Talk:Ali Khamenei
| ↓ | Skip to table of contents | ↓ |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ali Khamenei article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Article policies
|
||
|
|
|||
| WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article Ali Khamenei, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:
|
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information. |
| Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page. |
| This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 4, 2011 and June 4, 2015. |
Archives |
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
|
|
| This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Contents
- 1 Health
- 2 Other Important Fatwas
- 3 Non-RS Sources for Views
- 4 Nephew says Khamenei lying about Nuke Fat-Wa
- 5 Potential BLP issues require consensus on recent material
- 6 JPost/ Times of Israel
- 7 Remove all supposed tweets of Ayatollah Khamenei
- 8 Zionism and Israel section
- 9 Delete Zionism and Israel Section
- 10 2015 nuclear agreement
- 11 Regarding removal of the public letter to the Western youth
- 12 Context for random quotes on Israel and other topics
- 13 Stop edit warring and personal attack/A discussion on institution of Wilayat Faqih in Iran
- 14 Discretionary sanctions notice - 1RR
- 15 External links modified
Health[edit]
The Wall Street Journal is really a bad source for claiming Khamenei had cancer. As if they were any closer to his doctors than iranian newspapers. As this seems to be the only source for that claim, it can be considered irrelevant and the line "In 2015, the Wall Street Journal confirmed that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has cancer." should be deleted entirely. At least it shouldn't say 'confirmed', but rather 'claimed'. BTW: This was already claimed in the 90s, several times. Seems to be more like an american wish than a fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SidqIO (talk • contribs)
- Iranian newspapers are controlled by a military dictatorship and will report anything they need to uphold the cult of personality upon which its power is based. I went ahead and deleted the line since it was based on the same reports of prostate surgery mentioned previously in the section.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Do you consider the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post any better? If a dictatorship controls the news given from inside iran, how can American newspapers get information about his health situation that were not supposed to leave Iran or even Ayatollah Khamenei's house. Do they get information from his doctors? What other source could they have to claim he has cancer? Are they maybe in contact with his family or his close friends? I doubt it. Spreading rumors has nothing to do with journalism. So to be fair one should at least mention both sides. The only fact that is worth mentioning is that American newspapers repeatedly try to spread rumors about Ayatollah Khamenei having cancer.--SidqIO (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post are roughly ten million times more reliable than most Iranian newspapers, yes. As I wrote above I deleted the statement, but it was restored by another user. I therefore rephrased it as seen here instead.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Anders Feder: What makes you describe an Islamic Republic formulated according to a distinct, substantial political philosophy as a "dictatorship"?! I remember having pointed out this in the past that you should keep your euro-centric and Orientalist prejudices to yourself when editing topics related to Islam or Islamic societies, or you will be prone to misrepresent and misjudge the topics. But if you can't really see beyond your cultural straightjacket, with all due respect, you'd better avoid editing these topics at all!—Strivingsoul (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Strivingsoul: I remember you previously having been blocked for battleground editing with the warning that a topic ban might be necessary if you can't hold your prejudices against Jews to yourself when editing Wikipedia. Something which I have not. Your incoherent Occidentalist conspiracy babble has no value to this discussion.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, reminding me of an instance of trouble that could be partially blamed for WP:BIAS against muslim non-English contributors to Wikipedia (and admittedly partially my amateur impatience with a controversial topic) is irrelevant to the fact that you are again just caught up making bogus sweeping arguments against Iran and Iranian sources. I also remember your past attempts for discrediting the reliability of any and all Iranian media en masse was rejected by pretty much any one in the discussion! As for the charge of prejudice against Jews, I really got no warning, but I admit I seemed to surprise some Western Wikipedians when I suggested the obvious that it is a clear case of conflict of interest when, for example, a politically and financially powerful Jewish agency such as ADL is taken as a "reliable" source to suggest that a book that criticizes that very agency is "anti-Semitic"! Does that sound like anything along the charge of "prejudice"? Anyhow this is completely unrelated to the debate here. You don't have to feel angry when some one is simply telling you to keep a more open mind in your judgement of other cultures! Remember, there are far greater evidences and reasons to demonize some of your favorite governments than there are for Iran. But it seems that you're exclusively politically biased against one particular government that does not fit your culture and perceptions. Peace!—Strivingsoul (talk)
- No, what is irrelevant your pretense of being someone capable of lecturing others not to do what you are yourself the prime example of. If you feel Wikipedia is run by some big Jewish cabal, you should go complain somewhere that is not this talk page.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm prime example of what?! I am talking about your stubborn prejudice against certain topics, and you're now putting words into my mouth about a Jewish cabal conspiracy!! Come on and let's finish this and get a life!--Strivingsoul (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're a prime example of "stubborn prejudice".--Anders Feder (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm prime example of what?! I am talking about your stubborn prejudice against certain topics, and you're now putting words into my mouth about a Jewish cabal conspiracy!! Come on and let's finish this and get a life!--Strivingsoul (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, what is irrelevant your pretense of being someone capable of lecturing others not to do what you are yourself the prime example of. If you feel Wikipedia is run by some big Jewish cabal, you should go complain somewhere that is not this talk page.--Anders Feder (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, reminding me of an instance of trouble that could be partially blamed for WP:BIAS against muslim non-English contributors to Wikipedia (and admittedly partially my amateur impatience with a controversial topic) is irrelevant to the fact that you are again just caught up making bogus sweeping arguments against Iran and Iranian sources. I also remember your past attempts for discrediting the reliability of any and all Iranian media en masse was rejected by pretty much any one in the discussion! As for the charge of prejudice against Jews, I really got no warning, but I admit I seemed to surprise some Western Wikipedians when I suggested the obvious that it is a clear case of conflict of interest when, for example, a politically and financially powerful Jewish agency such as ADL is taken as a "reliable" source to suggest that a book that criticizes that very agency is "anti-Semitic"! Does that sound like anything along the charge of "prejudice"? Anyhow this is completely unrelated to the debate here. You don't have to feel angry when some one is simply telling you to keep a more open mind in your judgement of other cultures! Remember, there are far greater evidences and reasons to demonize some of your favorite governments than there are for Iran. But it seems that you're exclusively politically biased against one particular government that does not fit your culture and perceptions. Peace!—Strivingsoul (talk)
- @Strivingsoul: I remember you previously having been blocked for battleground editing with the warning that a topic ban might be necessary if you can't hold your prejudices against Jews to yourself when editing Wikipedia. Something which I have not. Your incoherent Occidentalist conspiracy babble has no value to this discussion.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Anders Feder: What makes you describe an Islamic Republic formulated according to a distinct, substantial political philosophy as a "dictatorship"?! I remember having pointed out this in the past that you should keep your euro-centric and Orientalist prejudices to yourself when editing topics related to Islam or Islamic societies, or you will be prone to misrepresent and misjudge the topics. But if you can't really see beyond your cultural straightjacket, with all due respect, you'd better avoid editing these topics at all!—Strivingsoul (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post are roughly ten million times more reliable than most Iranian newspapers, yes. As I wrote above I deleted the statement, but it was restored by another user. I therefore rephrased it as seen here instead.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you consider the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post any better? If a dictatorship controls the news given from inside iran, how can American newspapers get information about his health situation that were not supposed to leave Iran or even Ayatollah Khamenei's house. Do they get information from his doctors? What other source could they have to claim he has cancer? Are they maybe in contact with his family or his close friends? I doubt it. Spreading rumors has nothing to do with journalism. So to be fair one should at least mention both sides. The only fact that is worth mentioning is that American newspapers repeatedly try to spread rumors about Ayatollah Khamenei having cancer.--SidqIO (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- As for the rumors of the Ayatollah Khamanei's cancer, these are unconfirmed and easy to debunk. Iranian Supreme Leader has been in good shape and mood ever since his surgery last year, and the physical signs usually associated with a prolonged cancer treatment (e.g. hair loss) are completely absent in him. So there's really no ground for taking the allegations by some of the antagonist foreign media outlets seriously, unless, of course, one is led by some extreme preconceived bias against Iran and its media community!—Strivingsoul (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- caution According to WP:ALIVE we should use such claims with caution. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Re: [1] Just to be clear: there is no "right to know" on Wikipedia, nor a "right to privacy". There is relevance and WP:BLP, where the latter is mainly a reflection of the law in the area where Wikimedia happens to be based. Given that the material is properly attributed to an external source, I don't really have any concern about BLP. But since the material is merely a statement of the opinion of some lowly writer with no real credentials, I do have serious concerns about its relevance.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- For y/info, I think WP readers should know about it (even it is not confirmed by open medical sources) because I read this information in the French media also. I have NO agenda. Best, 67.87.48.243 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Le Figaro is a pretty good source: [2]. If someone speaks French, I guess they could use it.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- There was such rumors for at least 15 years. Just see this reports which predicts "Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has terminal stage leukemia and could die in a few months," according to an August 2009 cable"[3]! Now Jerusalem post says: "Unconfirmed reports say Khamenei's prostate cancer has progressed and spread throughout his body."[4] But few days later "he appeared in public again following reports that he was hospitalized with late-stage cancer."[5] We are not hear to reproduce rumors as fact!--Seyyed(t-c) 19:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Le Figaro is a pretty good source: [2]. If someone speaks French, I guess they could use it.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- For y/info, I think WP readers should know about it (even it is not confirmed by open medical sources) because I read this information in the French media also. I have NO agenda. Best, 67.87.48.243 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
For clarity I was convinced about this possibility of having cancer because of that quote from the above article:
"Earlier this week, the French newspaper Le Figaro quoted Western intelligence officials as saying that the cancer was discovered about ten years ago. "The cancer is in stage four, in other words has spread." Doctors estimate "he has two years left to live."
