Talk:Ali Khamenei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2017[edit]

At his President of Iran section, under the Supreme Leader thing, can you put Himself under the First Supreme Leader? He also served for a while under himself. Hiitsmebobby (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hiitsmebobby: Can you elaborate on your request? What do you mean by "He also served for a while under himself." --Mhhossein talk 03:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein: I mean, under his job as President of Iran, there is a section of Supreme Leader. It only says the first supreme leader of Iran, but he became Iran's leader while serving as President, so his name has to go under neath the Supreme Leader on his President of Iran job. Hiitsmebobby (Here's bobby's talk page.) 23:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I've read your request four times now, and I don't understand what change you're asking for. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Neither did I...--Mhhossein talk 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Glad it wasn't just me Face-smile.svg. Since you had edited the article since the edit request, I looked to see if any of your changes might have addressed whatever the OP was requesting, but I gave up. Maybe you inadvertently fixed it! RivertorchFIREWATER 16:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I can elaborate on this one: The point Hiitsmebobby is raising is that Ali Khamenei became the supreme leader of Iran in June 1989. He was already the president at the time and continued as incumbent president until August that year. Therefore, for a short period he was both the president and the leader of Iran. This leads to Hiitsmebobby's request to list Ali Khamenei along with Ruhollah Khomeini as "supreme leader" under "3rd president of Iran" cell of the table in the right side of this page. (P.S. I am not sure if this is a good idea.) Goharshady (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2017[edit]

The current pronunciation is distinctly Arabic and does not follow the Persian native way. Please consider changing it to this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fa-ir-ali-khamenei_(1).ogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goharshady (talkcontribs) 14:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2017[edit]

Please change "Council of Experts" to "Assembly of Experts" and link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts 75.140.147.1 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Donewbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Source on claim that Khamenei is long?[edit]

"Comparatively, **Khamenei is the second longest head of state in the Middle East (after Oman's Sultan Qaboos)** as well as the second longest-serving Iranian leader of the last century, after Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.[20]"

It seems unusual to make a claim about a global leader's personal length without any citation. Real talk, I want to change it to 'longest serving' but the page is locked for people who haven't had accounts for more than 30 days. 150.203.188.37 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017[edit]

Could somebody please delete the drive-by POV tag in section Ali Khamenei#Zionism and Israel? No discussion started on talk page. Also this content should be paraphrased and restored, since Wikipedia doesn't approve censorship of inconvenient information. Thank you very much.--190.31.127.101 (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I just read through the "Zionism and Israel" section and saw no glaring neutrality issues. Therefore, I have dropped the POV tag for now. Before restoring it, I agree that @Mhhossein: should explain his concerns on the talk page. I have no comment on the second part of this request.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging: The second part is asking to remove the close paraphrasing issue and restore the content, which I have mentioned in my edit summary. Regarding the POV tag, I had already mentioned the reasoning behind the tag in my edit summary, too. However, as it seems required, I'll open a topic on this issue. --Mhhossein talk 07:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Zionism and Israel" POV issue[edit]

