Talk:2006 Iranian sumptuary law hoax

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

National Post story[edit]

The National Post appears to have broken this story, and UPI and other news sources have picked it up. Please only verifiable mainstream news sources as sources for this article; this is being given heavy rotation in the blogosphere, but much of the discussion there appears to be unsourced speculation. Can we confirm any of this from official Iranian sources? -- 80.168.224.129 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote about the story before the National Post. Pecher ^Talk 20:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source? Simon Wiesenthal Center were asked to comment on the National Post story, which ran yesterday and today. This is a National Post story and everyone else is citing National Post. Again, this story has not yet been verified by any news agencies. --ManiF 20:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecher is wrong, here is the letter from Simon Wiesenthal Center on their official website, they refer to a National Post editorial as their source:

"According to an editorial that was to appear in Friday’s National Post"

--ManiF 20:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal comments. Rabbi Hier cites the editorial by Amir Taheri, which is a different article from the one used as a source here, to refer to the emerging consensus on distinctive clothing, not about the law itself. Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole story on the law's application to Jews and Christians is based on Amir Taheri's editorial in the National Post and subsequent comments from two expatriate Iranians in the new National Post report today. The source of the story is the National Post, all the other sources are citing the National Post. --ManiF 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources cite the National Post: ~~(UPI)~~ (Ynet) ~~(Jerusalem Post)~~ Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, please. They all say "according to Canada's National Post". --ManiF 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ynet cites al-Sharq al-Awsat rather than National Post[1]. Jerusalem Post cites National Post, but many other sources too. Pecher ^Talk 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The al-Sharq al-Awsat story is about the proposed legislation to promote "Islamic and indigenous fashion" and has nothing to do with the subject of fashion requirements for Jews or Christians in particular. --ManiF 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second one doesn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you look closely, ynetnews's story is almost identical to The National Post's report, it even quotes the same people. ynetnews is a bit "tabloidish" anyways. --ManiF 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a National Post story, all the other articles are citing National Post as their source and National Post's source are two Iranian expatriates. This story has not yet been verified by any news agencies. --ManiF 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not, as Pecher said, the Simon Wiesenthal Center were first. If you read the original newswire from the national post, it referred to an unnamed NGO, and they are the only NGO to have written about it so far. Joffeloff 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above section please, Simon Wiesenthal Center's source was an earlier editorial in the National Post by Amir Taheri. --ManiF 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sourced-paragraph, was removed without any explanation by User:Pecher:

However, this The National Post report has yet to be independently verified by human rights organizations and prominent international news agencies. The New 940 Montreal cite an Israeli Middle East expert, Meir Javedanfar, saying the report is false. "It's absolutely factually incorrect," he told The New 940 Montreal. "Nowhere in the law is there any talk of Jews and Christians having to wear different colours. I've checked it with sources both inside Iran and outside." The National Post cites Iranian expatriates living in Canada as its primary source on the story. [2]

The Associated Press' report[edit]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_DRESS_CODE?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

'"The National Post, quoting "Iranian expatriates living in Canada," said the law would require "Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews...to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth."

Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: "Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."' --ManiF 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As part of a new sumptuary law authorized by the Iranian parliament that will enforce a uniform national dress, the country's non-Muslim religious minorites will be required to wear distinctive markings: yellow ribbons for Jews, red for Christians and blue for Zoroastrians. Muslim Iranians will have to wear "standard Islamic garments". The law has been passed by the parliament, but it has not yet been ratified into law by Ali Khamenei, the country's Supreme Leader.[1] The purpose of the distinctive clothing is to prevent Muslims from becoming najis (ritually unclean) by accidentally shaking hands with non-Muslims in public"

seriously can you read this rubbish and actually give any credit to such article? the Khamanei himself shakes hand with non-Muslim political figures that visit Iran. I love it how Western media outlets take their readers as idiots, funny stuff!--kraf001

Cleanup tag[edit]

Currently, the articel seems to be a bunch of descreet paragraphs that don't acknowledge the existance of the other: Names and titles are repeated, duplication of quotations is rife, and other things that I can't put my finger on. Hence I've tagged it as such. 68.39.174.238 01:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that the first name of the Jewish legislator isn't very certain given the two difference transliterations of it (Morris and Maurice). 68.39.174.238 01:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Story completely gone from the internet?[edit]

