Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran/Archive 1

French Version
There's quite a great deal of information in the French version of this page.  Any translators? Tototom 09:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try contacting one of these translators or bringing it up here. Skinnyweed 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have translated the section on "Liberté de la presse" from fr:, and the other subsections there will follow. What is the protocol for citations and references from translated pages? I avoided translating one of the quotes, and left no references, which were mostly from Reporters Without Borders or French language sources, and perhaps have an "official" English version.Craig Baker 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The section "Contrôle d'internet" is finished and posted. There is a little picture of "internet black holes" on fr: that might be used. Again I'm reluctant to post the quotes as translations from French, but the Reporters Without Borders page does not seem to have an official English version. Craig Baker 06:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The site of Reporters Without Borders has the English "equivalent" of one of the quoted articles, but it seems to be missing most of the information: [] Craig Baker 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I inserted the introduction from the section on gender discrimination from the French version, but I'm still searching for official English versions of the relevant laws. They are articles 906, 907, 911, and 920 of the Iranian Civil Code. Craig Baker 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I translated the parts regarding the legislative texts with the sources from the equivalent french article. It could be hard to keep this article NPOV if most of it is translated from french as it's not entirely neutral either... Claveau 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! this is a big help in getting started....Smackmonkey 09:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not NPOV
Needless to say Iran is one of the world's worst human rights violators, but this is an encyclopedia, and as such this article needs to be rewritten to conform to NPOV standards. ♠ SG →Talk 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Iran is far better than most developing countries in terms of democracy and definitely better that US in terms of murdering people.

Iran has the highest record of shutting down newspapers. But this does not mean Iran is the most restrictive country in terms of freedom of expression. In most developing countries the government will not let the newspapers to run! Obviously when there is no newspaper, they don't have to shut down them !!

In terms of ethnic minorities, again Iran is far better than Turkey which is waiting to join EU ! In terms of terrorism, no Iranian was involved in any terroristic events as 11/9 or London bombing.

Even in terms of homosexuality, I have several friends who are gay and have a reasonable life in Iran. These stories about execution of gays, are all lies made by some Iranian gays to earn money or to get residence permit in Europe.


 * We shut newspapers down in Canada? Pfft.  If that were so the national Post wouldnt be celebrating its 10th Aniversary, the highly conservative and controversial publication was nothing but an anti liberal rant while they were in power.  Iran is a horrible violator of human rights of all kinds.  In fact all of the intelectuals are fleeing the country.  And any country that has a law that says women have to wear something while men dont (IE the Hijab) is an abuser of human rights.  For example in Canada Men can go topless, and even though most women dont they are allowed to if they so choose to do so, although its not very popular amongst women to do this, but the point is they have the RIGHT to so says the courts in Ontario.  When women in Iran are allowed to go topless then they will not be an abuser of womens rights.  But Hell will freeze over before the mullahs do something like that. --74.104.48.172 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) oops--Meanie 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of human rights in Iran is very common, but it does not mean that Iran is one of the worst. --Sinooher17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Iran is far better than most developing countries in terms of democracy and definitely better that US in terms of murdering people" What? It's better than Saudi Arabia and Saddam's Iraq regarding democracy. The second half of this sentence doesn't even make any sense. Are you insinuating that the application of the death penalty in Iran is more fair and judicious than the US? Good luck convincing people of that.

"In terms of terrorism, no Iranian was involved in any terroristic events as 11/9 or London bombing." Iran agressively funds Hezbolah and also funds Palestinian suicide bombers. Issuing the fatwa for Salamon Rushdie's murder was an act of state sponsored terrorism.


 * Please add your signature, when you comment here. --Sinooher20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article could become more balanced, however because of it's sensitive nature I think every statement should be sourced from the beginning. For the record, I think Iran's democracy is a joke and it kills FAR more people than the US when you adjust the numbers for base population (usa 250m+ / Iran 70m+). Smackmonkey 09:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that using the phrasing "one of the worst" violators of human rights is not appropriate. It sounds very weasel word-ish and also is not true. Just a quick list of countries with worse human rights records: (1) Rwanda, (2) Sudan, (3) Burma, (4) North Korea, (5)Zimbabwe. Now since I'm no expert and can list five worse violators, the wording is poorly chosen.

Chain murdering intellectuals
The event have to be thoroughly covered in this article. also "cultural revolution". --Wikkoqopi09:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is not neutral right from the very beginning; all the intro discusses is alleged human rights violations, nothing else. BhaiSaab talk 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to play devils advocate- perhaps it's because Iran has an abysmal human rights record? Tototom 12:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, all articles on "Human Rights in country X,Y or Z" contain allegations, few of which are proved. That's in the nature of the subject, HR abuses rarely get tried in a court of law.

