Talk:Women's rights in Iran

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marya1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aazmak1989.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GetanjolyRoy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mckennam hist338.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello Sangak I think you should also mention in this article about the difference of modern Persian women's movement, and the ancient one. because the actual Persian women's movement started from the time of Cyrus the Great.

Also I will translatete your article to Persian so we can put it in Persian Wiki as well.

--Kaaveh 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I surely agree with you. I suggest this article to be focused on 19th and 20th century with a short reference to ancient and pre modern movement while Iranian women page is mainly devoted to the ancient Iran and a short reference to the modern one.

Indeed this was my original idea. I think It is very important to keep Iranian women page in a safe position and keeping it away from attacks. Modern movement is very controversial and may produce huge controversies. As such I decided to initial the article. This is inline with the article: Intellectual movements in Iran.

Thanks for translation. I will also try to collect more info. dastetoon dard nakoneh! --Sangak11:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again; I am totally agree with you on this. I will also mark this article on my watchlist to prevent any possible vandalism. Sangak jan are u also going to write about "Kashf-e Hijab" by Reza Shah (the great) which was a landmark in the Persian women's movement in this article? If so, I can find pictures of some "Shir-zans" from the Reza Shah era. --Kaaveh 12:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can add some info, that would be great. I am planning to concentrate on literary criticism, music, modern art and possibly some medical issues (contraception, family planning etc). I am looking for those women who took ground breaking steps but their names have been forgotten in the history.

Also "influence of Iranian movement on non Iranians in the region (middle east and central asia)" is some thing I am keen on figuring out. --Sangak12:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading this article, I was struck by the wide-spread use of the word "girl" to refer to adult persons, e.g., in the case of a Princeton mathematician. To me the term smacks of sexism, and seems out of place for a page on a women's movement.

Feel free to edit them out--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

numerous appearance of "girl" is due to word by word translation from persian. girl can refers to women of teenage (and younger ofcourse) and also to women of all ages as in "girls of Iran" a common phrase in persian. Feel free to replace "girl" with "woman" if it sounds unusual for English language speakers.Sangak 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

comment from an outsider

Shouldn't this article mention human rights issues in Iran? mirageinred 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No! Human rights issues are discussed here and here. This article covers what Iranian women did themselves not what others (Iranian men and Iranian government) did to women. Sangak ^Talk 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What if Iranian women fought back the injustices? Isn't that worthy of mention? mirageinred 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it will be included! For instance One Million Signatures, Tahmineh Milani's feminist cinema and Shahla Sherkat's magazine, Qamar ol-Molouk Vaziri's musical performance in public (among others) have been included in the article. Please read the section on Women's movement in late 20th century. Sangak ^Talk 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article lead me to think that this is a human rights/women's rights article. I was about to ask if someone would add some content about women campaigning for greater political or occupational freedoms. Maybe this article should be retitled? Persian women's intellectual movements, perhaps?RedPen 03:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Subheadings

The current TOC reads:

1. Women in The Persian Constitutional Revolution
2. Women in The Iranian Revolution
3. Iranian women and contemporary Persian literature
4. Iranian women and Persian music
5. Iranian women and education
6. Iranian women and modern art
7. Iranian women and Sports
8. Women's health in modern Iran
9. Women's movement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries
10. Women's studies in Iranian Universities
11. Women's movements in the Iranian cultural continent

Shouldn't that just be the following?

1. The Persian Constitutional Revolution
2. The Iranian Revolution
3. Contemporary Persian literature
4. Persian music
5. Education
6. Modern art
7. Sports
8. Women's health in modern Iran
9. Women's movement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries
10. Women's studies in Iranian Universities
11. Women's movements in the Iranian cultural continent

-- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

typo

Massive typo:"Such education and social trends are increasingly viewed with alarm by the Iranian secularists and opposition groups" - this should read 'Iranian authorities' not secularists and opposition (check reference 33)

grezoc 82.35.102.252 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible POV

I saw this on the cleanup taskforce list and set out to clean up the spacing on the images. In the process, I decided to fill out the Literature section a bit. However, I added info about one of the books being banned, and upon reflection, I wonder if it's not just a bit out of place in this article. So, if anyone objects to it, feel free to remove the mention.Phyesalis (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zoya Pirzad book.jpg

Image:Zoya Pirzad book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the Pahlavi Dynasty?

WHY does this article mention NOTHING about the extensive rights that Iranian women enjoyed under Mohammed Reza Pahlavi? He wasn't perfect or wholly democratic, but he gave many rights to women. The right to vote, the option to not wear headcoverings, equality with men; come on, you have to mention that!

--Simfan34 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

r —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simfan34 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about what women achieved themselves and not what was granted to them (or taken from them) by various regimes. Having said that, It is a good idea to have a section on that period. Sangak ^Talk 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mehre madari.jpg

Image:Mehre madari.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was appalling and completely redone

I am deeply disappointed in the editors of this article given the state I found it. Given that there is no Women's rights in Iran article, this article must fill that void. The reasoning given on this talk page to keep it circumcised in scope, while completely neglecting the history of the country, and even factually mischaracterizing it, made it completely useless for anyone doing research. An article about Iranian women already exists, it's called Iranian women. Put achievements by women there, which is more appropriate. Or start an Achievements of Iranian women article.

Khomeini was essentially hailed as helping women, while many important gains under the shah were never discussed. In fact, women protested the Khomeini government at the outset. The comments on this talk page by casual readers evidence that people were coming here to find out about the totality of the women's rights movement in Iran; and looking for a well-sourced article that does so. If it is returned to its prior state, I will open this up for a RfC because I was very troubled by what I saw. Statements like "The movement lasted until 1933 in which the last women’s association was dissolved by the Reza Shah’s government. It heightened again after the Iranian Revolution (1979)." are completely false. No women were involved at all in the gains they made during the shah? Not even his family members? Additionally, statements like "Dramatic changes in the labor force might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere unchaperoned." are not only OR, but they are false. Women didn't need chaperones; permission, perhaps, but not chaperones. There were almost no sources supporting such ridiculous pro-Khomeini statements (and such statements also hurt the contention that this article was about women's achievements made by women, since it is giving Khomeini credit for apparently liberating women from their homes...?). --David Shankbone 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. For example the following statement: "Dramatic changes in the labor force might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere unchaperoned." is neither OR nor false. Please read this article at Washington Institute's webpage!! We as editors need to be unbiased. Both Khomeini and Shah did positive and negative things. Sinooher (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is http://www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/archive/9.2/Iran/Bahramitash.pdf a reliable source? It seems a pro-revolutionary polemic. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Being reliable or unreliable has nothing to do with being pro-revolutionary or anti-revolutionary!! The author of the article is an academic in a well knwon canadian University: link Sinooher (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who re-wrote this article, and I was very pleased to hear just yesterday the highly regarded program All Things Considered do an in-depth look at the history of the women's rights movement in Iran, and it comported very, very closely with what I wrote: Despite Odds, Women's Movement Persists In Iran. Regarding the piece above, this is a Post-doctoral thesis, and its claims need to be sourced by multiple, scholarly-reviewed publications. Additionally, the claims in the paper basically make the point that enjoyment of rights was a socio-economic issue, not a gender issue, and if we are to include the claims made by Bahramitash in her thesis, that context needs to be made clear. --David Shankbone 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)The “Women’s right in Iran” article is looking at pressing of issues such as marriage laws, divorce, sports, education, etc. The article mentioned above is C grade. Some of the provided sources are not from the legitimate article, so it is my goal to clean the material by removing some of that wrong information and bring a more diverse perspective using sources form more recent peer-reviewed articles and books.

References

Stoning to be moved to "Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran" ?

The section on stoning is not addressing a gender issue as the stoning law is not biased toward men or women. The number of men subject to stoning has been always higher than women. Ofcourse women right activists also campaigned against stoning but as a human right issue and not a women right issue. I suggest the section be moved to "Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran" article. Any idea? Sinooher (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this is not a gender-specific issue. In fact, more men have been subjected to stoning than women. I moved the section some time ago, but it was restored by an editor who is stalking me. AlexanderPar (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Amnesty international said stoning disproportionately affects women. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a false claim, more men have been stoned than women. I am removing the subsection, this is not a woman's issue, it's a human rights' issue. I'd advise you against reverting, keep in mind that you stalked me to this page, and stalking is against Wikipedia's rules. AlexanderPar (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"The majority of those sentenced to death by stoning have been women. Women do not receive equal treatment with men under Iranian law and before Iranian courts. Also, because illiteracy is higher among women they may be more likely to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit and to receive unfair trials."[2] Do you have any sources to back up your claim that more men are stoned than women? All we need to include something here is a claim that is supported by multiple reliable sources, whether or not it is true. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to get into this game with you. Even if what you're claiming was true. (which is not, just look up the names of the known victims) that would still not make stoning, a Women's rights issue, as the Sharia law on stoning applies to both genders. Stoning is a Human rights issue. Every subject has its place, and stoning belongs on Human rights page, not Women's rights page. What matters here is that most sources discussing stoning, classify it as a Human rights issue, and we should follow what the classification of the majority of the sources on the topic is. AlexanderPar (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you've managed to insert a logical fallacy or intentional error in almost every sentence.

