Talk:2005 Ahvaz unrest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources in question[edit]

I think pdki.org can't be used as a reliable source because it is a website of a Kurdish group that is in war with Iranian government and reflect their POVs.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic - all Iranian sources should not be used, since they are biased. Apparently many editors have little understanding on the WP:NPOV and WP:RS and what is the difference between those. There is no problem to use biased sources, as long as the opposite side is presented for WP:NPOV, and as long as the sources are reliable. Even if a source is suspected of POV, it is no way a certain unrealiable source. You should clear this for yourself. Do you have a proof that PDKI is posting deliberately wrong information? I guess no.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem to use biased sources , only if we don't present it as a fact , I mean the reader may know this sentence is a portraying of an opposition group .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, completely agree with you. Anyway the source has been removed by one of the wikiproject Iran members, and i will not argue to bring it back, as much better sources were meanwhile found. See the bottom topic on sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it needs a separate page ?[edit]

Does the subject of article needs a page due to the WP:notability criterias ? and WP:NNC ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, yes. Hundreds of dead and injured, with annual commemoration protests, news articles and official stance by Amnesty - all make it notable.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be an event of 2005 but it's article was made in 2011 . A rather unknown event without coverage , seems to be exact case of WP:notability and WP:NNC.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources[edit]

I would like to bring to attention several relevant sources on the unrest: [1], [2], [3].Greyshark09 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that sources be mentioned in articles about human rights in Iran and they have to have a separate article ? I mean doesn't it means undue wight? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the event had long range implications, such as 2005-2006 Ahvaz bombings, annual commemoration protests and finally large violent protests on 15 April 2011 (during the Arab Spring). More sources on this issue - Gulf Times [4], al-Jazeera (2011 violence report) [5], al-Arabiya (2011 violence report) [6] and [7], Amnesty report (2011) [8]Greyshark09 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a proved theory that events of 2011 are in connection with 2005 events ? Anyway , the protests of 2011 in Iran are mainly continuation of 2009–2010 Iranian election protests as the Wikipedia article says and may not be connected to 2005 events . More than that , as you see , there are so many protests in the region , and many of them are violent with mortality and morbidity ; then what makes this especial one a candidate for having a separate article ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "theory", this is according to cited sources - April 15, 2011 "Day of Rage in Ahwaz" was at the sixth anniversary of April 15, 2005 Intifada (or Ahwazi unrest); and was influenced by the Arab Spring as well. Your explanation seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it had a good media coverage , then why this article is written after 6 years?! And how come this one event may have an article but 22 protests of 2011 in other regions of Iran ( with several hundred times mortality and morbidity ) don't have individual articles and all of them are included in one article?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The media coverage was sufficient, considering the censorship of the Iranian regime, and the remoteness of the province. You are welcome to read the following sources from 2005-2008: BBC, Reuters, The Economist, Academic work, published by "Wiley", The Guardian, Amnesty International - 2008 report, Amnesty International 2006 - Iran: Defending minority rights – the Ahwazi Arabs, Iranian Opposition website, and i can find more if you like. The sources relate to the event as a "sectarian rioting", "ethnic riots", "unrest", "ethnic unrest" and "15 Aril Intifada" / "Ahwaz Intifada" by local opposition sources in Iran. I think WP:COMMONNAME well fits the "2005 Ahwazi unrest" title, though "riot" is also OK. The number of casualties is 20 according to mainstream media, 51-62 according to Amnesty and 160 according to Iranian opposition (less reliable). Still - very much significant, and clearly stands in one raw with the 2009-2010 and 2011 events in Iran. Together with the following Ahvaz bombings, the event is significantly important on historic scale.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merger/page move?[edit]

