to say that and by the way, not everyone believes what the US says is "terrorist" for example, I don't think Hamas is a terrorist group, I think they are freedom fighters.SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I frankly don't care what you think, keep your accusations for yourself. If you have nothing constructive to add to this thread, then please stop derailing it further and leave, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• @HistoryofIran: Your comment does in fact violate WP:NOTFORUM; this is not a place to discuss the nature of the Iranian regime, and that nature has nothing to do with Saff V.'s actions. If Saff V. has actively violated our content or behavioral policies, please present evidence of that. Your diffs above are not sufficient; the first is vaguely troublesome but not egregious, and the second does seem to be directly relevant. I have previously sanctioned Saff V. in this area, and am willing to do it again if it is necessary; but only if clear evidence of misbehavior is found, and your nebulous accusations above are more likely to get you sanctioned yourself. Please remember that casting aspersions isn't acceptable unless your accusations are backed up by evidence. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Was more trying to make a certain point, which seems to have been missed, but alright I guess. I did say a thorough investigation should be made of said user, that would shed light on many things. Also please look at the source of the second diff again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I don't think I've missed anything you've said; I'm telling you that the basis for your conclusions is unsound. I frequently check up on the contributions of editors in contentious areas that I work in either as an editor or an admin. This area is one of them. I haven't found evidence of egregious policy violations beyond the ones I have already sanctioned Saff V. for. I cannot read through the diffs and sources used in every edit he makes; if you have the time to do so, and you find evidence of misconduct, please present it to me or another admin. Please do not use generic statements about the Iranian government (or any government) to try to discredit the contributions of any individual users. Our editors are bound to follow our core content policies, regardless of their personal views. If they are unable to do so, they need to be removed from contentious areas, again, regardless of their personal views. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledge the ping, but it looks like Vanamonde is already attending to this, so I'll let him take the lead. Thanks. El_C 16:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand Vanamonde's point, but I also understand HistoryofIran's point. I find Saff V. is constantly Wiki-lawyering so he can turn the article to how he wants it, and even though this may not be a violation, it becomes a lot of work to go through his edits and debate against him in these talk pages. It's tiring, and we don't all have the time or patience, so information ends up presented how he want it to be presented, as it was with my edit which he changed.[23] Barca (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My explanation is extremely clear, I don't know how you say that " It is an "allegation" by "two health ministry officials, a former ministry official and three doctors"" while you didn’t attribute it!the source says, Iranian authorities ignored warnings by doctors in late December and January of an increasing number of patients with high fevers and lung infections in the historic city of Qom, which turned out to be the epicentre of Iran’s coronavirus outbreak, said two health ministry officials, a former ministry official and three doctors. it is the claim of "two health ministry officials, a former ministry official and three doctors"!Saff V. (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: why do you insist that this needs attribution (two health ministry officials, a former ministry official and three doctors giving their report to Reuters seems like a strong source), but then add to the article things like "On 26 February, Iranian Cyber Police announced that to stop spreading photos and videos which are untrue and fake on coronavirus, notices were given to 118 people and 24 others were arrested." using tabnak.ir as source and not even attributing? [24] Barca (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please try to be familiar with the opinion and fact. The opinion is " a judgment, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive". Exactly you see that reuters attributed the material to three doctors, so it is not the fact, it is the viewpoint of 3 doctors!About the Tabnak, That was the decision of Iranian Cyber Police and guilties were punished and other sources such as cyberpolice, tasnim,jamejamonline,IQNA, HARANA support the material. It is the Fact,"a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence."Saff V. (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: - you are adding what Iran government media says as “fact”, and changing Reuters sources (that say things against Iran government) as “opinion”. Don't you see the problem with that? Barca (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The quote of Richard Brennan of WHO

@HistoryofIran: you accused me of cherry-picking, while I just reported the quote of Richard Brennan, officials of WHO. what is wrong with that? According to WP:RSP, Newsweek is not completely unreliable, (Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis), but it doesn't matter sources such as CNN (1 and 2) support the quote of Richard Brennan! Please justify your revert!Saff V. (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: can I ask you to leave a comment? what is wrong with my edit supported by CNN (1 and 2)?Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: can I ask you to leave a comment? what is wrong with my edit supported by CNN (1 and 2)?Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., I don't know, I'm not greatly familiar with the material. But HistoryofIran you need to respond to Saff V.'s ping, or you risk your revert being undone for not being substantiated on the talk page due to non-responsiveness. Please note that I'm going to take a dim view of further reverts that ignore talk page discussion. If you you reach an impasse, use dispute resolution requests, but an attempt at discussion with respect to this edit and its reversion has to take place first. Thank you. El_C 16:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, Saff V., your duplicate message to Vanamonde caused me an edit conflict. Which was a bit unnecessary, anyway. Please ping in moderation. El_C 16:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Because once again, you're not adding the whole story, instead only adding the bit that is favourable to the IRI. Here's what the source you used says [25];