You - "Even if what you're claiming was true. (which is not, just look up the names of the known victims)"

• This is trivial original research, this is your excuse for going against the sources. Aside from being false, this is absolutely unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

You - "that would still not make stoning, a Women's rights issue, as the Sharia law on stoning applies to both genders. Stoning is a Human rights issue. Every subject has its place, and stoning belongs on Human rights page, not Women's rights page."

• It is not up to you to make that decision. We follow the sources, and if sources establish that a women's right issue in Iran is stoning, we include it in the article "Women's rights in Iran."

You - "What matters here is that most sources discussing stoning, classify it as a Human rights issue, and we should follow what the classification of the majority of the sources on the topic is."

• This article is a subtopic of the larger umbella of "Human rights in Iran." Women is a smaller group than Human, and thus the set of issues here is a strict subgroup of the issues in Women's rights in Iran. If we were to reject one subject because it's a "Human rights issue" we would have to reject all of them. Logic asside, here are some sources that connect stoning to Women's rights.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

So if we're going to get into another editorial dispute, how about you tell me what exactly you think would be necessary in order for this material to be included on this page, so that I can find it demonstrate to all your complete disregard for sanity. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider you a neutral editor worth arguing with. Stoning is a Human rights issue, that's what most sources say. Yous is just a synthesis of sources to push a fringe point of view. If you revert again, I will simply report you stalking me and you will be blocked for that. You had no prior edits or history on this page, before you decided to stalk me in the middle of another dispute on another page. AlexanderPar (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's a human rights issue that especially impacts women. That makes it both a human rights issue and a women's right issue. We have multiple reliable sources establishing this fact. We have no reliable sources disputing this. The only source disputing that this is a women's rights issue is you. Please stop embarassing yourself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

May I ask a question as someone who's never edited this article, and who never or rarely edits articles on this topic? This is a subject about which I'm informed solely (but regularly) through Anglophone news media, with all the biases that implies. I think it's fair to say that these media tend to report the stoning or threatened stoning of women more often than those of men; if it's true that a higher proportion of those who are subject to stoning are men, then it would seem that this betrays a bias in Anglophone news media. However (and this is my point), it also means that those who use English Wikipedia will expect to see stoning addressed in the article. It has to be there. We have to answer the questions that readers are likely to bring to the article. Could I suggest that the issue of stoning be presented in that context? That is, I see no reason to exclude it as a concern of women's rights, since it clearly is to Western readers, but with the kind of caveat and proportional explanation AlexanderPar has offered, with perhaps then a "See also" or "Main article" notice at the top of the section. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Alexander when he says most of those executed by stoning are men. He's contradicting sources when he says that, while providing none of his own. Though I am open to the suggestion of a "main" or "see also" template, with a short summary and explanation of how it relates to women's rights here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that stoning affects more men than women would have to be carefully sourced, and it may be that no single statement would be satisfactory. It may have to be couched as one of those qualifying sentences: "Although most human rights organizations or whatever sources find that (etc, with footnote), some (footnoted) point to evidence that … ." WP:UNDUE should apply. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I see this is being approached purely on the level of deletion. I reiterate: English-Wikipedia users will expect to see contemporary stoning addressed in this article. If the issue has been misrepresented in Western media, the section should be rewritten to state the situation accurately. But it must be addressed, not suppressed on the specious reasoning that men are affected too. For instance: men can be raped, but no one would argue that the history of rape law doesn't belong in an article on women's rights. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol @ Alexander's edit summary, "Yes, but not all human rights issues are women's rights issues, and stoning is not cosnidred a women's rights issue by most sources."

A - I have never alleged that all human rights issues are women's rights issues.

B - You can't prove that "stoning is NOT considered a women's rights issue by most sources." This is a negative statement. You can't prove a negative.

C - As I have said repeatedly, stoning is both a human rights issue and a women's rights issue, and this is established by multiple reliable sources. We don't need most sources to consider it a women's rights issue. We simply need multiple sources to establish that it is a women's rights issue. We consider weight with respect to the article's topic, not with respect to the topic you and I are disputing: stoning. You say "stoning is a human rights issue", but certainly some sources consider it a women's rights issue. So with respect to women's rights, certainly stoning deserves some weight.

