Talk:Great Satan

1st reference is horrible as a reference for the facts it's supposed to back up
There might be some tag one can add to the reference on the page itself, but I leave that to the people who know how to wikipedia. I only read articles and check sources when interested. The facts the reference is for are about US support for the shah, and initial US support for Saddam Hussein, but the article linked as reference 1 is a highly biased rant about how bin Ladin is a bad man and how the middle east should be colonized, oldschool British style. It does mention the two facts it's being referenced for, but surely there must be a better reference for that than some whiny rant?

Why it's own page
Shouldn't this just point/redirect directly to wikipedia page on the United States?


 * no. ChillyMD (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding UK being called the Great Satan
In the eyes of some people, the UK, as well other US allies, share the blame for the situation in Iraq. I understand that the US and the UK have MANY similiraties, but the UK is called the Great Satan no more than the rest of the US allies.


 * actually the UK has (and is currently) been singled out, too, as the great satan. ChillyMD (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Case in point, Iran's supreme leader recently publicly claimed the UK was the most evil of all of Iran's enemies.ChillyMD (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Next paragraph
That latest addition Shaitan meaning "adversary" is a bit silly. Shaitan means Satan - it is the same root and has largely the same theological meaning.

Indeed in Jewish/Christian/Islamic theology the Shaitan/Satan is the big adversary/accuser of men in the final court, but Shaytan is most certainly not a generic term for someone whom yo do not like/who opposes you in your business/politics etc. Refdoc 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I was the person who originally added that the terms used were Iblis and Shaitan, I'll explain why did it. If someone wrote a paper about the ancient Greeks and the wrath of Jupiter, it would be incorrect, even if Zeus and Jupiter are basically the same thing.  That's how I see the term The Great Satan being used, although it is correct to a degree, it's not exactly the same thing.  I think there should be a note included that states the exact terms that were used and not what was translated, especially since there are articles on both Iblis and Shaitan.  Just my two cents. Lokifer 07:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but th translation previosuly added no meaning, rather it detracted. Satan is also translated as "adversary", fine, but neither Shaytan nor Satan is used in common language to describe someone who simply behaves "adversarial" - unless of course you want to make reference to his/her "devilish"/satanic/shaytani characteristics. Refdoc 09:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty to remove the part, since no justification for translation as "adversary" had been not shown for several months while the main article for Shaitan notes the word as analogous for Christian Satan. "Adversary" being an etymological root doesn't not mean it is correct translation for modern day usage, and this not the right article to discuss etymology of "Shaitan". The Merciful 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Satan
I've heard that the Iranian regime dubbed Israel the "Little Satan". Anyone got any sources for this (or for the regime calling the USA the "Great Satan")? Andjam 05:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Colin Powell as Baron Munchausen
>United States rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II

Only the western half of Europe was rebuilt with US help, the much worse war-demolished eastern and central Europe was totally excluded from the Marshall plan, because USA wanted to hurt the soviet empire with the tremendous costs. Japan was rebuilt not because of any philantropy, but to support the logistics and industrial background of the Korean colonial warfare and the US agression in Vietnam!

>US defeated Communism and fascism

Communism was defeated by Gorbachev and the ordinary people in the soviet bloc.

Fascism was defeated by the Soviet Red Army at a loss of 27 million people. The only reason D-Day was done is that the anglo-saxon were very afraid the soviets will arrive at Calais by 1946 all alone. After the spring 1944 "Bagration" offensive of the soviets started, the Third Reich was over.

It would be great if USA stopped spreading lies. Empires do not have feelings or philantropy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)

I partly concur with your asessment of Colin Powells statements, but would appreciate your comment more if you kept it in a more civil tone. Anyway, I don't really see why he (Powell) should be quoted in this context at all, this should be about the term "great satan", not about defending against being labeled as it. Does anyone strongly object to my deleting it, say so. baetterdoe 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good principle do not listen to sleazy male prostitutes (I refuse to use the euphemism Colin Powell as Colin Powell is a politically correct for sleazy male prostitute) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoneabove (talk • contribs).

