Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

message: The image :Image:Mona Mahmudnizhad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Mona Mahmudnizhad.jpg

message: In the last couple of months I have made (dozens of) edits in hopes that there will no longer be any need for these tags. 

I've also sent messeages to those who participated in talk about the tags. Does anyone still have any problems with the article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple tags

message: I'm perplexed - why was this removed?  And why was it put under gender when sexuality and gender are completely separate issues?  --David Shankbone 04:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT 

message: In the last couple of months I have made (dozens of) edits - checking links, checking for more information on the web, rewriting - in hopes that there will no longer be any need for these tags. 

I've also sent messeages to those who participated in talk about the tags. I recieved only one response, from Jclemens: 
:I've stopped wastchlisting that article, as I was only concerned with it in an attempt to get those in favor of tagging to provide meaninful and actionable issues for resolution as part of a WP:3O. Does it need more intervention? If you believe that those tags no longer apply, please feel free to remove them per WP:BRD--if someone reverts your removal, they owe you an explanation on the talk page about the issues they still believe remain. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting real sick of this BS.  The tags stay off until a specific complaint is raised.  If the editors want to edit war rather than raise specific issues, so be it. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with  Mardetanha. I am looking at this talk page, and it's obvious see that specific issues have been raised numerous times regarding the pov problems plaguing this page, and mostly ignored. I believe that all the tags are appropriate and needed. AlexanderPar (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care what you agree with.  You will describe a specific issue or the tags stay off. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 05:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is already several list of specific issues above, described by other users. AlexanderPar (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, another POV-warrior is citing issues that have already been resolved as reasons to keep the present tags.  You can't repeat the issues?  You'd rather good faith editors scan through pages and pages of complaints and disputes?  Cite some specific examples before I find a place to report this obvious bad faith editting. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 05:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't talk to me about civility while you refuse to give any specific examples.  Shame on you. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 05:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple tags

message: Why was this reverted?  There's nothing on the talk page, no edit summary and the old version it was reverted to is ungramatical. 
<BR>Another issue is whether a decline public acceptance of government repression has limited the Islamic government's ability to repress dissent. 
<BR>The in is missing Another issue is whether a decline IN public acceptance of government repression has limited the Islamic government's ability to repress dissent.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained Revert

message: Needs tightening up and should accurately reflect the most important points.  In short, it should read as a small summary of the entire article. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Kat73 has made a huge number of edits (deletions mostly) recently and at least several of the  first few are problematic. To give one minor example, that "writers" have criticized human rights conditions in Iran is not "irrelevent". Ervand Abrahamian's book on prison conditions in Iran Tortured Confessions (to name one author) was highly relevent to exposing human rights violations in the Islamic Republic.   --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, while some of the content was unsourced, he/she has also removed lots of sourced statements including Abrahamiam's which is definitely a reliable source.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to salvage some of Kat73's worthwhile corrections ... although there aren't many! -BoogaLouie (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Kat73

message: There is no evidence or live reference confirming amputation in Iran and being Iranian myself, I agree on almost all the other penalties, but there has not been any amputation penalty that I have ever heared of, and seeing that you do not have any reference or evidence to back up your claim, therefore I deleted that sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.153.45 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amputation 

message: Plain and simple:
* Western human groups claim that stoning is practiced in Iran.
* Iran denies accusations as propaganda.
I put link where Iranian official denied claims, but one editor is forcing removal calling it as "unreliable" source. Unbelievable!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.152.140 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran is not the source you have provided.  You've provided some fake wanna-be encyclopedia more concerned with advertisements than information.  Find something more mainstream and try to follow the source more objectively. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 16:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll search for more valuable link but don't delete text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.152.140 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Iran practices stoning as an official death sentence. Can we find press reports that support this? Specifically reports that it has not just been "handed down" but carried out? I feel that blogs and what-not are not enough for supporting documentation, though since Iran is an oppressive regime more controlling than Stalin, it may be hard to find good factual supporting references for this that are up to Wikipedia's lefty "standards". =//= Johnny Squeaky 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoning issue 

