Talk:Ali Khamenei/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Ali Khamenei. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Independent media

Excerpts from Ali Khamenei's 20 April 2000 speech denouncing the independent media.--Patchouli 04:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I do feel more has to be written on the widespread, and well documented, human rights abuses in Iran, which the Supreme Leader has ultimate control over and responsibility for.

Political parties

Here is another totalitarian tendency of Ali Khamenei and his cohorts.

There is a multi-party system, yet the mullahs decide who runs for the puppet positions.--Patchouli 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These kind of strong POV-revealing statements on the article talk page, in addition to your contribs, are the kind of things that make me worry you may not be seeking to present topics neutrally in the articles. Never forget that the articles are supposed to be neutral. Putting personal POV to the side is part of the challenge, but necessary for the project to function correctly. The Behnam 01:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Opposition websites cannot be accessed from inside Iran especially the secular ones. Ali Khamenei is the main individual responsible for this along with other mullahs and their stooges.--Patchouli 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed that the only criticism inside of Iran comes from Islamic reformers — no secularists in Iran. They want to flush Islam down people's throats and then assert "The law comes from the people" and that "people" want Islam.--Patchouli 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

According to that site, some groups cannot be accessed, such as faithfreedom.org. Your own little bit is saying that Khamenei is the main individual responsible for this. True or not, your source doesn't say this. It doesn't mention his "stooges" either. The Behnam 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am entitled to a wide range of vocabulary; I don't need to link every word to somewhere on the Web.--Patchouli 02:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, you are 'entitled' to use a wide range of vocabulary, like "stooges", which has a very negative connotation. At least here on the talk page, where you have let your strong POV run wild. Anyway, while you don't have link every 'word', you do have to link assertions. Your link didn't blame Khamanei at all, much less call him the main individual. Even if you find somebody who says that, it ain't gonna receive undue weight and be presented as some fact even though it is opinion. The Behnam 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Rally

Cut it out Patchouli. You keep rallying POV evidence with OR interpretations. It is really really difficult to AGF toward you and your possible edits of the page considering this kind of rallying of biased information (not to mention your contribs). WP is not the place for biased articles. The Behnam 02:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that in spite of government-organized demonstrations, many Iranian people puke when they see hear word "Islam" and "mullah". Due to lack of press freedom and Islamic totalitarianism such sentiments cannot be openly articulated.

Not all Teheran behind ayatollahs in anti-pope criticism.

--Patchouli 03:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another example. First you say that you are convinced that many Iranians "puke" about mullahs, and you support this with a biased and unreliable site, holycrime.com, which cannot reliably gauge the opinion of Iranians in general. Please stop this nonsense, and try to work towards building a neutral article, thanks. The Behnam 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind all the wikipedia articles Patchouli refers to are ones he has created or has contributed to himself, again based on his opinions. These include Islamic totalitarianism, government-organized demonstrations, enemies of Islam, Chain Murders of Iran, etc etc. You get the picture. Check all those pages if you don't believe me. Patchouli is just some liar and hater that wants to turn wikipedia into a base to run his mouth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.245.199 (talk • contribs)

Salary

What is the annual salary of Khamenei? Is it a state secret?
Any information on his net worth?

--Patchouli 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the pro-American and poor and innocent Rafsanjani, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are rich and corrupt. That is why they oppose the west. In case of Ahmadinjad he is so rich that he has an antique car from the ancient times. Happy? :D ---Gerash77 02:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong if his income is $1,000,000/year; after all, he is the head of state. Every head of state has high salary in addition to the entourage and perquisites . I wanted to figure out if there is transparency.--Patchouli 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No one in politics earn money directly from salaries, but through "donations (bribe)". I know his nickname is "geda ali" - the miserable ali; comparing that with the nicknames Akbar Shah, and Sultan of Khorasan gives you a fairly good estimate of the net worth.--Gerash77 04:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From me Lika Valentino aka Alla Khamenei I will get to his Salary later, take notation. He is not miserable nor a wretched individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likavalentino (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Payments to mullahs

Do the mullahs in Qom and elsewhere who are outside of government receive stipends?--Patchouli 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Target U.S. interests if attacked

Iran says it will target U.S. interests if attacked 8 February 2007
Tehran warns US against attacks 8 February 2007
Iran Warns U.S. It Will Retaliate if Hit 8 February 2007
Ayatollah: even Bush can be brought to his senses 8 February 2007
The Middle East on a Collision Course (5): Iran Steps up Threats to Retaliate in the Event of an American Attack 9 February 2007

This is the latest statement from Khamenei.--Patchouli 01:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Same old, same old. You might want to think about adding those to Wikinews in the meantime. metaspheres 13:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Jihad

August 19, 2005: "The Palestinian nation and the Jihadi groups of Palestine should know that negotiations did not liberate Gaza, and will never liberate anywhere.”

