Talk:Mahsa Amini protests

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2022 (2)

Please add this to the article:

Change title to "Iran Revolution 2022"

These protests have expanded to the scale of a revolution, and multiple noteworthy media outlets, including the National Post, CNN, The Guardian, and the New York Magazine have described it as such. Not to mention, the hashtag #IranRevolution2022 is one of the most used hashtags regarding Iran nowadays. I would suggest keeping the page up to date with what's going on on the streets and match the slogan of those who chant "don't call this a protest, this is an actual revolution." Exhaustedgolsa (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you post links to WP:RS using the word "revolution" to describe this? Levivich (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. Some also call it a Women Revolution. I also recommend looking up the hashtag I posted. And in this video you can hear the chant of revolution as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20WEe18yiz0

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-2022-iranian-revolution-has-begun-will-canada-stand-with-the-people-or-the-tyrants

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/13/revolution-iranian-women-uk-believe-protests-will-bring-freedom

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/are-iran-protests-over-mahsa-amini-a-new-revolution.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/iran-women-protest-revolution-what-matters

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/iran-threshold-another-revolution

https://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2022/10/12/iranian-student-womens-revolution

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/09/3-words-sparked-revolution-iran/

https://www.mei.edu/events/heading-revolution-iran-conversation-masih-alinejad-iranian-activist-and-journalist

https://iranfocus.com/protests/49098-irans-people-do-not-call-it-a-protest-it-is-a-revolution/ Exhaustedgolsa (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not trying to be difficult but all of these links seem to be either (1) opinion pieces/blogs/other non-WP:RS, (2) articles where the RS is quoting someone else calling it a revolution, or (3) articles where the RS is asking the question whether it's a revolution. To justify calling this article the "2022 Iranian Revolution", we would need RS that say in their own voice that this is a revolution, not that it might become one, or that some people think it is one. (And yes, I have seen the hashtag, but hashtags are not RS.) Levivich (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think media outlets are even allowed to say that as that would entail a political stance and has consequences which is why it is generally prohibited within the media to go ahead and make such a statement before it actually succeeds. The only time they will start making those statements is when the regime is overthrown. I guess we could say Wiki has the same approach which is fair, but I'm just trying to explain why they don't call it that and that their reasoning wouldn't reflect on the accuracy of the term. Exhaustedgolsa (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Exhaustedgolsa: Wikipedia policy is separate from policies on other Wikis. Here we're on Wikipedia. The difference is fundamental.

Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them.

As for mainstream media outlets "not being allowed" to have a political stance, that suggestion is contrary to the empirical evidence of the propaganda model; the corporate mainstream media statistically follow several filters, which do include political filtering (see the article). In this situation, we could statistically expect Western corporate mainstream media to describe the events as a revolution if that were in the interests of the advertisers who fund them, and the governments'/corporations' public relations departments who provide sources for stories, for example. However, trying to correct our sources based on the broad, empirical, statistical evidence would be using a blunt instrument where we instead can use much more fine-honed analysis of individual sources, where necessary, and focus on the factual information that a wide variety of sources report. This is Wikipedia's current best strategy for bypassing, to a fair degree, the propaganda model. For the moment, I agree with Levivich that there's little support from WP:RS that this "is" a revolution rather than that this "could become" a revolution. You could start a section here such as "Analysis" with summaries of recognised academics' analyses - if university researchers (historians, sociologists, ...) describe the events as "a revolution", then that would count as sourced knowledge, and might eventually justify a title change. That's more likely in 6 or 12 or 60 months or so, though, rather than immediately. Boud (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I imagine that if there is something like real political change/overthrow of the gov. then it fits, until then I don't think it's worth calling it a revolution. Genabab (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

i think we can consider this a social revolution, but not a political one, at least for now. Manumaker08 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Revolution section

@Exhaustedgolsa, Levivich, Genabab, and Manumaker08: I started a section on "Revolution". There are certainly plenty of Wikipedia-notable intellectuals who are publicly insisting that the events are a revolution; and there are academics who have said that the protests have been shifting from reform/evolution to revolution. This is not (currently) enough for a title change, but the analysis is notable. (All the five factors mentioned by Ghasseminejad+2020 appear to be strengthening in the current protests, consistent with the Ghasseminejad+2020 claim of a switch to revolution in 2017; however, this is my personal interpretation only, which doesn't count for the article.) Boud (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@STSC: Could you please clarify what you mean by the UNDUE tag? I think that a better section title might be Reform versus revolution, because this is the simplest common way of describing sociopolitical change, and avoids choosing a position about which accurately describes the current protests and their effects. But I don't see a problem with the content - academic analysis of events is part of knowledge, not just the events themselves. There's one paragraph with intellectuals' opinions, and one with academics' descriptions of their research. Boud (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

