Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

Image copyright problem with Image:Mona Mahmudnizhad.jpg

The image Image:Mona Mahmudnizhad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple tags

In the last couple of months I have made (dozens of) edits in hopes that there will no longer be any need for these tags.

{{Multiple issues| OR = August 2008| refimprove = August 2008| synthesis = August 2008| unbalanced = August 2008| weasel = August 2008}} I've also sent messeages to those who participated in talk about the tags. Does anyone still have any problems with the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

LGBT

I'm perplexed - why was this removed? And why was it put under gender when sexuality and gender are completely separate issues? --David Shankbone 04:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple tags

In the last couple of months I have made (dozens of) edits - checking links, checking for more information on the web, rewriting - in hopes that there will no longer be any need for these tags. {{Multiple issues| OR = August 2008| refimprove = August 2008| synthesis = August 2008| unbalanced = August 2008| weasel = August 2008}}

I've also sent messeages to those who participated in talk about the tags. I recieved only one response, from Jclemens:

I've stopped wastchlisting that article, as I was only concerned with it in an attempt to get those in favor of tagging to provide meaninful and actionable issues for resolution as part of a WP:3O. Does it need more intervention? If you believe that those tags no longer apply, please feel free to remove them per WP:BRD--if someone reverts your removal, they owe you an explanation on the talk page about the issues they still believe remain. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jclemens

Now again the tags have been added, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=254622787&oldid=253939825

again with no comment in the talk page and again with a rather vague complaint, i.e. "a lot of the issues raised on talk page have not been resolved yet." And now with a large amount of unreadable code messing up the article (see: Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Rights_under_the_constitution) Needless to say, after all the discussion and edits made, this is frustrating.

The edits have been this time by a Mardetanha.

Mardetanha, what are these "lot of issues"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting real sick of this BS. The tags stay off until a specific complaint is raised. If the editors want to edit war rather than raise specific issues, so be it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mardetanha. I am looking at this talk page, and it's obvious see that specific issues have been raised numerous times regarding the pov problems plaguing this page, and mostly ignored. I believe that all the tags are appropriate and needed. AlexanderPar (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what you agree with. You will describe a specific issue or the tags stay off. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is already several list of specific issues above, described by other users. AlexanderPar (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, another POV-warrior is citing issues that have already been resolved as reasons to keep the present tags. You can't repeat the issues? You'd rather good faith editors scan through pages and pages of complaints and disputes? Cite some specific examples before I find a place to report this obvious bad faith editting. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stay calm and civil. I don't see Booga's edits as neutral, nor do I see any "neutralizing" or improvement by anyone else who is neutral. What I do see is that the issues that had been previously been raised, have not been sufficiently addressed. AlexanderPar (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about civility while you refuse to give any specific examples. Shame on you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Alexander, stating this does not make it so. If you feel there are issues that remain, you need to spell them out. --David Shankbone 05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the month old discussion of the tags. If POV-warriors start coming here and saying, "see the archives for the issues" I'm going to delete the links to the archives. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained Revert

Why was this reverted? There's nothing on the talk page, no edit summary and the old version it was reverted to is ungramatical.
Another issue is whether a decline public acceptance of government repression has limited the Islamic government's ability to repress dissent.
The in is missing Another issue is whether a decline IN public acceptance of government repression has limited the Islamic government's ability to repress dissent. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Needs tightening up and should accurately reflect the most important points. In short, it should read as a small summary of the entire article. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Kat73

Kat73 has made a huge number of edits (deletions mostly) recently and at least several of the first few are problematic. To give one minor example, that "writers" have criticized human rights conditions in Iran is not "irrelevent". Ervand Abrahamian's book on prison conditions in Iran Tortured Confessions (to name one author) was highly relevent to exposing human rights violations in the Islamic Republic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while some of the content was unsourced, he/she has also removed lots of sourced statements including Abrahamiam's which is definitely a reliable source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to salvage some of Kat73's worthwhile corrections ... although there aren't many! -BoogaLouie (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

An example of the editing by Kat73 bordering on the dishonest is this (quoted from the article):

• The Internet has grown faster in Iran than any other Middle Eastern country since 2000 but the regime has censored thousands of websites it considers "non-Islamic" and harassed and imprisoned online journalists. [citation from reporters without borders RSF Internet Iran (circa 2004)](italics added)

changed by Kat73 to this

• The Internet has grown faster in Iran than any other Middle Eastern country since 2000 but the regime has censored thousands of websites it considers non-Islamic and imprisoned online journalists who harass and violate Islamic law. [same source RSF Internet Iran (circa 2004)](italics added)

What does the source say? Here is the first sentence in the article: `The Iranian regime censors thousands of websites it considers "non-Islamic" and harasses and imprisons online journalists.` (http://web.archive.org/web/20080224063811/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10733 RSF Internet Iran) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is (as Jeff3000 pointed out) that masses of text in the article were deleted such as and this on the grounds that the sources are not on the internet and so are "are not real accessable sources". Not justifiable reason for deleting pages and pages of sourced, even scholarly, information. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Amputation

There is no evidence or live reference confirming amputation in Iran and being Iranian myself, I agree on almost all the other penalties, but there has not been any amputation penalty that I have ever heared of, and seeing that you do not have any reference or evidence to back up your claim, therefore I deleted that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.153.45 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change

