Talk:Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani/Archive 1

Wikipedia in need of Quality Control
Weve seen one more eg wikipedia being used by dodgy persons for political reasons to attack a goverment and a judicial system, through posting lies and inuendo about an event that was bound to be abused...How long before Wikipedia loses what little reputation it has left? When you have any one coming off the street to post lies and inuendo on a public website about a tragic event like this(the person was NEVER sentenced to be stoned), and write as if Iran had no well established and fair legal system...you have a serious problem with quality control that can rebound in a very public way...Its way past time that either Wikipedia realised its ideas about how to create a encyclopedia are thoroughly flawed, or the project is scrapped.Jalusbrian (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of article?!
Can you explain me what is the purpose of this article? Every Western media claim about some Iranian criminal deserves article for itself? Should we also make few hundred thousands articles about murdered Iraqis by US army? It should be redirect to "Capital punishment in Iran". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.152.140 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. What is the notability? A mention on Human Rights in Iran or Sharia law would be utmost.Lihaas (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Every Western media claim about some Iranian criminal deserves article for itself?" According to the Category:Iranian prisoners sentenced to death there are less than 100. "Should we also make few hundred thousands articles about murdered Iraqis by US army? It should be redirect to "Capital punishment in Iran". Why not? Here are two categories you can start with..., Category:Occupation of Iraq and Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by nationality (The Category:American prisoners sentenced to death currently has 181 articles). (Btw, you might try Wikinfo for SPOV's and here's the Iranian Category in in WikiIslam. Also check out the Islamic categories in WikiIndex.  As for notability, it's getting a good amount of media coverage. After it fades, perhaps inconsequentially, why not mark it as AfD?206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * some of the links provided by above author are questionable and I have therefore removed them as they provide incorrect reference to this article. For more information, you can see - Clearly stating some of the reference stated above is 'critical' of Islam, therefore opposing no fact to this article, and all reference from it should be removed. (WikiIslam - Which I have deleted from his/her comment, as a precautionary step to ensure any reference of the site not to make it's way to this page in any way.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.255.236 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2010


 * Please do not edit other users' comments without good reason (e.g. BLP). I have restored the link. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is this. This article was created because the world became outraged at the idea of stoning someone for adultery. What's remarkable about this case is that Sakineh's own children asked for help in saving their mother from death by stoning. It is VERY rare that family members speak out like this, as most of them basically disown their own family members. And as well, the fact that most people with stoning sentences are disproportionately women, added to the strong reactions.

Early coverage of actual interviews with her son and statements by the Iranian Judiciary talk only about the stoning sentence. (Her son, Sajjad was interviewed on July 6th by CNN; he talked only about death by stoning.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiuYEbZrw7k An online report by Iran's Embassy was published in September 2010 talks about the stoning, but is hazy about what Sakineh was actually charged with in connection to her husband's murder. Some parts say "murder", some say "complicity", but most telling are the words "disrupted the public order". What is telling about this is the fact that the words "therefore she was sentenced to a ten-year imprisonment inclusive of the duration of her detention" immediately following the phrase. There is no mention of a death sentence. http://iranianembassy.nl/en/

This phrase is also seen in several reports by human rights organizations where the lawyers were interviewed. In one report by Human Rights Watch (August 13, 2010), it states that both lawyers have said that Sakineh was never convicted of murder, but instead to "disturbing the public order", and she received jail time for that. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/13/iran-confession-stoning-sentence-mockery-justice Yes, the title seems a bit biased, however, the information used was not an opinion. It was only after there was outrage against the stoning sentence that this was brought up. On July 9th there was a media blackout on this case, and just one day before the Iranian Embassy stated "According to information from the relevant judicial authorities in Iran, she will not be executed by stoning punishment." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/iran-blackout-over-stoning-sentence-woman It really begs the question, if the main reason that Sakineh was sentenced to death was for complicity in her husband's murder (which she was not), why was the first reaction by Iranian authorities to the stoning sentence?

And for anyone who is still wondering, the reason that this woman's name became so well known was because people felt that the idea of stoning someone to death for adultery is brutal. Yes, you can say that it is an issue for Iran to deal with, however, the issues that are involved in Ms. Ashtiani's case are ones of human rights violations. People have strong reactions to human rights violations, especially ones that state the prescribed size that the stone must be. (Not too small so that it takes so long, but not to large so as to cause death in a short time.) It is accepted and understood that once a country violates human rights, so called interference by outsiders is warranted. In addition, Iran signed onto the FOUR treaties regarding human rights. The UN documents this fact in its most recent report from 2008. This is documented in the report named the "Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran". Stoning is mentioned as a violation on page 10 of that report. Why am I mentioning all of this? Iran has a history of not cooperating and following the treaties that they have signed onto. And stoning is one area that Iran has repeatedly ignored. (There might be a more recent report, however, I doubt that the report states that vast improvements have been made. The most recent UN last resolution on human rights violations (Dec 2010) received many more votes in favor than in previous years.) So it's logical to question the reports the validity of information that come from the Iranian government, including Ms. Ashtiani's case. And as for having the entry be titled something else, that would only make sense if there were not entries for anyone who is credited with a movement or idea or discovery. Cross referencing makes sense, however, taking her name out of the title does not.