Khamenei is a supporter of jihad. It should be added to the article.--Patchouli 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which Muslim cleric is not a supporter of jihad? Please see Practices of the Religion. Please explain why "it should be added to the article". Agha Nader 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

One could make the same argument and thin out the Muhammad or Yusuf al-Qaradawi article. You can't say,"Well, cleric=jihadist; of course, why include it?" Because it has to be included and expanded upon with detail.--Patchouli 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Family Life and Children

I wish to add information to this section. The added information will be "Khamenei was born into a family of eight children. He is the second eldest son, and two of his brothers are also clerics. His younger brother, Hadi Khamenei, is a notable newspaper editor and cleric. Source: Robin Wright, The Last Great Revolution: Turmoil and Transformation in Iran, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000. Agha Nader 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

This proposed addition seems acceptable to me. Who else thinks it is acceptable? The Behnam 07:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats good.

Also change: He was among the first Islamic clerics not to outlaw stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. --> to allow. It looks like it has been changed many times before, but Patchouli reverted it back for obvious reasons, eventhough the source cites the fatwa as allow.

also Like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other prominent figures of the Islamic Republic, he claims to lead a modest household. is wrong, many figures such as rafsanjani dont claim to lead a modest life. revert to original according to Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, he leads a modest household. as the source stated.--Gerash77 09:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. No comments were made on Gerash's other two changes, but they seem reasonable enough. Proto::► 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no report of the Islamic Republic funding stem cell research. I suspected "Iran's clerics and political leaders actively promote science" of yellow journalism in the area of stem cell research and cloning.

This is trivial and I won't change it.--Patchouli 19:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing a cited statement without even doing a google search, is called vandalism. Many Shia marjas even allow reproductive human cloning, and hopefully they will clone human soon, even with the Amero effort to ban it worldwide:

Royana
http://www.royaninstitute.org/Dept.%20of%20Stem%20Cell/Introduction.htm
http://www.royanproteomics.ir/index.html --Gerash77 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I am taken aback. TEHRAN -- The white-coated scientists at Tehran's Royan Institute labor beneath a framed portrait of the turbaned, bearded supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the head of a state that enforces strict religious rules governing everything from how women dress to what kinds of parties people throw. On the one hand, there is the veil fetish and cranking out folks for martyrdom operations while, on the other hand, in 2002 Khamenei approved even the funding of stem cell research. --Patchouli 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You learn new things everyday. Now, please discuss the article, not the subject. The Behnam 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cloning humans

Muslims have stated that human cloning is blasphemy. Iran's Islamic clergy agree with this position. The Boston Globe article that corroborates this requires user registration.

This has a familiar ring. Ruhollah Khomeini said that sex re-assignment surgery is okay. Everyone thought he was progressive; people jumped on his Islamic bangwagon. Later, he effected the execution of homosexuals.--Patchouli 06:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the article, not the subject. Thanks. The Behnam 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This pertains to Khamenei's policy on cloning.--Patchouli 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No its not. I said some Shia marjas, not all. Some like Sadeq Rohani. Khamenei is a conservative, and hence will be careful not to upset other religions.--Gerash77 06:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

None of this "familiar ring" stuff or anything else you said was pertinent, Patchouli. It seems like you were about to set up another POV OR, actually. Good think the article is locked to stop you. The Behnam 06:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Situation in Iraq

Iran's Top Leader Says U.S. Withdrawal Is the Solution to End Instability in Iraq.--Patchouli 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons

Please add the following to the "Nuclear Weapons" section.

Ali Khamenei believes in the importance of nucler technology for civilian purposes because "oil and gas reserves cannot last forever."

--Patchouli 04:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Iran says will not halt uranium enrichment.--Patchouli 09:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Done ♠P M C♠ 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Economic policies

He has recently called for boosting privatisation of economy several times. The following info needs to be added to the article:

In 2007 Ali Khamenei addressed the government and officials to speed up moves to cut the state's economic role in the latest bid to revive a struggling privatisation programme. Iran tried to shake up its lumbering economy in 2004 by overturning Article 44 of the constitution which decreed core infrastructure should remain state-run. But private business has shown little appetite to invest in privatisations since then. Khamenei also urged the Justice Ministry to set up courts to defend ownership rights to encourage private investment.

Please some one add it. Thanks. Sangak 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I made it easier to identify the part you want added.--Patchouli 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. ♠P M C♠ 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is anywhere a picture of Khameini ? --134.147.73.237 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a picture at one point. My guess is that it had fair use problems. There should be another added. The previous one was this one. But indeed, we should try to get it in there; he is a world leader after all! The Behnam 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added 3 pictures and Grash77 added one, all of them under GFDL license. But there is a disagreement about best place for 2 of them.