Either Western intelligence is lying or Le Figaro is not reliable. Which is which?
-
-
-
-
- I agree the rumors should not be included, for although certain western sources cite that, it is easy to figure out that they are just regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors. In general we should be wary of Western sources' demonizing coverage of Iran for western corporate media has been historically biased against the Islamic Republic. This bias is many fold and is influenced by cultural, political and financial factors.Strivingsoul (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- We go by WP:V, not by how many fanciful Jewish cabals we can dream up.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- And we also go by WP:NPV. And fanciful Jewish cabals seems to be your favorite digression tactic so keep dreaming! Strivingsoul (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, they are your favorite digression tactic. Focus on sources, not your delusions.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- So far as the this topic is concerned, it is you who seems to be so interested in keeping up the delusional rumor about Ayatollah's health! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I couldn't care less about this character's health.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- So far as the this topic is concerned, it is you who seems to be so interested in keeping up the delusional rumor about Ayatollah's health! Strivingsoul (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, they are your favorite digression tactic. Focus on sources, not your delusions.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can accept it, only if the text clarifies that these are rumors and unconfirmed reports which have been reported for several years by some sources. Every time they predicted he would be alive for 1 or 2 years! In practice, he works very well and he had several public meeting in the former Ramadan with different groups such as students, Quran reciters, poets, etc.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- And we also go by WP:NPV. And fanciful Jewish cabals seems to be your favorite digression tactic so keep dreaming! Strivingsoul (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- We go by WP:V, not by how many fanciful Jewish cabals we can dream up.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the rumors should not be included, for although certain western sources cite that, it is easy to figure out that they are just regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors. In general we should be wary of Western sources' demonizing coverage of Iran for western corporate media has been historically biased against the Islamic Republic. This bias is many fold and is influenced by cultural, political and financial factors.Strivingsoul (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
Other Important Fatwas[edit]
Please Add After Editing (I am a iranian.These fatwas wery famous in iran.):
Other Important Fatwas:
1.all Afghan children, even children of the undocumented migrants living in the country illegally, have the right to register and study in Iran's schools.(At least 840,000 Afghan refugees living in Iran ؛ Afghan President applauded Iran Leader For This Fatwa)
sources:
http://www.tasnimnews.com/english/Home/Single/752080
2.Insulting the symbols of the Sunni brothers is prohibited..
sources:
(Iranian National Center for Religious Accountability) :http://www.pasokhgoo.ir/node/83450
3.The in vitro fertilization Is free (solvent).
sources:
http://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=114#1272
4.The rule on smoking cigarette or hookah depends on the degree of harm it causes. If it causes a considerable harm, annoys/hurts others or is against law, it is impermissible.
http://www.leader.ir/tree/index.php?catid=38 (Social and Cultural Issues)
5.harm the body is a forbidden. Even use of Qama in Ashura dey is a forbidden.
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13930801000803
Mahmoudi125 (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-RS Sources for Views[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This was a WP:SNOW with no opposition. Archiving the discussion. AlbinoFerret 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the following:
- "Israel is on the steep path of decline and deterioration" said Khamemei in February 2010 and continued: "God willing, its destruction will be imminent." (sourced to something called "The Commentator" -- see "About Us" section [6])
- In another report of the same speech, he stated: "From now onward, we will support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world, and we are not afraid of declaring this..." (also sourced to "The Commentator")
- In 2015, Khamenei published a book on how to destory Israel. In the book, Khamenei referred to Israel with the Persian word “nabudi,” which means “annihilation.” He wrote that Israel was an enemy because it was an ally of the "Great Satan" (by which he meant the United States). He also wrote that his strategy for the destruction of Israel was based on Islamic principles, particularly the principle that a land that is ever ruled by Muslims can never again be ruled by non-Muslims. (sourced to the New York Post and Haaertz - while Haaeretz is RS, in this case its article begins "according to the New York Post")
Questions: Should these claims be reinserted? Should "the Commentator," New York Post, and Haaertz quoting the New York Post be allowed as RS in this WP:BIO? BlueSalix (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Survey[edit]
- Disallow from Article / Sources Not RS - I believe these claims should be disallowed from the article unless and until sourced to multiple and reputable RS. I believe The Commentator, the New York Post, and Haaertz Quoting the New York Post are not RS. BlueSalix (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disallow From what I can see the Commentator is some kind of content farm. With regards to the New York Post, I agree with this statement from an RSN discussion: high circulation does not equal reliabilty. the NYP is a tabloid. If they are the only source covering something, warning bells ringing all over. Brustopher (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Summoned here by RfC bot. Agree that such controversial opinions must be sourced better than portrayed above. So concur - disallow. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Disallow - summoned by bot. Agree that the sources provided aren't enough to support controversial content like this. Flat Out (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bad source - but readily sourceable to RS sources (just checking the "steep decline" quote which appears to be easily sourced) [7] Jordan Times, PBS Frontline (U.S. TV series) sourced to Agence France Press, and so on. "From now on" [8] Washington Post, The Atlantic etc. "Islamic principles" material from [9] Gatestone Institute, New York Post[10], International Business Times[11], [12] WesternJournalism.com (runs blogs as well which would not be RS), etc. Replace the bad source with the good sources. Collect (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nephew says Khamenei lying about Nuke Fat-Wa[edit]
@Ankhsoprah2: Please stop edit warring. If you want to include something in the article, the onus is on you to create consensus for the inclusion. Additionally, the source doesn't seem very good and the burden is on you demonstrate it is even reliable. Until you do both of those things, if you continue edit warring, you risk getting blocked.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually you are the one who is editwarring! Someone added it and you removed it without any discussion. I undid you and you undid me, asking to provide more sources which I did. You also editwarred in this article with others.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- By definition, you are the one edit warring, since you are the one including disputed material in violation of WP:ONUS.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Nephew of Khamenei, Dr.Mahmoud Moradkhani claimed that Khamenei is lying with regard to nuke fat-wa, practicing the Shia doctrine of Taqiya. [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Two editors want this information to not appear in the article, while keeping his supposed fat-wa against nukes in the lede.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you are unhappy with how the editors here appraise your sources, try asking at WP:RSN and see if they give you a different opinion. Or use WP:RFC.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- I'm not unhappy with how two editors here appraise my sources, I didn't even provide the first source. I just want to get feedback from some more editors here.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ankhsoprah2: You have now broken WP:3RR.[19][20][21][22] Do you want to undo your latest edit or should I report you?--Anders Feder (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not unhappy with how two editors here appraise my sources, I didn't even provide the first source. I just want to get feedback from some more editors here.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Anders Feder:, this is not part of editwarring, it is where I added more sources after you asked for more sources. And this is unrelated. Also, I have not reverted for the same content three times. By your logic, you have now broken WP:3RR too: [23][24][25]. And also you editwarred in this article with others recently too:[26][27]. I don't want to report you, but if you do, that would be WP:BOOMERANG for you.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Having looked through the sources they mostly seems to be taqiyya conspiracy theorists writing for blogs, and "reblogs" (for lack of a better word) of that one piece on PJ media which seems to be site run by bloggers. Also worth noting that this is a nephew who has had 0 contact with khamenei in 2 decades. I'm guessing this is why the press for the most part have ignored his claims and instead focused on political analysts who are questioning the fatwa, as they would be likely more in the know. Brustopher (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- "0 contact with khamenei in 2 decades!" Khamenei on his official website, here, under "Social and Cultural Issues," said that cutting ties with blood relatives is ḥaram. Seems like a bit of double standard, lol.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Ties with blood relatives is moderated by other Islamic principles for hardly any Islamic principle of conduct is absolute and unconditional! For example eating pork is haram but not when you are starving to death when you don't have access to halal food! Breaking one's obligatory fast is haram but not when it poses serious threat to one's health! Anyway! Your comments show your ignorance of the Shia/Islamic jurisprudence! Now {removed personal attack} stop your anti-Shia rambling, here! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's beginning to look like a sock puppet has multiple accounts! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ties with blood relatives is moderated by other Islamic principles for hardly any Islamic principle of conduct is absolute and unconditional! For example eating pork is haram but not when you are starving to death when you don't have access to halal food! Breaking one's obligatory fast is haram but not when it poses serious threat to one's health! Anyway! Your comments show your ignorance of the Shia/Islamic jurisprudence! Now {removed personal attack} stop your anti-Shia rambling, here! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
-
| Not helpful content here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
|
@Strivingsoul: Shias are always looking for excuses to eat porks, what's the big deal? lol. As long as sanction are in place, they have a great excuse... Maybe that's why Khamenei is against Iran Deal?--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Well, you have proven yourself to be a WP:NOTHERE sadistic moron. An IP block is in order! Strivingsoul (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Potential BLP issues require consensus on recent material[edit]
There has been strong disagreement on recent material added to the BLP. Consensus is required for potentially contentious material. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think a good discussion is required here on how to proceed with the recent attempts to add contentious information. How do other editors feel we should proceed? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
JPost/ Times of Israel[edit]
I see that under "Zionism" section, there are many mention of Khamenei venting his hatred of illegitimate Israel, just like any other Muslim, and they are included here just because JPost, a zionist newspaper of occupied Al-Quds (Jerusalem), and Times of Israel covered them. Shouldn't they be removed as those sources are not neutral, maybe also not reliable?--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please tone down the political posturing. No one really cares. As for the substantive matters, JPost is a relatively poor source, and after a WP:GOOGLECHECK no better sources seem to support the statement, so I'll remove it.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Jpost is a perfectly reliable source, used throughout Wikipedia. The fact that it's an Israeli newspaper doesn't make it better nor worse. Here's the twitter. Logically, as an Israeli newspaper it will be more interested in reporting what Khamenei has to say about their country, but I don't think you made a very good Google search. In less than one minute I found the CNN and other news sites reporting the same statements. In any case, if you think Jpost shouldn't be used at all, take it to RSN.--Beukford (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Beukford: Actually, no. You take it to RSN. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it is reliable. If you have all these reliable sources from CNN etc, why don't you just present them instead of only vaguely alluding to them without giving any evidence that they exist?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jerusalem Post is a known Israeli newspaper which is considered reliable and used in many articles. The burden is on you to gain consensus before removing cited content. There is no blanket ban on Jpost. I just added other sources reporting exactly the same twitter, including a newspaper from Canada.--Beukford (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Beukford: That's a flat-out lie on your part. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."[30] Whether JPost is "known" and "used in many articles" is irrelevant. Press TV is used in many articles too, and that doesn't make it reliable either. As this comment from RSN suggests, JPost does indeed engage in blatant fabrication of stories.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- One comment from a controversial editor about a completely unrelated issue doesn't prove Jpost engages in "blatant fabrication of stories". Besides, as I showed you before, Khamenei's twitter was reported by several other newspapers, so it's no "fabrication". It was written openly and clearly by Khamenei's account, and reported by secondary sources. Don't split hairs to hide a clear statement.--Beukford (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really care what you think it proves. If you think the case is so clear cut, it should be a small matter for you to lift your burden to demonstrate reliability by asking on WP:RSN or through WP:RFC.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is getting boring. As I told you many times before (I don't know how to stress this enough), Khamenei's twitter was reported by many other sources, not just Jerusalem Post. Besides, as WP:BIASED says, reliability is always in context. There is nothing really controversial or disputed here: Khamenei posted a public twitter, and several newspapers (including Jpost) reported it. What "fabrication" are you talking about?
