Talk:Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan

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

Interviews[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False flag?[edit]

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

POV issues[edit]

@Mhhossein: see talk page and see nobody wants to put this tag but you.

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

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

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

there are reliable sources supporting the killing of Neda by the Iranian Government : [1]. I quote : "The 26-year-old's death has come to symbolize Iranian resistance to the government's official election results since it was captured on amateur video. Within hours of its being posted online June 20, she had become the iconic victim of the Iranian government crackdown. But Iran has been pushing back against eyewitness reports that she was shot by pro-government Basij militiamen perched on a rooftop near a demonstration.
[2] I quote again "That's when she was shot dead. Eyewitnesses and video footage of the shooting clearly show that probably Basij paramilitaries in civilian clothing deliberately targeted her. Eyewitnesses said they clearly targeted her and she was shot in the chest."
[3] I quote : "Neda shot by Iranian militiaman, doctor tells BBC"
Need more ? i have other sources in English and French all saying the same thing. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are quoting eyewitness's records, none of your source are saying she was killed by government. --Mhhossein talk 07:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: So when CNN says "she had become the iconic victim of the Iranian government crackdown" this does not mean that she was killed by the Iranian government according to you ? what would we need to say so then ? Khamenei coming himself in the streets of Teheran to shoot down this young lady ?? Come on man.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not mean. The source should be clearly making the accusation in its voice, without attributing it to others (e.g. witnesses). Please collaborate in building consensus. Who killed Neda is not the only POV issue of the article, read my comment and you'll see I've raised several other POV issues concerning the page. --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(...) none of your source are saying she was killed by government."
Are you sure you're looking at the material posted by Wikaviani?
There are literally dozens of WP:RS sources that state that the the woman in question died at the hands of a militiaman affliated to the Iranian regime. Here's one of them:

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

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

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

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, carefully checked them. There's actually no concrete evidence saying who killed here and it's still a debated topic. The first source, i.e. "Spreading Protest", does not make us ignore plenty of others just reporting the witnesses's records. Likewise, though you can include Dabashi's opinion in an attributed manner, it does not mean we should remove IRI's claims from the article. I don't see how you say it's dismissed by RS. --Mhhossein talk 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IRI sources are not reliable, you've already been told that by numerous editors on numerous topics before. I've read your above comment, your proposal to include strongly biased IRI regime sources in the article is not a WP:NPOV way to neutralize the article, rather, it would go against WP:WEIGHT. Why don't you provide several high quality sources like the one i posted above to support your claims ? You cannot because the whole world know that basijs militia killed that young woman and you are trying to cover this. Also, your accusations of edit warring toward me are baseless since you're the one who needs to follow WP:BRD and achieve consensus when you have been reverted before reinstating your POV tag, , see WP:ONUS. If we cannot fnd a common ground and if you continue edit warring to push your POV, we'll go for a RFC.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhossein, I would advise you to stop. You have already been strongly warned for pro-IRI pov-pushing not so long ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: BRD and ONUS has nothing to do with discussion, which is on the neutrality of the article. There are unresolved issues here and you call or removing the tag, this has some clear messages! @HistoryofIran: That you come here and remove the tag from the article without commenting here warrants a warning. Also, I think it was you who were blocked for his POVs, so don't blame others with baseless accusations and try to work instead of edit warring. --Mhhossein talk 18:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless accusations? What is this then? [4] I simply reverted a non-constructive edit, nothing wrong with that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"There are unresolved issues" :

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

I find your comment destructive and written in battleground manner. Please avoid casting aspersion (you can take it as a warning). --Mhhossein talk 13:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting the POV issues of the article[edit]