I'm wasting my breath of course. You've shown a willingness to outright lie about policy, so of course you'll remain willfully ignorant of the subtlties of WP:WEIGHT. A NPOV tag will have to suffice. I think readers who browse Wikipedia have gotten used to seeing that tag, with the understanding that lunatics are attracted to controversial articles like this one, determined to push their POV. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AlexanderPar posted to my talk page asking about my interest in the article; that discussion is here, but I'd like to repeat some of my last response on this page, where it's more appropriate. There was a highly publicized case in the news earlier this month concerning a woman in Iran who had been sentenced to stoning. The New York Times reported on the case in a series of stories: here's one, then here's the report on the lifting of the sentence; more to the point about En-WP readers' expectations, here's a page of comments from NYT readers who were responding to a blog post that compared that case to the recent execution of a woman in the U.S. It's a legitimate question to ask: if the execution of a woman by the U.S. is treated in the context of capital punishment, not women's rights, why should the stoning sentence of the Iranian woman, now lifted, be treated as such? But the question is a real question, as you can see from the range of responses at the NYT, and should be addressed — certainly it shouldn't be a forbidden topic. Readers will expect to be given a context for understanding these and other reports in an article on Women's rights in Iran. If you believe these reports are exaggerated, or false, or that stoning as a penalty is misunderstood, the article needs to explain that with sources; it should not suppress mention of stoning. A WP article should answer the questions that readers will bring to it. If the answer is "stoning is not specifically an issue of women's rights," then fine; give a short paragraph and link to a fuller explanation of the use of stoning as sentence in Iran elsewhere on WP. But the existence of activist groups that expressly address stoning as it affects women is prima facie evidence that it's perceived as a women's rights issue by a significant group of people. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put the heading back, but cut it down to a couple of sentences. There's no doubt it is perceived as a women's issue by women's organisations, including womens organisations in Iran, so we should cover this. However, the bulk of the text (the casualties, the saved, the cases etc) should be in the Stoning article - if Alexander Par has ceased his campaign to remove all reference to the practice of stoning in Iran from that article also. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well well well, I see that AzureFury has canvassed you here too. Some things never change I guess. I never did "campaign to remove all reference to the practice of stoning", so please do not lie and misrepresent my position. The section as it is, should be moved under a new larger section header called "campaigns" that includes both the One Million Signature campaign and Stop stoning Forever campaigns as sub-sections, both of which were by the way initiated and run by the same group of activists. Also, this is an Encyclopedia that should discuss a topic in general academic terms, this is not a campaign site or the Amnesty International`s monthly report to list every individual case involving the word stoning . By Cynwolfe`s own logic comparing stoning to rape, you do not see the names and descriptions of of every rape victim listed on the rape page, this is no different. AlexanderPar (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Two clarifications: First, AzureFury did not ask me to come to this page. Second, I did not compare stoning to rape. I said that both women and men can be subject to stoning and rape, but no one ought to question that a history of rape law is pertinent to a history of women's rights. Therefore, the fact that an issue might affect both genders doesn't necessarily exclude it as a women's rights issue, and certainly not if it is a particular expressed concern of women's rights groups. I agree strongly that stoning needs to be kept in proportion within this article; I think Elen has proposed the right distribution of material. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexander, just...No. You're not going to minimize stoning's exposure on Wikipedia by removing it from this article. You're not going to hide it by removing the header "Stoning." Your efforts are wasted. The consensus on Wikipedia is that we represent reality, not what you wish reality was. There will always be enough editors to oppose your blatantly biased edits. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a consensus to include at least a minimal section on stoning. I see only one editor who asserts that all mention of stoning should be excluded from this article, nor do I see the grounds for such an exclusion. This is an edit contrary to consensus. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3 edit conflicts later...A certain level of information needs to be in this article. If AlexanderPar wishes to change the layout, perhaps we can discuss that separately, but it must not be a cover for removing information. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is removing anything, I simply changed the lay-out. And Cynwolfe, open your eyes, I am only one of three editors who have supported exclusion, there is no consensus here. AzureFury and two like-minded editors that he canvassed (you and Elen, two editors who collaborate with each other off and on-Wiki) do not constitute a consensus. But that is besides the point, I kept Elen`s changes, I only moved the section under a more appropriate heading. AlexanderPar (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, no need to get angry. I erred; I didn't scroll down far enough. Apologies. When I reverted, I also got my fingers on the wrong keys in the edit history, which produced a bit of gibberish and an inadvertent save before I checked everything. Haste does indeed make waste. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AlexanderPar, I see what you have done now - agree that grouping the information is not a problem. BTW, while Cynewolfe and I have worked together on a couple of articles, we have no contact at all off-wiki. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never communicated with Elen anywhere other than within WP space. AzureFury did not "canvass" me; AzureFury has not communicated with me in any way, other than indirectly on this talk page; it seems otiose to assert something that can be checked so readily. I don't regularly edit articles that directly pertain to this topic, but that means I don't have any vested interests or sense of ownership. I'm familiar with media coverage and regularly read it, which is why, as I indicated above, I couldn't see the basis for exclusion. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think AlexanderPar and Sinooher are right on this. Based on what I have seen, presenting stoning as a women's rights issue, is usually done only by the feminist groups. The law applies to both men and women. However, Ms. Elen makes a good point too, and the current (compromise?) version discussing the stoning issue in a minimal form under campaigns is also acceptable for me. --Wayiran (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if it's presented as an issue of women's rights by feminist groups, doesn't that by definition make it such from one important perspective? To be kept in balance, certainly. But it would strike me as perverse to exclude mention altogether in an article on women's rights on the grounds that it's seen as a women's rights issue "only" by feminist groups, if you follow me. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wayiran is trying to play this off as feminist whining, while ignoring that most stoning victims are women. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. There were 7 stoning victims in the last decade [9], 6 were men, only one was a woman. AlexanderPar (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we to take your word that that list is complete, or your interpretation is accurate? I can't determine the gender of those names. The earliest case it lists is in 2006. Is that where you're inferring "in the last decade"? Also, it's cute that you've linked to, "the global campaign to stop killing and stoning women" as proof that this is not a women's rights issue. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh so now you can't tell the gender of Mahmoud, Abbas, Jafar and the unknown MAN? Please stop trolling. AlexanderPar (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud is not spelled phonetically, took me a second to recall how that was pronounced. Never met/heard of someone named "Abbas." And the only Jafar I know is from Aladdin (1992 Disney film). AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahmoud, Jafar, Abbas (Muslim prophets and religious characters) and Hushan or Hushang (a mythical Persian king) are exclusively male first names, you can look them up one by one. --Wayiran (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Mahmoud, Jafar, Abbas (Muslim prophets and religious characters) and Hushan or Hushang (a mythical Persian king) are exclusively male first names, you can look them up one by one." As someone who is proficient in the Arabic language, I can confirm this. It's like saying "I'm not sure if Sally, Rebecca and Suzie are female names..." And I also feel that the stoning section should be moved to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It makes no sense to have it in this article as there is no bias to women here. If, as many have claimed, the media does seem to cover these events more than the stoning of men, I would believe that's only because it is not a common occurrence--not the other way round. ~dee 12:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources alleging that stoning in Iran is indeed biased against women. Per WP:WEIGHT we include it here. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that says "Stoning punishment is disproportionately applied to women" (or similar) that certainly should be included in this article. Likewise, if there are any feminist groups that characterize stoning as a feminist issue, that also should be mentioned. Most detail can be in the Stoning article, but if the sources specifically associate stoning with women, that is material that should be in this article. --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that women's groups characterise this as a womens issue - and that includes women's groups in Iran itself - is available and should be cited (indeed, I believe it already has been cited). I would hesitate to draw a conclusion as to the disproportion of application from a list of the victims (itself very hard to reliably source), as I feel that would be OR, but I believe it can be sourced (indeed I know it can, I've read enough journalists on the subject) that women's groups argue that it is a punishment which affects women more than men, given the nature of the crime for which it is prescribed, and the approach of both society and the law to the respective guilt of the male and female parties in the alleged crime.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Women's rights in Iran

Cyberbot II has detected links on Women's rights in Iran which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://we-change.org/

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://we-change.org/spip.php?article18

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Women's rights in Iran

Cyberbot II has detected links on Women's rights in Iran which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://we-change.org/

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

• http://we-change.org/spip.php?article18

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080619000016/http://www.pbs.org:80/adventuredivas/iran/dispatches/magazines.html to http://www.pbs.org/adventuredivas/iran/dispatches/magazines.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/088/2008/en/d140767b-5e45-
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/088/2008/en/d140767b-5e45-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217022447/http://www.iftribune.com/ to http://iftribune.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724063912/http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3743/context/archive to http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3743/context/archive
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105190748/http://www.women.org.ir/ to http://www.women.org.ir/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Love the information and think you are far beyond an initial contribution! Continue your great work and you will have a final contribution in no time. Add a few more sources and use those sources and you should be done! Cohoward (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Your article is great so far! You just need to add some links to other articles and format your sources to be in correct Wikipedia format. Alisonyardley (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Alisonyardley

I am editing this article. Please let me know if you made changes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aazmak1989 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been working on this wiki article as a final project. many of the facts provided here lacks citation. I will be adding more to the existing sections and will provide scholarly citation and other sources to help the reader find the facts through other articles. In addition I will also few new sections to help this article be more up do date with this issues in Iran. I am going to add these resources tonight so please do not delete what I will add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aazmak1989 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Basiji Students meeting with Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei - September 4, 1999 (1).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Basiji Students meeting with Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei - September 4, 1999 (1).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead

@HistoryofIran: there are some issues in the lead section.

1. First of all, the lead includes statistical INFO, while they can change or other statistical info is seen in the article, why do we have such info in lead? isn't it necessary that lead has to include just most important points?
2. I cannot find the sentence "Women's rights in Iran are limited compared to the women in developed nations" in the article (except lead). It is a claim and needs to support by RS. If there is not any source, I remove it after a while!
3. The sentence "The World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Iran 140 out of 144 countries for gender parity. Women in Iran constitute 19% of the workforce in 2017 with only 7% growth since 1990" is not supported by cited source. So isn't it better to remove the sentence was put into the month of source? Regards!Saff V. (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you honestly saying women in Iran have just as much rights compared to other countries? The article makes it quite clear that that is not the case. Did you even download the pdf of the source? It's very easy to say something on a largely detailed source is not there due to the amounts of information it has. Also we have that statistical info because it illustrates the status of women in Iran. Imho this seems like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT case to me. EDIT: Also [10] [11]. It's too easy to find sources that all state the same regarding rights in Iran and whatnot. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no claim about Women's rights in Iran, I just pointed that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable....must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." (based on WP:VER)so the claim of limitation of Women's rights in Iran needs to confirmed by RS in the lead. I really appreciated u to provide sources, I checked both of them. There is nothing to do exactly with Women's rights in Iran are limited compared to the women in developed nations. In other words, they are OR for this claim.Saff V. (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Uhh.. are you serious? I can't believe you read the sources properly then, please read again, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I read the whole of Radio Farda report and Women's rights section in hrw. If there are sentences that I haven't seen, Can I ask you to gather them here? Regards!Saff V. (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Eh.. no, being a user in Wikipedia you need to have a certain amount of ability yourself, that is literally stated in the rules (Wikipedia:COMPETENCE). Read again along with the The Global Gender Gap Report 2017. If that's too hard then ask for help from some users (or an admin) who have no relation to Iran-related articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to remove unsourced material but you reverted and claimed that there are sources and provided it. Then I checked sources and couldn't find any material to support that sentence, while you are sure there is! Ok, Please Provide supportive sentences here! Be aware that If you refuse, I can remove the sentence without the source!Saff V. (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You could, that would just be considered disruptive editing. Read Wikipedia:COMPETENCE and ask an admin for help to read stuff for you. Surely that shouldn't be an issue, you have a non-related party to help you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:BURDEN,The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I'll put the citation need tag at the moment and delete the item if the resource is not added in the next few days.Saff V. (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You're not collaborating, not to mention you have been reported for pov-pushing in Iranian-related in the past (and being warned for it as well if I recall correctly). And now you suddenly can't find the certain statements in several sources that are clear as daylight? What citation(s) do you want me to add? Over half of the information on the sources? The whole article pretty much highlights the lack of women rights in Iran, yet you're still putting a citation need tag? This looks like a Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT case to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, As a person who is against removing unsourced claim and reverting related edits, you are responsible to support your edit and claim! You are an experienced user, is it needed I explain that The whole articles pretty much highlights the lack of women rights in Iran seems to be OR? Saff V. (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, per WP:LEADCITE, citations are not required for the lead. Now lets take a look at the body of the article:

• "The World Bank's database, "Women, Business, and the Law" lists 23 restrictions in Iranian law that restricts married women in Iranian law. This includes "applying for a passport, traveling outside the home, choosing where to live, and being head of the household. Women cannot get a job or pursue a profession in the same way a man can; they cannot be ensured of equal pay for equal work, and there are no laws to restrain gender discrimination in hiring."[5]:16[7] The WPS report also notes that there "are no laws that penalize or prevent the dismissal of pregnant women from work, nor are there laws that provide rights for paternity or parental leave or tax deductible payments for childcare. The Iranian Civil Code confers power on a husband to prevent his wife from taking any job found to be incompatible with the family interest or the dignity of the husband or his wife. Women have no legal protection against domestic violence or sexual harassment by anyone, and the constitution has no non-discrimination clause with gender as a protected category."[5]:16"
• "With the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, women's roles were limited as they were encouraged to raise large families and tend to household duties. Khomeini believed this to be the most vital role women could pursue. It was this belief that led to the closing of women's centers, childcare centers and the abolishment of family planning initiatives.[2]"
• "In mid-November 2018 United Nations General Assembly’s Human Rights Committee approved a resolution against Iranian government's continuous discrimination against women and limitation of freedom of thought.[18]"
• "Compulsory hijab was re-instated for Iranian state employees after the Islamic revolution in 1979, followed by a law for requiring the wearing of hijab in all public spaces in 1983.[23]"
• "On November 26, 2018 Nasrin Sotoudeh, a female political prisoner at Tehran's Evin Prison, began a hunger strike demanding the release of Farhad Meysami, a doctor who is in jail for protesting compulsory hijab.[26]"
• "On April 2019 a human rights lawyer in Iran was sentenced to 148 lashes and 38 years in prison for defending opposition activists and women's rights for not wearing hijabs in public.[27][28]"
• "The Guidance Patrol, an undercover law enforcement squad also known as "Morality Police" (Persian: گشت ارشاد‎ Gašt-e Eršād) surveys women in public for dress code violations.[24] Wearing a headscarf has been strictly enforced in Iran and has been since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Women who do not wear a hijab or are deemed to be wearing 'bad hijab' by having some of their hair showing face punishments ranging from fines to imprisonment. It was announced that in the beginning of 2018, women would no longer be arrested for wearing 'bad hijab' in public. Though the announcement was viewed as a moderate improvement, activists campaigning against compulsory hijab have still since been targeted by police.[25]"

Unless you can show us that these implementations and laws (compulsory hijab, legal discrimination, morality police) are also carried out in developed nations, such as France, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Japan, Switzerland, the United States, Sweden, etcetera, this content will stay. Further tagging or attempts at removing will be considered WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Best, - LouisAragon (talk)

From Susan M. Shaw, Nancy Staton Barbour, Patti Duncan., Kryn Freehling-Burton, Jane Nichols, eds (2018). Women's Lives around the World: A Global Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO:

• "President Hassan Rouhani is striving to deliver on his pledges to relax social restrictions imposed on Iranian women by previous governments. Currently, Iranian women are restricted from attending various sporting events, such as national volleyball and soccer matches, as a result of strict gender regulation policies throughout the country. Similar to previous attempts to limit gender segregation, these efforts have been met with much resistance and criticism from conservative parties, who paint these policies as Western tendencies. Not only are Iranian women subjected to discrimination within the country, they are also prevented from pursuing their passion of sports outside of it. In 2011, the Iranian National Women's soccer team (...)" -- p. 109
• "In Iran, LGBT rights are nonexistent. Currently, Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals suffer from human rights violations and denied the basic freedom to be themselves." -- Women's Lives around the World: A Global Encyclopedia -- p. 110
• "Women in Iran have struggled to regain many lost rights after the 1979 revolution. During the Pahlavi era (1925-1979), women in Iran were afforded free education, and in 1963 they gained the right to vote and run for positions in parliament. Many of these rights were rolled back after the 1979 election, and women were slowly shifted into traditional female careers such as teaching and nursing. Mandatory Islamic dress was implemented, and most women in decision making positions of power were either dismissed or forced into early retirement, or demoted. Unfortunately, it was almost 10 years before a woman was named a deputy minister and more than 30 before a female minister was named within the Islamic republic. -- p. 111
• "As an Islamic republic, there are rules and regulations that dictate many aspects of women's lives. (...) Iranian women are required to dress modestly and wear a hijab, or a headscarf. There are many women who would rather not wear a hijab in public, but there are also many who do and who wear it passionately." -- p. 112

- LouisAragon (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

As the link illustrates, It is hard to accept user:LouisAragon as 3O. Anyway, I appreciate his contribution, some provided sentences convince me, but most of them seem to be OR (analysis or synthesis of published material) and don't directly support the disputed sentence. I think it is better to provide some explanation after the sentence in the lead and point to the reason or example of women's right limitation. Saff V. (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The reliability of Iran-HRM

It could be useful the answer to my question as to the reliability of Iran-HRM in RSN, So I brought the question and answer here:

Is it OK to use the iran-hrm for the following the material in Women's rights in Iran article? Thanks, Saff V. (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) In mid-November 2018 United Nations General Assembly’s Human Rights Committee approved a resolution against Iranian government's continuous discrimination against women and limitation of freedom of thought.

There are probably many reliable sources documenting women rights in Iran. As Iran-HRM is an ctivist group, I would not use their reporting without attribution. However, this doesn´t mean we should change article balance to the POV of the Iranian regime (which is - I fear judging form the talkpage posts - intention of the OP). Simply find better sources (peer reviewed papers, mainstream media reporting) and replace lower quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Situational. Looks like an advocacy group to me, so they would probably be at the same tier as Hope not Hate or maybe Southern Poverty Law Center. This particular article appears to be straightforward reporting and so should be OK as a source. feminist (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Saff V. (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Khomeini's different views on voting

@Mhhossein: as you a user who knows Persian and English well, I wonder if you check this revert. I can't imagine the removal of sourced material just because I have been warned for POV. The removed sentences are the translation of "موضوع حق شرکت دادن زنان در انتخابات مانعی ندارد؛ ولی حق انتخاب شدن آنها فحشا به بار می‌آورد موضوع حق رأی دادن زنان و غیره در درجه آخر اهمیت قرار دارد. ما می‌خواهیم مشروطیت را حفظ کنیم. اکنون که در ایران حق آزادی از ما سلب شده، به فکر زنها افتاده‌اند". some of them were in the article and I just added rest of them. Regards!Saff V. (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, read my comment again. I'm not questioning the reliability of your source, just add it properly, that's all I'm saying. Read Wikipedia:COMPETENCE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Saba Kord Afshari

@Dr.K.:, As I explained in Edit Summary, her crime is not just taking off her hijab in public,she was sentenced by Tehran’s Revolutionary Court on charges of “spreading corruption and prostitution by taking off her hijab and walking without a veil,” “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,”. or Afshari received 15 years for her anti-hijab activism and another nine years for “illegal assembly” and “propaganda against the regime”.All of them should be mentioned in the article. The current edit has NPOV issues and us not natural.Saff V. (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