The section, as I said earlier, is "mostly reflecting the views of the sources apparently opposing the subject." Counter views are required to balance the section and achieve neutrality. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 08:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have two issues with your comments. First, the statement: the section "mostly reflecting the views of the sources apparently opposing the subject." ignores the fact that the sources that are used in the section are reliable sources. As such, we cannot say that "they oppose the subject". Second, when you say Counter views are required to balance the section and achieve neutrality. What exactly are those "counter views"? It is widely known that Khamenei is not a friend of Israel and has made many polemical statements against that state and its people. What "counter views" are you proposing? That he has not made polemical statements against Israel and the Jews? Or that he is justified making them? To me the section you tagged is factual, relies on reliable sources and does not need an NPOV tag. Before you tag any section you must submit your rationale in full detail and you should propose how you plan to address the issues in detail. What you have said, up to this point, falls far short of that requirement and your tagging seems unwarranted and should go. Dr. K. 14:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in the discussion. First of all we know that reliable sources can be biased (see WP:BIASED), so my statement never discredits the sources. Let me reword the rest of your comment: "present some of those so-called opposing views!" I'll present if I find some. Btw, I can't find "Before you tag any section you must submit your rationale in full detail and you should propose how you plan to address the issues in detail. What you have said, up to this point, falls far short of that requirement and your tagging seems unwarranted and should go" in any of WP pages. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This and this are of those sources and you may find some more. --Mhhossein talk 18:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think your response makes things any clearer. In fact I am still not sure why you tagged the section, since you still have not explained your rationale for doing so. If you think sources are biased, go to WP:RSN and ask their opinion about the sources you think are biased. Just calling them biased does not make them so. Also copying my comments when I tell you that before tagging you should provide a full and detailed rationale does nothing to advance your arguments. I stand by my comments, since it is logical and a matter of good manners before tagging to explain why you tag articles. Tagging without giving detailed explanations is simply bad practice. If you have a good reason for your tagging, bring it forward and be clear. Giving me links, without explaining why, is simply not good practice. So, be clear. What exactly is your problem? Dr. K. 19:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: "My statement never discredits the sources," I already said. I think they are reliable enough but might be biased which is natural, and there's no need to go to RSN. Briefly, there are explanations by khamenei about his comments. The section is POV without those explanations. --Mhhossein talk 10:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead then and add these explanations. There is no need for that tag to remain, especially since it's been there since April without any discussion. Just make sure you use reliable sources. Dr. K. 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein, Khamenei himself said those things in public! It was reported by reliable secondary sources. Your proposal is like saying "Hitler said a lot of bad things about Jews, but it's POV to show this fact in Wikipedia unless we can find something to balance it by showing that actually the führer didn't hate them so much." Or saying "he didn't mean it, bad translation, etc." NPOV is NOT supposed to whitewash direct quotes and known facts. There's no reason to leave the POV tag other than "I don't like it." And please, restore the content you removed here, here and here. You know you can change the words easily, so don't try the taqiyyah spoon to feed the dhimmis by using "copyright" as an excuse to remove important sourced content that gives a bad reputation to "our beloved leader."--181.90.21.85 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I already responded above. Btw, I usually don't feed the insulting IPs making Ad hominem comments. You can simply reword and restore those materials, if you feel like that. I'm just acting based on the copyright laws, which WP takes serious. --Mhhossein talk 10:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Very clever. You know this article, for whatever reason, can only be edited by extended confirmed users (I don't have one yet). So please, restore the sourced content you removed by copy-pasting the paragraphs I wrote in the section below (that's besides the discussion about the POV tag). Thanks.--190.137.18.52 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I dont see POV here, just reliable secondary sources. Before tagging full explanation should be provided regarding which sources are POV driven and why.I hope to see this, or the POV tag should be removed.Tritomex (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dr.: It would be grate if you could stop baseless accusations and instead try to fix the POV albeit well-sourced section. I noted above why I tagged the article and will add the materials next week. The readers have the right to know which parts are not balanced. If you are very concerned, you can do the edits and remove the tags. --Mhhossein talk 11:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not made any baseless accusations. You have been vague and have not provided any detailed reasons fror keeping your tag. As your contributions show, you started editing on 1 June without replying to my last post, but as soon as I reverted your tag, you immediately reverted my edit and only then you came here to start another round of obfuscation and delay. I remind you of the 1 revert per day notice at the top of this page and of the second notice which says not to restore a recerted edit without consensus:

    Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit.