(NOTE: I apologize for any tech speak that I did not insert as far as the correct write up in the format that Wikipedia requires. I tried my best.)

Petit9621 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Adultery?
I have seen a lot of crappy Wikipedia articles but this takes the cake. The #1 charge against her was her and her lover conspiring to murder her husband. Charge #2 was adultery (something still a crime in the US by the way). People neglect to mention that she was convicted of murdering her husband. Unbelievable. Ruy Lopez (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have once again removed the non-factual claim that Sakineh Ashtiani was convicted of murder from this entry. Ms. Ashtiani was never convicted of murder, and I request that anyone making edits to this page conform with the rules regarding entries on living persons, i.e., "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."  Maria Rohaly, Coordinator, Mission Free Iran Maria Rohaly (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources I saw said she was either acquitted of charges relating to her husband's death, or that the charges were just dropped. Either way, I haven't seen a source saying she was convicted of that, but if you have one, then send it along.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 05:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Hindu states that she was convicted of murder. The only citation in the article for that is mine, which says that.  Refrain from deleting this, it is cited and your lies about her being on death row solely for adultery are bogus. Ruy Lopez (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, in that article, it says "the Iranian judiciary has suspended a sentence of stoning to death against a woman for adultery" and "Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, 43, was convicted by one court of adultery, which is punished by stoning to death". But yes, they have this bit: "Provincial judiciary head Malek Ajdar Sharifi, however, said that the woman was not only convicted of adultery but also of killing her husband in 2006". As I understand it, that's not the judge that convicted her, but one above him, and that the conviction was based on the lower judges opinion of her crimes. I also see that Malek Ajdar Sharifi appears in other articles, but saying only that "her crimes are not limited to adultery". Overall, I'm uncomfortable putting "murder" in the first sentence, since even the articles that do quote this judge don't say she was to be put to death for murder.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles we do cite here have sentences like "Later that year she was accused of murdering her husband. Those charges were dropped, but an inquiry into the adultery charge was reopened." or "another court... suggested she had colluded in the murder. She was acquitted of murder, but the judges decided that she had earlier committed adultery while being married" . So that's where I'm coming from and looking at the facts of her case. We'd have to ignore several prominent sources to say she was convicted of murder.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 21:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Irish Times piece is an editorial, and thus has less credulity than news stories. The editorial says she was "acquitted" of the charges.  Newsweek says HRW/Amnesty says she was charged with murder but those charges were dropped (and dropped is not the same as acquitted).  I do not see any evidence of this in the original source, HRW/Amnesty.  So we have Newsweek, citing a source (which does not say what Newsweek says) saying the charges were dropped, and the justice head of her province saying she was convicted of the charges.


 * I don't mind both sides going in, as long as the the other side is cited. But there is no reason to not put in Mr. Sharifi's cited statements. Ruy Lopez (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, cite his comments, but I don't see sources to back up a sentence like "she was convicted of murder". The sources I've seen that mention this suspicion of involvement in her husband's death never say she was convicted of it. Even if you throw out those articles I had used as examples, hundreds of others give the same story. Unless we're suggesting that all of Western media is biased and can't be trusted on this? No, CNN, BBC, or take Al Jazeera, none of them say she's convicted of murder. The LA Times blog post is somewhat confusing, reporting that her lawyer said she received a ten year sentence for murder and that she was "pardoned" of it by her children, but has him specifically saying "the charge played no role in the death sentence against her".
 * The problem is, as I understand it, that though the original judge couldn't convict her or anyone in the death of her husband, he believed her to be guilty and laid down his verdict of adultery based on this "judges knowledge" stuff, which allows other judges to give quotes like that since actual charges would be ambiguous and circumstantial. However, its not for anyone here to play judge and jury with this, and we have to have reliable sources to say what you want to say.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Patrickneil, is adultery illegal in all states (I presume you are referring to the US)?206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "True Knowledge" web site reports that 19 states still have laws making adultery illegal. "The Free Dictionary" web site reports that "the District of Columbia and approximately half of the states continue to have laws on the books criminalizing adultery". However, in the context of a discussion about someone being sentenced for adultery, the relevant comparison is whether any states have prosecuted or convicted someone for adultery.  After all, there are many bizarre laws still on the books.  In this aspect, CBS News reported that four people have been convicted in the state of NY for adultery since 1972.  It did not say whether they were sentenced to death by stoning, although we might presume not (although we could be then charged of making a statement without a citation).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephreg (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Petition
Petition Link: http://freesakineh.org/