I think It's more appropriate to put Image:Khamenei-60.jpg in Ali khamenei#Political life and Presidency and Image:Khamenei1.jpg in Ali khamenei#Supreme Leader (Velāyat-e faqih).Sa.vakilian(t-c)--03:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The pic locations are ok now. obviously we can't have both relevancy and good appearance together.--Gerash 77 09:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Testimonies about Khamenie

A guy has added some testimonies about Khamenie which is not acceptable in this form. I think we can add some of them if they are verifiable. Verifiability of Irna is dubious because it doesn't have online archive and also it's not a print media. It means nobody can check it. However some of them may be useful to show for examples Ayatollah Khomeini's viewpoint about him. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a newbie.. hmm I think I have to meet all the requirements. May I add Ayatullah Khomeini's veiwpoints only then?

And is online link not acceptable? If I add other site references then will it be acceptable?

Also why the external links are removed? They were really good existing links about Ayatullah Khemenei!!

Shukranlillah 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can add any relevant information which is reliable.(WP:A). Unfortunately we can't check IRNA because it doesn't have online archive. Can you find online or print version of these quotations. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the external links were OK, but the info you provided for the links (ie Imam Khamene'i (hafizahuallah)) was not encyclopedic, i think its ok to add the websites as they have relevant info. Regarding the Testimonies , we should summarize the info, as it is too long for to the article. I added the text here for reference.--Gerash 77 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error

Under Foregin Policy in the Israel-Palestine section "wiped of the map" should be "wiped off the map" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.110.56.156 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing that out. The spelling has been corrected. The Behnam 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

quote

did he really say 'wiped 'of' the map'? shouldnt it be off, i cant changed it because its protected

The validity of that translation has been contested, true, but the article describes it as an "alleged remark," so the fact that there has been disagreement is implied. The Behnam 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Grand Ayatollah?

Khamenei is not a Grand Ayatollah. He is just an Ayatollah. The title Grand Ayatollah is reserved only for the clerics of the highest rank (Marja') who are universally acclaimed by shia's.

Precursor to a Holocaust

According to the article; "Khamenei has said that human rights are a fundamental principle underlying Islamic teachings, including the rights to live, to be free, to benefit from justice and to welfare."

Pretty much all there was under his 'human rights' section. Hope the additional information I have cited has been enlightening. Peter Deer 02:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Recent Edit titled "Is he a dictator?" by 206.222.17.62

Khamenei's interpretation of Islamic law in domestic affairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Khamenei&oldid=202602558 explains Khamenei's interpretation of Islamic law. Here is what seems funny:

The Quran doesn't specifically call for compulsory hijab. Khamenei dictates that has to be the case
The Quran clearly states that there should be a jizya levied on non-Muslims. Khamenei disagrees and doesn't support such an idea.--71.118.44.121 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[No offense he adores me, i do not wear anything besides western/european fashion, and delegates as i ask of dad and the president] I am contrasting this on April 6, 2008 from FBI NYC 26 Federal Plaza, and me Lika Valentino Aka Alla Khamenei/Khameini, Ali Khamenei does not dictate the HIJAB or any other Muslim Dress Code of orders on any Civilians or Religious Followers he himself stated it is a shaming to the body, religious values, so forth, i do not have to wear anything, nor by any order of my father Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad has been supporting my American Western Fashion Sense/Movement, he himself has removed the scarves alone off of some citizens heads to prove a point, no we do NOT support any religious faction of hijab. He who has even provided me the rights to have delegated a warrant to stari decist on those in Iran's 2007 scandal of Dress Code Police, where we have been arresting those members of the Police, Iranian Divisions who have been forcing those women, and men to wear certain clothings styles by the Muslim Dress Code of which is a Sin against the Real Muslim Religious Values, and my father has not objected to my fight against these rules, regulations, and than Ahmadinejad has been upholding the arrest of the Officers NOT Civilians in Iran. I wear, and model, do as i please, with the support of my brothers, sisters, fathers, and the military, and ministry of defense without any slander, my American Intelligence Division Significant others have been also accepted as members to be in the Khamenei family, so forth.

Last note as his daughter i have been wearing short little mini skirts, with hair, make up, and delegating command on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Iranian Ministry of Defense, State and National Security Laws, So forth, with President Ahmadinejad as my Fashion Stylist even without being slurred at with him providing me with the liscence rights to an Iranian DNA Mouse of which is now a pet to me, I have Ted Turner of CNN News, and President Bush, and all CIA and FBI Agents of 26 Federal Plaze as witness, as witness to this since of 2007. As a daughter, i have been in my tight straight leg jeans, or mini skirts delegating over the iranian military and they skip hop with statements without any arguments or any slurring of at my dress code, or anything within a muslim dress law, with upholding of my views, rights, dress code, and than enacted as in literally enforcing this, they have been without hesitation or any shame with clearly in Iranian news articles to the Public, taking me seriously not disregarding anything nor arguing with me over my dress western european dress without the ISLAM DRESS of HIJAB. Take notation of Grand Ayatollah Khamenei aka papa to me, last words, the JIHAB is ISLAM, Grand Aytollah of Iran Statement was "I am MUSLIM, ok difference is ISLAM AND MUSLIM does not require to wear JIHAB shaming of body, and rights, freedome, so forth, Al Qaeda wears, and enforces such ISLAM DRESS CODES NOT REAL CLEAN NON RADICAL MUSLIMS." As his daughter i do not and have not chosen a religion and coduct real national rules, regulations laws, in my Western/European Clothing, without the Iranian Delegates or Papa or President Ahmadinejad, or NRGC's or Parliament or Ministry of Defense, ever rejecting anything from my say of order on/to Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likavalentino (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to make sense out of what you are saying, but if you continue to post unsourced rants, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights section