I strongly believe this article should replace Human rights in Iran. I know no other nation's human rights article, which is divided in such a way and isn't focused primarily on the contemporaneous situation. In turn, the Human rights in Iran article should be moved into a new article, History of human rights in Iran. If somebody is attempting to find information on the current human rights situation, they should naturally seek to go to Human rights in Iran. They should not have to search for Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thoughts?ShamWow (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If nobody responds, I will move the page.ShamWow (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I understood the reason for the naming convention. But searching for Human rights in China right now redirects to Human rights in the People's Republic of China. This seems to me to be the more intuitive approach. How about making Human rights in Iran a redirect to this page and just renaming Human rights in Iran as History of human rights in Iran? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... that seems reasonable given the role of China's article but there are other examples such Human rights in the United States and Human rights in France. Overall, I believe it should all be merged into Human rights in Iran, rather than History of human rights in Iran. Thanks for your response.ShamWow (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now, Human rights in the United States of America is a redirect to Human rights in the United States. One of these pages needs to be a redirect IMO. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ShamWow since, as s/he points out, a reader who is looking for current material about Iranian human rights issues would want to see this page but would end up at Human rights in Iran. Moves are a good idea. The Squicks (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus here for a merger. This issue was discussed previously in details at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran/Archive_1#Sorting_out_name_of_article:_Human_rights_in_Iran_or_Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran.3F. In order to move the page, you need to file a formal request at WP:REQMOVE. --Kurdo777 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the page should not be renamed or moved without a formal request for move. --Wayiran (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:REQMOVE is for unregistered users who are not allowed to move a page. This is from WP:REQMOVE: "Unregistered users and users not yet confirmed may request moves here. Administrator help is required in some situations. Such moves can also be listed here." The standard method for page moving among registered users on high traffic articles is to request the move on the main page and garner consensus there. Also, when the page was moved, all 3 editors who had responded to the request agreed that it should be moved. That is consensus. You may have agreed with editors previously on this naming convention, but consensus can change. I see a very real issue with the name as it is as most people searching for the current status of human rights in Iran are presently directed to the wrong page. So if you do not disagree with the move, you're going to have to provide more reason than "editors previously decided not to do it." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only true about non-controversial moves, which is not the case here, given the history, and the previous request with opposing views. Please Wikipedia:REQMOVE#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves and Wikipedia:proposed_mergers. There is a procedure for controversial moves, and that procedure was not followed here. Also, Human rights in Iran may refer to Pahlavi era as well. Islamic Republic of Iran is the full name of the current state, the China HR page is also on Human Rights in People's Republic of China, while Human rights in China is a disam page. --Wayiran (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a "controversial move," and neither do either of the other editors to respond here. You seem to imply Wiki beurocracy needs to be followed without giving evidence of any reason not to yield to the consensus that was formed a few days ago. So let me ask you very bluntly: why do you think Human rights in Iran should contain the history of human rights in Iran as opposed to being a redirect to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran or being that article specifically? If we can't work forward to a consensus here, then we can take the request to another forum as is required by WP:REQMOVE. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in Iran should either be a disambiguation page like Human rights in China or a summery of the contemporary human rights situation in the land with a link to this page as its is now, and by contemporary here I mean the last 100 years. Human rights is an issue related to the political system and state, and the current system/state's full name is Islamic Republic of Iran, which is why the current tile is appropriate for this page. For example, most of the sources cited in the page, also use titles like "Latest Human Rights report on the Islamic Republic of Iran", or "Human Rights violations in the Islamic Republic" etc. --Kurdo777 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in China is a redirect to Human rights in the People's Republic of China. That's what I think should be the case here. Human rights in Iran should be a redirect to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran with a link on that page to History of human rights in Iran. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in China is NOT a redirect to Human rights in the People's Republic of China. It's a disambiguation page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be two articles. Human rights in Iran on the contemporary situation and History of human rights in Iran on the historical situation. Someone searching for Human rights in Iran should be directed to the contemporaneous situation and not the history of human rights under Cyrus the Great. The talk on this move was up for something like a month. It should be reverted to the previous unless YOU can argue that it should be otherwise.Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just your opinion. The Cyrus the Great stuff was added there by some anon, and has now been removed. Also, human rights in Iran already has a summery of the contemporary situation with a link to this page. This issue is no different than the China page. If you wish to have these pages merged, you need to follow Wikipedia:proposed_mergers, as your move has been contested by two other users. --Kurdo777 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion too, bud. In fact, there are SEVERAL examples to counter your PRC argument -- including United Israel, Israel, and just about every other country. And beyond that simple fact "The human rights in China" article still refers to "The human rights in the PRC"!!! According to your logic, which perhaps I agree with, the article should be entitled what it is now but "Human rights in Iran" should direct to this page as well. I like your logic.Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed resolution: Per Kurdo's logic, this article should retain its title and Human rights in Iran should redirect to this page. There will be no article on The human rights of Iran but there will be another article, Human rights in the Pahlavi dynasty, which would be placed as a header at the top of this page (I.e. For human rights under the Pahlavi dynasty see here, etc.)

It sounds like everyone is saying that Human rights in Iran should be a redirect or a disambig page. Can we agree to that much? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what everyone is saying. Human rights in Iran could be a disambig page, an option I don't oppose, like Human rights in China, but not an outright redirect. I propose that we move the current content of Human rights in Iran to History of Human rights in Iran and Human rights in Imperial state of Iran, and turn Human rights in Iran into a disambig page with link to those two pages, as well as Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's is a clear difference between the China example and the one you are proposing. The Human Rights in China is a disambiguation page because there are multiple states that claim to be the rightful heir of the country named China, which is the PRC and the ROC. That is definitely not the case with Iran. When people refer to Iran they only refer to the current Islamic State. There should definitely not be disambiguation page. The content currently here should either be at Human Rights in Iran or that page should redirect to this page. I agree with AzureFury in this discussion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also because the state's full name in China's case is different than the common name of the country, just like Iran. Human rights in Iran should also cover human rights under the previous Iranian governments. Given the that this page is already 105 kilobytes long and in need of a serious trimming as it is per WP:SIZE , merging those sections on Pahlavi and Qajars into this article is out of the question, which leaves us with the best practical solution, a disambiguation page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Still believe what I proposed earlier. Human rights in Iran should redirect to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which should have a header to a separate article, Human rights in the Pahlavi dynasty. There really is no point to having a History of human rights in Iran article since we are only really speaking about two regimes - the regime of the Shah and the regime of the Ayatollah. I don't support a disambiguation page because an encyclopedia is actually supposed to be something of worth for its readers. If readers are searching for Human rights in Iran they should be directed to the contemporaneous situation rather than some historical article which is something different altogether. Let's be practical and think practically of what the average reader would be looking for in a search for "Human rights in Iran."Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To Kurdo777 last argument. Sorry, it's not true that the PRCs human rights article is at that page because of a long official name and a short common name. The reason why the PRCs human rights article is at Human Rights in the PRC is because there is disagreement as to who China represents, and in fact the main article is at PRC is also because of that there are two countries to claim to be China and has nothing to do with a short common name and a long official name. Many other countries who have longer official names still have both their main article and their human rights article with the short common name. I could give many many examples, but consider Russia (long name Russian Federation) has the main article at Russia and Human rights in Russia. Others include Cuba, Armenia, Turkey, Pakistan, India, etc, etc, Also Tte current article on the country of Iran is at Iran and not at IRI. The history of human rights in Iran should be separate article with a subsection in the main article on human rights in the summary style. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: - There are two different pages being used in arguments here. Human Rights in China and Human rights in China. One is a redirect, one is a disambig. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Human rights in america is also disambiguation page, and not a redirect to Human rights in the United States. As I said before, Human rights is a governmental/state related issue, not a national issue. It's the government that is the source of the abuses, so the full name of the state/government Islamic Republic of Iran is needed within that context. Given that a lot of materials on Human rights in Iran correspond to the Pahlavi era, I still think that disambiguation page is the best solution. Others are entitled to their opinions too, which is why I think we should request a new formal survey or request for merger like it was done last year by other users and abide by its results. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I second Mr. Kurdo's proposal on creation of a disambiguation page. That was my original idea as well. --Wayiran (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurdo, your example again doesn't pass muster. America is a term that is ambiguous and America itself is a disambiguation page, and that's why Human rights in america is a disambiguation page. There is no ambiguity to the term Iran and the Iran page is not a disambiguation page. Every country where there is no ambiguities for the name, the human rights article uses the short name (as shown above), and Iran should be no exception. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

I agree that the Human rights in america example isn't really applicable here. America doesn't even refer to a country. It refers to two continents. Iran refers to one country. The land mass occupied by "Iran" has been roughly the same for quite some time. Making Human rights in Iran a disambig isn't my first choice, but I think it's better than the current situation. I really don't think we need to make a formal thing out of this, sounds like we're pretty close to a resolution in any case. We just need to work out the details. Remember to assume good faith.

