This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is in the news because of her apparent arrest, and is likely to become the focus of significant journalistic and diplomatic attention (if she has not already done so). In addition, as a working journalist (including on-air work), she is a noteworthy personality. Wolit ( talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that she is a Jew and pressumptively a citizen of Israel? Should it also be mentioned that she was under surveillance for years and was observed taking pictures of Iran's nuclear sites? Should it be mentioned that, given the daily threats by Israel's leaders to bomb Iran, that they just MIGHT be a tad worried about an American "journalist" hanging out at such sensitive spots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.65.21 ( talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This incident is notable; the person herself, not so much, as per WP:1E. This page probably should be renamed "Roxana Saberi espionage case" or something else that introduces the reader to the notable event rather than to the less-notable individual who happened to be its focus. Also, the biographical material about her should be trimmed so that it is more WP:SS for an event-themed article. Thoughts? Cosmic Latte ( talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Disagree.
Erxnmedia ( talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
did i just read here, on this very page, that the person (her name is roxanna saberi) was incidental, therefore not as "notable" as the incidence itself...of course i beg to differ...anyway what is being done currently to ensure the speedy realease of said political prisoner? because i am sure as heck doing everything in my power to have her and other political prisoners throught the world to secure their freedom. -- Jamiejojesus ( talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Could this article possibly be more biased against Iran?
Could this TALK PAGE be more biased against them? Why is there no exploration of the espionage charges against Ms. Saberi? And incidentally, why this article and the western meida uniformly avoid the term "convicted" in their copy? This article is a good candidate for an activist screed, hardly worthy of even a free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Iran is not a "totalitarian" regime by most standards, and is more free than many in the West give it credit for. Still, operating without press credentials in a state that is, at best, cool towards a free press, is pretty equivalent to espionage. It doesn't mean she was spying for a foreign government, though, which seems to be the important clause in the case (her sentenced was reduced apparently because the appeals court did not agree that Iran and the US had "hostile relations"). Regardless, I am posting because one of the possible motives for her sentence being reduced seems odd to me. It assumes that there are but two political camps in Iran, conservatives and liberals. However, Iran is not the West, and I would guarantee that every analyst who has actually studied Iran sees three camps: radical conservatives, pragmatists, and reformers. This was a victory for the pragmatists and reformers, and most likely the pragmatists. But to frame this in simply liberal vs. conservative language is embarrassing, as the pragmatists tend to be pretty conservative. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.16.147.33 (
talk)
04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At the top of the page, Al Jazeera America is written as an anti-Iranian network, this is not an official position of the network and is hearsay. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Evansmcgrath (
talk •
contribs)
01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Accusations of a Double Standard U.S. cases" portion of the article seems to be written in a bit of a POV slant, and should be revised a bit (the portion didn't even use the modifier "accusations" originally). It also seems a bit out of place, as this is an article about Roxana Saberi, not her case. Maybe a seperate article should be created regarding her case and trial?
What do you guys think? Tominator93 ( talk) 05:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that Iranian counter points to accusations leveled by American authorities should be included in order to give the article balance. However, "Accusations of a Double Standard" is going of on a bit of a tangent, as it is not a counterpoint to any of the previously mentioned accusations. It is getting into a whole other argument altogether, one that has less to do with Roxana Saberi, and more to do with broader diplomatic relations between the U.S. and middle eastern countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm not saying that the double standard argument isn't a valid point: what I am saying is that I don't think it is quite relevant enough to this article to be placed here. Which is why I reiterate, maybe a separate page should be created for her case, and the broader diplomatic implications of said case. (By the way, it wasn't the section itself that I thought was POV. It was just the tone of writing that I thought was a bit slanted. Nothing some minor editing couldn't fix)
Tominator93 (
talk)
06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
On meeting with a CIA officer: "One of her attorneys, Saleh Nikbakht, said Wednesday that the prosecution's case also included the allegation that Saberi had met with a person identified only as Mr. Peterson, who told her he worked for the CIA and tried to recruit her into the agency. "She said that yes, she had met a Mr. Peterson," Nikbakht told NPR, "and that Mr. Peterson asked her to work for the CIA. But she took it as a joke, and didn't take him seriously." It appears that in an earlier interrogation, Saberi had been questioned about this Mr. Peterson and had given answers that she then recanted during the appeals procedure. She told the appeals court, according to Nikbakht, that "what she said about Peterson earlier had been a lie."" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104104552 24.207.226.140 ( talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It is many months later and this well sourced true information has not been added and this page is still locked. The editor of this article is clearly not up to the job. This is one of the worst articles in all of wikipedia
97.91.187.161 (
talk)
20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The NPR interview has some pretty detailed comments by Saberi, including rebuttals of past reporting.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104612989
This subsection doesn't seem appropriate for this article. Talk to Magibon 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I realized that a number of wikipedians ( [1], [2], [3]) delete whatever information that may reflect negative on Roxana Saberi. I would like to assume good face. Users Katharineamy, CapitalLetterBeginning, Fooladin, HitroMilanese and me reverted these vandalism several times.
