Talk:Black Friday (1978)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Iran (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Baseless rumor[edit]

Emad al-Din Baghi reports (based on the statistics held by the Foundation for the Martyrs) that the total number of the people killed in this event is 88. I corrected the erroneous number.

  • I corrected the numberrs again. It seems that Baghi's numbers are accurate. Please do not just delete numbers. If you have a better source (compared to someone who actually counted the number of dossiers held by the Iranian government), please cite your source. --10:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Mrjahan
You skimmed one sentence: "On the same day in other parts of the capital a total of 24 people died in clashes with martial law forces among them one female."[1] 64+24=88.--15:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The total number (in line with numbers announced by the government at the time of incident) is either 88 or 89. My reference to correction was to the word "hundreds" that somehow crept back into the article after edition. I hope this time the numbers stick. Mrjahan

Funky title[edit]

The accompanying article is one of either

7 that have as title "Black Friday" ...
2 that have as title "Black Saturday" ... or
1 that have as title "Black Monday" ...

... (in each case) disambiguated by a parenthesized year. Since this is in contrast to all the other days of the week, that style probably is unneeded and reflects either ignorance of the acceptability of Dab-page entries like

Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001 attacks

or something like a lack of persistence in weighing possible titles. I have not investigated them individually; instead, i suggest review, of each article, by one or more editors with prior interest in its corresponding topic, with an eye to finding a title that either avoids the "Black" or disambiguates it with something more evocative than a year. Years are good tools for helping users who happen to have seen a brief reference to "Black Friday" and have at least rough idea of the year involved, but giving priority to that case in titling the article, rather than letting the Dab page handle that job, is almost always an impediment to most users seeking the article. Almost certainly, most of the 10 should be renamed.
--Jerzyt 06:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Any reason for the POV tag? -- (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New information regarding Black Friday[edit]

Black Friday was caused by professional agitators. For starters I would like to show you guys to Cinema Rex. This is another Cinema Rex.

Evidence 1 The Life and Times of the Shah, Afkhami, page 463-66.

This is from page 465: "They were up against professional agitators, some of them trained in Palestinian and Libyan camps" According to the same page, the troops were fired at from the crowd by these professional agitators. The troops responded back the fire and people in the crowd where being shoot at.

According Afkhami, reports show that seventy police and soldiers were also killed, but the military preferred not to make it public.

Evidence 2 Carnets Secrets by Houshang Nahavandi page 139.

He writes about a interview he did with a pro-Khomeini [during revolution] activist in Paris. The pro-Khomeini activist explains how two Palestinians came to his apartment and used his window [which opened out towards Jaleh Square] and opened fire both towards the Iranian military and the demonstrators in order to create cause. He also verifies that he saw other people doing it from other windows.

Evidence 3 Ali Davani, Nehzat-e ruhaniyun-e iran, Volume 10. Confirms this.

Evidence 4 Bonyad-e Farhang-e Emam Reza, 1998, 7. Page 231-32 confirms this as well.

Evidence 5 Defying the Iranian revolution: from a minister to the Shah to a leader of resistance - By Manoucher Ganji

Page 16, he confirms all that above.

Evidence 6 "Two days after the Black Friday, the police arrested a certain individual carrying the pseudonym of Ayatollah Alameh Nouri. The man's real name was Sheikh Yayha Nasiri. He was arrested for causing incitement of public disorder and of acts of arson in public places - banks, cinemas, department stores, government buildings ... At his residence, the authorities had found many passports belonging to different Arab countries, a substantial amount of money and documents showing the prior planning of the Black Friday." - Houshang Nahavandi

See his book Carnets Secrets around page 139.

Evidence 7 (PERSIAN)

Article about Jaleh Square. How the Palestinians did it and how Arafat confessed.