message: The dispute is over how to present information regarding stoning in Iran.  This source which is used for the claim, "no such verdicts have been carried out," (stoning verdicts) also explicitly says that Iranian law specifies how stoning should be performed; pebbles used should not be large enough to kill instantly.  Information regarding that law is being deleted on the grounds that it is "sensationalist" while every claim that portrays Iran positively from the source is being included, and attempts to weight it properly are described as "censorship."  Could we please get some editors in here who can objectively represent the sources? AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been asked to comment on this debate, but I don't think I know enough about the subject to assess issues of bias and balance.  The cited source seems consistent with the claims that some editors would like to delete, but it seems to me the problem may be relying on a single source.  In my experience, BBC doesn't always get things right. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were a question of the reliability of that claim, I could easily find more sources.  It's not.  It's about one editor in denial and having the gall to accuse others of censorship while he is deleting information. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Every argument you've given is original research.  Come up with something that complies with policy. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's just your opinion. My arguments comply with WP:POV, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:TRIVIA, and...AlexanderPar (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me?  POV?  Facts have no POV.  They're facts.  They could not be more absolutely true.  We repeat what the sources say and the fact that stoning is part of the law in Iran, whether or not judges hand it down, is worth noting.  If it's a question of weight, I can find you more source, is this what you would prefer?  Do I have a commitment from you to include this material if sufficient sources can be found stating that Iran does indeed have this law in the books? AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something reported and re-reported by several news outlets is not automatically an undisputed fact. If it is a fact, please bring the page number of the Iranian penal code discussing this issue and I will concede. The larger point you're missing though, is that this line is out of place and unnecessary, as this is a Islamic issue, not an Iranian issue. The law in question is a sharia law/Islamic law, not an Iranian law in particular. I am all for including this information in an appropriate place,  which would be under the Islam section of the stoning page or somewhere on the sharia law page. AlexanderPar (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The sources are wrong." HAH, read WP:OR or get out of Wikipedia. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read WP:Civil and learn how to be civil. News reports are not considered academic and unflawed sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderPar (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you'll say anything to justify your censorship.  Where in Wiki policy does it say "news reports are not reliable sources"?  Where does it say the BBC is not considered a reliable source?  What about Aljazeera?  More "western propaganda" I assume? AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, how about an official from the London-based Center for Arab and Iranian Studies?  "We haven't had stoning [in Iran] for perhaps 100 years, but after the Islamic Republic, they started, ..." AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 17:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope because you've gone against the sources, again.  Article 104 of the Iranian penal code specifies how to perform stoning.  The top google result for "Iran penal code" suspiciously leaves out Article 104. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, article 102 states, "The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts." AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 17:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amnesty can not be used as a source. Iranian penal code is based on sharia, but the law itself is sharia. : "Stoning is part of Sharia Law that mandates that a stone not be too big to kill too soon, or too small to unnecessarily prolong the death" Besides, what exactly is your problem right now? The line you wanted is in the article, I only moved it higher where it would not hinder the flow of the paragraph. AlexanderPar (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another source for the Iranian law:  .  However, that web site may be partial, since it seems to be a human rights organization.  It would be better to get it from a more neutral site.  