Talk:Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan/Archive 1

Please read: Move protected

To avoid disruptive page moves, I've locked the page for one day so only administrators can change the title. Since I've edited the page myself, any administrator who thinks the protection is inappropriate should feel free to un-do it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Video links

Should we have section on the External Youtube Links? There is a new one that states it shows Neda and her teacher before the killing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWHT37pQmm user:mnw2000 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossg (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC) If there is a section on YouTube, people should be aware that YouTube is removing the main clip as fast as people upload it. It seems to be condidered a violation of their terms of service. That, of course, wouldn't apply to the earlier clip that you're citing.

• Why it would violate their TOS is beyond me, given how many death videos are available there, such as most of the beheading videos of note. I can't imagine anyone claiming copyright on something like this, but then again technically the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination was (or is) under copyright... 68.146.81.123 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider that a video of the Neda's death have to be added here. I strongly know that it is hard to see the death of this poor girl. For this reason, I think that anyone should know what happened to her and, thus, avoid forgetting that murdered. The link could be the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbdEf0QRsLM Good luck defeding your democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.133.211 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already a link to the video. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Switch to Live Leak

Nice work changing youtube videos to liveleak. It now reads "Meet Sexy Women in your Area!" directly above the dead girl's body. WWGB (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That could be a problem, but liveleak is much more stable than youtube videos. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking, is there a copy of this video on wikileaks, or similar location? Wikileak I know doesn't have ads, and would be just as stable as liveleaks. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the innapropriate advertising I believe liveleak would be the best choice, their videos are usually never deleted and it is a very secure and respected website.

"Neda: the phenomenon"

There are many news stories specifically about Neda-the-phenomenon. Therefore, the Neda phenomenon is noteworthy. Surely that makes Neda noteworthy as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.112.30 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a tribute song for Neda. However, I don't know how much significance it will gain. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "Neda"

Neda means voice in Persian. When you speak or write English, the language of Iranians is called Persian in english not Farsi. Farsi is Persian in Persian.

When we speak about Italians we say their language is Italian and not Italiano and we say Russian and Spanish and not Ruski and Espanol when we talk English.

So please someone change 'Farsi' in to 'Persian'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.20.248 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The more proper word for "Neda" is "Call" in English. It's the best translations,Not "Voice".--Persianman123 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, whoever can edit, remove parenthesis from the URL to this entry. When we add it in the body of e-mail, certain mail programs ignore the closing parenthesis from the URL, and it becomes a broken link. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.12.101 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What is her real name and real age?

On the timeline of the protests, it stated her last name was Soltani. I do not know if it is true, because I have not sourced it. I added the picture of her from twitpic, with everyone claiming its her. I have not sourced that either, but I still posted it. --cypherninja (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Her last name is Agha Sultan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.90.124 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

News from the Internet is now saying that Neda's name is Neda Soltani. How can we confirm this? Should we put this on the page? user:mnw2000 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Iranian blogs say her name is Neda Agha Sultan and she was a student of philosophy.--213.207.220.163 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN say she is a 27-year old philosophy student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.145.133.114 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Persian Wikipedia wrongly names her as Neda Salehi , but it's wrong . The place of her martyrdom was in a street with the name of "Salehi" and not her family name .Persian Wikipedia.--213.207.220.163 (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We can, and should, wait. Wikipedia isn't supposed to "break" news, and we have the distinct luxury of sitting back and waiting for others (read: verifiable and reliable sources) to do the dirty work of digging up the truth.
— Ω (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In a fast moving story people with first hand knowledge may contribute in near-realtime but may not revisit at a later date. If the article is found to be unverifiable or substandard, it can be moved or removed later. --jwalling (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This webpage says it all - http://www.tweetphoto.com/798208. How that this young women's name (Neda Agha Soltan) is known, the article should not be deleted. Instead, it should be updated to include this name and any other details of her life. user:mnw2000 21:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think her supposed age should be removed. There's not a good basis for the claim, especially since (1) there are conflicting claims that she's actually 27 (born in 1982) and (2) the article doesn't her full name (a subject of similar proof, or lack thereof). --JamesAM (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard her age was 26, she was born in 1982, and her name was Neda Agha Solthan and she was a philosophy student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.197.230 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Some reports call her a teenager; I can't find a reference to her age in the sources. Can someone find the information? I'm adding a fact tag. 21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Persian sources have said it 27.--Persianman123 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the supposed information about her full name and birth date. I've bee scouring news reports and cannot find any corroboration for this information. This appears to be original research, at this point.
Please bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia. I'm very aware of the raw emotion behind this story right now, but this is not an appropriate site for any sort of memorial. As the old television expression goes: "Just the facts, ma'am".
— Ω (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've referenced Foreign Policy (magazine) for the name and birthdate. ↜Just M E here , now 04:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Just the facts, ma'am." Sgt. Joe Friday, Dragnet (originally a radio show)

OK, thank you! The {{fact}} tag didn't work so I figured that actually changing it would straighten things out. Good source there... I really did look for myself, but there seems to be some confusion among sources right now. Of course, that makes sense considering what's going on, which makes keeping this article straight so important.
— Ω (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Another spelling from a good source: "Neda Agha-Setan" BBC Persia has aired an interview with Neda's fiance, which can be found in its original here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090622_mm_neda_soltan.shtml And the English translation of the interview: Kasamin Makan, Neda Agha-Setan's fiancee, was interviewed by BBC Persia, noting that Neda would have turned 27 this year. More details of interest are within this source. redwoodhippieRedwoodhippie (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate

| Coordinates = 35°43′8.57″N 51°23′30.60″E 35.719054, 51.391801

These coordinates are incorrect because she died at a junction of two streets not in the middle of one street. The correct coordiantes are:

35°43'8.43"N
51°23'30.44"E

Please change the coordinates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.17.30 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Looking at the article, this article reads as if the person is notable for one event. Is there any way we could include other things she has done, to make the notability claim stronger in the article?

I don't think you will find anything else about her of note, that is information missing from this story, and I think will continue to elude any reports. I think the incident has been staged.

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How can "WP:BLP1E", where the "L" stands for "'Living'" have any bearing on this article? Yes, she is notable for one event; her death. The same can be said of, say, Crispus Attucks or Pheidippides. 76.92.138.240 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, it's getting to be apparent that WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply here. Refer to the closed AfD on the article. At this time, since it could become the next Tank man, it was decided keep, at least for now, and update as needed. Remember, there no hurry to complete this article. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I got the no hurry portion. I'm asking for us to include stronger sourced notability assertions, if possible. We don't break news, but if we can, we can cause a stronger article here. No way in this world I'm nominating an AFD at this time, perhaps later, if it can't be made something other than the centric one event. I'm sure we can do this... but at the moment, neutrality among other things must be at our forefront. p.s. I did not know we had an article on Tank Man, I'm reading it now. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:Neda Soltani#Not a biography section. This subject has been discussed previously.
— Ω (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

she is notable. She has become the symbole of the innocence of the Iranian people's resistance. May I ask why is Sharbat Gula notable, and a symbole of resistance as Neda Agha Soltan not????--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One area of discussion to consider for later

Reading some of the news reports (note: not blogs, but mainstream media), I'm getting the impression that the Neda video could be considered a turning point in terms of "amateur", online coverage of news events. Assuming the coming days don't reveal it to be a hoax, etc., it might be worth keeping an eye on coverage that discusses how the circulation of the video affected coverage of the story by mainstream media. Sort of like how Twitter was said to have come into its own when it was being used as a source of record during the Mumbai attacks. I'm not saying that such discussion should be added now because it's too preliminary, but as more details emerge, it may be an important discussion down the line. Come to think of it, this might be a worthwhile thread even if, in a worst case scenario, the whole video is debunked or revealed to be from another incident, since its impact is already being felt. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent point--amateur coverage via Twitter is already being reported on the mainstream news -- usually with the caveat "unconfirmed amateur video." You are right, even if this turns out to be some kind of hoax, the impact it has already had (and may well have into the future) is both news-worthy and encyclopedia-worthy. Let's keep an eye on this. Grumpy otter (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

External Sources

Los Angeles Times Article - Published June 23

An undated picture shows Iranian Neda Agha-Soltan, who was killed when hit by a bullet during a protest in Tehran. Family, friends mourn Iranian woman whose death was caught on video

By Borzou Daragahi - 12:49 PM PDT, June 22, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-neda23-2009jun23,0,366975,full.story

--jwalling (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine Piece

I tried to add information from this Time Magazine piece [1]. I'm unsure what the rules are on speculative material, but it is mostly rooted in factual tradition and previous history, and I really think it adds good perspective on the implications of Neda's death. However if it's breaking policy, please feel free to remove it (or better yet, improve it) Sertmann (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to Time.com article if you want to use this information. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906049,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan.hunt (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New Information

1. Andrew Sullivan: Agha-Sotan's family members say that "she was at the protest with one her professors and several other students" and was "shot by "basiji riding by on a motorcycle."[2]
2. Foreign Policy: "The man with grey hair beside her in the clip is her philosophy professor. She stayed behind the bulk of the demonstrators while speaking on her mobile phone and was shot in the chest by a bassiji on motorcycle."[3] ↜Just M E here , now 02:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New Published Details

According to BBC Persian, quoting her fiance, she was 26 and accompanied by her music instructor (not her father). I can't edit the article, someone should go ahead and fix it. See [4].--Arash.khan (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it, but can't of course, read Farsi. Is a google translate version acceptable? I doubt it but thought I'd ask. The picture of her grave is from that BBC story --SSJPabs (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ED - Nico Pitney over at Huffingtonpost has posted a translation of the interview with the fiance.

Kasamin Makan, Neda Agha-Setan's fiancee, was interviewed by BBC Persia, noting that Neda would have turned 27 this year. "Neda's goal was not Mousavi or Ahmadinejad, it was her country and was important for her to fight for this goal. She had said many times that if she had lost her life or been shot in the heart, which indeed what happened, it was important for her to continue in this path," he said.

Considering her young age she has taught a lesson to us all.

About the day of the incident, Mr. Makan said: "When the clashes were occurring, Neda was far away from the demonstrations, she was in one of the side alleys near Amir Abad. Thirsty and tired or being cooped up for about an hour in the car in heavy traffic with her music instructor, she finally gets out of the car and, based on the pictures sent in by the people, armed forces in civilian clothes and the Basiji targeted and shot her in the heart."

"It was over in a matter of minutes, the Shariati Hospital was nearby, the people around her tried to bring her to the emergency room by car, but before that could even happen she died in her instructor's arms." Story continues below

Mr. Makan added: "We got her body back finally yesterday with some diffculties. Of course, her body was not at the Tehran Coroner but at a one outside of Tehran. The medical examiners wanted parts of her body, including a portion of her femoral bone but the chief medical examiner would not say why and no explanations were ever given."

"Finally the family consented just so they could get her body back as soon as possible, since just this issue could have resulted in delaying the reception of the body. We buried the body in a small area in the Zahra Cemetery in the late afternoon of 31 Khordad. Also, they had brought in other people who had been killed in the protests so it seemed that the whole event was scheduled to be such."

About payment for releasing the remains, Mr. Makan had this to say: "No specific amount has been paid at this time, although hospitals, clinics, surgeons and medical examiners have been ordered by the Iranian security services, based on various orders, not to list 'bullet wound' as the cause of death on the death certificate in order to prevent the families from filing international complaints in the future. I haven't seen the release notice of Neda's remains yet, but I will obtain it from her father in the coming days."

Mr. Makan regarding government ban of memorial service for Neda Agha Setan said: "We were going to hold her memorial Monday 1st of Tir at 2:30 PM at a mosque at Sharyati street north of Seyed Khandan. But Basijis and mosque officials refused our request for her memorial service so to avoid further public confrontation and instability. They knew that Neda was an died innocently, and people in Iran and the international community are informed of that fact. So they decided to avoid a situation where a mass rally would take place. In any way, we do not have permission for a memorial service for now."

However, many eye witnesses told BBC Persia that a large gathering took place with the intention of performing a memorial service at Al Reza Mosque at Nilofar square in Tehran. But the security forces intervened by throwing people out of the mosque and intervening with the service.

Mr. Makan also commented on fake pictures of videos claiming to be Neda at various sites:"I was looking at some sites including 'iReport'. There was a picture of a young woman with green signs from previous calm demonstrations and had claimed it was Neda before being shot. These pictures have no relation to the event. It seems that Mr. Mousavi's supporters are trying to portray Neda as one of his supporters. This is not so. Neda was incredibly close to me and she was never supportive of either two groups. Neda wanted freedom and freedom for all."

BBC Farsi tried to contact Neda Agha-Sultan's other family members but was told by a close relative of hers that, for reasons of their own, the Agha Sultan family could grant an interview.

--SSJPabs (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source for the above translation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html

It is the 1:03PM ET entry. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Paulo Coelho , the doctor who tried to save Neda is Arash Hejazi. I updated his Wiki, please do the same for Neda's wiki. http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2009/06/24/the-doctor/

Without a verifiable source, this isn't something that can or should be included in Wikipedia.
— Ω (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Neda a significant person?

I would suggest that this article be deleted as I don't see Ms Soltani as being particularly significant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.28.169 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats because youre not watching the news. She's become Iran's symbol for freedom. Almost every major news outlet has published something about her in the last 24 hours.--Zereshk (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect - have you been living under a rock? This woman's death is absolutely worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I think her notability is firmly cemented by the sheer amount of press coverage the incident has received internationally. ExRat (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:Neda Soltani#Not a biography section. This subject has been discussed previously.
— Ω (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion can now be seen below: 02:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a biography

This article isn't really going work as a biography. We might do better to approach it as a sub-page of 2009 Iranian election protests‎. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is somewhat propaganda towards the protest. This 'ought to be deleted or moved to Iranian election protest page, I mean...all of a sudden we are using twitter as news/sources? C'mon on guys, sure her death it terrible (what death isn't) but this is not a biography really, not much to tell other than she took part in the protest and was killed; should be moved like stated before.. -- R32GTR (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a bio at all, which has been clear for a while. That's why I've removed the Biography related templates/categories from the page earlier.
— Ω (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to remain as its own article, at least for now. If these protest die down to just another series of protests in the history of Iran, then it can be merged in. However, if these protests become a pivotal movement, it would serve Wikipedia quite well (at least in terms of foresight) if this article was separate from the beginning. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thị_Kim_Phúc is about the girl who suffered napalm burns in Vietnam. She became a pivotal figure, and Neda has the potential to become the same. Atividia (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Atividia. Keep the article separate. In any case, it does not need to be a complete biography.JimC1946 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The approach here should be the same as with the articles in the category "Chechen murder victims", and similar. --Daniel D.L. (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing and other Wikipedia-related discussions

Timezone error

I can't figure out where else to place this comment. The timezone in the page is wrong. Iran is on daylight saving time. They are currently UTC +4:30. UTC +3:30 is during the winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asbasb (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone more familiar with things can correct me if I'm wrong here, but everything is listed using either UTC time or (if you're registered and signed in) the time zone selected in your profile. That being the case, the times are simply going to be slightly "incorrect" for IP users, since all that you'll see are UTC times.
— Ω (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Error needs to be fixed

As an anonymous editor I can't fix this myself, but could someone correct the reference "NEDA befor she was shot" (Ref #12 as I write this) to repair the typo (and there's no need to render her name in all caps, either). Also, the YT video linked is so grainy that the reference should also indicate where she is in the video. I believe CNN has posted this video as well; that might be a more appropriate link given that CNN archives for longer than YouTube does (and YT could take the video down at any time). 68.146.81.123 (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NEDA befor she was shot is exactly the title of the video as posted on youtube. WWGB (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. You can also add an {editprotected} for corrections like this to grab admin attention. But the name capitalization is taken care of. CNN linked to a youtube vid, AFAIK, but I could be wrong. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a youtube video which is user controlled and utterly fails as a source which meets WP:V. This text and link needs to be removed. There is no evidence that any of the claims about that video are true, and if a news organization is reporting it, a link should be made to the news article, not the video.--221.138.100.168 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It might fail verifiability as far as name details, locations, etc; however, the phenomena that it caused is no doubt notable, in accordance with the replies on this article's AfD. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no doubt being suggested by media that the event depicted is real. The uncertainly comes from the details regarding who, how, etc. These blanks will undoubtedly be filled in as the days progress seeing as the event just happened. In response to "Paranormal Skeptic" my understanding is CNN doesn't link to YouTube. It may use the YouTube video as its source, but the file is hosted by CNN, as opposed to the many blogs that are simply linking to embedded YouTube. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but I was referring specifically to this reference and claim made about the video in reference #12. The article might stay but that doesn't mean that unreliable sources get to be used in it. Anything being sourced to a youtube video needs to have its source changed to a reliable source commenting on the youtube video.--221.138.100.168 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A minor change denied

I think I am an established user, but I attempted to edit the photo caption to simply indicate that "location" was not "location of the grave" (as is implied), but "location of shooting." Instead of properly editing, the text diasappeared, so I did not save the change. Could someone more knowlegeable attempt the edit?--as it now reads, the information below the photo of her grave seems to be the location and coordinates of her grave, not the shooting. Thanks. Grumpy otter (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There may have been an edit conflict or other issue involved. 02:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Do be careful on how you work with Wikipedia, technically everything has to be in accordance with Encyclopedic standards.