It is true that Iranian court should have handled the case in a more appropriate way. But that does not mean that Roxana Saberi was innocent. She had a document that she found access to it illegally and not in the framework of her job as a translator. She mentioned this fact in her interview after her release.
Whether the document was classified or not, we don't know. but she had documents that she copied illegally and for her own "curiosity". and this is a fact. Her lawyers approved it too.
Please do not try to hide this fact. It is up to Iranian government to say what is classified or not. No one else is qualified to comment on the classification of a document that is in the drawer in Iran's president's office. SirFlemming ( talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the facts of the case are totally un-represented in this article. No mention of her having what her lawyer admits were illegal documents No mention that her press credentials had expired and she was working as a translator for a political party not a journalist at the time of her arrest No mention of her admitted meeting with CIA officers Ect. 24.207.132.215 ( talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes this page is truly ridiculous. None of the pertinent facts are mentioned. 1. she admitted to possessing documents she was not legally allowed to have but claims them to be "secret" not "classified", which is not a legal distinction in Iran 2. She admitted to meeting with a CIA officer, but claims it was innocent and she refused to work with them. Apart from that there are a lot of things that are misleading. So for instance she is described only as "journalist" but in fact she was working as a translator for political party not as a journalist at the time of the incident and does not have press credentials. Obviously this article needs serious POV cleanup, but alas, has been locked. 02:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.189.51 ( talk)
Yes the sources for these claims are already on the talk page. But I suspect that you knew that already. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104104552 97.91.187.161 ( talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand, are many of you saying that someone cannot work in any capacity as a journalist unless they have been accredited and credentialed by the local government? This is not at all how journalism works and reflects a deep seated misunderstanding of journalism and it's nature.
I do not see a point in labeling her as Japanese. There is no reason to jot down every single inch of detail about her ancestry in the intro. Most of the press coverage, label her as Iranian American. In fact the citation that is currently used for that statement too omits the part about her ancestry. Mention of her nationality is enough. Icommentwhereican ( talk) 11:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
website doesn`t seem to be owned by Saberi. Probably created during a call for release. Icommentwhereican ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think her religon is so relevent to her bio 77.31.176.11 ( talk) 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that she's either. She came across as agnostic to me in her autobiography (My Life and Captivity in Iran). She did express admiration of some of her cellmates and their faith (two Bahai women) during her detainment at Evin. 68.146.193.243 ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Her name and aid of release is mentioned explicit in cablegate documents .. http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09BERN432.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.148.33 ( talk) 07:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Roxana Saberi. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Roxana Saberi. 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:
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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roxana Saberi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
some how it seems this article is written with anti-iranian people.