- And Jpost is a very known newspaper reporting known facts. If you think it should be banned from Wikipedia for lack of reliability and "fabricating stories", go ahead. So far Jpost wasn't banned in RSN, despite the discussion you mentioned. But let me tell you that JPost won't be excluded just "because it comes from Israel". That's ad hominem attack based on nationality, not an argument.--Beukford (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- There is no consensus to add this material. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is the long-standing version. You need consensus to remove it.--Beukford (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- For a BLP you need consensus to add contentious material. Ism schism (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not "contentious" at all. And nobody needs your approval to publish an open twitter that was reported by several newspapers, including Globalnews from Canada, The Slatest, CNN and Jerusalem Post (not to mention it was published by Khamenei himself in his twitter account). This is not a BLP violation. Just a pertinent and related comment about Israel reported by several reliable sources in an impeccable place. Stop disrupting.--Beukford (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding quoted tweets the only relevant issue relates to whether the inclusion of the information will give a balanced result. Tweets can be checked and anything such as a pasted screen shot of one in a prestigious publication can be considered reliable. No source would risk its reputation by falsifying something that is so readily checkable as a tweet that has been retweeted 180 times.
- A main reason for not quoting content is if it was intended to soapbox (rather than to reveal) non neutral views. GregKaye 16:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not "contentious" at all. And nobody needs your approval to publish an open twitter that was reported by several newspapers, including Globalnews from Canada, The Slatest, CNN and Jerusalem Post (not to mention it was published by Khamenei himself in his twitter account). This is not a BLP violation. Just a pertinent and related comment about Israel reported by several reliable sources in an impeccable place. Stop disrupting.--Beukford (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- For a BLP you need consensus to add contentious material. Ism schism (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- It is the long-standing version. You need consensus to remove it.--Beukford (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to add this material. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- I don't really care what you think it proves. If you think the case is so clear cut, it should be a small matter for you to lift your burden to demonstrate reliability by asking on WP:RSN or through WP:RFC.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- One comment from a controversial editor about a completely unrelated issue doesn't prove Jpost engages in "blatant fabrication of stories". Besides, as I showed you before, Khamenei's twitter was reported by several other newspapers, so it's no "fabrication". It was written openly and clearly by Khamenei's account, and reported by secondary sources. Don't split hairs to hide a clear statement.--Beukford (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Beukford: That's a flat-out lie on your part. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."[30] Whether JPost is "known" and "used in many articles" is irrelevant. Press TV is used in many articles too, and that doesn't make it reliable either. As this comment from RSN suggests, JPost does indeed engage in blatant fabrication of stories.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jerusalem Post is a known Israeli newspaper which is considered reliable and used in many articles. The burden is on you to gain consensus before removing cited content. There is no blanket ban on Jpost. I just added other sources reporting exactly the same twitter, including a newspaper from Canada.--Beukford (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Beukford: Actually, no. You take it to RSN. The burden is on you to demonstrate that it is reliable. If you have all these reliable sources from CNN etc, why don't you just present them instead of only vaguely alluding to them without giving any evidence that they exist?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Jpost is a perfectly reliable source, used throughout Wikipedia. The fact that it's an Israeli newspaper doesn't make it better nor worse. Here's the twitter. Logically, as an Israeli newspaper it will be more interested in reporting what Khamenei has to say about their country, but I don't think you made a very good Google search. In less than one minute I found the CNN and other news sites reporting the same statements. In any case, if you think Jpost shouldn't be used at all, take it to RSN.--Beukford (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That Ayatollah Khamenei Twitter account is not verified. And also, JPost is not a reliable source.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Remove all supposed tweets of Ayatollah Khamenei[edit]
No need to keep tweets in BLP from an unconfirmed supposed twitter account of Khamenei.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- We go by WP:RS. If the source is reliable, we attribute it to them. If it is not reliable, we delete it.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- This explains how and which Twitter accounts are verified. On the eve of Iran Deal, there has been massive Jewish propaganda, that already plague Twitter (e.g. [31] & [32] etc)--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Coincidently I was just preparing a thread that I was going to entitle: "Should/how should "Khamenei.ir" twitter account be represented in the article?" with content as follows:
I've done a very few '"Khamenei.ir" twitter site: foo.foo' searches. Opened up not very many of the results so cannot confirm if they all present tweets from the "Khamenei.ir" twitter account so numbers may be taken with a pinch of Za'atar.
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:cnn.com/ gets 10 results[33]
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.washingtonpost.com/ gets about 21 results[34]
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.independent.co.uk/ gets 3 results[35]
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.telegraph.co.uk gets 9 results[36]
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.thesun.co.uk/ (with search done just for laughs) gets "No results found"[37]
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.nytimes.com gets 5 results
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.jpost.com/ gets about 21 results
- "Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.haaretz.com/ gets about 16 results
In searches in google news for the last year
- "Khamenei.ir @khamenei_ir" twitter gets About 265 results [38]
- "Barack Obama @BarackObama" twitter gets About 2,300 results [39]
- "Benjamin Netanyahu @netanyahu" twitter gets About 302 results[40]
GregKaye 18:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Per Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#Attribution of a twitter account to Khamenei, Time Magazine writes "Iranians, Iran-watchers and journalists believe the Twitter account is managed by Khamenei’s office but it is not clear how directly involved the Supreme Leader is with its output." It probably won't help speculating if even reasonably good sources like Time Magazine are not entirely sure what to make of the account. So let's not speculate, and just rely on WP:RS. When there are WP:BLP issues, we can do WP:INTEXT.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I would have thought that something to that effect should be placed as an introduction to some stand out quotes. The account is notable either as a rouse that should be rightly outed or as something that may have some level of connection to Khamenei. GregKaye 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- We also pay attention to WP:PRIMARY sourcing. We should be focusing on secondary sources or else it's a game of WP:UNDUE weight to particular tweets. There's no reason Wikipedia should be quoting particular tweets if no one else is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The Israel related quotes (come in the context of some articles that make comment but contain no quotes) that I found on CNN were:
- US govt has subjugated a great nation w/ massive resources to a criminal regime like #Israel.10/31/12 #Ferguson #Gaza pic.twitter.com/XU3dJgkVsp
- Khamenei.ir @khamenei_ir Why should & how can #Israel be eliminated? Ayatollah Khamenei's answer to 9 key questions.#HandsOffAlAqsa 08:44 - 9 nov 2014
Qualifying descriptions of the account include.
- The unverified Twitter account, widely accepted as the mouthpiece of the Ayatollah's social media campaign, often posts diatribes against the West and Israel to its more than 91,000 followers.
- It's unclear how much involvement Iran's Supreme Leader has in deciding what's posted on the account, @khamenei_ir, which describes itself as providing "regular updates and news" about him.
The white house, for one, has made strong statements in regard to khamenei's comment's (in general) regarding Israel and Israel related comment, from a brief look, seems to be a hot topic there.
Holocaust denial seem to me, soley on the basis of my own subjective opinion, a relevant topic within the current context of the "migrant"/"refugee" crisis in Europe but this is soley my own POV.