Many users at the AFD felt that the page name was "loaded" and/or that this content could be merged into another article. It seems further discussion is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no clear cut consensus on the move. Users are welcome to merge with Khūzestān Province. KiloT 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "Ahwazi unrest" and the likes, are loaded terminology only used by partisan separatist groups , their affiliates, or Human Rights organizations quoting them. The region's official name is Khuzestan and ALL the reliable news sources use this terminology to describe the region or the news events associated with the region. BBC, Reuters, The Economist, Financial Times just to name a few. So per our policy on WP:AT, the page should be moved to 2005 Khuzestan unrest or 2005 unrest in Khuzestan. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • agree .. furthermore, I believe this article should be merged with Khuzestan. The term "Ahwaz" just means someone from the city of Ahwaz and to use it as an ethnic term is new and non-mainstream irredentist concept. The term Khuzestan also is the most common and popular term. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree Khuzestan is the region and most people still refer to "Ahwaz" as the city and only that. It has no ethnic connotations for the majority of Iranians. Nokhodi (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree per wikipedia policies and the nominations: Reliable sources and wikipedia policies get the final say on names, notability, ... Xashaiar (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the page, if not agree with rename as stated in the AfD conclusion "The result was keep but possibly merge or rename". I would recommend the merge into a more mainstream article on the protests. As stated there, I am not sure having a separate article for each and every protest, in every city would be useful. However, if merge is not supported, the title obviously would need to change, the current name has a clear bias. Farmanesh (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, if not, agree with rename, merge could be the best solution for this article.--Aliwiki (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the editor might be trying to game the system, after unsuccessful attempt to gain consensus for removal of the article, and currently a deliberate vanadalist POV editing of the article - to make it seem very defferent, and trying to rm it by backdoor rename and merge. I ask the editor Kurdo777 to reach a consensus via the talk page and achieve NPOV and WP:RS article, instead of acting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT - which might draw sunctions.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me there is a lack of assuming good faith (WP:AGF) here. Might help if you read Accusing others of bad faith.Farmanesh (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me, you as well should read it. I cannot assume good faith upon removal of any WP:RS which claims a high casualty rate, while pushing a blogger post on "The Economist" who said 5 people died; extensive edits to make the event seem less notable (while removing WP:RS); This is called gaming the system.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me with a "you as well should read it" type of answer. I think we might be better of to wait till the discussion about the merge/rename is closed. Based on that, we can move forward with a better perspective.Farmanesh (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. Regarding the discussion over rename - it is not clear what is the target name ("that" or "that") and even more unclear whether it is a final rename or just a step towards merge. Quiet strange and non standard procedure is made here...Greyshark09 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, if not, agree with rename, per user:Farmanesh. (according to AfD conclusion) *** in fact *** ( contact ) 21:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's note: Just wanted to say that I support the merge option as well. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdo, pls note that nominator's vote doesn't count upon the outcome of this rename proposal. In any case it is not clear what is this now - a rename or merge proposal, and what is the exact target name (you cannot propose two names)? Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Giving extraordinary weight to this especial event among similar other protests in Iran is not reasonable . We may merge this to the article Politics of Khūzestān Province as said the AfD . The section's name in the article should be protests of 2005 --Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and alternative suggestion: according to WP:RS it should indeed remain "Ahwaz unrest" or "Ahvaz unrest" according to academic source (RC Elling State of Mind, State of Order: Reactions to Ethnic Unrest in the Islamic Republic of Iran - Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 2008 - Wiley Online Library, "...The first, which will be called the Ahvaz unrest, took place in the south-western Iranian province of Khuzestan, which borders Iraq, and in particular in the regional capital of Ahvaz...") and of course the media. The naming can be changed to Ahvaz, rather than Ahwaz, according to WP:COMMONNAME - like the articles on Ahvaz and Ahvaz bombings). Therefore i suggest it can be changed from "2005 Ahwazi unrest" -> "2005 Ahvaz unrest".Greyshark09 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The protests clearly involve Ahwaz, as described in numerous reliable sources, and the subject is obviously notable and deserves its own article. I am also opposed to Kurdo's continued attempts to vanish the fact that protests ever occurred in Ahwaz, the same thing he is trying to do in the 2011 Iranian protests article about the new Ahwaz protests. SilverserenC 22:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging into Politics of Khūzestān Province per User:Farmanesh. A renaming of the page is obviously overdue of the merge does not happen. --Wayiran (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Xashaiar, who may have put too much trust in the nominator's statement. Reliable sources and Wikipedia policies should get the final say indeed, but this statement is inaccurate. Reuters quotes an Iranian prosecutor using the term Ahvaz unrest. Reuters quotes another Iranian official speaking of the recent protests in Ahvaz. The Iranian news agency Mehr News (MNA) uses the term Ahvaz unrest in a headline. And Western media go along: Ahvaz unrest (Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty), Ahvaz was the site of ethnic protests in April (New York Times), Ahvaz has been the scene of civil unrest in the last two months (Los Angeles Times), hundreds of people rioted in Ahvaz (Washington Post), and, again: Ahvaz unrest (AFP). Ahvaz, not Khuzestan. And one more headline from Iran, on another Ahvaz unrest, but nevertheless: Ahvaz unrest ends in arrests. - Ankimai (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources say "Ahvaz", not "Ahvazi". So you should actually be supporting the renaming per your own logic and rational. Oh and when you're quoting sources like that, please stick to what the sources actually say, leave your own POV interpretations out of it. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refugee Review Tribunal RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE (AUSTRALIA, 2009) [9] calls the event "Ahwazi Arab unrest", and several more sources use the "i" suffix as well, including Al-Arabiya News Agency (probably using Ahwaz->Ahwazi like the Ahwazi unrest, similar to Yemen->Yemeni like the 2011 Yemeni uprising).Greyshark09 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And so what if they do? That doesn't mean WP:COMMONNAME, when the vast majority of the sources covering this event use Khūzestān, or Ahvaz, as in Ahvaz the city, without an "I". As I said, stick to what the majority of sources say, leave your own interpretations out of it. Ahvaz is a city, Yemen is a country, and Yemeni is a nationality, you're comparing apples and oranges here. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Does no meets WP:COMMON, the reliable sources call it Ahwaz not Khuzestan, as it have an exceptional cultural and histoical dimension, not just in indication to the administrative division of the region, it is enough that the province people are named in reference to Ahwaz not Khuzestan. Some of the sources that uses the current name: UNPO [10] Al-Arabiya [11] Al-Jazeera [12] BBC [13] (the last one says that bombers was Ahwazi, not "Khuzestani"), while Rueters and CNN does not use a certain nomenclatures --aad_Dira (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ali's revert[edit]