In fact the question is: What if Ms. Saberi really was an spy? it is clear that US guys want to know more about Iran and why not her ?
|
Last edited at 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that she's now based in London, "American expatriates in the United Kingdom" should be included as a category at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C104:9290:F82E:5682:8218:23D6 ( talk) 21:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Can this page now be unlocked, so IPs can edit it? Thanks. It is outdated by a lot. She is a CBS journalist, not freelance. Also pinging User:Fastily -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:65D5:821A:6338:E96F ( talk) 20:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is in the news because of her apparent arrest, and is likely to become the focus of significant journalistic and diplomatic attention (if she has not already done so). In addition, as a working journalist (including on-air work), she is a noteworthy personality. Wolit ( talk) 02:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that she is a Jew and pressumptively a citizen of Israel? Should it also be mentioned that she was under surveillance for years and was observed taking pictures of Iran's nuclear sites? Should it be mentioned that, given the daily threats by Israel's leaders to bomb Iran, that they just MIGHT be a tad worried about an American "journalist" hanging out at such sensitive spots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.65.21 ( talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This incident is notable; the person herself, not so much, as per WP:1E. This page probably should be renamed "Roxana Saberi espionage case" or something else that introduces the reader to the notable event rather than to the less-notable individual who happened to be its focus. Also, the biographical material about her should be trimmed so that it is more WP:SS for an event-themed article. Thoughts? Cosmic Latte ( talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Disagree.
Erxnmedia ( talk) 13:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
did i just read here, on this very page, that the person (her name is roxanna saberi) was incidental, therefore not as "notable" as the incidence itself...of course i beg to differ...anyway what is being done currently to ensure the speedy realease of said political prisoner? because i am sure as heck doing everything in my power to have her and other political prisoners throught the world to secure their freedom. -- Jamiejojesus ( talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Could this article possibly be more biased against Iran?
Could this TALK PAGE be more biased against them? Why is there no exploration of the espionage charges against Ms. Saberi? And incidentally, why this article and the western meida uniformly avoid the term "convicted" in their copy? This article is a good candidate for an activist screed, hardly worthy of even a free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Iran is not a "totalitarian" regime by most standards, and is more free than many in the West give it credit for. Still, operating without press credentials in a state that is, at best, cool towards a free press, is pretty equivalent to espionage. It doesn't mean she was spying for a foreign government, though, which seems to be the important clause in the case (her sentenced was reduced apparently because the appeals court did not agree that Iran and the US had "hostile relations"). Regardless, I am posting because one of the possible motives for her sentence being reduced seems odd to me. It assumes that there are but two political camps in Iran, conservatives and liberals. However, Iran is not the West, and I would guarantee that every analyst who has actually studied Iran sees three camps: radical conservatives, pragmatists, and reformers. This was a victory for the pragmatists and reformers, and most likely the pragmatists. But to frame this in simply liberal vs. conservative language is embarrassing, as the pragmatists tend to be pretty conservative. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.16.147.33 (
talk)
04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At the top of the page, Al Jazeera America is written as an anti-Iranian network, this is not an official position of the network and is hearsay. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Evansmcgrath (
talk •
contribs)
01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Accusations of a Double Standard U.S. cases" portion of the article seems to be written in a bit of a POV slant, and should be revised a bit (the portion didn't even use the modifier "accusations" originally). It also seems a bit out of place, as this is an article about Roxana Saberi, not her case. Maybe a seperate article should be created regarding her case and trial?
What do you guys think? Tominator93 ( talk) 05:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that Iranian counter points to accusations leveled by American authorities should be included in order to give the article balance. However, "Accusations of a Double Standard" is going of on a bit of a tangent, as it is not a counterpoint to any of the previously mentioned accusations. It is getting into a whole other argument altogether, one that has less to do with Roxana Saberi, and more to do with broader diplomatic relations between the U.S. and middle eastern countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm not saying that the double standard argument isn't a valid point: what I am saying is that I don't think it is quite relevant enough to this article to be placed here. Which is why I reiterate, maybe a separate page should be created for her case, and the broader diplomatic implications of said case. (By the way, it wasn't the section itself that I thought was POV. It was just the tone of writing that I thought was a bit slanted. Nothing some minor editing couldn't fix)
Tominator93 (
talk)
06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
On meeting with a CIA officer: "One of her attorneys, Saleh Nikbakht, said Wednesday that the prosecution's case also included the allegation that Saberi had met with a person identified only as Mr. Peterson, who told her he worked for the CIA and tried to recruit her into the agency. "She said that yes, she had met a Mr. Peterson," Nikbakht told NPR, "and that Mr. Peterson asked her to work for the CIA. But she took it as a joke, and didn't take him seriously." It appears that in an earlier interrogation, Saberi had been questioned about this Mr. Peterson and had given answers that she then recanted during the appeals procedure. She told the appeals court, according to Nikbakht, that "what she said about Peterson earlier had been a lie."" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104104552 24.207.226.140 ( talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It is many months later and this well sourced true information has not been added and this page is still locked. The editor of this article is clearly not up to the job. This is one of the worst articles in all of wikipedia
97.91.187.161 (
talk)
20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The NPR interview has some pretty detailed comments by Saberi, including rebuttals of past reporting.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104612989
This subsection doesn't seem appropriate for this article. Talk to Magibon 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I realized that a number of wikipedians ( [1], [2], [3]) delete whatever information that may reflect negative on Roxana Saberi. I would like to assume good face. Users Katharineamy, CapitalLetterBeginning, Fooladin, HitroMilanese and me reverted these vandalism several times.
