Talk:Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan/Archive 2

|Biographical information from the Times

Wrt either of pair of images of Agha-Soltan in biography section

Per WP protocols, if a free image would be acceptable in this context, but someone's concern would merely be with its licensing, please do not delete the image but rather await the result of its ifdc (or nominate it for an ifdc if it has not been already. Also note that the deletion notice isn't required to be displayed. I put it there as a courtesy, however if everyone should prefer a more polished look to the article, I could remove it. (The notice, that is!)) ↜Just M E here , now 07:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys should cross-check your information. The woman on the left picture is clearly not the same one as on the right. And there are other photos of the left woman wearing a cross around her neck. See http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-43699-4.html#backToArticle=632047 --[Anonymous]

Wow, Anonymous! Interesting...! ↜Just M E here , now 17:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was the first time I ever edited a Wikipedia page. And what does me posting anonymous change about the fact that the woman on the left photo can't be Neda because a muslim woman would never ever wear a cross?

A blind man with a stick can see that this is not the same person as in the right photo or the shocking death video. As far as I know, these clearly faked photos were all distributed by that "fiancé". I don't doubt that a young woman called Neda was brutally killed by the criminal Iranian Government. But certain information is just too good to be true. I just want you to be a bit more skeptic.

(Respond): You're right, maybe the purported fiance is a faud. (p.s. If you place four tildes after your post → ~~~~ -- your signature will automatically be affixed and timestamped.) ↜Just M E here , now 07:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, here are interviews with the fiance by Al Jazeera (translated(?) into English) (click here) and by Channel One's Shahram Homayoun (which I have't watched because it is in Persian) (click here). ↜Just M E here , now 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge/delete discussions

I've archived the following discussion. Please contribute further comments about whether this articles should be kept or deleted to the discussion currently taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan. Thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the logical behind the creation of that other article? I demand to know. There were notable school shooting victims, murder victims, disaster victims, and none of them had two separate articles. Maybe make a section, not a separate article! Everything should be under "Neda Agha-Soltan". 66.57.44.247 (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, there's no need to histrionics. As mentioned above, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neda Agha-Soltan for continuing discussion on this subject.
— Ω (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Whenever someone died and became notable just for that, there was usually a short biography and a large section devoted to the death. This is really dumb and useless. What is happening to our integrity? 66.57.44.247 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I won't call the Neda story a hoax but there's a lot of information out there that is clearly untrue. So please double-check everything before writing it into an encyclopedia.

DELETE THIS CRAP. 66.57.44.247 (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. How do you really feel about it? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What?? This event is already being compared to other famous photo's in history. And the people behind the photo's have their own page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Vecchio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_V%C4%83n_L%C3%A9m http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc Leave it for now

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.

Images

I hope to source various aspects of the evolution of "Neda" images/iconography. Here's what I've gotten so far.

• The video:

1. NRC Handelsblad(link)
2. CNN: Neda was wearing "a baseball cap over a black scarf, a black shirt, blue jeans and tennis shoes"(link)
3. The New Yorker: "Her great passion was for Persian pop music. Her dream was to be a tour guide. One benefit of the past few weeks is how many stereotypes about Iranians we’ve had to give up. Given all that we’ve now seen and heard from Iran, one of the least surprising details about Neda is that she was wearing sneakers and blue jeans under her black manteau when she died."(link) (Manteau: "long, flowing shirt")

• Mistaken "patterned scarf" image (see images here, the image on the right in the first frame shown being the one most ppl in Iran may still believe to be the victim(?)):

1. The actual person shown in this image, a Neda Soltani of Tehran, emailed one of her facebook friends, Dr. Amy L. Bean, the following: "I'm very scared!!!! All around the world they are talking about my photo, which has turned into The symbol of liberty, rebellion, etc. i'm in danger! i don't know what to do!"(link)
2. Blogger Amy L. Bean explains: "[...] I also became friends with Hamed R. who is the man who uploaded the video file of the Neda who was shot to death. [...] Hamed R. and others who were viewed this posting on my Facebook wall by the living Neda Soltani made the unintentional mistake of thinking the photo of the person who posted the Farsi-English translation was the photo of the woman who was killed. So the photo of Neda wearing the patterned headscarf was copied and reposted EVERYWHERE within minutes and hours. By the time I woke up June 22, the wrong photo of the living Neda Soltani was being displayed on TV, blogs, youtube videos, placards and banners around the world. Neda Soltani emailed me via Facebook begging for help to correct the mistake."(link to primary source)
3. TPM(link)
4. Today's Time magazine: "Early mourners scoured the Web and appropriated the image of the wrong woman--another Neda, who, it turned out, was very much alive." (Plus commentary about the phenomenon of images' iconizations: "Neda is dead, but her life story is still being pulled together--elaborated and embellished, blog post by blog post, tweet by tweet.")(link)
5. Image accompanying a post by Andrew Sullivan (renowned for having had an interest in Iranian affairs for some years now) at his blog just today(link), captioned, "A demonstrator holds a photo of dead icon Neda Agha Soltan during a protest of the Iranian election results in Union Square June 24, 2009 in New York City." ( ...but, with Sullivan's failing to note that this image is actually of a still-alive woman and thus can only constitute an icon that, by extension, is representative of the martyred Neda Agha-Soltan. (Well, such is the nature of history: what gets broadcast far and wide becomes what is history, despite its imperfections, with corrections after the fact a bit tricky!))

