Talk:Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 French Version 2 Definitely not NPOV 3 Chain murdering intellectuals 4 NPOV 5 Religious Issues 6 Background: unsourced 7 Controversial and POV:Human rights in Islam 8 Vague wording

[edit] French Version

There's quite a great deal of information in the French version of this page. [1] Any translators? Tototom 09:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Try contacting one of these translators or bringing it up here. Skinnyweed 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have translated the section on "Liberté de la presse" from fr:, and the other subsections there will follow. What is the protocol for citations and references from translated pages? I avoided translating one of the quotes, and left no references, which were mostly from Reporters Without Borders or French language sources, and perhaps have an "official" English version.Craig Baker 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The section "Contrôle d'internet" is finished and posted. There is a little picture of "internet black holes" on fr: that might be used. Again I'm reluctant to post the quotes as translations from French, but the Reporters Without Borders page does not seem to have an official English version. Craig Baker 06:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The site of Reporters Without Borders has the English "equivalent" of one of the quoted articles, but it seems to be missing most of the information: [[2]] Craig Baker 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the introduction from the section on gender discrimination from the French version, but I'm still searching for official English versions of the relevant laws. They are articles 906, 907, 911, and 920 of the Iranian Civil Code. Craig Baker 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I translated the parts regarding the legislative texts with the sources from the equivalent french article. It could be hard to keep this article NPOV if most of it is translated from french as it's not entirely neutral either... Claveau 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! this is a big help in getting started....Smackmonkey 09:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitely not NPOV

Needless to say Iran is one of the world's worst human rights violators, but this is an encyclopedia, and as such this article needs to be rewritten to conform to NPOV standards. ♠ SG →Talk 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran is far better than most developing countries in terms of democracy and definitely better that US in terms of murdering people.

Iran has the highest record of shutting down newspapers. But this does not mean Iran is the most restrictive country in terms of freedom of expression. In most developing countries the government will not let the newspapers to run! Obviously when there is no newspaper, they don't have to shut down them !!

In terms of ethnic minorities, again Iran is far better than Turkey which is waiting to join EU ! In terms of terrorism, no Iranian was involved in any terroristic events as 11/9 or London bombing.

Even in terms of homosexuality, I have several friends who are gay and have a reasonable life in Iran. These stories about execution of gays, are all lies made by some Iranian gays to earn money or to get residence permit in Europe.

We shut newspapers down in Canada? Pfft. If that were so the national Post wouldnt be celebrating its 10th Aniversary, the highly conservative and controversial publication was nothing but an anti liberal rant while they were in power. Iran is a horrible violator of human rights of all kinds. In fact all of the intelectuals are fleeing the country. And any country that has a law that says women have to wear something while men dont (IE the Hijab) is an abuser of human rights. For example in Canada Men can go topless, and even though most women dont they are allowed to if they so choose to do so, although its not very popular amongst women to do this, but the point is they have the RIGHT to so says the courts in Ontario. When women in Iran are allowed to go topless then they will not be an abuser of womens rights. But Hell will freeze over before the mullahs do something like that. --74.104.48.172 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) oops--Meanie 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of human rights in Iran is very common, but it does not mean that Iran is one of the worst. --Sinooher17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Iran is far better than most developing countries in terms of democracy and definitely better that US in terms of murdering people" What? It's better than Saudi Arabia and Saddam's Iraq regarding democracy. The second half of this sentence doesn't even make any sense. Are you insinuating that the application of the death penalty in Iran is more fair and judicious than the US? Good luck convincing people of that.

"In terms of terrorism, no Iranian was involved in any terroristic events as 11/9 or London bombing." Iran agressively funds Hezbolah and also funds Palestinian suicide bombers. Issuing the fatwa for Salamon Rushdie's murder was an act of state sponsored terrorism.

Please add your signature, when you comment here. --Sinooher20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could become more balanced, however because of it's sensitive nature I think every statement should be sourced from the beginning. For the record, I think Iran's democracy is a joke and it kills FAR more people than the US when you adjust the numbers for base population (usa 250m+ / Iran 70m+). Smackmonkey 09:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that using the phrasing "one of the worst" violators of human rights is not appropriate. It sounds very weasel word-ish and also is not true. Just a quick list of countries with worse human rights records: (1) Rwanda, (2) Sudan, (3) Burma, (4) North Korea, (5)Zimbabwe. Now since I'm no expert and can list five worse violators, the wording is poorly chosen.

[edit] Chain murdering intellectuals

The event have to be thoroughly covered in this article. also "cultural revolution". --Wikkoqopi09:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is not neutral right from the very beginning; all the intro discusses is alleged human rights violations, nothing else. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to play devils advocate- perhaps it's because Iran has an abysmal human rights record? Tototom 12:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, all articles on "Human Rights in country X,Y or Z" contain allegations, few of which are proved. That's in the nature of the subject, HR abuses rarely get tried in a court of law.