On more of a policy basis int regard to balancing issues that are due with regard to inclusion the article, here's one related search:
"Khamenei said" site:cnn.com/ got About 21 results [41]
Obviously quotes from Khamenei may alternatively been introduced with wording other than "Khamenei said" while one of the "Khamenei said" references also includes reference to "Khamenei.ir".[42] None the less I think that there is a moderately substantial amount of media coverage of the twitter account in relation to content that sources maybe more certain had come from Khamenei. GregKaye 08:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- (sidenote to main discussion: I have made these two amendments to the introduction to the quotes. Feel free to make further adjustments. GregKaye 08:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC))
Zionism and Israel section[edit]
What is the point of that section? I mean there should be an overall theme and point, based on something closer to a secondary source that actually discusses his views rather than a series of WP:PRIMARY individual sources organized into a section. Quoting a bunch of random insults said by Khamenei doesn't really add to any discussion here. It's clear there's a denial of the Holocaust there, personal attacks on Israel and Israelis ("rabid dog" and "not worthy of being called human") and general calls for its destruction/annihilation/non-rule over Palestinians. That could be an organization that makes some sense out of that rather than just quoting random comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yea, it's turned into a little quote farm, context needs to be added, or a less quotes with a summarization. It does not look encyclopedic as currently written. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I re-wrote it a bit but other than the Edalat comment (which is so convoluted a context that it's odd), there's a basic consistent theme that Khamenei is against Israel, personally views Israelis as sub-human, calls for its destruction and has a hint of Holocaust denial. Which honestly isn't too far from what I expect. Perhaps the Edalat comment fits that Khamenei says that Israel should be destroyed but Iran itself doesn't itself support destroying Israel but that's just a miss-mass of making this up at this point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Back to the searches (again from news for the last year):
- "Khamenei said" AND ("United States" OR "U.S.") got About 1,360 results[43]
- "Khamenei said" AND ("Israel" OR "Zionist") got About 835 results[44]
- "Khamenei said" AND ("ISIS" OR "Iraq" OR "Syria") got About 1,060 results [45]
- Figures should only be taken as a rough ball park as some articles may make unconnected references to Khamenei and another mentioned subject. GregKaye 09:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your work above. My only concern is that the article not become a quote farm as was happening with that Twitter account. I think the article does need to have some of what Khamenej says, but within the context of the article's subject matter... That's my two cents. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't really know what you are trying to accomplish with this OR. It doesn't reduce the need for each statement to be supported by and possibly attributed to reliable sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Ricky81682: Check this very recent Iranian Fars News Agency source, pretty much sums up Khamenei's view (also has Khamenei's quotes) on Israel.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Delete Zionism and Israel Section[edit]
As per above discussion by Ism schism and others, I would like to ask for consensus to delete this quote farm entirely from the article. BlueSalix (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment For reference, I presume this version is sufficient to use as a basis to review. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Survey[edit]
- Support deletion of "Zionism and Israel" quote farm and express the consensus of the community that such a section is not appropriate and should not be recreated, under this or a different name, in this BLP unless and until a substantial body of new RS/NPOV sources becomes available that provides depth, context and analysis. BlueSalix (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support deletion of quote farm. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
NeutralOppose Initially I proposed deleting the section from the BLP, when I created the "Remove all supposed tweets of Ayatollah Khamenei" thread above. However, after @Ricky81682: so masterfully reorganized the section, I'm not advocating for its removal anymore. Also, today Iranian semi-official Fars News Agency published an article, which contained quotes of Khamenei, including one in which he calls for full annihilation and destruction of the Zionist regime: "Only way to solve this problem is full annihilation and destruction of the Zionist regime."[46] This quote is from a speech he gave in 2014.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose These quotes are vital for understanding the balance of the region. Flayer (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose No reason to delete well-sourced content, let alone after Ricky81682 made a great job to reorder the text and make it consistent and summarized.--Shazaami (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The content is notable, but needs to be trimmed and made into a coherent point. I reorganized it as a combination of (a) views on historical Zionism in creating Israel; (b) personal attacks on Israelis (Jews really) as sub-human; (c) views on the Palestinian people and their rights; (d) views on the influence of Israel into the Arab nations; and (e) a questioning of the Holocaust. It's a lot of topics and most parts can be shortened to a single sentence but I think it's importance to have as an example of a significant foreign policy view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- A BLP is not the place for a quote farm like this, this is an encyclopedic article, and this farm reduces its quality and potentially has BLP issues. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I do not think that I had seen the term "quote farm" before coming to this article. It seems to me to be an oxymoron. A quote is something that is taken from somewhere else so as to be used in a location. A farm is a place where things are reproduced to be used elsewhere. "quote farm" is not a term that has wide or accepted usage. Its usage in Wikipedia is controversial. GregKaye 06:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Qs @BlueSalix and Ism schism: is there a reason for deleting the sub-section at Ali_Khamenei#Zionism and Israel while not deleting the subsection at Ali_Khamenei#Opposition to United States foreign policy?
- note I was an editor who was instrumental in removing, I think, irrelevant mention of Israel on ISIL related maps. I am yet to see reasoning why mention of Israel is not relevant here.
- What, as you see it, is the problem with quotations in a BLP article? WP:BLPSOURCES itself quotes: "Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I think that this is the only provision that exists regarding the use of quotes.
- GregKaye 06:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
2015 nuclear agreement[edit]
What is the problem with this section? It's well supported by multiple reliable sources, including Reuters, NBC news, The Independent, BBC, Washington Post, etc (considered reliable by all standards). I don't understand why some editors are willing to remove well-sourced paragraphs just because they don't like what they say. Maybe there are specific problems with a couple of citations, but removing an entire section dealing with important statements against the US? It doesn't make any sense, it looks like pure vandalism.--Shazaami (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- As indicated by user Ism schism earlier[47], see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight, and self-revert your edit.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- What's your point? How can be "undue weight" when it's covered by all major newspapers around world? This nuclear agreement and Khamenei's declarations are absolutely notable, important, covered by reliable secondary sources... this particular section meets all the requirements of Wikipedia policy.--Shazaami (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- This is a BLP, get consensus before adding disputed materials.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What do you think I'm trying to do? This section was added several months ago and wasn't considered "controversial". Only now is being disputed, so the burden is on you to gain consensus before removing. Now, tell me, what's your argument (based on BLP or Wikipedia's policy in general) to delete this sourced content, which is important, notable and covered by so many reliable secondary sources?--Shazaami (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Quite on the contrary, the onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include the disputed materials. Whether the content was added 2 minutes ago or 2 decades ago is irrelevant. I think the concern here is that the section is recentist - a brief news blip that is not all that important in the bigger picture.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Section is not "recentist" because it reflects Khamenei's negative view about the US, as well as the nuclear agreement (he's basically saying Iran will continue to fight the US even after an agreement is singed, showing constant hostility). Just like there is a section to describe his position regarding Israel, there should be at least one paragraph for the US. Don't you think?--Shazaami (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Quite on the contrary, the onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include the disputed materials. Whether the content was added 2 minutes ago or 2 decades ago is irrelevant. I think the concern here is that the section is recentist - a brief news blip that is not all that important in the bigger picture.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think I'm trying to do? This section was added several months ago and wasn't considered "controversial". Only now is being disputed, so the burden is on you to gain consensus before removing. Now, tell me, what's your argument (based on BLP or Wikipedia's policy in general) to delete this sourced content, which is important, notable and covered by so many reliable secondary sources?--Shazaami (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Some of the sources are wrongly alluding that Khamenei will use nukes to fight. Which is against his views, as he is against making nukes. And as such, keeping those sources would violate BLP. In fact, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_weapon#RfC:_Section_about_Ali_Khamenei.27s_views , there consensus is going towards keeping Khamenei's views against nuclear weapon on Nuclear weapon article.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your comment is completely off-topic. First of all, we only care what reliable sources say. Second, the section you want to delete doesn't mention nuclear weapons at all. It mentions the fact that Khamenei said they will continue to fight the US even after the nuclear agreement. Third, I see exactly the opposite on the RFC: consensus is against including Khamenei's view (only one user supports the inclusion).--Shazaami (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Khamenei's general, quasi-racist attitudes towards the US should not be left out (Ali Khamenei#Opposition to United States foreign policy covers some of it). But it is unclear why some random speech a few months ago should be taken as representative of it.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps we could merge the paragraph into this section, which deals with Khamenei's view on the US in general, but doesn't mention that they are "willing to fight" directly against the US, like the paragraph we are discussing does.--Shazaami (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the sources are wrongly alluding that Khamenei will use nukes to fight. Which is against his views, as he is against making nukes. And as such, keeping those sources would violate BLP. In fact, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuclear_weapon#RfC:_Section_about_Ali_Khamenei.27s_views , there consensus is going towards keeping Khamenei's views against nuclear weapon on Nuclear weapon article.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Incidentally, we should remove the section on his worthless and entirely inconsequential "letter" too. Another recentist storm in a teacup, that was stirred up by propagandists.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Shazaami: Sometimes when even a reliable source hurts BLP, it is removed. For example, from List of Iranian people by net worth, an MSN source was removed[48] because it was disputed.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what you call "hurting" BLP, but if you don't want to report what multiple reliable sources say about an important leader and his views, you are not being a constructive editor. Besides, Khamenei is not even trying to deny it, he declares openly his hostility towards Israel and the US.--Shazaami (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- The MSN source in question consisted of a single page that said $30 billion net worth even though it didn't match the numbers from more detailed sources which acknowledged the difficulties in estimating it. I'd say a source that provide a single number without an explanation is more questionable that one that at least acknowledges the complex legal structure at issue in Iran. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what you call "hurting" BLP, but if you don't want to report what multiple reliable sources say about an important leader and his views, you are not being a constructive editor. Besides, Khamenei is not even trying to deny it, he declares openly his hostility towards Israel and the US.--Shazaami (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Shazaami: Sometimes when even a reliable source hurts BLP, it is removed. For example, from List of Iranian people by net worth, an MSN source was removed[48] because it was disputed.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
-
I think it would be appropriate to include in the article the opinion of Khamenei on the Syrian conflict.--Shazaami (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Can we stay on one topic please? The point is we need secondary sources about Khamenei's foreign policy. All we have are WP:PRIMARY sources asserting what is said not someone with some expertise who can formulate a coherent thought to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Can I please ask everyone to link to a static version along with a link to their section? The current version has no such section. It's impossible to figure out what people are talking about if the language is being changed during the discussion (which is fine as long as people do provide some status links to work with). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding removal of the public letter to the Western youth[edit]
The historic letter of the Ayatollah to the western youth was just removed as per just the above talk, on the ground that it was "worthless," "inconsequential," and "random"! However these demeaning characterizations seem more to be just personal opinion of the two Wikipedians who agreed on removal rather than being based on any objective criteria.