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

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

2. Why not including things such as:

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

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

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

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

Could you please stop playing the victim card everytime when it's not going how you like it. I could say the exact same thing regarding you and a few certain other editors; Obviously we're connected because we work in the same areas, where we actually expand stuff instead of trying to push a certain pov. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience with Mhhossein, I've found him to be a conscientious editor who is genuinely trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, so all parties involved so far should start with WP:AGF here – just because Mhhossein is Iranian does not automatically mean he is pro-government. (Full disclosure, he did ask to me contribute to this discussion, but did not ask me to support his view or anything.) My thoughts: I believe in the lede we should add a bit about the Iranian government's claims of conspiracy, given the fact that a good portion of the article is dedicated to it, although it should still be emphasized that they are the only ones pushing this theory. Also, Mhhossein's suggestions of the portrayal of Agha Soltan in the media seem to me to be good to include as well. However, my Google search for the terms Marzieh Hashemi "intersection" documentary did not result in any links about a film by that title, so that's probably not worth including. —howcheng {chat} 15:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The symbolism of a bloody image of a female body, breathlessly lying on the pavement of a chaotic street, provided more than a propaganda device for the opposition to attack the regime," by Routledge -- Is there a reason why you omitted this part, located on the same page (p. 88) and the next page (p.89)?; "In an apparent attempt to spin the story, a number of state officials quickly went public with the claim that foreign forces - including the CIA - were behind the assasination. (...) In many ways, the state's propagation of various conspiracies around Neda's assasination served as a strategic discursive attempt to produce a counterdiscourse in order to discredit anti-government allegations and rumors of state brutality ".
  • "Now, as cynical as it may be, the political actors had an innocent victim to use for their own agenda, and to evoke the emotion of the public." (the two latter segments by by Taylor & Francis). -- Idem ditto; why did you ommit this excerpt?; "To frustrate the claims of reformists, the government used the scapegoat mechanism and blamed American agents or other parties for killing Neda, while also trying to declare Neda as a martyr of the regime." (p. 132)
Now thats interesting. Even the sources that you selected state that the claims provided by the government were bogus. You know that carefully selecting an excerpt from a source while omitting other parts that refute your point is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, right? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I'm not against the inclusion of IRI narratives, but they should be attributed with WP:DUE weight and bundled in a separate section at the bottom of the page. The section should also state that these claims are dismissed as conspiracy theories (amongst others) by peer-reviewed academic sources and other RS. Currently, the CIA conspiracy theory has its own section, while the claim of video fabrication also has its own section, which creates an WP:UNDUE weight issue. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's assume good faith. More likely than not he found what he was looking for in the source and simply didn't read the following pages. Accusations of trying to intentionally mislead us are unwarranted. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi howcheng, the fact that Mhhossein is Iranian is not relevant, since Mhhossein, LouisAragon, HistoryofIran and me are Iranians or with Iranian origins. The problem with this user is that he has a battleground mentality and easily engages in edit-warring while trying to distort Wiki guidelines in a way that favors him. Also please take a look at the link provided by HisoryofIran above, Wannamonde, another admin, has already strongly advised this editor to desist from such disruptive behaviors. In the past, this editor thanked me for some of my edits, but now that we have a disagreement, he's playing the victim card and throws baseless accusations of being ganged around. Yes, LouisAragon, HistoryofIran and i have collaborated in the past (or rather, they, and some other users like Wario-Man helped me when i was a newbie to better understand how this encyclopedia works) and we still do, but not with the aim of ganging anybody, our collaboration is strictly devoted to the improvement of the project. These editors and i had some disagreements too, in the past, we're clearly not a team. That said, aren't we supposed to work together for improving this community encyclopedia ? While i fully respect your opinion about Mhhossein, his insistance for the use of unreliable IRI sources, his edit warring and battleground mentality, the fact that he carefully selected some parts of the sources that supported his opinion, omitting the rest of what the said sources say, sounds quite dubious for a conscientious editor who is genuinely trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. That said, and since you asked us above, i'm still enclined to assume good faith about him. Sorry if i focused on Mhhossein instead of content, but i think that his accusations should not stand uncontradicted.
Wish you a great rest of your day. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: Hey, can you please stop making more accusations now that you're told not to! I'm not going to comment on every single portion of your comment, but Yes we're here to build and improve the project but my concern regarding you three coming here at the same time is not baseless (see my links in my "Note" also see that I did not make any conclusions). This very ongoing topic regarding the neutrality shows the article is not balanced and the best way to inform others regarding this issue it to tag the article. Please note that reliability is not an absolute concept which means that IRI sources are reliable for the viewpoints of IRI.--Mhhossein talk 11:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Stop POV pushing and edit warring, consider this as a last warning before report. You have not achieved any consensus for your changes. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be polite and don't make more baseless personal attacks. Instead, help with resolving the POV issues. --Mhhossein talk 04:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Please be polite and don't make more baseless personal attacks" : Don't know what you're talking about, maybe you should learn to read properly, as i have been polite and did not attack you in any way. I see that you reverted me again but a Pakistani IP reverted you. If you reinstate your baseless tag again, without achieving any consensus on the talk first, then i'll find an admin to step in and will welcome his judgment. We're done here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop making baseless accusations. Also, I reinstated the tag and an admin is already stepped in whose words you're ignoring. --Mhhossein talk 05:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Death of Neda Agha-Soltan → Shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan – The usual convention for articles on Wikipedia that are about deaths by shooting is "Shooting of" (unless they are clearly murder and are called "Murder of"). This is consistent across many articles – see the consistent naming pattern of the large number of articles in Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Australia, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Thailand, Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Germany, and similar categories for most other countries. This has been supported by recent consensus in several RM discussions, including the recent multi-article RMs at Talk:Shooting of Roni Levi, Talk:Shooting of Sammy Yatim , Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor, and Talk:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson, and also single-page RM discussions at Talk:Shooting of Chaiyaphum Pasae, Talk:Shooting of Benno Ohnesorg, and Talk:Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Mz7 (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous closure