↜Just M E here , now 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A cross

Question: why would a Muslim be wearing a cross made of gold? Do we know for certain that she was a Muslim? She might have been an Iranian Christian....192.44.136.113 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with a Muslim wearing a cross?

What is wrong with that, is that would be considered apostasy in some Muslim countries.

Well, IP, oddly enough, Agha-Soltan was shot just below the neck and at the top part of her chest (by a bullet that apparently flattened in her body without exiting). Which would have been consistent with the general position such a pendant, if worn at the time, would have been in. ↜Just M E here , now 04:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears she could have been targetted specifically because the Basiji shooter saw the cross, or knew who she was, or perhaps just unlucky. But then that would be even more unfortunate. But the question still needs answering: do we know for certain she was Muslim? 173.20.224.196 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

According to The Independent, Soltan was a "graduate of Tehran's Azad [Islamic] University,"(link) where, according to CNN, "Though she [had] studied philosophy and religion[...], she was more spiritual than religious."(link) ↜Just M E here , now 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I would motion that the listing of Muslim as her religion is potentially inaccurate in practice, even if she was reared and educated as such. 173.20.224.196 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which would be reasonable. Of course, someone would be required to edit the Template:Infobox person and create a separate field, first, for subjects' "religious practices," no? After which we could then write in that particular field that Soltan was more spiritual than religious, as referenced; nevertheless the existing field of "religious beliefs," would best be left as Muslim, according to our sources, would it not? ↜Just M E here , now 22:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember that this isn't a discussion forum, anonymous. If there is a verifiable source stating that she is not Muslim, then there may be cause for discussion about changes to the article. Otherwise please refrain from trying to use wikipedia to spread your theories. We are not about hypothesizing what someone's religion was. We are about reporting the known information. --Aranae (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if the physical evidence and religious doctrine prohibiting the wearing of apostate garments is clearly available? You'd rather, and let's be clear, that potentially false information be propagated rather than a modicum of actual common sense? Muslims cannot wear the cross. The Quran is clear: to do so means you ARE a Christian and are to be treated as such. There is a photograph showing her to be wearing a cross. By the Quran, therefore, she is a Christian. Muslim law, though unreasonable from certain standpoints, is clear on the matter utterly. This isn't a theory, this is what the Quran says specifically on the subject. What's more, there are approximately 300000 Christians in Iran; and the University which she attended has no requirement that a person be a Muslim to attend. By putting it together, one can see that there is something amiss here. The point you propose can be turned: I ask what proof has anyone that she was, in fact, a Muslim? I've presented my evidence to the contrary, I await your's. This is the point where you will most likely point to WP verifiability as being the point, but you cannot verify her actual religious belief structure. Your argument is invalid because you have no evidence; my argument has physical proof. So, what proof have you of the claims? 173.20.224.196 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In all sincerity, IP, from my understanding, Muslim refers to "someone who submits to The One God." And, because, according to this definition, this could even refer to those who would submit to The One God even before the time of Muhammad, this means that the followers of the original Gospel of Jesus "were Muslims," too.

Symbols are interesting things. For example, Saudis reject the star and crescent as a symbol of (undefiled) Islam (which was orignially the symbol for Constantinople, a city of course founded by the Emperor Constantine, whose mother was Christian (perhaps a trinitarian one).

In any case, after Jesus's divine mission, in places where Greek was studied and spoken, the Greek letter chi ( χ ) came to stand for christós ( Χριστός ), meaning "Messiah" (Christós being the direct translation into Greek of the Hebrew word Messiah meaning "Annointed," that is, "--- of David," which in turn means "the divinely appointed prophet-king of the Jews"). And, later on (according to the historical record), many non-trinitarian Christians came to accept Islam (and there were then a lot of them who did so, in the years immediately following Muhammad's lifetime [upon him be The One God's peace]).