You may want to take a look into Wikinews and work from there. Flyingcandyman (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Payamv's edits

The edits made by Payamv (talk · contribs) need to be reverted as they introduce spelling changes inconsistent with sources and break the links to articles on other language Wikipedias. My patience for dealing with editors like Payamv is far too limited this morning, so I'm disengaging. --auburnpilot talk 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why blocked for anon editing?

Wikipedia wasn't like this years ago. 166.217.126.113 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blame it on non-registered visitors feeling the need to make contributions without regard for Wikipedia's policies and methods. 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The page move has messed up the message which stated the reasons for semi-protecting, but as stated above, there were some anon users causing problems. The semi-protection is only for 72-hours, see the protection log here.
— Ω (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please add a link to Persian Wikipedia

I can't use my screen name in edithing (I'm in Tehran ) , and the IP's can't edit(semi protection) .Can some one add the Persian link to the article ? That's the link : .Persian Wikipedia.--213.207.220.163 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are (several) robots that inter-wiki link regularly. There's no great rush that I'm aware of which requires that particular intiwiki link, so I don't see the harm in allowing things to progress "naturally", so to speak.
— Ω (talk)

Good call; the bot did a better job. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think in "See also" section , we can add Ezzat Ebrahim-Nejad .--213.207.220.163 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful about implying any connections that aren't being made by reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Depiction of Neda

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Neda.jpg I've noticed theres no likeness of the subject of the main article. Here's a small likeness of her if you want it. Or maybe you don't? Lifetheuniverse (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really appropriate for the article, but it's a cool pic; reminds me of this 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}} Please add the protection template to the page, since it's edit protected. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --Stephen 05:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Government ban on her memorial

Please! the government ban on her memorial is important enough to need a separate section dedicated to it. please add a section titled "Government ban on memorials for Neda". there are many sources including: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5605586/Iran-bans-memorials-for-Angel-of-Freedom.html

They have also asked big sum of money to give her corpse to her family and have given her corpse while one of her legs is amputated. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the prayer ban by the regime, Muslims world-wide are called upon at Mosque prayers and on facebook to make dua for her as a brave shaheeda (martyr).

Youtube Video

Neda Agha-Soltan Shot Dead in Tehran June 20 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtkiLBfHnvw

Patio (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Change caption to full name, first name only is emotive and therefore POV and not for a purported encyclopedia.

Also leave "weapons" section blank—this, along with being unnecessary and inappropriately reductive (a function of the infobox itself), is surely unknown information. 86.44.30.238 (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to use the {{editprotected}}. The page is only semi-protected. Anyway, good point regarding the "weapons" section. I hadn't noticed that before.
— Ω (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the captioning. Now that her full name has been confirmed (or at least reported in multiple media) the full name should be used, not just the first name. I'd make the fix myself but I'm editing anonymously and the article is locked down. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the page is semi-protected, looking at the history.

At Req for Protection you requested

Temporary semi-protection vandalism, edit warring. anon-IP's are to blame for the trouble, so a 24 or 48 hour semi-protect should easily suffice.
— Ω (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no vandalism and precious little edit warning (one IP trying to change 16 years of age to 26, which is correct, and stating finally that he was not going to revert again [5]).

Another IP you had a problem with removed a cite to a blog post entitled "Neda the 16 year old girl murdered by Animals"! You reverted this![6]

Requesting semi-protection on this basis is poor form.

Now can we please change the caption? This is a simple thing which is obviously correct action. 86.44.30.238 (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Infoboxes throughout the project supplement the text. Please don't delete without discussion. Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Video image orientation is wrong

Is the video image supposed to be vertical? I think the video is horizontal - certainly at the point where she rolls her eyes. We should retain the original aspect of the video, otherwise that's altering the facts (journalists know the term "flipping a pyramid" and tha's what this is - it's a major no-no). 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite correct, of course. It has been flipped and it should not have been. A stopgap pending a new image would be to note the adjustment in the caption. 86.44.30.238 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I rotated it, in the understanding that it could stand as the being the only image in the article, as it seemed unlikely at the time that any additional photos would not be forthcoming. I can get the frame again and not rotate it. Or you can. I don't care one way or the other. I don't see it as flipping the pyramid as it is easily seen that she is laying on the ground, and the shot could have easily been originally taken at that angle. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

However the video is being circulated -- and telecast -- with the horizontal orientation. Unless you happen to know for certain that it was shot in the vertical (in which case all the other media is flipping the pyramid), you can't make such an assumption. A Google image search reveals the Telegraph in the UK has posted the same frame grab flipped to the vertical as well, and they should be criticized for it as they're in the wrong (unless, as I say, it can be verified that the original video has been flipped in its transmission). This is not a minor detail. Imagine if someone decided to reverse the photo of Ruby shooting Oswald, or the Vietnamese girl running from the napalm. The basic information remains the same but the depiction of the history is altered. The Neda image is the subject at hand, but it really doesn't matter what image we're talking about, if it is related to a news event (composed images, i.e. modelling shots, etc. are another matter). 68.146.81.123 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image

Here are the images under discussion below. ↜Just M E here , now 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nada "Soltani" image

I challenge that accuracy of this photo. Surely anything "alleged" should be replace with something verifiable? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, except that the correct way to do this would be to "challenge" the file itself rather then how it's used. It's located at File:Neda.png
— Ω (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the correct procedure... with regard to the article. If the file can not be verified and sourced, in the article, then it's inclusion cannot be, and therefore challenged.

It is further improper to include "alleged information" into the encyclopedia. Please resolve this before you re insert challenged material.

The policy states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"... that is any material, and yes, you can inline cite a photo. The policy also states that the burden of proof lies on you, as restoring the information into the article. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We do not have to be in a hurry to use the pic on Wikipedia. In any case, so far, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic, posts the photo alleged to be Neda here (and New York City's tabloid-format The Daily News, somewhat less careful in its detailing what is known of the pic's provenance, goes ahead and posts it here). ↜Just M E here , now 06:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Those do not seem to be reliable sources... I would be very interested in using that high quality photo, if there be sources. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a hell of a photo we've got there now. I'm relatively certain that this is the same girl from the ID picture. 07:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the photo from the BBC article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8113552.stm The photo we've now got is extremely low quality, and stretches badly in the infobox. --Veratien (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have the graphic photo of the dead Neda Soltai, considering the wide age groups using this site? Does it add anything of value to the entry? -- [Anonymous]

You might be right. Still, WP:Wikipedia is not censored. ↜Just M E here , now 08:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a new picture of Neda Agha-Soltan from facebook and have uploaded it to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neda-soltan.jpg#filelinks but am unsure how to add it to this page. Can someone please help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajadt (talk • contribs) 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright to that picture (either because you took it yourself or because she gave you that right or you are a member of her family and inherited it from her estate)? If not, you instead would have to (1) find a news source or sources that use the pic. (I could look myself, when I'd get around to it.) Then (2) you would upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) under a fair use license → (here), asserting historical importance for that particular shot. ↜Just M E here , now 09:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: an editor accidentally posted this to the article page instead of here:

The photo shown to the right of a beautiful woman in a headscarf is NOT the Neda who was killed. This photo is of Neda Soltani who has a Facebook page and is alive and well. She has since removed her photo from her home page and posted a notice that she is not the Neda who was killed. This is a terrible mistake which must be corrected. Please verify all info posted. There are numerous Neda Soltani's. Amybeam (talk · contribs)

I've hidden the image for now, pending resolution of its authenticity and any licensing concerns. Steve ^T • C 09:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think at this time, it would be more appropriate to include a screen shot of the video depicting her. It's highly unlikely we'll ever be able to confirm the before picture. Could the entire video be added to wikisource? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Useable image

The Persian wiki has an image from CNN, maybe we can show this. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this image, it's a screenshot of the youtube video:File:Neda non graphic.jpg Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Gruesome photograph

I didn't necessarily remove the gruesome photograph because of its gruesomeness (even though I think that such a photograph is unnecessary for this article; rather, a link to the video would be better, as the user can choose whether or not he wishes to see the macabre image), but rather, because three photographs were shoddily tossed atop one another -- poor editing. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a pictured above for use. Not sure of where the copyright falls though (Being a screenshot of a youtube vid). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a picture I haven't seen yet on this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/22/2009-06-22_riot_police_keep_protestors_from_mourning_neda_with_.html 19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Better-sourced photos

Here are 3 photos that have more confirmation as to sourcing. This may help Wikipedias in various languages with finding well-sourced images to use. See:

BBC article has a photo of Neda Agha-Soltan in May 2009. That date is according to a June 22, 2009 New York Times article [7]: "A photo of Neda Agha-Soltan from May 2009 provided by a man identifying himself to The Associated Press as Caspian Makan, her fiancé."

Los Angeles Times article has a photo gallery. See the enlarged photos. Here are the captions for two of the photos:

Photo 1 of 3 in the gallery. "An undated photo of Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old aspiring tour guide who was killed by gunfire Saturday during protests in Tehran over the disputed presidential election. Photo provided by a family friend."

Photo 2 of 3 in the gallery. "Neda Agha-Soltan is seen in a picture taken during a recent trip to Turkey. Security forces urged Neda's friends and family not to hold memorial services for her at a mosque and asked them not to speak publicly about her, associates of the family said.Photo provided by family friend." --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN just published a Photo Essay on Neda juandresh 02:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of two images

This discussion started at my user talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"We need her with and without scarf to avoid Western systemic bias in selection of photos." Do we also need her naked, in order to avoid systematic bias against naturists? We need one image to show who she was; any more would almost certainly be an abuse of the non-free content criteria. Which image to use is an editorial decision- if you want to avoid systematic bias, choose the image carefully; don't just slam more non-free images into the article. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I also don't appreciate your tone, or your sarcasm, or your lack of respect. Please see the discussion at

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg

Just because you are an admin does not mean you get to abuse common courtesy. Please read the notes at the top of my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I used exactly the same argument you did. If you think mine is ridiculous, now you know how I feel. Stop your edit warring over this image, now. It is not acceptable to have two images of her in the article like that- use one, or use the other, don't just throw non-free content at an article. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"slam" and "throw" are insults against my intentions. I would appreciate an apology. Also, I did not use a ridiculous exaggerated argument overextending logic way into fantasy. If you can't argue fairly, then please stop arguing here, and leave the image in the article until the deletion discussion is over. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

_________

Copying this conversation is hardly fair. I was responding to a specific (ridiculous) point you made. If I was going to discuss this with a wider audience, I would use a more standard explanation of why the image needs to go- basically, it's pretty clearly overuse, per NFCC point 2A. I concede that a single image of her in life is useful to show who she was, but the second adds very little. I do not mind which is used- that is an editorial decision, but both being used is not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In Iran women are required to wear a scarf in many situations. So we need a photo of her with and without the scarf in order for Wikipedia not to be perceived as having a Western systemic bias in its selection of photos. Plus in the video of her just before being shot she is wearing a dark scarf also. When she is dying in the other video we see her face and hair more clearly. There is lots of confusion about how she looks, and there are only 2 photos of her so far confirmed as far as I know; this one and File:Neda Agha-Soltan.jpg. There is a third photo that is questionable. File:Neda.png. So the 2 confirmed photos are needed to "convey equivalent significant information" to both Western and non-Western English Wikipedia readers worldwide. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I doubt western readers are going to jump up and shout "how could she possibly look like that? She's wearing a headscarf!". They're just clothes- how is what you're saying any different from "she's wearing different clothes on both pictures, therefore, to stop seeming biased against wearers of certain clothes, we must use both"? J Milburn (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in the article about her on the Turkish Wikipedia they are using only the photo with head scarf. Why shouldn't it be enough here to use the photo without head scarf? --Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would that not be Western systemic bias? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely so, but that has nothing to do with acceptable fair use on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule against having 2 Fair Use images in an article. Both images are now iconic. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous or widely seen does not mean iconic. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC says "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That means as subjects of sourced commentary on the individual images themselves, as images, as works of photography or art, not the topic they show. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See my reply farther down to a similar question of yours. To avoid duplication of my comment. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to quit trying to make a point. Your information below, regarding photo sourcing, is good. What is it that is the goal of this conversation though, really? Just to include more photos? I'm a bit confused as to why this (her photo) has blown up into an immediate and important issue for Wikipedia. The neda.jpg photo is the one that all of the media have been using for days now. That had nothing to do with Wikipedia, so I don't see why it should be our problem. Let them deal with it (as they apparently are based on your information below) and we'll sort it out in our own time, after they figure it out.
— Ω (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to take a breath here. Wikipedia, this story, and the picture to use are not going away anytime soon. Relax and have a rational discussion or push back for a short while. You, I, or anyone can always come back to this or any other aspect of the story later on and correct discrepancies. Let's just reach some sort of consensus, like we're supposed to do, before deleting, moving, or adding some of these things. This is an encyclopedia after all, not the streets of Tehran...
— Ω (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can generally understand J Milburn's point. However, the unresolved copyright issue (non-free content) is really due to the actuality of the topic. Even mainstream news sites use stills from the videos. Think about it, in this case I don't really see a benefit for the copyright holders by bickering on about free / non-free. Also I do not understand the edits to related topics that removed the picture there with a "no rationale .." statement. --Paparodo (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This photo is not the video still. It is this: File:Neda.jpg. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate that, but, until we have positive confirmation that a work has been released into the public domain or under a free license, we have to assume that it is non-free, and use it within the rather strict confines of the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that en.Wikipedia is not a news gathering org (and they're known to publish images through quickly made pool deals or settle up financially later). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:J Milburn should have discussed the issue on the talk page first before deleting the photo. And he deleted the one with the head scarf. Why? Why not keep it, and remove the photo without the head scarf. It is more logical to keep both photos. There is no rule against using 2 Fair Use photos in an article. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither is fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Both photos (File:Neda.jpg and File:Neda Agha-Soltan.jpg) can be used under Fair Use. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can either be supported as either iconic or historic in themselves, as photographs? I don't think they can be, as yet anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They qualify under this in WP:NFCC: "Images with iconic status or historical importance". They have become some of the most iconic images in recent history. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source which asserts that these have become "some of the most iconic images in recent history"? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"historical importance" is adequate. There are many news articles that discuss the historical importance of the photos and videos. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then cite some articles which discuss the historical importance of these individual photos, as photos, not the topic itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) If some people on Wikipedia want to continue this illogical campaign to remove all Fair Use images from articles on dead people, then I think many people on Wikipedia would be surprised by this interpretation of WP:NFCC. And since Wikipedia is built on consensus concerning its guidelines and policies, then I think we should discuss this. There is nothing in Fair Use law that blocks this Fair Use of these images on articles about these people where no free images exist. So if this is the guideline it is in contradiction to the law and common sense. Where are we going to get photos of dead people if no free ones exist? And there is also WP:Ignore all rules. This is a situation where it certainly applies. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, the pith here is, WP:Fair use is not a consensus policy, it's a legal postion of the WmF and it's very narrow. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We can not reasonably expect uploads of freely licensed images for many dead people. So the English Wikipedia Fair Use policy (WP:NFCC), or your interpretation of it, is not following wikimediafoundation.org Resolution:Licensing policy. In particular: "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals."

