Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move February 2014
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus, so the page remains at its current title. For the past month commenters appear split between the idea that the two articles (both comprehensive) should have titles reflecting the respective governing regimes, while others have remarked that this article should be titled to reflect that the Islamic Republic is the "current" Iran. In the course of this conversation, neither emerges as the more compelling idea. It may be worth having a broader conversation on how the topic of human rights on Iran is addressed—one that is not as time-bound as a move request. Harej (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran → Human rights in Iran – In accordance with other such articles and WP:COMMONNAME also this is a POV fork of adding "Islamic..." Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The nominator is being disingenuous here. Human rights in Iran is a disambiguation page linking to two articles: Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran (1925–79) Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979 onwards). Given the radical regime change which occurred in 1979, it seems to me to be quite sensible to split our coverage of the topic in this way, and the charge that it is a POV fork seems completely unfounded.
I can see a case for saying that the history of human rights in Iran should be regarded as a single topic for which there should be one or more sub-articles, but that would involve a radical restructuring of the articles rather than a renaming, and it is not what the nominator proposes.
I hope that the nominator will withdraw this ill-founded proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)- Note also that the same proposal was made in 2010, and is visible higher up this page. It was closed as "no consensus".
The nominator should have drawn attention to the existence of that proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note also that the same proposal was made in 2010, and is visible higher up this page. It was closed as "no consensus".
- Support : Iran is much more common. Enough said. OccultZone (Talk) 14:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Fortunately, WP:CONCISE works here. This is (as per BrownHairedGirl's astute observation) a bit of a malformed move request. But of course the primary topic is the situation in the modern state, right? Human rights in Egypt doesn't cover the mistreatment of the Hebrews prior to Moses delivering them. I think a reasonable reader typing in Human rights in Iran will be looking for the modern state's human rights record. Red Slash 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you think that it is "reasonable" to be uninterested in history?
WP:RECENTISM has generally been regarded as a form of systemic bias rather than a virtue, and Red Slash's inability to distinguish between 35 years ago and 2,000 years ago is not clever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you think that it is "reasonable" to be uninterested in history?
- @BrownHairedGirl: Let others have their opinion. OccultZone (Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @OccultZone:. Others have expressed their opinion, and I have responded to it. That's how consensus-forming discussions are supposed to work: as reasoned debate, rather than as expressions of personal preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, No offense taken, though I can see how someone else would be offended by how that was worded. Umm, I fail to see how the historical human rights record of a country that lasted 54 years has primary topic over the active human rights record of an actual existing country--similar of course to how Iran is about the modern state. In fact, even Persia takes you straight to Iran, despite all the long history of Persian culture and civilization, though of course some of that fits into the modern Iran article. In fact, this raises an excellent question--why on earth do we have two articles here? Shouldn't we merge them? Red Slash 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: the reason you don't see how the historical record has primary topic is that it doesn't have primary topic; Human rights in Iran is a disambiguation page.
Iran is an article about a state which has existed within roughly its present borders since 1921, and was ruled (to varying degrees) by the same dynasty from 1926 to 1979. Did you read the article before commenting? It also includes several screenfuls of text on the very long history of Iran before 1921. By contrast, Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran is solely about the last 35 years of Iranian history. It does not even attempt to summarise the period before 1979; it treats 1979 as a year zero.
If you think that the two articles should be merged, then feel free to make a merge proposal. That would be a separate discussion; this discussion is about whether to rename an existing article in a way which obscures the fact that it is not structured to provide an overview of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)- Correct. That's the normal way we do things; this article should be able to focus on human rights currently in Iran and possibly a little bit of history, that is, a bit of a merge to provide a general concept here of the history without dealing with it too much (see Human rights in the United States, which for instance does deal with pre-1865 slavery, but only briefly, because it's part of the history of human rights in the U.S. and not a direct part of the current situation). As there's enough for a separate article on the Shah's governmental record, we can link to it from here and put in about a paragraph, if you think it's appropriate. And there's little reason not to leave it as a stand-alone article. Here's the root question, okay? When someone searches "Human rights in Iran", what are they looking for? It is, to me, painfully obvious that they are most likely looking for the human rights record of the current edition of the state of Iran. It is painfully obvious to me that this is the primary topic. The only reason this was not proposed as a multi-move, I assume, is WP:TWODABS (in other words, the disambiguation page will be deleted upon a successful move request). Red Slash 03:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- What's "painfully obvious" to you is your own personal perspective. Unless you have some evidence to support your WP:RECENTISM, then that is just a WP:ILIKEIT argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Iran is a country, so when we talk about Iran, we're talking about the country. I really can't get past this. I also kindly point out what you must know full well, which is that WP:RECENTISM is just an essay and is useless in discussions like this; people throw it around as an accusation but without any rigorous basis for when it does or doesn't apply. I will say that this is the first time I've ever heard of anything that's lasted for thirty-five years being claimed as WP:RECENTISM. Red Slash 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, when we talk about Iran, we're talking about the country. That's why it's inappropriate that you want an article to be titled as if it was about the country, when its contents are solely about the current regime in that country, and we have a fine article about the previous regime. Iran is Iran whichever regime we are talking about.
