Talk:2026 Iranian diaspora protests

Merge proposal

The article global day of action for the Iranian people, which is about the 14 Feb 2026 Iranian diaspora protests, should be merged into 2026 Iranian diaspora protests, which is about the January 2026 Iranian diaspora protests. These are both Iranian diaspora protests in the context of the same overall sequence of events (protests in Iran, massacres, arrests, diaspora protests, US/IL plan to attack Iran). There's no justification for a WP:SPLIT, except to make a new section for the 14 Feb (and 15 Feb???) diaspora protests and do a bit of other tidying up editing to avoid duplication. Boud (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Merge (proposer) As per the proposal - these are essentially the same topic, at slightly different dates within the same overall pattern of events. Boud (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'm open to either, but one thing to note is that although the majority of the "global day of action" protests were held worldwide across the Iranian diaspora, the protests were also held in Iran per the “Within Iran" section, and therefore not only across the diaspora, so I'm on the fence if a merge to the diaspora protests article would be factually correct here. Also, the content might be too long for a merge, so a split might be best based on its current length and content.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  The "Within Iran" is just one sentence, which would remain in the history for recovering and adding to the main protests-in-Iran article if the info is still missing there. I don't think that should be controversial. Boud (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, but if the article is eventually merged, I think the "Within Iran" section should still be kept and not just deleted, even if it is outside the diaspora, since it pertains to the topic of the global day of action. However, I'm still slightly leaning towards the article split due to the above reasons.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The scope of the February 14 protests makes them notable in and of themselves. Also, as mentioned in the article, they took place within Iran as well, so it doesn't cleanly fit into the 2026 Iranian diaspora protests, and the protests that took place on that day need to be addressed in one place and not scattered. Furthermore, 2026 Iranian diaspora protests is currently over 5,700 words and rapidly expanding, and Global day of action for the Iranian people is currently over 1,300 words, making the total length approximately 7,000 word which is bordering on too long, and considering that 2026 Iranian diaspora protests is growing quickly, it would likely need to be split fairly soon in any case. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  The prose size of 2026 Iranian diaspora protests is currently 2418 words and the prose size of Global day of action for the Iranian people is currently 855 words per xtools. So that's about 2400 + 900 = 3300 (not 7000), which is nowhere near justifying a WP:LENGTH-based split. If you do word estimates with copy/pasting to a terminal and wc (Unix), make sure that you only include prose (not references, tables, infobox, see also, external links). Boud (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  You are roughly correct (the XTools for both pages are showing slightly more than the numbers you mentioned, but its not substantial), I miscounted the words. However, my other two arguments still stand. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Super Ψ Dro 00:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. The extent of these protests is much larger and they took place inside Iran as well. MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Lova Falk (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per Boud's proposal. Ivegut (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per MelikaShokoufandeh. AghaJhonson (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge/Support: In my opinion, a single comprehensive article better illustrates the unified continuity of the 2026 protest movement. StarkReport (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Same subject plus it meets the criteria per WP:SIZERULE. Lf8u2 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Crowd-counting consortium(a?)

@~2026-10380-14: In this edit you added a comment about crowd counting techniques (to the other article). You can add comments like that on the WP:TALKPAGE of an article, but not directly in an article. However, we're unlikely to be able to use Wikipedians' interpretations of crowd density and area from a photograph. If you have a reliable source for that calculation, then we could likely use it. See crowd counting for methods, and crowd counting#External links for some of the groups that do this, such as the Harvard Kennedy School Crowd Counting Consortium for protests in the US, which has a web interface "Submit a Record" for anyone with internet access to propose a source for a protest crowd count. They will likely ignore any info about the Melbourne protest, since it's out of scope. You're welcome to convince democracy research groups elsewhere (Australia, Canada, South Korea, India, Brazil, Chile, wherever) to create similar projects. Boud (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

@Skitash: In this edit to the article, you incorrectly added that the calls for strikes were amid the US military buildup. However, the source was published on 17 January, which is before the 26 January buildup's start date, per the buildup article, and also there is no mention of the buildup in the source, so your statement is not supported by the WP:RS. Also, in this edit, you attempted to degrade the article and the premise of the protesters' cause by adding "Several demonstrators held posters of Donald Trump and wore MAGA-style 'Make Iran Great Again' red baseball caps" next to the "calls for strikes" section, which not only is not at all supported anywhere in the source you added, but it also doesn't belong in that section, and also is not worthy of being added to the article as the action of "several" protesters does not reflect the premise of the overall protests. Please refrain from making WP:POV edits in disrupting the article. If you disagree, feel free to bring it to the talk page. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. My edit was intended to add a link to that vital 2026 United States military buildup in the Middle East article which was not present anywhere here on this page. Calls for military strikes obviously occurred both before and during the military buildup, which is why I added more recent sources. The addition regarding MIGA hats and portraits of Trump is directly supported by the NYT source, to quote: "Some carried images of Mr. Pahlavi and chanted phrases like “Regime change in Iran!” while others wore red baseball caps emblazoned with the phrase “Make Iran Great Again,” a reference to the hats worn by supporters of Mr. Trump" and "Demonstrators also held posters of Mr. Trump or images of his posts on social media." This is simply objective and nothing about it is disruptive or intending to "degrade the article" so I'd appreciate assuming good faith instead of casting unhelpful aspersions. Skitash (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skitash, sounds good, I will assume good faith. However, your claim of "which is why I added more recent sources" simply isn't true, as in this edit, you didn't add any recent sources as you claim, and merely added the WP:Link to the already-existing sentence, which is not supported by the already-existing WP:RS. As for the sentence you previously added in this edit, "Several demonstrators held posters of Donald Trump and wore MAGA-style 'Make Iran Great Again' red baseball caps", yes, I can see that it can be perceived as objective in the context of the NY Times article's statements, however, the actions of "others" within the realm of "some", as the NY Times source stated, wouldn't quite be worthy of being added to the "Protester demands" section of the article as a representation of the protesters as a whole. To be clear, I don't oppose to adding any information as such, but that it needs to be supported by the WP:RS as a reflection of the protesters' demands. In any case, as the context of the NY Times article is in reference to the Munich rally, the statement would be more fitting in the respective section of the "global day of action" article, and not in the "calls for strikes" section of this article. Thanks.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. The more recent source I'm referring to is the NYT source I added not long after (which is from February 14). Anyway, I agree that the statement about MIGA hats would be more suitable in the global day of action for the Iranian people article. Skitash (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)