Note the emphasis on living people. Concerning dead people, in some cases free images of dead people show up, and in some cases they do not show up.--Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI, and I've taken this already and gotten some guidance on the Copyright Questions page. Iranian works fall under public domain in the US due to lack of treaty between Iran and the US. However, Jimbo Wales has decided to treat all Iranian works as Copywritten, so in the event of a Treaty being reached, or Iran joining WIPO, Wikipedia will be able to continue to use such images. As for the headscarf image in the Turkish Wiki, and the one here that was deleted, this image was not the Neda who was shot. It is a picture of someone still very much alive. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All the more reason to slow down. This is a free tertiary source, not Google News. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The picture that Timeshifter wants to keep is different from the veiled lady on the Russian and Polish wikipedia. Who of them is Neda ? --Paparodo (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See #Better-sourced photos section on this talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Little is reliably sourced, copyrights aren't known, none of these images are yet supportable as "iconic" or "historic" in themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the point that I've basically been putting forward for days, now. This isn't Google news, The New York Times, or CNN. Just wait folks, let things shake out a little bit. Discuss things here on the talk page. Just, in general, slow down a bit. There's too much emotion going into these articles right now. Half of the stuff being inserted into all of these articles (This, the main 2009 Iran election protest article, the timeline article, etc...) is extremely suspect right now. That's not to say that it should be censored or that changes need to regularly be reverted, but we all need to relax a little and re-read before hitting that "Save Page" button.
— Ω (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover most news sources are sloppy to begin with. This is an encyclopedia, wherein everything is at least meant to be carefully cited back to a verifiable and reliable source. It can take time to catch up, but this tends to be helpful to readers, not harmful and it goes for images too. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone above said the image is not of the victim. Actually, yes, the photo under discussion is confirmed by the LATimes as Neda Agha-Soltan; the Times says that a friend of her family's provided it to them. ↜Just M E here , now 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed "headscarfed" image

This image is the only free[corrected]: fair-use one in the article, at the moment. Not wearing a headscarf can be controversial in more traditional MidEast countries. As a (tertiary) encyclopedia, WP should use this image, the one chosen over the other image by the preponderance of (2ndary) news sources both in the West and worldwide. (Note that both images were provided to the LATimes by friends of the victim's family at the same time.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the LA Times say the image is a free image? If so, where? I believe they give the source of the image, but they don't say anything about image license. I could be wrong. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Under US law, it's in the public domain, as it is from Iran. However, Wikipedia does respect Iranian copyright law. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd meant to type "fair." (But, yes, per J Milburn, according to Jimbo Wales [whoever that guy is], even though the image is in the public domain in the US, where Wikipedia is located, we should treat it as though it is copyrighted.) ↜Just M E here , now 19:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note wrt the photo of the woman in the "flowered" scarf, showing some of her hair in the front: Actually, this is not the victim, Neda Agha-Soltan, but is rather is a "Neda Soltani" of Tehran: a woman who is not dead. (Compare the several images, side by side.) And, the image of the woman in the plain, dark headscarf is Neda Agha-Soltan and, accordint to the LATimes, was provided to that newspaper by friends of Agha-Soltan's family. ↜Just M E here , now 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images from news services, what's the policy?

I archived the discussion immediately below specifically about licensing. Please make additional comments on this topic at the images' IFD pages here and here. ↜Just M E here , now 19:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Has Wikipedia no policy on when non-free images can be used in this situation? As far as I can gather, images of this sort should not be used purely for identification or illustrative purposes. No one image is iconic or important visually in this way here. Therefore I would favour no infobox picture, though there may be a case for a frame grab of video later in the article. BTW, if you are to have an infobox image, please change the caption to full name, as befits an alleged encyclopedia. 86.44.30.238 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, they're all violations of WP:Fair use (if Iranian cr law is being respected and if not, they'd be treated more or less as PD in the states). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image Choice

There just seems something wrong about using an image of Neda in a headscarf when she was supposedly some sort of Iranian freedom champion, especially considering her fiance supplied that image of her without one. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This "fiancé" is more than questionable. On one of the photos he provided, "Neda" can be seen waering a cross around her neck. A muslim woman, liberal or not, would never do that. I'd call it a fake. Meaning, the "fiancé" and all the information he provided is false, too. -- 92.229.175.175

There's no basis for picking the photo we like best and using it to illustrate the article, unless there's a free one. If there is any fair use claim based on iconic status, it would not apply to a portrait. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" Yes. Does it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" so that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." No. These portraits have no valid fair-use rationale. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

True, only the frame grab has even a shred of support under the fair use policy and even that's dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neda has become *the* icon, i.e. the image, the face, of the uprising in Iran. Her page in Wikipedia, and this discussion about her, would likely not be taking place were her face not known. Her portrait must thus be included! juandresh 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image policy has to do with the image, not the face. Moreover the image itself, not the subject, must be the subject of commetary. It's a stretch to say a frame grab from the death video is acceptable fair use, but I'll say it's much closer than any non-free portraits. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to Tom Harrison. I'm cool about the copyright requirements, but I insist a portrait is a requirement for a page about an icon, and indeed understanding of the subject would be hampered by the lack of an image. juandresh 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing untowards at all about finding a free image and putting it in. A non-free portrait doesn't meet the fair use policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on free use policy, but if the Tom Harrison's argument against free use is that QUOTE Does it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" so that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." UNQUOTE my answer is a resounding "yes, ommission *is* detrimental to understanding". Most I believe would agree, especially if the meaning of "understanding" includes "emotional understanding" as in beauty, or horror, as opposed to merely factual "understanding" as in a mathematical theorem. You can explain the Mona Lisa with all the words you want, but you will do much better with a picture! You can write all you want about Neda but you will do her beauty, her youth and her inner radiance far better justice with a picture. Unfortunately you will also be able to do the horror of her murder (an integral and essential element of this story) also far better justice with a picture of her face in agony. Once we agree that these two images (in life, in bloody death, and the message is in the contrast between the two!), then others expert in fair use policy may opine on the *legal* appropriateness of including these pictures. But yes, the pictures are essential! juandresh 22:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

President Obama

U.S. president Obama was directly asked about her death in a public news conference and said that he was appalled by it, I think this should be mentioned.

I added a new section to the article and added Obama's comments - could be expanded by what other world leaders say. Pahari Sahib 19:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation for their destination

For this missing cite: "The three were on their way to participate in the protests against the outcome of the 2009 Iranian presidential election.[citation needed]" - please refer to this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6565497.ece.71.83.54.166 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Mushroom (Talk) 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Make a correction?

The second video doesn't start at the end of the first video. The same sounds that are heard throughout it are heard about half-way through the first video, meaning it starts about there. The citation provided says nothing about when it starts but is just a link to the video itself. Please correct that. 66.57.44.247 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Mushroom (Talk) 22:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's still not corrected. "It is at this point" still implies that it starts AT THE END of the first video. What it should say is something like "Around halfway through the first video.." 66.57.44.247 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

US reaction -> International reaction

The section on the reaction in the US is very America-centric. This should really be changed to "International reaction" and listed by country. Does anyone have any sources regarding how other governments have responded? --Aranae (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Image

Does Wikipedia have a policy for graphic images like the one the article is currently using? I'm sure some would like to read the article without seeing the graphic imagery of her dying. Argel1200 (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure does. wikipedia is not censored. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, Wikipedia, an unabashed purveyor of straightforward knowledge, has the policy that it seeks illustrative images that are informative without being truly gratuitous; and in this case, our article's subject is an iconic event notable for having been caught on camera: Agha-Soltan's sustaining a fatal injury by gunshot (who died within a half-hour of the frame of the video shown in the article's infobox's being taken -- while the victim of the tragedy was being transported to Shariati hospital.) ↜Just M E here , now 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I was looking for soemthing to rebut some friends on this. Argel1200 (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be too quick to put down these worries, see Snuff film. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Died in her fathers arms"?

Was the man originally presumed her father really her instructor (who'd been accompanying her in the poorly air-conditioned Peugeot)? ↜Just M E here , now 04:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The man in the video is her music instructor, not her father. ExRat (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

you are right ! he is her music instructor aznikoo

• Checked the reference I provided! The person saying Neda died in her Father's arms is Neda's sister, or another person reading a translation (is accurate!) of Neda's sister's eulogy. Note that I did not write about the person in the video! For all I know her father could well have joined Neda in the car on the way to the hospital. Also we do not know whether Neda died on the street or in the car. Read the english translation of the german eulogy in LiveLeak. YouTube also carries this video (without the english text). juandresh 05:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your speculations may well be right, juandresh, however, IMO, the Live Leak website likely fails the tests outlined for reliable sources. Should we await further confirmation of whatever the particulars before adding anything one way or the other to the article? ↜Just M E here , now 05:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected! The YouTube version says: "... Note from the speaker: I am not Neda's sister, I found this letter on face book! I was deeply touched by it and that I thought the world should hear this..." juandresh 06:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Found a letter on Facebook!? What kind of source is that?

Wrt either of pair of images of Agha-Soltan in biography section

Per WP protocols, if a free image would be acceptable in this context, but someone's concern would merely be with its licensing, please do not delete the image but rather await the result of its ifdc (or nominate it for an ifdc if it has not been already). ↜Just M E here , now 04:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the image: I've just removed it from the page. Per the non-free content criteria, we should keep the use of non-free content to a minimum. Only one image is needed here. One is up for deletion, and the other isn't. The two-image gallery combined with the deletion notice looks cluttered, and draws attention to itself, rather than to the person depicted. -- The Anome (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion notice isn't required to be displayed. I put it there as a courtesy, however if you prefer a more polished look to the article, I can remove it. (The notice, that is.) ↜Just M E here , now 06:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sister's eulogy?

• "Audio recording of the eulogy given by Neda Agha-Soltan's sister". LiveLeak. Retrieved June 24, 2009. ↜Just M E here , now 04:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Agha-Soltan had a sister. That woman is a German speaking protestor using the term "sister" as one would "comrade". This is further corroborated by the Times Online article here. She was the middle of three siblings - an older brother and a younger one. ExRat (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence she is not Neda's sister: See "Died in her fathers arms?" juandresh 06:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

NedaNet & Organ Donation

I've added the hacktivist website NedaNet to the External Links section, as it didn't properly belong to either the Aftermath section (which covers events in Iran) or the International Reaction section (inasmuch as Eric S. Raymond isn't on par with President Obama, et al.). I believe the website meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability given the social network and cyberwar aspects of this ongoing tragedy.

Also, she belongs in List of organ transplant donors and recipients, but I can't suss out the template just now. kencf0618 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've since placed it therein.kencf0618 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian state media's reporting

It's probably appropriate to start this at the talk page since neutrality will be a touchy subject here, but the article should contain the story that state TV is proposing regarding Neda's death. Here are a few points I can find:

• The footage was staged [8] (maybe not the best source - it also says that people are crying "I am Neda" at night which would be a good addition to the article if it can be verified).
• She was murdered by a foreign bullet [9] (note the 8:45 update citing the Today Show).

I know there's been more. There was a recent interview with an ayatollah (I beliee) from Qom posted on Huffington Post. He had also clearly heard from state media that her death was caused by foreigners. Anyway, this should be covered in the article in some capacity. --Aranae (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the Iranian state media in regards to Neda Agha-Soltan is dubious. rootology (C)(T) 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As is the reliability of the so called "opposition." They too have an axe to grind using this footage. 98.235.79.159 (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read that Press TV article also. Although Press TVs reporting is propogandish, I don't believe it's impossible that this tragedy was a staged event. That is, I support a mention of Press TV's reporting, if only in the interest of objectivity. GrouchyDan (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is either reliable or plausible, merely that it is notable ad worthy of inclusion in some manner. --Aranae (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree here, something along the lines PressTV (Iran's Media Outlet) is reporting that the bullet was fired by foreign instigators, as well as stating the footage was staged. should allow non-biased, NPOV covering of the subject. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think state media should receive the benefit of the doubt as a neutral news source in this conflict between the government and the opposition. They are a communication organ of one side of the dispute and they've been given on an artificial monopoly by the closing of opposition newspapers and expulsion of foreign media. But I do think the shifting explanations from the government of Neda's death (they've come up with at least four stories) are relevant to show the government's response. Claims that are not supported by the evidence, such as the claim that a "CIA bullet" was found in her head (in truth the wound was in her chest) can be treated appropriately under the fringe theory policy. --JamesAM (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shah Pahlavi's Comments

I object to the third sentence onward of this block quote, which comes from current article:

Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, produced a photograph of Agha-Soltan from his jacket pocket, as well as photographs of his family, at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on June 22, and stated:

"I have added [Agha-Soltan] to the list of my daughters. She is now forever in my pocket."[25]

Pahlavi criticized the Iranian government's crackdown on protesters and added, "No one will benefit from closing his or her eyes to knives and cables cutting into faces and mouths of our young and old, or from bullets piercing our beloved 'Neda' whose only sin was the quest for freedom — no one but tyrants and their thugs." Pahlavi then urged the media to continue to be "the international artery" of the Iranian protest movement.[25]

I believe the text, from the third sentence on, starting with "Pahlavi criticized the Iranian..." is immaterial, as well as indelicate; it smells of subterfuge and/or tendacity. Although I suspect it would be better to not have any mention of the Shah's son in the article, I only herein target the afforementioned text, which I will excise (one excision only, after which I'll leave it) sometime soon unless persuaded otherwise. GrouchyDan (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted the text back into the article. Why would you have it removed? And what rational reason could you have for claiming the article should "not have any mention of the Shah's son"? It is a sourced quote, directly pertinent to the death of Agha-Soltan by someone who is notable and the son of the former Shah. Whether you agree or disagree with his quote, it is pertinent to the article, regardless of what he said - he said it in direct relation to her shooting. There is no "subterfuge" in quoting someone with notable ties to (former) Iranian government's stance on the death of Agha-Soltan. I have no way of determining what his motives are - and whatever they are, they are of no consequence to the notability of his statement. He said it, it was about Agha-Soltan and it was newsworthy, regardless if you agreed or disagreed with what he said. He could have hailed and cheered her death and it still would have been worthy of inclusion. Also, an "indelicate" statement is no reason to excise it from the article. A notable statement about her death from a notable individual with strong ties to Iran is a notable statement, indelicate to you or not. ExRat (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's like Goebbels or Himmler rhapsodizing about the little Jewish girl they had just saved.

But because it's developing history, let's leave it in for now. But it's "Reza" unless you're the world's only other restorationist. Sturunner (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ops! STILL not properly sourced. Sturunner (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Included citation from UK-Telegraph. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If Joseph Goebbels or Adolf Hitler "rhapsodized about a little Jewish girl they just saved" and it was properly referenced, then that would still be noteworthy and a pertinent inclusion to an article about the death of the alleged "little Jewish girl". Your wording and determination to excise the information and quotes by Reza Pahlavi seems to possibly smack of your own biases and POV. Let's try to leave our biases elsewhere. As I stated above, his notability is not in question, nor are his ties to Iran, and his quote was a direct statement about the death of Agha-Soltan. ExRat (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Article title

I created the separate biographical article

"Neda Agha-Soltan." ↜Just M E here , now 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, good luck dealing with the deletionists on that one.
— Ω (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(IMO, a "win-win." They don't nominate, it definately stays; they do...then lotsa intelligent folks eye the situation, maybe reaching some consensus wrt whether two articles are a good idea and/or what an envisioned joint article's parameters oughtta be.) ↜Just M E here , now 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of victim's name

Neda Soltani → Neda Soltan — Currently, the article title has her last name as Soltani. Isn't it Soltan? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a BBC article from 40 minutes ago. It has a new photo of her while she was alive. It also has this (emphasis added):

The woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, was buried on Sunday. Her fiance, Caspian Makan, told BBC Persian TV about the circumstances of Neda's death.

So that is definitive, I believe.