  • Your edit has been reverted twice and you have edit-warred twice to restore it, although you have no consensus. This goes against the second notice, which you have already violated. I have here an IP and Tritomex who agree with me that the tag is unnecessary. So the consensus currently is with removing the tag. To put it another way: Have you seen anyone in this discussion agreeing with you on restoring the tag? The answer is no. Therefore, you have violated notice number 2 which requires consensus to restore it. Because of this, I will report you to an admin. The section does not need Khamenei's side to be written for it to be NPOV. It is already NPOV as reported by reliable sources. Khamenei is a documented anti-Israel politician. There is nothing POV in describing him as such, using reliable sources. Your tag is disruptive because it makes a perfectly balanced section appear as POV. Your edit-warring and reinstating of the tag are disruptive and must stop. Dr. K. 14:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You also say: The readers have the right to know which parts are not balanced. That's cute. Here, I have been asking you multiple times to tell us which parts are not balanced but you have provided no detailed explanation as to what parts are not balanced. Instead, your preferred editing method is edit-warring against multiple editors in a 1RR WP:ARBPIA3 article. Can you do us a courtesy and describe to us in detail which parts you think are not balanced? Especially, if we have already asked you to do so multiple times? Dr. K. 14:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
What about your recent edit war and fresh accusations? The edit was suggested by the IP (see the section below) and I agree with him/her.--Mhhossein talk 14:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I tried to add some of the materials I had promised (see [1], [2], and [3]). Almost every body jumped to the POV tag while such sources needed to be used. --Mhhossein talk 12:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Reality check: Adding sources from Fars News which is a semi-official Iranian state agency, just a government mouthpiece really, and the Tabnak news agency associated with Mohsen Rezaee, a former member of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution has actually made things worse. These are hardcore pro-Khamenei sources and simply act as Khamenei apologists. You fundamentally misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy and WP:RS. You don't make an article less POV by adding such propaganda, Khamenei mouthpiece sources to the article to carry Khamenei's self-serving statements of the Iranian fundamentalist party line trying to justify their calls for the annihilation of Israel. None of the mainstream sources in that section are near as propagandistic as the sources you have added. Now the section is unbalanced and sounds like a Khamenei apologia. It is telling that no mainstream sources carry Khamenei's self-serving propaganda, so you had to use these two extreme sources to add to that section thus making matters worse. Also look at the titles of the articles you used as reference: "The secret behind Leader's interpretations about the Zionist regime/ A rabid dog holding the reins of his supporters" and "Expressing friendship with the people of Israel [is] false, irrational and absurd". I mean c'mon. What type of trash news and sources are these? Dr. K. 16:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't twist things please. Are you saying Khamenei never said those quotes? Because I just used the sources to bring the quotes besides I made proper attributions to Khamenei's beliefs. It seems that you still fail to understand that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective! The section is much more balanced with those explanations by Khamenei (i.e. this is Khamenei himself who is explaining what he meant, not the sources.) --Mhhossein talk 14:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't twist things please. If you think in your mind that I "twist things", that doesn't necessarily mean that I really do. It may well mean that you are twisting things and you try to make a personal attack on me by twisting my arguments. So, next time try to avoid such personal attacks per WP:NPA. On the substantive issue, I repeat that we don't have to have Khamenei's twisted logic in that section for the section to be balanced. If Khamenei's twisted arguments had any merit they would have been accepted and reported by mainstream sources. Scraping them from unreliable, propaganda apologist sources is possibly WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, even these propaganda sources are useful in demonstrating how pervasive is the anti-Israeli propaganda in Iran. The titles of these sources, calling Israel a "rabid dog", are newsworthy in themselves. I think you should add them to the text of the article and then report Khamenei's quotations in them. This way, the reader gets a better idea of the Iranian anti-Israeli discourse and propaganda. I'll give it a try when I have some time. Dr. K. 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems that the cmt bothered you although no personal attack is done/meant. I really don't know what the/your problem is with this regard, but your "If Khamenei's twisted arguments had any merit..." and "...how pervasive is the anti-Israeli propaganda in Iran" shows your conflict of interest well. Needless to say that we're not here to judge whether Khamenei's quotes are "twisted" or else, rather we have to give the readers the chance of reading a well collected text on Khamenei's view of Israel by reflecting the so-called mainstream materials plus his own explanations on them. Moreover, you are free to show the readers that Khameni's quotes are "twisted", if there are reliable sources saying that. Btw, If you're going to give the readers a better understanding of "Iranian anti-Israeli discourse and propaganda", you need to find articles such as Iran–Israel relations or something like that. One more thing, there could be many reasons behind sources' avoiding to reflect Khamseni's logic. The sources I used are well reliable for the quotations. --Mhhossein talk 15:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems that the cmt bothered you although no personal attack is done/meant. Let's get real here. You tell me that I "twist things" and then you pretend to tell me that "no personal attack is done/meant"? Please, review the WP:NPA policy again. Your comment ...shows your conflict of interest well. is intellectually unacceptable and another personal attack. There is no "conflict of interest" on my part. That I have an opinion about Khamenei, this does not translate into a "conflict of interest". I am surprised you don't understand that. Let me give you an example: Do you have to be neutral to Adolf Hitler to be able to edit his article? I doubt that. Many people are horrified by that dictator, yet, they edit his article without any problems, as long as they keep a neutral point of view about the dictator. I do the same thing here. I think Khamenei's attacks on Israel are twisted, but that does not affect my NPOV when I edit his article. Do you get my point now? So, please retract your COI allegation against me. I will address the rest of your points when your retract the COI PA against me. Dr. K. 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I think there was a misunderstanding because "determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity." I get your point but I did not say that you're editing the article in biased manner and hence your example does not apply here. --Mhhossein talk 05:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Stop this nonsense. When you quote from WP:COI, you add more nonsense to this discussion. Read the definition of what you just quoted to me: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. In what way do you think, according to the definition of COI on Wikipedia, I have a COI when I edit this article? Obviously, I expect you to retract this nonsense. Dr. K. 06:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
That's why I say there's a misunderstanding. I did not accuse you of COI editing. I just said you had COI. "I did not say that you're editing the article in biased manner," reads my previous comment. --Mhhossein talk 12:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'll play along. There is, after all, a chance you don't realise what general COI means. Can you explain, in plain English, what do you view as my "Interest" regarding Khamenei, and where do you see my "Conflict"? Use the general Conflict of interest article as your guide and describe to me what is my COI, (as opposed to COI editing), regarding Khamenei. Dr. K. 13:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming good faith, but I did not misunderstand. Read my comments once again please. --Mhhossein talk 14:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I asked you to do a specific thing:

Can you explain, in plain English, what do you view as my "Interest" regarding Khamenei, and where do you see my "Conflict"? Use the general Conflict of interest article as your guide and describe to me what is my COI, (as opposed to COI editing), regarding Khamenei.

and you replied: Read my comments once again please. It is quite clear that you have no reply to my question, since you cannot justify your characterisation. I advise you one thing: Never do this again. It is a personal attack and it is also dishonest, especially when you cannot defend your own words by describing in plain English your weasel accusation that I have a COI regarding Khamenei. Dr. K. 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't keep on with this thread. In fact I was trying to tell you that it was you who had misunderstood COI. having COI does not necessarily mean that one edits with bias. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 10:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't keep on with this thread. In fact I was trying to tell you that it was you who had misunderstood COI. having COI does not necessarily mean that one edits with bias. You think that if you repeat your nonsense enough times, it will stick. It won't. You are not fooling anyone. Get a WP:CLUE before it is too late. But I will still ask you what I asked you before:

Can you explain, in plain English, what do you view as my "Interest" regarding Khamenei, and where do you see my "Conflict"? Use the general Conflict of interest article as your guide and describe to me what is my COI, (as opposed to COI editing), regarding Khamenei.

Not that I expect a concise answer of course. I know you suffer from a bad case of WP:IDHT. Dr. K. 12:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 (2)[edit]

There have been a series of deletions based on copyright violations. I ask an extended confirmed user to restore the content with the following paraphrased texts (modifications are welcome, of course):

HERE:

According to The Telegraph, despite Khamenei wants to project an image of austerity, he has received important commissions from the country's arms and oil industries, and there have been allegations that he and his son have amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune.[1]

HERE:

In order to consolidate his power base, Khamenei has developed close relations with the security and military establishment, while also expanding the bureaucracy inside the government and around his Beit Rahbari compound.[2]

HERE:

Some Iranians have been sent to jail for insulting him.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

Also the fifth paragraph in lead is gramatically incorrect and confusing. I suggest changing it for this one:

There have been several major protests during Khamenei's reign, including the 1994 Qazvin Protests—where, according to Al-Arabiya, around 40 people were killed and over 400 were injured—[9] the 1999 Iranian student protests, the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests, when protesters chanted "death to the dictator",[10][11] and ripped down pictures of Khamenei,[12] as well as the 2011–12 Iranian protests, among others. Khamenei asked to maximize the amount of transparency in elections in Iran, using modern technologies.[13] --181.90.21.85 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done. El_C 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Insult or Criticize[edit]

What are you doing here exactly, DR.K? Would you please avoid making original research? Your edit summary, "He was just a blogger, a critic. So were the other oppression victims. Critics," was a clear WP:OR because nearly all the sources used the word "insult". Which sources? Here you are:

  • Iranian blogger, jailed for insulting Khamenei, dies in prison (Ynet News)
  • Iran blogger jailed for Khamenei insult dies (Iran Focus)
  • Aide to Ahmadinejad sentenced to a year in jail for insulting Khamenei (PRI)
  • Journalist Gets 35 Lashes, Jail For Insulting Ayatollah (Chicagotribune)
  • ...