"Due to an impressive scaling up of many of the control measures, we have seen a flattening off of the number of cases in Iran and in fact, some suggestion, in recent days of perhaps a decline in the number of new cases," the Acting Regional Emergency Director for the WHO East Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO), Richard Brennan, said at a press conference on Tuesday."

That was the part you added to the article [26]. Right after that text it says in the same source;

"However, earlier this week, a member of Iran's national COVID-19 task force, Hamid Souri, claimed around half a million people in Iran are infected, he told IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency) on Monday."

There's obviously more to it, yet you omitted this bit and instead only added the first part. You did the same here [27] (which you added as it was an objective fact (even adding "US illegal sanctions"), yet it was statements by the IRI, which wasn't presented as it was, here's the source: [28]) -> I shortly afterwards added this bit to it [29], so both sides were somewhat represented, the text still needed/needs to be rewritten to appear more neutral though. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You first accused me to cherry-picking and then IRI Pov pushing! I just was going to add the saying of one of the officials of WHO, following another saying of officials of WHO in the lead section! Why I have to add the claim of Hamid Souri? The weight of the saying of one of the officials of WHO is not equal with the claim of Hamid Souri! On the other hand, the number of infected people is updating every day on the table.

About sanction part, please don't want me to add most of the material of the source into the article, which is n't asked by any policies of Wikipedia. I tried to make the edit balance by adding that While the US sanctions legally allow humanitarian products to be sold to Iran, due to their nature, very few banks are willing to risk sanctions by trading with Iran.Saff V. (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The weight of Hamid Souri or whoever it was clearly made equal in the source, it's not up to you to make that decision. Also, if you are unable to do the simple task of presenting both sides, then don't edit then. Rest of your comment I don't really get and seems kinda unrelated/irrelevant, how does it justify your povish edits? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My edit is clear, I don't know why you accuse me of pov pushing!

Saff V., in fairness, they accused you of making "povish edits," which is not the same thing. That said, HistoryofIran, if the due weight of the mention is noted in the source itself, you should just quote that detail. And in general, stick to the material, please. El_C 11:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

we have in the lead a paragraph about the statement of WHO's officials, the paragraph was ended by this sentence, "although later a WHO official indicated that only a fifth of the cases may be identified in Iran due to testing being limited only to severe cases initially, as was the situation with some European countries." in order to make it balance, I added another saying of who's officials. I can not understand why I have to add the claim of Hamid Souri about infected people! Please note that the paragraph belongs to sayings of who officials! the claim of Souri has nothing to do with that. Ok if you found my edit wrong, you could move it to "World Health Organization verification" or tagged it by citation need, instead of removing it. I provided more sources for the sentence and I pinged you! But you didn't answer up to Admin asked you to answer!Saff V. (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Read my comment(s) again, then'll you know why. I know very well it's mentioned by the WHO, repeating it won't make any difference. You still omitted the other side of the story. That's because I simply couldn't be bothered, it's tiring constantly discussing with you and cleaning up after you, hence why I simply reverted you instead of (once again) having to add/change more information to make it more neutral. I'm not here to do your job. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, Please see HistoryofIran's justification for removing the quote by WHO senior official. He has removed a WP:DUE sentence from the article. He simply reverted me. "I'm not here to do your job". Which job? Editing Wikipedia is not mandatory.Saff V. (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., I am not here to referee. As I said before, if you reach an impasse here, on the article talk page, please use dispute resolution requests to gain further outside outside input into the dispute. I'm not going to use administrative intervention to decide this by fiat. El_C 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you. OK, I will follow dispute resolution requests.Saff V. (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I did not mean it literally, stop exaggerating it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Maybe it's time to review some of Saff V.'s edits in this article and have an administrator determine if they are editing in ways they shouldn't be. I see Vanamonde asked you for diffs in a past discussion. If you don't have the time, I can have a look. Let me know. Ypatch (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: The two diffs above are the ones I have atm, I think BarcrMac have listed some of Saffs diffs as well on this talk page. Tbh I'm not too keen to do the digging myself, as this is not my speciality, and I don't like it either. I try to avoid post-1979 Iranian articles as much as I can (I do watch over Women's rights in Iran regularly however, where I've had some disputes with Saff as well [30]). I do remember some Saffs diffs being listed in a noticeboard a year or two ago as well. I should have started to compile a list back then. But yeah, if you could do it, that would be very much appreciated. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of Saff V.'s edits