Here is the URL:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8113552.stm

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything definitive about the spelling of this woman's name. Media sources using the Soltani spelling include: Guardian.co.uk, New York Magazine, IB Times, Canadian Press, Clarin.com, Metro France, and others (Google News shows 59 items for Soltani). Sources using the Soltan spelling include: Fox News, Christian Science Monitor, BBC, AD.nl, and others. More results seem to appear for the Sultani spelling, but both are widely used. A simple Google.com search (not limited to news items) shows just under 5,000 results for the Soltani spelling and just under 1,200 results for the Soltan spelling. --auburnpilot talk 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Persian language BBC article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090622_mm_neda_soltan.shtml

Maybe the spelling is a transliteration, and nobody has the correct English transliteration yet. But I think we should go with the BBC spelling. They did both the source Persian-language article with the fiance interview, and the English article. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that there are no good sources for her name, it's that they differ. It might be best to leave it alone for now, or maybe say something like "Neda, variously reported as Neda Soltani, Neda Agha-Soltan..." The names can/do each redirect here, so the reader won't be inconvenienced. There should be no page moves until things settle. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are currently too many reliable sources with conflicting information, as evidenced above. The current title appears to be more prevalent, right or wrong, so it seems best to wait and see. --auburnpilot talk 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At what point exactly did you forget that we have a picture of her grave markings to work with? Look closely at what the picture says, use translate.google.com for "Neda Agha Sultan" and "Neda Soltani" (English-to-Persian) and compare. It should become obvious that the name is "Neda Agha Sultan". (Remember: Persian is written right-to-left, so the difference between "Sultan" and "Soltani" is at the left of the grave inscription.)

D0nj03 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are any Persian language experts available? 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The name on the grave says Nedā Āġā-Sulṭān. I think that this should be definite by now, and I suggest to move the article to "Neda Agha-Soltan". Tajik (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The last name Agha-Soltan --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. So how do we correct the article's title already?

D0nj03 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Another spelling from a good source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090622_mm_neda_soltan.shtml And the English translation of the interview: Kasamin Makan, Neda Agha-Setan's fiancee, was interviewed by BBC Persia other details about her and her family are also in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwoodhippie (talk • contribs) 01:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC wrote Neda Agha-Soltan not Agha Setan.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Titling of article

This is not a biography

After you settle on the name, let us re-focus this WP:BLP1E by renaming it to an appropriate event-oriented title. No rush. --Curiousmode (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'Neda Soltani shooting' is not a good title. It sounds like the caption for a picture of Neda with a gun! Much better to call it 'The Shooting of Neda Soltani'.121.12.199.4 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP tends to avoid starting articles with an English article such as "the". There are many examples that follow that pattern, such as Abraham Lincoln assassination.--Curiousmode (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the tag, we've got two of them on this Talk page. 02:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand her name is Neda Agha Soltan. If the name cannot be corrected to be accurate, the page should be blocked until fixed. Neda Soltani is a person on Facebook who is also Iranian and very much alive. She translated a Farsi site and provided the name Neda Agh Soltan as the murdered woman. I believe the dead Neda was in her late 20s.

Neda Soltai → Neda Agha Soltani — since the article's present title of Soltai is a typo! (and per WP:COMMONNAMES, since the victim's full name of Neda Agha Soltani is more common than Neda Soltani in current news reports). ↜Just M E here , now 07:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The typo is that it's missing the 'n'. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've executed the move to Neda Soltani, since it was only a typo. This does not constitute endorsement of the current page title over any of the others being discussed on this page, but merely the correction of an obvious typo. If you would like to propose a move to a different title, please insert another {{Movereq}} tag. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we reach some sort of consensus regarding the girl's name? The source that names her "Neda Soltani" also says that she was identified at a 16-year old. All other sources call her "Neda Agha Soltan"; why was the page moved away from this? And where did "Neda Soltai" come from? 07:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article should be named "The Shooting of Neda Soltai" or something similar as it seems to be about the event rather than the person. If this is to be a biography page then I object to the photo of her death - or at least the placement. In short, please decide on the purpose of the article and change either the title or the photo to match. My vote would be for a biography page - even if her life was made significant only by one event. Who she was may still matter to a significant number of people who view the article. pjpark (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Pjpark regarding renaming the page, but not about it being a biography. as the other conversation below talks about (Talk:Neda Soltani#Not a biography), this isn't a biography by any means. Her actual name is secondary to the meaning of the incident, and this article should be about the incident itself, not her personally. These articles are not supposed to be memorials, regardless (see any of a number of comparable articles about people who have died in similar incidents).
My recommendation: "The Neda Incident", or something similar. Her "full name" pages can (and should) remain as redirects, but the story should only use her first name.
— Ω (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A to Z, one step at a Time.....It's "Neda Agha Soltan" we are just over 2 hours from a major Melt Down, "5:22 AM ET -- Karroubi calls for public mourning of Neda today. In a Facebook post, the reformist candidate who has been supporting Mousavi and appearing with him at rallies calls for people to gather at a central Tehran location at 4PM to mourn Neda. This could get explosive.", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html Have a Better Day. UBUIBIOK (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Have the sources stabilized on one name now? If so, and if there's a consensus after discussion, we could consider renaming the article. Anyway, Ω's suggestion above might be the best idea - Neda Incident, Neda shooting, Shooting of Neda, or something like that. I'd rather let this wait, but if there's a possibility of confusion with another person we should deal with that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The page was just moved again. I think we should take the time to put this issue to bed for good right now, before it becomes worse. I still support the notion that the title shoudl be something along the lines of Neda Incident.
  — Ω (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Death of... for now? - BalthCat (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As per http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8113552.stm, I moot Death of Neda Agha-Soltan for the title of this article, as it isn't currently about the woman herself but the events surrounding her death. --Veratien (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the most correct title indeed, since Neda herself is not notable, while her death was. This is common practice here. --Damiens.rf 19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neda did not die, she was *murdered*. The correct page title therefore should be "Murder of Neda ..." since simply stating "death" hides information essential to the nature of this article. juandresh 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why I suggested my proposed rename to "Neda (whatever) shooting" as a title until it got trampled by interference-oriented collaborators. "Murder" in America is a legal thing we usually wait for a court case to decide that it was "murder". What we know most confidently was that it was a "shooting". If there ever is a trial, etc. (OK, in Iran that might not happen in such cases so... that is Iran for you). Again, what is clear is that it was a "shooting". With the current name, that would make the proposed title "Neda Agha-Soltan shooting".--Curiousmode (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When one is murdered, one tends to die. - BalthCat (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO "Fatal shooting of Neda (whatever)" indeed would be a slightly more encyclopedic title. ↜Just M E here , now 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Murder of..." is more descriptive than "Death of...", and "Fatal Shooting of..." is even more descriptive, so your suggestion indeed should be the new name of this page! juandresh 02:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As Neda Agha-Soltan is notable for only one event, and we describe her only in relation to that event, this article really should be moved to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan or something similar, per WP:1EVENT. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been pointed out somewhere above. This is uncontroversial common practice and police application. Should be done asap. --Damiens.rf 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and it appears a few users above have said the same (Curiousmode, pjpark, Veratien, and Dam... er looks like he just checked in.) Should someone be bold? - BalthCat (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, on it. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. After such at move, if extensive details about Agha-Sotan's life become added to the article (which article itself would center on the circumstances and repurcussions of her death), then a strictly biographical article on Agha-Soltan could be split off. ↜Just M E here , now 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm now will someone move the article on Nguyễn Văn Lém.... I wonder. Pahari Sahib 20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Or Jesus Christ for that matter. He's most notable for his death or rather his supposed resurrection. Maybe we should rename the Jesus article the Death of Christ? Or maybe just redirect it to the Christian article. Or perhaps more accurately, The Writings of Jesus Christ's disciples? The moving of this article to The Death of Neda Agha-Soltan is splitting hairs.

Jesus Christ is known for his life, as well as his death, so your comparison does not hold. juandresh 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ's life was known after his death through the writing of his disciples. What has Jesus himself written?

As you (who?) correctly say, others have written about Jesus, which is exactly why we today know about his life and his death, whereas Neda is known for her death. juandresh 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, someone should move the article on Nguyễn Văn Lém to "death of" before it. And no, this is not splitting hairs; this is distinguishing a single event article from one that could be misconstrued as a biography article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it should be other way round, Nguyễn Văn Lém should be moved to shooting of Nguyễn Văn Lém, while this article should be moved back. I think the move seems to be overly bureaucratic, the one-event thing is only really for peripheral figures. Neda however has (rightly or wrongly) become the centrepiece of the Iranian protest movement. Also note Howard Brennan a witness to the JFK assassination has an article in his own name - a far less notable character simply for providing evidence, also looking at the interwikis they all seem to be about Neda rather death of. Pahari Sahib 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I followed this link here from Digg where the article is titled by her name. Sheesh, folks, mygawd, how totally utterly LAME to call this "Death of...." You call the article by her name and note in the intro that she is famous ("notable") because of the manner of her death and the reactions to it, that's all, not this kooky thing you have done. 216.114.80.183 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Subject's name

First name?

In the article, she is constantly referred to as "Neda", first name. This is formal writing and she should be referred to using her family name, Agha-Soltan. We shouldn't be referring to her on the first name basis. Specialk22

 Done by User:J Milburn. Mushroom (Talk) 22:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

...why? This (referring to her as "Neda") isn't something that we decided on. It's something that the news media and protesters themselves have decided on. If you have an axe to grind here, you guys should probably go elsewhere to grind it. This article (or the news stories, for that matter) aren't a biography, either.
— Ω (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, per WP:COMMONNAMES, this is one of those unusual cases where the subject should be referred to by her first name, Neda, by which she known the world over. (Since there are multiple Neda's however, the article's title should include her last name.) Eg.:

1. Cher, not Sarkisian
2. In the "JonBenet Ramsey" article (which article's title could stand to be renamed, perhaps?), the child is called JonBenet, not Ramsey. ↜Just M E here , now 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good example. I'd counter that referring to people by their last name is akin to "Mr. Smith" minus the honorific. Children are generally referred to in more diminutive terms. Also, on top of that, the media shows that's not the most common way she's been referred to. Again though, I'd tend to wait for the dust to settle before we go against the more typical (at least in my mind, not familiar of any MOS justification) family-name approach. - BalthCat (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although CNN's profile from today acknowledges Neda's surname, nevertheless, this "woman the world has come to know simply as Neda" is termed by CNN simply "Neda" as well, throughout the piece. ↜Just M E here , now 05:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• These news stories are emotionally loaded- they are all in support of the innocent victim. We are neutral, we should aim not to be emotional in any way. Referring to someone by their first name gets us too involved- we need a distance from those mentioned in the article in order to remain neutral. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have an argument with the coverage of the story then I would submit to you that you should take that up with those who are covering the story. Wikipedia is hardly an appropriate place to be grinding some ideological axe that you obviously have. More importantly though, consensus is clearly against your viewpoint, here.
— Ω (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"If you have an argument with the coverage of the story then I would submit to you that you should take that up with those who are covering the story. Wikipedia is hardly an appropriate place to be grinding some ideological axe that you obviously have. More importantly though, consensus is clearly against your viewpoint, here.". I see this statement as an example of how not to assume good faith - maybe you could keep your personal attacks out of Wikipedia. Your accusation of "ideological axes" is entirely out of place, and you would be better to stick to the points at hand rather than attacking the messenger. Further, Wikipedia is not here to blindly report on what other people are reporting. Just because those who are covering a story say something does not mean it is accurate - recall she was at first reported to be 16 years old and an entirely different person. Wikipedia is not about blindly reproducing inaccuracies, it is about presenting facts.

• Hello anonymous. I submit that your point that "Wikipedia is not about blindly reproducing inaccuracies, it is about presenting facts." is exactly what I was getting to with my earlier comment. That's a primary point put forward in WP:V, after all. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, an investigative journalism outlet at all. Truth or falseness is not our concern, verifiability is. I can varifiably show that the story (or "meme", if that makes people more comfortable) is about "Neda", the idea, not Neda Agha-Soltan, the person. Those of you who seem to have a seemingly emotionally charged reaction to the comverage ought to take it up with those organizations who are covering the story. Since Wikipedia's position here is to cover those who are themselves covering the story, these arguments are out of place.
  — Ω (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello to you too - actually, in this case I am inclined to agree with you. This is an article about an event, the individual involved is not noteworthy otherwise. In this case, regimenting that it should be either/or, surname or first name, is perhaps inappropriate. It might be simpler to let it evolve, with references to her both as surname and first name included as they are presented - there is no universal right or wrong here I think. However I take issue with the notion that Wikipedia must report the reporting of others without consideration to it's truthfulness. Wikipedia is not a collection of press articles. Presenting media viewpoint without checking facts is irresponsible. Just because a report on an event appears on television does not mean anything other than that the news service said something. You may report the fact that the news media said such a thing, but you may not assume it's validity without checks. If it were as you say then the first impression of the victim being a 16 year old should stand - it was after all reported on by reliable sources from thge beginning. Yet we @know@ now that this reporting was false. This is the essence of Wikipedia. If you want to read a bunch of articles that have appeared in the press, read the press. If you want an encyclopedic entry on an event, you should be able to go to Wikipedia, whose job is to distill all those millions of articles on a subject into something that can be read by everyone.

Neda

Per WP (see WP:COMMONNAMES) and per reliable 2ndary sources, the subject is generally not termed "Agha-Soltan" but "Neda." ↜Just M E here , now 10:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone call Britney Spears "Spears", either. We refer to people by surname, as we remain neutral. Calling people by their first name is overly emotional. Yes, third party sources refer to her as "Neda", but that's because they're all on her "side", as it were. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone obviously went though and used Find/Replace in order to replace every occurance of Neda with Agha-Soltan. Regardless of anyone's feelings about the perceived propriety of using a person's surname vs. familial name, this is not the place to argue about it. It's clear to anyone who reads or watched the coverage around this incident that the use of "Agha-Soltan" or even "Neda Agha-Soltan" is uncommon. The common coverage is using just "Neda".

Besides, as we have been discussing for days now, this article is not a biography. This is about an event, not a person. The event most certainly involved a person, but it is not, was not, and will not specifically be about her.
— Ω (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Actually, there's no need to guess as it's in the recent edit history at this time. You're clearly trying to make a point with your recent disruptive edits to this article.
— Ω (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what? That was uncalled for. I attempted to remove links to an article that should not exist and very soon won't exist, and then I tried to refer to a person in a less emotionally charged way. I did not try to hide what I was doing in any way- I was certainly not being disruptive, and I am certainly not trying to make a point. We refer to people by surname- we're an encyclopedia, not a letter to a friend. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SURNAME, "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only". WWGB (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that a case can certainly be made either way. (I personally think the last name in this case sounds odd -- as though Prince Charles were termed throughout his article "Windsor" ^{;^)} -- but that's just me.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with Justmeherenow. More importantly though is the fact that, by adjusting the article in an attempt to force it to meet a guideline changes the story that the article is about. These edits are analogous to a "political correctness run amok" situation. All of the media, the protesters themselves in Iran, and it seems the whole world, is referring to her as Neda. By forcing the use of "Agha-Soltan" we're not faithfully reproducing facts, we're synthesizing something else. This article and the story behind it are also not a biography, so the use of her full name is introducing something that should not be a component of the article.
— Ω (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact this is not a biography is not important- we refer to JFK as "Kennedy" in John F. Kennedy assassination. Using a surname does not in any way change the story, it gives the impression we are taking a more distant, objective look at the issue than the possible sensationalisation by journalists. It all seems more "real" when first names are used, but we're not here to make it real and get the reader involved in the story, we're here to offer a neutral retelling of events. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Allowing the narrative voice of the article to call her by first name threads a straightforward polemic throughout the text which is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If this PC insanity extends even to changing people's quotes... I don't know what to say. This article is not accurate as it currently stands.
— Ω (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To say this article is not accurate is to put it mildly (though I think we'd not agree as to how), but in some ways, the sources will need to catch up and that could take a long time. In the meantime, more NPoV would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes definitely should not have been changed. Which quotes are you referring to? J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please diff those, they shouldn't be changed. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that we'd agree more then you seem to think. In a week or two maybe we can actually get somewhere with that. In the meantime I've basically given up on all but the most blatant problems... which, having just noticed the changes in quotations within the "US reaction" section, is why I commented above. I actually don't see the real need for that entire section in this article, but that's really a whole different topic.
— Ω (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, perhaps the section title would be more helpful (and less misleading) if called Political reactions in the US. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• For better or worse, the plainly observable truth is that this post-modern mega-meme that we're here providing our Wiki- (encylopedic) coverage to, has but four letters: /N/ /e/ /d/ /a/ -- and not 10 letters (/A/ /g/ /h/ /a/ - /S/ /o/ /l/ /t/ /a/ /n/) in addition to its hyphen. ↜Just M E here , now 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So blog it elsewhere and when you have time, find sources supporting that Neda has become an Internet meme, then cite them in this encyclopdia article. I'm not being snarky. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An article about the Internet driven phenomemon wrt Neda from today'syesterday's Washington Post: "Minh T. Nguyen, a software engineer in Los Angeles, isn't sure about the answers. But he was the 30-year-old who created Soltan's Wikipedia entry late Saturday night. [...] Around the same time Nguyen created Soltan's Wikipedia article, Naghavi formed a Facebook page in honor of Soltan. As of 3 a.m. Tuesday, it had 2,180 fans. Twelve hours later it had 16,000."(link) ↜Just M E here , now 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Hmm. Very ironic! While some talkpage participants provide our extensive, reliable sources that in various ways discuss the largely Internet-assisted phenomenon and the association with the simple designation "Neda" with this phenomenon; other posters to this talkpage section talk about the providing of sources but provide none for their editorial stylistic choices, themselves!) ↜Just M E here , now 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

URL? (I believe you, but this is worthless if you're bringing up a source with a widely known website and not citing a link). Even with a citation, though, it doesn't make the use of a first name in the narrative voice any less a polemic or any more encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you're right, there, Gwen. (But what's a little bit of polemics among friends, anyway?) ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 20:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the "it's polemic" argument, here. This whole story is polemic. That's the whole point! There must have been thousands of murders since Neda's death but we're not covering them.

