Jump to content

Talk:Ali Khamenei: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Free Thinking Seats: My suggestions
Line 150: Line 150:
::{{tq|could you show us how ...}} And please, unless your account is shared by more than one person, please cut the plural when talking to me or other editors. It is presumptuous (you don't presume to talk on behalf of the whole wiki, do you?), confusing and unnecessary, unless you consider yourself a [[Royal we|member of the royal family]]. Thanks. [[User:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue;font-size: 1em;">Dr.</span>]] [[User talk:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue; font-size: 1em">K.</span>]] 18:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
::{{tq|could you show us how ...}} And please, unless your account is shared by more than one person, please cut the plural when talking to me or other editors. It is presumptuous (you don't presume to talk on behalf of the whole wiki, do you?), confusing and unnecessary, unless you consider yourself a [[Royal we|member of the royal family]]. Thanks. [[User:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue;font-size: 1em;">Dr.</span>]] [[User talk:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue; font-size: 1em">K.</span>]] 18:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Sorry that I don't have enough time reading these wall of texts. I suggest you to write more concise to us, next time. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 18:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Sorry that I don't have enough time reading these wall of texts. I suggest you to write more concise to us, next time. --[[User:Mhhossein|<span style="font-family:Aharoni"><span style="color:#002E63">M</span><span style="color:#2E5894">h</span><span style="color:#318CE7">hossein</span></span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mhhossein|<span style="color:#056608">'''talk'''</span>]]</sup> 18:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
::::I suggest you improve your behaviour and try reading relevant information. If you don't have time to read it, don't ask irrelevant questions and then try to post silly suggestions to editors who tried to inform you. And, again, unless your account is a [[WP:SHAREDACCOUNT]], or you presume to speak on behalf of the whole wiki, or [[Royal we|you are a member of the royal family]], you should cut the plural when addressing other editors. [[User:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue;font-size: 1em;">Dr.</span>]] [[User talk:Dr.K.|<span style="font-weight:600;font-family: arial;color: steelblue; font-size: 1em">K.</span>]] 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:00, 7 October 2017


Correction of link to Wikimedia

At the end of article, Wikimedia link in sister projects box is (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei) which is wrong. It should be linked to his category (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ali_Khamenei).Shkuru Afshar (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ali Khamenei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ali Khamenei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwa section

@Icewhiz: The section you restored contains WP:SYNTH and lacks the viewpoints of the opponents and the supporters. Please note that some of the sentences such as " Iran's nuclear program has been a ..." and "President Rafsanjani admitted the nuclear ..." are not directly related to the fatwa while are much related to articles such as Nuclear program of Iran. However, if you find a source on the fatwa which discusses the Rafsanjani claims and relate it to the fatwa, I'm in favor including those materials. Please let me know about your view point on this. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 06:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one [1]. I'm sure there are others. Note that you violated 1RR when removing this long-standing material on the article, and then re-reverting - you should self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also - note you removed quite a bit of other well-sourced material from the article, which provided balance to this fatwa. Even if you are claiming SYNTH regarding Rafsanjani (a clearly notable figure) on Khamenei's WMD record in the 80s and the fatwa - it is definitely not SYNTH regarding Khamenei - so at most this should be broken out to a separate section on Khamenei (and not the fatwa section).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, being "a clearly notable figure on Khamenei's WMD record" without a source linking between them, does not let us violate WP:SYNTH. However, your source made the proper link. --Mhhossein talk 07:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The former sourcing clearly tied this to Khamenei. You claimed not to Khamenei+Fatwa. So at most this should've been moved to a different section.Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me which source I had missed? To which section is Rafsanjani's interview regarding Iranian Nuclear related? --Mhhossein talk 07:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 previous sources tied to Nuclear weapon program. The following two - [2] [3], clearly tied to Khamenei. However, I added sourcing that relates this to Khamenei+Fatwa (which organizationally, is probably better anyway - placing WMD stances under one section).Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, I was right. The point which you were probably missing was that the sources had to be directly talking about the Fatwa. As you see none of the older sources were talking about fatwa. Thanks for adding the sources, I'll trim it and will remove the non relevant sources. You can later add them to the relevant sections, if you're willing. --Mhhossein talk 11:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cementing the power

I don't think we should have the opinion of that journalist in the lead. --Mhhossein talk 13:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power base