Evidence 8 "The report established, in an irrefutable manner, that from inside the crowd firing, aimed at the soldiers, had started. Several soldiers had been killed. The investigations had proved that the Palestinians had positioned themselves inside the crowd. From the examination of several victims it was made obvious that someone had been hit from nearby positions inside the crowd." Houshang Nahavandi, former chancellor of Tehran University, Source: See book above by Ganji page 16

I will hold it there and see what happens. If nobody objects I will change the page to add in all this new information, which will change all the information in this page because I have a lot of support for my claims. Javidshahanshah (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Houshang Nahanvandi says:

I don't think any of these can be considered reliable sources. At best they should be mentioned as a countering view to what is the accepted understanding. - SimonP (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Haha.. What? Not reliable sources? Why not? As if the sources that the article have now can be trusted? 90 % of it is biased against Shah and the rest are nonamers. I have EIGHT evidence here, more than all the sources the article have, that says otherwise. And I can find and will find much more. Abrahamian, Ervand is a known anti-Shah guy. Very wise to only use his supporters. Regards Javidshahanshah (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ervand Abrahamian is one of the more prominent Iranian historians active today, and the work here is cited from Cambridge University Press, one of the world's most respected publishers. By contrast most of your sources are opinion pieces or autobiographies. - SimonP (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and Carter's UN ambassador, Andrew Young, called Khomeini "a kind of saint.". Since he is a UN ambassador and UN is "respected, famous" and Carter was the president. Apparently it must have been true, and we all saw what kind of saint he was. Cambridge has nothing to do with him as he is writing the books, he is the authors, right? And uh, he is anti-Shah. Look at all his books, NOT one thing positive about the Shah. Javidshahanshah (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and. Houshang Nahavandi was former chancellor of Tehran University. Tehran University is a well respected university all over the world. So why not use the same logic here. It is interesting to see how some people have PERSONAL problems against the Shah and Iran and refuse to write the truth. Javidshahanshah (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I just reverted the changes you'd made. They content you added doesn't seem to reflect the sources you're citing. Afkhami notes the presence of agitators, but makes clear that it was still the Shah's forces that did the shooting that day. We do today have more information on the events, and these give a fuller and more complex picture than some of the initial reports, but it is certainly not the mainstream view that the old version was complete lies. - SimonP (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I got many sources just like you do. Only difference is that the current sources in the article right now are all western sources, of course they hate the Shah and want to throw mud at him. You only trust what your american media tells you? My sources work just fine as well. I don't know where you read that Afkhami say that the Iranian army did the shooting, but I also wrote that trained agitators shoot from inside the protesters and the army responded, what would they do? Please read all my sources. I will revert again because you are not willing to work with me so we can incorporate this as well, even though I have many sources. You just want your little fake biased CIA-baked story to be here so you can can continue brainwash people. Javidshahanshah (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd already mentioned Ervand Abrahamian, but here are a couple more Iranian sources:
  • Zhand Shakibi: "Differing accounts exist on how the violence started. Some state that, 'Becuase the demonstrators ignored the curfew restrictions, the police opened fire into to crowd.' However, western journalists at the scene and others contend that this was not a planned attack, but rather occured as the result of haphahazard confrontations between the soldiers and leaders of the demonstration."
  • Hossein Shahidi: "In east-central Tehran's Jaleh Square, protesters who had gathered, presumably unaware of the early morning announcement of marital law, came under fire from soldiers who had been unable to persuade them to disperse."
You are cherry picking sources that agreed with you. The conspiracy theory that the shooting was not done by the Shah's forces is not the mainstream opinion on Black Friday, and having this article rely only on sources that say this violates WP:FRINGE. - SimonP (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has to fix this Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with SimonP, this section is blatantly biased and must be revised. There are plenty of solid, independent historians, who hold no allegiance to the Shah or the Islamic Republic, whose works can be cited here.Jemiljan (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The material Javidshahanshah is trying to push in the article are not backed by mainstream scholarship. Besides, I do not see any consensus for their inclusion. I will therefore go ahead and remove them.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

POV Section Tag[edit]