'Sigh', that piece of information would ridicule the IRI even more, which I doubt you would want. Stop pov-pushing, you are under a sanction in case you haven't forgotten. All it takes is one report to an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with HistoryofIran. Also, please add the added charges, if you wish. But this is no reason to delete the whole piece. As far as your edit-summary censuring her crimes such as “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,”, "censuring" means to "condemn, criticize, castigate, chastise, etc.", so it didn't make sense to me. Now, I suspect you mean "censoring" which means something completely different. But if you meant "censoring", please be careful. WP:BLP apples everywhere. You cannot accuse someone of "crimes". You should have said "charges", because this is what these are. Charges by the government, not crimes by the accused. To accuse her of crimes, is a violation of BLP. Dr. K. 16:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that seems to be the case, considering he also said in this section that "her crime is not just..". I'm honestly getting real bored of constantly having to deal with Saff V.'s questionable behaviour and edits (aka reverts/removal of information that isn't favorable towards the IRI). @Vanamonde93: Sorry for constantly bothering you, but perhaps it is time for the sanctions to show their impact? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, noone censored anything. Saff V. should have assumed WP:AGF and added the additional charges himself, not blank the whole paragraph. This is no way to edit. I agree, that from what I have seen recently, Saff V. tends to remove information in a rather careless manner, including for the wrong reasons. Recently, I had to fully or partially revert three of his edits because his stated reasons were incorrect. This should stop. Dr. K. 16:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Removal of content isn't in and of itself grounds for sanctions; editors sometimes have to deal with NPOV issues by removing stuff. Also, in a rather messy article such as this one, the fact that content has been in the article for a long time isn't enough reason to keep it in the article. The important question is why a removal or reinstatement were made. @Saff V., Dr.K., and HistoryofIran: I'd appreciate explanations from all of you. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: I have already explained in detail the reasons for reverting Saff V. in this case and the previous cases. I also note that apart from being an admin, Vanamonde93, I hope you can also appreciate as an editor the reasons of my reverts. Please also note that I am an uninvolved, neutral editor here, who acted in good faith out of pure editorial interest to restore content that was removed for patently invalid reasons, as I mentioned earlier. If you, Vanamonde93, as an editor, cannot see that, then I will not try further to clarify these self-evident things for you. Having said that, given the tone of your enquiry, I am going to disengage from this article, take it off my wtchlist, and never edit it again. I am not interested in getting involved in situations where I have to explain the quality of my edits, especially when it is crystal-clear. Please do not ping me again. I am out of here and have also self-reverted to the version by Saff V. And, yes, I know that as and admin you are not supposed to take sides in an editorial dispute. But, imo, that does not mean that you cannot. as an editor, appreciate a good edit. It would be much better to advise someone who repeatedly removes good content on specious grounds, than try to interrogate a neutral editor who performed some great edits. If you cannot do that, this is an additional good reason for me to get outta here. Dr. K. 20:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have to explain anything. Frankly I find it ridiculous that users like Saff has free rein to do disruptive edits like this, and yet me and Dr.K. get grouped in the same category as him? This is unfortunately not the first time something like this has happened either. Cmon, there are clear attempts of pov-pushing by him (this is not casting aspersions, as evidence can be supplied if needed, if it isn't already clear enough). And now with Dr. K. gone, this article is just gonna get even more ruined. Great. I wonder if action is ever gonna be taken against stuff like this. So much for those "sanctions". --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K. and HistoryofIran: Y'all want to go off the deep end, feel free. I didn't equate your behavior to anyones. I said that given the state of the article, both sides needed to explain what they feel about the content, because it is typically in such explanations that suitability for editing the topic comes to light. I cannot investigate the entire source material myself to determine whether Saff V. is POV-pushing; but asking you all for an explanation doesn't mean all of your are going to be equally wrong or right. You, Dr.K., have explained why Saff V.'s edit and edit-summary were inappropriate. You have not explained the existence of that content itself. If there's one thing required of editors in a contentious topic, it's patience, and particularly the patience to explain your actions politely very many times, without losing your cool. If you're unwilling to even explain yourself to an uninvolved editor, and would rather unwatch the article, then removing yourself is the right thing to do, because you don't have the requisite patience. Keep in mind; if I or another admin weren't looking at this in an individual capacity, you would have to report Saff V. to AN for uninvolved admins to evaluate their behavior; meaning that you would have to make the explanations that you are shrugging off here. So, please answer my question, which ought to have been taken at face value in the first place. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, Vanamonde, don't make this personal. This has nothing to do with my patience or being cool, but thanks for the dig anyway. I have made three short, self-explanatory edits. The whole idea here is that they are simple to analyse. They speak for themselves. I asked you to evaluate them as an editor. Please do so. I am sure in your RfA they complimented you that you are a content editor as well. Use that capacity instead of trying to find fault with me. And no pings please. Dr. K. 23:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you have it backwards. I didn't make it personal; I made an observation about a couple of specific edits, not about you as a person. Also, I am not going to evaluate these as an editor. I don't know how familiar you are with discretionary sanctions, but I cannot both act as an editor and as an admin. HistoryofIran specifically asked me to intervene as an admin. I'm evaluating user behavior, and it is therefore in your best interests to explain yourself clearly. I haven't even found fault with you yet; I've asked you for an explanation. If you wish to construe that as finding fault, and still refuse to provide that explanation, that's your prerogative. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I think we are both intelligent enough to know that I never claimed that you found fault with my edits. I simply don't like to work in an environment that looks like anything close to an interrogation. As far as your previous comments I will take you at your word that they were not personal, so that's the end of it. As far as the explanation of my edits, I think you acted enough like a content editor to assess the edits of Saff V., so any explanation on my part is a moot point right now. Dr. K. 01:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"I simply don't like to work in an environment that looks like anything close to an interrogation." If this is truly the case, then you cannot realistically expect admin intervention to always go your way. Saff V.'s arguments below had no basis in policy; but it's quite easy to raise a policy-based objection to your edits. In a more symmetrical situation, you may easily have faced sanction also. More broadly, isolated edits in a contentious area can easily be made to look inappropriate. Refusing to explain yourself means things are taken at face value, and again, you may face undeserved sanctions because you refused to explain yourself. Asking for admin intervention invites scrutiny of your own edits, too, so if you want to continue working in contentious areas, you may wish to rethink that position. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What would be the policy-based objection to my edits? Dr. K. 01:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Arguments could be made on the basis of WP:DUE, but per WP:BEANS, I'm not getting into it further, as I don't want to add fuel to the fire. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, DUE may have been an argument. But the argument made by the reverting editor was that the information was not in the source. But it was. So the basis of my revert was valid. And, I never said that I refused to explain my actions. However, my actions were crystal-clear and needed no further explanation. So, when you asked for further explanations, it felt like an interrogation. This is the whole point of this argument. Dr. K. 18:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr.K., I don't know why you're still arguing with me, because the basic point is simple; when you ask for admin intervention, you need to be willing to explain yourself, and if you're not, there are sometimes unpleasant consequences. And that's the last I will say about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not arguing. I was just clarifying. But this is my last word here also. Dr. K. 21:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I first added this to the article, that "In August 2019, Iranian civil rights activist Saba Kord Afshari was sentenced to 24 years behind bars, including a 15-year term for taking off her hijab in public, which Iranian authorities say promoted “corruption and prostitution.”" Saff V. then reverted this with the edit summary"unreliable source, censuring her crimes such as “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion”"

I didn't see NYPost as "unreliable source", so I added another source, but Saff V. reverted again, with the edit summary "censuring her crimes such as 5 spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion.”"

That's when Dr K. got involved, saying Saff V. was removing reliable sources from the article. I need to side with HistoryofIran and Dr. K. here in that there was no reason to remove this. There wasn't a NPOV issue or problems with the sources. If Saff V. though the information could have been expanded, then this is what he should have done instead of removing it. I'm also involved in editing another article where Saff V. just received another warning and sanction for edit warring. Barca (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barca Don't mix issues of another disputed article into this article while I gave my reasons and admin thanked me for other cases!Saff V. (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barca. It gets worse. That's when I restored an edit reverted by Saff on the grounds that it is not supported by the source. Guess what, it is. Ditto Saff removes the whole thing about contaception, partially restored by me. Dr. K. 00:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically if you look at the history of this article starting from Summer [12], it's mainly removal of information by Saff, lol. Is it removal of information that exposes the basic lack of human rights under the IRI? Yes. Is he gonna escape the repercussions? Absolutely. Hotel? Trivago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K. for this revert of you, I do control F of "Alieh", "Motalebzadeh" seperately and there was no result. While you claimed that the text is into the source, would you provide the text?Saff V. (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: For reverting this edit, her crimes (as the source reported) is not only taking off her hijab. The source reported, she was sentenced by Tehran’s Revolutionary Court on charges of “spreading corruption and prostitution by taking off her hijab and walking without a veil,” “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,”. or Afshari received 15 years for her anti-hijab activism and another nine years for “illegal assembly” and “propaganda against the regime”. All of them should be mentioned in the article. As WP:YESPOV demands, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. while in theses edit(first and secound ) of BarcrMac , he just mentioned Afshari's taking off Hijab and ignoring other mentioned crimes reported by sources. Why did not BarcrMac mention the rest of her crimes such as "spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,”? Is not it picking up material which he wants and release one that doesn't want? Is not it the Violation natural point of view?

