Talk:Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Neda Agha-Soltan was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 01 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 20, 2012 and June 20, 2016.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jose Antonio Vargas (2009-06-23). "Does 'Tiananmen + Web = Tehran'?". The Washington Post.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Interesting interview with a doctor who was with her when she was dying: BBC material (YouTube) and with her fiance channel one Shahram Homayoun (YouTube), in Persian and Al Jazeera (in English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vuvar1 (talk • contribs) 11:34, June 25, 2009(UTC)

Need to correct the etymology of the Name "Neda" as Arabic rather than Persian. --Zaman (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Neda Agha-Soltan be a better name for this article? Tangerine Cossack (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time an innocent person is murdered, somebody says that the person is not notable, but the murder is. Go figure.Redhanker (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the person is notable because of the way they were murdered *shrugs*. If they aren't notable at all, why include biographic details? Horatio (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090625133045/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election_icon to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election_icon
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090626110615/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, ABC news reported that she had been shot from the rooftops. The next news report from a different source stated that the protesters had commenced a new strategy, in that they were protesting from the rooftops. Is it a possible 'false flag' incident, that is, was she shot by her own people in order to obtain sympathy for their cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.109.157 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article suffers from several POV issues; The text gives the readers the impression that the death was in fact a killing carried out by the Iranian government. It's in the lead saying it was done by Basij, without having denials accompanied by it. The article does not say anything the "intersection" documentary by Marzieh Hashemi. Also, it dedicates a whole section to "CIA conspiracy theory" while just dedicates almost a line to the "conspiracy of western governments". The article gives the least space to the counter arguments. For example there are allegations regarding the role of an un-known woman in the incident, or how some anti-government parties criticized a documentary by Iranian government, even when it was not braodcasted. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One may also take a look at this Persian source raising doubts over the death incident, which is likewise not covered in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can some one say which source supports "Wolf Blitzer was incredulous that Ghadiri would offer a conspiracy theory..."? Also, why sources like this is not used to balance the view points? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there are reliable sources supporting the killing of Neda by the Iranian Government : [1]. I quote : "The 26-year-old's death has come to symbolize Iranian resistance to the government's official election results since it was captured on amateur video. Within hours of its being posted online June 20, she had become the iconic victim of the Iranian government crackdown. But Iran has been pushing back against eyewitness reports that she was shot by pro-government Basij militiamen perched on a rooftop near a demonstration.

[2] I quote again "That's when she was shot dead. Eyewitnesses and video footage of the shooting clearly show that probably Basij paramilitaries in civilian clothing deliberately targeted her. Eyewitnesses said they clearly targeted her and she was shot in the chest."

[3] I quote : "Neda shot by Iranian militiaman, doctor tells BBC"

Need more ? i have other sources in English and French all saying the same thing. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are quoting eyewitness's records, none of your source are saying she was killed by government. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: So when CNN says "she had become the iconic victim of the Iranian government crackdown" this does not mean that she was killed by the Iranian government according to you ? what would we need to say so then ? Khamenei coming himself in the streets of Teheran to shoot down this young lady ?? Come on man.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not mean. The source should be clearly making the accusation in its voice, without attributing it to others (e.g. witnesses). Please collaborate in building consensus. Who killed Neda is not the only POV issue of the article, read my comment and you'll see I've raised several other POV issues concerning the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "(...) none of your source are saying she was killed by government."

Are you sure you're looking at the material posted by Wikaviani?

There are literally dozens of WP:RS sources that state that the the woman in question died at the hands of a militiaman affliated to the Iranian regime. Here's one of them:

"In recent years the unjust suffering or death of specific individuals, referred to here as violent person-events, has been at the centre of political protest in several countries: such as the case of Neda Agha-Soltan, shot and killed by a regime-related militiaman during protests against the fraudulent presidential election in Iran in 2009 ". -- Olesen, Thomas. "Dramatic Diffusion and Meaning Adaption: The Case of Neda", in Spreading Protest: Social Movements in Times of Crisis Donatella della Porta, Alice Mattoni (ed). ECPR Press. p. 71

All theories compiled by the Iranian government are dismissed by WP:RS as conspiracy theories:

"The reaction of various organs and officials of the Islamic Republic was entirely predictable and all predicated on their penchant for conspiracy theories. This whole incident, they insisted, was a plot by the CIA, the BBC, and the CNN to defame the Islamic Republic and thus pave the way for a velvet revolution ". -- Dabashi, Hamid (2016). Iran: The Rebirth of a Nation. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 150