How is this as a proposition: Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran stays right where it is. Human rights in Iran becomes a disambig linking to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and put the material currently in Human rights in Iran into History of human rights in Iran (or a different name). Any strong objections? Comments? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear AzureFury, that's pretty much what I proposed too. I have no objection to your proposition, as long as we also link History of human rights in Iran in the disambig page. Do you agree with this? --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Please see Human rights in Iran. Instead of titling the new article "History of human rights in Iran", I used Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran since the history page would have only covered Pahlavy dynasty/Imperial State of Iran era anyways. The new format also matches State of Iran. I implemented this change for now, to test the waters, since 3 editors had agreed with it anyways. But if there are serious objections, we can always restore the status quo, while we further debate the issue or go for a formal resolution. --Kurdo777 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. @harej 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran → Human rights in Iran — There has been some debate (above and at this link) over whether the name of this article should be "Human rights in Iran" or "Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran." I think the article should be named Human rights in Iran, for consistency with other articles such as the following:

• Human rights in Egypt
• Human rights in the United States
• Human rights in Belarus
• Human rights in Australia
• Human rights in Brazil

and most other Wikipedia articles on the topic of human rights in a specific country. Thanks, - Relisting  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

-CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons already stated above. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any ambiguity in the naming of any of those countries? Human rights in the United States of America is a redirect to Human rights in the United States which is a perfect contradiction to the naming convention for Human rights in China which is a redirect to Human rights in the People's Republic of China. It seems to me there is no consistent precedent for us to adhere to. Whatever decision we make should not be based on WP:WAX arguments since both sides can find examples, but instead on accuracy, fairness, and WP:NPOV. I think that Iran pre-Revolution and Iran post-Revolution are very different animals, and thus the article containing information on the current status of human rights in Iran should include that country's full name, thus Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran to avoid any ambiguity. Really, in my mind, the only real question should be what to do with Human rights in Iran. A disambig works for our purposes for now (though I still think it should be a redirect!).

So as for moving Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, I

• Oppose AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Oppose Support The US example makes no sense. They are accepted as the same exact country. I believe we should follow the example of China stated above -- Human rights in Iran should redirect to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Human rights in China doesn't redirect you to a disambiguation page with choices of communist China, nationalist China and imperial China. Wikipedia is supposed to be of practical use to its users. The existing disambiguation is not of practical use. Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran should be a header on the page of Human rights in Iran/Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that this move request is for Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, not Human rights in Iran. I believe that means you are opposed to moving this page and support moving a different one, is that correct? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that is the case as I do not want this page to be moved but for Human rights in Iran to be a redirect here rather than a disambiguation page. So I suppose that I in fact do oppose. What do you think of my proposal though?Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if consensus can be reached, I'd like for Human rights in Iran to be a redirect to this page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Does that conversation need to take place on this page or Human rights in Iran or both?Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing back to support because this arrangement isn't perfect but better than the status quo.Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as the country is more commonly known as Iran. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Common name for the Islamic Republic of Iran is Iran. The move brings the article in line with others. Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran was created on 13 December and is not substantial, its length no longer than most subsections on wikipedia. Suggest it be merged into Human rights in Iran. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support There is no ambiguity to the name Iran, so a disambiguation page is not necessary. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose unless the article is recast. The proposed title would include human rights under the Shah, and probably his father; conceivably under Xerxes as well. This might well add useful perspective here, but it would make a much longer and gorier article; this isn't it, and I can see the argument against writing it. If those who want the shorter title will be content to summarize this story in a new article, then both sides may be sarisfiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose This article is already big enough! If we were to change the name, we would have to bring the contents of "human rights under Shah" to this article and expand it further, but this is not practical. Given all that, the current format is the best format. --Wayiran (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support with a brief section on the Pahlavi dynasty and a spin off article Humans Rights in the Pahlavi dynasty. It is true the equivalent article about China is titled Human rights in the People's Republic of China, not Human rights in China, but as another editor pointed out to me this is to distinguish PR China from Taiwan, not from the Qing Dynasty. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is already big enough! No need to make it bigger by adding "human rights under Pahlavis".--WIMYV? (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• OpposeI think if we use the term Iran , the article must cover the history of human rights in Iran , that would be an enormous article . This series of articles talk about current situations in the countries and I don't think the name changing is in need .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support and merge Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran into this article. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and because "Iran" today is almost always associated with the modern state, so no confusion is possible. Beside, the Iran article on Wikipedia is already about the modern state so I don't see why the Human rights article should be treated differently. Laurent (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh...I was unaware of that policy. But then why isn't Human rights in the People's Republic of China named "Human rights in China"? We refer to the Republic of China as Taiwan. So as far as identification goes, there is no ambiguity in "common names." Would this imply that both this article and the China article are not following guidelines?

Actually, WP:COMMONNAME vis-a-vis the name Iran in general usage doesn't apply here, as within the human rights context, Islamic Republic is more commonly used than Iran. For example, "human rights violations by the Islamic Republic" generates 132,000 hits on Google [1], while "human rights violations by Iran" only generates 90,100 Google hits. [2] So in this case, WP:COMMONNAME actually supports using Islamic Republic over Iran in human rights-related contexts. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Human rights in the People's Republic of China article is a good example considering the major NPOV issues regarding China and Taiwan on Wikipedia. Better examples would be countries where there are no territorial disputes like France, Spain, Germany or Italy - all of them use the common name in the title of their human rights articles. Finally, "human rights violations by Iran" is not really the title of the article and actually sounds a bit akward, however with "human rights violations in Iran" there are over 3 million results, while "human rights violations in the islamic republic" only returns 600,000 results. It seems that in this context, "Iran" is actually far more common than "Islamic Republic of Iran", at least according to Google. Laurent (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this business with google tests is really unreliable unless we go through the results and make sure each one is talking about what we expect it's talking about. When you type in "Human rights in the Islamic Republic," are you using the quotations in your search? If not, then the sources returned need only include the words "republic" and "islamic" and may have nothing to do with Iran. Similarly, searching for "human rights in Iran" without quotes will simply return pages with those words, which may or may not be addressing the issue. If we're going to debate about the common name of Iran, we're probably going to need to refer to specific sources, not google results. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How about these results on the BBC: Iran: 244,000 results. Islamic Republic of Iran: 679 results. Laurent (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury is absolutely right, your search method is not scientific. I used quotation marks in those searches that I cited, to make the results specific to the Human Rights topic. "human rights in Iran" only generates 98,600 results [3], while "human rights in the Islamic Republic" generates 7,570,000 results. [4] That makes it crystal clear that Human Rights in The Islamic Republic is the only title in line with WP:COMMONNAME policy. The issue of general usage of Iran vs Islamic Republic has nothing to do with this discussion, we all know that Iran is the more common name in general usage. But that's not the case when it comes to Human rights topics, as evidenced above. Furthermore, the issue under discussion here, is what term is appropriate for the title of this particular page, whose content is entirely focused on the HR issues/violations of the Islamic Republic government. Otherwise, a Human rights in Iran page already exists, as a disambiguation page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should base all this discussion on Google results only; it can be used as an indicator but it's not a reliable one. Some searches return more results, some less. I think there's no question "Iran" is the common name regardless of what we found on Google or elsewhere but we need to decide if it's appropriate to use it for this particular article. Personnally, I think it is per the reasons given above. Laurent (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the status of human rights under the Islamic Republic are different than under previous regimes, so much so that it might be reasonable to treat current Iran as an entirely different country than previous Iran. The sources seem to reflect that. That's the reason the two articles were originally created with the discussed naming convention. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support and make article cover both pre- and post-1979. Such an article would not be "enormous", as some have said, as the concept of human rights only started around the mid-20th century. 60 or 70 years is not hard to summarise in an article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It covers 30 years and is already very long. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stoning issue

Plain and simple:

• Western human groups claim that stoning is practiced in Iran.
• Iran denies accusations as propaganda.