User named Ali (in Persian script), please note that a reason to your revert as "POV edits" is not logical as your revert was done to another revert. You are welcome to help decide the pathway of this article, however please address the issue of WP:RS deletion, POV pushing, and general bullying against the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep repeating gaming the systems and similar phrases do not legitimize your obvious POV edit. Removing information and replacing it with what you like is no acceptable in Wikipedia. You must discuss your points such as Military instead of police, number of causalities and so on with reliable sources.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aliwiki. The article must be neutral and factual. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 06:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call Kurdo's version neutral (the Economist article for instance has a little more to say on the underlying social/ethnic tensions. It also mentions another 'serious riot' in Ahwaz three years earlier). But it looks at least a bit less biased to me than yours, Greyshark. How about expanding that version (in a less accusatory way, I'd suggest) instead of reverting it? - Peace, Ankimai (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdo's revision is anything but neutral. I don't claim my version of the article is ideal, but you have already witnessed that instead of suggestion and cooperation to improve the article and find better sources, the article has been butchered with no mercy and without any consideration of other views. I wouldn't mind checking every source and find a compromise, but it seems Kurdo and some of his friends are not open for dialogue. I'm calling Kurdo and his Persian group for the last time to prevent edit warring, and i propose full cooperation for reliable and complete article.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are all here to help the project. (No matter what nationality we are) We should respect other editors' ideas. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 21:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling other editors "Persian group" is out of politeness.Please do not use such wording .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are becoming rediculous...Greyshark09 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdo and his Persian group! This is how you perceive everybody's comment here which you don't like, either one agrees with you or s/he becomes a member of your imaginary Kurdo and his Persian group? I agree with you on "becoming ridiculous".Farmanesh (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Khūzestān Province.[edit]

NOTHING TO BE DONE
I see only two people in true support of this and one of those arguments is weak at best. This isn't going anywhere. -- DQ (t) (e) 10:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of previous discussions was as following:

I-AFD : keep but possibly merge or rename.