While I am trying to resolve the neutrality issue of the Women's rights in Iran 's article, HistoryofIran accused me to do pov-pushing IRI edits againand again! In another hand, when I issued the lack of source for some key sentences in the lede, he said "Are you honestly saying women in Iran have just as much rights compared to other countries? The article makes it quite clear that that is not the case" ... or " The whole article pretty much highlights the lack of women rights in Iran, yet you're still putting a citation need tag"... everyone knows that Wikipedia articles are not RS! Or when I inserted Tag for a section, he just reverted with no explanation. Yes, I have done lots of edit in the article but I took sources into the RSN or try to provide edit summary and Now If there are any problems I would give reasons to convince questioner.Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The New York Post wrote that "Iranian civil rights activist Saba Kord Afshari has been sentenced to 24 years behind bars, including a 15-year term for taking off her hijab in public — an act that authorities say promoted “corruption and prostitution.”. I then added in the article that "In August 2019, Iranian civil rights activist Saba Kord Afshari was sentenced to 24 years behind bars, including a 15-year term for taking off her hijab in public, which Iranian authorities say promoted “corruption and prostitution.”" So, there was no problem with the sources, and no problem with NPOV, and anything further could have been added by Saff V., but instead he just kept removing the whole thing. Barca (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

At the first, about the reliability of NYP, There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. Also in the NYP source it was written that Afshari, 20, was handed the sentence by Tehran’s Revolutionary Court on Tuesday — after standing trial last week on charges of “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,” the Iran Human Rights Monitor reported. Why was not “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,” included in the provided text by you? Do you want to pretend that Afshari was sentenced just because of taking off Hijab?Saff V. (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to "pretend" anything. The second source I added supported what the NY Post wrote, so there was no reason to remove this. I have to side with Dr. K. and HistoryofIran again that the edits are simple and speak for themselves. Barca (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to "pretend" anything, why don't you answer my question. I repeat it again, Why was not “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,” included in the provided text by you, while I wrote in my edit summary not to censure her crimes?Saff V. (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question, I added what was on the source's opening paragraph. If you thought there was more to add, then you could have just added it. Noone censored anything and there was no reason to remove this, like Dr. K. said. Barca (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

As WP:YESPOV demands, Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. You have to provide complete information not just summarize the opening paragraph! It is the real example of POV issue, while you did not pay attention to my edit summary to avoid censuring and repeated it with any discussion (just by adding source and keeping un-reliable source), I have to revert it and open the discussion in TP!Saff V. (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm going to investigate your explanations piece by piece, and I'm beginning with the stuff about travel bans and contraception, but please allow me to go through the rest of it (it might take me an hour or two) before responding. With respect to these removals [13], [14], and these reverts [15], [16]; the issue essentially seems to be a misunderstanding. The original urls no longer support the content in question, but the archived urls do. Saff V., it wouldn't have hurt for you to do as I did, and check both urls; however, this isn't in and of itself sanctionable behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• With respect to WP:YESPOV; Saff V., I've read through all of your diffs, and it's clear that you are misunderstanding that policy. Yes, we provide complete information, but only when it's relevant, and relevance is judged by how the topic is treated in reliable sources. If this was an article about Afshari, then presenting all of the charges would be necessary; but this is an article about Women's rights in Iran, in which Afshari's sentence specifically for anti-Hijab activism was used as an example of an infringement upon women's rights. What else Afshari was charged for hasn't been linked to the question of Women's rights in Iran by the sources provided so far; therefore, placing it in this article looks like an attempt to sidetrack the narrative about women's rights, and it isn't something you should repeat; editors have been topic-banned for less, so consider yourself warned. Also; if you feel that more content should have been added, why did you not add it? Why did you remove the existing content instead?
  Also, to all of you involved; continually discrediting another editor's contributions as being "POV-pushing" or equivalent isn't appropriate. If an editor is continually violating NPOV, they need to be brought to admin attention. The generic behavioral allegation has no place in a specific content discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: This must be his seventh warning, nice. Sarcastic/Silly behaviour aside, do I least have permission to restore Saba Kord Afshari bit? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I know Saff V. has received a number of warnings; but warnings for one behavior cannot substitute for warnings for another. With respect to pretty much all of our behavioral guidelines, editors who violate them are warned, and then sanctioned if they persist. As far as I can see Saff V.'s previous warnings are for edit-warring and displaying a battleground attitude. As to the rest; there is no behavioral issue with restoring that content. Whether it is genuinely appropriate for the article needs to be figured out through normal content-editing processes. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:For archived urls, I didn't think there was a difference between url and archived url, so I will check both of them from now on. If you say that her crime related to women's right have to be included in the article while other users never told me this point, and I believed all of her crimes should be included based on WP:YESPOV, not for pov pushing, I will obey your saying but I have question, when sb read that Afshari was sentenced to 24 years behind bars, including a 15-year term just because of taking off Hijab, was not amazed? she will not pass 24 years in jail just because of taking off Hijab, "spreading propaganda against the state" is effective.

For first revert his source was not reliable and because of that I revert the edit (his source was NYP which is unreliable  : There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post) and I pointed to censor her crimes such as “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,”. He didn't pay attention to my edit summary, kept the NYP source, added another source and without any change or providing edit summary reverted my edit, while I issued censuring material (based on WP:YESPOV) . I reverted it again because he did not pay attention to my points with any explanation. As Dr.K. asked I started this discussion.Does not Providing edit summary or starting discussion show my good faith? Also during this discussion, I asked two times Baraca why was not “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,” included in the provided text by him, he responded that I added what was on the source's opening paragraph! It seems to me he did not read rest of the source.

Anyway when I explained my reasons for edit someone said ,"Stop pov-pushing, you are under a sanction in case you haven't forgotten" and another one said "You cannot accuse someone of "crimes"", however I just mentioned everything to be in the source.Saff V. (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: A lot of your post is very confusing. WP:YESPOV isn't very relevant here; that's more relevant to the language we use to describe something, and not to whether material should be included or not. WP:ONUS is much more relevant; not all available information needs to be in an article, and removing genuinely irrelevant information is not censorship (As an aside; "censor" and "censure" are not the same word, and mean different things). This article is about Women's rights in Iran. Can you explain why Afshari being convicted of "spreading propaganda against the state" is relevant here? Also; if you think it is relevant here, why did you not add it, instead of removing other information? Please don't repeat your complaints about the others on this page; I have already asked them not to make behavioral complaints here. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:Was Afshari sentenced to 24 years in prison just for taking off Hijab? No, She was sentenced to 15 years for taking off her hijab in public. 24 years behind bars was due to all of her crimes including taking off hijab and “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,”. If we want to mention 24 years we should mention all of her crimes. Likewise, if we want to mention only taking off Hijab, mentioning 15 years behind bars would suffice. As source wrote, Afshari received 15 years for her anti-hijab activism and another nine years for “illegal assembly” and “propaganda against the regime”. Am I clear?