This section was clearly revised, as per the discussion above, by Javidshahanshah to include conspiracy theories, alleging that non-Iranians were behind the violence. Such allegations are completely unsubstantiated, though they circulate among Iranian expatriates. SimonP is quite correct to state that this is in violation of WP:FRINGE, and his mention of independent, verifiable sources like historian [[[Ervand Abrahamian]], to which I would also add Nikki Keddie should be used for a revision of this section.Jemiljan (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


User:Kazemita1 (which is for the Islamic Republic) has decided to vandalize this page despite it being in the state it is for near a year. He appeared out of no where and decided to change, again, despite it being agreed that the page should look as it is right now, and which it also has for almost a year. He has not initiated no discussion whatsoever about the current state, instead he decided to randomly edit the page. It is still important though to understand that this man is extremely biased as he is for the Islamic Republic - however I recommend Kazemita to read Wikipedia guidelines. Bias should not decide how articles should look.

What should be done? I will be contacting appropriate admins. Zedzem (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you take a look at the section above and the section before that, you will see that no one agrees in inclusion of the material you are attempting to include.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There are people that agree both on this section and people who have agreed by not reverting it, instead doing other changes to it, in order to improve it. It has been like this for almost a year now. Many people have edited it, improved it, adding sources and fixing it - thus there is a general silent consensus as well, until you arrived and decided to remove whole paragraphs because you don't believe in the truth. Zedzem (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Please, read Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. Also, there was only one person in favor of inclusion (JavidShahanshah). Everybody else was against it. and for the records, I have nothing to do with that IP.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not know anything about the discussion that took place above. You have a problem with how this article has been in a year. Please share your reasons to why the current sources are wrong, how they are wrong, what other sources say what. You can't just come in and delete whole paragraphs because you disagree with it. None of those who took place in the discussion above have had any objections after the edit. That discussion was FOUR years ago. Also I did not say that silence means consensus. People have improved this page and added to the state it was in before you deleted it. Zedzem (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You are clearly ignoring what administrator(User:Atama) told you here. Nevertheless, you need to prove the reliability of your sources by posting them on WP:RSN. Essentially, go there and mention the name of your sources. and there, we can have third party people discuss and tell if they are valid. If you want I can do that for you.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to concur that going to the reliable sources noticeboard is an excellent place to start. The main point of this dispute since it began (above on the discussion page) was whether or not the sources were reliable. Everything since then, from claims of fringe theories to the edit-warring has stemmed from that. I'd be willing to participate in that discussion as well if it is created, as a neutral advisor. -- Atama 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That is Great User:Atama! However, before we go ahead and ask about the sources from WP:RSN, I checked the content of one of the sources which seemed reliable to me ("The life and Times of the Shah", University of California Press). To my astonishment, the source is saying something completely different from what User:Zedzem is claiming. Here is what user is attributing to the source:

the protesters were shot by professional agitators trained in Palestinian and Libyan camps.

and here is what the book says on page 465:

The troops available to be sent to disperse the crowd had no training in mob control, as General Azhari had explained to the prime minister the evening before. Their number was inadequate. THey did not have time or they simply did not think of asking for reinforcements, from either the anti-riot police units or the military. They were up against professional agitators, some of them trained in Palestinian and Libyan camps. Faced with mob agitation, they were ordered to fire in the air. According to military reports, the troops then were fired at. They responded by firing into the crowd. According to official reports, the number of dead was eighty-six. THe opposition put the number at hundred and sometimes thousands.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that raises the question... Zedzem, you're vouching for this by re-inserting it into the article, have you checked the sources yourself, or have you just restored the section on principle? -- Atama 00:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that the book "life and times of the Shah" shouldn't marked down in historical fact. It came from the Shah and people close to him, there is a certain bias and motive in trying to coverup for his actions. The Islamic Republic maintains that the 2009 protesters were professional agitator backed by the CIA and MI6, does that make them right? No, and neither does it make the Shah right. Nmathmaster (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Friday (1978). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)