@Vanamonde93: you have asked for diffs of what may be @Saff V.:'s problematic edits, and here I am providing some that might be:

1.Adding controversial information from controversial sources without attributing:

• "On 26 February, Iranian Cyber Police announced that to stop spreading photos and videos which are untrue and fake on coronavirus, notices were given to 118 people and 24 others were arrested." (diff adding tabnak.ir/fa for this statement)

• "On 14 March, he was released after offering expressions of regret"(diff adding tabnak.ir/fa for this statement)

• "One of the officials of the Qom municipality has denied the claims of the media that the new graves are constructing in the Qom cemetery. He said that the image is exaggerated by foreign media for the purpose of falsification, some parts of the image belong to the adjacent estate, not the Qom cemetery. He said between 18 and 20 people who are not infected by coronavirus die in Qom every day." (diff adding tasnimnews.com/fa for this statement)

2.Other controversial sources he has added:

• via.tt.se/
• irna.ir

3.Other edits that involve changing or removing reliable sources in favour of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

• Removes section about the “Mishandling of the outbreak”, which has many reliable sources Diff

• Removes "On 24 February, Al Jazeera English attributed public scepticism of government transparency to citizens remembering that the government had denied, for three days in January 2020, having accidentally shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752." Diff

• Removes "Increasing distrust was further fueled by the number of infected victims the Iranian Government had released, with most of the government's official censuses being accused of not truthful and the real number of infected and deaths are much higher; as well as mishandling of the outbreak."Diff

• Removes "The First Vice President, Eshaq Jahangiri, was reported had been infected with SARS-CoV-2; however, there was no immediate confirmation from Iranian officials.Diff

• Removes "As reported by numerous sources" Diff (this is reported by numerous sources)

• Removes "The New York Times' correspondents Farnaz Fassihi and David D. Kirkpatrick believed the Iranian regime is trying to do a systematic cover-up and silence those who suspect the government's censorship, and that the number of recoveries in Iran is mostly not real since many of them might have died but registered as "recovered" instead."Diff

• Removes "Pilgrims committing "unconventional acts" such as kissing or licking shrines were threatened with flogging or jail."Diff

• Adds "{weasel}"Diff (this is backed by the sources so {weasel} is not necessary)

• Saff V. moves “On 23 March 2020, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that the US created "a special version" to a section with a title he created named “The source of the virus”, which gives the impression that “the source of the virus” is related to Khamenei accusing the US of creating a special version of the virus in Iran. Diff

• Saff V. adds US sanctions The US illegal sanctions make difficulties for the governmental and non-governmental institutions to providing all medical and health requirements for people who be infected by the coronavirus.Diff But looking at the source this seems to be a quote from the Iranian embassy in London. Saff V. wrote it without any quotes.

• Here Saff V. changed "Some sources, including a Senior US official said that the Iranian government lied" into "Brian Hook said that the Iranian government lied"

(but the statement is made by several sources, not just Brian Hook)Diff

• Here Saff V. changed "Struan Stevenson, a Scottish politician and coordinator of the Campaign for Iran Change, which is backed by the People's Mujahedin of Iran accused the Iranian government of covering up the true death toll" into "The resistance units of the main opposition MEK accused the Iranian government of covering up the true death toll"Diff (The article says that the "resistance units of the main opposition MEK announced Tuesday that the number of deaths due to coronavirus is over 20 times that number, exceeding 1,200", but the article is written by Struan Stevenson, and it is he who accuses the Iran government of a "cover up", not the MEK).

Ypatch (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Saff V.