At the least, the 2020 Journal of International Affairs article doesn't belong on this page about the 2022 protests. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It's context - if that research article is right, then the trajectory to a revolution already started in 2017; that's relevant context. Boud (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, for now, literally calling it a revolution (as opposed to, say, metaphorically calling it a revolution, or calling it an ongoing attempt at revolution) seems WP:FRINGE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably you mean the subsection title. This is what the sources I found say, so it's not WP:FRINGE. In any case, someone removed the subsection header 'Revolution', so "calling it a revolution" seems to be a solved issue in terms of editing. Boud (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That said, there's no fundamental policy reason to exclude the section if editors want it in, as long as the section gives weight to the mainstream view that it's not a full-blown revolution at the moment (For example, [1]). (If it matters, my take is that IMHO the opinions of activists on a semantic dispute are of little interest to readers of this page.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I added a brief summary of content from that source and gave it prominence. Boud (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:FRINGE and WP:OFFTOPIC, also WP:SOAPBOXING. STSC (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's what the sources give, and it's very much on-topic. People don't just protest randomly in a vacuum - there are broader sociological processes that sociologists study; see the lead there: social order and social change are in the lead. Whether this is a situation of minor social change or a complete overhaul of the social order is not something to be decided by Wikipedians - let the balance of serious sources decide which it is and what their predictions are. Boud (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Under the Sports section of In Popular Culture, add a short paragraph about Elnaz Rekabi not wearing a hijab at the 2022 IFSC Climbing Asian Championships and events following her return to Iran. My example text:

During the 2022 IFSC Climbing Asian Championships in Seoul, South Korea, Iranian climber Elnaz Rekabi received international attention when she competed without a mandatory hijab, a move widely considered to be a show of support for the ongoing protests. Despite being hailed as a hero by a cheering crowd upon her return to Tehran, Rekabi has since claimed that the act was not intended to be symbolic, stating publicly and on social media that she had merely been in a rush before it was her turn to compete in the event and that this caused her headscarf to inadvertently fall off. Human rights organisations and activists have voiced concern that these statements may have been coerced by the Iranian government, and it has since been reported by the media that she has been placed under house arrest. End. PentagonPizza (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

References

If she said it was an accident, how can we call it a protest? WWGB (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

PentagonPizza is not calling for it to be called a protest, just to say that it was widely considered a protest. Might seem like a minor distinction, but many reliable sources have reported that her statements after the event are likely made under duress. Not up to us to declare that this is true, just that reliable sources have indicated that it is likely. David12345 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

In fact, even if it were somehow conclusively shown that her statements were made of her own accord, and this is all a big misunderstanding, it would still be true to say that her actions were perceived as a protest, although a debate could be had about how much we should emphasize the perception as opposed to her intent. But this is putting the cart way before the horse. David12345 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems more or less OK to me - carefully enough worded, apart from WP:RELTIME needing fixing - no Wikipedians guarantee to update the content that they've added when it's no longer "recent" (e.g. "has since claimed" should be "claimed" or even better, "stated"), and the references need proper archiving and formatting. Boud (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. I hope this redrafted text is acceptable and addresses WP:RELTIME problems:

During the 2022 IFSC Climbing Asian Championships in Seoul, South Korea, Iranian climber Elnaz Rekabi received international attention when she competed without a mandatory hijab, a move widely considered to be a show of support for the protests. Despite being hailed as a hero by a cheering crowd upon her return to Tehran, Rekabi stated that the act was not intended to be symbolic, claiming publicly and on social media that she had merely been in a rush before it was her turn to compete and that this caused her headscarf to inadvertently fall off. Human rights organisations and activists voiced concern that these statements may have been coerced by the Iranian government. As of October 2022 it has been reported by the media that Rekabi is under house arrest.

I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and hope I am using the Wikipedia:As of feature correctly --- this is an ongoing situation and seems the best way to deal with it. Someone with the required permission will have to take care of sorting out the format for the references, I do not know how to do it myself without direct access to the page. PentagonPizza (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done There were some other changes I made: e.g. "widely considered" is a bit WP:WEASELly, since we don't know who considered; use of WP:FLUFF such as "hailed", "merely", "voiced". Anyway, others can edit the text that I put, and you can use {{edit extended-protected}} for any specific changes you want others to make. Boud (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

Please change Title of article from "Mahsa Amini protests" to "Iranian Revolution of 2022- (beginning with Mahsa Amini protests)" Jomhouriye (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia should be added under "Reactions" section

Commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Hossein Salami threatened Saudi Arabia over media coverage of Mahsa Amini protests: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202210178566

Saudi Arabia said Iran is trying to distract attention from the Mahsa Amini protests by poising to carry out attacks on both Saudi Arabia and Iraq: https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-u-s-on-high-alert-after-warning-of-imminent-iranian-attack-11667319274 JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I added some coverage to Timeline of the Mahsa Amini protests. IMHO the statement is too tangential for the reactions section; we need a direct statement from the Saudi government for or against the protesters or for or against Iran's overall handling of the protests, which I can't immediately find. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should add the Iranian threat to Saudi Arabia over media coverage under the Reactions section right after the "On 10 October" line since it's an official reaction by the Iranian government. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Update is required

According to the latest update of the Iranian Human Rights Organization (IHR), the number of identified victims of the protests has increased to 277 included 40 children (1). Please update statistics -- Mahan (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The Intercept: How Iran can Track and Control Protesters' Phones

Great article from The Intercept about leaked documents involving Iran's Communications Regulatory Authority, and their surveillance system called "SIAM":

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/28/iran-protests-phone-surveillance/

Good info here for the Internet blackouts section of the article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Update statistics

According to HRANA, until November 3 the number of confirmed dead protesters reached 298 people, including 47 children, and 36 repressive forces of the Islamic regime were also killed. The number of official arrests has reached more than 14,161 (Source: 1, 2). --Mahan (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)