Talk:Roxana Saberi

Notability
The subject of this article is in the news because of her apparent arrest, and is likely to become the focus of significant journalistic and diplomatic attention (if she has not already done so). In addition, as a working journalist (including on-air work), she is a noteworthy personality. Wolit (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned...
Should it be mentioned that she is a Jew and pressumptively a citizen of Israel? Should it also be mentioned that she was under surveillance for years and was observed taking pictures of Iran's nuclear sites? Should it be mentioned that, given the daily threats by Israel's leaders to bomb Iran, that they just MIGHT be a tad worried about an American "journalist" hanging out at such sensitive spots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.65.21 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Those claims could be mentioned if they are published somewhere: what are your sources, 76.199.65.21? Erxnmedia (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's irresponsible to suggest, without providing any evidence, that Iran is daily threatening to bomb Israel. Ms. Saberi is an Iranian citizen with dual US-Iranian citizenship. Her press credentials were revoked in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move
This incident is notable; the person herself, not so much, as per WP:1E. This page probably should be renamed "Roxana Saberi espionage case" or something else that introduces the reader to the notable event rather than to the less-notable individual who happened to be its focus. Also, the biographical material about her should be trimmed so that it is more WP:SS for an event-themed article. Thoughts? Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Erxnmedia (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not really an espionage case
 * 2) There are others that have gotten the same treatment
 * 3) If you want you can introduce an article on "Islamic Republic of Iran jailing of journalists on trumped up charges for political purposes", and point to the biographies of individual detainees, but people will give you a hard time
 * 4) All things considered, she as an individual is not that un-notable that she needs to be deleted or renamed to satisfy some Wikipedia principle (it's possible to be too slavish to rules and Wikipedia has hundreds of them)

did i just read here, on this very page, that the person (her name is roxanna saberi) was incidental, therefore not as "notable" as the incidence itself...of course i beg to differ...anyway what is being done currently to ensure the speedy realease of said political prisoner? because i am sure as heck doing everything in my power to have her and other political prisoners throught the world to secure their freedom. --Jamiejojesus (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias
Could this article possibly be more biased against Iran?

Could this TALK PAGE be more biased against them? Why is there no exploration of the espionage charges against Ms. Saberi? And incidentally, why this article and the western meida uniformly avoid the term "convicted" in their copy? This article is a good candidate for an activist screed, hardly worthy of even a free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect it may be because the Iranian government hasn't released any information (apparently even to her lawyers) regarding any evidence supporting the espionage charges. It's not easy being even-handed when one side works so hard to appear the villain.  Epstein&#39;s Mother (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, according to Times Online, Saberi had made copy of what we'd term "classified document" while working as a translator:
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6274496.ece
 * And appearantly, visited place Iranian citizens are forbidden to visit. As comparison if US citizens visited Cuba, we are subject to punishment.
 * 75.172.79.147 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my country at least, this info just showed up today so it still needs to be add to the article - and sure needs to - but before, there was a cloud of mystery on the case. But for your own advise Mr "FirstTalker", the words convicted or sentenced ARE used. But I agree that the part "Accusation of espionage" is an obvious euphemism and think it should be changed. As for spying or not spying : she is still convicted but the charge is reduced because she obtained a copy of a report (on US strategy on Irak) but apparently never used or transmitted it (so much for making her a US spy). A behavior that is clearly "close to" spying but not so uncommon today in western journalism - even by journalists in their own country. I haven't read about the other point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.100.140.83 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Iran is not a "totalitarian" regime by most standards, and is more free than many in the West give it credit for. Still, operating without press credentials in a state that is, at best, cool towards a free press, is pretty equivalent to espionage. It doesn't mean she was spying for a foreign government, though, which seems to be the important clause in the case (her sentenced was reduced apparently because the appeals court did not agree that Iran and the US had "hostile relations"). Regardless, I am posting because one of the possible motives for her sentence being reduced seems odd to me. It assumes that there are but two political camps in Iran, conservatives and liberals. However, Iran is not the West, and I would guarantee that every analyst who has actually studied Iran sees three camps: radical conservatives, pragmatists, and reformers. This was a victory for the pragmatists and reformers, and most likely the pragmatists. But to frame this in simply liberal vs. conservative language is embarrassing, as the pragmatists tend to be pretty conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.147.33 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page, Al Jazeera America is written as an anti-Iranian network, this is not an official position of the network and is hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansmcgrath (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Accusations of a double standard" POV?
It seems to me that the "Accusations of a Double Standard U.S. cases" portion of the article seems to be written in a bit of a POV slant, and should be revised a bit (the portion didn't even use the modifier "accusations" originally). It also seems a bit out of place, as this is an article about Roxana Saberi, not her case. Maybe a seperate article should be created regarding her case and trial?