I think this should be added to the references list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinmyo (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It could work as an external link, which is where I just put it.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For what? Wikipedia certainly doesnt advertise. It doesnt provide any use.Lihaas (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think the petitions automatically count as advertising or spam links. They're relevant internet portals on the topic of the article. "freesakineh.org" is about as official as a site will get on this subject, so I think it belongs in an External links section.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What does it offer to further the reading? Its not information? Its an advocacy to get people to sign the cause. "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? " + "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject " + "Links mainly intended to promote a website. "Lihaas (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Patrick. Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not count as an official website as it does not meet the criteria laid out at External links. "No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented." The linked site is a fansite per the definition given above (quoted from WP:EL) and should not be linked per WP:ELNO#11. As Lihaas has pointed out, promotional links are also discouraged (ELNO#4, WP:SOAP). The BLP policy also calls for higher standard links in biographical articles than for other topics (Further reading and external links section). Therefore I am removing the link. Wikipedia is not the place to promote websites. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with your description of the website as a "fansite". Its a organization whose subject is the topic of this article, and its an organization that's managed to catch the attention of world leaders and prominent humanitarians. It also collects news updates regarding the topic here. Links don't have to be official to be included. The rest of the paragraph that you're quoting there says "websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline". I don't see the problem with this link, and do disagree with removing it on the basis of calling it a fansite. It sure seems like removing it is much more a POV edit than adding it. Perhaps an inquiry on the EL noticeboard would be appropriate?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I have posted a request on the noticeboard. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there an article in the Azeri Wikipedia?
No (Wikipedia) Azeri Wikipedia listed. Would this be the article?206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion: campaign in the West for Sakineh is a media preparation for a war
Not that I chose Wikipedia to propagandize such a view, but a recent article in the Egyptian Al Ahram sounds right like that:


 * To add to the argument for invasion, the case of the Iranian woman Sakina, convicted of murdering her husband, is being hyped in the world media, especially in Europe and human rights groups.


 * Whether or not Sakina is a criminal, the fact that she was sentenced to death by stoning remains an internal issue for Iran, if not an issue of religion since Islamic jurisprudence rules that a married adulteress and adulterer should be stoned to death for their sin. One way or another, the case remains the concern of Iran's judiciary. 


 * All these efforts by the West on behalf of Sakina and human rights come at a time when thousands of women in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are killed and raped without any such loud protest from Western leaders and human rights groups.

To sum it up, the article -- "Crocodile tears", Al Ahram, September 2010 -- makes a whole bunch of arguments. Whether we agree to them, or not, they shall be reflected in the article. For the sake of NPOV policy.

I count on one of editors of this article to sum up that article in a single paragraph with enough scrutiny and tact (what I lack of). In this case, we have confronting NPOV and BLP policies, I hope somebody would be more cautious and careful than me to find a "golden middle" way. ellol (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Be WP:Boldv Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Title
I probably wouldn't mess with things today, since this article is linked on the main page. But I would suggest an eventual title change, as this is a solid case of WP:BLP1E. While the notability of Ashtiani's case is solid, the notability of Ashtiani as a person is debatable. A better title might be something like, "2006–2010 Iranian woman death-row case". Or, since the case didn't come into the international spotlight until this year, something like "2010 Iranian woman stoning sentence" might be good. Omit the word "woman" if either of those latter suggestions is too lengthy or precise, or substitute the word simply with "Ashtiani" if either is too abstract or inclusive. Or, perhaps, forget about "Iran" and call the article, "Ashtiani death-row [or "death sentence"] case", or something to that effect. Now, perhaps--perhaps--Ashtiani will turn out to be as notable as John Hinckley, Jr., who is the WP:BLP1E example of an instance in which "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial". But Ashtiani has yet to reach this point. There are at least a few reasons why she hasn't: 1) While Ashtiani's stoning sentence might be equally as notable as Hinckley's Reagan assassination attempt, Ashtiani's name is far less familiar to the public than is Hinckley's. 2) Hinckley was the subject of his case. In other words, he relied upon his own, human agency in order to act a certain way. In contrast, Ashtiani is the object of her ordeal; she has been acted upon by entities (i.e., Iran, which has handled her case, and the international community, which has responded to it) external to herself. This is about a social event that happened to revolve around a certain person, whereas Hinckley was a certain person who actively chose to initiate an event. So, while Ashtiani may be central to this case, is her role in it actually substantial, as WP:BLP1E requires? 3) Even if Ashtiani already is notable as an individual, the article has yet to WP:PROVEIT. It currently says zilch about Ashtiani's background or self-identity. It reveals nada about how Ashtiani thinks or feels; in other words, it doesn't even hint that Ashtiani is important as a subject (as opposed to just an object). (By the way, by "subject" and "object" I mean "subject" and "object" in a formal sense--not "significant person" and "insignificant thing", as the words sometimes imply informally.) So, I do believe that the title should be changed to reflect an event-based article, rather than a WP:BLP--and a "biography" this article is not, for it is not an in-depth portrait of a person (although WP:BLP still applies to her, of course), but rather a narration of an ongoing event. But again, since this title appears on the main page today, it might be prudent to save this matter for a rainy day. (The weather forecast does call for rain tomorrow, doesn't it?) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not "Adultery of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani" in keeping up with the "Murder of ___", "Disappearance of ___" articles? – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 15:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * lol.. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

She was never sentenced to be stoned to death
To whomever wrote this article: the case has been investigated by the leader of Frances anti-zionist party, who did what noone else has done: visited Iran and spoke to the vice-president of the Judicial Council: 'aving himself signed the aforementioned petition, the leader of France’s Anti-Zionist Party, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala - who happened to be in Tehran for a film project – was willing to mediate in favor of the condemned woman. He requested an audience and was received by Ali Zadeh, vice-president of the Judicial Council and spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice.' ... Manipulations

In the specific case of Sakineh, everything that was reported by Bernard-Henry Levy and endorsed by President Sarkozy is false.