Exile 14:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because they rarely get tried in a court of law -- that does NOT mean they don't OFTEN occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.0.197 (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Issues
I added a link to the main article Religious minorities in Iran, which has a large section on the government's treatment of religious minorities. I don't know if there's a way to link to a section of another article.Craig Baker 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Background: unsourced
The Background section is totally unsourced. The only cites supplied don't appear to support the sentence they are attachde to. I think the whole section is OR commentary and should be removed, but will wait to see if anyone can improve it. Ashmoo 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While not totally sourced, I do believe what is said to be true. Thus, I strongly section should be kept- however as Ashmoo said, any sources would be welcome. Smackmonkey 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for the article anyway, maybe it should be scrapped altogether. To have it or not does not help one understand the subject better (in my opinion, of course).Claveau 07:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You think so? I would have said the opposite again. ;-) I think it sumerizes a great deal of the information on the pages below- if you read through it you see that everything traces back to those two causes. Smackmonkey 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true for you and I, but there may be people who would draw different conclusions (wouldn't know how really, but that's beside the point) and it might be better on the "encyclopedic" point of view to let people draw their own conclusions. Just a thought Claveau 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial and POV:Human rights in Islam
There are different viewpoint about human rights. There are different human rights available in Islam:. We shouldn't judge Islamic republic on the basis of europian human rights. Please look at this book. Islamic republic believes in this book theoritically:THE TREATISE ON RIGHTS--Sa.vakilian 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The treatment of women in the majority of muslim countries is morally reprehensable. They are not treated as equals.  This is not good human rights policy.  Are you saying that it is unfair that we are saying that all lives are sacred and not just those who believe in a particular religion and are male.  I think we need to be rational here in that human rights are measured based on western standards, because westerners enjoy the highest levels of freedom and human rights at the present time than any other group in history.  While the Islamic world has some of the worst human rights in the present day.  Probably not in history some regions have been pretty bad.  Sharia law is a horrible creation that says the testimony of a woman only carries one half that of a man.  How is that human rights.  That is subjegation and controle.--Meanie 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "We shouldn't judge Islamic republic on the basis of europian human rights." It is a matter of Iran's compliance with international conventions relating to human rights, of which it is a signatory and therefore has obligations. It is not about "European values" but international laws and conventions that Iran has accepted. However, LGBT rights are not enshrined in these human rights conventions and therefore are not normally the basis for seeking asylum. Ironically, the US and Iran are united in their resistance to stopping LGBT rights from forming a part of international human rights standards.
 * Meanie: There are plenty of secular states with atrocious human rights records, namely China and Russia. Women are not just oppressed by mullahs, there are plenty of examples where women have been, until recently, oppressed and discriminated against in Western democracies. And Sharia is a form of jurisprudence, it is not a rigid set of laws and punishments. Although the implementation of Sharia is often harsh, the implementation of secular criminal law can also be harsh - the Americans have a habit of executing black people after dubious trials, does that mean their entire legal and penal system should be condemned? So, the debates are not simply about Western versus Islamic values.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The UN has international standards for human rights and I many Islamic countries are UN member nations who can contribute to the creation of these standards. Your POV is of course valid; please insert it in the article.  And by the way, Americans do not execute anyone after dubious trials; if you believe that you might have been influenced by anti-American propaganda. Elizmr 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as a Note on the death penatly thing in the US, the federal one is almost never used. However criminal law is the jurisdiction of the individual states.  Most US states (I think I am correct on this however I could be wrong) do not have the death penalty.  And some that do have a policy of not executing someone on their first go round.  And many more like California you are more likely to die on death row than from a lethal injection since it takes so long to kill someone.--Meanie 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most US states do have the death penalty (38 out of 50). Three people have been executed since the re-enactement of the death penalty for federally prosecuted cases.  Some states (New York for example) have not had any executions since 1976, but still retain the option of imposing the death penalty for certain offenses.Claveau 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vague wording
I think that there is a lot of vague wording in the article that is confusing, particularly the following: - "historical petrification of Sharia law" - I don't understand what this means. Does it really apply to Iran, where government by the clergy only began 27 years ago? - "The Iranian legislation being strongly influenced by the precepts of Islam, it consolidates the supremacy of the man, which is shown in different articles of the Iranian civil code" - this doesn't make sense to me and seems to rule out the fact that Islamic precepts are a matter of interpretation. - "Children's rights in Iran at the international law level" - can no-one find an adequate description of Iranian law on children's rights? - The third paragraph of "gender issues" is going on about Arab countries, which is not relevant to human rights in Iran. I think much of the article is a mess and needs cleaning up, with more references and NPOV, in order to bring it up to standard.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Move?
How about "Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran"? Biruitorul 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Execution Of A Teenage Girl