So, IP, if you speculate that a cross being worn by Ms. Soltan (if this had actually been the case) should indicate her having been a trinitarian Christian, then I, in turn, can speculate that Ms. Soltan had felt touched by the heart -- or qalb ( قلب ) -- of non-trinitarian Christianity, which she believed analogous to the essence of al Islam ( الإسلام‎ ), which led her to wear a chi ( χ ), around her neck on occasion. (See The Guidebook to the True Secret of the Heart, by Muhammad Raheem Bawa Muhaiyaddeen.) ↜Just M E here , now 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The cross is the symbol for Jesus(pbuh) death in Christianity. In Islam he didn't die on the cross. Conclusion, anyone who wears the cross is against the beliefs of Islam. User Muhammad R.B.M.'s logic is therefore flawed, because a Christian Muslim is someone who doesn't believe Jesus died on the cross and then became resurrected. So Neda isn't a Muslim, according to the picture if it's authentic. Daimend (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, crucifixes notwithstanding, the Romans crucified people, actually, on T-shaped structures. (And the Greek letter chi ( χ ) -- as in Constantine's vision in the sky -- (the fuller abbreviation was Chi-rho-iota) was the original Christian* symbol. (After that, of course, of a fish.))

_____

(*and, perhaps, "Christian Muslim," as you say, User:Daimend?) ↜Just M E here , now 04:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wiki-linked Muhaiyadeen's WP biography and included an external link to his book because this humble shaikh (learned in Islam and held by some to be a Sufi saint) is quoted in it as saying that the Light at the True Heart within the teachings among the "Peoples of The Book/s", taken together, is of Allah. (Meanwhile, the rest of the stuff I wrote is from other sources; and I am, in actuality, only User:Justmeherenow.)

We don't know for sure what the facts are and, in this case, would not be able to look inside Neda's heart and see what were her genuine intentions. So, at this point, the only thing we can go by is what she told those who knew her; and, to this point in time, we know of no source who knew her who has implied that Neda had been among the estimated 2% of Iran's population that are not Muslim. ↜Just M E here , now 15:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And we equally have no proof that she was a member of the 98% Muslim population of Iran. Mathematical probability to the side, of course. I do like the "citation needed" addition. All I ask is that proof of a claim be given before WP puts it in stone, which is why I posted originally in the first place. Kindly, don't think me trolling. 173.20.224.196 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Family's travel agency

WaPo (link): "At the family's modest travel agency, where Agha Soltan once worked, tense relatives declined to comment. According to sources close to the family, authorities have told them not to talk to the news media." ↜Just M E here , now 03:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Salehi" in subject's name

is sourced here (link). ↜Just M E here , now 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Muslim

Why isn't she categorized as a muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.241.109 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

^Y ↜Just M E here , now 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

She is, check the infobox.173.20.224.196 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

About Mohammad Reza Shah

I don't think that this section is at all relevant to the topic being discussed. A lot of people have been touched and every one has done his or her to display it, if we are going to list one, then we should list them all, possibly in a different article. Currently I will be removing the section because I feel like it is using the page as an advertising space for the Iranian monarchy. Amirishere (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The section has been restored, but the discussion here can continue. I think that this article should mention some of the responses of the monarchy, but maybe this response from Reza Pahlavi isnt the best. Has there been any other responses from the monarchy? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We no longer look at the monarchy as an influential figure in Iran. I believe that there are more important people in the cue if we were to mention. For example Sazegara or Khomeini's grandson. I don't know if either of them have made a comment but I'am just using them as an example. I'd be glad to see more comments on this before I remove it again.

Okay I'll be removing it now since no one is giving any comments. 80.66.183.55 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. --Damiens.rf 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agha-Soltan's biographical infobox

