Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edits have been this time by a Mardetanha.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

changed by Kat73 to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plain and simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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