II-Requested move : no clear cut consensus on the move. Users are welcome to merge with Khūzestān Province.

And according to admin's opinion :"...the majority of people were saying to merge, and not to move. So if merging, the page could just be turned into a redirect." , The end result is the editors may select the parts that should be used in the article Khūzestān Province , and make this article a redirect.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. In fact ( contact ) 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I wonder what is the relation between these two articles, i mean it is like to merge the Tibet mountains with Asia article just because they are located in Asia. I wonder, also, what may make this subject unnotable to be merged with another artice, as its kills maybe even more many from the kills of 2011 Iranian protests? And why do not start your merging-party with that article? Actually this subject have so mant reliable sources, from Rueters, BBC, CNN and Al-Jazeera --aad_Dira (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support to merge with both Khūzestān Province and Protests in Iran/Human Rights in Iran. Seems like the logical conclusion of the debates we have had. I think it should be merged with Khūzestān Province as it happened there, and also to be mentioned/merged with an article about Protests in Iran and/or Human Rights in Iran. Again on why I support the merge: I don't see the reason/point to have a separate article for every time there has been a protest in every city of every country. Farmanesh (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion of merging with Politics of Khūzestān Province made today by talk (without commenting on his other comments), and also mentioning it in these articles: Khūzestān Province, Protests in Iran/Human Rights in Iran.Farmanesh (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not much of a political guy but as for most of you, I am here to improve the standard of Wikipedia and make it more encyclopedic. Anyway, here are my concerns as far as (renaming and) merging go(es):
  • The article title should or should have focused on what neutral reliable sources call it, especially what academic sources call it. For such important names like article titles, it's also important to be specific and include proper context and stick to the most accepted terminologies. To break it down a little bit, so far, what we know is that a protest took place in the city of Ahvaz (the name used per our WP:AT policy) on April 15, 2005, and the only neutral source (not an academic source, however) provided so far put the number of dead to 5 (five). So, logically speaking, shouldn't the name of the article have been changed to something like "2005 Ahvaz Protest"?
  • As some have mentioned, it's true that the dead count is not as high as in other protests, say the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests or the 2011 Iran protests. Remember, these were series of protests. So, the main question is: What makes this particular article significant to have its own page? I am not convinced this article deserves its own page. Likewise, I'm not convinced merging a politically related page like this into the Khūzestān Province page would be a good idea either. Why not try the Politics of Khūzestān Province page instead?
  • Here is the bottom line, though: If the creator of this page is willing to address my first concern (changing the article title to something more encyclopedic), I am also going to do my best to raise the standard of this page and make it more encyclopedic. I support all ethnic groups in Iran, so it's not about giving more weight to one ethnic group and less to another. We just have to put our personal opinions aside and go by Wikipedia rules, guidelines, policies, conventions, or whatever you call them.
  • Finally, on a more serious note, I think the editors here and also the Wikipedia administrators who are monitoring this page deserve to know that certain individuals have been canvassed from another article talk page to cast their votes in here. I am worried that there is a degree of cheating and POV pushing here, attempting to forge a connection between the event described in this article and the Arab Spring events, despite the fact that there is absolutely no proof that the two are directly related, especially when there is no academic secondary source confirming such claims. I think in a consensus building, we have to act fairly and not go against Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Otherwise, how are we going to assume good faith? 84.23.140.55 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The references available for this subject (partially summarized in the below section) are quite clear on this subject and show the notability of it. I am a bit concerned that there may be some attempt at censorship going on here, because i've been noticing quite a few attempts to vanish or marginalize information about the people of Ahvaz and events that happen therein. SilverserenC 22:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern as well, Silver. Seems suspicious, but i hope it will cease and we solve it in a civil way. I would not want to go for sanctions and all that "bad cop" attitude.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Nothing to merge with Khuzestan article. Perhaps if you suggested "Politics of Khuzestan Province" it would have made some sense, but merging according to your proposal is completely unfit, regardless how much this article is notable. Merging with Khuzestan is adequate to deletion with redirect, and i guess this is where you are going.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This matter was discussed twice, and already supported by the agreement of the admin. We don't need to discuss it several times more.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What admin supported!? the admin opposed to deletion and moving, suggested merging.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the admins don't support anything, they just summarize consensus. They said it was a keep, but possibly merge, because that is a different process than deletion. SilverserenC 23:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of us" meaning not counting the three people opposing a merge? SilverserenC 06:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that you are rather trying to finish it with your own view, because even if Greyshark was supporting, and i doubt that, it is still there a two opposes for the merging. Apparently, you guys are just gathering votes, as we have not seen so far any trials or least attentions for discussiing the notability, but just a random-merge proposals looking for any article could be merged with this one for a "Hidden reasons" --aad_Dira (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Just to clarify - i said Perhaps if you suggested "Politics of Khuzestan Province" it would have made some sense, meaning i didn't support the merge with "Khuzestan Province" or with "Politics of Khuzestan Province", rather saying that merging with "Khuzestan Province" is same as delete (which you didn't get consensus for). Delete, rename, merge with Khuzestan, merge with Politics of Khuzestan and i have the feeling it will not stop. Typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Iranian IP user, you mixed up with another article - 2011 Ahvaz Day of Rage.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I doubt if there will be any consensus on merging, since this proposal is not substantially different than previous deletion and rename proposals. As an act of good faith proposed by Kurdo and supported with reliable sources (section below), i would like to rename this article to "2005 Ahvaz unrest", closing further dispute over its status.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a WP:GF edit of minor change, supported by WP:RS and is in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME, the page was renamed by me to "2005 Ahvaz unrest".Greyshark09 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. None of the rationales in WP:MERGE#Rationale apply to this proposal. The event's notability is established by coverage in reliable international sources. Its impact is demonstrated by the article's own "Aftermath" section which talks, among other things, about the six year anniversary protests during the Arab Spring. We should not merge an article that is compliant with policy. I express no view about whether the article's title is the best available title, or that there aren't problematic parts of the article, but I see no convincing reason whi the article itself does not meet inclusion standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources summary in regard to the event - common name and casualties[edit]