I reverted in the first time because the source was not reliable ( There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post). For the second time I reverted because the unreliable source was kept and the issue raised by me was not solved. However the edit was restored without paying attention to mentioned issue and providing any edit summary! I reverted it again to stress on that issue (censoring crimes) and to remove an unreliable source. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores the material, so it was they who had to find sources. Finally, I started this discussion to get the conclusion. Can I ask you to ask Barca why he did not provide any edit summaries and did not discuss on the talk page when he restored the material for the second time?Saff V. (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It literally doesn't state that the source is unreliable as you keep incorrectly saying. Please see Wikipedia:COMPETENCE. And instead of beating a dead horse why don't you add the rest of the information yourself as you have already been told? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Saff V., I've said what I have to say; I'm not going to keep arguing with you. If the completeness of the material was an issue, the appropriate response is to add the missing information. If the reliability of a source is an issue, the correct response is to replace it, or at the very least, to request a better citation via a tag. And adding irrelevant information to an article is often a violation of NPOV. So, consider this a final warning; you are very close to a topic ban, and the only reason I'm not imposing one right now is that your editing has cooled off for some days. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It is weird for me you are just issuing warning against me while the other users were not innocent. For instance, Barca reverted my edits with no explanation and edit summaries and restored questionable sources to article. Topic ban for what? When the materials are not having reliable sources, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (not me!). Although there are various occasions where I just added in-line tags instead of removing (1, 2, 3). Also, you can see the number of my RSN queries regarding this page (1, 2 and 3). Topic ban? It was me who started the talk page discussions and it shows I was working with others. Others were just good and I needed Tban? I do not think it is a fair comment.Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., why do you keep dragging me into this? All I did was add information about Afshari's case to this article, you reverted saying the source was not reliable, so I then added another source. I think it has been made clear that you were free to add more (relevant info) to the article (instead of just removing the whole thing). Barca (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The behavior of other editors doesn't excuse yours, so please don't drag them into it; if and when I find their behavior to be inappropriate, I have, and will, warn and/or sanction them. The basic reason I am warning you is for a failure to understand NPOV; you have made claims about censorship when you couldn't present an argument as to why that content was relevant; and you removed material that was relevant instead of adding the part you felt was left out. If you genuinely can't understand why that's a problem, then you shouldn't be editing this topic anyway. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I give my reasons again. Was Afshari sentenced to 24 years in prison just for taking off Hijab? No, She was sentenced to 15 years for taking off her hijab in public. 24 years behind bars was due to all of her crimes including taking off the hijab and “spreading propaganda against the state,” and “assembly and collusion,”. If we want to mention 24 years we should mention all of her crimes. Likewise, if we want to mention only taking off Hijab, mentioning 15 years behind bars would suffice. In the article it was mentioned that Afshari was sentenced to 24 years behind bars, so because of mentioning 24 years behind bars, we have to mention all of her crimes not only taking off hijab.This kind of picking up some info leads to misleading the reader which it is pointed in the wp:WEIGHT How much detail is required depends on the subject. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader...Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Do you warn to Tban me because of one revert or one mistake while I have my reason, I did not revert with any explanation. I have done a lots of cleaning up in this article, just because of one revert warn me to Tban?! It is not fair!Saff V. (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I have not topic-banned you. I have warned you that if you display this sort of bad judgement and inability to listen again, you will be topic-banned. Giving reasons and explanations for your edits isn't good enough when those reason are bad reasons. The article never said she was sentenced to 24 years for taking off her hijab; that is a red herring. And I can guarantee you that if only 15 years had been mentioned, someone would have complained that the whole sentence wasn't being described. Finally, none of your explanation has addressed why you removed the content a second time, claiming "censorship", instead of adding the content you wanted to add. You haven't even admitted that you may have made a mistake, so claiming that I'm going to topic ban you for one mistake is also a red herring. I don't topic ban people who have understood their mistakes; you are demonstrating an unwillingness to do so. So let me be crystal clear in what I'm asking you to do, because this argument is going in circles and I'm not going to continue repeating myself. 1) Whatever your concerns, try raising them on the talk page first. 2) If you have concerns with a source, remove the source and tag the material, unless there are WP:BLP concerns. 3) If you think that an article is lacking certain information, add that information, don't remove other stuff. 4) Don't accuse other people of censorship, especially when nobody besides you has removed any content. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Yes, this is a warning. Like all other Wikipedia users, I intend to improve articles and fix their problems based on constructive discussion with users and presenting reasons in the edit summary or TPs. In this case, (after many times that I explained reasons), If you believe that I was wrong, I admit it and try to observe your advice more carefully.Saff V. (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Copyright issue

@Diannaa: The material with the copyright issue was picked up, but I think, it is better that you take a look at it. Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll gladly rewrite it :). Gimme a sec. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:please rewrite the following material suffering from copyright issue placed in the last section of the article, Thanks!

According to the UN, discriminatory laws in both the Civil and Penal Codes in Iran play a major role in empowering men and aggravating women's vulnerability to violence. The provisions of the Penal Code relating to crimes specified in the sharia namely, hudud, qisas and diyah, are of particular relevance in terms of gender justice.Saff V. (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I'll take a look at it later this day. Meanwhile, if there are more copyright issues, please write them down here as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Cleaned. Thank you for reporting, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, is there a way for me to see what copyright you specifically removed so I can rewrite it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've sent the removed material to you via email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Non related material

@HistoryofIran:,@Baffle gab1978: I think that the following material has nothing to do with "women right's in Iran". Doesn't it?

• Signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations has not improved women's situation much either. Howland in her book “Religious Fundamentalism and the Human Rights of Women” concerning the individual liberty within a democracy makes two suggestions to “the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), "a major human right treaty with 140 states"... Her first suggestion is "that in a spirit of democracy we first have to recognize that many of the women’s rights at stake in this context are core civil and political rights rather than simply issues of gender equality within the family.”[91] She further explains ”that religious fundamentalist has structured the dialogue to make the dispute appear to be about women’s rights within the family or private issues of religious belief,[91]” but she argues that “there has been little focus on recognizing these so-called private rights and wrongs within the family as public political rights"[91]... The second suggestion made by Howland is that “a state should be obligated to protest its citizens against certain actions that have heretofore been characterized as private.”[91] --Saff V. (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The relevant question is whether Howland is referring directly to Iran, or not. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: you mean that there is no connection. Don't you?Saff V. (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm telling you what the relevant question is from a policy perspective. I'm not going to go digging through the source to determine what the answer is, because, as I've said before, I'm acting in an administrative capacity here. I have not formed an opinion as to the actual relevance. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's impenetrable waffle, @Saff V.: What does it even mean? Baffle☿gab 03:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed text

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section removed from the article by me; I've left it here in case its removal breaks any references. Baffle☿gab 02:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(not relevant or only peripherally relevant to women's rights in Iran):

• Afghanistan: Influential figures include:
  • Sima Samar, the first Deputy Chair and Minister of Women's Affairs.
  • Safeeieh Ammeh Jan, Tajik-Afghan women's rights activist.
• Tajikistan:

Tajik women founded more than 100 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in recent decades to defend their rights and improve their quality of life. Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi acted as a role model for a new generation of Tajik women. Many Tajik businesswomen have economic ties with Iran. In 2005, a conference on poverty among women was organized in Iran, and a group of Tajik journalists, activists, university lecturers, and athletes were invited to Iran to exchange experiences.

References

Baffle☿gab 02:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert

@MPS1992: The source says that "Women’s rights are severely restricted in Iran, to the point where women are even forbidden from watching men’s sports in stadiums." while, Iranian women have been allowed to attend stadiums from November 2019. Why did you revert the edit?Saff V. (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Because the exact current situation regarding sports stadium attendances is not relevant in the lede of the article. If there is another independent reliable source which states that women's rights are now not severely restricted in Iran, please mention it here so that we may discuss updating and improving the lede with that new information. MPS1992 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Shohreh Bayat

some sentences about Shohreh Bayat was mentioned in the article:

• In 2020, Shohreh Bayat stated that she feared "returning to Iran after an image of her at a chess tournament abroad seemed to show her not wearing a hijab."[36]Bayat received the messages of support from American embassies on Twitter.

They are not relevant to the encyclopedia. I read two sources, there is any decision was made by Iran's government or any punishment for her was not applied by Iran. This is just her fear. I think this material is not encyclopedic. @El C: can I ask you to leave a comment? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment is as follows: if you wish for me to evaluate something, please document your query with diffs. El_C 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: sorry. the diff of material and some correction (1 and 2) which was done by me.Saff V. (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This talk about women rights in Iran. It is relevant. Barca (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Here is my take of it after a cursory glance at the material in dispute. Shohreh Bayat's fear was deemed worthy enough to be covered by a reliable source (The New York Times). Whether that fear was grounded in reality or not, is of interest to be sure, but not key in determining whether it is worthy of being mentioned in the article. El_C 19:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite of the point mentioned by El_C, what I like to mention is, putting such a piece of detailed information into the general article about women's rights wouldn't be appropriate. It is just fear and we don't know really whether some rights are violated or not.Saff V. (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Saff V. deleted this information from the article (based on your comment?):

"In 2020, Shohreh Bayat stated that she feared "returning to Iran after an image of her at a chess tournament abroad seemed to show her not wearing a hijab." Bayat received support from American embassies through Twitter, with the United States Embassy in Lisbon saying “No wonder Shohreh Bayat is afraid of returning to Iran", "Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, women risk harsh prison sentences for violating the mandatory hijab law.”