The result of the move request was: moved (to Shooting of Neda Agha-Soltan). ~ Amkgp 💬 14:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per detailed nomination. Standard Wikipedia form which appears as the main title header of numerous articles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per convention and since she was factually shot.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note: This discussion was closed and the article was moved to the suggested title on 7 July 2020. After review of the closure resulted in a consensus that it was premature, I have reversed the move, reopened this discussion, and relisted it for further consideration. Mz7 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Which convention? Looking at the list provided by the OP as a support for his suggestion, it can be noticed that most of them are discussions with a few participants and are started by the OP himself and closed by Amkgp whose closure was reverted because of being premature. Multiple reliable sources use the current title (P.258, P.132, [5], [6]) which is more neutral than the suggested one. So let's keep it as is. --Mhhossein talk 12:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That convention was very evident (e.g., in the identified categories) long before the recent listed RM discussions. I was only listing the recent RM discussions that I'm aware of. It's true that many of the recent RMs that I listed were originated by me, but they show a consistent series of consensus agreements, and most of them were not closed prematurely and not all of them were closed by the same editor (I haven't checked to see how many of them were, but I think it is probably a minority). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought you were talking about a guideline as a result of the users' consensus. --Mhhossein talk 14:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: considering she was for a fact shot I'd agree with this move. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Move to Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan – Both the current title and the suggested are euphemistic POV misrepresentations of the event. We have video footage showing she was killed and the title should indicate that. If I had to choose, I would opt for Death of. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize we had titles named like that, I support this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose moving this to "Killing of". A few editors have recently advocated using that form, but it is clearly not a widely used convention on Wikipedia. There are very few articles about shootings that use "Killing of" – and most of them are very recently created articles. In contrast, there are probably more than a hundred articles (and possibly several hundred) that use "Shooting of". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "Killing of" as first choice; and "Shooting of" as second choice. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support killing. I believe “killing of” is the best option. In a shooting she may become injured or even stay unharmed. What really happened was that she was killed. Nika2020 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per the sources that are cited in the article.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 19 August 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan&oldid=1204588192"