More importantly though, as I've repeated numerous times, this isn't a biography. This isn't about Neda Agha-Soltan, although some want to make it out to be. The story is about the event, not the person. Obviously, since it involves the death of the person there is a secondary aspect to the story that asks "so, who was this woman anyway?", but the interest in the event has never been because of her, it's always been because of what occurred to her. By introducing her full name throughout, the story itself is changed. It creates a false impression that Neda Agha-Soltan has some sort of prior importance. The use of her (the person's) name is appropriate for the biography section and/or the biography page, not this article about the "Neda Event".
— Ω (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hey! I checked the guideline! -- my reading of which is that we are to ignore whatever inherent biases are contained within commmon designations. Rather, we are enjoined to modestly reflect how individuals are most commonly referenced in 2ndary sources, without Wikipedia's getting involved in influencing how the public references these individuals.

  Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens. The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time: Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used. It is best to remember that Wikipedia does not make reality: Wikipedians note down what is the closest to facts they can find, in this case that the name "Alfred the Great" is most often used to refer to a certain person.[...]- George Eliot - pen name of Mary Ann Evans - Le Corbusier, not Charles-Édouard Jeanneret - H. G. Wells - as author Herbert George Wells abbreviated both his first and middle names: the abbreviated "artist's name" is used in wikipedia as page name. - Scotty Bowman, not William Scott Bowman - Dizzy Gillespie, not John Birks Gillespie - 50 Cent, not Curtis James Jackson III [...].---WP:NAMING CONVENTIONS (PEOPLE)

  ↜Just M E here , now 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• without Wikipedia's getting involved in influencing how the public references these individuals.

I just figured that I would highlight that, since it's not a guideline or even a policy. It's a central tenant of Wikipedia itself...
— Ω (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"I just figured that I would highlight that, since it's not a guideline or even a policy. It's a central tenant of Wikipedia itself..." Are you sure you don't mean tenet? Tenet : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true  ; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession It's a big difference from that to someone who is lodging in your attic. Is there any chance you could familiarize yourself with a spell checker? You don't have to be perfect, no-one is asking that, just if you could try to make sure you are making sense it would benefit the flow of discussion a lot. Thanks.

A WP precedent

The Kent State Four plus one of the notable wounded, Alan Canfora, have their biographies titled by name only. They, like Neda all had meaningful lives cut short because they, however tentatively, stood up for peace and justice. Sturunner (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Meaningful" and "notable" are two different things. In some ways, I do suppose it is how her memory is (yet) to used. One could try compare her with Crispus Attucks except that we already know that the larger event — the Boston Massacre &mdash: helped to lead to the American Revolution, etc. whereas it unclear how big a change these current events might lead to. You could also compare it to Beer Hall Putsch#Fatalities, I suppose, simply because a big deal was eventually made about those guys who lives were otherwise non-notable and they each get WP bios that are also all stubby WP:BLP1E's. Much has been made in this week's media about this violent death simply because it was caught on video. That is all we know about this event so far.--76.200.189.7 (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Closing this for now and removed merge tags, as the prospect of a merge is currently being covered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan. No point in duplicating it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I hope the archiver doesn't mind but I restored the tags after first refactoring their "discuss" buttons to now direct to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan (per WP:FORUMSHOP and, of course, User:MickMacNee). ↜Just M E here , now 01:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's proposed that "Death of..." be merged with "Neda Agha-Soltan" or vice versa. Discuss. ↜Just M E here , now 08:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Obvious support, and I do not support waiting a week for the AfD. Just do it- bring anything useful from that one (not the images) over here. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep seperate. (See my argument down a ways in the thread at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan.)

Most discussion on proposed merger is happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge now! Details of Neda's life are of interest due to her shooting death in the context of Iranian unrest after a stolen election. These are the essentials about Neda and they all belong together in *one* article. juandresh 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they really don't. The story is about the event itself, not really the person.
— Ω (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Merge, plenty of other people have the details of their death on their main article page, and she is in fact notable for the manner and publicising of her death. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as anyone has so far been able to tell she was a nobody who only shot to fame through getting shot - who cares about her life, it was only her death that holds any worldwide interest. Let the Iranians have a biography on their own Wiki, as far as this one goes there should only be one article, namely the death of the girl.

• Merge Agha-Soltan is notable through her death, so it is appropriate for her to have one article. Liquidluck (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. There should be a separated article about her death aznikoo

While I see the logic in merging the articles, I believe Neda deserves her own article. Once the people of Iran are free to provide us with further details about her life this article will grow. Rather tan focus on her death, we need to focus on her life. I am ceratain she did not wish to die for her country or people in this manner; Neda is a hero of the world. She deserves our respect and I for one would like to know more about her.ambrosiusamadeus (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research

Well, of course, if a hollow-point ammo was used (eg as is standard issue to US law enforcement, and elsewhere, for the purposes of stopping the target of an imminently threatening individual without creating as much of a risk to innocent bystanders).......such a fact could conceivably help narrow down the list of suspected perps for investigation.

1. Gazillionth-hand account by Iranian ambassador to Mexico the Hon. Ghadiri that (quote) We say that the bullet that was found in her head [?] was not a bullet that you could find in Iran. (link)
2. According to on-scene observations of the fatal wounds by Dr. Hejazi
   (1) "there was no exit wound in her back, which indicates he said, she was intentionally shot in the chest."(link):
   (2) (quote) I saw the bullet wound just below the neck with blood gushing out. I have never seen such a thing because the bullet, it seemed to have blasted inside her chest, and later on, blood exiting from her mouth and nose.(link)

↜Just M E here , now 03:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the original research policy, you can't span citations together to make your own original conclusion, even if that conclusion is later shown to be supported by reliable sources. Instead, you must cite reliable sources which straightforwardly make the assertion themselves. This doesn't mean you can't think for yourself, it means that on this website, any assertion (or guess, or thought or other text) not supported by a reliable source can be removed in good faith by any editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

We might do better to cite latimesblogs.latimes.com instead of weaselzippers.net. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Agha-Soltan's Killer Allegedly Identified

[redacted]. Since the source is unkown, and secondary sources do not seem to be available at this stage, what are the guidelines and thoughts for inclusion/exclusion of this information? Juandresh 01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO so far a very thin reed (that is, WP:RS-wise) but, as always, we shall wait and see. ↜Just M E here , now 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely serious allegation. I don't think we should be posting a name here. In fact I think that Juandresh's edit should be deleted and perhaps removed. I don't mean this as an attack on Juandresh who is just relaying what s/he heard elsewhere. Imagine how easy it would be to have a personal vendetta against an innocent person, publish their name in this context, and then hope for revenge to be taken. --Aranae (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies. A YouTube video is far from a reliable source for this kind of content on en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that BLP shields this local commander of irregulars from WP's publishing these accusations, made as they are, so far, by entirely anonymous individuals and published only on a few Persian-language websites. (Whereas the same type of allegations made by the official Iranian government sources against BBC correspondent Jon Leyne, published in reliable sources, are not able to be shielded from Leyne on Wikipedia, via WP:BLP.) But does such a proscription, as in the case of the irregulars' commander, extend even to talkpage commentary? Just curious. ↜Just M E here , now 02:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't shield anyone. BLP means content must be sourced very reliably and written carefully or not at all, sometimes even on talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

One effect of the the BLP guidelines is that they indeed protect militia volunteers from having unsupported allegations against them aired on the talkpages of Wikipedia, then, no? (It's said that these paramilitary have begun to wear helmets, with one result of this being that indentifying pix of them on the street in possession of weapons -- such as this one, published by the Boston Globe -- are harder to come by, as, according to a comment made on the reddit site, "Basically people are distributing pictures of Bassijis who are armed. I've seen quite a few. Purpose is to make their lives a little bit harder. They shouldn't walk freely and enjoy life when they are taking away lives of innocent people.") ↜Just M E here , now 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is en.Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not Twitter or a news/political blog, so editors must cite only highly reliable sources when putting in BLP content (which is to say, linking names of living persons with deeds). If one can't cite a reliable source, there's nothing much else to talk about here. There are many other websites on the Internet where one can blog or post weakly sourced stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus, WP:NOTFORUM
— Ω (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see also WP:SOAPBOX. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the interest of fair play, eg, vis-a-vis the allegations against Jon Leyne, could anybody tell me what this piece posted the 22nd of June in the newsblog Inside of Iran says? ↜Just M E here , now 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very hard core internal Iranian smear politics, written emotionally in heavy Farsi idiom. The text brings up neither Leyne nor Agha-Soltan, the writer hints (but does not straightforwardly say) there's some corrupt link between the guy on the motorcycle and a USD 175 billion government agriculture loan, the writer saying the Tehran government isn't the "holy Islamic Republic" it claims to be. There's a run-on sentence with a reference to Hezbollah which I can't quite make out. All told, it looks like an unreliable blog entry to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. (Oysh - in the brave new century, maybe only Perez Hilton and similar breeds of street journalism will be left!) ↜Just M E here , now 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Journalism is indeed going through sweeping changes, most political reporting of any stripe and across all sources is sloppy and unreliable to begin with, meanwhile we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Burdoh and the "Skeptical Analysis" section.

I just removed a large section of OR. Take this crap to Conspiracypedia, as Wikipedia is not a place for unreliably sourced speculation about why blood comes out of one's face when one is shot in the chest. Shii (tock) 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times can this editor (suspected sock puppet User:Burdoh) be allowed to break the 3 revert rule before someone takes action? This whole section is laden with poorly sourced conspiracy theories and Original Research. This is the stuff that belongs on some sort of personal blog - not Wikipedia. ExRat (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ExRat, you are not on your 3rd revert, so please change the page back to the version that's not full of conspiracies. Shii (tock) 17:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Since some of you are sysops & far more experienced than me, how do we stop the OR revert war by an apparent Sock Puppet? Sturunner (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: a "new" user named User:Sendibaad has been re-adding the dropped material for several hours this morning. I've (unfortunately) reported the problem here, as well.
— Ω (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

External Links section

I've pared down the External links section to include 3 of the more notable sites that were listed already, IAW: WP:EL. Let's not allow this to get out of control, since Wikipedia is not a link farm.
— Ω (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cross(?) pendant

I moved "photographed wearing(link) Christian cross" here from the biography section's infobox. The pendant looks like it may well be a cross, but we can't absolutely be sure of that. (You can only barely make out one of its crossbars, really, if that is what it is.) In any case, we must await its being mentioned in a news source before we could even begin to start to imply possible conclusions about what such a choice of adornment might say. That is, although I do believe some context could well be found in the article to mention the possible cross, accompanying an external link to the image in question, I believe its mention within Soltan's biographical infobox's "religious beliefs" field would tend to shade us overmuch into engaging in original research. ↜Just M E here , now 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Kargar Street's renaming is proposed

by some websites, says NYT.(link) ↜Just M E here , now 04:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reaction by authorities in Iran

I continue to think that the story and response by Iranian state media and the Iranian authorities belongs in the article in spite of the fact that few of us editors believe their stories. Today there is news that Ahmadinejad orders a probe into her death . --Aranae (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Iranian reaction section should be readded. Seems it was (mistakenly?) taken out when a known vandal/sock puppet kept inserting poorly sourced conspiracy theories and a "Skeptical Analysis" section. I will add it back as I think it is pertinent to maintain an unbiased approach. ExRat (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted this above, but since you guys decided to start a section here I've moved it to this section:

I've moved both of the "Iranian government reactions" and "U.S. reactions" sections from the main page to an archive here on the Talk page (Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan\Reactions). My concern with either/both sections is not really with content, although I'm sure that plenty of criticism could be found for the content within. The issue, as I see it, is the reasons for it's inclusion. This material seems to already be covered at length on different articles (2009 Iranian election protests and International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election). Also of importance here is the issue of centrism... A special section for the US seems out of place (I know that the name has been changed from "International reaction" a couple of times, but the fact is that it is a US reaction section).

So, pending some sort of consensus that the materiel actually belongs on this page, I've archived the text and created this talking point.
— Ω (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed the "new" text that has been added to the article.
— Ω (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ω, while agree you that the U.S. reaction section smacks of centrism and should probably be left off the article page for now (until there is possibly more international quotes directly in relation to Agha-Soltan's death), I don't think the inclusion of the "Iranian government reactions" should be removed. All the inclusions in that section were statements made directly and exclusively about the death of Agha-Soltan and I could not find any of this same sourced information on the 2009 Iranian election protests and International reaction to the 2009 Iranian presidential election articles. I think it is only logical to have sourced stances by the Iranian government and statements about the death of Agha-Soltan (however distasteful or "propaganda-fuelled" I may find them). There is really no basis to excise from the article, as her death happened in Iran and any governement reaction or statement by notable clerics in direct response to her death should be included. Please, also note that I left out an unsourced claim in this section. ExRat (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I've at least turned it into a sub-section of the "Aftermath" section. That whole section needs some serious copy editing, though...
— Ω (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Other victims of the protests

Should we, and if so, what's the best way to include the following info? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

2009 Iranian election protests victims other than her are (and not limited to):

1- Mohhammad Hossein Barzegar, male, 25, Highschool graduate, self-employed, shot in the head in Haft-Tir Sq, Tehran on Wed. June 17, 2009. Buried in Lot 302, Behesht-Zahra, on Sun Jun 21 after family's commitment to the conditions.

2- Seyyed Reza Tabatabaee, male, 30, Accountant, shot in the head on Azarbayjan St., on June 20, 2009. Buried in Lot 259, Behesht-Zahra, on Jun 24 after family's commitment to the conditions.

3- Iman Hashemi, male, 25, self-employed, shot in the eye on Azaadi St., on Sat. June 20, 2009. Buried in Lot 259, Behesht-Zahra, on Jun 24.

4- Parisa Koli(or Parisa Kali), female, 25, B.Sc. in Persian Literature, shot in the neck on Keshavarz Blvd., on Sun June 21, 2009. Buried in Lot 259, Behesht-Zahra, on Tue. Jun 23.

5- Mohsen Haddadi, male, 24, Software Designer, shot in the forehead on Nosrat St., on Sat June 20, 2009. Buried in Lot 269, Behesht-Zahra, on Tue. Jun 23.

6- Mohammad Nikzadi, male, 25, Civil Engineer, shot in the chest in Vanaq Sq., on Tue June 16, 2009. Buried in Lot 257, Behesht-Zahra, on Sat Jun 20.

7- Ali Shahedi, male, 24, was arrested on Sun Jun 21, 2009 and transferred to Tehranpars police station. He died in the police station for unknown reasons (according to the official autopsy). But his family believe he died from baton hits in the police station. Buried in Lot 257, Behesht-Zahra on Jun 24.

8- Vaahed Akbari, male, 34, self-employed, married with a 3-year old daugther, shot in the side on Vanaq St., on Sat June 20, 2009. Buried in Lot 261, Behesht-Zahra, on Tue Jun 23.

9- Abolfazl Abdollahi, male, 21, Associate Degree in Electrical Eng., shot in the back of the head in front of Sharif Univesity on Sat June 20, 2009. Buried in Lot 248, Behesht-Zahra, on Tue Jun 23.

10- Saalaar Tahmasbi, male, 27, Business Administration Student in Rasht, shot in the forehead on Jomhouri St. on Sat June 20, 2009. Buried in Lot 254, Behesht-Zahra, on Tue Jun 22 (or Mon Jun 21?).