As for being worthless, if one considers the timing, the subject and the status of the author of the letter, one can hardly call it "worthless"! The letter was covered by many mainstream sources and generated many feedbacks from several personalities as documented in To the Youth in Europe and North America#Reception of the letter. The fact that it was the first time a muslim leader directly addressed the Western public on such a topic adds to its significance, therefore the charge of randomness and recentism seem unfair. Was the removal justified? I also tag @Sa.vakilian: for feedback. --Strivingsoul (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- How can something which not a single person outside the insignificant Iranian-Islamist movement cares about be "historic"? The only reason it was added to the article was that it was "actively spammed", as Al-Monitor wrote[49], by his Islamist devotees.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the letter did receive coverage and comment from world media and personalities. I also explained reasons for significance of the letter. The motivation or identity of the editors who added it is irrelevant especially when the subject warrants addition on its own merits. --Strivingsoul (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- The western media have covered the issue. Why do you think it is worthless? --Seyyed(t-c) 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- News media, whether Western or otherwise, covers all sorts of crap. Verifiability does not equate notability. No serious sources attribute any lasting significance to this particular propaganda letter.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please avoid uncivil language! Instead respond to the arguments I proposed for the significance of the letter in relation to the subject matter which is Ayatollah Khamenei. So far you've offered no counter argument to them. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- News media, whether Western or otherwise, covers all sorts of crap. Verifiability does not equate notability. No serious sources attribute any lasting significance to this particular propaganda letter.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- The western media have covered the issue. Why do you think it is worthless? --Seyyed(t-c) 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the letter did receive coverage and comment from world media and personalities. I also explained reasons for significance of the letter. The motivation or identity of the editors who added it is irrelevant especially when the subject warrants addition on its own merits. --Strivingsoul (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm restoring the the public letter since there was evidently no cogent reason for the removal. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Anders Feder: Regarding your insistence on the removal of the public letter: You didn't respond to the objections here as to why you removed the letter without our consensus. So it is you who should form a consensus for removal but you didn't respond to the counter arguments here. So please care to explain why you think the letter is "worthless" or the section has to be restored. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- No action on Wikipedia require "your" consensus for anything. On the contrary, you need consensus for including the material.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- You needed the involved Wikipedians' consensus for the removal of the section in the first place. But now it is clear you don't have consensus! So care to explain your counter arguments instead of side-tracking the issue. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Anders Feder: If you google the issues of this article, you will find that this letter has been covered more than the other issues by the western media. There is no consensus about removing this section and I reverted your edit. You should reach consensus before removing the section-. -Seyyed(t-c) 04:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- You needed the involved Wikipedians' consensus for the removal of the section in the first place. But now it is clear you don't have consensus! So care to explain your counter arguments instead of side-tracking the issue. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- No action on Wikipedia require "your" consensus for anything. On the contrary, you need consensus for including the material.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Anders Feder: Regarding your insistence on the removal of the public letter: You didn't respond to the objections here as to why you removed the letter without our consensus. So it is you who should form a consensus for removal but you didn't respond to the counter arguments here. So please care to explain why you think the letter is "worthless" or the section has to be restored. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Shazaami: please build consensus before removing information!--Seyyed(t-c) 04:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, the burden is on you to include controversial content that was disputed before.--Shazaami (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- This section was there since February [50] and now you've just found that it should be removed based on WP:ONUS!!! --Seyyed(t-c) 05:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Anders Feder, Shazaami, and Strivingsoul: In my view when an issue has a vast reception, it means it has enough notability to be added to the article. I am not familiar with any other way in wikipedia to judge about notability of such issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have already explained reasons for the notability of the letter in relation to the subject matter. But Anders Feder left the discussion without responding to my counter arguments. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Shazaami and Anders Feder: According to the above discussion, I want to revert that section. Please, write your idea today, if you disagree with me.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have already written what there is to say on the matter: no source of any credibility has attributed any significance to the letter. Most of the expert sources commenting on it characterize it in terms of Khamenei's "outsized confidence, dogmatic worldview, and victimization complex", and his having "conveniently forgotten his personal role" in the treatment of American hostages, etc. Multiple sources commenting to say that the letter is insignificant does not make the letter significant. There also seemed to be surprising consensus among our Iranian friends on this talk page that Khamenei's letter to Obama was not significant just because it had been covered in multiple sources, but perhaps they no longer hold that stance?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Anders Feder: As you told "no source of any credibility has attributed any significance to the letter", can please specify how can we justify it? In other word, how do you justify the credibility of in an issue?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- By way of WP:DUE. If no WP:DUE statement can be formulated which implies that the letter has lasting significance, it probably is because it hasn't.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- As a potential WP:THIRD, I have already argued for the significance of the letter: "As for being worthless, if one considers the timing, the subject and the status of the author of the letter, one can hardly call it "worthless"! The letter was covered by many mainstream sources and generated many feedbacks from several personalities as documented in To the Youth in Europe and North America#Reception of the letter. The fact that it was the first time a muslim leader directly addressed the Western public on such a topic adds to its significance, therefore the charge of randomness and recentism seem unfair. Was the removal justified?" which can also be taken into account by a WP:RFC. --Strivingsoul (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Anders Feder: As you told "no source of any credibility has attributed any significance to the letter", can please specify how can we justify it? In other word, how do you justify the credibility of in an issue?--Seyyed(t-c) 06:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have already written what there is to say on the matter: no source of any credibility has attributed any significance to the letter. Most of the expert sources commenting on it characterize it in terms of Khamenei's "outsized confidence, dogmatic worldview, and victimization complex", and his having "conveniently forgotten his personal role" in the treatment of American hostages, etc. Multiple sources commenting to say that the letter is insignificant does not make the letter significant. There also seemed to be surprising consensus among our Iranian friends on this talk page that Khamenei's letter to Obama was not significant just because it had been covered in multiple sources, but perhaps they no longer hold that stance?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Shazaami and Anders Feder: According to the above discussion, I want to revert that section. Please, write your idea today, if you disagree with me.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have already explained reasons for the notability of the letter in relation to the subject matter. But Anders Feder left the discussion without responding to my counter arguments. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, the burden is on you to include controversial content that was disputed before.--Shazaami (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Context for random quotes on Israel and other topics[edit]
| Clean slate needed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
|
On so many places of this page, Ayatollah Khamenei's statements and povs are badly quoted out of context. Some of the sources are also clearly biased such as when it comes to quoting Israeli sources (some of them even right wing) on his remarks on Israel. But the claim that these remarks are motivated by anti-Semitism are rendered totally senseless when quoted fully, or when details of the subject matter are included especially when there are allusions to them in the said quotations. How can Khamenei be motivated by anti-Semitism, when he leads a country that has the second largest Jewish population in the region, and where Anti-Semitism is officially banned by the Theocratic law?! What is even worse, is that even when quoting from biased sources, his statements are quoted only partially and as a result those parts that are crucial for a proper representation of his views are just left out! So I have been working to add proper context from the existing or other sources to his povs such as here and here. But I've been just challenged by @Shazaami: on the controversial "rabid dog" statement. I think likewise in this case we need to quote his statement fully not partially for neutral and faithful representation. So I think we need to include at least some context from the source so as that it reads: Khamenei described Israel a "rabid dog" and a "rapacious wolf that has attacked innocent people." He urged that "humanity must show a reaction" to "a genocide, a catastrophe of historical scale." Since historical context is also very crucial and integral to this speech and statement in particular, I also added this opening phrase: In response to the 2014 Israel war on Gaza during the Muslim fasting Month of Ramadhan which resulted in the death of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the blockaded Gaza Strip,.... Khamenei is clearly referring to these facts of conflict when he talks about genocide and compares Israeli leader to wolf. Not to mention the fact that these bloody unequal wars against Gaza has a long precedence. So why we need to cut out these closely relevant contextes with your preconceived bias against the subject? Strivingsoul (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
|
-
- @Shazaami and Ankhsoprah2: Please stop edit warring at once. You are both far over WP:1RR limit and will probably be blocked by an admin any moment. The statements seem to be well-supported by reliable sources and quite relevant to the subject, so there is no reason not to include them. If you think there are balancing statements or some context missing, please suggest it. “WarKosign” 06:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Round 2[edit]
Let's try this again. User:Ankhsoprah2 has been blocked for a week but I'll still try to respond and see if this doesn't stay a mess. In regards to this edit: (A) No, we are not going to put anything about "child-killing Zionist regime" and Ankhsoprah2 should know better than to even suggest that or it's a real insult to our intelligence if Ankhsoprah2 thinks that's a neutral description of what the issue. (B) deleting sources to add "verification needed" makes no sense since sources were provided. And no, we aren't going to ignore Israeli and CBS sources since the quote is confirmed all around. (C) At to the tweet, above it seemed fine so I don't get the sudden objection after the fact. I presume those were the actual arguments minus the downward spiral. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop edit warring and personal attack/A discussion on institution of Wilayat Faqih in Iran[edit]
- @Strivingsoul and Shazaami: The records of article history page shows that you are committing an edit war. This behavior might lead into severe penalties such as block.