- As to recentism, do you accept that a period which began 35 years ago is more recent than one which ended 35 years ago? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- While a the subject of this article is clearly more recent than the subject of the other article, that has no bearing on the move discussion. Being more recent is not related to any policy or other guiding criteria on primary topic. Even the essay WP:RECENT does not suggest that just by being more recent an article is less deserving of primary topic. It simply suggests that we not favor ephemeral topics. (If One Direction released a song called "Iran" that became a worldwide phenomenon, a la "Harlem Shake", we would never consider moving Iran. Regardless of pageviews. This is because it's obvious that the country is the most significant thing on a long-term scale. Iran was notable long before now and we can guess that it will continue to be notable far longer into the future than any pop song. See Talk:Anne Hathaway for a discussion that went the other way, where the far older woman was deposed from primary topic in favor of the more notable present-day actress.) Your point that this article, if placed at "Human rights in Iran", must include information dating back from prior to 1979 is absolutely correct. Absolutely. It must. No arguments. This is not just a move request, but also a (slight) rescope. Yes. Red Slash 21:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Iran is a country, so when we talk about Iran, we're talking about the country. I really can't get past this. I also kindly point out what you must know full well, which is that WP:RECENTISM is just an essay and is useless in discussions like this; people throw it around as an accusation but without any rigorous basis for when it does or doesn't apply. I will say that this is the first time I've ever heard of anything that's lasted for thirty-five years being claimed as WP:RECENTISM. Red Slash 03:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- What's "painfully obvious" to you is your own personal perspective. Unless you have some evidence to support your WP:RECENTISM, then that is just a WP:ILIKEIT argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. That's the normal way we do things; this article should be able to focus on human rights currently in Iran and possibly a little bit of history, that is, a bit of a merge to provide a general concept here of the history without dealing with it too much (see Human rights in the United States, which for instance does deal with pre-1865 slavery, but only briefly, because it's part of the history of human rights in the U.S. and not a direct part of the current situation). As there's enough for a separate article on the Shah's governmental record, we can link to it from here and put in about a paragraph, if you think it's appropriate. And there's little reason not to leave it as a stand-alone article. Here's the root question, okay? When someone searches "Human rights in Iran", what are they looking for? It is, to me, painfully obvious that they are most likely looking for the human rights record of the current edition of the state of Iran. It is painfully obvious to me that this is the primary topic. The only reason this was not proposed as a multi-move, I assume, is WP:TWODABS (in other words, the disambiguation page will be deleted upon a successful move request). Red Slash 03:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Red Slash: the reason you don't see how the historical record has primary topic is that it doesn't have primary topic; Human rights in Iran is a disambiguation page.