There is a discussion about the propriety of there being biographical infoboxes within "event" type articles that I have initiated here: "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Should there be a project-wide policy wrt bio infoboxes in "event" articles?". In the meantime, according to my interpretation of existing guidelines, the Agha-Soltan bio infobox seems informative the reader and an improvement to the encyclopedia (especially per the foundational guideline of WP:Preserve, that, at least in my reading, would seem to nudge us to keep a detailed summary box about Agha-Soltan, despite her separate Wikipedia biography not being in existence. ↜Just M E here , now 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I should probably state that, if anything, the whole section should go, not just the infobox. I've honestly never seen her as a person as being that important to the event, which isn't intended as an attempt to lessen her "value as a human being" or anything (I can already hear the complaints coming...), it's just that before this event she was basically just a normal person like the rest of us.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the biographical section (with, incidentally, its infobox) should stay per my interpretation of WP:Preserve. Even were eventually extensively researched biographies of Agha-Soltan were to come to be published, I don't know if a separate WP entry for would at that point become justified, but I think it is entirely possible it would; nevertheless, as things stand, Agha-Soltan's notability is not sufficiently distinct from that of the event of her death. Yet, of course, readers have an interest in reading what is known about her life and there exist sufficient sources to provide them some of its basic details. There is more commentary here: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 50#Inter-articles consensuses happen...well, when? ↜Just M E here , now 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

26 Year-old according to time.

Found a source saying she was 26 years old, not 27... http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1919817,00.html Take care, and be safe. PureRumble (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

On the subject of propaganda where did this line come from?

"It was later found that this video was hoax, she is seen with a bottle of fake blood in her hand. the circumstances of her death that the video portrayed are fake, but she was later murdered, shot in the back at close range, not the chest."

Is it sabotage? GovernmentWalls (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion?

She was born into a Muslim family but I seriously doubt she was a practising Muslim at the time of her death.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

She doesnt have to be practicing to be considered a Muslim. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims are non practicing.Kalifo (talk)

That's what I meant.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

ALL news in time of war is propaganda. There is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to recent events. "Recent" in this context means anything that happened in Iran after 1952. Odd that the article title is "Death of Neda Agha-Soltan", but repeated efforts have been made to remove the links to the online video of the shooting, which is available on any number of websites. The more you try to suppress the news, the more it becomes evident there is something to hide. Stop sabotaging the site and find something constructive to do with your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ski mohawk (talk • contribs) 10:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong name and wrong photo for Neda?

There's an article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung that the name Neda may be right, but she got confused with someone else, so here name is not Soltan. [1] Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't same the name is wrong. It says that the Facebook picture of an - unrelated - Neda Soltani was widely used. This other Neda finally sought asylum in Germany because of problems related with the massive worldwide publication of her image. Averell (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong photo for Neda: Living Neda Soltani is not Deceased Neda Agha Soltan

Starting from the day this Wiki page was created, I posted and reposted the fact that the Facebook photo of the living Neda Soltani was being mistakenly used by web sites and mainstream media as the photo of Neda Agha Soltan, the woman who was killed. In fact, the photo of the beautiful Neda Soltani wearing a floral printed headscarf was even being erroneously used by Wikipedia which further escalated the mistake. Like hundreds of other websites I contacted, the Wiki editor of this page did not want to believe my information. My comments to clarify the mistaken identify have been consistently removed. My attempt to create a different Wikipedia page for Neda Soltani is blocked. So the living Neda Soltani, formerly an English lecturer at Karaj University in Iran, still cannot reclaim her identity. I first blogged about this tragic error on June 23, 2009, at http://www.wipoun.blogspot.com/[2]. As of June 2010, FOX TV and other media continue to knowingly use the photo of the living Neda Soltani to represent the dead Neda Agha Soltan. Fearing for her safety, Neda Soltani left Iran in 2009. She was granted political asylum in Germany in 2010. Dr. Amy L. Beam, 21 June 2010

Feb 2010 article by a german journalist who recently met Neda Soltani in her asylum near Frankfurt (am Main), Germany: http://www.ruhrbarone.de/the-story-of-neda-soltani-a-story-of-what-media-can-do-to-a-person/ The photo used on the article web page is obviously incorrect and should be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.80.161 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you are referring to now, because the article carries the correct picture already for a while. It is true that there was originally a false picture floating around (ripped off from facebook) but that wasn't the one our articles shows.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening image potentially upsetting, scary, and not appropriate for children and younger people?

Hi there,

I just came across this page - which is great btw - but as I do a lot of work with young people and cyberspace, and knowing as much as we do about how often they will come to check stuff out on wiki, maybe could we have a discussion about whether the image of her either dying or dead, as you first open up the page, needs to be there on the first screen.

Perhaps, like the news on TV does (i.e., warns you that there maybe images of death or injury in the following item), we could have a link to the image if people wanted to investigate it further? I'd hate to see wiki banned in more schools because it pushed stuff out to people that was quite unexpected. I use wiki a lot and I've never come across anything like that straight off on a page.