It is true that Iranian court should have handled the case in a more appropriate way. But that does not mean that Roxana Saberi was innocent. She had a document that she found access to it illegally and not in the framework of her job as a translator. She mentioned this fact in her interview after her release.
Whether the document was classified or not, we don't know. but she had documents that she copied illegally and for her own "curiosity". and this is a fact. Her lawyers approved it too.
Please do not try to hide this fact. It is up to Iranian government to say what is classified or not. No one else is qualified to comment on the classification of a document that is in the drawer in Iran's president's office. SirFlemming ( talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the facts of the case are totally un-represented in this article. No mention of her having what her lawyer admits were illegal documents No mention that her press credentials had expired and she was working as a translator for a political party not a journalist at the time of her arrest No mention of her admitted meeting with CIA officers Ect. 24.207.132.215 ( talk) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes this page is truly ridiculous. None of the pertinent facts are mentioned. 1. she admitted to possessing documents she was not legally allowed to have but claims them to be "secret" not "classified", which is not a legal distinction in Iran 2. She admitted to meeting with a CIA officer, but claims it was innocent and she refused to work with them. Apart from that there are a lot of things that are misleading. So for instance she is described only as "journalist" but in fact she was working as a translator for political party not as a journalist at the time of the incident and does not have press credentials. Obviously this article needs serious POV cleanup, but alas, has been locked. 02:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.189.51 ( talk)
Yes the sources for these claims are already on the talk page. But I suspect that you knew that already. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104104552 97.91.187.161 ( talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand, are many of you saying that someone cannot work in any capacity as a journalist unless they have been accredited and credentialed by the local government? This is not at all how journalism works and reflects a deep seated misunderstanding of journalism and it's nature.
I do not see a point in labeling her as Japanese. There is no reason to jot down every single inch of detail about her ancestry in the intro. Most of the press coverage, label her as Iranian American. In fact the citation that is currently used for that statement too omits the part about her ancestry. Mention of her nationality is enough. Icommentwhereican ( talk) 11:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
website doesn`t seem to be owned by Saberi. Probably created during a call for release. Icommentwhereican ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think her religon is so relevent to her bio 77.31.176.11 ( talk) 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that she's either. She came across as agnostic to me in her autobiography (My Life and Captivity in Iran). She did express admiration of some of her cellmates and their faith (two Bahai women) during her detainment at Evin. 68.146.193.243 ( talk) 07:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Her name and aid of release is mentioned explicit in cablegate documents .. http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09BERN432.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.148.33 ( talk) 07:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Roxana Saberi. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Roxana Saberi. 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:
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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roxana Saberi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
some how it seems this article is written with anti-iranian people.
In fact the question is: What if Ms. Saberi really was an spy? it is clear that US guys want to know more about Iran and why not her ?
|
Last edited at 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that she's now based in London, "American expatriates in the United Kingdom" should be included as a category at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C104:9290:F82E:5682:8218:23D6 ( talk) 21:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Can this page now be unlocked, so IPs can edit it? Thanks. It is outdated by a lot. She is a CBS journalist, not freelance. Also pinging User:Fastily -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:65D5:821A:6338:E96F ( talk) 20:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)