Talk:2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran

POV issue

I think this article has a POV issue if you want to single out Iran as a state that violate the the vienna convention for diplomatic relations 1963 by stating an event that happened more than a 190 years ago, and way before the stipulation of the vienna convention (1961). You claim was not even supported by a verifiable and reliable source So I removed it. Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A big chunk is missing

The article in its present state doesn't at all address a rather fundamental issue: Why was there a protest against the UK in the first place ? What were the protesters angry at ? What was their demands ? All this is easy to source, at least if you look beyond the British press. Bomazi (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I added some background info. Please feel free to expand. --386-DX (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrible article as of now

The article does not list the causes of the incident, which I believe were UK sanctions against Iran; and there are significant plagiarism issues with what is there, for instance the CNN Wire article used as a reference has actually been entirely copied. --2.98.177.246 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

curent events

Shouldn't this article still have a "current events" tag? I didn't add one because I'm not entirely sure about the WP policy of exactly when they're taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.105.254 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion would be that if this blossoms into an ICJ case or something similar happens to advance the narrative, yes. But as it stands, its over and done with. Pascal (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be in current events media is reporting heavily on it.  Dr meetsingh  Talk  13:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

EU Sanctions section

The last paragraph (as of now), concerning EU sanctions against the 180 officials and companies, is almost entirely unrelated to this event. Perhaps this can be removed? Or reference can be made to the fact that sanctions such as these were the original cause of these protests. Otherwise, the information is totally irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.109.253 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I see the sanctions however came after the attack on embassy but EU is relating sanctions to Iran's nuclear program.  Dr meetsingh  Talk  03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Students"

Currently, the perpetrators are listed as being those described as students by Iranian state media agencies, with the "students" being in quotes, as if to imply they aren't students. The subsequent lines go on to narrate that several analysts the attack was orchestrated by the Iranian government. I agree that both perspectives should be shown as we are in no position to determine the fact here. Given that the counter-point is adequately covered below, I propose to remove the quotes around students and modify the sentence to read:

Iranian state media agencies and certain international news sources described the protests as a spontaneous reaction of Basij-affiliated "students" against Britain's anti-Iran policies.

Examples of international sources describing the protesters as students: [1] and [2].

Trust this is in order. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In principle I agree but there are some issues with that wording, primarily that international sources have described the demonstrators as students but have not described the demonstration as a spontaneous reaction. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, forgot about this ... I'm going ahead with the change after dropping "spontaneous reaction", thats covered in the second line. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

International Reactions: Kosovo and Albania

For whatever reason, somebody decided to add the international reactions of Kosovo and Albania to this incident. I highly recommend we delete this because (1) the reactions come from self-published government sources and not reliable media sources. If they came from reliable secondary media sources, it would signify the importance of their reactions but since they don't, it signifies it's unimportance (2) It is WP:Undue to commit so much space to the reactions of countries that are not even remotely connected to the incident. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this view, the reaction of Kosovo and Albania should be removed for all reasons you mentioned.Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's comical that we are resorting to "guidelines" here. I think we all understand why an article regarding an attack on the British embassy in Iran does not need several paragraphs on Albanian and Kosovo(!) reaction. It is beyond me why some Albanian editor feels these additions are warranted, and is willing to defend them. --129.100.193.210 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes needed

I think a couple changes needs to be made, firstly the begining reads

the basij militia, a paramilitary force that has played a significant role in crushing protests organised by various student, womens and political movements

This should be changed to

the basij militia, a paramilitary force that has played a significant role in the governments reponse to protests organised by various student, womens and political movements

because it is WP:NPOV issue to claim that they "Crushed" the protests, how did they Crush the protests? And We can't simply ignore that the protests were many times violent, with the alleged protester or rioters settling cars, buildings, banks ablaze. The bias of the source towards the Basij and the 2009 election riots should not be included.

Secondly We should include the internal iranian political bakground that lead to this event. Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120601050206/http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007275493 to http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007275493

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• British Embassy Storming 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Reactions: Canada

I doubt that the closure of the Canadian embassy one year after the incident can be put under "Reactions" to the incident. In the source given (Reuters news wire), the Canadian government does mention vaguely the "“blatant disregard” for the Vienna Convention’s guarantee of protection for diplomats", but does not mention the British embassy incident, which figures further down as a context information by the agency, not as a reason given by Canada. If nobody has a source about a Canadian official specifically quoting the British embassy incident as a reason for the Canadian embassy closure, then the paragraph should not appear under "Reactions". Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)