Should the following material be included in the article? "In 2020, Shohreh Bayat stated that she feared "returning to Iran after an image of her at a chess tournament abroad seemed to show her not wearing a hijab."^[1] Bayat received support from American embassies through Twitter, with the United States Embassy in Lisbon saying “No wonder Shohreh Bayat is afraid of returning to Iran", "Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, women risk harsh prison sentences for violating the mandatory hijab law.”^[2]Saff V. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO, Despite the point, that the reliability of the source doesn't always determine whether the material can be included or not. I have to say that this is just fear. There is nothing to show that some right is violated, for instance, Iran hasn't dealt with her legally. So this fear could be considered as a piece of detailed material which has nothing to do with such a general article.Saff V. (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The lack of rights for women, including their fear of the authoritarian IRI government should not be censored. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YES, first of all, this RfC is not presented neutrally. Bayat did not return to Iran because she didn't wear a hijab abroad, and feared retaliation from the IRI. It was everywhere in the news, and it tells about how Iranian women have to endure things such as not wearing the hijab. Barca (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Although it is centering fear and not an explicit law, I think it's worth mentioning even for the fact that in the year 2020 the repression is still felt widely. Could the negative stigma attached to cultural and social persecution be seen as an aspect of authoritarian governments you all think? Eby024 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2020

Yes This is a notable event and this article says "The headscarf, or the hijab, has been a mandatory part of women's dress in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution but, in recent years, some women have mounted opposition and staged protests about headwear rules" so it's relevant to the article title ("Women's rights in Iran"). More articles on this: [1][2][3] Some1 (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No The specific case of Shohreh Bayat's fear is not something of encyclopedic value to this page being a general article on women's rights. She feared while many other don't! So what? Though it merits inclusion in her page or like. Does the source say it has anything to do with the women's rights? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these "others"? Sahar Khodayari? And what has it anything to do with this? Also, it doesn't necessarily have to mention women rights to be included here, it's already clear as daylight that this is related to the (lack of) rights of women in Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you need to read my comment once again. She feared...so what? Are we going to list the name of all those who fear and those who does not fear? It must be directly related to the women's right in Iran and should add something to the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a endless list. No, I'd suggest we only gonna add the notable ones, which this one clearly is. "It must be directly related to the women's right in Iran", says who? I'd say this is pretty on-topic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Per HistoryofIran; this should not be censored. It seems to have received enough coverage, and it reflects on the current situation for women in Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are two questions that need to be addressed when deciding whether to include this content on this page. First, whether it is relevant; and second, whether it constitutes due weight. Both these questions need to be addressed with reference to what reliable sources say. Arguing that anything is "obvious" isn't good enough. Arguing that omitting it would be censorship isn't good enough. Arguments that are not clearly based on the source material may be disregarded by the closer of this RfC (which might be me, it might be someone else). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think inclusion of an expression of "fear" in such a general article would give it an UNDUE weight. That someone feared returning back to his/her country is perhaps something to be included in his/her page not here. Bayat is not the only woman unveiling her hijab out of Iran (though Bayat later said she did not mean to unveil intentionally). Bayat expressed her fear, so what? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSs thought that Shohreh Bayat's decision not to return to Iran because she was photographed without a hijab was notable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this source from CNN may be relevant - Bayat's concerns stem from a photograph taken from the event which appears to show her not wearing a hijab. The picture was subsequently shared and Iranian websites reportedly condemned her for what some described as protesting the country's compulsory law."I knew that I had to cover my hair so I did that like many Iranian women but I was wearing a loose hijab because I don't believe in the hijab," Bayat told CNN Sport."Actually, I hate the hijab. I was just trying to wear it somehow to show that I am not a religious person and I was wearing it in a modern way. By Iranian standards, it was totally okay." [4] Barca (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]