- BrownHairedGirl, No offense taken, though I can see how someone else would be offended by how that was worded. Umm, I fail to see how the historical human rights record of a country that lasted 54 years has primary topic over the active human rights record of an actual existing country--similar of course to how Iran is about the modern state. In fact, even Persia takes you straight to Iran, despite all the long history of Persian culture and civilization, though of course some of that fits into the modern Iran article. In fact, this raises an excellent question--why on earth do we have two articles here? Shouldn't we merge them? Red Slash 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @OccultZone:. Others have expressed their opinion, and I have responded to it. That's how consensus-forming discussions are supposed to work: as reasoned debate, rather than as expressions of personal preferences. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Let others have their opinion. OccultZone (Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Our page on WP:RECENTISM itself proposes that we consider the question, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" Many of the issues of human rights in Iran addressed in the article are already more than ten years old, the current regime having been in place since 1979. Whatever it means, applying "recentism" can't mean that we treat a 35-year old situation the same as something that arose last month. bd2412 T 19:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's a good question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we treat the 35-year-old situation as one on which more information is now available, and on which scholars have had time to reflect and to debate assessments. Recentism is what you are proposing: that we focus solely on the most recent period, and relegate the period only 35 years ago to a separate topic which is not even summarised in an article which would then be mislabelled as being about Iran, rather than about a regime which began 31 years after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If you would prefer that Human rights in Iran was a substantive article, then start creating an article which reflects that actual title. The current pair of articles are named in a way which accurately describes their scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's a good question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; we treat the 35-year-old situation as one on which more information is now available, and on which scholars have had time to reflect and to debate assessments. Recentism is what you are proposing: that we focus solely on the most recent period, and relegate the period only 35 years ago to a separate topic which is not even summarised in an article which would then be mislabelled as being about Iran, rather than about a regime which began 31 years after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Support per Red Slash. See WP:TWODABS and use a hatnote. --BDD (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:TWODABS refers to situations where "an ambiguous term has no primary topic". What evidence do you have that there is a primary topic here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Doesn't need the qualifier to its common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Difference between Imperial State with 1979 Iranian Revolution ,is important point. Amnesty International, UN Human Rights, U.S Department of State Maurice07 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Should Iran also be a disambiguation page, then? --BDD (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- If we had two completely separate and self-contained articles, one pre-79 band the other post-79, then we should indeed have a disambiguation page.
- That's not what we have with the country, but it is what we have on human rights. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Should Iran also be a disambiguation page, then? --BDD (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Support. Common name. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sean Kesser was banned due to sockpupppetry, see case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistorNE.GreyShark (dibra) 17:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Iran" is the common name for the country, but this is not about the country in general: it's about the country during the current government. "Islamic Republic of Iran" is the common name when we're specifically talking about the current government. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikipedia has two articles on the human rights situation in Iran: one for the current state, and also one for the immediate predecessor state. Each of these articles is extensive, encyclopedic, and reliably-sourced. A merge would be ill-advised, for reasons of length alone, as well as fundamental difference in the topic. As such, precision demands that WP maintain this article at its current title. While Iran is the common name of the state, when referring to the topic of human rights specifically, it is good practice to disambiguate between the current state and its immediate predecessor state. Using the full name of the Islamic Republic of Iran is a fair and neutral way to accomplish this disambiguation. Xoloz (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Xoloz, I'll ask you the same question I asked BHG. Should Iran be a disambiguation page? If we're unsure whether users searching for "Iran" are looking for the Islamic Republic or a previous state, wouldn't the argument "Using the full name of the Islamic Republic..." apply to the parent article Iran as well? --BDD (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give you much the same answer as BHG -- if there were reason to have two separate, lengthy articles on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Imperial State of Iran, I'd support disambiguation between them. WP does have Pahlavi Dynasty as its article on the prior regime; but, as its title suggests, that article is as much about the ruling family as it is the structure of the state over which they ruled. As a result of this fine distinction, I don't see a need to disambiguate Iran currently. It is the relative completeness and separateness of the "human rights" articles as they currently stand that suggests disambiguation by full official national name is appropriate. If the human rights articles were less well-developed, it might be worthwhile to consider a different approach. Honestly, when someone goes to the trouble to search "human rights in Iran", I think they will probably find both articles very interesting, irrespective of the original intent of their search. I want to do everything possible to bring both articles to a reader's attention. Xoloz (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Iran is the country. This is not a comprehensive review of human rights issues in the country's history: it's a comprehensive review of human rights issues under the current government, and we have a separate article about human rights issues under a previous government. I don't care whether or not we implement the proposal of merging the two, but as long as they're separate, both discuss human rights in Iran. Since they have to have separate titles, we might as well use the official name, since it's well-recognised (everyone knows what the Islamic Republic of Iran is), and if any other terms exist for the current government, they're much less common than this one. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Iran has same name for many centuries, but still 90% of content from article "Iran" is related to Islamic Republic of Iran, and for other periods there is general article "History of Iran" or specific articles by dynasties. In this particular case, I believe the best solution is to rename it to "Human rights in Iran" (with short historical intro), and also rename other one to "History of human rights in Iran" which would also include pre-Pahlavi period. Current division to 1925-1979 and 1979-present is problematic for including lenghty discussion about early movements during Iranian Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911) or feminism which also started in Qajar period. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Iran is the country. This is not a comprehensive review of human rights issues in the country's history: it's a comprehensive review of human rights issues under the current government, and we have a separate article about human rights issues under a previous government. I don't care whether or not we implement the proposal of merging the two, but as long as they're separate, both discuss human rights in Iran. Since they have to have separate titles, we might as well use the official name, since it's well-recognised (everyone knows what the Islamic Republic of Iran is), and if any other terms exist for the current government, they're much less common than this one. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give you much the same answer as BHG -- if there were reason to have two separate, lengthy articles on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Imperial State of Iran, I'd support disambiguation between them. WP does have Pahlavi Dynasty as its article on the prior regime; but, as its title suggests, that article is as much about the ruling family as it is the structure of the state over which they ruled. As a result of this fine distinction, I don't see a need to disambiguate Iran currently. It is the relative completeness and separateness of the "human rights" articles as they currently stand that suggests disambiguation by full official national name is appropriate. If the human rights articles were less well-developed, it might be worthwhile to consider a different approach. Honestly, when someone goes to the trouble to search "human rights in Iran", I think they will probably find both articles very interesting, irrespective of the original intent of their search. I want to do everything possible to bring both articles to a reader's attention. Xoloz (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Xoloz, I'll ask you the same question I asked BHG. Should Iran be a disambiguation page? If we're unsure whether users searching for "Iran" are looking for the Islamic Republic or a previous state, wouldn't the argument "Using the full name of the Islamic Republic..." apply to the parent article Iran as well? --BDD (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]If the move fails, I'm just gonna write up an article that puts both of these in one single article, with links to the articles on the specific time periods using {{main}}, unless y'all think that's a bad idea. Red Slash 02:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Won't fail. OccultZone (Talk) 06:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
"Banning women from universities"
[edit]Before claiming that banning women from universities (science and engineering studies in particular) is a "fact" and it's "supported by RS", I suggest you to take a look into some more reliable data like UNESCO :
- number of female students: 2,038,292 in 2011; 2,191,409 in 2012 (ranked #5 in the World)
- female enrolment in science studies: 217,323 in 2011; 219,414 in 2012 (ranked #2 in the World)
- female enrolment in engineering studies: 414,898 in 2011; 476,039 in 2012 (ranked #1 in the World)
On the other hand, we have Robert Tait (British correspondent from Israel) who claimed in Telegraph that women were banned from most of listed fields in 2012. Considering facts from UNESCO, his claims are one of the most ridiculous report in history of yellow journalism. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Bare-face lie of Sean Kesser. UNESCO does not state what Sean Kesser stated above.--Panicnovel (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does, on the right. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Current situation
[edit]Ahmaninejad era information should be moved from Current situation merged into Notable issues. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- IMO, 'Current situation' should be renamed, you have any suggestion? OccultZone (Talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- @BoogaLouie and OccultZone: Many paragraphs in this section are duplicated in Human rights in Iran#Current situation. Should these sections be merged? Jarble (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- "this section" is which section? A bit busy at present but anything that trims and merges stuff from Ahmaninejad era into notable issues is fine with me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Christian issues
[edit]I have introduced a short section on the persecution of Christians with two notable examples and references old and new.Cpsoper (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Split proposal
[edit]There is currently a draft at Draft:Criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran that would split off from this topic, and presumably some content here would be moved there. @AngusWOOF: suggested this be discussed here before the draft is approved. Also pinging the draft's creator @Fad Ariff: as part of this discussion. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- add WP:IRAN and WP:HR wikiprojects to the discussion for their feedback AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 07:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you BuySomeApples and AngusW🐶🐶F. After the feedback for the first draft, I updated the draft to make it distinguishably different (the new draft looks at broader topics rather than focusing on human right violations) I think this could be a good contribution considering all that’s been on the news recently. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- "Criticism of [country]" seems like a weird title for an article. We don't have other articles like this as far as I can tell, and it's not even obvious to me what criticism of an entire country would mean. The draft seems to be mainly about criticism of the Iranian government, in which case maybe Criticism of the Iranian government would be a better title, though even then we should be careful about the points at WP:CRITS. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Good point. We do have articles like Criticism of the United States government or Criticism of the Israeli government, so I would support changing this one to Criticism of the Iranian government. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)