- 1. This lady has not been tried for adultery but for murder. As it happens, there is no conviction for adultery in Iran. Instead of revoking this type of incrimination, the law has subordinated the establishment of the facts to a series of conditions which are impossible to satisfy. “Four people have to witness the adultery at the same time” [4].

- 2. The Republic of Islam does not recognize the Sharia, but – only and exclusively- the law passed by the representatives of the people sitting in Parliament.

- 3. Ms. Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani administered a drug to her husband and got her lover, Issa Tahen, to kill him while he was asleep. The “diabolical lovers” have already been tried in the first and secondary instances and were sentenced to death in both. The Court did not establish any discrimination between the two genders. It is important to note that the indictment does not even mention the intimate relations between the accused, precisely because it is impossible to prove they actually existed according to the Iranian law, even when the family members attest to such a relationship.

- 4. The death penalty is likely to be executed by hanging. Stoning - which still prevailed under the Shah’s rule and was maintained for a number of years after his overthrow - has been abolished by the Islamic Revolution. Irritated by the statements of Bernard-Henry Levy and Nicolas Sarkozy, the vice-president of the Iranian Judicial Council told Dieudonné M’bala M’bala that he defies these Zionist figures to find one single text of contemporary Iranian law that contemplates stoning.

- 5. The sentence is currently being examined by the Court of Appeals, which has to scrutinize the legality of each and every detail of the procedure. If any irregularity is found, the trial will be declared null and void. This examination procedure triggers the provisional suspension of the sentence. Since the final judgment has not yet been pronounced, the defendant still enjoys the presumption of innocence, and furthermore, there was never any question of executing her at the end of Ramadan.

- 6. Ms. Mohammadi-Ashtiani’s defense attorney, Mr. Javid Hustan Kian, is an impostor. He is linked with the son of the accused, but has never been appointed by Ms. Mohammadi-Astiani and has never been in touch with her. Javid Hustan Kian is member of the People’s Mujahidin, a terrorist organization that enjoys the protection of Israel and of the neo-conservatives [5].

- 7. The son of the accused lives generally in Tabriz. He is free to have as many telephone conversations with Mr. Levy as he likes in order to denigrate his own country, which denotes the free and democratic nature of his government.

In sum, nothing, absolutely nothing, of what Levy and Sarkozy have said about Ms. Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani’s story is true. Bernard-Henry Levy might have repeated, in good faith, false accusations to buttress his crusade against Iran. However, President Sarkozy can hardly resort to the same alibi. Officials of the French Foreign Service, the most prestigious in the world, must surely have provided him with all the relevant reports on the case. Therefore, Sarkozy deliberately lied to French public opinion, probably to be able to justify post facto the harsh sanctions adopted against Iran to the detriment of the French economy itself, already seriously affected by his policies.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article167041.html

So when was she ever sentenced to be stoned?

SO do we have another eg of wikipedia the pseudo encyclopedia being used to spread lies? Jalusbrian (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above comments are mostly a cut and paste from the article The Sakineh scandal (sic) by Thierry Meyssan, who is also the author of the highly acclaimed work, 911: the Big Lie which blows the cover off of the entire so-called official version of the September 11th attacks. Turns out that the Pentagon was hit, not by a plane, but by a guided missile fired on the orders of far right-wingers inside the US government!! And I’d be willing to bet that the missile was fired from the grassy knoll.  Will those fiends stop at nothing?  Hammersbach (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * well hammersbach, the whole article is a shoddy eg of lies bull and misdirection. Can you provided any evidence that the Iranian legal system was plannnig to stone a murderous? Hmm Because the wiki article has nothing../The NYT article gives no first hand quote from any iranian official.the Press TV article has been shopped to amke it say what it never did...
 * Im now warning people not to trust wikipedi. As its clearly at the mercy of politicised posters. Jalusbrian (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To anyone who still questions whether Ashtiani was sentenced to be stoned to death, please see embedded documents here from the courts of the Islamic Republic itself. You will have to find a Farsi speaker to translate, but the documents are proof of her stoning sentence
 * http://missionfreeiran.org/2010/09/19/icae-pr72-sajjad-v-ahmadi Maria Rohaly (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's now being reported that authorities in Tehran have given the go-ahead for the execution of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani to proceed. The execution could be carried out as early as tomorrow (November 3, 2010).  http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/02/iran.woman.execution/ 96.227.85.172 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Confession, or "confession"?
Should the confession mentioned in the first paragraph under Trials be in scare quotes or not? I don't see enough detail in the article to justify them - if it was not an actual (and I don't mean "not under duress" - a confession under duress is still a confession, whether it's true or not) confession there should be more clarification than ambiguous punctuation. I am even more strongly minded to remove them after reading Scare quotes ("Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion.") but my edit's only just been reverted.

I see another use further down:


 * On September 8, 2010, Ramin Mehmanparast, a spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, confirmed that the government had suspended the stoning sentence pending a "review" of her husband's murder case.

Again, this seems wrong in what is supposed to be a neutral article. If there is evidence that the supposed review is nothing more than a sham, as the scare quotes (and doesn't the very name suggest they don't belong in an encyclopedia?) seem to imply, let it be presented. Conversely, though, further down we have:


 * He said that releasing "murderers" should not be made into a human rights issue and called on countries criticising Iran to release all their murderers as well.