--Mhhossein talk 14:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please leave the rhetorical questions and the clueless accusations of original research, not to mention the loud bolding. Iranians have been sent to jail for insulting him is an obviously POV sentence, because it adopts the illiberal regime's terminology and, in Wikipedia's voice no less, convicts the critics and political opponents of Khamenei of "insulting" him. I first changed this sentence on 1 April 2017 from the POV-weasel

Some of the activists insulting him have been sentenced.

to the more sober

Iranians have been sentenced becaused they criticised him.

A few days ago, while reading the left side of the diff of a recent EP edit request, I happened to notice that the slightly modified sentence Iranians have been sent to jail for criticizing him. had been inexplicably commented out. On top of that, looking to the right of the same diff, I noticed that the old weasel-POV version of the sentence, i.e. Some Iranians have been sent to jail for insulting him. had been restored. Noticing that, I again corrected the POV term "insulting" to "criticizing", only to be reverted with a patronising and hectoring edit-summary to boot: POV inadvertently inserted, (read the sources before making such changes, plz There was nothing inadvertent on my part for changing "insulting" to "criticizing" and I read the sources carefully. CNN uses "allegedly", PRI uses "purportedly", or as The Guardian mentions, Under Iranian law comments deemed insulting to the supreme leader carry possible prison sentences, although in practice critics are often not arrested immediately. The keyword here is "deemed". We cannot use the unqualified word "insulting" because this is to use Wikipedia's voice to convict the Iranian dissidents in the article. This is the real POV. So, as The Guardian does, we call them "critics" or use qualifiers such as "purportedly/allegedly insulting". So, leave the condescending edit-summaries and the edit-warring. Dr. K. 14:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we need to show they were arrested for what the government "deemed" to be insulting, but also can't accept your bogus version, i.e. using "criticism", which's clearly WP:OR. However, I think the sentence gives the reader the impression that all Iranians are arrested for doing so, which is at least in contradiction with the Guardian article you referred to. That should be fixed, too. Btw, please avoid edit war accusation (you already reverted my edit (revert) favored by two users). --Mhhossein talk 14:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
You call my term "critic" bogus/OR? What would, according to your opinion, be the correct term? "Insulters"? These Iranians are dissidents/critics of the regime and their criticism is deemed insulting by the oppressive regime. This is what The Guardian calls them: "Critics": Under Iranian law comments deemed insulting to the supreme leader carry possible prison sentences, although in practice critics are often not arrested immediately. Since The Guardian, and many other newspapers, use the term "critic" or "dissident", these are widely-used terms, not "bogus" or OR as you allege. As far, as the term "Iranians" without using the weasel qualifier "Some" that you seem to prefer, it is understood from the context of the sentence that these are not "All Iranians", which would be nonsense. In any case, I have an idea of a version of this sentence which would resolve these semantic problems. Dr. K. 15:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes it's OR unless you can prove otherwise using RSs about the topic. Using phrases such as 'what the government deemed insulting' is more fitting and has the benefit of staying with the source. What's your suggestion? --Mhhossein talk 17:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is the final version of the sentence.--Dr. K. 17:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dr.K.: That's better now, thanks. However, there's something I'd like to discuss here. The citations are showing three cases of arrest we have jumped into conclusion using these sources. The conclusion is not explicitly mentioned in any of the sources, AFAIK. What do you think? Shouldn't a source with this explicit conclusion be found instead? --Mhhossein talk 13:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be best. Although, if a source does not explicitly state that, then we can put multiple examples as we have now. It's not perfect. It's a bit synthy, but it is done in various articles, Dr. K. 13:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I added another six cases from the 2016 US State Department human rights in Iran report. Dr. K. 14:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I also added the 2015 State Department report which explicitly states

    During the year the government arrested students, journalists, lawyers, political activists, women’s activists, artists, and members of religious minorities; charged many with crimes such as “propaganda against the system” and “insulting the supreme leader;” and treated such cases as national security trials

    The same quote is on other yearly reports of the SD. Dr. K. 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dr.K.: Well known facts are not just found in single opinions. Can you support your claim using a reliable source? --Mhhossein talk 05:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No pinging please. I have this page watchlisted. Aren't three reliable sources enough? This seems like a well-known, widely publicised, and accepted fact, supported by multiple sources. Dr. K. 05:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Did you check your sources??? All of your sources are by Sajjadpour making the claim even a stronger single opinion. --Mhhossein talk 05:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Did your keyboard get stuck? These multiple question marks are a bit excessive, not to mention annoying. In any case I added two more sources stating that

Any criticism of Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, is interpreted by authorities as insulting the supreme leader.

I think this should be enough. Dr. K. 05:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Read the material once again. "Khamenei is considered very sensitive to criticism" is a single opinion not supported by the sources. The second part's the same. Other sources you added are just says "Any criticism of Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, is interpreted by authorities as insulting the supreme leader" it does not say "Public criticism of Khamenei has been described as "a virtual guarantee of a prison sentence." Please modify or remove the two sentences. --Mhhossein talk 06:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I fail to see how a well-publicised opinion, carried by Google Books, PBS and a reliable website cannot stay in the article. As far as the second sentence, that is also reliable and accepted and should also stay in the article. Dr. K. 06:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Did you really fail to see that those sources have identical material belonging to Karim Sajjadpour? As for the second part, you also failed to see that I did not say it was not reliable, rather I said it's a single opinion and thrusting it as an accepted fact is not good (assuming good faith as you did). Regards. --Mhhossein talk 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Did you really fail to see that those sources have identical material belonging to Karim Sajjadpour? I can see your battleground mentality. You shower your perceived opponents with all kinds of accusations ("COI", "fail to see", "twist things", "read again", just to name a few). Did you read the first sentence of my previous reply?

I fail to see how a well-publicised opinion, carried by Google Books, PBS and a reliable website cannot stay in the article.

See, I know, it is an opinion. It is the opinion of a single person. But it was publicised by the American Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and by Google books. That makes it accepted and widely disseminated. The second part that "Iranian authorities consider criticism of Khamenei as insulting the leader and the act can carry lengthy prison terms" is a widely accepted fact/no brainer. I am astonished you seem to dispute that. Dr. K. 17:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Two simple things: 1-Being reliable can not justify turning a single opinion into a broad one! (Do you really object it?) 2- You need to find a reliable source for "Iranian authorities consider criticism of Khamenei as insulting the leader and the act can carry lengthy prison terms," which is a single opinion at the moment. No need to mention WP:UNDUE, single opinions need to be used using proper attributions. --Mhhossein talk 10:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Two simple things: 1-Being reliable can not justify turning a single opinion into a broad one! 1: The opinion that "Khamenei has always been notoriously thin-skinned." is given by an expert and it is carried by reliable sources. As much as you would like, this opinion cannot be erased from the article. 2: "Iranian authorities consider any criticism of Khamenei as an insult to him, which can be punished by lengthy prison sentences." is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact carried by multiple reliable sources:

Iranian authorities consider any criticism of Khamenei as an insult to him, which can be punished by lengthy prison sentences.<ref name="The TelegraphUK">{{cite news|title=Iranian becomes hero after criticising Ayatollah Khamenei to his face|publisher=The Telegraph|date=6 November 2009|quote=Mahmoud Vahidnia has received an outpouring of support from government opponents for the challenge – unprecedented in a country where criticising the supreme leader is a crime punishable by prison.}}</ref><ref name="Union Tribune">{{cite news|author1=ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press|title=Iran reformer sentenced to jail, exile and fine|url=http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-iran-reformer-sentenced-to-jail-exile-and-fine-2010dec15-story.html|publisher=The San Diego Union Tribune|date=25 December 2010|quote=Any criticism of Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, is interpreted by authorities as insulting the supreme leader.}}</ref><ref name="Gulf News">{{cite news|title=Activist sentenced to jail, exile and fine in Iran|url=http://gulfnews.com/news/mena/iran/activist-sentenced-to-jail-exile-and-fine-in-iran-1.731582|agency=Gulf News|quote=Any criticism of Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, is interpreted by authorities as insulting the supreme leader.}}</ref><ref name="Gulf News2">{{cite news|title=Khamenei loyalists take to the streets|url=http://www.pressreader.com/uae/gulf-news/20091213/283523676951240|publisher=Gulf News|quote=...to God and any criticism of him is interpreted by authorities as insulting Islam and punishable by long jail terms.</ref>

As much as you would have liked to, it cannot be removed from the article. Dr. K. 12:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, your edit-summary that Only AP says this. Gulf News uses AP's article is misleading. It is carried by the Telegraph as well, because, like I said, it is a very well-known fact. Please do not add weasel qualifiers to reliable, well-known facts, just to obscure well-known criticism of the head of this illiberal regime. Dr. K. 12:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm simply ignoring your baseless accusations and would prefer to concentrate on the article instead. Please (this "please" can be replaced by any stronger word you know showing my sincere request) note that the Telegraph source is not supporting the "Iranian authorities consider any criticism of Khamenei as an insult to him." Moreover, you need to show us those so-called "other RS[s]." At the moment this is only AP saying "any criticism...". --Mhhossein talk 14:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't use weasel edit-summaries like Please keep cool to insinuate nonsense about me in your usual WP:WEASEL fashion. I am not using stunts like multiple question marks in my answers, like you do, and I am not attacking you as having a COI, or that you "twist" things etc. These things are all of your misbehaviour and you should own it. You keep violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Stop doing that. Check Gulf News from Press reader. It is not by AP and it supports AP. So we have two RS supporting the same thing. Dr. K. 15:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: Could you please stop edit warring? Please stop repeating your baseless accusations. Please (with the power of n) note that the Gulf News from Press reader is using the report by AP (the article begins with "Tehran (AP) can you see it?). --Mhhossein talk 15:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can you, as in, are you able, to communicate, in any other mode, other than PA mode? Just curious. Leave all this nonsense about edit-warring. You keep removing material related to criticism against Khamenei, left, right, and centre, and then you complain when people restore it. I think you have WP:OWN issues, on top of the other issues I discuss just above. Now, to the point: Yes, I saw the press reader report, and verified it is from AP. But, this is a different report. So, now we have two reports from AP with two, slightly different quotes, but, still, not identical. We also have the Telegraph RS mentioning something similar to the AP report, although not identical. I think with suitable rephrasing we can accomodate both. If you disagree, let's ask Pahlevun. I think s/he is a fair, and civil editor. Dr. K. 20:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm bound to ethical codes, be it a part of WP rules or not. I think we two can resolve the issue as we did earlier working on the sentence about 'criticism-insult'. If you still assume my good faith, which I think you do, you'll see that my edit summary, i.e. "Please keep cool", was really meant to ask you keep cool, what I did myself before asking you. On this case, I think AP is the only source for this allegation and Gulf News can't be counted as a separate source or a different report just because of rephrasing. Just see how the portion you used is closely paraphrased in both. The Telegraph is focusing on the outcome of criticism and is not saying something similar. Making proper attributions is generally a resolving technique under the circumstances. --Mhhossein talk 06:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Iran[edit]

Copied from my user talk page. --T*U (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey again, I edited Ali Khamenei because at that time, Iran's official name was the Imperial State of Iran from 1935 to 1979. So it may be relevant. Supreme Dragon (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Supreme Dragon: If there was an article about the Imperial State of Iran, it would be fine to link the birth place there. Linking a birth place to an article about the dynasty, however, does not make sense. --T*U (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Human rights[edit]

I'm asking @Pahlevun:, an univolved editor and 3O, to comment on this section's materials. Recently, I removed a paragraph as it was not about Khamenei and the sources were not even dealing with him. It is clearly WP:SYNTH, due to the issues I already said. However, User:Dr.K. thinks that the materials should be restored just because "almost nothing gets done in Iran without his approval. He bears great responsibility for the actions of his government." It's upsetting to see that such WP:OR materials are inserted into the article, while it's not hard to understand that none of the sources used are dealing with Khamenei. --Mhhossein talk 14:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As a reader, I think a summary of comparative human rights record in post-1989 Iran is relevant to the article. It should be noted that the content must be referenced with reliable secondary/tertiary sources, preferably talking about his role in the subject. Citing specific cases such as executions is a selective approach towards primary sources, if not SYNTH. I suggest Dr.K to rewrite the section, replacing the sources with a secondary/tertiary source. Pahlevun (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It is clearly WP:SYNTH, due to the issues I already said. However, User:Dr.K. thinks that the materials should be restored just because "almost nothing gets done in Iran without his approval. He bears great responsibility for the actions of his government." It's upsetting to see that such WP:OR materials are inserted into the article, while it's not hard to understand that none of the sources used are dealing with Khamenei. There you go again. Talking about OR, SYNTH and invoking my username as if I am responsible for this mess. But let's look at your removal of the material with edit summary: We're talking about Khamenei!. Your edit-summary mentions nothing of SYNTH, OR. It is clear from your edit-summary, that you think the record of the government has nothing to do with Khamenei, which is an obvious fallacy. That's why I reverted you. Now, if, as Pahlevun says, there are SYNTH parts to the piece I restored, I have no problem to check and rewrite, as he so kindly suggested. It is refreshing to see an editor like Pahlevun who is civil and goes to the point, without using insinuations and other similarly objectionable tactics. Pahlevun's suggestions are very fair and well-made and I fully agree with him/her. My only request to Pahlevun would be if s/he could possibly get more involved with this article, even by taking part in the discussions. This article needs editors of his/her quality. Dr. K. 20:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pahlevun: Please note that as you have already said elsewhere, "It's acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Hence, I think that " summary of comparative human rights record in post-1989 Iran is relevant to the article" can be used only if the source is on Khamenei. --Mhhossein talk 05:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Dr.K: 1- You were invoked because you reverted me. 2- We're talking about Khamenei = Don't add OR or SYNTH (in my opinion) 3- I never said "record of the government has nothing to do with Khamenei," of course it does. You need to use sources making this connection. Otherwise, the product will be SYNTH. --Mhhossein talk 06:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: That's right. And anyone interested to know more can click on the link to the main article about human rights in Iran. I think the FAQ about Bahá'í Faith should be removed too, unless it is cited by such sources, but I cannot properly judge the Spanish BBC's piece.

Many observers put the ultimate responsibility for human rights on the Supreme Leader, because the institutes accused of violations are accountable to him. (HRW for example: [4], [5]) On the other hand, the Supreme Leader defends the human rights situation in Iran on the grounds that western values have no validity in Islamic human rights and regularly complains that the accusations are political, biased and the west has double standards in evaluating Iran's record. To reflect NPOV, it should be included in my opinion. Pahlevun (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

To have a "Human rights" section devoted solely to Khameni's criticisms of human rights violations by the U.S. and the West, without any background information on human rights in Iran, is utterly ridiculous and fails WP:NPOV. The relevance of the two brief sentences on human rights in Iran is straightforward, and spelled out in the lead: Khamenei has either direct or indirect control over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well as the military and media. The Bahá'í quote adds nothing that is not already covered better in the "Minorities" section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
That "straightforward" connection is something in our minds, not in the sources. Yes, if we commit Original Research we can simply use sources regardless of whether they are dedicated to Khamenei or talking about the Khamenei-Iran human right relation. If we are going to avoid OR, we should find sources with the above characteristics. No other sources are accepted, per WP guidelines. --Mhhossein talk 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pahlevun: Could you please prepare a well sourced version of the above paragraph which you suggested. --Mhhossein talk 05:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I never said anything about a section "devoted solely to Khameni's criticisms". I believe neutral characterization of the disputes is to describe them, which includes reporting opposing views, specially when they belong to a party of the dispute. This applies to whole article, that at a glance, seems largely based on primary sources. (@Mhhossein: I'm currently focused on other articles, but my brief search shows that The Political Ideology of Ayatollah Khamenei: Out of the Mouth of the Supreme Leader of Iran (Reference 89) has a chapter on human rights and Islamic Rights or Human Rights: An Iranian Dilemma also investigates it. I hope it helps.) Pahlevun (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree. We should restore some information regarding human rights in Iran for background, as TTAAC also said, as opposed to just mentioning human rights under Khamenei and ignoring Iran altogether. For now, I have tagged the unbalanced section. Dr. K. 17:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)