Killed "15-year-old child" vs killed 22-year-old "female" protestor

This post is about the recent protests in Iran.

First table is from Casualties deaths summary table under main 2025-26 Iran protests article

Second table is from the dedicated deaths article of the 2025-26 Iran protests

Some of the casaulties appear to be bluelinked in the second table. One of which is Khodadad Shirvani whose killing led to protests that led to further killings.

Notice the disparate treatment against male casualties of the crackdown:

• the 15-year-old boy's name (full name: Mostafa Fallahi) is redlinked on the second article and blacked out in the first. His age is mentioned but his sex is not mentioned anywhere
• another 15-year-old boy by the name of Taha Safari was killed in Azna but he isn't even mentioned in the first table. His sex is not mentioned anywhere
• two 17-year-old Kurdish teenage brothers (Rasul and Reza Kadivarian) were killed in Kermanshah, but their ages, sexes, and Kurdish identity are not even mentioned in the summary table. Only their names and ages are mentioned in the second table.
• Most of the male casualties do not have articles and have black names. The three first ones in the second table do, but the rest are redlinked (ie. linked to dead articles)
• The female protestor (Saghar Etemadi) is not only called a "female protestor" but also has an article unlike the four dead boys or dozens of men. Her adult age ("22-year-old") is mentioned in the summary table unlike all of the men and unlike most of the boys. The only other person who gets their age mentioned is "15-year-old child" Mostafa and even then, his sex is not mentioned.
• Furthermore, the female protestor's manner of death (ie. "shot in the face") is mentioned in the summary unlike most of the casualties. 15-year-old Taha Safari's body was "bearing gunshot wounds to the head and face, identifiable only by his jacket", but curiously, this was left out of the summary table unlike the adult female protestor's fate.
• The female protestor's article got tons of refs, got categorized as "violence against women" and even "women deaths" while the rest of the articles do not mention gender, except indirectly in the case of pronouns of the deceased. There is a ref talking about "social media users" who compared her to Mahsa Amini. Mahsa was also 22-years-old but Saghar did not have Kurdish ancestry, unlike the two 17-year-old Kermanshah teenage brothers who were gunned down by government forces.
• a retired Kurdish brig. gen joining the protests and getting shot by government forces?! That should be news-worthy and he should be getting an article, but he instead got overshadowed by a random hairdresser because he isn't female enough to be considered an important victim. But in reality, he never really stood a chance because four boys are ahead of him on the public sympathy queue and they didn't make it either
• I don't want to dox the user in charge of maintaining the summary table, but it was a feminist editor who has a whole "Balancing some particular biases" in their userpage, where they posted some articles mentioning women's history with the intent of manipulating them towards feminism. They are also a member of the WikiProject:Countering systemic bias. I haven't checked but I suspect that this person (or another feminist editor) was behind the article creation of the female protestor's biography

I thought "women and children" needed to be protected and heard, but I suppose some children are too inconvenient to think about. The media might as well take its mask off and only voice its concern about "women and girls."

Why is it important to talk about male casualties of the pro-secularism/pro-democracy protests in Iran? Because there seems to be a weird idea in feminist spaces that men are sitting idly in Iran, collecting dividends on their patriarchy in those types of countries and not doing anything to stop it (see De Beauvoir's Second Sex, women are the "subordinate" sex and men are beneficiaries of patriarchy). When feminists are faced with the inconvenient truth that most of the executed/condemned are men, they retreat to their patriarchy claim and say that the Ayatollah is a dude, the Basijis are dudes, and in their eyes all of the male protestors don't count since they are doing the "bare minimum." I suppose that's why there is a focus on dead female protestors in the headlines - male (both men and boys) lives don't matter to feminists and journos alike because males benefit from patriarchy and only in death can they absolve themselves from this sin. In this case, even after their deaths, the dead men and boys are an afterthought.

Why is it that feminists can call Wikipedia sexist, and Wikimedia responds by immediately capitulating to the activists' demands (see article Gender bias on Wikipedia, award-winning wikiproject Women in Red, Wikipedia-sanctioned Art+Feminism), but any non-convenient (especially pro-MRA) bias allegations leads to Jimmy Wales telling you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps?

Yeah, so I don't think so, not broadly. And I think you can always point to specific entries and talk about specific biases, but that's part of the process of Wikipedia. Anyone can come and challenge and to go on about that. But I see fairly often on Twitter, some quite extreme accusations of bias. And I think actually I don't see it. I don't buy that. And if you ask people for an example, they normally struggle and depending on who they are and what it's about.

Notice how his response to bias is to either ignore it or report it to one of his subordinates. He wants you to fight tooth-and-nail against his powerful pro-Feminist apparatchiks so that Wikipedia stops being biased against men/boys, but hands many privileges to feminists on a silver platter - radically reforming his entire Foundation and even setting up a DEI admin gender quota.

In a steelman-y defense of Wikipedia you can argue that the edits are all based on reliable sources, and you can further argue that it's the sources themselves (ie. the media) which are biased against men, not necessarily just the Foundation. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure than men/boys are portrayed in Wikipedia responsibly, work that was at least partially afforded to women but not to men in any capacity whatsoever. Wikimedia is currently a feminist-biased org and has been for at least a decade; do NOT ever feel guilted into donating because it never really took NPOV seriously.

Thoughts?