@Icewhiz and Mhhossein: Be it an opinion piece or anything else, there's no reason to include a single opinion in the lead. It can be inserted in a suitable section. Saff V. (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Saff V., I just opened a section on this matter. I also believe that we should include it in the body, not in the lead. --Mhhossein talk 13:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is an opinion. If it isn't in the body - I concur that's a good place. Mhhossein - how about you insert it where you think it is appropriate?Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NEWSORG: "...Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." --Mhhossein talk 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a editorial or opinion. It is an expose, an article, covering Khamenei in detail. At least per my opinion of this article in Newsweek.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An expose or Human interest reporting which are "not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy"? --Mhhossein talk 14:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An in-depth piece on a world leader on Newseek is not HIR. HIR is when cover some miserable/cute/destitute/amazing person/group (or all of the above) for engaging reader interest. As compelling a piece on Khamenei (or other world leaders) is for me or you, it does not engage readers as say a story on a blue dog or a one-armed child who overcame adversity to become the greatest.... So no, this is not a HIR.Icewhiz (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Icewhiz. The way Khamenei has created his power-base and used it to crash the opposition in Iran is well-documented. Removal of this information amounts to whitewashing the article. The Newsweek piece is RS and not an opinion. Dr. K. 17:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Icewhiz. There's nothing wrong with the source whatsoever.--DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: So, you think there are enough reliable sources saying he "has created his power-base" so that we can state it as a fact? --Mhhossein talk 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein. You have a very bad habit. Why do you ping me only when there are two more editors who agree with me? Stop doing that. Don't ping me in any case, since I have this article watchlisted. All three of us agree that Newsweek is not an opinion piece. We all have given our opinions as to why, so no amount of badgering will change that. Dr. K. 20:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had talked with Icewhiz before and DarkKing Rayleigh's is not counted since it's not policy based, just voting! I don't say that article in Newsweek is an opinion pice, I say we can't push a single opinion in the lead since it's WP:undue. Mhhossein talk 05:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an opinion - it is a reliable source. I'm sure we could find more in-depth sourcing on how Khamenei consolidated his power base (what he did, to whom, with whom, etc.) - you don't reign supreme as supreme leader for so long without a strong foundation - and after you reign for so long (and in a country that is still somewhat open (Iran is NOT NK), and from which people immigrate and emigrate) - information comes out. The wording in Newsweek is actually quite tame compared to some other sources that we might introduce.Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is not simply an opinion. I will restore the piece at the lead. Dr. K. 05:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't restore it unless you find enough reliable sources for that. By the way, per WP:ONUS "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." --Mhhossein talk 06:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porter's opinion