Edits

Remove all supposed tweets of Ayatollah Khamenei

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. & 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
"Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.washingtonpost.com/ gets about 21 results
"Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.independent.co.uk/ gets 3 results
"Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.telegraph.co.uk gets 9 results
"Khamenei.ir" twitter site:www.thesun.co.uk/ (with search done just for laughs) gets "No results found"
"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
"Barack Obama ‏@BarackObama" twitter gets About 2,300 results
"Benjamin Netanyahu ‏@netanyahu" twitter gets About 302 results

Greg Kaye 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. Greg Kaye 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

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". 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. Greg Kaye 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. Greg Kaye 08:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

Zionism and Israel section

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

"Khamenei said" AND ("Israel" OR "Zionist") got About 835 results

"Khamenei said" AND ("ISIS" OR "Iraq" OR "Syria") got About 1,060 results

Figures should only be taken as a rough ball park as some articles may make unconnected references to Khamenei and another mentioned subject. Greg Kaye 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)

2015 nuclear agreement

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, 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)

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)

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)

Agree on that one. I don't see any encyclopedic value in that random letter.--Shazaami (talk) 05:51, 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 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 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)

Delete Zionism and Israel Section

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

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)
~~Neutral~~ Oppose 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." 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

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. Greg Kaye 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.

Greg Kaye 06:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nephew says Khamenei lying about Nuke Fat-Wa

@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. . 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. Do you want to undo your latest edit or should I report you?--Anders Feder (talk) 03:20, 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: . And also you editwarred in this article with others recently too:. 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)

More information Not helpful content here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 3 September 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)

At least one of the socks got banned today (User talk:Ferschais), that's a good start to constructive editing. Having more non-sock editors is always beneficial when trying to find consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul: Khamenei tweeted "He who fosters the schism between Shias and Sunnis, is enemy’s operative; either #Shia or #Sunni, either he knows or not." Then he tweeted " #Salafis & #Wahabis who are nourished by oil money & act as #terrorists, don't know they are enemy’s operatives.". He's a double-talking hypocrite or what?--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your apparently defective intelligence in making sense of the obviously consistent positions of Ayatollah Khamenei, Wikipedia is not the place for us to debate these! There are already many online forums and social networking websites that are there for that purpose! Neither in Wikipedia we are allowed to inject our personal opinions into the content of the pages! You obviously don't belong here! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's you who deflected by mentioning the minority Shia jurisprudence. And your opinion about whether Ayatollah Khamenei's position is consistent or not, is irrelevant on Wikipedia. You need to back up your assertions with reliable sources if you want to include it. This thread was for determining whether the sources that said Khamenei used the Shia doctrine of lying (Taqiya) were credible enough, and it's decided that the sources are not reliable, so that content remains out of the article, period.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said you don't have knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence. And your further remarks about what Shias and Sunnis believe further prove that. And my comments were directed to your off-topic rants which diverted from the main topic! Peace! Strivingsoul (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It has become quite obvious that you know nothing about Sunni or real/main Islamic jurisprudence. Please stop expanding this thread, its purpose is over. Wikipedia article's talkpage is not the place for us to debate what's not relevant to the article--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if you think a muslim can starve himself to death, then it is obvious who doesn't know even the basics of Islamic doctrine! Anyway, the record shows who first diverted from the main topic into ignorant sectarian rants! Strivingsoul (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Close

Discretionary sanctions notice - 1RR

Context for random quotes on Israel and other topics

More information Clean slate needed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ...