Exile 14:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Issues

I added a link to the main article Religious minorities in Iran, which has a large section on the government's treatment of religious minorities. I don't know if there's a way to link to a section of another article.Craig Baker 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background: unsourced

The Background section is totally unsourced. The only cites supplied don't appear to support the sentence they are attachde to. I think the whole section is OR commentary and should be removed, but will wait to see if anyone can improve it. Ashmoo 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While not totally sourced, I do believe what is said to be true. Thus, I strongly section should be kept- however as Ashmoo said, any sources would be welcome. Smackmonkey 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary for the article anyway, maybe it should be scrapped altogether. To have it or not does not help one understand the subject better (in my opinion, of course).Claveau 07:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You think so? I would have said the opposite again. ;-) I think it sumerizes a great deal of the information on the pages below- if you read through it you see that everything traces back to those two causes. Smackmonkey 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That is true for you and I, but there may be people who would draw different conclusions (wouldn't know how really, but that's beside the point) and it might be better on the "encyclopedic" point of view to let people draw their own conclusions. Just a thought Claveau 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial and POV:Human rights in Islam

There are different viewpoint about human rights. There are different human rights available in Islam:[3]. We shouldn't judge Islamic republic on the basis of europian human rights. Please look at this book. Islamic republic believes in this book theoritically:THE TREATISE ON RIGHTS--Sa.vakilian 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The treatment of women in the majority of muslim countries is morally reprehensable. They are not treated as equals. This is not good human rights policy. Are you saying that it is unfair that we are saying that all lives are sacred and not just those who believe in a particular religion and are male. I think we need to be rational here in that human rights are measured based on western standards, because westerners enjoy the highest levels of freedom and human rights at the present time than any other group in history. While the Islamic world has some of the worst human rights in the present day. Probably not in history some regions have been pretty bad. Sharia law is a horrible creation that says the testimony of a woman only carries one half that of a man. How is that human rights. That is subjegation and controle.--Meanie 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"We shouldn't judge Islamic republic on the basis of europian human rights." It is a matter of Iran's compliance with international conventions relating to human rights, of which it is a signatory and therefore has obligations. It is not about "European values" but international laws and conventions that Iran has accepted. However, LGBT rights are not enshrined in these human rights conventions and therefore are not normally the basis for seeking asylum. Ironically, the US and Iran are united in their resistance to stopping LGBT rights from forming a part of international human rights standards.

Meanie: There are plenty of secular states with atrocious human rights records, namely China and Russia. Women are not just oppressed by mullahs, there are plenty of examples where women have been, until recently, oppressed and discriminated against in Western democracies. And Sharia is a form of jurisprudence, it is not a rigid set of laws and punishments. Although the implementation of Sharia is often harsh, the implementation of secular criminal law can also be harsh - the Americans have a habit of executing black people after dubious trials, does that mean their entire legal and penal system should be condemned? So, the debates are not simply about Western versus Islamic values.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The UN has international standards for human rights and I many Islamic countries are UN member nations who can contribute to the creation of these standards. Your POV is of course valid; please insert it in the article. And by the way, Americans do not execute anyone after dubious trials; if you believe that you might have been influenced by anti-American propaganda. Elizmr 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a Note on the death penatly thing in the US, the federal one is almost never used. However criminal law is the jurisdiction of the individual states. Most US states (I think I am correct on this however I could be wrong) do not have the death penalty. And some that do have a policy of not executing someone on their first go round. And many more like California you are more likely to die on death row than from a lethal injection since it takes so long to kill someone.--Meanie 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Most US states do have the death penalty (38 out of 50). Three people have been executed since the re-enactement of the death penalty for federally prosecuted cases. Some states (New York for example) have not had any executions since 1976, but still retain the option of imposing the death penalty for certain offenses.Claveau 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vague wording

I think that there is a lot of vague wording in the article that is confusing, particularly the following: - "historical petrification of Sharia law" - I don't understand what this means. Does it really apply to Iran, where government by the clergy only began 27 years ago? - "The Iranian legislation being strongly influenced by the precepts of Islam, it consolidates the supremacy of the man, which is shown in different articles of the Iranian civil code" - this doesn't make sense to me and seems to rule out the fact that Islamic precepts are a matter of interpretation. - "Children's rights in Iran at the international law level" - can no-one find an adequate description of Iranian law on children's rights? - The third paragraph of "gender issues" is going on about Arab countries, which is not relevant to human rights in Iran. I think much of the article is a mess and needs cleaning up, with more references and NPOV, in order to bring it up to standard.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)