In any case, the sources are key.  In controversial topics like this, virtually every sentence, every word, needs to come from a Reliable Source, not from an editor. If it is a reliable source, and if it relates to human rights in Iran, it belongs in the article, no matter how offensive. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: You moved a statement about stoning out of the stoning paragraph. Great compromise. Let's do that in every dispute. We'll just take the disputed statement and move it several paragraphs away. Btw, the second source I gave you is not from amnesty international. And it does not say "this is sharia law". It does say that that penal code was "ratified by the High Expediancy Council."  Saying that the law is part of sharia when the source is not is WP:SYNTH.  I have given you exactly the source you said was necessary to include this passage in that paragraph.  It's time for you to conceed. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Lmao!  This is you just a few minutes ago, "If it is a fact, please bring the page number of the Iranian penal code discussing this issue and I will concede."  Unbelievable.  Does this not cause you any cognitive dissonance or are you truely a master of doublethink? AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, HR groups can be used as a source, provided that they have a reputation for accuracy.  Bias alone does not disqualify a source: it is a matter of accuracy. In this case, where the original documents are not in English, HR groups may be the only source of translations of the law.   --Noleander (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, such groups can not used as a source. Advocacy groups of any kind can not be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia. I explicitly remember that there was a discussion about this issue on reliable sources noticeboard some times ago, and the consensus was that Human rights groups, can not be used as a source since they rely  on "he said, she said" without having the means to verify the claims. Regardless, there is no shortage of academical sources on HR issues in Iran, for us to rely on questionable sources. AlexanderPar (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Advocacy groups of any kind can not be used as a reliable source" is straight wrong.  They're used as primary sources for their own statements.  Human rights groups are trivially notable with respect to human rights.  That is an actual discussion that has taken place on this article.  If you're unconvinced of mehr's interpretation of the Iranian penal code, how about you demonstrate your good faith and google for the original documents in persian?  I'm sure we could find a trustworthy editor on Wikipedia willing to translate once you've provided the link. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: You said "You moved a statement about stoning out of the stoning paragraph". It's in the same sub-section, the first paragraph is about the methods of harsh punishments where the line in question naturally belongs, while the second paragraph discuses the moratorium and the related issues. AlexanderPar (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The discussion here is so bizarre! It looks like you just like to argue for the sake of arguing! Why don't you read the polices, before citing them? Primary sources of any kind can not be cited or quoted, unless they come from a reliable secondary source. Also, the whole argument here about the usability of HR groups is moot, what you guys have actually cited as translation of Iranian penal code, makes no mention of the size of the stones, which is what the disputed line is about. So your evidence actually supports my position that the size of stones is a Sharia issue, and not part of the Iranian penal code.  AlexanderPar (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited translation is incomplete, it's missing article 104.  But if you prefer, we can include the fact that Iranian penal code specifies to bury people and then stone them.  That's just as condemning. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 22:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia."  Epic fail?  How about this one Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field."  Yes...yes that is pretty epic. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are quoting policy out of context. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Yeah, epic fail. AlexanderPar (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what interpretation of these quotes from websites is being made?  Are you seriously telling me that is your belief that we can not use a human rights website to quote that human rights organization?  I know a bunch of people that will get a good laugh out of that. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 22:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Here is another source about the Iranian statutes (penal code) on stoning: http://www.stop-killing.org/files/Terman_stoning.pdf .   Again, from a human rights organization, but this document is very thorough.  I think this, plus the other sources identified above, establish that there is a penal code statute in Iran that authorizes stoning.  I think we need to accept that and move forward.  Additional information we can include would be facts such as:  how many stonings have occured, if any;  trending upward or downward;  types of crimes that are subject to stoning punishment, etc. --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noleander, you are missing the point. The Iranian penal code is based on sharia, and it's the sharia authorizes stoning . Your friend AzureFury is disputing this simple fact. Furthermore, these type of sources (many of which are outdated) can not be used to illustrate the CURRENT STATUS of Iranian law, as we have the judiciary spokesperson on record saying the penalty has been dropped from the law. The lower courts continue to issues such verdicts though, because it's in sharia law. This is a complicated issue, that would be better served with input from the expert editors. AlexanderPar (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Iranian law was changed after that 2007 report, the article could reflect that.  Something like:  "The Iranian penal code adopted in 1983 - which was based on Sharia -  contained provisions for punishment by stoning, as described in a 2007 report by Rochelle Terman.  However, in 2008 [or whatever] the Iranian judiciary announced that the stoning laws were removed from the penal code [or would not be enforced, etc]" --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We have sources from 2010 saying that stoning is still part of the penal code.  Whether or not the Iranian penal code is based on sharia does not affect the fact that stoning is a part of the penal code.  The penal code is a subset of sharia.  Sharis is not a subset of the penal code.  The two sets are not equivalent, so it is notable what is in the smaller set, in this case, the Iranian penal code. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: What you and I needed to say, has already been said. What you need to do now, is to wait for further input from uninvolved third-party users instead of edit-warring to impose your POV on the page. AlexanderPar (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me, what is my POV?  That we say what the sources say nearly verbatim?  How do you excuse saying stoning is not part of the Iranian Penal Code when we have multiple reliable sources that say it is?  Infact, your supposed counter-argument is not a contradiction.  Both me and Noleander now believe that the passage needs to reflect this fact.  Yet you are reverting on the grounds of "consensus" ?  I wonder, do you really believe your own rhetoric or are you hoping to bury your motives in hollow misinterpretations and outright contradictions of policy?  I gotta tell you, your actions are very transparent. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 09:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexander:  why did you remove the "see also" template? --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not, it must have been removed in-between edits. AzureFury, you still have no consensus, I am going to restore the status quo, until there is a clear consensus here. You are not going to get your way by edit-warring and bullying. AlexanderPar (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your hypocrisy is beyond words.  On one article, you revert "per the results of the RFC" when I have specifically asked editors who oppose my version to identify themselves and none have come forward.  And on this article we have two editors who specifically stated that the sources support the fact that Iran's Penal Code includes stoning, with one, you, not denying this fact but reverting anyway.  I don't know how any clearer this consensus could get considering the number of editors involved, so how do you justify your edits?  How can this vote break down in a manner that you will conceed?  Do you expect the vote must be unanimous, thus empowering you to reject any edits you can make up a nonsensical argument against?  No, this is not how Wikipedia works.  If you revert on the grounds of consensus in one article (which you do not have, btw), then you accept the consensus on this article.  The consensus is that every source we have, including the ones you have provided, support the conclusion that Iran's Penal Code, regardless of whether or not it is based on Sharia, includes stoning. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 04:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, you removed it here . Why did you remove it?   --Noleander (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