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)

Reuters doesn't say anything about "2000 Palestinian civilians [killed] in the blockaded Gaza Strip", which is your obvious POV-pushing (also funny for the head of a regime involved in the killing of 200,000 Syrians or massacres and terrorist attacks in five continents). The source says "About 1,087 Gazans, most of them civilians, have been killed in 22 days of fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. As well as 53 Israeli soldiers killed, three civilians have died as a result of Palestinian shelling." (describing the casualties of the 2014 Gaza war at that moment). Any context for that should also include thousands of Palestinian rockets (paid or manufactured by Iran) that prompted Israel to respond in the first place, per balance and NPOV. Some balanced context to explain that single quote would occupy en entire paragraph on its own, just to explain the last Gaza war. That would be ridiculous, first of all because there is a separate article about the 2014 Gaza war for those interested in knowing all the circumstances, casualties, causes and outcomes of that particular conflict. Second, because it's unrelated to Khamenei, who also made remarks against Israel in 2013, 2012 and 2000 just as ugly as in 2014. Third, if you want to add context to justify every one of his anti-Israel statements (that should be more consistent according to your request) this section alone could become a book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that's not the subject nor the goal of this article.--Shazaami (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

First off, the over 2000 civilian death toll on the Palestinian side is accounted by and was attributed to the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, not Reuters.

Second, I'm not proposing to add all the unrelated or tangentially related details. But only those details that are significant and closely related to the particular subject matter.

Third, as I said the 2014 Israeli war against Gaza was not just an isolated case, it was just a latest example of horrendous Israeli war crimes in the long history of Israeli's genocidal wars of aggression, occupation and terrorism against Palestinians. See Category:Massacres committed by Israel and Criticism of the Israeli government. So don't pretend that Israeli "rabid" and "wolfish" ways, to use Khameneni's description, are confined to just one very recent individual case of bloody war.

As for the Hamas rockets, even if we recognize the UN 1947 Partition plan as a fair solution for this conflict (which many muslim states and groups in the region don't), with the ongoing Israeli occupation, Hamas would be entitled to a right to fight back a regime that is effectively an apartheid colonialist regime that has been ceaselessly encroaching on the rights of the Palestinians. With these facts in mind, Hamas and any native group for that matter would be entitled to work to liberate the entire occupied lands from a ruthless occupational apartheid regime. Plus if not all these facts are adequate, just the valley of disparity between the Israeli and Palestinian death toll throughout the entire history of the conflict speaks for itself as to which side has been the primary oppressor and which side the primary victim in this entire conflict.

Of course, taking into account all these background details for all quotes would be just impractical and unwarranted in Wiki, and I'm not proposing that either. What I am proposing for this (and probably other)controversial quote(s) is that, first: quote the existing source properly; second: cite only the background facts from existing Wiki pages that clearly represent the context of the said quotation and can be worked into a statement of reasonable length; OR just remove the entire thing if you want to put it into a blank context that will give the wrong implication of an unprovoked/irrational/antisemitic insult which would be a gross distortion of the subject. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

yawn... listen, the "context" you want to add is selective, cherry-picking, biased, unrelated, unsourced and extremely POV. Another user made a survey to remove the entire section and lost, so that's out of discussion. Let me tell you about other "context" you are forgetting. This Khamenei is the head of the same regime of ayatollahs that, from the beginning, has broken every international rule and flouted every norm. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats and sent its own children through mine fields. It hangs gays, political dissidents and stones women. It's a serial trampler of human rights. It's a top jailer of journalists. It has violated every Security Council resolution calling them to stop enrichment (UNSC Resolutions 1696 and 1737). It supports Assad's brutal slaughter of the Syrian people. It's a messianic apocalyptic regime and lead instigator of instability in region (and beyond). Iran is the world's foremost sponsor of terror. It sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Iran's proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians. Iranian terror tried to kill or actually killed innocent civilians in Buenos Aires, Beirut, Berlin, France, Switzerland, Thailand, Georgia, India, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Nepal, Azerbaijan, Kenya, Nigeria, Greece, Turkey, South Africa, Canada, Belgium and many others (at least 24 countries in five continents in the last three years alone). Iran has tried to overthrow the government in Bahrain, tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US. It has been fomenting unrest in Syria, Yemen (Houthis), Lebanon, Iraq and UAE (many Persian female agents married the Emirs there, and guess who their children, and heirs to the thrones pledge allegiance to?), meddling in their internal affairs. The Iranians are involved in every conflict in the Middle East, and they support terror in South America, Asia and Africa and they send arms to Europe as well. Iran occupies the islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb. Through terror from the skies and terror on the ground, Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans. In 1983, Iran's proxy Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 240 American servicemen. In the last decade, its been responsible for murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran accuses the American government of orchestrating 9/11, and it denies the Holocaust. Iran brazenly calls for Israel's destruction, and they work for its destruction - each day, every day. They have ambitions for regional and global domination in order to expand the Shiite Islamic "revolution" (or involution), as their own constitution proclaims. This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons. Iran will be even more reckless and far more dangerous. Responsible leaders should not bet the security of their countries on the belief that the world's most dangerous regime won't use the world's most dangerous weapons. Such an Islam-ofascist theocratic dictatorial regime must not have nuclear weapons. We are certainly talking about a regime with ambitions of world hegemony, and therefore an unconventional regime such as this, that wishes to see the world as an Islamic Caliphate in its mold, must absolutely not have unconventional weapons.--Shazaami (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic! This is not a WP:FORUM for your lengthy rants and rambling. You clearly have no valid case to argue otherwise you wouldn't divert into irrelevant or tangential topics. Providing closely related context is not cherry-picking. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And no surprise that those lie-and-distortion-laden rants that you have written here are taken straight, verbatim, out of the mouth of the Zionist war criminal Netanyahu! So are you really suggesting that we need to consult you and your favorite Zionist war criminal on editing Wikipedia?! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