Here i would like to summirize all available sources and finally bring the overall picture to establish a page name and severity of the event (casualties). Other editors are welcome to add.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all two sources of academic level:

Dr. Babak Ganji. Civil Military Relations, State Strategies & Presidential Elections in Iran. Conflict Studies Research Centre, Middle East Series, June 2005: p.12.
"Unrest in Ahvaz";
"Ahvaz was a scene of unrest";
"According to an “informed source” who spoke to Baztab web site, which is managed by Omidvar Reza’i, the brother of the former C-in-C of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Mohsen Reza’i, three people were killed in clashes in Hamidiyeh district and a number of others were killed and injured in clashes in the Shalang Abad area of Ahvaz."
"the Iranian Interior Ministry stated that only one person had been killed."
"One exile group said that 30 people had been killed in the clashes. Speaking in London, a spokesman for the Ahvaz Arab People Democratic Popular Front, Abu Shaker al-Ahwazi, mentioned the names of 20 people who he said had been killed in the clashes. He said that dozens of people had been wounded and 300 others had been arrested."
"An official at a hospital in Ahvaz said that between 15 and 20 people had been killed."
Rasmus C. Elling. State of Mind, State of Order: Reactions to Ethnic Unrest in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Wiley publishing DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9469.2008.00028.x. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism Volume 8, Issue 3, pages 481–501, December 2008
"...The first, which will be called the Ahvaz unrest, took place in the south-western Iranian province of Khuzestan, which borders Iraq, and in particular in the regional capital of Ahvaz..."
(there is a limited access to this article, so i couldn't extract more quotes, anyone with access could help?).

