Talk:My Stealthy Freedom

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Iran Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 it will be removed. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the funniest joke I ever heard. You have removed the links of Youtube and Aparat and now you accuse Alinejad. Wow, who are you Mr.Qizilbash123? I'm amazed. I'm totally mixed up. Soroush90gh (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid ad hominems. I removed it because it's not from official website but uploaded by some irrelevant activists. I already presented IRINN's search engines which indeed contains reports about Masih Alinejad (even videos without hijab), but all of them are months old and there isn't any report of rape. Since there isn't anything related on www.irinn.ir it fails WP:VERIFY it's my right to remove it. Everyone can make video montage and publish it on Youtube, and that's precisely what Alinejad has done - she made false video of false accusation to get publicity and to discredit criticism from Iran. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that the only representative of IRIB is it's website? Of course they don't cover all of their TV programs in their website. You mean that Alinejad has changed her voice to IRNN commentator? Millions of Iranians have watched that program on their TVs. What's your problem? Why you are going to force your view to others? Soroush90gh (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRINN is one of tens stations affiliated to IRIB, and all of them have own websites which cover absolutely all, especially news presented on TV. I challenge you to find just one (1) such website (www.irib.ir, www.irinn.ir, www.presstv.ir, www.sahartv.ir, etc.) which published alleged rape story. Obivous fact is that there isn't anything like it there, it can only be found on activist websites and foreign media so your claim about "millions of Iranians have watched it" is nothing but a lie. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While taking a look at the article, I saw some unreliable sources such as MSF 2015, NN 2015 and EoL 2014. The first is a blog hosted by Wordpress, thus a self-published source. The second is a news website with no reputation for accuracy, and the third is an attack website. None of the three sources are WP:RS. Moreover, the sources are reffered to as "Iranian organizations", "Iranian media and publications" or "Iranian analysts", which is not a proper way for attribution according to WP:AWW. If the content's references are not replaced with RS, I will remove them. Pahlevun (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this an educational assignment? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed the Talebian reference and all statements sourced exclusively to that source--including the serious accusations of slacktivism, made from--apparently--a comfortable research institute in the Western World and presented at a graduate students' conference. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of content is a nice example of WP:CENSOR policy. I named all scholars who wrote about this online movement, and it was reduced to 3-4 sentences with "Researchers(who?)(when?)..." (tagged by censors). Two authors, in a peer-reviewed academic journal Feminist Media Studies, mentioned that this type of activism aligns with theory of GC Spivak (cited by 17,283 scholarly publications), and it was simply removed. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of articles in Persian language addressing this campaign, so one source can easily replace another. And there are also new Western publications, published during past two years, I'll include them. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSF 2015, NN 2015 and EoL 2014 are unreliable and should be removed immediately. Pahlevun (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, for example you claimed MSF2015 is simply a blog, while it's an English translation of Persian scholarly article. While searching for an original one I've found another translation on Bosnian, published by Sahar TV. --MehrdadFR (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please provide a Persian copy of this "scholarly article", and its original source? The other two sources are unreliable and not in use appropriately. Pahlevun (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored to the last version by Drmies, while consensus is reached. MehrdadFR has the WP:BURDEN of proof to demonstrate how the scholars cited are established scholars and the stated information sourced to WP:RS. As per WP:BRD (Bold edit, revert, discuss). The edits are not to be restored until consensus is reached per wikipedia policy. Thanks. AadaamS (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AdaamS. MehrdadFR, you're going to need better sourcing. AdaamS and I have been quite clear in those brief edit summaries; just reverting it and claiming "censorship" is weak. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of freedom of the press and speech in Iran, Iranian press and academia can not be used to source facts on counter-regime movements - such discourse is under severe supressiin in Iran. Regime controlled sources should only he used to source the regime's position.Icewhiz (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, "Iranian academia can not be used to source facts", says apologist of Zionist regime. --MehrdadFR (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pahlevun, I'm in search of it (that's how I found another translation linked above), I sent few emails. You should explain what's problematic about Nameh News, because in article it clearly says "Iranian media". The same is with EoL, indeed a WP:BIASED source, but named as "Iranian organization". See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --MehrdadFR (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MehrdadFR, A joint battle against the hijab? A critical discourse analysis of "My Stealthy Freedom" and the Western media coverage is a Master's Thesis Ergo, a grad student is not an established expert in the field. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/338318. Even if Rouhof has pursued a policitical or academic career, Rouhof was not an established expert at the time. Please do not re-add any material sourced to this thesis. Please no edit warring. AadaamS (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Talebian is a also a student, see here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sara_Talebian. Therefore not an established scholar. The paper was released at a Graduate Student Conference per https://ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=28599&EventID=98 - hence not a conference of established experts in the field. AadaamS (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD disallows the papers by Talebian & Rouhof, since they are Master-level students. MehrdadFR, please do not re-add material sourced to Talebian until you have demonstrated WP:BURDEN how Taleibian & Rouhof are established scholars. Also please stop ad hominem attacks. AadaamS (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it more and you're right about Talebian & Rouhof, so article requires a cleanup if we want to be fully professional. However, other very reliable sources have been excluded by censors and that's not acceptable. --MehrdadFR (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double-checking. Only re-add material sourced to reliable sources. The last edit re-added Rouhof & Talebian which are non WP:RS. Only add the bits sourced to WP:RS. Please also be WP:CIVIL and do not launch ad hominem attacks on fellow editors by calling them "censors". At least we have consensus that Rouhof and Talebian are not WP:RS and therefore cannot be included in the article. AadaamS (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, user MehrdadFR has restored his edits cited to a wordpress.com while also adding unsourced claims about "slacktivism" with this edit. Imho MSF2015 is a WP:SPS. AadaamS (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It isn't even clear who the author of this wordpress blog is, and what the translated Persian source of it is.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• MehrdadFR, you will be blocked if you persist in this behavior--and talking about "vandalism" in your edit summary is really ironic. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Drmies, it seems that citations to Rouhof have found their way into the article again. Also among the last few edits there are changes by a WP:SPA single purpose account. AadaamS (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks AadaamS. I left them a pretty stern warning: I do not believe they are a new editor. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]