text: What's odd is that in the footnote for the reference for Alexander's version, it states that the Iranian Penal Code includes stoning.  That should be in the main body of the article.  I definitely favor Azure Fury's version, or at the very least, moving that part about the penal code into the body of the article itself, rather than down in the footnote. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 13:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like you have not read the discussions at all. The issue is not stoning itself, the issues is AzureFury's claim that the Iranian penal code includes a provision about the size of the stones and what not, based on an outdated news report, which has been proven to be wrong. (ironically, by AzurFurry himself who found and posted an old version of the Iranian penal code that contradicted his own claim) Also, the penal code itself has changed almost every year since, so we can not say X or Y "is" in the penal code , what we can say is that X or Y in in sharia which never changes and the penal code is based on. Again, this is a very complicated issue. I urge people who are not familiar enough with the topic, to refrain from "supporting" X and Y, just because they were asked to on their talk pages, by a certain user.  Also, there will be no consensus based on yays and nays of anyone who is canvassed on their talk page by AzureFury.  AlexanderPar (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AlexanderPar:  In controversial areas like this, it is best to stick with what the sources say (preferably secondary sources).  The opinions of editors such as myself or yourself don't matter.  At all.   AzureFury's version of the text is supported by sources that say, well, what his text says.  If you want the article to say "the Iranian penal code changes every year" you'll need to find a source for that.    If you want the article to say "stoning is in sharia which never changes and the penal code is based on." you'll need to find a source for that, too.   Your repeated assertions, without the support of sources, is starting to look like disruptive editing (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing).  I encourage you to spend some time doing research, and finding secondary sources that address the topic of stoning in Iranian law, and then bring those sources to this Talk page.   --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Noleander, you were canvassed here by AzureFury who has a history with you , you're neither an expert on this topic, nor a neutral contributor. All you have done on this page, is supporting AzureFury and acting as his side-kick. You're also misinterpreting my assertion. I have provided academic sources that says the provision in question, is part of sharia in general.  That source has more weight than a random news report. Also, Wikipedia's policy is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and a news report is not an exceptional source. AlexanderPar (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all editors agree that stoning is part of sharia.  That is not in dispute, and is already in the article.  The issue is the penal code.  Some sources say stoning is in the penal code, some say it is not (I've only seen one of the latter).  So the article needs to reflect both sides of that dispute.  If you think the BBC or Amnesty International are wrong on the penal code issue, find some sources that address the credibility, and we can discuss it on this Talk page.  --Noleander (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did, read my previous post, I cited an academic book. My main issues was the "size of the stones" bit, and it's source. I made some minor changes to one part of your major changes, is the current version OK with you? AlexanderPar (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the latest version, including your latest changes, looks good: it seems very neutral, and reflects what the sources say.  The phrasing doesn't flow real well, but that is not my strong suit, so I'll leave it to others to make it read like an encyclopedia should. --Noleander (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Where does the Amnesty say what you're claiming it says? I don't see any "As of July 2010...." in your sources, that's purely your interpretation. The copy of the penal code which is actually cited in that paragraph, is from 1991, and that's what we report here. If you have a copy of Iranian penal code from 2010, go ahead and post it here. Noleander, who is your friend and was canvassed here by you, wrote that version and endorsed the minor changes I made to it. But the problem here is not really the content, the problem is that you're just looking for a conflict, nothing is enough for you, you'll always find something trivial to fight over. AlexanderPar (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AlexanderPar, what is your agenda here.  The BBC quotes Mohammad Javad Larijani, a member of Iran's own human rights commission, as saying " judges "rarely use" the penalty of stoning."  And Arabnews.com quotes him further "The hue and cry that the West has launched over this case will not affect our judges," he said. "The implementation of Islamic regulations like stoning and the headscarf have always been faced with their ugly hostility and opposition." 
Amnesty and on 9 July reported an announcement by the Iranian Embassy in London on Thursday (which would have been 8 July) ... that stoning as a punishment has now been removed from a new draft of Iran's Penal Code, which is currently under review by Iran's parliament and is yet to be ratified. . I would think the Iranian government is qualified to know what's in its own penal code, so lets leave the "referring to the 1991" argument out, shall we.
Everybody who can use the internet, except you, can see that Iran currently hands out sentences of stoning.  Even the Iranian government says that it does.  Why are you insisting that some other reality is the case? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Here we go again. Certain editors don't seem to be able to differentiate between neutral encyclopedic fact-reporting direct from academic sources and sensationalist blogging/commentary based on synthesizing sources to prove a point. It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to prove and disprove a sourced fact, you guys need to learn that first, before giving long lectures. We are talking about the Iranian penal code in particular and the one cited is from 1991. Either bring a copy of the 2010 edition of the penal code and cite it or don't make interpretations based on what different unrelated sources say. The place for that kind of activism/commentary are your weblogs, not wikipedia. AlexanderPar (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What nonsense.  The Iranian government makes a widely quoted official statement that it is attempting to REMOVE stoning from its penal code, but it hasn't got through all the legal requirements yet. Up pops AlexanderPar, attempting to argue that the Iranian government isn't a reliable source for the content of its own penal code. POV warrior or what. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, <3 Elen.  Where were you a few weeks ago XD AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 22:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: It's hard, almost 50% of content if pure inflammatory activist propaganda. --HistorNE (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: If this article is really about human rights in Iran, then how about include something about actual human rights in Iran? After glancing this article I can scant find out any right anyone actually has in Iran.
If one were to write articles purely based off a negative, then shouldn't the topic Hungarian kangaroos be given privilege to its own topic? (Viennese Kangaroos, while rare, are too common to warrant their own article).--Soft and Stout (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with neutrality? If anything, it's a reason to change the title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Complaint on the lack of Neutrality. 