In my opinion these are the best sources, but let's discuss the media as well.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the mainstream media sources and reliable organizations (i will skip tertiary and blog-like news sources):

The Guardian [14]
"...unrest in Iran's south-west Khuzestan province near the Iraq border."
"We suspended its activity in Iran to investigate the network's role in unrest in Ahvaz,"
Al-Jazeera [15] [16],[17]
"On the April 15, 2005 protest, 360 people were reported to have been arrested."
"At the time, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported two deaths."
"...very likely connected to April's violent protests"
"Iran blames UK for Ahvaz unrest"
"...including ethnic riots in April"
Al-Arabiya [18], [19],
"...suppressing the revolts that started on April 15 in commemoration of Bloody Friday, when more than 20 Arab-Iranians were killed, 500 injured, and 250 arrested on April 15, 2005 during protests in the city of Ahwaz"
"The revolution is meant to commemorate Bloody Friday, when more than 20 Arab-Iranians were killed, 500 injured, and 250 arrested on April 15, 2005 during protests in the city of Ahwaz."
BBC [20], [21], 19 April, 2005
"Three people have died in ethnic clashes in Iran's south-west Khuzestan province over the past few days."
"At least five people are known to have died in days of ethnic unrest in the Iranian province of Khuzestan."
"The attacks were part of a series of bombings in the city of Ahwaz, in Khuzestan province, following unrest a year ago in which ethnic Arabs protested against alleged discrimination by the Persian majority."
Reuters [22]
"Iran said on Monday that about 200 people were arrested in ethnic unrest in its southwest in recent days and closed the offices of the Arab language Al Jazeera television channel, accusing it of stirring up trouble. At least one person died after Arab-Iranians went on the rampage in the city of Ahvaz, near the border with Iraq, on Friday and Saturday, smashing and setting fire to police cars, banks and government buildings and clashing with police."
The Economist [23]
"Iran's government fails to read the warning in an Arab riot"
"...sparked three days of sectarian rioting earlier this month in Ahwaz, capital of the southern province of Khuzestan."
"...killing five and arresting more than 300."
Mehr News (MNA) [24], [25]
"10 culprits behind Ahvaz unrest detained"
"...recent skirmishes in Ahvaz"
"...more unrest broke out on Friday in the southwestern Iranian city of Ahvaz, but the police immediately arrested the rioters."
NY Times [26]
"Ahvaz was the site of ethnic protests in April"
"The government said the letter was forged but 250 people were arrested in the protests and at least one person was killed."
LA Times [27]
"Ahvaz has been the scene of civil unrest in the last two months..."
"The governor of Khuzestan province, Fathollah Moin, told reporters that seven people had been "martyred" in Ahvaz and more than 70 injured. Most of those hurt were women and children, he said."
"Unrest erupted in the province in April..."
Washington Post [28]
"Two months ago, hundreds of people rioted in Ahvaz and several were reported killed."
"The April riots..."
Amnesty International May 2011 report, May 2006 report, April 2006 report
"In 2005, dozens were killed and scores, if not hundreds, arrested during and following the demonstrations. The event sparked off a cycle of violence in the province, with fatal bomb attacks, followed by further arrests, unfair trials and at least 15 executions."
"...sixth anniversary of the 2005 mass demonstrations."
"...which has tended to spill over into unrest and subsequent repression, the most recent cycle of which began in April 2005 and has become known among the Ahwazi Arabs as the Ahwazi intifada."
"The unrest began on 15 April 2005 in the Shalang Abad..."
"Mass protests by Iranian Arabs broke out on 15 April 2005 and continued over the following days..."

More sources will be appreciated, but it seems the picture is quiet complete - "2005 Ahvaz unrest" is the common naming and the number of dead is between 1 to 30 (Amnesty also said 52 dead, but i need to find the document).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source i found relevant:

U.S. Department of State
"On April 15, there were violent protests in the ethnically Arab province of Khuzestan"
"A government official said clashes with security services resulted in 3 or 4 deaths, but Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported at least 50 deaths."
"On April 15, protests in Ahwaz followed the publication of a letter..."
"On April 24, officials said 5 persons with primary responsibility for the unrest were arrested and had confessed..."Greyshark09 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Ahvaz unrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Ahvaz_unrest&oldid=1212606642"