 * Execution Of A Teenage Girl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.65.197.19 (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Photo of a flogged woman
I checked the source website of the photo of a woman's backside, and the alleged reason for her flogging is entirely different from what the caption in this article claims. Why would you just make up facts when the source website gives its own explanation? "This picture was sent to Dr. Homa Darabi from a woman in Iran.This picture was taken 20 days after she was lashed fifty times for being present at a family gathering where men other than her father and brother were present. Her crime? She is a single woman. It is forbidden for women to be present under the same roof with men other than their close relatives (father, brother and son) without proper hijab." |(source) Anyway, the Wikipedia editor's fiction has also propagated to the "Flagellation" article (or vice versa) so I'm correcting that reference too.

Jewish Issues
I have some questions regarding this topic:

1) It is ambiguos whether the term "Jew" as used in this article is meant in the religeous or ethnic sense. Are we dealing with a religeous issue or an ethnic issue or both?

2) If this is a religeous issue, how does the treatment of followers of Judaism compare with that of people from other religeons?

3) Is it really unique enough to warrant it's own section, or should the treatment of followers of Judaism in Iran be put in the section or page on religeous minorities?

4) If this is an ethnic issue (i.e. someone born into a Jewish family who converts to Islam at age 21 is still not considered equal to an ethnically Persian/Iranian Muslim) than how does the treatment of Jewish people compare to that of other ethnic minorities in Iran?

5) Is it really unique enough to warrant it's own section, or should the treatment of Jewish people in Iran be put in a section or page on ethnic minorities?

6) If there are only 25,000 ethnically Jewish people in Iran, than I doubt they are the largest ethnic minority. Should we not have sections on larger ethnic minorities?

7) Can only a Jewish (ethnically or religeously) person be charged with and imprisoned or executed for Zionism?

8) Have only Jewish people been charged with and executed or imprisoned for Zionism?

9) If the answers to questions 7 and 8 are 'no', than I suggest this be incorporated into a separate section or page. (I'm not really asking a question here)

10) Who is Amir Cyrus Razzaghi and why does it matter what he says? As it stands, I don't know why we are listening to this person.

11) Is the last half of the Paragraph one long quote? I can not tell because there are no closing marks.

I'm not going to flag or delete anything. However, I really question the necessesity of a section on "Jewish Issues". I think this information should be incorporated elsewhere, such as the page on religeous issues or a page on ethnic issues. Thank you for your time, SB 67.70.36.199 02:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon issue
The article has now been created. Also, the info added didnt have anything to do with human rights necessarily, it was protests initiated by the cartoon.Hajji Piruz 17:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, it has and moreover it is reported by Amnesty - dont delete neutral sourced information.--Dacy69 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The report is not about Human rights, and furthermore, stop spamming the articles with information that already has its own article.Hajji Piruz 20:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Information might be relevant for several article. On how many articles you have argued about the name of Azerbaijan? Well, as a compromise we can put some short sentence to cartoon event. But we should leave information about aftermath repression.--Dacy69 14:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated article for recent facts/figures on transexuals in Iran
See my edit here. I cited to a guardian article as the source. --Marksspite133 02:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags for cleanup and POV
I have attempted to cleanup and rewrite the article. Does anyone have an objection to my removing the cleanup and POV tag? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. There is lots more to do. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the POV tag? Anyone think it's still POV? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hearing no protest, POV tag removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people has raised many questions about the neutrality of the article on this talk page, please don't remove the POV tag until thsoe concerns have been addressed. --CreazySuit (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Name change to Human rights in Iran
Editor Koavf changed the article name from Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran to Human rights in Iran without any discussion. I'm not at all sure it is a good idea. Much of the content of the article refers specifically to the IRI and not Iran generically.

Any comments? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the current name should stay. For example, while France is officially the French Republic, the article on its human rights is called Human rights in France.  Furthermore, this article also goes over some of the history of the country, which is not specific to the IRI.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorting out name of article: Human rights in Iran or Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran?

 * 23 November 2007 Sinooher changed the article name from Human rights in Iran to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
 * Koavf changed the article name back to Human rights in Iran 9 March 2008,
 * Crazy Suit changed it back to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran a couple weeks later, 23 March 2008.

We should decide this once and for all and not what the name is as it makes a difference to the wording of the text in the article.