message: I was adding some sources to the first paragraph when it occurred to me that it might be citation overkill, but I'm having trouble deciding which sources to leave (out). 
See revisions made at 03:31, 17 November 2013‎ &  04:36, 17 November 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&action=history (I undid these revisions, but I'm thinking that some of it should stay/go back, I'm just not sure what.)Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help with citation over kill in 1st paragraph

message: >> Iranian poet executed for 'waging war on God'(Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: Before claiming that banning women from universities (science and engineering studies in particular) is a "fact" and it's "supported by RS", I suggest you to take a look into some more reliable data like UNESCO :
* number of female students: 2,038,292 in 2011; 2,191,409 in 2012 (ranked #5 in the World)
* female enrolment in science studies: 217,323 in 2011; 219,414 in 2012 (ranked #2 in the World)
* female enrolment in engineering studies: 414,898 in 2011; 476,039 in 2012 (ranked #1 in the World)
On the other hand, we have Robert Tait (British correspondent from Israel) who claimed in Telegraph that women were banned from most of listed fields in 2012. Considering facts from UNESCO, his claims are one of the most ridiculous report in history of yellow journalism. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, on the right. --SeanKesser (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Banning women from universities" 

message: Ahmaninejad era information should be moved from Current situation merged into Notable issues. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, 'Current situation' should be renamed, you have any suggestion? OccultZone (Talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Many paragraphs in this section are duplicated in Human rights in Iran#Current situation. Should these sections be merged? Jarble (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "this section" is which section? A bit busy at present but anything that trims and merges stuff from Ahmaninejad era into notable issues is fine with me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current situation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628102111/http://www.cnn.com:80/WORLD/meast/9907/11/iran.unrest.03/ to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9907/11/iran.unrest.03/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930201559/http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm to http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130614115611/http://www.amnesty.ie/news/iran-death-stoning-grotesque-and-unacceptable-penalty to http://www.amnesty.ie/news/iran-death-stoning-grotesque-and-unacceptable-penalty
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120429231704/http://iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066:iran-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64 to http://www.iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066:iran-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150530052838/http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:memories-of-a-slaughter-in-iran&catid=5&Itemid=110 to http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160:memories-of-a-slaughter-in-iran&catid=5&Itemid=110
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120911141729/http://www.iranterror.com:80/content/view/33/52/ to http://www.iranterror.com/content/view/33/52/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140311164920/http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAN?OpenDocument to http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAN?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725230133/http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2004/13-04.htm to http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2004/13-04.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622063746/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGSJEAPs_r2T2wxsL5G3t4z-jajQD98SIN8O1 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGSJEAPs_r2T2wxsL5G3t4z-jajQD98SIN8O1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120916211211/http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf to http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402163831/http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm to http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110623044238/http://www.petertatchell.net:80/international/iranstatemurder.htm to http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iranstatemurder.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030223160625/http://web.amnesty.org:80/ai.nsf/Index/MDE130341996?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5cIRAN to http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE130341996?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAN
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130928055228/http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/october-2006/broujerdi-arrested_101006.shtml to http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2006/october-2006/broujerdi-arrested_101006.shtml
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150530075351/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_en-2.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_en-2.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119135011/http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTIzMDA3NTcwNQ== to http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTIzMDA3NTcwNQ==
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111227045335/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE13/087/2011/en/25317220-c315-4fbd-871a-a07349387ea4/mde130872011en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/087/2011/en/25317220-c315-4fbd-871a-a07349387ea4/mde130872011en.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081012032615/http://amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/068/2008/en/25f1bbd2-2339-11dd-89c0-51e35dab761d/mde130682008eng.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/068/2008/en/25f1bbd2-2339-11dd-89c0-51e35dab761d/mde130682008eng.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080814113321/http://amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-gulf/iran to http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/east-gulf/iran#report
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080306203012/http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iran to http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iran
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051112021401/https://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran to http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140324045249/http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/iran9803.htm to http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/iran9803.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416125743/http://english.aljazeera.net/ to http://english.aljazeera.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106172843/http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130215183842/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140221203032/http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010,36697 to http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010,36697