I put link where Iranian official denied claims, but one editor is forcing removal calling it as "unreliable" source. Unbelievable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.152.140 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Iran is not the source you have provided. You've provided some fake wanna-be encyclopedia more concerned with advertisements than information. Find something more mainstream and try to follow the source more objectively. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll search for more valuable link but don't delete text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.152.140 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Iran practices stoning as an official death sentence. Can we find press reports that support this? Specifically reports that it has not just been "handed down" but carried out? I feel that blogs and what-not are not enough for supporting documentation, though since Iran is an oppressive regime more controlling than Stalin, it may be hard to find good factual supporting references for this that are up to Wikipedia's lefty "standards". =//= Johnny Squeaky 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC

The dispute is over how to present information regarding stoning in Iran. This source which is used for the claim, "no such verdicts have been carried out," (stoning verdicts) also explicitly says that Iranian law specifies how stoning should be performed; pebbles used should not be large enough to kill instantly. Information regarding that law is being deleted[5] on the grounds that it is "sensationalist" while every claim that portrays Iran positively from the source is being included, and attempts to weight it properly are described as "censorship." Could we please get some editors in here who can objectively represent the sources? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this debate, but I don't think I know enough about the subject to assess issues of bias and balance. The cited source seems consistent with the claims that some editors would like to delete, but it seems to me the problem may be relying on a single source. In my experience, BBC doesn't always get things right. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If this were a question of the reliability of that claim, I could easily find more sources. It's not. It's about one editor in denial and having the gall to accuse others of censorship while he is deleting information. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that line. For starters, it's out of place, and hinders the flow of the discussion about the moratorium on stoning and the following events concerning the application of the disputed law. Then there is the problem of accuracy, as the aforementioned law is actually the sharia law, not the Iranian law in particular. Finally, it's a sensationalist piece of you-know-what that does not really add anything of value to the discussion or reader's understanding of the subject. AlexanderPar (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Every argument you've given is original research. Come up with something that complies with policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. My arguments comply with WP:POV, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:TRIVIA, and...AlexanderPar (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? POV? Facts have no POV. They're facts. They could not be more absolutely true. We repeat what the sources say and the fact that stoning is part of the law in Iran, whether or not judges hand it down, is worth noting. If it's a question of weight, I can find you more source, is this what you would prefer? Do I have a commitment from you to include this material if sufficient sources can be found stating that Iran does indeed have this law in the books? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Something reported and re-reported by several news outlets is not automatically an undisputed fact. If it is a fact, please bring the page number of the Iranian penal code discussing this issue and I will concede. The larger point you're missing though, is that this line is out of place and unnecessary, as this is a Islamic issue, not an Iranian issue. The law in question is a sharia law/Islamic law, not an Iranian law in particular. I am all for including this information in an appropriate place, which would be under the Islam section of the stoning page or somewhere on the sharia law page. AlexanderPar (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"The sources are wrong." HAH, read WP:OR or get out of Wikipedia. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:Civil and learn how to be civil. News reports are not considered academic and unflawed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderPar (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you'll say anything to justify your censorship. Where in Wiki policy does it say "news reports are not reliable sources"? Where does it say the BBC is not considered a reliable source? What about Aljazeera? More "western propaganda" I assume? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not censoring anything, I am for including the information where it belongs. As for news organizations, WP:RELIABLE states " . However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." AlexanderPar (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about an official from the London-based Center for Arab and Iranian Studies? "We haven't had stoning [in Iran] for perhaps 100 years, but after the Islamic Republic, they started, ..."[6] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict) : I restored the disputed line, but in the upper paragraph of the sub-section where the methods of harsh punishments are discussed with a minor rewording. Are you happy with that? AlexanderPar (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope because you've gone against the sources, again. Article 104 of the Iranian penal code specifies how to perform stoning.[7] The top google result for "Iran penal code" suspiciously leaves out Article 104. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, article 102 states, "The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts."[8] AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty can not be used as a source. Iranian penal code is based on sharia, but the law itself is sharia. [9]: "Stoning is part of Sharia Law that mandates that a stone not be too big to kill too soon, or too small to unnecessarily prolong the death" Besides, what exactly is your problem right now? The line you wanted is in the article, I only moved it higher where it would not hinder the flow of the paragraph. AlexanderPar (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source for the Iranian law: [10]. However, that web site may be partial, since it seems to be a human rights organization. It would be better to get it from a more neutral site. In any case, the sources are key. In controversial topics like this, virtually every sentence, every word, needs to come from a Reliable Source, not from an editor. If it is a reliable source, and if it relates to human rights in Iran, it belongs in the article, no matter how offensive. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You moved a statement about stoning out of the stoning paragraph. Great compromise. Let's do that in every dispute. We'll just take the disputed statement and move it several paragraphs away. Btw, the second source I gave you is not from amnesty international. And it does not say "this is sharia law". It does say that that penal code was "ratified by the High Expediancy Council." Saying that the law is part of sharia when the source is not is WP:SYNTH. I have given you exactly the source you said was necessary to include this passage in that paragraph. It's time for you to conceed. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYNTH, when there is a source for it. You can not use advocacy and HR groups as source. A 1991 primary document can not be used as a source either. AlexanderPar (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lmao! This is you just a few minutes ago, "If it is a fact, please bring the page number of the Iranian penal code discussing this issue and I will concede." Unbelievable. Does this not cause you any cognitive dissonance or are you truely a master of doublethink? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, HR groups can be used as a source, provided that they have a reputation for accuracy. Bias alone does not disqualify a source: it is a matter of accuracy. In this case, where the original documents are not in English, HR groups may be the only source of translations of the law. --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, such groups can not used as a source. Advocacy groups of any kind can not be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia. I explicitly remember that there was a discussion about this issue on reliable sources noticeboard some times ago, and the consensus was that Human rights groups, can not be used as a source since they rely on "he said, she said" without having the means to verify the claims. Regardless, there is no shortage of academical sources on HR issues in Iran, for us to rely on questionable sources. AlexanderPar (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Advocacy groups of any kind can not be used as a reliable source" is straight wrong. They're used as primary sources for their own statements. Human rights groups are trivially notable with respect to human rights. That is an actual discussion that has taken place on this article. If you're unconvinced of mehr's interpretation of the Iranian penal code, how about you demonstrate your good faith and google for the original documents in persian? I'm sure we could find a trustworthy editor on Wikipedia willing to translate once you've provided the link. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You said "You moved a statement about stoning out of the stoning paragraph". It's in the same sub-section, the first paragraph is about the methods of harsh punishments where the line in question naturally belongs, while the second paragraph discuses the moratorium and the related issues. AlexanderPar (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh btw, the source you've provided saying that stoning is part of sharia and not Iranian law isn't WP:RS. http://www.allvoices.com/about says all their content is uploaded by users. It is a blog. Is this the best you could come up with? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here is so bizarre! It looks like you just like to argue for the sake of arguing! Why don't you read the polices, before citing them? Primary sources of any kind can not be cited or quoted, unless they come from a reliable secondary source. Also, the whole argument here about the usability of HR groups is moot, what you guys have actually cited as translation of Iranian penal code, makes no mention of the size of the stones, which is what the disputed line is about. So your evidence actually supports my position that the size of stones is a Sharia issue, and not part of the Iranian penal code. AlexanderPar (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The cited translation is incomplete, it's missing article 104. But if you prefer, we can include the fact that Iranian penal code specifies to bury people and then stone them. That's just as condemning. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Epic fail? How about this one Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." Yes...yes that is pretty epic. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are quoting policy out of context. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Yeah, epic fail. AlexanderPar (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what interpretation of these quotes from websites is being made? Are you seriously telling me that is your belief that we can not use a human rights website to quote that human rights organization? I know a bunch of people that will get a good laugh out of that. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More reverting without a comment on the talk page, this is the definition of edit warring. Tell me POV warrior, what page in this supposedly reliable sources specifies that stoning is specific to Sharia and not a part of the Iranian penal code? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source about the Iranian statutes (penal code) on stoning: http://www.stop-killing.org/files/Terman_stoning.pdf . Again, from a human rights organization, but this document is very thorough. I think this, plus the other sources identified above, establish that there is a penal code statute in Iran that authorizes stoning. I think we need to accept that and move forward. Additional information we can include would be facts such as: how many stonings have occured, if any; trending upward or downward; types of crimes that are subject to stoning punishment, etc. --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, you are missing the point. The Iranian penal code is based on sharia, and it's the sharia authorizes stoning . Your friend AzureFury is disputing this simple fact. Furthermore, these type of sources (many of which are outdated) can not be used to illustrate the CURRENT STATUS of Iranian law, as we have the judiciary spokesperson on record saying the penalty has been dropped from the law. The lower courts continue to issues such verdicts though, because it's in sharia law. This is a complicated issue, that would be better served with input from the expert editors. AlexanderPar (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the Iranian law was changed after that 2007 report, the article could reflect that. Something like: "The Iranian penal code adopted in 1983 - which was based on Sharia - contained provisions for punishment by stoning, as described in a 2007 report by Rochelle Terman. However, in 2008 [or whatever] the Iranian judiciary announced that the stoning laws were removed from the penal code [or would not be enforced, etc]" --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We have sources from 2010 saying that stoning is still part of the penal code. Whether or not the Iranian penal code is based on sharia does not affect the fact that stoning is a part of the penal code. The penal code is a subset of sharia. Sharis is not a subset of the penal code. The two sets are not equivalent, so it is notable what is in the smaller set, in this case, the Iranian penal code. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how quickly the discussion moves while there is reverting going on, while otherwise there is not a peep. Keep in mind that what you don't do is also a demonstration of your bad faith. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What you and I needed to say, has already been said. What you need to do now, is to wait for further input from uninvolved third-party users instead of edit-warring to impose your POV on the page. AlexanderPar (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell me, what is my POV? That we say what the sources say nearly verbatim? How do you excuse saying stoning is not part of the Iranian Penal Code when we have multiple reliable sources that say it is? Infact, your supposed counter-argument is not a contradiction. Both me and Noleander now believe that the passage needs to reflect this fact. Yet you are reverting on the grounds of "consensus" ? I wonder, do you really believe your own rhetoric or are you hoping to bury your motives in hollow misinterpretations and outright contradictions of policy? I gotta tell you, your actions are very transparent. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexander: why did you remove the "see also" template? --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not, it must have been removed in-between edits. AzureFury, you still have no consensus, I am going to restore the status quo, until there is a clear consensus here. You are not going to get your way by edit-warring and bullying. AlexanderPar (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is beyond words. On one article, you revert "per the results of the RFC" when I have specifically asked editors who oppose my version to identify themselves and none have come forward. And on this article we have two editors who specifically stated that the sources support the fact that Iran's Penal Code includes stoning, with one, you, not denying this fact but reverting anyway. I don't know how any clearer this consensus could get considering the number of editors involved, so how do you justify your edits? How can this vote break down in a manner that you will conceed? Do you expect the vote must be unanimous, thus empowering you to reject any edits you can make up a nonsensical argument against? No, this is not how Wikipedia works. If you revert on the grounds of consensus in one article (which you do not have, btw), then you accept the consensus on this article. The consensus is that every source we have, including the ones you have provided, support the conclusion that Iran's Penal Code, regardless of whether or not it is based on Sharia, includes stoning. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you removed it here [11]. Why did you remove it? --Noleander (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what is being disputed here. Unless it was repealed very recently (sources?), the Iranian Penal Code contains text that authorizes stoning. That section is based on Sharia and says so clearly (even the heading of that section of the Penal Code is "Hodoud" which means Sharia-based punishments). I can't see any contradiction, it is clearly in Sharia Law and in the Penal Code. Astarabadi (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Here is a translation, but I can't be sure it is citable. Astarabadi (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There's an abundance of information about stoning in Iran in Human Rights Watch's press releases and reports here. That includes this one from a few weeks ago which explicitly states "Under Iran’s penal code, adultery is a “crime against God” for both men and women. It is punishable by 100 lashes for unmarried men and women, but married offenders are sentenced to death by stoning." There was apparently a moratorium on execution by stoning in the draft penal code but has that been passed into law yet ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that stoning is a part of Iranian law. I really don't understand the dispute. Reliable sources like CNN report on it all the time, including this article from a couple weeks ago. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 12:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that someone said "Amnesty can not be used as a source". That is not the case. They can be used as a source as can HRW. They're used extensively throughout Wikipedia in all sorts of contexts. Their statements can be used with attribution without any problem as long as a careful eye is kept on balancing their statements with responses and so forth for NPOV compliance. These issues have come up at RSN many times. Sources don't have to be neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone seems confused as to how there could possibly be a dispute over something that is represented unambiguously by every source. The assumption you're making is that this dispute is between two Wikipedia editors, and it's not. This dispute is between a Wikipedia editor and an Iranian with a history of edit warring over Iran. I have explained several times that the Iranian Penal Code explains stoning, and the fact that Sharia also includes stoning does not contradict this. Here are the two versions for convenient comparision, the key difference being whether the Penal Code is explicitly mentioned: mentions it [12], doesn't mention it[13]. Note that in the version that does not mention stoning in the penal code, the source used says that stoning is in the penal code, and is used to cite the claim that "sharia includes stoning." These are the kind of edits that Alexander thinks are acceptable. Following this post I'm going to send a message to everyone who has recently commented on this page, and hopefully we can get an unambiguous consensus. Though I'm pretty sure Alexander will not allow this information to be reflected on the page until there are more editors reverting him. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What's odd is that in the footnote for the reference for Alexander's version, it states that the Iranian Penal Code includes stoning. That should be in the main body of the article. I definitely favor Azure Fury's version, or at the very least, moving that part about the penal code into the body of the article itself, rather than down in the footnote. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 13:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you have not read the discussions at all. The issue is not stoning itself, the issues is AzureFury's claim that the Iranian penal code includes a provision about the size of the stones and what not, based on an outdated news report, which has been proven to be wrong. (ironically, by AzurFurry himself who found and posted an old version of the Iranian penal code that contradicted his own claim) Also, the penal code itself has changed almost every year since, so we can not say X or Y "is" in the penal code , what we can say is that X or Y in in sharia which never changes and the penal code is based on. Again, this is a very complicated issue. I urge people who are not familiar enough with the topic, to refrain from "supporting" X and Y, just because they were asked to on their talk pages, by a certain user. Also, there will be no consensus based on yays and nays of anyone who is canvassed on their talk page by AzureFury. AlexanderPar (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AlexanderPar: In controversial areas like this, it is best to stick with what the sources say (preferably secondary sources). The opinions of editors such as myself or yourself don't matter. At all. AzureFury's version of the text is supported by sources that say, well, what his text says. If you want the article to say "the Iranian penal code changes every year" you'll need to find a source for that. If you want the article to say "stoning is in sharia which never changes and the penal code is based on." you'll need to find a source for that, too. Your repeated assertions, without the support of sources, is starting to look like disruptive editing (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). I encourage you to spend some time doing research, and finding secondary sources that address the topic of stoning in Iranian law, and then bring those sources to this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, you were canvassed here by AzureFury who has a history with you [14], you're neither an expert on this topic, nor a neutral contributor. All you have done on this page, is supporting AzureFury and acting as his side-kick. You're also misinterpreting my assertion. I have provided academic sources that says the provision in question, is part of sharia in general. [15] That source has more weight than a random news report. Also, Wikipedia's policy is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and a news report is not an exceptional source. AlexanderPar (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all editors agree that stoning is part of sharia. That is not in dispute, and is already in the article. The issue is the penal code. Some sources say stoning is in the penal code, some say it is not (I've only seen one of the latter). So the article needs to reflect both sides of that dispute. If you think the BBC or Amnesty International are wrong on the penal code issue, find some sources that address the credibility, and we can discuss it on this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I did, read my previous post, I cited an academic book. My main issues was the "size of the stones" bit, and it's source. I made some minor changes to one part of your major changes, is the current version OK with you? AlexanderPar (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the latest version, including your latest changes, looks good: it seems very neutral, and reflects what the sources say. The phrasing doesn't flow real well, but that is not my strong suit, so I'll leave it to others to make it read like an encyclopedia should. --Noleander (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to "None of the sources say "as of July 2010", that's your interpretation of the sources and hence WP:SYNTH. Nolander also approved this version,"[16] this source, dated 9 July, 2010, explicitly states that Iran's Penal Code still includes stoning. This one is dated 2005 and says the same thing. You're not going to try and sneak past this issue by pretending our information is out of date. Stoning is still in the penal code and the article is going to reflect that. And since when do you care what Noleander thinks? I thought he was my "sidekick"? You're only mentioning his views as him and me together outnumber you in reverts. That's the only situation in which will you ever listen to reason isn't it? When you're outnumbered by reasonable editors. You might as well give up now, as we have found several editors who are interested in stoning in Iran and who will actually read the sources. The sources say stoning is in the penal code as late as 2010. We will repeat this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does the Amnesty say what you're claiming it says? I don't see any "As of July 2010...." in your sources, that's purely your interpretation. The copy of the penal code which is actually cited in that paragraph, is from 1991, and that's what we report here. If you have a copy of Iranian penal code from 2010, go ahead and post it here. Noleander, who is your friend and was canvassed here by you, wrote that version and endorsed the minor changes I made to it. But the problem here is not really the content, the problem is that you're just looking for a conflict, nothing is enough for you, you'll always find something trivial to fight over. AlexanderPar (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AlexanderPar, what is your agenda here. The BBC quotes Mohammad Javad Larijani, a member of Iran's own human rights commission, as saying " judges "rarely use" the penalty of stoning."[17] And Arabnews.com quotes him further "The hue and cry that the West has launched over this case will not affect our judges," he said. "The implementation of Islamic regulations like stoning and the headscarf have always been faced with their ugly hostility and opposition." [18]