On the other hand I can imagine that people wanted the image up to honour her memory and highlight how horrendous the situation is. I wonder though if that could still happen for people who wanted to investigate further...

Thoughts?

p.s. this is my first talk piece or comment, so sorry if I've made any mistakes. Cheers

Hi, I just want to give a strong second to this opinion posted above. I completely agree. Although her identity is difficult to discern without that very telling picture, if it was simply moved down below the viewing space of the first page, anyone genuinely interested in finding her will look a bit further. Please. This image is to tragic to be put in this light, even if it was the open nature of her death that sparked her fame and made that moment blaze with infamy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.48.42 (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sizzelnz (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

First things first: Wikipedia is not censored under any circumstances other than vandalism or content with non-encyclopedic value. There is no justification to remove the lead image in this article (of Neda dying), as it completely illustrates the topic in an encyclopedic fashion. The only compromise I can see is perhaps moving the image further down the page and moving another picture further up to supplement as the lead image. However, the current lead image should stay and there is no reason that I can see to move it to a separate page which would be linked here. Regards. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fake death?

Many internet websites claim Neda's death was faked by "Green Revolutioners" to increase their international supporters! Here is a video that supports this claiming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBaF7yjbBLk&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.243.2 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been all over the news. Are you a conspiracy nut or something? Claiming this is false is beyond comprehension. 173.28.230.79 (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Last revert

I've reverted POV edit recently. The position of the Iranian government can and should be in the article, but their releases (including the one used in this case, Press TV, cannot be presented as undisputed facts). (Edit: I also see that the information from that edit was already in the article...) Averell (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The HBO Documentary Movie

I think editors who wish to contribute to this article MUST watch the HBO documentary movie that was released a couple of weeks ago about Neda's death. Neda's family (including her mother, father, sister and brother) as well as some of her university friends are interviewed in person in this documentary.

She *was* participating very actively in the protests. Contrary to what the current version of this article suggests, she wasn't just a bystander. Perhaps at the moment that she got shot she was only stepping out of the car due to traffic (i don't know) but certainly before that, the days before and also the moments before on the same day, she was among the protesters (on foot) and was chanting slogans against the election fraud etc.

In the documentary, her family explains why she didn't vote on the elections day: It's true that she was not a highly political person before the elections, however she was always a secular-minded person and wanted a democratic political system and she tended towards reformist candidates. The day of the election she went to the voting location along with her mother. She asked to see Mr. Mousavi's or Mr. Karoubi's representatives in that voting location but she was told that they are not there and only Mr. Ahmadinejad's representative is present, then she got into an argument with the officials and decided not to vote because she felt something fishy was going on in that voting location. This is what her mother says in the interview.

My point is: She was not a random non-political person being killed by accident. She was in fact an active protester during those days, she wanted freedom for her country and she died for it. Unfortunately the current version of this Wikipedia article implies that she was a random person. This is just not doing justice to her. It breaks my heart. Don't fool yourselves, rest assured *there are* editors in Wikipedia that work for the Iranian government and they naturally would like to water down the impact of Neda's death and strip it of its meaning. If other editors remain indifferent, then certainly they will succeed in making an altered version of the truth stick. We should make sure the truth about Neda is written here. We owe this to Neda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.246.69 (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell: If you have information that is not already in the article, feel free to add it as long as it is properly sourced. However, please also note the explanation at the top of the page: Wikipedia is about presenting verifiable information, not truth. That means that you should not delete verifiable information that you don't believe is true. (Also, watching a particular is not a prerequisite for writing in Wikipedia) Addendum: Remember that this talk page is not for the discussion of the event itself but only for discussing the improvements to the article. Averell (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Averell, I'm sorry but I think your comments were uncalled for. This post is not recommending anything against Wikipedia rules. It reads to me as a request to editors to get involved in improving the article using the latest verifiable sources that have become available. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the moral/ethical aspects of this specific case to motivate editors to get involved. There's no need to take sentences such as 'I think editors who wish to contribute to this article MUST watch the HBO documentary movie' literally and react like a robot with no human emotions. Barnetj (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, it wasn't my intention to offend anyone and I certainly wasn't assuming bad faith in the original editor. It is obvious that they are welcome to improve the article using all available sources. I'm sorry if I appeared to be biting a newcomer. Frankly, I had the feeling that the original comment came from a new editor who felt strongly about this matter - which is totally fine. The comment can be read in a way that the article should be edited with a particular mindset; I simply wanted to point out that a cause, even a good one, should not be the guiding principle for editing a Wikipedia article. That was intended as a form of guidance, not as a telling-off. Averell (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, the existence of this documentary, produced and broadcast by HBO, satisfies every notability criteria I can think of for justifying a separate biographical article on this individual. I believe there was one initially, which was merged with this one, but it's time to spin the biographical article out separately -- or possibly even reorganizing this article and retitling it as applicable. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I tend to disagree. She is clearly notable for one event only. The usual approach in this case is to cover the event, which is what we do here. I don't see how the documentary changes that, it is a result of and related to her death. So I don't see any need to have a separate bibliographic article. Averell (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