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://tehrantimes.com/politics/95920-iran-has-the-most-successful-human-rights-record-in-muslim-world-salehi
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aa.psu.edu/journals/war-crimes/articles/V1/v1n1a3.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2001/bilan2001/vol3/iranga.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070224/wl_mideast_afp/iranjusticesocial
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://iheu.org/node/1540
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021113041505/http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/iranacademic.htm to http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/iranacademic.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424114804/http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial-search.php?do_search=Search&charges=1778515990&pagenum=0 to http://www.abfiran.org/english/memorial-search.php?do_search=Search&charges=1778515990&pagenum=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124102755/http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm to http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/worldnews/iran.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916211211/http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf to http://www.safraproject.org/Reports/SP_Country_Information_Report_Iran.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402163831/http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm to http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2003/documentation/tbodies/cat-c-30-d-190-2001.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10733
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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:
*Added  tag to http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-22/0805157506142314.htm
*Added  tag to http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-203/0804105767142324.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827223352/http://www.strasbourgconference.org/papers/Refah%20Revisited-%20Strasbourg%27s%20Construction%20of%20Islam.pdf to http://www.strasbourgconference.org/papers/Refah%20Revisited-%20Strasbourg%27s%20Construction%20of%20Islam.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014082518/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/iran.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/asie/iran.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045053/http://www.enmcr.net/site/assets/files/1382/child_execution_in_iran_and_its_legality_under_islamic_law.pdf to http://www.enmcr.net/site/assets/files/1382/child_execution_in_iran_and_its_legality_under_islamic_law.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iranwpd.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3066%3Airan-changes-law-for-execution-of-juveniles&Itemid=64
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927204024/http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html to http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-3.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160%3Amemories-of-a-slaughter-in-iran&catid=5&Itemid=110
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/files/Iran%20Massacre%20Report.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE130341996?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAN
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502110349/http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/uncom.nsf/0/e7b8824bdd987268c1256fa8004a8753?OpenDocument to http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/uncom.nsf/0/e7b8824bdd987268c1256fa8004a8753?OpenDocument
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410717966&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809181642/http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=E&no=98322&S=TP to http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=E&no=98322&S=TP
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013%2C1054.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221202927/http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688 to http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221202927/http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688 to http://en.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6688
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801185227/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/doc-2236.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/doc-2236.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/web-2-0-versus-control-2-0-18-03-2010%2C36697
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026175039/http://www.abfiran.org/ to http://www.abfiran.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422213041/http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/background-information-stop-child-executions-in-iran to http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/background-information-stop-child-executions-in-iran
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928004754/http://www.ihrv.org/inf/?p=2063 to http://www.ihrv.org/inf/?p=2063
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140320173722/http://shaheedoniran.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/A-HRC-25-61.pdf to http://shaheedoniran.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/A-HRC-25-61.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have introduced a short section on the persecution of Christians with two notable examples and references old and new.Cpsoper (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian issues 

message: There is currently a draft at Draft:Criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran that would split off from this topic, and presumably some content here would be moved there.  suggested this be discussed here before the draft is approved. Also pinging the draft's creator  as part of this discussion. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: add WP:IRAN and WP:HR wikiprojects to the discussion for their feedback AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 07:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you BuySomeApples and AngusW🐶🐶F. After the feedback for the first draft, I updated the draft to make it distinguishably different (the new draft looks at broader topics rather than focusing on human right violations) I think this could be a good contribution considering all that’s been on the news recently.  Fad Ariff (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Good point. We do have articles like Criticism of the United States government or Criticism of the Israeli government, so I would support changing this one to Criticism of the Iranian government. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal