Jump to content

Talk:University of Chicago Persian antiquities dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Could somebody find a English version of this article? If not, could somebody write the ref tag in accordance with {{cite news}}? Also, what is the exact ruling being made and why? This article doesn't really make any sense in regards to this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; took information from the Sun-Times article and filled in details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in Persian language

[edit]

Could somebody read the Persian articles and add in the cites if they repeat the information. I'd also hope that the Persian language articles can add more to the "Iranian response" section. I feel that trying to use only English language sources only contributes to our systemic bias. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Is this the best title? Isn't calling it a "crisis" sort of imply a POV? I mean, I would say that the plaintiffs wouldn't consider this a crisis. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to add the details of the bombing itself and consider the rest of the article as part of its aftermath. I'd like to have a discussion first, as I would hate to have some sort of page move war going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed a crisis. A huge collection of Persian antiques have been taken hostage in US. It produced nation-wide anger and fear in Iran. Two decades ago, Iranians took several American diplomats as hostages in order to put them on trial. It is called the hostage "crisis". It produced nation-wide anger in the US. The two events are very similar in nature. Sangak 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the title of this article is poor. The crisis part isn't a POV issue, its an issue of fact. The Iran Hostage Crisis example does not work because unlike in that case, this is not a militarized or otherwise escalated dispute, whereas the hostage crisis was highly volitile. In international relations, crisis is well defined. AlexeiSeptimus 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crisis is not necessarily political or military. It can be economic etc or in our case an attack on cultural heritage of a nation. Of course this is a crisis in our eyes as Iranians. Americans or European will not care naturally as they are not losing anything here (if not benefitting).

Also: Assume that there are two countries one strong (A) and the other one weak (B). when B threatens and attacks A, A can use news agencies, and United Nations and many other means to show that some thing terrible happened. People in the world will notice that and it will be considered a crisis. When A threatens or attacks B, B will not have any access to the media and no body will notice that. Even if others notice it they will not mention it because being close to A is beneficial for them.

On the same line you see that when one Israeli soldier was kidnapped by palestinians, it was considered a crisis but kidnapping Iranian diplomats by United States has not been even condemned by a single country or United Nations![1] Both kidnapping were inhumane and the latter one illegal but the world reaction was terribly different. In any case, the attack on Persian antiques is a terrible crisis for Iranians and it is mainly a threat to our identity and culture (and not much politics). Sangak 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The University has been working in Iran for decades and transfered a huge number of pieces from Iran. If they refuse to give it back, it will be considered a cultural terrorism by Iranians or a terrible cultural and national catastrophe. It costs for us more that september 11 for the United States. Sangak 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about crisis in international relations here. This is a crisis for Iranians as we are the only one suffering. Here is the definition from Webster:
  • Crisis: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome.
  • Crisis: a situation that has reached a critical phase.

Sangak 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The title is clearly POV. A neutral title is readily available, namely, the caption of the lawsuit that's central to the whole issue. JamesMLane t c 23:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, in all these years, that never occurred to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea. I suggest Iranian response section be expanded to reflect the cultural issues and passionate feelings (I think the word "crisis" might be better employed there.) Throwawaygull (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removal of the word "threat" from the first sentence

[edit]

I replaced the word "threat," which was repeated twice and seemed designed against neutrality. A lawsuit brought before a judge is not a threat, it's a legal action. Moreover, it seems this talk page has devolved into a flame war based on nationalistic politics. It is clear that many of the posters have strong POVs on the subject and may be better off recusing themselves. Throwawaygull (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


View of the Iranian government

[edit]

Sangak, why did you remove the sentence "Strachman said that Iranian commentators had been going into "crazy conspiracy theories", including calling it a Zionist conspiracy."? I didn't want to start an edit war by just inserting the language back in, so please remember to use edit summaries. I think it helps to emphasize the point (albeit probably not in the best language) that the Iranian are mad at everyone involved, including the greater American society. I think it would help if someone could read the actual Persian article, which might have more on what the Iranians are saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language used is dirty and the argument is baseless. There is no "conspiracy theory" there. It is clear who is attacking and stealing our heritage. No need for speculations! Moreover Iranian government's reaction was very moderate. I would say even weak. Where is the "crazy" reaction? Also when Iran's minister says something in the name of Iran, only US minister's comment can be put next to it not a minor's comment. The section is about Iranian response, I suppose. Sangak 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to contact other experienced Iranian-American wikipedians like User:Zereshk for further discussions. Sangak 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I am a bit offended by this statement: "Iranian are mad at everyone involved, including the greater American society". Aren't you mad at everyone involved in hostage crisis including the greater Iranian society?! Sangak 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lawyer's comment is notable only when he/she talks in a formal language and in a well-defined framework. Any other comments are considered personal comment of an ordinary citizen. Sangak 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaving this discussion: I have spent enough time on this article. I have other commitments now. I hope others will come and participate. Good luck. Sangak 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure what happened here. I simply wanted to avoid an edit war and ask an honest question. I'm putting the sentence back in because, regardless of what Sangak says, the Iranian government is going into conspiracy theories because they probably blame this on the US government. Again, does anyone have some other source that's better? I'm sorry that I offended you so much, Sangak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American government is also going into conspiracy theories because they often blame any terrorist attacks in the world on the Iran government (and the whole Iranian society in this particular case). The Bush Administration's anti-terrorism rhetoric could be characterized as a form of conspiracy theory, epitomized by Bush's use of "Axis of Evil".[2] Peace! and bye!Sangak 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the guidelines on talk pages. I am not going to even respond to this comment as this is not the purpose of this talk page. I would hope you would strike and move on. Please discuss only the article and how it should be written. My point was that a citation that was in the article *at that time* had a quote from someone that the Iranian government was alleging a conspiracy theory, which is exactly what I put: this person says that the Iranian government is saying this. However, even though I felt it was ridiculous, something about their view needed to be said. Thank you for finding those other articles; I was hoping to find something directly from Iranian officials (which is why I asked if someone could read the articles in Persian) to use. I will work on helping to format the citations for you and please don't take it personal and assume good faith. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reference to "you" in my comment!! The above comment what just a copy-paste from "Strombeck, Andrew. Whose Conspiracy Theory? Postmodern Culture - Volume 15, Number 2, January 2005, The Johns Hopkins University Press" . It is directly related to our discussion as this is where the whole story starts. You also deleted my addition saying that "there is no need to insert POV views about him." The short statement that you deleted was a copy-paste from the Washington post article where you got the quote from! In any case, I am sorry if I overreacted. I think the article is now in a good shape (a more or less balanced treatment, after User:Zereshk additions). Sangak Talk 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS:thanks for formating the references. Sangak Talk 11:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame

[edit]

Regardless of the Iranian government, a lawsuit targeting museums in the U.S. on behalf of suicide-bombing victims in Israel is simply ridiculous, and as UNESCO stated, 'illegal' under international law.74.237.28.5 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the legal posture -- the museums are not themselves being held liable. The collection action is against Iranian assets, which are being held by the museums. If I win a judgment against you, and you refuse to pay, I can go to your bank and collect directly. This is no different, except for the complexity of whether these particular assets are immune from a collection action by operation of U.S. law. Lhutz 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous; Of course this is different, we are not speaking of merely assets, we are speaking of heritage beyond any humanly given value. This is increasingly becoming an issue on morals and common ethics, rather than that of jurisprudence. The museums may not be held liable in this certain case, but the fact that the, excuse my language, greedy lizard-eating sack of shit, Strachman turns the plight of suicide-bomb victims into a collect of antiquities, explicitly stating "My clients are interested in antiquities", regarding items which were on lease, is the absolute rock bottom of a materialist outlook on priceless items, and the epitome of thievery, and an absolute spit on Iranian integrity. That alone revealed the true nature of this farce.

Luckily the items are beyond the reach of this blood-sucking, immoral attorney. The lawsuit is not only illegal, but like Vagises once said to Crassus: "Hair will first have to grow on my palm before you shall ever set your eyes upon Seleucia", likewise we know the fate of Marcus Licinius Crassus. Strachman goes hunting for treasures, but like Crassus found nothing but death in the deserts of Assyria, Strachman will find nothing to collect, nor will the "mourners" who suddenly caved into the tomb-raider mentality with their "interest in antiquities".

A legal farce, that is what it is, in a nutshell.--The Persian Cataphract (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this ever resolved?

[edit]

Or will it just hang in legal limbo until if/when the USA and the Islamic Republic of Iran normalize relations? 67.149.29.8 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update this

[edit]

Someone should find out the current status of this and update it. It looks like nothing substantive has been added for years. --Jtle515 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

was this really a crisis?

[edit]

The title "University of Chicago Persian antiquities crisis" strikes me as overblown. I've looked at the cited sources (at least those that are still available, many are dead links) and I don't see any that use the word crisis. The lede of the cited Washington Post article describes it as a dispute: [3]. I'd like to rename the article University of Chicago Persian antiquities dispute. GabrielF (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- This was a rather slow-moving legal case which had some potential for affecting U.S.-Iran relations, but which it's hard to consider a "crisis" at any point... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=44044&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
    Triggered by \biranmania\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Chicago Persian antiquities crisis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Chicago_Persian_antiquities_dispute&oldid=1257966844"