11- Fahimeh Salahshour, female, 25, Highschool graduate, died on Jun 15th in the hospital from internal bleeding resulting from baton hits to her head in Valiasr Sq. on Jun 14th, Buried in Lot 266, Behesht-Zahra, on Tue Mon Jun 17.

12- Vahid Reza Tabatabaee, male, 29, B.A. in English Literature, shot in the head in Baharestaan Sq. on June 24, 2009. Buried in Lot 308, Behesht-Zahra, on Tue Mon Jun 27.

Before this, the name of another 14 martyrs was released, including:

1- Neda Agha Soltan (female) 2- Fetemeh Barati (female) 3,4- Fatemeh Rajabpour & her daughter (female) 5- Kasra Sharafi (male) 6- Movina Ehtermi (female) 7- Kambiz Shojaee (male) 8- Mohsen Imani (male) 9- Naser Amirnejad (male) 10- Iman Namazi (male) 11- Mostafa Ghonyan (or Mostafa Ghanyan) (male) 12- Bahman Jenabi (male) 13- Ashkan Sohrabi (male) 14- Kaveh Alipour (male)

[10][11][12][13]

---

I assume that you're asking if we should either add this list to the article, or create articles for all of these people as well. My opinion on either is that we shouldn't. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a memorial (which is something that the current article will need to receive attention about). More importantly though, the incident involving Neda is distinct in that it became the symbol for all of the deaths which you are mentioning here. That's why her death rates inclusion at all, to be blunt. You don't see us creating articles on the people who were killed in Darfur last night, or even those who were murdered in Paris yesterday...
— Ω (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PS.: I see someone added most (all?) of these names at: 2009 Iranian election protests#Casualties, which makes adding them here rather redundant. There should be a way to work in the fact that other casualties occurred, but I think that this article should remain focused on the Neda event.
— Ω (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Inclusion was not my idea, another editor put it in but it didn't look good or fit well, so I thought to put it here for discussion rather than deleting it outright. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Neda actually a protester?

Why say she was when she wasn't...? -Mog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.150.145 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been changed based on the information in the source. 02:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says she WAS PARTICIPATING in a protest march...when she was shot. No, she was NOT participating. She was just watching. Read Persian BBC, or BBC world news version http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8113552.stm Actually, she was => "sitting in a car and stuck in traffic. She was feeling very tired and very hot. She got out of the car for just for a few minutes." Also hamed's Youtube post (User: hamedfrt, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdRwOlmIxI) says: => "was standing aside", "watching the protests" It makes an essential difference whether they shoot at (eventually aggressive) protesters, or at innocent bystanders! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.28.116 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is important, why hasn't it been changed?121.12.199.4 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been changed using the BBC source. Thanks for the contribution! 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article still says, "They were on their way to attend a march in protest of the issues surrounding the 2009 Iranian presidential election". This is highly disputable, most of the news sources I have seen say this is not the case. The article is locked so it isn't allowing even a citation demand to be placed there.

Authenticity of the incident

Are you guys sure this isn't a fake? Do we actually have any reliable evidence this isn't staged? Seems fishy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.204.162.170 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

- check the analysis and decide for yourself! [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.106.24 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