- @Shazaami: Please obey the policies (such as onus) and try to make a consensus through anyway possible on the reliability of the disputed source. The disputed source needs to be investigated and discussed before inclusion, specially the case is sensitive per BLP. Mhhossein (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your intervention @Mhhossein:. If you carefully study the history and the talkpage discussions, you will learn that my changes have all been warranted. But this user has clearly a strong bias against the subject and ignores my explanations and references that counter his prejudices. He has involved himself in lengthy unrelated anti-Iranian propaganda as if this is a forum. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Shazaami: I lived in Iran for many years. I saw your negative "opinions" about Iran above, and I would like to let you know that they don't hold water. Iran is probably the most stable nation in the Middleeast. Yes the regime is dictatorial, but life there is no different than any other democratic country, as the dictator is more like a constitutional monarch with absolute power, and there's also an elected president who takes care of most of the governmental work. Also, the Jews in Iran live peacefully, but definitely all Muslims (Shia, Sunni and all other sects of Islam) get special love as it is an Islamic Republic.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are fair and right on most of what you said, but calling "dictatorial" a Theocratic Republic with elections where even the Supreme Leader is elected by indirect popular vote is just beyond nonsense! Strivingsoul (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Shazaami: I lived in Iran for many years. I saw your negative "opinions" about Iran above, and I would like to let you know that they don't hold water. Iran is probably the most stable nation in the Middleeast. Yes the regime is dictatorial, but life there is no different than any other democratic country, as the dictator is more like a constitutional monarch with absolute power, and there's also an elected president who takes care of most of the governmental work. Also, the Jews in Iran live peacefully, but definitely all Muslims (Shia, Sunni and all other sects of Islam) get special love as it is an Islamic Republic.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- First, as a Muslim, I'm very happy that the "Supreme Leader" is a staunch Muslim. Responding to your comment: he was elected many many years ago (List of current longest ruling non-royal national leaders), and is the only one to get "elected". And, as can be seen from his meeting with the guardian council, he is actually sitting above them and telling them what they and Iran should do. It's more like dictatorship in disguise, no one can remove him or go against his wishes. Mind you that Saddam was supposedly directly democratically elected--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- You evidently have a misunderstanding of Iran's Constitution and Political Philosophy, and this is a common misunderstanding. Islamic Republic and the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih has never been in essence about personal rule of a cleric but the clerical rule is predicated on the idea of the supremacy of Islamic doctrines and law. Therefore whoever that is identified by the Assembly of Legal Experts as enjoying the highest Islamic qualifications will be appointed as the Supreme Leader and therefore all else will have to obey him so long as his Islamic qualifications are not undermined by his actions and policies; in which case, the same Assembly can nullify his rule based on the same principles that he was elected in the first place! That's why a cleric elected for his higher qualifications can at the same time give directions to the same Assembly that elected him on questions of politics and governance; with his period extendable for however long he acts according to the said principles. But if he is found at serious fault and sin, he will be immediately disqualified, unless there is a collision with the members of the Assembly in which case the entire Assembly will be disqualified by the public disqualification: votes and protests! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say that Iran is "consitutional dictatorship" so unless other reliable sources dispute this, this is how it should be called on wikipedia. See WP:TRUTH. “WarKosign” 11:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources can say all sort of things! Like this. And bad news is that reliable sources can also be biased: WP:BIAS! This is specially a significant factor when these sources are affected by a deeply entrenched ideological bias. So their views is at best just a WP:POV of their own! But regardless of what some western reliable sources say Iran's Constitution makes it clear that it constitutes an Islamic Republic. Also see Orientalism (book) for a critique of the distortive function of the the basic ideological premises of the Modern secular thinking which seriously undermine their ability in objective comprehension and judgement of Eastern/traditional/Islamic institutions and cultures! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say that Iran is "consitutional dictatorship" so unless other reliable sources dispute this, this is how it should be called on wikipedia. See WP:TRUTH. “WarKosign” 11:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- You evidently have a misunderstanding of Iran's Constitution and Political Philosophy, and this is a common misunderstanding. Islamic Republic and the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih has never been in essence about personal rule of a cleric but the clerical rule is predicated on the idea of the supremacy of Islamic doctrines and law. Therefore whoever that is identified by the Assembly of Legal Experts as enjoying the highest Islamic qualifications will be appointed as the Supreme Leader and therefore all else will have to obey him so long as his Islamic qualifications are not undermined by his actions and policies; in which case, the same Assembly can nullify his rule based on the same principles that he was elected in the first place! That's why a cleric elected for his higher qualifications can at the same time give directions to the same Assembly that elected him on questions of politics and governance; with his period extendable for however long he acts according to the said principles. But if he is found at serious fault and sin, he will be immediately disqualified, unless there is a collision with the members of the Assembly in which case the entire Assembly will be disqualified by the public disqualification: votes and protests! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- First, as a Muslim, I'm very happy that the "Supreme Leader" is a staunch Muslim. Responding to your comment: he was elected many many years ago (List of current longest ruling non-royal national leaders), and is the only one to get "elected". And, as can be seen from his meeting with the guardian council, he is actually sitting above them and telling them what they and Iran should do. It's more like dictatorship in disguise, no one can remove him or go against his wishes. Mind you that Saddam was supposedly directly democratically elected--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is indeed a big conspiracy in "eurocentrist" sources to suppress the propaganda drivel coming out of Iran—a nefarious tendency known as "fact-checking and accuracy". Unfortunately, such conspiracy theories have no relevance to this talk page, and invoking them is considered a sign of tendentious editing.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- By resorting to the typical "conspiracy" labeling, you show that you either didn't comprehend the point I was making or try to deliberately sidetrack it! Obviously I was not referring to a conspiracy here (although no one can deny the ceaseless stream of political conspiracies against Iran over the last century but that's beside the point). I was pointing to the impact of the dominant philosophical and ideological perceptions of one civilization that inclines it to project a systematic per-conceived bias towards other civilizations that are based on very different principles and cultures, through misjudgement of those rival civilizations caused by an ignorance or incomprehension of the wisdom and thinking that underpins them. One example of this is the immediate gut sense of "dictatorship" when encountering a theocratic political system apparently under "one-man" supreme leadership, while a deeper study of that political system reveals it to be an effective anti-thesis to personal arbitrariness of a secular dictatorship and the covert plutocracy in liberal democracies of shallow, consumerist herds -- through making possible benevolent oversight and wise guidance of a principled democracy by a supreme leadership who enjoys the highest intellectual, moral and spiritual qualifications and still works under the oversight of an elected scholarly body himself. This is a point and example that helps good-faith Wikipedians recognize a systematic-bias influence in the Western media in their reporting of societies and cultures that belong to a different civilizational heritage. It is this useful understanding that I aim to highlight here by these elaborations. Those with good-faith will appreciate this, but those unwilling to broaden their understanding and perspective will naturally keep ignoring or distorting this insight to stick to the prejudices of the status quo. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- A conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory by any other name, as is a dictatorship.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Willful ignorance is still willful ignorance by any other pretension, as is one's insistence on repeating a talkingpoint with no reference to any of the substantial explanations offered; which also happens to speak about the level of one's integrity as well. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- You must know from your extensive first hand experience doing just that.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thankfully the public record here speaks for itself as to the merits of each side! Strivingsoul (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- You must know from your extensive first hand experience doing just that.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Willful ignorance is still willful ignorance by any other pretension, as is one's insistence on repeating a talkingpoint with no reference to any of the substantial explanations offered; which also happens to speak about the level of one's integrity as well. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- "By a supreme leadership who enjoys the highest intellectual, moral and spiritual qualifications and still works under the oversight of an elected scholarly body." There's dispute regarding his status as Grand Ayatollah, and he's only highly educated in religion, therefore he doesn't have "the highest intellectual," nor does anyone else. He doesn't work under the oversight of an elected scholarly body, the supposed elected scholarly body take orders from him. He didn't run in an election for the last 27 years. Most probably he will not get the votes of the majority of the Iranians if he did ran in an election. A leader with absolute power, who is not elected by the majority of the people, is a dictator.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the Assembly of Experts, which is composed of arguably the most knowledgeable and most pious elected scholars, has identified him as the most qualified scholar, and the same routinely elected body still finds him qualified, then the qualification criteria is met according to the Constitution, and the existence of just one or two dissident clerics don't undermine that. And as for your charge of lack of scholarly oversight over the Supreme Leader, I already refuted that when I explained the reciprocal authority between the institution of Wilayat Faqih and the Assembly of Experts. But you didn't reply back, but just came back to repeat the same charge regardless of my earlier explanations. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- A conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory by any other name, as is a dictatorship.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- By resorting to the typical "conspiracy" labeling, you show that you either didn't comprehend the point I was making or try to deliberately sidetrack it! Obviously I was not referring to a conspiracy here (although no one can deny the ceaseless stream of political conspiracies against Iran over the last century but that's beside the point). I was pointing to the impact of the dominant philosophical and ideological perceptions of one civilization that inclines it to project a systematic per-conceived bias towards other civilizations that are based on very different principles and cultures, through misjudgement of those rival civilizations caused by an ignorance or incomprehension of the wisdom and thinking that underpins them. One example of this is the immediate gut sense of "dictatorship" when encountering a theocratic political system apparently under "one-man" supreme leadership, while a deeper study of that political system reveals it to be an effective anti-thesis to personal arbitrariness of a secular dictatorship and the covert plutocracy in liberal democracies of shallow, consumerist herds -- through making possible benevolent oversight and wise guidance of a principled democracy by a supreme leadership who enjoys the highest intellectual, moral and spiritual qualifications and still works under the oversight of an elected scholarly body himself. This is a point and example that helps good-faith Wikipedians recognize a systematic-bias influence in the Western media in their reporting of societies and cultures that belong to a different civilizational heritage. It is this useful understanding that I aim to highlight here by these elaborations. Those with good-faith will appreciate this, but those unwilling to broaden their understanding and perspective will naturally keep ignoring or distorting this insight to stick to the prejudices of the status quo. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is indeed a big conspiracy in "eurocentrist" sources to suppress the propaganda drivel coming out of Iran—a nefarious tendency known as "fact-checking and accuracy". Unfortunately, such conspiracy theories have no relevance to this talk page, and invoking them is considered a sign of tendentious editing.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I personally believe he is highly qualified with regard to Islam, like all other member of the Assembly of Experts, since that is what mullahs mostly study all their life. After living in Iran for many years, I know that you can't run for the Assembly of Experts if Khamenei disapproves, even if you are the most qualified (any cleric can reach highest Shia qualification (mujtahids) by studying, just like PhD in real academics). There are many mujtahids in Iran. In reality, Assembly of Experts are a bunch of clerics who are servants of Khamenei in a way. No one in Iran, including members of the Assembly of Experts, dares to say anything against him for obvious reason. Even Khamenei's own brother Hadi, was beaten severely for criticizing Ali Khamenei. If he wasn't Khamenei's brother, he would certainly get killed. If Iranian people can elect "Assembly of Experts, which is composed of arguably the most knowledgeable and most pious elected scholars" then Iranian people can also elect their Supreme Leader, but the Supreme Leader just will not run in an election. Instead of closing schools, and murdering marjas who questions the legitimacy of Khamenei's marja'yat, Khamenei should run in an election against them. Even after doing so, he would be a dictator, because most probably the majority of the Iranian people don't want a mullah to be their leader. If Khamenei can defeat any Iranian in an election, only then he will be a legitimate elected leader.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your judgements and opinions reflect a very poor comprehension of the historical character of Shia clerics. Prominent Shia clerics have historically demonstrated an uncompromising commitment to Islam which motivates them to speak out against devianec and corruption of both the ruling elite and the common laymen. Clerics like Hassan Modarres and Ruhollah Khomeini, inspired and led revolutionary movements against secular dictatorships while willingly embracing all the hardships and sacrifices associated with such a dangerous undertaking for their confidence in Allah and their principles. And historically their power to inspire and persuade people lies in their personal virtues, modest lifestyles, and a demonstrated genuine care for the fate of the people. These were already the factors that helped Ayatollah Khomeini rise as a massively popular and inspiring religious leader in his uncompromising fight against the former Pahlavi regime which ended in the incredible far-reaching success of the Iranian Revolution. Now with this historical background in mind about the power of religious inspiration and charisma of the Shia clerics, if you are really saying that they are now clerics that find Khamenei to be unqualified or his rule to be unjust (or having turned into a de facto dictatorship, a form of government that has been historically held to grossly contradict Shia political doctrine), then those dissident clerics/personalities must be able to inspire adequate popular following by the strength of their argument and demonstration of their superior virtues to delegitimize and nullify the reign of the ruling cleric. But when we see that all the rare and sporadic opponents of Khamenei have all failed to generate any lasting base of support among the people, (let alone inspiring devout followers who are ready to give their lives for their beloved religious leader as has been/is the case for Khomeini and Khamenei), then that itself proves the weakness of their argument and the shortcomings of their religious charisma, a fact that ironically strengthens Khamenei's legitimacy!
- I personally believe he is highly qualified with regard to Islam, like all other member of the Assembly of Experts, since that is what mullahs mostly study all their life. After living in Iran for many years, I know that you can't run for the Assembly of Experts if Khamenei disapproves, even if you are the most qualified (any cleric can reach highest Shia qualification (mujtahids) by studying, just like PhD in real academics). There are many mujtahids in Iran. In reality, Assembly of Experts are a bunch of clerics who are servants of Khamenei in a way. No one in Iran, including members of the Assembly of Experts, dares to say anything against him for obvious reason. Even Khamenei's own brother Hadi, was beaten severely for criticizing Ali Khamenei. If he wasn't Khamenei's brother, he would certainly get killed. If Iranian people can elect "Assembly of Experts, which is composed of arguably the most knowledgeable and most pious elected scholars" then Iranian people can also elect their Supreme Leader, but the Supreme Leader just will not run in an election. Instead of closing schools, and murdering marjas who questions the legitimacy of Khamenei's marja'yat, Khamenei should run in an election against them. Even after doing so, he would be a dictator, because most probably the majority of the Iranian people don't want a mullah to be their leader. If Khamenei can defeat any Iranian in an election, only then he will be a legitimate elected leader.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And your proposal for Khamenei himself to directly participate in an election is absurd, for not only that implies a conflict with existing legal framework, but it also assumes that Khamenei even needs to test his popularity when the existing democratic process supports his legitimacy. I'm talking about all the tens of millions heeding his public calls to participate in regular state elections and several annual nation-wide demonstrations on Islamic and revolutionary occasions to show their continued loyalty to the establishment and their leader, and this is while there has always been an overwhelming wave of propaganda against him and his leadership coming from the alternative sources of opinion and information (i.e. Farsi-language Western media outlets aimed directly at Iranians inside Iran, opposition websites, social networking campaigns by Iranian expats etc). That he can continue to sustain a high level of compliance by the the general populace and even have millions of outright devotees in more religious segments of the society are adequate indications of his unrivaled public legitimacy. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Existing process is anything but democratic. All candidates are screened carefully to make sure that the supposed elected president proves his servitude to Khamenei, despite the fact that being a dictator, Khamenei has more power anyways. Few thousands people at most, participating in organized occasions, in a nation of 80 million people mean nothing. With regard to people participating in presidential elections, I was in Iran when Rouhani was elected, the regime basically coerced people to participate, as they would lose their jobs, get expelled from schools, colleges and even jailed and executed if they didn't have the token that proves that they participated in the election. When the despotic Shah announced the White Revolution, millions of people attended (maybe were forced to attend). Khomeini had many followers, and the number of his followers were amplified many times over the years due to the policies of despotic dictator Pahlavi. People just wanted to get rid of Pahlavi dictator. Pahlavi dictator could actually hold on to power if he used the then best Air Force in the Middle East to fight his opponents. But he was stupid enough to release his opponents from jail, put in jail his supporters, elect Shapour Bakhtiar, one of his opponent, to power and leave Iran. Only time Iran actually had democracy was when Mohammad Mosaddegh was democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, this discussion is getting too long and I don't think it any longer contributes to our task in Wikipedia. We may rather continue this on our profile talk pages. But I need to point this out that millions participating in annual demonstrations is a fact. You only need to look at the aerial videos broadcast live by state media when nation-wide rallies are held to see that the total number of participants amounts to tens of millions each time. And your claim that people are coerced to participate is really exaggerated. It is true that that government organizations encourage participation in election and national festivals but the claim of using coercion is an exaggeration, not to mention the claim that you can get killed for not hiding the government's call! That's just a blatant baseless lie! And to have an outsider perspective and testimony about the genuine solidarity that exists between Iranians and the government I recommend you this short documentary by Kenneth O'Keefe, an American anti-war and pro-Palestinian activist who has made travels to Iran. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I watched him on Press TV's Debate many times, often debating Zionist propagandist in the USA, Lee Kaplan. I'm actually pro-Khamenei and his dictatorship because Khamenei is a staunch Muslim. I'm proud of how the regime so strongly monitors and neutralizes the oppositions in Iran, even punishes for sending anti-dictator SMS[68].--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, that's enough for both of us for you also seem to love repeating same talking points over and over, like this other guy above. Insult is forbidden in Islam and the offense would be times more serious when against an honorable national saint so a mild punishment for those naughty rogue youth is legally and morally justified. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Other guy? You mean @Anders Feder:, are you implying that a probably "mild" punishment for him is justified? lol.