This information does not belong in this article? Barca (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

My comment was neither in support of removal nor in support of retention. Resolution to this content dispute should be attempted in the usual way — through article talk page discussion, or if that reaches an impasse, the dispute resolution process and its accompanying requests. Goodluck to you both in reaching an amicable resolution to the dispute. El_C 15:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for your reply. If your comment was neither in support of removal nor retention, is it right that Saff V. removed this from the article saying "Per TP: Shohreh Bayat"? Barca (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Bayat's fear

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

---

Should the following material be included in the article? "In 2020, Shohreh Bayat stated that she feared "returning to Iran after an image of her at a chess tournament abroad seemed to show her not wearing a hijab." Bayat received support from American embassies through Twitter, with the United States Embassy in Lisbon saying “No wonder Shohreh Bayat is afraid of returning to Iran", "Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, women risk harsh prison sentences for violating the mandatory hijab law.”Saff V. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

NO, Despite the point, that the reliability of the source doesn't always determine whether the material can be included or not. I have to say that this is just fear. There is nothing to show that some right is violated, for instance, Iran hasn't dealt with her legally. So this fear could be considered as a piece of detailed material which has nothing to do with such a general article.Saff V. (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The lack of rights for women, including their fear of the authoritarian IRI government should not be censored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

YES, first of all, this RfC is not presented neutrally. Bayat did not return to Iran because she didn't wear a hijab abroad, and feared retaliation from the IRI. It was everywhere in the news, and it tells about how Iranian women have to endure things such as not wearing the hijab. Barca (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes Although it is centering fear and not an explicit law, I think it's worth mentioning even for the fact that in the year 2020 the repression is still felt widely. Could the negative stigma attached to cultural and social persecution be seen as an aspect of authoritarian governments you all think? Eby024 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2020

Yes This is a notable event and this article says "The headscarf, or the hijab, has been a mandatory part of women's dress in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution but, in recent years, some women have mounted opposition and staged protests about headwear rules" so it's relevant to the article title ("Women's rights in Iran"). More articles on this: [17][18][19] Some1 (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No The specific case of Shohreh Bayat's fear is not something of encyclopedic value to this page being a general article on women's rights. She feared while many other don't! So what? Though it merits inclusion in her page or like. Does the source say it has anything to do with the women's rights? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Who are these "others"? Sahar Khodayari? And what has it anything to do with this? Also, it doesn't necessarily have to mention women rights to be included here, it's already clear as daylight that this is related to the (lack of) rights of women in Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So you need to read my comment once again. She feared...so what? Are we going to list the name of all those who fear and those who does not fear? It must be directly related to the women's right in Iran and should add something to the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be a endless list. No, I'd suggest we only gonna add the notable ones, which this one clearly is. "It must be directly related to the women's right in Iran", says who? I'd say this is pretty on-topic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes Per HistoryofIran; this should not be censored. It seems to have received enough coverage, and it reflects on the current situation for women in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There are two questions that need to be addressed when deciding whether to include this content on this page. First, whether it is relevant; and second, whether it constitutes due weight. Both these questions need to be addressed with reference to what reliable sources say. Arguing that anything is "obvious" isn't good enough. Arguing that omitting it would be censorship isn't good enough. Arguments that are not clearly based on the source material may be disregarded by the closer of this RfC (which might be me, it might be someone else). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I think inclusion of an expression of "fear" in such a general article would give it an UNDUE weight. That someone feared returning back to his/her country is perhaps something to be included in his/her page not here. Bayat is not the only woman unveiling her hijab out of Iran (though Bayat later said she did not mean to unveil intentionally). Bayat expressed her fear, so what? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RSs thought that Shohreh Bayat's decision not to return to Iran because she was photographed without a hijab was notable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: this source from CNN may be relevant - Bayat's concerns stem from a photograph taken from the event which appears to show her not wearing a hijab. The picture was subsequently shared and Iranian websites reportedly condemned her for what some described as protesting the country's compulsory law."I knew that I had to cover my hair so I did that like many Iranian women but I was wearing a loose hijab because I don't believe in the hijab," Bayat told CNN Sport."Actually, I hate the hijab. I was just trying to wear it somehow to show that I am not a religious person and I was wearing it in a modern way. By Iranian standards, it was totally okay." [20] Barca (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References
References

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.

Radio Farda

@Mhhossein: You made a revert saying that radio farda "is a hostile source to Iran". [21] Where us the proof that RF is a hostile source to Iran? Barca (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have pointed some other issues with the content, the most serious one being DUE. Should we list every single incident of women being arrested? Also, the content does not say how it's something to be covered in Women's rights in Iran. As for the source, imagine RFE/RL is funded by US which is clearly hostile to Iran and I believe the subject of this article is close to its propagandistic mission. The issue with RF is discussed here which shows the usage is disputed. The users suggest attribution when using the source in for such a subject. Perhaps, as I asked in my edit summary, you need to find a better source and show it's a DUE content. --Mhhossein ^talk 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: We have been using RF in many other articles, this is the first time I find someone saying this is a source hostile to Iran. What about these others?:

• "The Iranian government has strict rules governing women's clothing and dancing with members of the opposite sex in public is banned, except in front of immediate family members. Ms Hojabri's videos showed her dancing at home without the mandatory headscarf, or hijab. Several other dancers have reportedly also been arrested in recent weeks." BBC

• "Hojabri has since appeared on a state television programme with other detainees, in which she and others made what activists say were forced confessions, a tactic often used by Iranian authorities. State TV showed a young woman, her face blurred, crying and shaking while describing her motivation for producing the videos." The Guardian

• “You will be laughed at if you tell people anywhere in the world that 17 and 18-year-old girls are arrested for their dance, happiness and beauty on charges of spreading indecency, while child rapists and others are free,” wrote Iranian blogger and political dissident Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki. Iranian state TV aired a video in which she apologized for “breaking moral norms” but said any breach was not her intention. Some Iranian news websites reported three other people had been arrested on similar charges in the past weeks. The reports said they were released on bail." Reuters

• "Maedeh Hojabri had posted several videos to her popular Instagram account of her dancing in her bedroom to Iranian and Western music. Hojabri's account has been blocked but her videos have spread to other accounts and been reposted by activists protesting her detention. Her arrest has also led to an outcry of support from ordinary Iranians who have posted videos of themselves dancing online in solidarity." CNN

• "Like many teenage girls, Maedeh Hojabri liked to dance in her bedroom, record it and post clips to Instagram. But Ms. Hojabri lives in Iran, where women are not allowed to dance, at least not in public. The 19-year-old was quietly arrested in May and her page was taken down, leaving her 600,000 followers wondering where she had gone." New York Times

• "Under the Islamic Republic, the use of headscarf in public is mandatory for women, while dancing is prohibited. However, several women have challenged those rules and expressed their dissent through social media." Aljazeera

• "Women in Iran Are Dancing to Protest the Arrest of a Teenage Instagrammer." Time.com

• "Iranian women post videos of themselves dancing in support of arrested teenager.""-teenager/ Telegraph

• "New Details Revealed of Iranian Women Arrested for Dancing Videos." VOA news

• "Iranian women dance on social media in support of teenager arrested over Instagram video." Independent

• "Iran: Women Arrested for Dancing." HRW

Do you have a problem with adding these to the article? Barca (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you have not replied to my question. Do you have a problem with adding these to the article? Barca (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Which of the above is related to the disputed edit? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Well, these other sources are also about the prohibition of women dancing online in Iran. I will take your response as saying you don't have a dispute with these new sources and will add them to the article. Thank you. Barca (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Barca: No, I don't agree with those additions. You should show how these are DUE and are connected to the subject without original research. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Are you serious? For over two weeks I've been asking you if you have a problem with the sources. I have explained why the information is connected to the subject. If you don't agree, then you need to explain why the information is not connected to the subject Barca (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes very serious. You added the content, you need to say why those random mentions are DUE "women's right" issues. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• @BarcrMac: You're getting needlessly aggressive here. Our policy about due weight isn't just about connection to a topic, it's about importance relative to other things covered by the sources. I haven't reviewed the sources here, so I don't know if Mhhossein's objection is correct or not, but it is at least based in policy, and so you need to engage with the substance of this question (why is this content necessary to comply with WP:DUE?) and stop yelling at him about other things. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Vanamonde, it's not that I'm yelling at him, it's just tiring to ask Mhhossein (for two weeks) if he has a problem with the edit without getting a response from him, and then when I include it in the article, he says he does not agree. Mhhossein, the sources talk about the Iranian government arresting women who have danced online, and then putting them on TV and making them apologise on air. The sources are reliable, and there is many of them. This is the reason why this is WP:DUE. Women not being allowed to dance in public is about Womens' rights. Barca (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Painting santur.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The use of headscarf in public is mandatory for women while dancing is prohibited?!

Dancing is iligal in Iran even for men.What are these nonsense statements in this article?!Simsala111 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)