- Sure. And that body they buried is just some empty coffin and government didn't want the memorial of a fake person. I never say this to anyone on Wikipedia but here it goes "You are an idiot" --Custovic (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

``` Even if it was faked, which it obviously was not, the youtube video is a phenomenon in and of itself and is a significant moment in the history of Iran. So sad that people will jump out of the woodwork insisting things are fake, even when there are hundreds of witnesses and multiple videos and even a corpse. Sad that people are using wikipedia's discussion to shout about how 'freedom is bullshit' and this murder is 'american propoganda'. Such folks should really evaluate where their world view comes from that this is their reaction to such an even as this murder. 128.62.154.242 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

-- I suspect Occam's Razor applies. Where is the unambiguous proof that this video is a fake? Within a couple hours of the original posts on youtube and iReports there was someone in Southern California (Chula Vista?) flooding the web with claims that this video is a fake. The claim was made that within a few frames of one of the videos a bottle could be seen pouring blood on her face. Since that time several other posts chimed in (people claiming to be paramedics, doctors, and special effects professionals) and all have debunked these claims of a supposed hoax. Until the deniers can provide detailed, verifiable evidence to the contrary reasonable people are justified in taking this story as fact. 71.105.206.164 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how you can watch the long version of the video and think it's fake, go take a spin on liveleak to see what it is to see another die and then watch this video. It is as real as it gets and ridiculous how people can call such a thing fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.39.17 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the motives by the person suggesting it is fake, I see they wrote "propaganda, propaganda, propaganda" whcih suggests they have motive in supporting the basijs. But I would say the day it appeared it had a 99% chance of being real. Now we know 100% it is real it has now been confirmed by multiple witnesses to the even, her family, and with a govenrment decree denying public access to her funeral.Carwon (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is on Wiki it is the truth nowadays. Her age, her name, who was with her, was she shot from a motorcycle or a rooftop, why shoot a random woman with a veil, why was the other video taken and by whom? So much is unclear so that the entire "news item" should be scrutinized for a bit longer. It reminds me to much of the incubators in 1990 or Lynch in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbelsudd (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is staged; the supposed details in this article relating to who Neda is and her background are all asserted as fact w/o detail and stated in generalities. Her family, her job, her student status, the only real people we know about claiming direct involvement are the doctor and her fiancee and maybe her music teacher. I am not politically motivated, I believe in the Iranian citizens' cause and support them totally, but I think this video is a fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.130.112 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not convinced that this video is not a fake. Sure, good actors would be needed, but the majority of the protestors are students, so there is a true possibility some of them are indeed actors. On the other hand, there are only around 10 people but not a single policeman on the tape, and no actual shooting wound is visible - therefore not many special effects would be needed to film such a tape. Remember Blair Witch Project - cheap but shocking! I'm not saying this video is fake, but no one could ever say this video is NOT a fake either.

Like someone said beforehand, if the government made it clear that no one is to attend her funeral, I think it is pretty legit that this was real. Not to mention the video is highly realistic. 154.20.39.17 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Luckily Wikipedia is not the place to debate the validity of the claims but simply to present the best evidence we have. In fact there is very little evidence here at all - all we have is a video and some eyewitness reports. On the strength of these we can say that this woman did indeed die from gunshot wounds on the day in question and at the place described, but so far that is about all. We don't have any evidence as to the shooter or the general circumstances before, during or after the incident. What we do have is a variety of reports, some conflicting. That is not to say that the whole incident COULDN'T have been staged, but as yet it is not our responsibility to presume this one way or the other, but simply to report from reliable sources. Remember this article is not about the person or even the shooting itself but the widespread public reaction, making this incident something of note.

PressTV reports that other witnesses didn't see Basiji anywhere near, and that the weapon used in the killing was not a weapon used by the Iranian government. President Ahmadinejad has called for an investigation into the circumstances of her death. See reporting here: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99323&sectionid=351020101 http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99330&sectionid=351020101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.62.14 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Third Video?

I think the issue about the authenticity is connected with how people view the validity of the video. When this first hit the news (google news), the first video clips I saw showed Neda fully standing with the wound right below her throat. She was standing, and people were looking at her, and at the red wound she had (and no sound of gun-shot). So, now that it's getting so much coverage, the obvious question I'm asking, is where is the original clip I saw? It gives the impression that it's been edited out of the clip, which leaves the question - why was it edited out in something so high-profile? And where was the camera pointing before it was on her?Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bottle of Ketchup?

Ok, I don't want to be a pain here, but look at the hands of the people moving up to her face before the blood comes out. On the LiveLeak video, it doesn't seem as clear (for some reason, the YouTube video show it clearer, strange the LiveLeak video replaced it in this Wikipedia article). Look closely at the guy in the blue/white striped shirt between seconds 9 - 12. Notice the bottle he is holding in his hands (resemembling a bottle of ketchup - not saying it is ketchup)? He puts it close to her face, and the blood appears. It's very clear when you look at it. These two things -- the missing part of the video I saw originally when she was standing, and the obvious red bottle held to her face by the guy in the blue/white shirt during seconds 9 - 12 -- make it very sad to me indeed that there is little or no criticism of the validity of this video either here in Wikipedia, or in the media.Jimhoward72 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia really isn't the place for this kind of thing. The fact is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, weather or not any incident is true or not is irrelevant.
— Ω (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There apparently are some sites that have expressed criticism of the validity of this video - criticims of the video should be mentioned in the article, since Wikipedia is producing an objective encyclopedia article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the statements can be reliably referenced, and written in an encyclopedic manner (which, due to the raw emotion involved in this story right now, seems to be an real issue for the entire article), then yes those criticisms can be included. Note however that "some sites" often do not meet the reliable sources portion of the verifiability guideline.
— Ω (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

??? I honestly don't see the bottle, but that's besides the point. Sure, editors try to uphold an objective encyclopedia, but "objective" does not mean we use just any old source for citations in an article. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources; speculation on sites such as personal blogs are not allowed for inclusion in any article. I hope you are referring to criticism from a well-known online news site, such as the New York Times.--Pericles of Athens<sup>Talk</sup> 12:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - you can see the bottle in his right hand during seconds 9 - 13, it's red with a white label. If you keep clicking frame by frame you see him clearly pouring it, and the blood showing up. Thanks.Jimhoward72 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a screen capture with the bottle circled:Picture of bottle being poured

ROFLMAO, Jim Howard, you are an idiot. Hands down. Not only is it completely obvious that its the mans bloody right hand with a wristwatch folding the left side of her hed that you are calling a "bottle of ketchup", but you can clearly see the blood flow OUT OF HER NOSE AND MOUTH VERY RAPIDLY, plus the amount of blood coming out of the nose would be difficult to create. Even the best special effects can't recreat that, and that's why you can name one film that can compare with the amount, speed and look of that blood coming out of her nose and mouth. Furthermore, if it was being poured on the face, it would'nt come OUT of the nose rapidly in that manner, plus shes obviously near death at that moment because if it *was* an actor, you would have at least seen her flinch when the red substance, foriegn to the body, was going through the sinuses. You *obviously* have a problem with persian people or their cause because I doubt anyone could be as ignorant and foolish as you act like you are;or you are an Islamic republic sympathizer and are trying and failing to discredit it.

Hahahaha!!! Dude, you need to watch that video with a little more care. I just rewatched it again. That's no bottle of ketchup. That is red blood on his hand, and the white is the sun's glare on his metal wrist watch. If you watch the video very carefully, the camera pans to the left and stays focused on his hand as he touches her face. Anyways, no more discussion of this unless you can find a credible news source which alleges that it was a bottle of ketchup, and not a red bloodied hand with a metal wrist watch.--Pericles of Athens<sup>Talk</sup> 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And what is a single reliable, mainstream news story that backs up this viewpoint, that isn't published by Iranian state media? Just doing a quick search here turns up this mentioned on comments on a couple of news articles which otherwise do not mention the "ketchup", the The Onion, and people linking to a now 404-erroring image on 4Chan. rootology (C)(T) 12:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Infowars... the bastion of such "reliable sources" lol
— Ω (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When was Neda born? 1982? Oh, great. Do middle class people in Iran only have the YEAR of birth printed on their ID's ? Can we finally have a full birthdate, please ? Both the Neda videos have been extensively analyzed and been proven staged/faked beyond any reasonable doubt. http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=6793&st=15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by

LOL I've never read anything funnier than that thread you provided a link to. It is full of obvious 'conspiracy theorists' and their explainations are OBVIOUSLY wrong. In one they say Nedas hand is a bottle. In another they show two pictures of her which is supposedly showing different blood patterns, but in reality its just showing her from different angles and the blood can be seen still going in the same directions. And in another they say the blood is "running up hill", which is the one thats most obviously false because she is LYING ON A FLAT SURFACE & her head was moving! NONE of the explainations by that "simon" guy are correct. Its obvious and its very funny too see how sure the other posters are at what hes saying even though its obviously completely ridiculous.

93.147.109.161 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, and let me guess! Her coffin in her grave is actually filled with nothing but a bunch of ketchup bottles! She's really living it up on a tropical island somewhere with Tupak Shakur and, most recently, Michael Jackson! I should have known. As for her exact birth date, that is a legitimate point. So far I've seen no news source provide it. Until one does, there's really not much to talk about.--Pericles of Athens<sup>Talk</sup> 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Salehi?

According to the London Times, her full name is Neda Salehi Agha Soltan (note: No hyphen!) so the page title should be "Fatal Shooting of Neda Salehi Agha Soltan". juandresh 05:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Times is wrong. It's already been explained in a comment above: she was killed near Salehi St., this has nothing to do with her name. Also, check the picture of her grave and compare the inscription with the Persian writing at the top of this article. There is clearly no "Salehi" anywhere.

79.114.65.230 (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, IP. However, would there be any possibility that this inscription is incomplete that is shown in the photograph of Soltan's grave? ↜Just M E here , now 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure there would. But compare that with the probability of people outside of Iran misreading the chaotic bits of information they got off Twitter and slipping a street name into Neda's name when the first systematically repeated account of her death clearly mentioned the street making an intersection near where she was killed: Salehi Street. Really, it's a no-brainer.

D0nj03 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That could be an error of the Times's. (After all, Kargar Avenue, souces say, has now been un-officially renamed Neda Street by some.) I'm gonna take Jimbo's advice (well, actually Wales gives it wrt securing free media for the project -- ) and try to e-mail the Times reporters and see if I can find out if the two names' being the same is coincidental. By Google hits, Salehi seems pretty common. In any case, perhaps our safest bet is to leave it out pending further confirmation. ↜Just M E here , now 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what I wrote the Times's foreign desk:

Re: a profile in a sidebox on 23 June that was headlined "Neda Salehi Agha Soltan" ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6562649.ece )

Gentlemen/mesdames:

I'm helping to write an article on Neda on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neda_Agha-Soltan ) and was hoping you might be able to confirm for me the following.

Does Soltan's full name include the name "Salehi," as reported in the Times?

(Or, that is, was this an error, in that her name, perhaps, had become confused with the location where she had been shot in Tehran, (apparently) near Kargar Avenue, at the intersection of Khosravi and Salehi Streets.)

Thanks a lot, if you are able to respond to my question.

↜Just M E here , now 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

D0nj03, I'd assumed you'd Googled(!) before saying it is only the Times that believes Salehi to be a part of Soltan's name. Indeed, the Times's first story using Salehi was on 23 June by Jenny Booth, supplemented by their second one mentioning the middle name on 24 June by Martin Fletcher. But, FWIW, the National Council of Resistance of Iran had already issued a press release on 22 June that gives Salehi as part of Soltan's name. ↜Just M E here , now 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is yet further confirmation (among too many mentions to list them all here) -- this one from ABC News, 23 June: "The victim has been identified as Neda Salehi Agha Soltan...."(link) It may well be a mistake, but IMO, according to WP:RS, our best option would be to include Salehi until a reliable source makes mention that the (widespread) reporting of Salehi as part of her name had been mistaken. ↜Just M E here , now 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I, OTOH, assumed you spoke English well enough to understand my actual statement, which was that no other source quoted by this article mentioned her name with the "Salehi" included. This has nothing to do with googling anything and everything to do with the reason you gave when you first reverted my name edits: that I needed sources. Well I did - and still do - have numerous sources, already quoted by this article.

Also: are you saying that just because you found 2-3 sources that got confused (or confused eachother and started confusing others as well) we should now suddenly ignore the rest of the sources - the majority - that disagree? What Wiki policy is this exactly?

D0nj03 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That point is something that I can agree with completely. You have reliable sources, and mistake or not that's what they are reporting. Per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
— Ω (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir, if the policy says "verifiability, not truth" and you're sure you really meant to say you agree with that "completely", I have to say you're a weird fellow.

D0nj03 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From your statement here it sounds as though you haven't actually read the policy. Policies, unlike guidelines, are standards which should always be followed. Weather those policies "seem odd" to you or I is irrelevant. I highly recommend that you take time to read at least the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability, else you're likely to run into considerable conflict with the community.
— Ω (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From your answer here I'd say you didn't understand anything I said. My emphasis was on the word "completely". Read it again.

D0nj03 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

D0nj03, if it turns out that Salehi was not part of Soltan's name, you can and should be justly proud to have figured the same out, or, at least, had that inkling. (Whether it is false or not, however, this alleged full version of her name has gained currency...as eg in today's The National of Abu Dhabi: "[...I]ntermittent mobilisation of his [Mousavi’s] supporters on the streets seems likely on symbolic occasions. One falls on July 31 which marks the end of the 40-day mourning period for Neda Salehi Agha-Soltan[...]").(link) ↜Just M E here , now 22:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping "Salehi opponents" would try to gain consensus on the talkpage rather than editwar. But (1) it's a relatively minor detail anyway (2) they've pretty much worn me out. ↜Just M E here , now 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, the "fait acompli"/tyranny of the majority syndrom(s) seem to be commonplace these days... The thing is, these majorities seem to be transitory. Give it a week or so, and come back to the article. By that time the furor over this should have died down enough that we can edit appropriately in peace.
— Ω (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

More weirdness. First you agree "completely" to a rule that says there's something more important than the truth (in an encyclopaedia), next you relish the prospect of being able to edit an article quasi-exclusively, according to your own biases, unhindered by any of those other pesky users who might disagree. I can only imagine what wonderful accurate articles you must've produced during your presence here, with this kind of thinking. :rolleyes:

D0nj03 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's one more source that says "Neda Agha Soltan" with no mention of "Salehi" except as a street name: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ندا_آقاسلطان Think maybe the editors of the Persian Wiki have gotten somewhat closer to the truth than us? I sure do. D0nj03 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus for the move or for anything else. Letting the article(s) develop and stabilize seems the best option and I suggest revisiting the issue (one article, two articles, title) in a month or so. Meanwhile, there is no particular hurry.

Death of Neda Agha-Soltan → ? — Relisted. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To "Neda Soltan fatal shooting"

Two articles and Terri Schiavo -

Let us learn from the legacy of Terri Schiavo. The Schiavo article was very emotional but now, the only "lesson learned" (i.e. the "knowledge" that we are trying to share via the WP project) is Terri Schiavo case. I again assert that, once you get beyond the emotion, Neda Agha-Soltan did not live a notable life but that it was in the fading of her mind and her biological life that she is remembered simply because that is when the media captured those moments. It is not for us to judge to judge how we feel about her or those who "did this" to her but to jump ahead five years and try to imagine what this will look like in five years when the emotion has faded to some degree. As a matter of convenience, I think that the article name should lead with "Neda Agha-Soltan" and that suggests that the article name should be "Neda Agha-Soltan shooting" since that is more specific than simply her "death". Again, I am in no rush because I am looking for long-term quality for the sake of the project and again, I suggest that the best article name is "Neda Agha-Soltan shooting" if for no other reason than because our Wiki technology offers a prefix feature but not postfix feature. No rush.--Curiousmode (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Neda Agha-Soltan → Fatal shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan — We're supposed to edit for a reader a hundred years from now. To such a reader, "fatal shooting" would convey the minimally necessary information about the event, otherwise s/he might suppose an article entitled "Death of..." to be a final installment in a series about some individual's long life. ↜Just M E here , now 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Neda Agha-Soltani? This is sad. Along the same line of reasoning, let us please accordingly move Timothy McVeigh to Bombing of Timothy McVeigh. Otherwise please convince me that Iranians' lives are not notable as a stand-alone biography in wikipedia, even when theyre all over the news and mentioned by the White House. This is just wrong.--Zereshk (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Zereshk. --Kaaveh (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(My own take): Excellent analogy, Zereshk. That is, here is the bio for McVeigh: Timothy McVeigh -- and here is the article on the Oklahoma City bombing: Oklahoma City bombing.

Biography means "life story." Yet Agha-Soltan's life is not her death. Even though the youth and vigor and promise she represents (whatever their details turn out to be) so very substantially contributed to the event's perception as such a tragedy, the fact remains that Agha-Soltan had absolutely nothing to do with the bullet that ended her life, nor with how this event became so well known and her life so mourned. Ms. Agha-Soltani is a late individual of intense public interest who lived a life full of events readers would be intrigued to find out -- in fact, I predict that in the not too distant future, enough details about her life will have become published so that a biography of her can and will be created on Wikipedia. ↜Just M E here , now 02:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Neda Agha Soltan's biography already exists in the article according to the numerous references. It is not mentioned in the wikipedia policy about the people notable only for one event that the articles for these people should contain the biography that has been written before their death. When a person's biography exists in the numerous references, and in this case in the world's media, it means that he (or she) is notable. So, merging the article to another article or changing the article name to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan has no sense. Javanbakht (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is trying to pick on, or belittle, (what appears to be) a young woman who was shot for getting a breath of fresh air. It is possible that, should her importance in events in Iran persist, this article will be joined by an additional article (much like Marilyn Monroe and Death of Marilyn Monroe). An example of a highly memorialised spree killing in Montreal, Canada is Maryse Leclair, which redirects to École Polytechnique massacre. From what I've seen from articles on current events like this appearing, is that an effort is made to first write an article about the event, and then, should the information come about, and interest continue, write one about the otherwise non-notable players. (For example Dawson College shooting and Kimveer Gill. Coincidentally also in Montreal.) - BalthCat (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

wow... this is just silly, guys. There's been 2 page moves in the last 24 hours, and at least 4 the day prior. Can we agree that the page shouldn't be moved anywhere again until we reach a real consensus on this issue? There's a whole section of discussion about this above, as well.

It looks like we'll be discussing Wikipedia policy in general for these types of articles, as well. For my part, the "style" of naming that the article has now ("Death of Neda Agha-Soltan") is the way that I believe it should be, although the wording could be changed for the reasons mentioned. I also think that the similar articles (someone mentioned Nguyễn Văn Lém earlier) should be renamed as well.
— Ω (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak support:Well, it does appear descriptive, and accurate. I believe we would normally portray a murder as "Murder of...", so I understand the case that as an unnatural death we might want to show that in the title. I'm just not sure that we're that will be the last move, so I'm half thinking we should wait a week. So just weak support. - BalthCat (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose- I admit "death of" is perhaps not the best possible title, but I think "Fatal shooting of" is a little emotionally loaded. J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone was a fatal victim of a shooting is not POV. Quibbling about saying so is, though. (...As I don't believe NOT saying the straightforward facts to be "NPOV" -- anymore than would be some Orwellian formulation about how somebody caused hi/rself to accidentally fall against God's own peoples' utopian paradise's bullet!) ↜Just M E here , now 11:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: "Fatal shooting" would not only be more accurate, since "death" is perhaps too ambiguous, but it also explains in two short words why this article is significant in the first place. If she died of a heart attack, no one outside her family, friends, and co-workers would have considered this a significant event, let alone an encyclopedic event.--Pericles of Athens<sup>Talk</sup> 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why we cannot not have a biography for Neda? We have several articles like this. For example, Kimveer Gill, he is notable only for one incident which is Dawson College shooting in Montreal, Canada. Is there something that I do not know and makes you to have double standards for different people?--Where is my vote? (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse move to -- "Neda Soltan fatal shooting." ((1) Not all shootings are fatal. (2) The media isn't generally using a compound surname.) ↜Just M E here , now 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse move per all above. With death a natural death comes to mind first. Fatal shooting is more specific. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose see WP precedent just below. Sturunner (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Since this has basically been my position all along, I don't see how I couldn't endorse this.
  — Ω (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add two additional points to this discussion. 1) it's clear that we aren't certain (may never will be certain) of her exact romanized name. 2) Ask a random person on the street about the incident. Do any "regular" people know her full name? Does it even matter to most of them? I actually performed this little experiment at the corner store this morning, and three people there knew "Neda", but had no idea of her full name (most likely because the reliable sources of the story don't mention anything other then "Neda"). The important point here is that the biographical details are not of major importance to this story/event. It's the death itself, not the unfortunate woman that died, that is the story.

The above generally summarizes why I feel that the inclusion of her full name, outside of an intentionally biographical section or page, is misplaced. I understand the arguments about maintaining a non-familial view, and that makes perfect sense in respect to the biographical portions of the article. The vast majority of the article should be about the event itself, though. (and besides, it just reads wierd. Take a minute to actually sit back and read the current article.)

Ultimately, I guess what I'm saying here is that I only partially support the rename proposal in this section. The article name should actually be Fatal shooting of Neda, which intentionally omits the remainder of her name. Once the fervor dies down some hopefully we can gain some headway towards faithfully representing this topic.
— Ω (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support The strongest neutral point of view in this case, and always indeed, is to choose a title describing what really happened most accurately (that is "Fatal shooting of Neda by Basij) --Xashaiar (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose:Per what Justmeherenow said. Rgoodermote  16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I revoke my vote, there was some confusion as to what Justmeherenow was voting for on my part. Rgoodermote  19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: I generally agree with Curiousmode's rationale, and I find it important that we distance ourselves from the commotion; but I think that this attempt at biographical detachment sort of backfires (er, no pun intended) by continuing to emphasize a biographical occurrence. Indeed, Neda isn't famous for her life. But she also isn't known for simply having been shot; she was shot while she was alive. Rather, she is known for dying. "Fatal shooting" gets the main idea across, but it could (ironically) sound like a WP:EUPHEMISM when "death" gets the point across faster. (I'm reminded of an anecdote about the poet Robert Frost. Apparently, when a student of Frost's asked him to verify her morbid interpretation of Frost's famous poem about a horse ride, Frost retorted with something like, "If I wanted to write about death, I think I know how to spell it.") As for the McVeigh analogy, he's not a WP:BIO1E in the sense of just appearing out of nowhere, flashing into public awareness, and then just disappearing into (biographically) thin air. In the Neda AfD, a couple people tried to compare Neda to Rosa Parks; but Parks is probably even a weaker analogy than McVeigh. (Come to think of it, as interesting as a Bombing of Timothy McVeigh might have been, the U.S. Supreme Court would not have been amused, and he had to be executed in a more standard fashion...) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To "Neda Agha-Soltan"

Direction of merge