In favor of Human rights in Iran

 * In favor of Human rights in Iran, Arguement: Most of the Human Rights articles about a particular country are just Human rights in France or Human rights in Germany and do not include the full formal name of the country.
 * Support Human Rights in Iran -this article contains history of human rights which includes details before it was the IRI. Note that the Human rights in the People's Republic of China article does not cover any historical human rights in China.  If the current name remains, the history parts should be removed.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The standard is "human rights in [short form name];" China is an exception, as there are two Chinese states - the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. It's irrelevant how important the revolutions are to their forms of government. If there is enough material for two articles, then it should be split and one of the articles would be called "Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran." By the way, you should list this at WP:RM and make an actual request to move. If you need help with this, let me know. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the naming standard is to use the short-form name, and this improves accessibility.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by IdiotSavant (talk • contribs) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In favor of Human rights in Iran unless you want to have a separate article for Shah's time, which would be necessary otherwise. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

 * In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Arguement: some articles do include the full name of the country - e.g. Human rights in the People's Republic of China (not Human rights in China). Both Iran and China underwent a revolution in the last century and both now have radically different governments then they did before  their revolution, so it makes sence to include the full name of the regime. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, per User:BoogaLouie. Human Rights volitions of the Islamic Republic, should go under the Islamic Republic's name. --CreazySuit (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In favor of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as per above. Additionally, Iran has been as an independent state under the same name for thousands of years. 30 years of recent history is a negligible period of time when it comes to history of Iran. Sinooher (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Just wanted to request that people refrain from moving the page anymore until the discussion here is resolved. The last thing we want is a move war. Khoikhoi 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Branch
I will create a branch Human Rights in the Pahlavi Dynasty to resolve this issue, and edit Human rights in Iran to point to the two branch articles.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should wait until the discussion complete and a consensus with how to structure the articles before you go ahead and create a new article. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for consensus
Since we have no consensus but more votes in favor of Human rights in Iran than Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, how about we use Human rights in Iran with the article two major sections being something like Human rights before the Islamic Republic and The Islamic Republic? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Erxnmedia has created a Human Rights in Iran article with links to Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Pahlavi Dynasty, etc. which he or she is not supposed to do. Please stop that Erxnmedia, were not done sorting this out yet. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I told Erxnmedia the exact same thing a few days ago, the issue is still under the discussions and the RM request has not been resolved yet. Unfortunately, Erxnmedia did the same thing with "U.S. support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war" creating that page (POV-fork) in the middle of the move discussions on Talk:U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war.--CreazySuit (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, because of Erxnmedia's experiment I can't vote. Clearly, if the article addresses anything before 1979 then it should just be Human rights in Iran. I don't think that is totally viable since we would be giving undue weight to modern history by having it all in the same article. However, if it is just about the Islamic Republic then the current title is acceptable but I would recommend breaking it down into time periods just to avoid the issue entirely Human rights in Iran (1925-1979) and Human rights in Iran (1979-present)... of course there is the problem with -present but, that was my preliminary thought and I think it is at least much better than Human rights in the Pahlavi Dynasty which it would be "under the" and, well, we don't have Human rights in the Chinese Communist Party... gren グレン 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Gren,


 * "in the Pahlavi Dynasty" is not semantically the same as "in the Chinese Communist Party". "Pahlavi Dynasty" was the name of the government in Iran/Persia during a certain period of time, say 1925-1979.  Semantically it is the same as "Islamic Republic of Iran" in the sense of identifying a particular reigning government.  A similar construction for Russia would be "under the Czars", "in the Soviet Union" and "in the Russian Federation".  For China it would be "in the Republic of China" (1912-1949) and "in the People's Republic of China" (1949-present).  For Japan you would have "Meiji era" of say 1854-1945 and "Pacifist era" of 1945-present or something to that effect.


 * In splitting the discussion between "Iran" as the root and "Pahlavi Dynasty" and "Islamic Republic" I was just doing the above attribution to the periods of time where there were distinct governments.


 * It should also be noted that the concept of "human rights" is kind of a modern construction, and it might be a bit of an anachronism to apply it to periods prior to 1925. People's memories and interests in this area tend to focus on present day; note that the Pahlavi Dynasty article has no substantial updates to what I put in, even though this government was rich in human rights abuses, especially at the hands of the SAVAK.


 * Thanks,
 * Erxnmedia (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Suggestion for consensus
How about we have Human rights in Iran, and a History of Human Rights in Iran which would include Pahlavi and maybe some Qajar too? That would follow wikipeida practice I'm pretty sure. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be worse. I can live with Erxnmedia's formula. --CreazySuit (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)