This seems a more justified use of quotes, since Ms. Ashtiani has quite notably not been charged or convicted of murder, but perhaps a more complete quote would be better here? David (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the scare quotes. The confession's legitimacy is already questioned in the text, and if there's a question over the integrity of the review (I'm not saying there isn't!) it should be made with citations, not punctuation. David (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

neutrality
Why not stop this article from appearing to push a sensationalist agenda? This case is notable because according to western media she was sentenced to death by stoning for the crime of adultury (which is scandalous, and denounces a middle east government for human rights abuse). That's fine, that's enough, it's worthy of inclusion. Why do people feel the need to exaggerate/embellish the case by leaving out potentially mitigating details, such as that the judiciary demonstrably thought her husband had been murdered by her lover following conspiracy with her? That detail is critically important and certainly belongs somewhere in the opening paragraph.

Now where is the scandal? It's common practice everywhere (though of course it wouldn't happen in an ideal system) to push for maximum penalty on a tangential charge if that is easier than securing conviction on the greater alleged crime, what difference whether adultery or tax evasion is the name used to bring down someone accused of ordering a killing? She apparently hasn't actually been stoned, but (notwithstanding that no capital punishment exists in an ideal world) one could certainly argue stoning as more humane than the manner lethal injection is sometimes misadministered in "the free world". How about some factual information about the double jeopardy and its context? What about information on whether her family can induce the same mercy that her husband's murderer received? If she was tortured or her confession was under greater duress than in western judicial systems, that's notable, but please cite it and say it unemotionally and without censoring everything else. (Because the denouncement can't be taken seriously unless it is not only objective but can also be seen to be objective. So what about a context paragraph on how common adultary laws, convictions, and punishments are internationally?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * While it is a common practice to push for maximum penalty on a tangential charge if that is easier than securing conviction on the greater alleged crime, you would need a source that makes that claim regarding her case before adding it to the article. If Double jeopardy has legal effect on this case and it's being referenced by a source, then same there. Find a source claiming it affected the case, and add that to the article. On the matter of the human aspect of capital punishment or what type of crimes can cause capital punishment, it's really not in the scope of a Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani article. The article Stoning, capital punishment and Adultery should have that information, or if it's missing, could be added to improve them. 193.11.177.82 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that the introduction is wrong. The notability is not "an adulterer was sentenced to death by stoning" (which strongly gives the wrong impression that this is a routine case of only a sexual affair). The correct notability is "an accused accomplice of a murderer was convicted on the charge of adultery (and has been singled out by the western media as poster victim of human rights violation)". A source has already been cited and quoted in the article, in which a member of the judiciary plainly states that the murder was one of the reasons for the sentence handed down.


 * The funny thing is that I agree with you that that legal system should operate very differently, but that doesn't justify making the article appear so unnecessarily biased. For example, look at the revert by "Peaceblissharmony": it claims that the accusation of murder isn't notable enough to belong in even the very last sentence of the introduction! And yet this is obviously a critical detail for understanding what's really going on, and the notability of it is demonstrated by all this controversy on the talk page. Here's something else that you would expect people to find notable: what happened to the person she's accused of committing adultery with? The answer is "he was freed because her family asked that he be given mercy for his conviction for murdering her husband". I bet we can only get the first part "he was freed" into the introduction (because that exaggerates the impression of unjust sexism) and not the rest (because it leads attention to details that will conflict with the image of her saintlihood that some are trying to create). The real world has shades of grey, and Peaceblissharmony would be wrong to think that human rights violations can only be opposed if the victims are saints. (Just like how free speech campaigners support people that have said things that nobody likes; if she were a saint then an affair would not have attracted capital punishment, since if that kind of thing ever did happen then it would produce a much better poster child and this woman would no longer warant as much international notability.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cesiumfrog, I suggest that you study the case better before you make any further edits or continue to promote this line of argument. You are clearly not familiar with the facts of the case.Maria Rohaly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Ouch, that came off sounding arrogant, please take a moment to educate me on those facts if I am mistaken. Is it false that the murder of her husband (obviously an exceedingly rare event) is broadly coincident with the prosecution against her? Is it false that she has been accused of untoward involvement in this murder (particularly by conspiracy with the direct perpetraters)? Is it false that individuals close to the case (eg. members of the judiciary) have stated the murder allegations influenced the conviction and sentence that she received? Is it false that the Iranian government's side of the story (in the greater ongoing international controversy) pivots on the accusation of her involvement in this murder?


 * So how can you possibly deny that the accusation of murder is notable?