Amnesty and on 9 July reported an announcement by the Iranian Embassy in London on Thursday (which would have been 8 July) ... that stoning as a punishment has now been removed from a new draft of Iran's Penal Code, which is currently under review by Iran's parliament and is yet to be ratified. [19]. I would think the Iranian government is qualified to know what's in its own penal code, so lets leave the "referring to the 1991" argument out, shall we.

Everybody who can use the internet, except you, can see that Iran currently hands out sentences of stoning. Even the Iranian government says that it does. Why are you insisting that some other reality is the case? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. Certain editors don't seem to be able to differentiate between neutral encyclopedic fact-reporting direct from academic sources and sensationalist blogging/commentary based on synthesizing sources to prove a point. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to prove and disprove a sourced fact, you guys need to learn that first, before giving long lectures. We are talking about the Iranian penal code in particular and the one cited is from 1991. Either bring a copy of the 2010 edition of the penal code and cite it or don't make interpretations based on what different unrelated sources say. The place for that kind of activism/commentary are your weblogs, not wikipedia. AlexanderPar (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense. The Iranian government makes a widely quoted official statement that it is attempting to REMOVE stoning from its penal code, but it hasn't got through all the legal requirements yet. Up pops AlexanderPar, attempting to argue that the Iranian government isn't a reliable source for the content of its own penal code. POV warrior or what. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, <3 Elen. Where were you a few weeks ago XD AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request the editors to maintain neutrality of the article. Thanks, Madmoron (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's hard, almost 50% of content if pure inflammatory activist propaganda. --HistorNE (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Another Complaint on the lack of Neutrality.

If this article is really about human rights in Iran, then how about include something about actual human rights in Iran? After glancing this article I can scant find out any right anyone actually has in Iran. If one were to write articles purely based off a negative, then shouldn't the topic Hungarian kangaroos be given privilege to its own topic? (Viennese Kangaroos, while rare, are too common to warrant their own article).--Soft and Stout (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with neutrality? If anything, it's a reason to change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Need help with citation over kill in 1st paragraph

I was adding some sources to the first paragraph when it occurred to me that it might be citation overkill, but I'm having trouble deciding which sources to leave (out). See revisions made at 03:31, 17 November 2013‎ & 04:36, 17 November 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&action=history (I undid these revisions, but I'm thinking that some of it should stay/go back, I'm just not sure what.)Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

links

>> Iranian poet executed for 'waging war on God'(Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)).