Regarding your recent edit, how did you decided that Gareth Porter's opinion published by the Foreign Policy Magazine[4] is "non-notable"? It's a weird statement, to be frank. Did you know that Porter is an "investigative journalist, author and policy analyst specializing in U.S. national security policy"? Moreover, Elham is minor official? --Mhhossein talk 08:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elam is a minor official, no doubt, in relation to the supreme leader and bound by law (as all Iranian residents) from saying or writing anything that could be construed as an insult to the supreme leader. That Porter's opnion got published - does not make it notable. Porter himself has, as discussed in this talk page previously, a FRINGE view regarding Iran - e.g. his attendance at the 9/11 truther and holocaust denying New Horizon conference in Tehran - [5].Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous discussion with others has nothing to do with this subject. Your calling him a "FRINGE view" is weird again because:
  • "Shmuel Meir, a research fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and former researcher at the IDF's intelligence unit and the IDF’s Planning Department strategic unit, called Porter "the only journalist and investigator in the world who read, with an unbiased eye, all the IAEA reports and the American intelligence reports of the last several decades regarding the Iranian issue"[6][7]
  • Hans Blix, former director general of the IAEA and former executive chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, wrote: "I feel grateful to Gareth Porter for his intrusive and critical examination of intelligence material passed to the IAEA."[8]
  • ...(You can find some other quotes showing his expertise with regard to Iran Nuclear issue)
You should restore the well sourced materials to the article. --Mhhossein talk 12:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriately notifying @Pahlevun:. --Mhhossein talk 12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section is too much detailed and contradicts with WP:SS, when there is a child article. The best solution is to mention the subject in summary and leave the analysis for the child article. Pahlevun (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pahlevun: This was my suggested version, which could be trimmed to include the main points. Anyway, what do you think regarding the inclusion of Gareth Porter's opinion given the quotes I copied above. --Mhhossein talk 13:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pahlevun that the material does not belong here. Icewhiz removed the passage which included the following text: According to him, Iran's aversion to nuclear weapons is sincere.... This article is about Khamenei, not Iran. The detail is too much and does not belong in this BLP. If anything, the removed passage belongs to the main article per WP:SS. I have no opinion on Porter, because I don't know his works. As usual, no pinging, please. Dr. K. 16:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest leaving out all of the analyses (Milani, Sadjadpour, Porter, etc.) for the child article and use a secondary source to write a summary in a few sentences. My preference is to use peer-reviewed and scholarly works, instead of journalist sources and I found two reliable secondary sources that discuss the fatwa: Globalising Iran's Fatwa Against Nuclear Weapons and Ethics of War and Peace in Iran and Shi'i Islam. I think Porter's view is worth mentioning in the child article, like other views explained by other expert individuals. Pahlevun (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mhhossein's Wikipedia:Canvassing, Pahlevun should not edit or even support Mhhossein here. Pahlevun and Mhhossein has a recent history of tag-teaming as pro-Iran regime and were even taken to ANI very recently by Icewhiz and IranianNationalist. Let uninvolved others who did not edit this article, at least in a year, decide.--Psychonot (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Porter's pro-Iran regime uninformed opinion (Iran pursued weapons of mass destruction before and after the fatwa) is already present at least three times in the child article, more than any other opinion. As such it should not be included per undue_weight. And also, the section is about doubts about the fatwa.--Psychonot (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Doubts about the Fatwa to the sub article

This article is too long and it is not suitable to add too many details about a minor issue in it. In addition, it is a biographic article and discussion about the authenticity or its impact does not relate to it. Thus I suggest to move this section the sub-article: "Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons" and replace it with a short summery. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed: User:Psychonot who came to be a sockpuppet has added WP:SYNTH materials to this section. I'll deal with them. --Mhhossein talk 17:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A political scenario in the lead!

The lead tries to emphasize on a scenario that says Ali Khamenei was not active in political matters until Hashemi and Rouhani helped him to gain power. This scenario is promoted by Iran's current administration to show that they were the main supporters of Supreme Leader not their rivals. However, wikipedia is not a tool for political propaganda. Thus I moved it to the body of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial claim in the lead about the leader's authority

There is written in the lead:"and make the final decisions on the economy, the environment, foreign policy, national planning, and everything else in Iran". However, I think it is not exact summary of the leader's authority as we can find in the article 110 of the iran's constitution: "Article 110 Following are the duties and powers of the Leadership: 1.Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation's Exigency Council. 2.Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system. 3.Issuing decrees for national referenda. 4.Assuming supreme command of the armed forces. 5.Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces. 6.Appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignation of: 1.the fuqaha' on the Guardian Council. 2.the supreme judicial authority of the country. 3.the head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.the chief of the joint staff. 5.the chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps. 6.the supreme commanders of the armed forces. 7.Resolving differences between the three wings of the armed forces and regulation of their relations. 8.Resolving the problems, which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation's Exigency Council. 9.Signing the decree formalizing the election of the President of the Republic by the people. The suitability of candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, with respect to the qualifications specified in the Constitution, must be confirmed before elections take place by the Guardian Council;, and, in the case of the first term [of the Presidency], by the Leadership; 10.Dismissal of the' President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution. 11.Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation [to that effect] from the Head of judicial power. The Leader may delegate part of his duties and powers to another person."

Therefor I suggest to find a better summary to substitute with "make the final decisions on ... everything in Iran"--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be his current de jure power (which is quite broad by itself), but doesn't he exert quite a bit of power on other officials?Icewhiz (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Officially, he does not have or use such power. In practice, due to fragmented political arena and inefficient bureaucracy, the dictatorship can not take place in Iran. Khamenei has the power to shape policies and determine important actions, however, he only use it in special cases such as nuclear or defense fields. Thus I think it is not correct to say "make the final decisions on ... everything in Iran" I suggest to write "As Supreme Leader, Khamenei can issue decrees and make the final decisions on the main policies of the government in many fields such as economy, the environment, foreign policy, national planning in Iran.".--Seyyed(t-c) 03:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggested text. In practice he does not intervene in everything.Icewhiz (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Thinking Seats