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, carefully checked them. There's actually no concrete evidence saying who killed here and it's still a debated topic. The first source, i.e. "Spreading Protest", does not make us ignore plenty of others just reporting the witnesses's records. Likewise, though you can include Dabashi's opinion in an attributed manner, it does not mean we should remove IRI's claims from the article. I don't see how you say it's dismissed by RS. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IRI sources are not reliable, you've already been told that by numerous editors on numerous topics before. I've read your above comment, your proposal to include strongly biased IRI regime sources in the article is not a WP:NPOV way to neutralize the article, rather, it would go against WP:WEIGHT. Why don't you provide several high quality sources like the one i posted above to support your claims ? You cannot because the whole world know that basijs militia killed that young woman and you are trying to cover this. Also, your accusations of edit warring toward me are baseless since you're the one who needs to follow WP:BRD and achieve consensus when you have been reverted before reinstating your POV tag, , see WP:ONUS. If we cannot fnd a common ground and if you continue edit warring to push your POV, we'll go for a RFC.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhossein, I would advise you to stop. You have already been strongly warned for pro-IRI pov-pushing not so long ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: BRD and ONUS has nothing to do with discussion, which is on the neutrality of the article. There are unresolved issues here and you call or removing the tag, this has some clear messages! @HistoryofIran: That you come here and remove the tag from the article without commenting here warrants a warning. Also, I think it was you who were blocked for his POVs, so don't blame others with baseless accusations and try to work instead of edit warring. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless accusations? What is this then? [4] I simply reverted a non-constructive edit, nothing wrong with that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: "BRD and ONUS has nothing to do with discussion" :

Yes it has, this is the way this encyclopedia works, whether you like it or not.

"There are unresolved issues" :

And who exactly consider this as "unresolved issues" ? which reliable source ? Marzieh Hashemi ? a Press TV journalist ?? do you really think that Hashemi can/wants to contradict the government version of the course of events ? Stop wasting our time with your WP:FORUM-like posts to push your pro-Mullahs POV without providing any reliable source and desist from threatening other users who made only one revert of warning, the only one who deserves to be warned for edit warring here is you and only you and so you have been by me on your talk. Just drop it or provide high quality reliable sources, not like the crap you posted above in your first comment of the section..---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting the POV issues of the article

I've been dealing with this article since I find to be POVish giving undue weight to some certain POVs. Though, I'm re-listing the issues of the article here:

1. The contradictory image created for Neda by various accounts is not covered in this article. See this source for example: "The image of a determined a rebellious woman is contrasted with the description of Neda as joyful, positive, pure and almost ephemeral person." In another part of the book, the author writes: "...Despite the fact that little was known about Neda and her background at this point, [senator] McCain unequally interprets her death as individual sacrifice in the larger historic struggle for democracy." Of course, there are some more point, too, and I just meant to show not all the main POVs are included here regarding her image.

2. Why not including things such as:

• "The symbolism of a bloody image of a female body, breathlessly lying on the pavement of a chaotic street, provided more than a propaganda device for the opposition to attack the regime," by Routledge
• "While acknowledging that Neda's death was a tragedy and a sad occurrence, we cannot omit the embedded political theatre and the use of goriz techniques In fact, by romanticising, idealising, exaggerating national and international political actors utilised it as a political tool to manipulate people's emotional responses to the protests in Iran,"
• "Now, as cynical as it may be, the political actors had an innocent victim to use for their own agenda, and to evoke the emotion of the public." (the two latter segments by by Taylor & Francis).
• "As a political practice, disingenuous empathy tends to lead to hegemony. Witness the recent HBO film in which Neda was repeatedly referred to as an “ordinary girl” who liked music, dancing and makeup. Asked blogger Diana at Muslimah Media watch:"if Agha-soltan were pictured wearing the chador, would viewers feel as as though they could identify with her?"", or "A number of critics have argued that notions of race somehow figured in the massive uptake of this video online...writer Tami argued Westerners fetishized Neda's death "in a way they would not if she were a young, blonde, American college student shot down on an American street." (by Routledge).
• "Even though the video of Neda Agha Soltan originated from the multiplicity and fast circulation of images characteristics of today's visual culture and online media flow, the news media conducted 'business as usual' in their framing of the footage as a symbolic icon."(by Routledge)

3. Marzieh Hashemi's documentary, Intersection, is not even mentioned, though there are reliable sources talking about it (see Al-monitor, for instance).

4. Some of IRI sources are reliable when attributed (for narrating major POVs of the government and/or pro-government parties). This item can be addressed case by case.

Note: I feel like being ganged by three users (Wikaviani, LouisAragon, HistoryofIran). Just imagine, HistoryofIran's only edit to this article before this, dates back to 2015. In spite of this, he suddenly showed up and removed a POV tag without commenting on the POV issues of the article. More interesting is that LouisAragon has had no edits to this article. This is while, the three users are heavily connected in their user talk pages. I'm not going to jump into conclusions, but it probably should be taken into account. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]