 * I suspect that personally we are in tight agreement. I oppose unequal treatment of women. I oppose capital punishment (including but not limited to stoning). I advocate restorative justice. I suspect the running of Iran (before many other countries) has a great many failings which deserve greater attentions to rectifying (specifically with regard to human rights). But I still want WP to be trustworthy and unbiased, so I oppose letting the article by completely whitewashed of facts that notable and critically relevent, even if doing so slightly lessens the extent to which the article would support our mutual (leftish?) agenda. But honestly, I think unbiased and complete coverage of a cases like this would ultimately support that agenda more strongly than exaggerated propaganda ever would. We're arguing for transparency, right? On close examination of your recent edit, I wonder if perhaps you had confused me with someone else. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with Cesiumfrog here. If the Iranian courts or authorities have and continue to make allegations she was involved in murder, then this is notable and should be covered in the article as allegations from these sources. In particular if the Iranian courts have stated her sentence was partly in response to the allegations of murder, even if these weren't proven, then this is clearly something we should cover, regardless of whether we may feel it is acceptable for someone's sentence to be affected by something that wasn't proven. If other sources have disputed her involvement in murder or suggest there is no evidence or whatever then this should of course also be covered. If other sources suggest that it is illegal in Iran for judges to let unproven claims influence their sentencing then this should be covered as well. If other sources have suggested the Iranian courts only started to mention the murder aspect after this received international intention that should be covered as well. What we shouldn't do is let our feelings either way influence the article, it is not up to us as editors to judge what's right or wrong with this case. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree that there should be information about the murder of Ebrahim, the way that it is presented makes it very confusing for the casual reader. And I have to say, that the sources within the Iranian government tend to force the information to appear that way so that public opinion sways in their direction. Case in point is the most recent documentary put out by Iran Today in December. If someone watches it, they might think that Sakineh was the person who single handedly wired up and electrocuted her husband, when in fact, that is not the case. It's just that the Iran Today was not able to get Isa Taheri to participate in the filming. Through extensive research, I have figured out that the actual charge was 'disturbing the public order', and not 'complicity' or 'murder'. It is through a combination of research of both so called Western media, as well as information put out by the Iranian government. While I would love to make the change to the entry, I just know that someone is going to come along and change it. So unless some of these edits are protected from continued changes, it seems that the truth may not be written in this case. Petit9621 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC) petit9621

French Foreign Minister says Ashtiani is not to be hanged.
The following; is an account of that from a Reliable Source. Hope that helps.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant another link. The one you listed has nothing to do with the Ashtiani case. Petit9621 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Ashtiani was never convicted of murder
I have filed the following complaint with wikipedia regarding the continued attempt publish libelous statements about a living person, i.e., repeated attempts to assert that Ms. Ashtiani was convicted of murder. She was not, and the record on that is very clear.

My complaint is as follows:

Someone continuously tampers with the article on Sakineh Ashtiani in a way that spreads libelous information about a living person who is in fact fighting an unjust execution sentence in Iran. Most specifically, someone continues to include text that says that Sakineh Ashtiani was convicted of murder. Ms. Ashtiani was never convicted of murder; she was exonerated on the charge of murdering her husband and in fact another person was convicted for that crime.

When the Islamic Republic faced opposition to Sakineh's stoning sentence for adultery, they sought then to convince the world that she was instead a murderer, so that they could hang her instead (which tends to meet less political resistance than stoning) for a crime on which basis other countries also execute people (murder). The continuous inclusion of Islamic Republic fabrications to smear the name of Sakineh Ashtiani is unacceptable in any case, not least in the situation where this woman is fighting for her life.

Sincerely,

Maria Rohaly Coordinator, Mission Free Iran http://missionfreeiran.org maria.rohaly@gmail.com . Maria Rohaly (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People would agree that that breached Wikipedia's community standards. However, the I.P that made the malicious edits you referred to has been blocked. I doubt highly that suing wikipedia will do much for you.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maria, before making comments like this, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on perceived legal threats. In particular:


 * It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as "That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...") to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation.


 * Violation of this policy may result in a block.


 * In addition Wikipedia has a policy regarding actual legal threads (i.e. not just perceived). Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely. 84.93.140.55 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Illegally retried and Persian/Azeri

 * She was illegally retried for the same alleged crime of adultery, convicted of adultery while still married, and sentenced to death by stoning. Notably, Ms. Ashtiani does not speak Persian, but instead only Azeri, and when her stoning sentence was handed down, she did not understand the sentence

The above sentence is in the article supported by two refs. But neither of the refs appear to mention her only speaking Azeri although one of them does say she didn't understand the sentence. This part shouldn't be too hard to source. The second issue, and far more complex is the claim she was illegally retried. Unless I missed it, neither of the refs say she was illegal retried. And sourcing this would likely be harder given that this would depend on the complexities of Iranian law (it may be rather odd for someone to be tried for the same crime after if they've already been successfully tried and sentence for it before but something is only illegal if it is against the law) and precisely what she was re/tried for which doesn't seem to be clear (it's obviously possible for someone to be tried for adultery or any other crime more then once if there are seperate offences which weren't dealt with before, in particular this sentence seems to somewhat contradict itself since it says she was convicted of adultery while married yet the earlier paragraph says her previous sentence was for adultery after the death of her husband). Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Move article
This article is not about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, but rather about the trial and proposed execution of Ashtiani. Thus, it should be moved to something like "Execution of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani" or "Proposed execution of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani".VR talk  05:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or simply "Death sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani".VR talk  05:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article for some information - honestly I can't figure out who is lying. Any hints?159.105.81.31 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Freed?
According to today's Independent. Rothorpe (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC) - Ah, but it's Press TV... Rothorpe (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, she is not freed. The court sent her to her house with a detective to simulate her husband murder.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of rumor and unclear details - (still not stoned to death though) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11967044 - Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Awful
I know it is tagged, but I want to add my sense that the writing in this article is just awful. It is both biased and scattered to the point of repetition. The article BEGS for the hand of a competent editor.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it is barely comprehensible as it is written now. 4:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.245.48.2 (talk)