I tagged the section for copyediting because it is an absolute mess of bad grammar and esoteric jargon/euphemisms used by the regime which are, tragically, spoken in Wikipedia's voice. The section may have to be removed altogether, but for now I will just tag it. Dr. K. 06:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this whole mess has nothing to do with Khamenei. Who cares who discussed what with whom. Khamenei just suggested its formation. Just add a sentence or two about that. The rest of this stuff does not belong here. I just removed the whole section. Dr. K. 07:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of this meaningless jargon-fueled puffery:

The freethinking seats is described as a bilateral or multilateral meetings with the supporters and opponents of a theory to form a free scientific discussion. The subject of these forums can be Social, intellectual, cultural, political or any scientific and controversial subject.[241] Tarbiat Modares University held it’s first freethinking seats on the Holy Defense with attendance of Hussein Ardestani, a historian and narrator during the Holy defense era and now the head of the "Center for the Holy Defense Documentation and Research", some of the major. Challenging issues of the Holy Defense were discussed by the professors and students of the university at the session.[240]

Forget about how meaningless this puffery is, or how bad the grammar is. It essentially says that a bunch of Iranian academics and students got together to discuss the Iran-Iraq war with some guarantees that the secret police will not bust the meeting. Hardly noteworthy for most countries, although for Iran it may be something new. But, even so, does anyone think that this is even remotely connected to Khamenei? I don't think so. Dr. K. 07:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that some of the materials don't belong here, could you show us how the text is "jargon-fueled puffery" and that how being "new" is a criteria for inclusion of something? --Mhhossein talk 16:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and that how being "new" is a criteria for inclusion of something If something is new to Iran, like limited academic free speech under controlled conditions, then it may be worth mentioning. I don't know why you are asking for clarification for such a rather self-evident fact, but I'll AGF and just gave you the reason. As far as the puffery, I gave you an example above, but let's examine this more closely:

...with attendance of Hussein Ardestani, a historian and narrator during the Holy defense era and now the head of the "Center for the Holy Defense Documentation and Research", some of the major. Challenging issues of the Holy Defense were discussed by the professors and students of the university at the session.

Do you see how this guy Hussein Ardestani is puffed-up as a historian and narrator during the Holy defense era and now the head of the "Center for the Holy Defense Documentation and Research",.. just to elevate his status, and in a fashion completely unrelated to Khamenei? There are more examples of this puffery, but I am not here to give tutorials on puffery. Dr. K. 17:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of meaningless, jargon-filled puffery:

Ayatollah Khamenei said The appointees of the Leader may even have a view different from mine on some political and social issues, which is no problem, because the main issue is general and revolutionary orientation [of these people].

Who are "these people"? And what does because the main issue is general and revolutionary orientation mean? What is general and revolutionary orientation supposed to mean? And how could the political goal of the general and revolutionary orientation have anything to do with genuine academic discourse? I hope now you can see how this puffed-up jargon is both meaningless and confusing. Dr. K. 17:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of meaningless, jargon-filled puffery:

as a means to achieve software movement and scientific development of the country, based on intellectuality and morals.

What is software movement? How does software move? Also the description scientific development of the country, based on intellectuality and morals. is awkwardly-phrased ("intellectuality"), redundant puffery. Do you know of scientific development not based on intellectual achievement? And connecting "morals" to scientific development sounds like political propaganda. Dr. K. 18:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
could you show us how ... And please, unless your account is shared by more than one person, please cut the plural when talking to me or other editors. It is presumptuous (you don't presume to talk on behalf of the whole wiki, do you?), confusing and unnecessary, unless you consider yourself a member of the royal family. Thanks. Dr. K. 18:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I don't have enough time reading these wall of texts. I suggest you to write more concise to us, next time. --Mhhossein talk 18:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you improve your behaviour and try reading relevant information. If you don't have time to read it, don't ask irrelevant questions and then try to post silly suggestions to editors who tried to inform you. And, again, unless your account is a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT, or you presume to speak on behalf of the whole wiki, or you are a member of the royal family, you should cut the plural when addressing other editors. Dr. K. 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali_Khamenei&oldid=804248250"