The story that appeared on the front page which was authored by Chris Wattie has no link. The National Post seems to have wiped it from existence. Is there a cached version of it? It is obviously a central reference for the article.--24.76.232.204 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-S cat?[edit]

I appreciate the historical similarites and that the Jewish are stated to be included in this law, but is it specific enough to merit inclusion? Also, if so, should it be in the Anti-Christian and -Zoroastrarian cats (If they exist)? This being a rather heavily loaded topic I'm wary of just removing this cat... 68.39.174.238 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual law[edit]

Now that the religious minority discrimination bit has been discredited, the article should be rewritten to encompass the actual law. I think the enforcement of a national dress code to avoid Western clothing styles is notable enough for that. Joffeloff 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article should have "controversy" added to the end of its title. The law in itself is not notable at all. Only the controversy is notable. I also have serious doubts about the law not addressing religious minorities. All of these accusations are completely unsubstantiated. The Jewish member of Parliament in Iran is a puppet with no power. He is not a viable source for anything. KI 18:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather wait for the knowledgeable people to sort out the issue. Basically, I'm struggling to understand how it can be problematic to check the text of the law, considering the number of people all over the world that speak the language. Pecher ^Talk 18:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest syndicated AP piece [3], "A draft law moving through parliament encourages Iranians to wear Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity but does not mention special attire for religious minorities, according to a copy obtained Saturday by The Associated Press. The 13-article bill received preliminary approval a week ago." I think the controversy over this article's accuracy is thoroughly finished. Although the back story as to how it got so distorted and landed on the front page of the National Post will be interesting. --Ben Houston 18:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the investigation on who started the story may be a story in itself. Interestingly, Amir Taheri, who wrote the editorial for National Post apparently never saw the text of the law. Pecher ^Talk 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taheri and his ilk seem to expend considerable energy whipping up anti-Iranian sentiment worldwide, much of which is seized upon by — I have no doubt — well-intentioned wikipedians and used to justify all kinds of POV nonsense. So, I propose we now adjudge Amir Taheri as "not a reliable source" and require independent (not just secondary source) verification for any controversial stories originating with him.  JEREMY 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, whether notable or not I would like to know what the law is. It is definitely related to this article, so shouldn't it be included? If it is not notable, people can sort that out for themselves. Malcolmst (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet claims[edit]

Removed the latter claim about 3,000,000 Google results ("A simple search in google in 20 May, gave more than 3000,000 links about the issue.[4]") for several reasons.

The number of links is only 2,750,000 as of this writing. More imporantly, NONE of the links on the initial page of results linked to have ANYTHING to do with this story AT ALL:

The students who invaded the embassy compound wore badges with the portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini, and they put up a banner saying: "Khomeini struggles, Carter trembles."[5]

The sheer volume of small weapons, especially hand-held StoA projectiles that have been sold and traded around the world, many which bear American and European manufacturing badges makes it nearly impossible to know who "obtained" said munition, let alone who pulled the trigger.[6]

Please read teh rights to a cosy apartment in a British prison where they are served halal, provided with a hot copy of Koran and a small soft rug to pray on 5 times a day, while the prison wardens are ordered to remove badges with St. George's Cross so that they should not offend the Muslim sensitivities.[7]

Documents include extensive pay records from August 2004 that show Iran was paying the salaries of at least 11,740 members of the Badr Shia militia...This is a Flickr badge[8]

Other Topics Today Include: Enriching Iran; US interferes in Iran; Is/Hezb deathmatch; Saudi democracy in action; Yemeni cell jugged; Egypt just says no to the Muslim Brotherhood; Airplane!; Fake badges and visas[9]

"We told them, 'We will not tolerate you bearing arms.' We said, 'You can protect property but cannot leave property carrying a weapon.' And we gave them clear examples of people we detained while implanting bombs who were carrying Mahdi Army badges."[www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6646]

Miller & the Queen of Iran at the Shiraz Arts Festival. A few of Miller's former press badges.[10]

UK Fun Badges, Etc. Australia. Belgium. Canada. France. Iran.[11]