Unsupported claims removed
Recently a paragraph from the Trial section was removed here with the comment ''No mention of translations or that she only speaks Azeri in either source. Bogus insertion. and then re-inserted here with the comment Restoring cited material, please use the talk page first''. I found the cited sources did not in fact support the text as written, so I have reworded it with supporting quotes added to the cite news template. Please could editors be careful to avoid adding, or re-adding, material that is not verified. Please study the policies Verifiability and No original research. -84user (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. One concern I have with your changes is how the statement is prefaced with "media reported that". These sorts of imprecise phrases are all over the article, "numerous news articles agree" or "a human rights group claimed that" or even "prominent media sources claimed". Are we still unsure of the facts here? When I started this article, the facts were indeed hazy surrounding her case, with a lot of contradiction and confusion, and it seemed fine to put a mention of the sourcing in the prose. But at some point, we need to either be able to trust certain sources as reliable or not, and if not, then we can't use them, even if the sentence is prefaced "According to so-and-so...". This remains a biography of a living person, and does need to be held to high standards.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree "media reported that" is poor, so I removed it while rewording slightly here. I then removed the "numerous news articles" sentence as the French cite did not make that claim. Maybe someone else could look at the other imprecise wordings. -84user (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder or no murder
I ask that future edits respect the changes that were recently made in the introductory paragraph. There has been an editing war adding and deleting the word "murder", and I hope the changes will help to put that to rest. The sources for the changes have been well documented, and if some people feel that more are required, then more will be provided. One source that was listed is a translation of a court document, which I know is generally not the preferred way, however, I ask that there be an exception since it seems there is no agreement about basic facts, and it seems this helps to clear some of the confusion. I looked for a template on how to properly cite the case, however, none of the templates seemed to fit with the items that are listed on the document. Any assistance in this is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Petit9621 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)petit9621

I have been working on adding proper citation to the intro paragraph, but have a question as to the proper way to cite one sentence, specifically this one "An international campaign to overturn her sentence..." The cite I have is for a blog that published the letter that began the campaign. I cited it as a web cite, but I know it's not the preferred. And to boot, it's from a blog, but it was the first place that the letter was published. As a result, I do not want to cite another source which is really more of a secondary source. Assistance as to the proper format would be greatly appreciated. Petit9621 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)petit9621
 * I made an edit towards this request. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will need to make a tiny change to your edit, but the spirit of the request has been fulfilled. Petit9621 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Please stop adding quotes as facts in the introductory paragraph, especially ones that are in dispute. There was a recent addition stating that Sakineh had been found guilty of manslaughter and murder. It's is a quote by an Iranian official, however in the same link is an opposing quotation by Sakineh's attorney. The citation was listed as a quotation, but no quotes were added to the addition. Instead it was added an undisputed fact. Petit9621 (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Petit9621

Entire paragraph from another article
I would like some guidance from a senior Wiki editor as to whether or not a paragraph should be pulled from this article. The paragraph is a word for word copy from the article on "stoning". Might I suggest that simply having a link on the word stoning in the introductory paragraph would suffice, and remove the entire paragraph? Otherwise it seems that this is a discussion about the legal issues of stoning in Iran, and not about Sakineh, as this is supposed to be a biography. It starts like this: "Following vociferous domestic and international controversy and outcry over stoning in the early years of the Islamic republic". (In addition, that paragraph needs additional information added to it, but I can't seem to find the citation I found a while ago. Plus, if this paragraph is to be balanced, then further information should be added, such as the prescribed size of the stones, how much women should be buried, as opposed to how far a man should be buried, etc.) Thank you for your assistance in advance. Petit9621 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Azerbaijani script
There have been several edits where the Azerbaijani spelling of Sakineh's name has been changed to Farsi/Persian. First, there is already a portion in the section where her name is spelled with the Farsi/Persian/Arabic script (I've seen reference to all three, so I included them all; if I'm going to offend one, I'll offend everyone.) Second, the Wiki link to Azerbaijani, that is contained in the entry, shows the script not as Persian, but with the Latinized lettering. Third, if you copy the spelling as it is written in Azerbaijani (not Persian), and do a search in any English language search engine which has results in Azerbaijani, you will find results that match the spelling. And while several websites say that the Azeri language may be written with the Arabic influenced manner, this Wikipedia page is in ENGLISH. Fourth, it is very relevant to have this spelling since Azeri is Sakineh's primary language. So including BOTH versions makes sense, but including two versions of the same thing, but with different tags does not make sense. Petit9621 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Petit9621
 * Azerbaijani language has two scripts, Latin one used in Republic of Azerbaijan and Perso-Arabic script used in Iranian Azerbaijan. (see Azerbaijani_language ) The standard style on Iranian biographies on English Wikipedia, is to use the local Azeri script for transliteration, which in this case is Perso-Arabic. Even the Azerbaijani Wikipedia uses two different scripts for every entry. This being English wikipedia, has absolutely nothing to do with which script should be used for transliteration. You're missing the point of transliteration, Azeri is Sakineh's primary language, but she doesn't read or write Azeri in Latin alphabet. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that you would refer to the Azerbaijani Wikipedia page. This is what it says: (Azerbaijani: Azərbaycan Vikipediyası); this is the exact Latinized script that you removed from this entry. Your argument is also weakened greatly by the fact that both versions of Sakineh's name (Persian and Azeri) are EXACTLY the same: (Azerbaijani: سکینه محمدی آشتیانی, Persian: سکینه محمدی آشتیانی). And while a great amount of Azeris write in Persian, there is an increased use of the Latinized Azeri, especially when used on the internet:

"Northern Azerbaijani was written with the Arabic script until 1929; then the Latin alphabet was used for ten years, following the First Turkology Congress in Baku in 1926, the Cyrillic alphabet from 1939 under Stalin and his successors, and then Latin again since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Iranian Azerbaijani, on the other hand, has always been written using the Arabic script, although it now finds itself competing with Latin to some extent, a situation recognized by Ebrahim Rafraf, who served as secretary of the Orthography Conference held in Tehran in 2001... Most Azerbaijanis from Iran admit that they are living in a dual alphabetic period in which both alphabets – Latin and Arabic – are more or less used and understood. Some want to move toward the Latin-based alphabet that the Republic has adopted, as they find it much easier to learn, and more progressive, given the inevitable impact of English and other Latin-based languages on access to information and knowledge on the Internet." http://www.iranianlinguistics.org/papers/AzeriOrthography.pdf

So for all practical purposes, both versions should be included, both Perso-Arabic and the Latinized versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petit9621 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking http://az.wikipedia.org which uses both script for every article. Latin alphabet has no official capacity in Iran. If you have a problem with the standardized style on Iranian biography pages, you can join the Iran project, propose a new style, and get a consensus for it. Azeris in Iran do not "write in Persian", they write in a script, which happens to be similar to the script used by dozens of other languages including Persian. You're obviously neither from the region, nor familiar with the topic in question. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Kurdo, you are again demonstrating that the Latinized script should be included. The link that you provided the 2nd time around was for the Azerbaijani language Wikipedia page. First, we are not discussing the Azerbaijani language page for Sakineh, but the English entry. Second, a check of the Azerbaijani page shows me that I can indeed search for her name in the Latinized script. The result is instant - voila! The entry for Sakineh is listed using the Latinized script. The ENTIRE entry is in the Latinized script, with the Perso-Arab script in parenthesis listed after her name. However, there is not a 2nd one for the Southern Azerbaijani version with the Perso-Arab script, as you have done here. Perhaps you should suggest that entries in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia pages be written in the way that you suggest. Wouldn't it make sense since the audience primarily writes the script that way?

And while you try to split hairs - "Azeris in Iran do not "write in Persian", they write in a script", the fact remains that it does not matter whether or not I am from the region. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia - to expand the knowledge about places and people who we may not be familiar with? If we are going to get precise, your addition of the Perso-Arab script after the word 'Azerbaijani' is not correct. The assumption on Wikipedia is that 'Azerbaijani' refers to script that is being used by North Azeris, and as I pointed out previously, has officially been adopted by those who speak and write South Azeri branch of this Turkic language. But even though Sakineh's native language is of the South Azeri branch, the fact remains that the Latinized script is becoming used more often, and if we are to remain true to the point of Wikipedia of keeping up with the changes, you have to admit that the North Azeri script (Latinized version) is becoming more accepted. I am not suggesting that the Perso-Arab script not be used, as I have never removed it nor suggested removing it. But since both versions are being used, even if one may be used more often in within Iran, the rest of the world is using the Latinized version. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/azeri.htm

The fact remains that Wikipedia is here to inform us of how diverse we are, and the changes that our understanding of those differences brings into our world. While those differences and changes may bring about disagreement or even scare us, they can also open us up to different ways of thinking and appreciating each other, but only if we let it. Petit9621 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)petit9621
 * Bottom line is, you have no consensus to change the South Azeri script to Latin, on this article or any other biographical article. You cannot unilaterally change the standard Wikipedia style for Iranian biographies. That's not how Wikipedia works. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If what you propose that your version is "standard Wikipedia style for Iranian biographies" (i.e. having the same Persian script for both 'Persian' and 'Azerbaijani'), I would request that you show me direct evidence of your claim. I found plenty of examples where there was only Persian script used, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadegh_Khalkhali), ones with the Persian script and phonetic Persian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Daei), and some where there was Persian script and the Latinized Azerbaijani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googoosh). Petit9621 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)petit9621

And by the way, adding the same Persian version of her name back in, but with a larger, italicized text does not change the fact that it's the same thing. Petit9621 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)petit9621

Diyya
Why did the next of kin's forgiveness reduce the sentencing of the murderer but not of the supposed accomplice? Is there some relevant legal technicality (perhaps due to her being the kin's mother)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Iran: Woman Sentenced to Stoning, Pardoned
Ayatollah Larijani told Fars News Agency that "Ms. Ashtiani's case was the source of four months of widespread attacks against the regime... this individual was sentenced to death for murder but the international groups began a controversial campaign over it.... we did not pay much attention to those efforts.... we are letting her out simply for good behavior." http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4225/iran-ashtiani-stoning-pardoned 79.251.68.65 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)