What do you guys think? Tominator93 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * well. Many other issues covered in this article are addressing "her case". Otherwise Saberi herself as a person is not an important journalist to deserve having a wikipedia page. A big part of the article is accusing the Iranian regime of abusing Saberi for political purposes. Aren't those speculations biased and POV? I think this section will be needed to make this article balanced. Perhaps some minor edits will make the paragraph suitable for wikipedia. There are quite a number of articles out there in the media on this subject (a number of them were listed as citations to this paragraph). Sinooher (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that Iranian counter points to accusations leveled by American authorities should be included in order to give the article balance. However, "Accusations of a Double Standard" is going of on a bit of a tangent, as it is not a counterpoint to any of the previously mentioned accusations. It is getting into a whole other argument altogether, one that has less to do with Roxana Saberi, and more to do with broader diplomatic relations between the U.S. and middle eastern countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm not saying that the double standard argument isn't a valid point: what I am saying is that I don't think it is quite relevant enough to this article to be placed here. Which is why I reiterate, maybe a separate page should be created for her case, and the broader diplomatic implications of said case. (By the way, it wasn't the section itself that I thought was POV. It was just the tone of writing that I thought was a bit slanted. Nothing some minor editing couldn't fix) Tominator93 (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Meeting with a CIA officer
On meeting with a CIA officer: "One of her attorneys, Saleh Nikbakht, said Wednesday that the prosecution's case also included the allegation that Saberi had met with a person identified only as Mr. Peterson, who told her he worked for the CIA and tried to recruit her into the agency. "She said that yes, she had met a Mr. Peterson," Nikbakht told NPR, "and that Mr. Peterson asked her to work for the CIA. But she took it as a joke, and didn't take him seriously." It appears that in an earlier interrogation, Saberi had been questioned about this Mr. Peterson and had given answers that she then recanted during the appeals procedure. She told the appeals court, according to Nikbakht, that "what she said about Peterson earlier had been a lie."" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104104552 24.207.226.140 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is many months later and this well sourced true information has not been added and this page is still locked. The editor of this article is clearly not up to the job. This is one of the worst articles in all of wikipedia 97.91.187.161 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR interview
The NPR interview has some pretty detailed comments by Saberi, including rebuttals of past reporting.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104612989

Speculations and alleged scenarios proposed by some American analysts
This subsection doesn't seem appropriate for this article. Talk to Magibon 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing
I realized that a number of wikipedians delete whatever information that may reflect negative on Roxana Saberi. I would like to assume good face. Users Katharineamy, CapitalLetterBeginning, Fooladin, HitroMilanese and me reverted these vandalism several times.

It is true that Iranian court should have handled the case in a more appropriate way. But that does not mean that Roxana Saberi was innocent. She had a document that she found access to it illegally and not in the framework of her job as a translator. She mentioned this fact in her interview after her release.

Whether the document was classified or not, we don't know. but she had documents that she copied illegally and for her own "curiosity". and this is a fact. Her lawyers approved it too. Please do not try to hide this fact. It is up to Iranian government to say what is classified or not. No one else is qualified to comment on the classification of a document that is in the drawer in Iran's president's office. SirFlemming (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the facts of the case are totally un-represented in this article. No mention of her having what her lawyer admits were illegal documents No mention that her press credentials had expired and she was working as a translator for a political party not a journalist at the time of her arrest No mention of her admitted meeting with CIA officers Ect. 24.207.132.215 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes this page is truly ridiculous. None of the pertinent facts are mentioned. 1. she admitted to possessing documents she was not legally allowed to have but claims them to be "secret" not "classified", which is not a legal distinction in Iran  2. She admitted to meeting with a CIA officer, but claims it was innocent and she refused to work with them. Apart from that there are a lot of things that are misleading. So for instance she is described only as "journalist" but in fact she was working as a translator for political party not as a journalist at the time of the incident and does not have press credentials. Obviously this article needs serious POV cleanup, but alas, has been locked. 02:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.189.51 (talk)
 * Do you have any sources for any of your claims? NW ( Talk ) 11:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes the sources for these claims are already on the talk page. But I suspect that you knew that already. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104104552 97.91.187.161 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, are many of you saying that someone cannot work in any capacity as a journalist unless they have been accredited and credentialed by the local government? This is not at all how journalism works and reflects a deep seated misunderstanding of journalism and it's nature.

Iranian American not Iranian Japanese American
I do not see a point in labeling her as Japanese. There is no reason to jot down every single inch of detail about her ancestry in the intro. Most of the press coverage, label her as Iranian American. In fact the citation that is currently used for that statement too omits the part about her ancestry. Mention of her nationality is enough.Icommentwhereican (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal Official Website
website doesn`t seem to be owned by Saberi. Probably created during a call for release.Icommentwhereican (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jew or Muslim?
I think her religon is so relevent to her bio 77.31.176.11 (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that she's either. She came across as agnostic to me in her autobiography (My Life and Captivity in Iran). She did express admiration of some of her cellmates and their faith (two Bahai women) during her detainment at Evin. 68.146.193.243 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in cablegate
Her name and aid of release is mentioned explicit in cablegate documents .. http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09BERN432.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.148.33 (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Roxana Saberi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090728180729/http://www.suntimes.com:80/news/metro/1685300,CST-NWS-iran26.article to http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1685300,CST-NWS-iran26.article#
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090729072647/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/chi-ap-il-iran-globalprotes,0,340580.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-iran-globalprotes,0,340580.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120916231018/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=94636 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=94636
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090421150026/http://www.cpj.org:80/tags/saberi to http://cpj.org/tags/saberi

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Roxana Saberi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090422081136/http://www.reuters.com:80/news/pictures/entertainment/picture?channelId=5002&currentPic=232&picId=9619612 to http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/entertainment/picture?channelId=5002&currentPic=232&picId=9619612
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110314160645/http://archives.chicagotribune.com:80/2009/jun/21/opinion/chi-perspec0621iranjun21 to http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jun/21/opinion/chi-perspec0621iranjun21

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Expatriate In The United Kingdom
Given that she's now based in London, "American expatriates in the United Kingdom" should be included as a category at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C104:9290:F82E:5682:8218:23D6 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think that should be added.2601:642:C104:9290:C94E:9065:BD86:7BE2 (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Anonymous

Unlocked?
Can this page now be unlocked, so IPs can edit it? Thanks. It is outdated by a lot. She is a CBS journalist, not freelance. Also pinging User:Fastily --2603:7000:2143:8500:65D5:821A:6338:E96F (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and the infobox says she is a “journalist translator” which is missing a comma. --2603:7000:2143:8500:281F:90FF:ED15:CA00 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)