lol! Funny, that's exactly what I told you here. Plagiarizing someone without citing is a violation of intellectual integrity, do you know? Besides, you started with all that propaganda crap about "partition plan/occupation/apartheid" to justify Hamas, which has nothing to do with Khamenei or this discussion.--Shazaami (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you even talking about here?! WP:FORUM is your "intellectual property?!" Or are you pretending that your reference in that unrelated page had anything to do with the discussion there (which I already objected to in that very page, anyway)?! Why don't you instead reply to my elaborate arguments here instead of copy-pasting Nethanyahu propaganda speech which is just irrelevant to the topic at hand which exactly is: a specific statement by Khamenei given directly in response to Israeli criminal war in 2014?! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I already replied to your "elaborate arguments" (lol). But don't worry, I don't pretend you to believe Netanyahu, check for yourself:

About gay persecution:

Germany:

Argentina:

Thailand:

Georgia:

India:

Bulgaria:

Cyprus:

Belgium:

Nepal:

Azerbaijan:

Kenya:

Nigeria:

Delivering weapons to terrorist organizations:

Destabilizing Iraq:

(and this is not even a comprehensive list)

When I talk to Iranians who support the backward Khomeinist regime, this is how pathetic you sound....

Do you hang gays? No gay people in Iran

Did you stone women? We are the most women-loving people on Earth

Did you seize embassies and target diplomats around world? It's not our fault that angry Iranians want to take foreign embassies in Iran!

Have you been enriching uranium despite United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1696 and 1737 demand you to stop doing so? We have the right to enrich!

Have you been directly supporting and assisting (with weapons and troops) Assad's brutal slaughter of the Syrian people? Go go go Assad, keep killing babies... but no, we are not involved (not even a little) in that war

Have you been fomenting unrest in Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon and Iraq? ... Who? Me?

Have you been sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South America? Next question!

Your proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians? blah blah blah

Have you perpetrated terrorist attacks in Buenos Aires, Berlin and France? Neigh!

What about Switzerland, Thailand, Georgia, India, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Nepal, Azerbaijan, Kenya, Nigeria, Greece, Turkey, South Africa, Canada and others (at least 24 countries in five continents in the last three years alone)? Neigh, neigh, neigh, neigh, neigh...

Have you been murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq? Neighlein

Do you deny the Holocaust? I'm a politician, not an historian. You know... shit happens to everybody

Do you threaten to destroy Israel? Of course not...

Do you have ambitions for regional and global domination in order to expand the Islamic revolution, as your own constitution proclaims? Islam is peace and we are Timon and Pumbaa

Are you trying to develop nuclear weapons? No! We just want medical isotopes

So why do you need intercontinental ballistic missiles? To distribute medical isotopes to Iranian patients orbiting the planet

Let me ask you something: Do you think the entire world is foolish, blind and deaf??? Give me a break!--Shazaami (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you even understand WP:FORUM that you claim your own intellectual property?! What does what so many sources say about Iranian history have anything to do with the subject matter here?! You are going way off-topic! Give me a break! Strivingsoul (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It was you who started WP:FORUM with this ridiculous comment about the "1949" Partition plan and other unrelated accusations against Israel, so don't be a hypocrite just because you don't like when I use the same strategy and show you the crimes of your wicked Iranofascist regime around world.--Shazaami (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid, you are not getting some delicate points here. First I proposed that since that statement was issued during the context of the war, mentioning the significant facts of the war that is specifically alluded to by Khamenei would help for a fair contextual summary that doesn't confirm by connotation the POV charges of anti-Semitism by other Israeli-affiliated sources. For this we don't need to mention other tangentially related facts such as when and how that conflict started (whether it was for Palestinian rockets that you first brought up, or because of the ongoing Palestinian resistance that has already been in place for decades, that I pointed out later). So my argument is clear: Let's cite in a reasonable length the contextual significant facts that he is just alluding to in that very statement! Period! Or do you have an agenda to make his comment look like being prompted by anti-Semitism as some other POVs suggest? Strivingsoul (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Because Khamenei called Israel "a rabid dog" in 2013, one year before the 2014 Gaza War, as you can see here. Capiche? It has nothing to do with Gaza, and even if it was, you have to present it in a neutral and simple way, such as "during the 2014 Gaza war, Khamenei called Israel...." But that's not what happened. The statement is unrelated to Gaza, so stop wasting my time.--Shazaami (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