The Technorati results ("In 20 May, almost every minute one weblog posted the news[12]") do seem to be of greater relevance. The Persian blogpost[13] will have to be addressed by someone who knows the language better than I. JFD 19:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Those additions smack of original research. I think they are jumping the gun and that all this (or at least the true parts) will be properly reported in the media in due time. --Ben Houston 19:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. I made a mistake in the google search. It gives 3450,000 (in my computer) links but as mentioned above some of them are irrelevant. --Mitso Bel20:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that this probably counts as original research - it should probably be done on wikinews, and then it could be cited here - but for the record, JFD, i think you looked straight in google rather than clicking on the link - you probably missed the &sa=N part of the request: e.g. a slightly shorter URL than the one that was in the article is: http://www.google.com/search?q=iran+badges&sa=N - right now this gives 3,340,000 entries, including:

as the first four links. So the google link is correct and useful. But its place is probably wikinews, not wikipedia. Boud 20:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I wonder why the link initially gave such irrelevant results.

JFD 05:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because for some reason or other you (or your browser, against your will ;), removed or did not put in the &sa=N selection criterion, which (i'm just guessing, you could look through google help pages to confirm this) picks out web pages that google has classified as "news" pages. Boud 09:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appology?[edit]

Has anyone from any news agency or Stephen Harper, the PM of Canada, apologized for jumping to conclusions? They should give one. --(Aytakin) | Talk 01:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the sneaking suspicion that the reason the Wattie article was replaced and the Taheri article was not is because Wattie was willing to withdraw his original article and replace it with a better-sourced one whereas Taheri refused to do so. Granted, this is pure speculation on my part. The National Post will probably issue a correction but politicians alas almost never do.

JFD 05:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many apologies have been published by all the news organisations and politicians libelling Ahmadinejad by publishing a loose, figurative translation with vital parts of his text, necessary to understand in what sense he meant the words, missing? See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel for the NPOV version of the facts behind the urban legend/defamation campaign using quotes around "wiped off the map". Wikipedia only NPOV documents the facts, in the NPOV + NOR sense - we can't force people to actually read the wikipedia or apologise for errors. That would be a goal offtopic for wikipedia (Ayatollah Jimbo, PBUH, wants wikipedia to be available to "everyone on the planet", but i don't know if He wants us to force everyone on the planet to actually read it) - you would need to find "advocacy" organisations/networks/websites for this - start a blog, join a blog network, or look around for other advocacy networks of your liking.

On the other hand, we could document requests for apologies, if there are NOR verifiable claims that the requests have been made. If any Iranian parliamentarians tried launching a libel case against the National Post, that would be documentable. Boud 09:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any apology, nor would I characterize what the National Post did as a "retraction" as it has been done in the article. Yes, they did post a followup story titled "Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue" on the 19th, but on the 20th and up until the 23rd the story they had up was "Iranian embassy denies dress code". This is hardly a retraction so much as a declaration that the Iranian embassy denies the story. By the 23rd it should have been incumbant on them to perhaps admit the story was false rather than just present it as denied by the Iranian embassy (after all, who believes the Iranian embassy, right? (sarcasm)). They put out information on sources contradicting their own story, but they themselves never printed a retraction (see the St. Petersburg Times outside link, THAT is a propper retraction)

Ok, now they have admitted the mistake and it's being called an apology. Have not read it yet...it's not available for free online. --24.76.232.204 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zonnar page[edit]

Somebody created a Zonnar page, which, according to an old page that has since been turned into a redirect, is germane to this controversy. Would a knowledgeable person link up to the orphaned Zonnar page or nominate it for deletion? Thanks. --Chaser (T, C, e) 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a once-over. The initial part is arguably a candidate for Wiktionary, but at least the paragraph on the new controversy makes it an article. I'm skeptical whether it's worth keeping, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of Legal Action by User:Meditor[edit]

Just in case anyone is interested, User:Meditor has threatened legal action against me for associating journalist Chris Wattie (who by lined the front page National Post story) with this fact. Check out the discussion on his talk page here: User_talk:Meditor (I have copied it to the Talk:Chris Wattie page. I am on good legal ground since I am just mentioning a fact with no editorializing. --Ben Houston 18:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Hoax, not a Controversy[edit]

Title should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.110.134 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]