May-be the best is to keep the references as they are.. and add a new reference, according to the movie "For Neda" and the interview of her mother, Neda was active politically because during the elections she refused to vote in the voting location where only representative of Ahmadinejad was present etc etc. Ggia (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite the opening parahraph

This article should be titled Neda Agha-Soltan and not "Death of" as her death is just one aspect of her story. The opening paragraph should also read "The death of Neda" instead of "The footage of the death of Neda..." and so forth because (I agree with the previous post) that the language used is indirect and downplays the total truth of the article. I am astonished that the editor of this article wants to preserve the use of cited materials over the "truth" of events. I was beginning to think Wiki was being run by a nefarious group, but now I am convinced. I had more proof of this when I found that "holocaust denial" was listed under "anti-semitism" if you can believe that. The editor's reasoning was that cited references claim that holocaust deniers are anti-semitic, which is just more jew propaganda! So don't look to Wiki for the truth people! It's history being re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahica (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about working with what was written elsewhere. This is by design. Also, the article name appears to be correct because her death is the one aspect of her life she is known for. In any case: You are free to contribute to Wikipedia, but you are not welcome to use any part of it as a soapbox for your theories. If you want to contribute, it may be a good idea to get familiar with how things work first. Averell (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Description of third video needed

For the sake of symmetry the Videos section needs to be expanded to include a description of the third video released in 2010. Among the significant points is the fact it's a much higher-resolution video than the other two and appears to more clearly show the moment when she loses consciousness (her head falls to the side abruptly). It also more clearly shows the work being done by onlookers to save her and additional reaction from the crowd. I would add this detail myself, but IP edits tend to be reverted without question on Wikipedia, especially on controversial articles like this, so I'll leave the point open for an admin or other senior editor to make the addition. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just as an aside to my comments, I'm noticing that link rot is particularly bad in the citations section. Might need to be cleaned up/updated. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Move?

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 move. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Death of Neda Agha-Soltan → Neda Agha-Soltan —

• Conciseness, presently an unnecessary precision Brandmeister t 11:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: This needs further discussion. This is a WP:BLP1E issue. The subject is notable only for her death and the circumstances surrounding it and it is consensus in such cases to use the "Death of..." title convention. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not a biography and such a title would misguide editors into turning it into one. There are many other cases like that. --Damiens.rf 13:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: The subject is notable for her role in a single event. According to WP:1E: The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. Whoever, the guideline says, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. I think that the role of Neda never grows larger since she was a simple citizen.Farhikht (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Added information regarding first-hand witness accounts

In the paragraph discussing Neda's last words, in the section about the circumstances of the incident itself, I have added details of witness accounts and political background. I felt this paragraph was misleading and incomplete without the additional facts. (Sherylchilders6 (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Thank you to whoever cleaned that up for me - I do think it is better, but I still feel that there is something missing. There should be something in this article that mentions the limitis of foreign media, which is extremely relevant to her death. The reason why her death was recorded as it was, was because the people were trying to relay info to the world, because of foreign media limits in Iran. (72.91.5.10 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Image placement

I support using both a living and death-related image in the article. I think, however, we should switch their placement. Although this article is centrally about her death, there's no need for the first and main photograph to be of her after being shot as opposed to her while she was alive. See Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed and Death of Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb for comparison. Thoughts? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Imagebox choice

I also don't prefer having two infoboxes in the article. The first one, civilian attack, can be merged and the infobox person moved up to the top. It's much more extensive and has plenty of fields where death-related info can be added. Thoughts? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Illustrations

These photos of peaceful protests after the Iranian election are free for use. Can we use one?

• http://fr.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-3629090335
• http://fr.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-3636927440
• http://fr.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-3630995591

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Biography section move

I think this should be the first section in the article. That's where it fits chronologically. Also, other Death of- articles follow this order. Right now it comes out of order, before Aftermath. Thoughts? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction on the etymology of the name "Neda"

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

Rename?

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

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)

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)