The AfD definitely needed to be closed and consensus was comfortably reached that the two articles should be merged. I disagree with the directionality of the merge. Consensus wasn't reached (not surprisingly), but I fail to see how the final outcome of merge to "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan" was decided on as opposed to a decision to merge into Neda Agha-Soltan. This isn't a democracy and many of the votes were unclear about how the merge should occur, but I'm counting about 28 to 17 in favor of merging into "Neda Agha-Soltan". The discussion is still open here (and I appreciate how that has been made clear), but I do think the tentative assignment of merge directionality was improperly chosen. --Aranae (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I want to note that "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan" contains the older and more comprehensive article history. Even though I think the page should ultimately reside at "Neda Agha-Soltan", I think content should be merged here and then the page should be moved back. User:Justmeherenow's recent actions in merging content shouldn't be reverted; I just think there are an extra steps that need to be taken (moving and then reformatting the article to fit under proper title). --Aranae (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus certainly was not reached that the two articles should be merged. The first issue is that an AfD discussion is no place to reach such a consensus. More importantly though, if you actually read anything other then the meaningless "votes" on the AfD page then you'll see that the "consensus" there was not at all clear that the articles should be merged.
— Ω (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The closing admin closed the article "Neda Agha-Soltan's" AfD as Merge. The article "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan" was not nominated for AfD, therefore the article "Neda Agha-Soltan" was redirected to here; however, this article still may be moved to "Neda Agha-Soltan" if we wish. (I put a tag requesting such a move at the top of this talkpage subsection.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I prefer a move to "Neda Soltan fatal killing" (see talkpage subsection above). ↜Just M E here , now 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if the closing admin said that heaven and earth should be moved. Who cares what he/she said? Whomever it was can't impose things on the rest of us... Neither should be moved. Neda Agha-Soltan's life was not made up of this sole incident, and this incident does not specifically rely on her in order to have occurred. She was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the events in Tehran at the time happened to her. According to your own prior statements I know that you feel the same way. I'm at a complete loss as to why you've decided on this recent (lemming like) activity...
— Ω (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! (I'm not much of a anarcho-syndacalist, I guess. I'm, after all, a ConstitutionalMonarchyOfJimboWalesLoyalist, too -- ) Anyway, yeah, I think two articles are slightly better than one, but it doesn't make that much difference to me; I do like the combined article's being named for the fatal shooting though. (I'm in the minority on that, though.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per Just me here now. We have just decided to merge the person article into the death article per community consensus in the AfD. Above there is a proposal to make the title of the death article somewhat more specific about the circumstances. This seems a good idea to me. If it is not accepted the article should stay as is. I do not think this is the right time to even discuss overthrowing the AfD. It is much too early therefore. gidonb (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) stripethrough per answer of Julian Colton below. gidonb (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• As the closing admin, I have no opinion whatsoever on where the content is merged, and what the ultimate article title is. Consensus was that the two articles should be merged. –Juliancolton | <sup>Talk</sup> 21:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• But you closed it by stating (italics are mine) "The result was merge to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan", so already the main article has been deleted merged to here, without any further discussion. It should have been kept as is, and not merged until there was consensus on where to merge. In fact, at the AfD it was about 2-1 to merge to to Neda Agha-Soltan. Priyanath <sup>talk</sup> 23:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Julian didn't close the AfD "Merge from" because "Death of..." hadn't been AfD'd. Thus, Priyanath, you're saying he should have closed it "Keep and clean up," with closing markup {{cleanup-afd|(name of article in the discussion title)}}? ↜Just M E here , now 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(BTW, User Jimbo Wales, interestingly said wrt the AfD, "I see the article is in the process of likely being merged with an article about the incident, and I think that's good,"(link) FWIW.) ↜Just M E here , now 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The "consensus" within the AfD debate was 1) obviously hugely emotional for most (which is probably still somewhat true) 2) confused. Half of the votes didn't seem to understand what they were voting for (again, look past the bolded votes and actually read) 3) Stale. That AfD started 8-9 days ago, almost immediately after the creation of the Neda Agha-Soltan article. Since it was first AfD'd, the biography article grew considerable, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of quite a few editors, but primarily because the news media actually provided coverage. You can see the change in the tone just by reading through the wandering AfD debate itself.

Look, I understand the "merge" closure, and I don't think that it was actually a mistake. The problem is, that's not what the discussion really was (it was taking place in articles for deletion, not articles for merging), and if we're going to have an actual debate about merging either article then we should do that and actually have some clear consensus before taking action.
— Ω (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per everything I said in the AfD, to merging this article into Neda Agha-Soltan. Yes, her ostensibly biographical article has grown, but not with biographical material. There is nothing in Neda_Agha-Soltan#Biography that can't be or isn't already covered, for purposes of standard context, in Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. And the rest of Neda Agha-Soltan is not about Neda Agha-Soltan, but rather is about, well, the death of Neda Agha-Soltan. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I agree it should be moved back to Neda Agha-Soltan, so when someones searches for "Neda Agha-Soltan" they get an aricle on her, her biogrpahy, and her death. - Epson291 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • They do- aren't redirects great? J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Your unappreciated sarcasm notwithstanding, this article should be oreinted oppositely, it first goes into her death, and then into her biogrpahy. Any encylopedic article should be written the other way around (i.e., chronologically), not including that she has become an icon. - Epson291 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that the above comment wasn't helpful, but I don't think that your view on the ordering of this article are appropriate. I can understand what you're saying, but consider the point that the main issue that we should be covering is "the Neda event". While it most certainly involves an unfortunate woman apparently named "Neda Agan-Soltan", her involvement is somewhat incidental (aside from the obvious fact that she was there and that she died, of course). A consensus seems to have been reached that this article is not primarily a biography.
        — Ω (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Too morbid to include a description of the event in the title, and too confusing. Make the title her name, and make the article about the event. She is fast becoming famous as well, but that isn't the point. 2ndAmendment (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's too morbid? Seriously? I don't want to say the obvious, but... J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Alefbe (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose- it's not her that's famous, it's the event. A different phrase to signify the event is something that can be considered, but changing this article to focus on her is a Very Bad Idea. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support: we ought to remember that we are an encyclopedia, not a commission of historians appointed with the work of defining the fact. "Death of X"? "murder of X"?, "fatal shooting of X", "X case"?... We must simply help people finding out quickly what they want to know. If one finds the name "Neda Agha Soltan" and wishes to know who she is (was) and why her name is famous, he will look simply for the name, not for "fatal shooting of N.A.S." or something alike. Otherwise, he would already know everything and would not need to look in the pedia. --Vermondo (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with your opening, but I disagree with the resultant decision that you're choosing. There seems to be a general consensus that this is not a biography (the biographical aspects are decidedly secondary, at least). Moving the page to the name of the person who happened to be involved in the Neda incident would be misrepresenting what the article and the subject is. Aside form all of that, your concerns about finding the article are misplaced since there are 4-5 redirects in existence with just her name, and more could always be added.
    — Ω (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose any move (Keep at Death of Neda Agha-Soltan)

• Support leaving the titles alone for a while, not voting on anything else, and letting the article develop and stabilize. Tom Harrison <sup>Talk</sup> 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Current title is neutral, simple, and satisifes WP:BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed.
  — Ω (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely. She's famous for dying, not for being her. A move to that location would be a very bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support: Per everything I said in the AfD, and per my responses to the preceding subsections of this thread. Then, merge (because a merge of some sort, anyway, was the AfD consensus) whatever there is to be merged from Neda Agha-Soltan into Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, and convert the ostensibly biographical Neda Agha-Soltan into a redirect to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, which is what both articles are really/primarily about in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree I think that the term Death of Neda Agha-Soltan is thin and not very specific for the fatal shooting of this woman. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but what we're saying here is that these questions should be put off for a while. Let things stand as is for a while, allow the article to develop and stabilize some, and we can address these questions at a later date.
— Ω (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you propose, but it is not the Wikipedia way to go. We continually improve our encyclopedia in consensus, and do not stop seeking one improvement because something else could also be better. We usually do stop a discussion, however, because we have just reached a consensus on the very same issue. This is not the case here. On the contrary. The agreement was to merge the articles and to continue the discussion on this very talk page about the best title for the article. Just as a side note, the quality of the article has by no means suffered from the recent attention. The article is both stable and developed. gidonb (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it contains two images it shouldn't, for a start. Also, if it's stable and developed, how come people are seeking to move it to some ridiculous new location, changing the topic from a notable incident to a non-notable student? J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two proposals above to change the name of the article. Both deserve serious and careful deliberation. Personally I agree with your reservations on moving this article to the person name, but think that such insights really belong in the discussion of that particular proposal. Both the pros and cons of each proposal should be discussed under each proposal. This third proposal is not helpful as we did agree to discuss and -in this case- the cons of both proposals get spread all over. Also some users here are against one proposal, some against both. It just makes the discussion and results messy. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Neda was a Christian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

---

There isn't a word in this article about how Neda was a Christian, and how images of her with a cross around her neck were cropped by various media outlets to hide that fact.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2009/neda/neda_agha_soltan_01.jpg this is the original image in full

99.231.211.103 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This has come up several times here and the answer is always the same: you need to cite a reliable source that verifies that she is Christian. --Aranae (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from the point of view of fashion, many non-Christians wear crosses. Madonna sported one, yet she's all over the religious map. Here in Japan they're a trendy, "Western-looking" bauble. I can wear two slices of bread, it doesn't make me a sandwich. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, that picture is suspicious to me personally anyway. I don't think that it's the same women... lacking any proof of that at all though, this is the first time that I've ever mentioned it.
— V = I * R (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the same woman, and the discussion always goes to the same conclusion -- without more proof we have only a picture. I was all over that discussion before, and it's really best to leave it alone at this point. Was she a Christian? Maybe, maybe not. Until someone gets verifiable proof, all we can do is say "we don't know." And if that's all we know, we better leave it out of the article. (On an unrelated note, I approve of the merger of the Bio and the Death articles. It makes for a better article to have it all in one place; plus the articles weren't so big as to need separation. My 2 cents, for what it's worth.)192.44.136.113 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you say so... they look similar, but not the same, to me. It doesn't really matter what I think though (or anyone else, for that matter), since it is a picture that has and is being used by many sources. I just think that it's a suspicious image is all, and the whole cross thing (probably intentionally) adds to my personal suspicions. regardless, until and unless someone published a reliable, verifiable, second hand account on this subject is should remain out of the article itself.
— V = I * R (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if that really is Neda, there are at least two glaring reasons why we can't just say, "She's wearing a cross, therefore she's a Christian." First, the logic is akin to saying (to paraphrase perhaps either Garrison Keillor or Laurence J. Peter; I can't seem to find a definitive attribution) that because someone stands in a garage, that person is a car. It's like concluding that, because some world leader shakes hands with the Pope, the world leader must be Roman Catholic. The second problem is, if we interpret the meaning of an image, then we are conducting original research, which is not permitted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is, even if it is a cross, you can't see the whole thing! All I can see is part of what may be a cross. And based on that, someone thinks Neda was a Christian! There's only so many Christians left in Iran (to say nothing of Zoroastrians, which most Persians were at one point). Today, most are Twelver Shia Muslims. Might I also add that this conversation has nothing to do with improving the article on Neda, and is akin to a blog. Wikipedia is not a blog. Take your thoughts elsewhere unless you have a source to share.--Pericles of Athens<sup>Talk</sup> 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute resolution on political phenomenon of claim that Neda was a Christian

There are two issues here:

1. Was Neda a Christian? Not what my entry was about.
2. Who is making a claim that Neda was a Christian, and why? This is what it was about.

There are people out there who are publicizing a claim that Neda was a Christian. They happen to be bloggers. The fact that they are not print reporters in the Miami Herald is not relevant. They are heard in a certain political element. It is verifiable that they are heard. I attempted to add a section about this political phenomenon in an article about a political phenomenon. That is very important. This article is not (after much debate) an article about a person. The Wikipedians have collectively decided that Neda is not important as a person. This is very much and very insistently an article about a political phenomenon. In this case, related political phenomena are notable and to leave them out would be WP:POV. Here is what I attempted to introduce:

• Claim that Neda was a Christian
• An objectivist website written by anti-Islamic-fundamentalist blogger Pamela Geller has claimed that Neda was a Christian, based on a photograph purportedly of Neda in which the person is wearing a pendant that could be a Christian cross. Hundreds of websites have echoed this claim, and so this is a belief which many people have taken up. There is no reliable evidence available that Neda the person was a Christian. Pamela Geller's writing highlights persons who believe that there is a war between Muslims on the one side and Christians and Jews on the other. It is notable in an article about the Death of Neda as a political phenomenon, that there are writers such as Geller who find it advantageous to label Neda as a Christian.

I think it should stay, and making claims that I am "using a blogger as a source" and "an unreliable source" is to miss the whole point of the entry: It is about bloggers and unreliable sources. Please let's not forget that everything we know about Neda comes from bloggers and twitterers, so to denigrate the phenomenon of blogging and not to even discuss what else appears in the blogosphere is antiquated and hypocritical. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can write a blog, saying anything. And they do. Unless the blogging is picked up by a reliable source, it's not worth including, even with "a blogger says". If I write a blog entry now, saying Neda was Hindu, would you support adding that to the article, saying "another blogger says..."? No, of course not. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, if I am married to an Iranian and I have an old high school friend who is an Israeli, a member of the JDL, and an Ayn Rand aficionado, and he calls me up excitedly from another part of the country to tell me that Neda was a Christian, and I look into it and discover that the belief is part of a point of view which would benefit from Neda being an "us" in an "us-vs-them" world view when in all likelihood Neda was a "them" in a "them-vs-them" situation, then...for me, it is very notable, and I have reason to believe it would be notable for others.

If there were a significant number of politically empowered Hindus who believed that labelling Neda a Hindu would help further a point of view about Hindu-vs-Moslem struggle, then that would also be notable. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's so notable, how come it's only blogs talking about it? Why have newspapers and the like not shown any interest? J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two phenomena here:

1. The Iranian revolt against the current Presidential vote, i.e. Iranian internal politics
2. Who outside of Iran is hitching a ride on this issue, and for what reasons

The second item is a second-order effect but nevertheless material in size. Do you think that no large Christian or Jewish fundamentalist movement in the U.S. has attempted to co-opt this event for their own purposes? The evidence is there in the blogs. If I can get a NY Times reporter to do a print article about it, will that make the second order effect more real for you? Erxnmedia (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The only issue here is your use of a unreliable source to assert fringe opinion. Let's not make the discussion out to be anything more than what it is. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight can be a real issue here, as well.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, even if it could be properly made to fit in the article, it would merit at best a short sentence, not a whole section.Fuzbaby (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that I actually wanted to support Erxnmedia at first... he made a compelling argument, above. I initially searched for a way to shorten the passage into a summary and add it back, but... ultimately, I'm just not convinced that it belongs here, I guess. It might possibly merit inclusion somewhere in the protests article, but it definitely doesn't fit here.
— V = I * R (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good place for it; the phenomena he discusses is more related to the protests and views of Iran than to this woman's death. Either way, I want to thank Erxnmedia for posting a well thought comment here instead of just edit warring as often happens on these type of articles.Fuzbaby (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources linking this issue to the wider protest, then it may fit into those articles. However, sourced from blogs in this manner, it is never going to be appropriate. Until the mainstream press takes notice, I'm afraid it doesn't really matter what the blogs are saying. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking to start all kinds of drama here, but I wanted to mention that this argument is not and was not particularly compelling, to me. I wouldn't mention this at all, except that the argument involves interpreting verifiability, reliable sources, and the primary sources section of the original research policy. What really gave me pause was the point that coverage of the blogisphere can be included, if done appropriately (which is where WP:PRIMARY really comes into play). Really, the arguments for excluding the materiel in dispute here were not well expressed at all, but the issue that I see has more to do with placement then a question of inclusion at all. Excluding blog, YouTube, twitter, etc... coverage simply because it's blog coverage (and therefore a primary source) isn't automatic, is all. It's not supposed to be, anyway.
— V = I * R (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works at all. Bloggers can write all they like, until it's picked up by some reliable sources, we don't care. If the blogger themself is well known, or if they are directly related to the article subject, their comemtns can be used with care, but with these nobody bloggers, what they say can be as inaccurate or as badly thought out as they like. Anyone can write anything on a blog. Again, I refer you to my above example- what's to stop me writing a lengthy blog entry about how Neda was actually Hindu? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re J Milburn: "If there are reliable sources linking this issue to the wider protest". My point is that this issue has nothing to do with the protest at all, it has to do with other kinds of extremist groups re-purposing events to promote their own agendas. That is, they are not "linked to the wider protest" where by that you mean "joined to the protest" or "furthering the protest". They are stealing the protest for another use. Re Tarc: my "use of a unreliable source to assert fringe opinion". I am not asserting the fringe opinion that Neda is a Christian. I am asserting that there is a fringe that is presenting a belief which they are using to promote an agenda which is unrelated to the event itself. Do you get the difference? Erxnmedia (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, what you're just not getting here is that, until reliable sources report said fringe opinion, it just doesn't matter. I'm sure there are plenty of fringe opinions presented all over blogs and forums, and, they're non-Internet equivilents, chats at the pub. Until a decent source discusses them, we, as Wikipedia, don't really care. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I get it, I asked you a question earlier, "If I can get a NY Times reporter to do a print article about it, will that make the second order effect more real for you?" The answer I take it is Yes. So if I email, say, Nazila Fathi of the NY Times, and convince her that this is interesting, and she writes an article about it, then it can go in the article, correct? Erxnmedia (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's an article about it in the NYT, we can certainly discuss its inclusion. There'll still be issues about undue weight and whatnot (there's been a lot of coverage of Neda, we need to judge what is worth including and what is not). Right now, it's black and white- it's just not going in. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's suppose the NYT picks it up. I agree that it might be better in a second article on "Secondary political co-opting of Death of Neda" or something like that. By the way I hate the "Death of Neda" title --- it was a bunch of nitpicking nonsense to retitle an article about a person because she would not otherwise be notable except that she's notable. Joe the Plumber went through 15 name changes because of this kind of nitpicking. Poor Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher! If he invents a cure for AIDS he will forever be known in Wikipedialand as Joe the Plumber. Also there were probably 1000 edits back and forth in Joe the Plumber about whether or not to include his licensing issues and actual business plans and so forth. All POV pushing back and forth. So no, despite your confident authoritarian statement that "it's black and white" -- nothing is black and white in Wikipedia, it's a multicolor blob of POV that sometimes mixes itself into a single color, but not without a lot of squishing back and forth. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did that have anything to do with this article, or was it just an attack on me and Wikipedia generally? J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Was that an attack? Erxnmedia (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it was quite soapboxish. It is an minor and not very relevant point-of-view that this women was a Christian; one fringe blogger speculating on what a half-covered necklace is not very compelling or reliable. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry to much about J Milburn, He obviously has some kind of axe to grind. Re: the article title, it's been my opinion all along that this had very little to do with Neda Agan-Soltan, the person. I wasn't at all alone, but I think that I helped to craft a compelling argument in this respect which lead to consensus on this current title. That consensus is not at all unanimous, but it is there. We could open another discussion about it, of course, but it's still early after the last (confusing) discussion closed.

You're correct about it not being black and white, of course. The main thing that the deletionists use as a club in these types of situations is notability though, since that guideline is basically crafted for their purposes. Therefore, yes, you'll need to get something published (non op-ed) in a reliable secondary source. You'll also need to recruit someone else to take a look at the secondary press, since it will now be very easy for someone like J Milburn to claim that you have a COI. I'm somewhat suspicious that you don't have an agenda to push yourself here, anyway (sorry, but you're pushing your point a bit too aggressively in this thread to appear impartial).
— V = I * R (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "soapboxish" was referring to Erxnmedia's screed, not Milburn's. The latter appears to be one of the few with his head screwed on straight in this discussion. Ultimately, this is all a rhetoric game playing out in fringe media; left-leaners are dismissive of the Iranian protests as they view Mousavi as little different than Ahmadinejad, whole right-leaners push the "Neda as Christian" to show that the protests, and protesters, are fundamentally different. As far as I see it, we're at the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" aspect of WP:UNDUE, and a self-crowned objectivist blog doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Our replies above were actually an edit conflict. If you put my post above yours, or to the side of it, or whatever, it probably makes a bit more sense... regardless, in terms of this article, the materiel that was the object of conflict definitely doesn't belong. You're (at least partially) correct about undue weight/fringe positions, but all of that should really be debated later and elsewhere, if/when a reliable third party source writes about it, and in a location more appropriate to the content.
— V = I * R (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the end I would be perfectly satisfied with a section in some article which reports the following two phenomena enunciated by Mr. Tarc:

• "Left-leaners are dismissive of the Iranian protests as they view Mousavi as little different than Ahmadinejad"
• "right-leaners push the "Neda as Christian" to show that the protests, and protesters, are fundamentally different"

Thank you Mr. Tarc for stating the matter so clearly! Erxnmedia (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Alleged third video

The reference to the alleged third video (which is so unclear it could show anything) needs to be verified with an additional source. Plus the description of the video violates WP:NPOV. As the article is locked down I can't make any revisions or a "Citation Needed" tag. Both of which are needed with this new addition. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea where that came from, but it certainly didn't belong. Thanks for pointing it out.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Assailant:

You're wrong to erase part of the content of developing story.

If I one something is not valid. but one says something and is repeated on TV then it becomes valid. If I make statement in my personal weblog is not truth. but if my statement reaches the roof then it becomes valid. I The weblog is a personal and official weblog of the eye witness.

you've translated and quoted his video interview with BBC, but you have erased his weblog quotes. That is unfair. You're absolutely wrong. the purpose of wikipedia is to provide for fact information and to gather more information by support from community and then suddenly it considers community information as rubbish information? Deleted portion, please read:

On July 19, Dr. Arash Hejazi, an eye witness on the scene has identified a man whose identity card was spread in online community websites to be the killer of Neda. . The man in this identity card is named Abbas Kargar Javid who appears to be a Basij member, stationed in West of Tehran holding a vehicle (Kia Pride). In second identity card he is also approved as ballot observer by Iranian Interior Ministry.

"I saw the photos of the identity cards that was published on Internet which are connected to Neda Agha Soltan assailant. I can verify the photo of the man in Identity card is exactly as the man I remember from the day in first minutes of catching the person. He was shouting "I did not want to kill her". But that they he did not have beard, though he had a mustache... ...People on the scene caught the assailant, and took out his shirt. there were old scars on his back. There seemed to caused by a sharp object.

Yes, I was curious as to why this isn't in the article. Are we looking for something more verifiable than a blog, even though the blog belongs to the most prominent eyewitness of the shooting? AdibMasumian (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are. Please see our guidelines on reliable sources and our biographies of living people policy. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This might be of interest. AdibMasumian (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)