Talk:My Stealthy Freedom: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I have removed that tag because there was no issue raised on talk page. Huffingtonpost' source comes from 2014. Any further changes to these 2 of my edits should be discussed, if not, you can still leave a note. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 07:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now can you explain removing section of Iranian views? Even some Western media published responses like The Telegraph, but I didn't include it because it's biased - Men's Stealthy Freedom surely isn't "conservative", and it says women "must wear niqab or hijab" which is ridiciolus since niqab is foreign Arab clothing. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is too excessive. You have to use telegraph.co.uk as source because it is a WP:RS per our Wikipedia guidelines and you have to write accordingly. Don't add anything that is not in the source, check WP:SYNTH and WP:Original Research. OccultZone (Talk) 11:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Qizilbash123, your edits extremely reflect your personal views about Hijab. All of us, may have a personal idea about Hijab or any other issue but we are not allowed to reflect it in WP, because it's not our personal website. About this page, this is about a campaign, we should write about it and of course the feedback but we MUST NOT accuse it. Secondly, the title "Iranians view" is EXTREMELY biased. You have to change it to "Government's view" or "Officials' view". Remember, you have to add resources to each single sentence. Thanks. Soroush90gh (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soroush90gh, wrong - it's the Iranian view. When I say Iranian it implies Iranians living in Iran, not some Westernized immigrants. You're edits proved you're biased against it because you force personal views that it's "Islamic" and "forced". Actually scarfs aren't found in basic Islamic books and they have been part of Iranian public dress code since Achaemenid periods, scholars actually agree early Muslims took it from Sassanid Iranians. There isn't any movement or discussion about avoiding scarfs in Iran itself, as there isn't anything similar in West regarding bra. Please keep in mind that dress code from your Western city doesn't imply to rest of the World, neither to more covered Iranians or less covered naked Africans. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qizilbash123, OK you are right. But please at least find a resource (apart from your imaginary referendums) for your editions. If not, as a Wikipedian, I have to delete them. Sorry. Soroush90gh (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soroush90gh, I was speaking about your general POVs related to scarfs in various articles. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia as encyclopedia isn't bulletin for minor activism. And regarding alleged "biased" presenting Iranian views, here's the quote from book Iran: A Country Study by Curtis & Hooglund (US Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, 2008, p. 117)

Following the Revolution, the new republican government called for the participation of women in an “Islamic society,” because such a society would not be “morally corrupt” like the deposed monarchy. Observance of hejab would assure respect for women. Hejab eventually was defined as clothing that concealed the shape of a woman’s figure, such as loose outer garments, and covered her hair and skin, leaving only her face and hands exposed. The requirement to observe hejab in public was controversial among the minority of secularized women who never had worn a chador. However, for the majority of women who always had worn the chador, hejab served to legitimate their presence in the public sphere, especially in work outside the home.

You're free to have your own opinion, but you should not present it as "majority Iranian view" because it's far from reality. Thanks. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qizilbash123, I studied that parts of the report. Thanks for those valuable information, but that info is about the year 1979. You need to be up to date. Maybe the "minority" has become the "majority". Other evidence proves. Soroush90gh (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources refers to 1979, which you tried to disort by few third-rated media pamphlets. I've inserted reliable academic sources and you've removed it simply coz you don't like them. What "evidence" you're talking about? Was there any public discussion about it? Did anyone propagated such things in Iran? Was there any protest against it? Campaign from London don't change anything. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in WP:original research Qizilbash. Please stick to WP:reliable sources that directly discuss the subject at hand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, everything is sourced and related to subject background. Your revert was clear POV and you removed sources that directly discuss the subject at hand. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mr. Qizilbash123, Washington Post is a third-rated resource to cover a social event.

In addition, he can't accuse people, he has said they are westernized and minority people.

WP is not a place to promote your religious/political views. Soroush90gh (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post can be good source for covering a social event, but not for covering historical background (historians are responsible for it). You're one who promotes religious/political views by false claims. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi dear Administrator. I have to add some info to the page. These info are not biased and are just about the reality (and not my personal interpretations). Thanks Soroush90gh (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A conservative website Raja news called the movement as an obvious insulation against Islam and Marja'. The author concluded that because of these kinds of contents, Facebook must remain banned.^[1] Another website, Nedaye Enghelab (Call of the Revolution), published a cartoon which depicted two pigs wearing flags of United States and Great Britain. The cartoon was titled "Members of Stealthy Freedom Campaign".^[2]

IS GOING TO BE:

Iranian state broadcaster (IRIB) reported that Alinejad, who left Iran after the 2009 Presidential election, was assaulted, stripped naked, and gang-raped in London in the presence of her son.^[3]

Vahid Yaminpour, an Iranian commentator and TV personality, shared a critical text in his Google Plus. “Masih Alinejad is a whore, and not a heretic as some people claim her to be,” Yaminpour wrote also on his Facebook page. “We shouldn’t elevate her to the level of a heretic. She’s just trying to compensate her psychological (and probably financial) needs by recruiting young women and sharing her notoriety with younger women who are still not prostitutes.” ^[4] A conservative website Raja news called the movement as an obvious insulation against Islam and Marja'. The author concluded that because of these kinds of contents, Facebook must remain banned.^[5] Another website, Nedaye Enghelab (Call of the Revolution), published a cartoon which depicted two pigs wearing flags of United States and Great Britain. The cartoon was titled "Members of Stealthy Freedom Campaign".^[6]

What's wrong with my proposed changes? Soroush90gh (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following content:

The page has attracted 500,000 fans in under one month.^[7]

BTW: why on earth is everybody blocked from editing the article?! Wouldn't it be wiser to only block those engaged in edit-warring?Fotoriety (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both were experienced editors, they knew how to bypass 3 revert rule. So there was a need to protect page, if it doesn't go well, then I will address for further investigation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that "Qizilbash123" is an experienced editor. Only 205 edits on English-language Wikipedia since March 2014. And it shows, given the editor's regular violation of fundamental Wikipedia rules. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Plot Spoiler: I agree, but when I said that they are "experienced editors", it was originally concerned with their skills of bypassing 3rr. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they knew how to bypass the 3 revert rule, surely there must still be the ability to block them. And can somebody please add my proposed edit from above?Fotoriety (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a request for you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated.Fotoriety (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who helped.Fotoriety (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soroush90gh, can you provide us link of Persian site with alleged "rape claim"? Alinejad claims it comes from IRINN (activist video), but there's no such report on official IRINN's webpage (search results for: "Masih Alinejad" and "Alinejad"). After all, looks like a Alinejad's cheap accusation. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soroush90gh has again tried to insert third-rated websites as "proof" but there isn't still verification from official web site. If you can not verify if will be removed. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]