Requested move February 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, so the page remains at its current title. For the past month commenters appear split between the idea that the two articles (both comprehensive) should have titles reflecting the respective governing regimes, while others have remarked that this article should be titled to reflect that the Islamic Republic is the "current" Iran. In the course of this conversation, neither emerges as the more compelling idea. It may be worth having a broader conversation on how the topic of human rights on Iran is addressed—one that is not as time-bound as a move request. Harej (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran → Human rights in Iran – In accordance with other such articles and WP:COMMONNAME also this is a POV fork of adding "Islamic..." Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The nominator is being disingenuous here. Human rights in Iran is a disambiguation page linking to two articles: Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran (1925–79) Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979 onwards). Given the radical regime change which occurred in 1979, it seems to me to be quite sensible to split our coverage of the topic in this way, and the charge that it is a POV fork seems completely unfounded.
  I can see a case for saying that the history of human rights in Iran should be regarded as a single topic for which there should be one or more sub-articles, but that would involve a radical restructuring of the articles rather than a renaming, and it is not what the nominator proposes.
  I hope that the nominator will withdraw this ill-founded proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note also that the same proposal was made in 2010, and is visible higher up this page. It was closed as "no consensus".
    The nominator should have drawn attention to the existence of that proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support : Iran is much more common. Enough said. OccultZone (Talk) 14:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Fortunately, WP:CONCISE works here. This is (as per BrownHairedGirl's astute observation) a bit of a malformed move request. But of course the primary topic is the situation in the modern state, right? Human rights in Egypt doesn't cover the mistreatment of the Hebrews prior to Moses delivering them. I think a reasonable reader typing in Human rights in Iran will be looking for the modern state's human rights record. Red Slash 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why do you think that it is "reasonable" to be uninterested in history?
    WP:RECENTISM has generally been regarded as a form of systemic bias rather than a virtue, and Red Slash's inability to distinguish between 35 years ago and 2,000 years ago is not clever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Let others have their opinion. OccultZone (Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone:. Others have expressed their opinion, and I have responded to it. That's how consensus-forming discussions are supposed to work: as reasoned debate, rather than as expressions of personal preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, No offense taken, though I can see how someone else would be offended by how that was worded. Umm, I fail to see how the historical human rights record of a country that lasted 54 years has primary topic over the active human rights record of an actual existing country--similar of course to how Iran is about the modern state. In fact, even Persia takes you straight to Iran, despite all the long history of Persian culture and civilization, though of course some of that fits into the modern Iran article. In fact, this raises an excellent question--why on earth do we have two articles here? Shouldn't we merge them? Red Slash 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: the reason you don't see how the historical record has primary topic is that it doesn't have primary topic; Human rights in Iran is a disambiguation page.
Iran is an article about a state which has existed within roughly its present borders since 1921, and was ruled (to varying degrees) by the same dynasty from 1926 to 1979. Did you read the article before commenting? It also includes several screenfuls of text on the very long history of Iran before 1921. By contrast, Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran is solely about the last 35 years of Iranian history. It does not even attempt to summarise the period before 1979; it treats 1979 as a year zero.
If you think that the two articles should be merged, then feel free to make a merge proposal. That would be a separate discussion; this discussion is about whether to rename an existing article in a way which obscures the fact that it is not structured to provide an overview of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct. That's the normal way we do things; this article should be able to focus on human rights currently in Iran and possibly a little bit of history, that is, a bit of a merge to provide a general concept here of the history without dealing with it too much (see Human rights in the United States, which for instance does deal with pre-1865 slavery, but only briefly, because it's part of the history of human rights in the U.S. and not a direct part of the current situation). As there's enough for a separate article on the Shah's governmental record, we can link to it from here and put in about a paragraph, if you think it's appropriate. And there's little reason not to leave it as a stand-alone article. Here's the root question, okay? When someone searches "Human rights in Iran", what are they looking for? It is, to me, painfully obvious that they are most likely looking for the human rights record of the current edition of the state of Iran. It is painfully obvious to me that this is the primary topic. The only reason this was not proposed as a multi-move, I assume, is WP:TWODABS (in other words, the disambiguation page will be deleted upon a successful move request). Red Slash 03:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What's "painfully obvious" to you is your own personal perspective. Unless you have some evidence to support your WP:RECENTISM, then that is just a WP:ILIKEIT argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Iran is a country, so when we talk about Iran, we're talking about the country. I really can't get past this. I also kindly point out what you must know full well, which is that WP:RECENTISM is just an essay and is useless in discussions like this; people throw it around as an accusation but without any rigorous basis for when it does or doesn't apply. I will say that this is the first time I've ever heard of anything that's lasted for thirty-five years being claimed as WP:RECENTISM. Red Slash 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, when we talk about Iran, we're talking about the country. That's why it's inappropriate that you want an article to be titled as if it was about the country, when its contents are solely about the current regime in that country, and we have a fine article about the previous regime. Iran is Iran whichever regime we are talking about.

As to recentism, do you accept that a period which began 35 years ago is more recent than one which ended 35 years ago? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

While a the subject of this article is clearly more recent than the subject of the other article, that has no bearing on the move discussion. Being more recent is not related to any policy or other guiding criteria on primary topic. Even the essay WP:RECENT does not suggest that just by being more recent an article is less deserving of primary topic. It simply suggests that we not favor ephemeral topics. (If One Direction released a song called "Iran" that became a worldwide phenomenon, a la "Harlem Shake", we would never consider moving Iran. Regardless of pageviews. This is because it's obvious that the country is the most significant thing on a long-term scale. Iran was notable long before now and we can guess that it will continue to be notable far longer into the future than any pop song. See Talk:Anne Hathaway for a discussion that went the other way, where the far older woman was deposed from primary topic in favor of the more notable present-day actress.) Your point that this article, if placed at "Human rights in Iran", must include information dating back from prior to 1979 is absolutely correct. Absolutely. It must. No arguments. This is not just a move request, but also a (slight) rescope. Yes. Red Slash 21:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Our page on WP:RECENTISM itself proposes that we consider the question, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" Many of the issues of human rights in Iran addressed in the article are already more than ten years old, the current regime having been in place since 1979. Whatever it means, applying "recentism" can't mean that we treat a 35-year old situation the same as something that arose last month. bd2412 T 19:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that's a good question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we treat the 35-year-old situation as one on which more information is now available, and on which scholars have had time to reflect and to debate assessments. Recentism is what you are proposing: that we focus solely on the most recent period, and relegate the period only 35 years ago to a separate topic which is not even summarised in an article which would then be mislabelled as being about Iran, rather than about a regime which began 31 years after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    If you would prefer that Human rights in Iran was a substantive article, then start creating an article which reflects that actual title. The current pair of articles are named in a way which accurately describes their scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Red Slash. See WP:TWODABS and use a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  WP:TWODABS refers to situations where "an ambiguous term has no primary topic". What evidence do you have that there is a primary topic here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Doesn't need the qualifier to its common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Difference between Imperial State with 1979 Iranian Revolution ,is important point. Amnesty International, UN Human Rights, U.S Department of State Maurice07 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Should Iran also be a disambiguation page, then? --BDD (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If we had two completely separate and self-contained articles, one pre-79 band the other post-79, then we should indeed have a disambiguation page.

That's not what we have with the country, but it is what we have on human rights. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Common name. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean Kesser was banned due to sockpupppetry, see case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistorNE.GreyShark (dibra) 17:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Iran" is the common name for the country, but this is not about the country in general: it's about the country during the current government. "Islamic Republic of Iran" is the common name when we're specifically talking about the current government. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia has two articles on the human rights situation in Iran: one for the current state, and also one for the immediate predecessor state. Each of these articles is extensive, encyclopedic, and reliably-sourced. A merge would be ill-advised, for reasons of length alone, as well as fundamental difference in the topic. As such, precision demands that WP maintain this article at its current title. While Iran is the common name of the state, when referring to the topic of human rights specifically, it is good practice to disambiguate between the current state and its immediate predecessor state. Using the full name of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a fair and neutral way to accomplish this disambiguation. Xoloz (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Xoloz, I'll ask you the same question I asked BHG. Should Iran be a disambiguation page? If we're unsure whether users searching for "Iran" are looking for the Islamic Republic or a previous state, wouldn't the argument "Using the full name of the Islamic Republic..." apply to the parent article Iran as well? --BDD (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you much the same answer as BHG -- if there were reason to have two separate, lengthy articles on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Imperial State of Iran, I'd support disambiguation between them. WP does have Pahlavi Dynasty as its article on the prior regime; but, as its title suggests, that article is as much about the ruling family as it is the structure of the state over which they ruled. As a result of this fine distinction, I don't see a need to disambiguate Iran currently. It is the relative completeness and separateness of the "human rights" articles as they currently stand that suggests disambiguation by full official national name is appropriate. If the human rights articles were less well-developed, it might be worthwhile to consider a different approach. Honestly, when someone goes to the trouble to search "human rights in Iran", I think they will probably find both articles very interesting, irrespective of the original intent of their search. I want to do everything possible to bring both articles to a reader's attention. Xoloz (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Iran is the country. This is not a comprehensive review of human rights issues in the country's history: it's a comprehensive review of human rights issues under the current government, and we have a separate article about human rights issues under a previous government. I don't care whether or not we implement the proposal of merging the two, but as long as they're separate, both discuss human rights in Iran. Since they have to have separate titles, we might as well use the official name, since it's well-recognised (everyone knows what the Islamic Republic of Iran is), and if any other terms exist for the current government, they're much less common than this one. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Iran has same name for many centuries, but still 90% of content from article "Iran" is related to Islamic Republic of Iran, and for other periods there is general article "History of Iran" or specific articles by dynasties. In this particular case, I believe the best solution is to rename it to "Human rights in Iran" (with short historical intro), and also rename other one to "History of human rights in Iran" which would also include pre-Pahlavi period. Current division to 1925-1979 and 1979-present is problematic for including lenghty discussion about early movements during Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911) or feminism which also started in Qajar period. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge

If the move fails, I'm just gonna write up an article that puts both of these in one single article, with links to the articles on the specific time periods using {{main}}, unless y'all think that's a bad idea. Red Slash 02:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Won't fail. OccultZone (Talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Banning women from universities"

Before claiming that banning women from universities (science and engineering studies in particular) is a "fact" and it's "supported by RS", I suggest you to take a look into some more reliable data like UNESCO :

• number of female students: 2,038,292 in 2011; 2,191,409 in 2012 (ranked #5 in the World)
• female enrolment in science studies: 217,323 in 2011; 219,414 in 2012 (ranked #2 in the World)
• female enrolment in engineering studies: 414,898 in 2011; 476,039 in 2012 (ranked #1 in the World)

On the other hand, we have Robert Tait (British correspondent from Israel) who claimed in Telegraph that women were banned from most of listed fields in 2012. Considering facts from UNESCO, his claims are one of the most ridiculous report in history of yellow journalism. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Bare-face lie of Sean Kesser. UNESCO does not state what Sean Kesser stated above.--Panicnovel (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It does, on the right. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Current situation

Ahmaninejad era information should be moved from Current situation merged into Notable issues. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, 'Current situation' should be renamed, you have any suggestion? OccultZone (Talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie and OccultZone: Many paragraphs in this section are duplicated in Human rights in Iran#Current situation. Should these sections be merged? Jarble (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"this section" is which section? A bit busy at present but anything that trims and merges stuff from Ahmaninejad era into notable issues is fine with me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628102111/http://www.cnn.com:80/WORLD/meast/9907/11/iran.unrest.03/ to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9907/11/iran.unrest.03/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930201559/http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm to http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130614115611/http://www.amnesty.ie/news/iran-death-stoning-grotesque-and-unacceptable-penalty to http://www.amnesty.ie/news/iran-death-stoning-grotesque-and-unacceptable-penalty
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120429231704/http://iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066:iran-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64 to http://www.iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066:iran-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150530052838/http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:memories-of-a-slaughter-in-iran&catid=5&Itemid=110 to http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:memories-of-a-slaughter-in-iran&catid=5&Itemid=110
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120911141729/http://www.iranterror.com:80/content/view/33/52/ to http://www.iranterror.com/content/view/33/52/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140311164920/http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAN?OpenDocument to http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAN?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725230133/http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2004/13-04.htm to http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2004/13-04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622063746/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGSJEAPs_r2T2wxsL5G3t4z-jajQD98SIN8O1 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGSJEAPs_r2T2wxsL5G3t4z-jajQD98SIN8O1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120916211211/http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf to http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402163831/http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm to http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110623044238/http://www.petertatchell.net:80/international/iranstatemurder.htm to http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iranstatemurder.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030223160625/http://web.amnesty.org:80/ai.nsf/Index/MDE130341996?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5cIRAN to http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE130341996?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAN
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130928055228/http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/october-2006/broujerdi-arrested_101006.shtml to http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/october-2006/broujerdi-arrested_101006.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150530075351/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_en-2.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_en-2.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119135011/http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTIzMDA3NTcwNQ== to http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTIzMDA3NTcwNQ==
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111227045335/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE13/087/2011/en/25317220-c315-4fbd-871a-a07349387ea4/mde130872011en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/087/2011/en/25317220-c315-4fbd-871a-a07349387ea4/mde130872011en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081012032615/http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/068/2008/en/25f1bbd2-2339-11dd-89c0-51e35dab761d/mde130682008eng.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/068/2008/en/25f1bbd2-2339-11dd-89c0-51e35dab761d/mde130682008eng.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080814113321/http://amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-gulf/iran to http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-gulf/iran#report
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080306203012/http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iran to http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iran
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051112021401/https://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran to http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140324045249/http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/iran9803.htm to http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/iran9803.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416125743/http://english.aljazeera.net/ to http://english.aljazeera.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106172843/http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130215183842/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140221203032/http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010,36697 to http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010,36697

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tehrantimes.com/politics/95920-iran-has-the-most-successful-human-rights-record-in-muslim-world-salehi
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aa.psu.edu/journals/war-crimes/articles/V1/v1n1a3.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/bilan2001/vol3/iranga.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070224/wl_mideast_afp/iranjusticesocial
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://iheu.org/node/1540
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021113041505/http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/iranacademic.htm to http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/iranacademic.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424114804/http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial-search.php?do_search=Search&charges=1778515990&pagenum=0 to http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial-search.php?do_search=Search&charges=1778515990&pagenum=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124102755/http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm to http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916211211/http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf to http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402163831/http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm to http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10733

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0805157506142314.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-203/0804105767142324.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827223352/http://www.strasbourgconference.org/papers/Refah%20Revisited-%20Strasbourg%27s%20Construction%20of%20Islam.pdf to http://www.strasbourgconference.org/papers/Refah%20Revisited-%20Strasbourg%27s%20Construction%20of%20Islam.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014082518/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/iran.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/iran.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045053/http://www.enmcr.net/site/assets/files/1382/child_execution_in_iran_and_its_legality_under_islamic_law.pdf to http://www.enmcr.net/site/assets/files/1382/child_execution_in_iran_and_its_legality_under_islamic_law.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066%3Airan-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927204024/http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html to http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160%3Amemories-of-a-slaughter-in-iran&catid=5&Itemid=110
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/files/Iran%20Massacre%20Report.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE130341996?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502110349/http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/uncom.nsf/0/e7b8824bdd987268c1256fa8004a8753?OpenDocument to http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/uncom.nsf/0/e7b8824bdd987268c1256fa8004a8753?OpenDocument
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410717966&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809181642/http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=E&no=98322&S=TP to http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=E&no=98322&S=TP
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013%2C1054.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221202927/http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688 to http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221202927/http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688 to http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801185227/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/doc-2236.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/doc-2236.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010%2C36697
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026175039/http://www.abfiran.org/ to http://www.abfiran.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422213041/http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/background-information-stop-child-executions-in-iran to http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/background-information-stop-child-executions-in-iran
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928004754/http://www.ihrv.org/inf/?p=2063 to http://www.ihrv.org/inf/?p=2063

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140320173722/http://shaheedoniran.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/A-HRC-25-61.pdf to http://shaheedoniran.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/A-HRC-25-61.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Christian issues

I have introduced a short section on the persecution of Christians with two notable examples and references old and new.Cpsoper (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Split proposal

There is currently a draft at Draft:Criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran that would split off from this topic, and presumably some content here would be moved there. @AngusWOOF: suggested this be discussed here before the draft is approved. Also pinging the draft's creator @Fad Ariff: as part of this discussion. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

add WP:IRAN and WP:HR wikiprojects to the discussion for their feedback AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 07:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you BuySomeApples and AngusW🐶🐶F. After the feedback for the first draft, I updated the draft to make it distinguishably different (the new draft looks at broader topics rather than focusing on human right violations) I think this could be a good contribution considering all that’s been on the news recently. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Criticism of [country]" seems like a weird title for an article. We don't have other articles like this as far as I can tell, and it's not even obvious to me what criticism of an entire country would mean. The draft seems to be mainly about criticism of the Iranian government, in which case maybe Criticism of the Iranian government would be a better title, though even then we should be careful about the points at WP:CRITS. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. We do have articles like Criticism of the United States government or Criticism of the Israeli government, so I would support changing this one to Criticism of the Iranian government. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)