My goodness! This is you wasting my time! You are bringing up an older stance. But what was already in the page both before and after my proposed edits, references this news piece by Reuters which is dated 29 July 2014, during which Israel was at war with Gaza when Ayatollah made the remark. Plus, like I said, Israel had already demonstrated its bloody, genocidal nature long before that statement was even first made. So it is clear what Khamenei had meant by any of those allusions. So we need to cite sources and mention the context in order to correctly represent this fact and its relevance instead of relying on Israeli or biased Western sources that intentionally falsify, distort or slice off his statements and meaning. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

First, before you started your last edit-warring, the original version of the article didn't mention Reuters, but another source from The Globe (dead link) whose statement dates from 2013 (which I replaced for NBC News). Second, per WP:V you also have to use reliable sources to justify your comments on the talk page (like I did above to prove who's the real bloody, racist, genocidal, fascist and imperialist regime). Third, all of Khamenei's statements are supported by reliable sources (including famous newspapers in English). Fourth, as you continue with your nonsense I made this edit to reach a compromise, including Reuters to mention the Gaza war. I hope we will stop here. But definitely, I'm not going to let you add something so bizarrely POV as "2014 Israel war on Gaza" or "which resulted in the death of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the blockaded Gaza Strip" (which is not even supported by the source you came up with).--Shazaami (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