Saff V., please justify the following diffs; 1, 2, and 3. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: sorry for deley in replying.For this edit I just followed WP:DIARY and WP:RECENCY. You know that there is plenty of news as to "coronavirus pandemic in Iran" every day, but these two demanded that "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." So I removed it because Eshaq Jahangiri being infected was not confirmed and as I wrote in the edit summary when his test was positive, we could include it.And this edit, please consider that wired and atlanticcouncil are respectively Opinion piece and blog which are not reliable. Also the atlantic is not explicitly talking about "mistrust". Finally this edit, I created a new section by adding well-sourced material and trying to make it neutral by moving material from other sections into it.Saff V. (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ypatch

@Ypatch:, please explain how 1) the content removed here was well-referenced, as you suggest it is; 2) why via.tt.se and irna.ir are "controversial sources"; 3) what sort of attribution you think is necessary for the first set of diffs above, and why. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde, sorry for taking some days to answer this.

1. I misread the CCN source thinking it was CNN, so that was a mistake on my part. For the other parts, these are the parts where I find the source can be used to support what was included:

- Content added -

“Iranian Government has been accused of its mishandling” (though I would have paraphrased it differently).

“Attribution to this includes its inaction toward the coronavirus alert in Qom in order to allow the 2020 Iranian legislative election”

- Source -

• "The election — seen as a litmus test of public approval for the all-powerful clerics who rule the country — was held amid fears that they're concealing the gravity of the coronavirus outbreak in Iran, and after security forces quashed anti-government protests." "One of the "events" they declined to acknowledge until the day before the election was Iran's coronavirus outbreak." "Before Thursday last week, there was no mention by Iran's state media of the virus having appeared in the country at all. Health officials had flatly denied there were any cases in Iran, dismissing "rumors" about an outbreak as the work of Iran's enemies." "In the days before Iran confirmed its first cases, social media users posted warnings and criticism of the government, alleging efforts to try and cover it up." "The outbreak has become significant, with at least 15 deaths and almost 100 confirmed patients, including the deputy health minister. " "There continue to be many doubts over the accuracy of those numbers, as the rate of deaths compared to the total number of confirmed cases is much higher than in other countries." "The epicenter of the outbreak in Iran is the holy city of Qom, but it has spread fast to other cities, including the capital Tehran. Officials have reportedly even considered temporarily closing the holy shrine in Qom for the first time since Islam came to the country in the 7th century."

The rest of it does not seem to be supported by the sources. Since I didn't include this content in the article, I don't know what that editor was trying to do exactly. I would have paraphrased the content differently, but the sources do seem to point out that the government in Iran concealed the gravity of the coronavirus outbreak, which I though didn't need to be removed from the article.

2. via.tt.se is a press release website, and irna.ir is a Islamic republic controlled news agency, which at the very least require some kind of attribution per its conflict of interest in politics and also because of the Censorship in Iran.

3. As before, my point here was that media controlled by the Islamic Republic government should have been attributed to the sources (tabnak.ir and tasnimnews.com/fa), so the reader is aware that there's a conflict of interest involved in content about politics.

Ypatch (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Province Map

Sadly, Alexchris hasn't been able to update the province map as IRNA weirdly hasn't released any more maps. Does anyone know of any sources? I could search in farsi but since I'm not native it might take me a bit. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

This map includes numbers as of 19 April. Pahlevun (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun, thanks! Alexchris has updated it based of that. It might be usedful to make a list of sources and place it on the talk page, to help editors. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

...which I have done now! — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

I believe a section on mathematical modelling of the outbreak could be added to confirm or challenge the data provided by the Iran ministry of health. Many articles have been written on the current outbreak in Iran and they provide crucial links between different sections of the article. The most comprehensive paper written so far can be found here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070904v1.article-metrics by Ghaffari et al. from the University of Oxford. Their analysis includes cases exported from Iran, likely starting date and the likely number of deaths and cases as well as ICU beds. There have been other papers published before such as this work by Zhang et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32171951.

As one of the co-authors of the paper published by the Oxford University group, I would like to nominate myslef for writing a comprehansive section in the article about how the figures provided by the minstry of health in Iran could be analysed to develop a better understanding of the current situation in Iran. Armankarshenasoxon (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As you are the author of that page, you have a WP:COI and shouldn't be editing the page anyway. Furthermore, edit requests are to ask for a specific change to be made, not to request access to the article itself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources for region map

I've spent a while searching for an up to date map of the regional cases, but I believe the Iranian government has told news organisations to remove it. Sources Like IRNA and Zoomit now no longer display it in their statistics, and all other press organisations have removed it as well. I thought I might at least drop a note as their might be a source I have missed. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Change to weekly statistics graph

Propose change to weekly statistics in graph.

New cases

New deaths

Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 12:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)