--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- lol, obviously he is not bound by Islamic law and ethics for he's not a muslim. But thankfully we have WP:CIVILITY here to discourage insults towards anyone. That said, I never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion. So as I said the punishment for those kids seems completely justified. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- So in a situation like the current where consensus is that you should "shy away from defending what is justified according to your religion", what would you do? Would you shy away from defending what is justified according to your religion, or would you continue to refuse getting the point?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which situation exactly?! In Wikipedia we work in keeping with the rules. And this discussion was about pointing out the systematic ideological bias of the Western sources in covering Islamic topics. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have posted allegations about "systematic ideological bias of the Western sources in covering Islamic topics" many times before, and every time, as now, the consensus is squarely against them. The question then is - will you accept that consensus or will continue to refuse getting the point and the grounds of "never shying away from defending what is justified according to your religion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which consensus you're talking about here?! So far only two Wikipedians have engaged in this discussion, and it is still open for consideration by others. The discussion is useful for, as it goes by, examples and instances of such bias are brought up to support the argument. So far it was made clear that the charge of dictatorship is a biased POV and contrary to the facts (such as Iran's Constitution and the persistent tradition of popular elections) that show that Iran is an Islamic Republic which combines theocracy and democracy in a consistent whole. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how many people have participated in the discussion. Three of the editors (myself, Ankhsoprah2 and WarKosign) clearly agree that the view that Khamenei is a dictator is unbiased and supported by sources, despite your continued harping on the contrary. Will you stop harping on your rejected viewpoint, or will you continue doing so in the interest of "defending what is justified according to your religion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no consensus. "Dictatorship" is just a biased POV as I explained above. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is very obvious consensus: Iran being a dictatorship is a completely accurate and unbiased characterization backed up by reliable sources. Will you accept it or will you continue to "defend what is justified according to your religion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which reliable sources?! Are you back on your willful ignorance track of ignoring all the arguments and evidences exchanged in the above discussion?! I have already proven that the charge is a biased POV and nobody has provided any counter argument. So don't push your personal opinion as a fact! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have never been on any track of "willful ignorance" and you have never proven anything at all, nor even persuaded anyone as the above discussion clearly shows.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Willful ignorance is about deliberately ignoring and circumventing any argument/evidence that counters your professed opinion but being ready to jump into a still open-ended undecided discussion to push for your favored opinion as the final conclusion! And as I have also said earlier, the public record thankfully speaks for itself as to the persistent pattern of your prejudiced conduct! Strivingsoul (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It speaks nothing of the kind, but yours certainly does.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Willful ignorance is about deliberately ignoring and circumventing any argument/evidence that counters your professed opinion but being ready to jump into a still open-ended undecided discussion to push for your favored opinion as the final conclusion! And as I have also said earlier, the public record thankfully speaks for itself as to the persistent pattern of your prejudiced conduct! Strivingsoul (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have never been on any track of "willful ignorance" and you have never proven anything at all, nor even persuaded anyone as the above discussion clearly shows.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which reliable sources?! Are you back on your willful ignorance track of ignoring all the arguments and evidences exchanged in the above discussion?! I have already proven that the charge is a biased POV and nobody has provided any counter argument. So don't push your personal opinion as a fact! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is very obvious consensus: Iran being a dictatorship is a completely accurate and unbiased characterization backed up by reliable sources. Will you accept it or will you continue to "defend what is justified according to your religion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no consensus. "Dictatorship" is just a biased POV as I explained above. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how many people have participated in the discussion. Three of the editors (myself, Ankhsoprah2 and WarKosign) clearly agree that the view that Khamenei is a dictator is unbiased and supported by sources, despite your continued harping on the contrary. Will you stop harping on your rejected viewpoint, or will you continue doing so in the interest of "defending what is justified according to your religion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which consensus you're talking about here?! So far only two Wikipedians have engaged in this discussion, and it is still open for consideration by others. The discussion is useful for, as it goes by, examples and instances of such bias are brought up to support the argument. So far it was made clear that the charge of dictatorship is a biased POV and contrary to the facts (such as Iran's Constitution and the persistent tradition of popular elections) that show that Iran is an Islamic Republic which combines theocracy and democracy in a consistent whole. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have posted allegations about "systematic ideological bias of the Western sources in covering Islamic topics" many times before, and every time, as now, the consensus is squarely against them. The question then is - will you accept that consensus or will continue to refuse getting the point and the grounds of "never shying away from defending what is justified according to your religion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which situation exactly?! In Wikipedia we work in keeping with the rules. And this discussion was about pointing out the systematic ideological bias of the Western sources in covering Islamic topics. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- So in a situation like the current where consensus is that you should "shy away from defending what is justified according to your religion", what would you do? Would you shy away from defending what is justified according to your religion, or would you continue to refuse getting the point?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- lol, obviously he is not bound by Islamic law and ethics for he's not a muslim. But thankfully we have WP:CIVILITY here to discourage insults towards anyone. That said, I never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion. So as I said the punishment for those kids seems completely justified. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Other guy? You mean @Anders Feder:, are you implying that a probably "mild" punishment for him is justified? lol.
- Alright, that's enough for both of us for you also seem to love repeating same talking points over and over, like this other guy above. Insult is forbidden in Islam and the offense would be times more serious when against an honorable national saint so a mild punishment for those naughty rogue youth is legally and morally justified. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I watched him on Press TV's Debate many times, often debating Zionist propagandist in the USA, Lee Kaplan. I'm actually pro-Khamenei and his dictatorship because Khamenei is a staunch Muslim. I'm proud of how the regime so strongly monitors and neutralizes the oppositions in Iran, even punishes for sending anti-dictator SMS[68].--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, this discussion is getting too long and I don't think it any longer contributes to our task in Wikipedia. We may rather continue this on our profile talk pages. But I need to point this out that millions participating in annual demonstrations is a fact. You only need to look at the aerial videos broadcast live by state media when nation-wide rallies are held to see that the total number of participants amounts to tens of millions each time. And your claim that people are coerced to participate is really exaggerated. It is true that that government organizations encourage participation in election and national festivals but the claim of using coercion is an exaggeration, not to mention the claim that you can get killed for not hiding the government's call! That's just a blatant baseless lie! And to have an outsider perspective and testimony about the genuine solidarity that exists between Iranians and the government I recommend you this short documentary by Kenneth O'Keefe, an American anti-war and pro-Palestinian activist who has made travels to Iran. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Existing process is anything but democratic. All candidates are screened carefully to make sure that the supposed elected president proves his servitude to Khamenei, despite the fact that being a dictator, Khamenei has more power anyways. Few thousands people at most, participating in organized occasions, in a nation of 80 million people mean nothing. With regard to people participating in presidential elections, I was in Iran when Rouhani was elected, the regime basically coerced people to participate, as they would lose their jobs, get expelled from schools, colleges and even jailed and executed if they didn't have the token that proves that they participated in the election. When the despotic Shah announced the White Revolution, millions of people attended (maybe were forced to attend). Khomeini had many followers, and the number of his followers were amplified many times over the years due to the policies of despotic dictator Pahlavi. People just wanted to get rid of Pahlavi dictator. Pahlavi dictator could actually hold on to power if he used the then best Air Force in the Middle East to fight his opponents. But he was stupid enough to release his opponents from jail, put in jail his supporters, elect Shapour Bakhtiar, one of his opponent, to power and leave Iran. Only time Iran actually had democracy was when Mohammad Mosaddegh was democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Slakr: As you see, Shazaami ignored this discussion and kept on violating 3RR and not respecting the policies for the issue of a disputed source. I had reminded him that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Mhhossein (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- The fact that Ankhsoprah2 and Strivingsoul did exactly the same thing (but more), and you don't even mention them, shows you have no interest in Wikipedia's rules, you just want to silence users who don't share your views, which probably are very similar to those two editors (based on your edits and your user page).--Shazaami (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- You were aggressively reverting, even after I warned both of you. But, Strivingsoul did not keep on doing that. Meanwhile, you committed in another edit war against Ankhsoprah2. Mhhossein (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that Ankhsoprah2 and Strivingsoul did exactly the same thing (but more), and you don't even mention them, shows you have no interest in Wikipedia's rules, you just want to silence users who don't share your views, which probably are very similar to those two editors (based on your edits and your user page).--Shazaami (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notice - 1RR[edit]
All editors on this page are restricted to making one revert per 24 hours to it (subject to rare exceptions, e.g., reverting IP users or clear and obvious vandalism) for the period of one month due indefinitely to discretionary sanctions general 1RR restrictions for all articles related to the palestine-israel conflict. --slakr\ talk / 07:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: struck the "one month" portion and updated the sanctions, because I forgot all articles under this set of arbitration remedies are subject to 1RR due to the closure of the case. Apologies for any confusion; I'll update the notices presently. --slakr\ talk / 08:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Hope we can settle the disputes in this page with your arbitration. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Ali Khamenei. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070615024327/http://www.iran57.com/Rafsanjani%20T%20dar%20sal%2068%20mokhalef%20rahbarie%20fardi'%20Ilna%2016%20Azar%201385.doc to http://www.iran57.com/Rafsanjani%20T%20dar%20sal%2068%20mokhalef%20rahbarie%20fardi'%20Ilna%2016%20Azar%201385.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Archived sources still need to be checked
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- High-importance Islam-related articles
- B-Class Muslim scholars articles
- High-importance Muslim scholars articles
- Muslim scholars task force articles
- B-Class Shi'a Islam articles
- Top-importance Shi'a Islam articles
- Shi'a Islam task force articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Iran articles
- High-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2015)
- Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links