All that you said about Iran is just regurgitating what inherently biased Western liberal sources claim about Iran. Plus, if one wants to document fully the history of the horrendous war crimes, acts of genocide and human rights violations committed by US and Israel, that would take volumes! Anyway, I'm going to quote Khamenei's actual words fully based on the Reuters. And nobody can object to that. Strivingsoul (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't just "quote him based on Reuters". You made a lot of POV-pushing again, and removed other content from the long-standing version.--Shazaami (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Avoid your sweeping removals or I will report your for vandalism! And again there was no POV-pushing in quoting Reuters. Reuters is clear that just up to that time more a thousands civilians had died. As for Middle East Forum it is a pro-Israel anti-Islmist partisan organization led by Daniel Pipes with questioned reputation for fact-checking or objective analysis therefore totally unreliable for such gross accusations and contentious statement. Khamenei is the farthest thing from anti-Semitic. Iran is the home to the second largest Jewish community in the region where anti-Semitism is banned by the theocratic law! Iran has always cleared that it opposes Zionism for its criminal nature and not Jews who it recognizes as a legitimate Abrahamic community of believers. Strivingsoul (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You removed long-standing sourced content without consensus and added POV-pushing nonsense such as "Western media reaction", "mistranslated by the Western media into" and "claimed the lives of hundreds of Palestinian civilians" (which is your personal interpretation of the source, not what Reuters said). And your evil regime doesn't fool anyone with that pathetic whitewash of "we have a large Jewish community in Iran" (8,000 people, lol! most Iranian Jews escaped to Israel or America), "we don't hate Jews, we just want to destroy Israel". Just stop it! Your propaganda and disruptive edits are getting boring.--Shazaami (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you even read the talkpage before making these sweeping edits! First the long-standing material you're referring to, i.e. the first two sentences in Ali_Khamenei#Zionism_and_Israel is based on which is 1) a pro-Israeli organization Middle East Forum 2) with a self-confessed ideological bias and political agenda (which makes it by default diametrically opposed and blatantly biased against this whole subject) 3) and is led by a partisan pro-Israeli self-described "scholar" with a questioned reputation for fact-checking and objective analysis, therefore totally unreliable for hardly anything, let alone for statements of facts, and definitely not for such contentious gross accusation as per WP:BLP. So I'm going to remove this contentious content from this partisan unreliable source right away! And remember the onus for inclusion is always on one who supports inclusion of disputed material as per WP:ONUS. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And as for "Mistranslated by Western media" and "the Western media reaction" in the next paragraph: these are well supported by [the very source] in the page. I also removed "anti-Regime activist" for I could find nothing in that link or the author's wikipage that support such characterization. So what I did was basically bringing the text in accord with the provided source and I also linked the "wiped off the map" controversy to this relevant subsection on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. So this change was also entirely valid and clearly explained so again you had no reason for such sweeping reverts that eliminated so many contributions all at once, and there is even more changes that you reverted without any explanation. So I'm going to report you for vandalism. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As WP:BIASED says, reliability is always in context. Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters (like statements Khamenei made fifteen years ago). There is nothing really controversial or disputed here. It's clearly stated that "his rhetoric was described by some as racist and anti-Semitic" (and it's not too difficult to understand based on the racist and genocidal declarations of this ayatollah psycho). Besides, Khamenei called Israel "a cancerous tumor" many times before and after, as you can see here and here for example. It was agreed, that the current version of the text in the "Israel and Zionism" section is the most appropriate and summarized. And the controversy about "wiping Israel off the map" is related to Ahmadinejad, not Khamenei. The Supreme Leader made his intentions very clear regarding Israel's annihilation. Good luck with your "report". Let the administrators see your disruptive behavior and edit-warring.--Shazaami (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This content is now disputed and requires consensus for inclusion, and disputed for the reasons I already explained and you barely touched on any of my arguments. The source as I said is not just blatantly biased but also unreliable with questioned reputation for fact-checking. Plus, Ayatollah Khamenei has never threatened genocide and those are just vicious propaganda by Zionists and Western sources. He has made clear that he is advocating a referendum for the destruction of the Zionist genocidal government and NOT Jews living in occupied territories, but Western and Zionist sources always subtly twist his words and intentions so that his statements read as meaning to eliminate the entire people in the Zionist occupied lands which has never been his suggestion. So this totally false and controversial claim from this partisan unreliable Mid-East Forum has to be removed as per WP:Reliability and WP:BLP. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I already showed you that CBS News and Ynet published recent statements by Khamenei calling Israel "a cancerous tumor", and if you Google "Khamenei cancerous tumor" you will find many more reliable sources and newspapers reporting it. Stop looking for excuses to hide this information. It's widely reported around world. And nobody needs your approval for anything. This current version was already discussed above, it's the result of previous discussions and you need to gain new consensus if you want to change the present text.--Shazaami (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly but only and only such out-of-context quotes which also wrongly interpret his words can give the false image of "genocidal threats"! "Isreal" depending on the context and one's intentions can mean all sorts of things: It can mean Isreali leaders, it can mean the Zionist government and it can mean the Jewish people living in the land occupied by the Zionist regime which is the true genocidal criminal state. Such usage of words of nationality with multiple meanings is very common in political discourse. Just in this discussion you many times talked about "Iran" but actually meant the Iranian government! And there are also so many facts and sources that I have suggested so far, adequate to show that all these allegations of genocide threat by Iranian leaders are false! And just as the notorious "wiped off the map" media hoax also proved among so many other instances, many Western and Zionist sources have a deliberate and old agenda of distorting and falsifying the words and intentions of Iranian leaders to justify Iranophobia and aggressive policies against this country. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in your perceived WP:truth of the Iranian regime, only what reliable sources report.--Shazaami (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't sidetrack the issue and respond to the arguments offered! You're just pushing your own anti-Iranian agenda here with no credible argument in regards with the subject matters! You intentionally ignore the explanations and sources and only push your sweeping edit wars on edits that I have elaborately explained and substantiated. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I won't respond to your personal attacks. If you are in love with the ayatollahs and their bloody regime, go see a psychiatrist. It's not my problem. I already responded to your alleged "explanations" and "arguments".--Shazaami (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I know you won't respond to the arguments. You just revert the changes I have explained and substantiated and then proceed by your anti-Iranian propaganda! You have removed everything you don't like on this page, and kept everything you love on this page regardless of the my substantiated explanations and arguments here in the talk page and in the page history! We need arbitration for this. Strivingsoul (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I already responded every single one of your "arguments" based on Wikipedia's policy, as everyone can see by reading all our discussion. What you are doing it calls projection. It was you who started with the propaganda activity (making insulting accusations against Israel that have nothing to do with this topic), it was you who started to remove well-sourced content and add POV-pushing sentences to mitigate Khamenei's declarations (as well as removing and adding other content, over and over again). Damn right we need arbitration, not from your friends or users who think similar to you or are involved in articles related to Israel or Iran, but from uninvolved editors with experience and knowledge. I think that @Ricky81682: is a good example.--Shazaami (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing is not good.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The comment that Khamenei is reponsible for 200,000 Syrian's death is not true. Plus, when there is war, there are deaths. Before the 1979 revolution there were many crimes commited by the Shah's forces. After the revolution, million's of the Shah's supporters were killed, and many escaped to exile. Most of the army was purged.And purged again after an attempted coup against Khomeini (http://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/28/world/iran-says-an-attempted-coup-by-army-group-was-foiled.html) (http://thedignifiedrant.blogspot.com/2009/06/first-gulf-war-iran-and-iraq-at-war-in.html)--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Close

@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

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)

Regarding removal of the public letter to the Western youth

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, 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)

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)

@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 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)

I think WP:THIRD can solve this problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Or WP:RFC.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:25, 15 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)

Stop edit warring and personal attack/A discussion on institution of Wilayat Faqih in Iran

@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)

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)

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)

"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)

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!

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.--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)

@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)

Non-RS Sources for Views

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 )
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

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) Jordan Times, PBS Frontline (U.S. TV series) sourced to Agence France Press, and so on. "From now on" Washington Post, The Atlantic etc. "Islamic principles" material from Gatestone Institute, New York Post , International Business Times , 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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey

Discussion

Round 2

Survey

Discussion

Related Articles