"Far from being the great Satan, I would say we are the great protector. The United States rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II, defeated Communism and fascism and the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead."

This quote bugs me, all right, it's actually driving me INSANE

First of all, America is not quite the great protector it claims to be, it's history is no more or less brutal than that of other nations, seeing as how they slaughtered countless natives to claim their land and then had it worked with slaves. Then they put Saddam in power, then launched a brutal war to remove him. Things like that sort of contradict that "Great Protector" statement. I'm not saying they're wrong because they've had some violence in the past, I say they're wrong because they act as if they've never committed any atrocities before and like they are the purest good.

"the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead."

So America needed to oppress the natives of Hawaii in the 19th century to bury their dead there? Did they even need to bury there dead there, or did they just want it as a base for their navy in the Pacific? Either way, it contradicts the above statement, because they weren't asking for enough land to bury their dead, they were forcibly seizing control of an independent nation. They also didn't ask the independent Cherokee nation for enough land to bury there dead, they just sent them on a death march, then seized the land.

I propose that something about the United States disapproval of this term be posted in a form that is not overly biased towards "The Great Protectors", but instead more neutral and perhaps less offensive to my, I mean other's intellects; because this quote is propaganda, and fundamentally biased. As such it has no place in an encyclopedia. 75.109.34.50 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"See also" link remoal
I am not trying to censor anything, but if we put every tangentially related topic in that section, it will grow larger than the article itself. We should stick to related terms and the article about U.S.-Iran relations. People will find links to Operation Bagration and allied articles if they follow the link to the Iranian Revolution article in the text. The Zionist terrorism article covers pre-1948 terrorism, and would probably best be found in an article on Iran-Israel relations or Israel-Muslim relations. --Jpbrenna 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with Jpbrenna regarding censorship. We have to suppose a good will. But why the person with supposed a good will used a proxy server in Hungary to place his/her views on Operation Bagration and so on? If (s)he really believes in what (s)he is saying, why was a proxy there? Anonymouses have to be censored mercilessly. Usually they do not have a good will.


 * Some people just use the culture of Freedom of Speech to build a society, where any Freedom is banned. Including Freedom of Speech. Be carefull with them.
 * I'm presuming good faith, I just thought it was getting cluttered and we needed to stay on topic. Like I said, some of the links belong as "See also" on the articles linked to from this "See also" because they aren't directly germane.  --Jpbrenna 12:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic language
I put a "POV-check" template on top of this with "The part from Sayyid Qutb to the Powell statement seems to be somewhat unencyclopedic in tone" as comment. It was reverted out (by the person who made the last edit in article). I am not sure how these are handled usually as I am new (please, do enlighten me), but I would think a second opinion is needed. Nobody agrees with me? RandomMonitor 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and will start rewriting the article. I could use help; anyone care to join me? Captainktainer * Talk 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Now that I've reviewed the article more fully, this is in horrible shape. The best reference for most of the article is some blog? This article needs serious help. Captainktainer * Talk 14:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the idea behind the term down to "an ideologic and religious idea" is far from reality. If this was true then the whole western world in addition to china, Japan, Thailand, Russia etc would be called Satanic as you see sexual freadom and non-Islamic behaviours there as well. An originally Arabic word, Satan and Satanic in Persian language changed its meaning and is no more a strong religious word. People may even call a clever kid who does some thing funny or interferes in other people's afairs as Satanic. Contrary to Arabic language, the word in Persian is not very strong and does not necessarily carry an insulting meaning. My personal opinion is that Khomeini thought US interferes in the afairs of as many as coutries it can afford and the main meaning behind Satanic is "interference and corruption" and not evil and devil. Sina Kardar 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

iranian centered
i've heard this phrase so many times in the entire muslim and arab world more than i've heard it in iranian ones. is there a special reason this article is so iran centered ?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  05:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Satan Speech
Where did the author get this November 5 1979 date for a speech in which Khomeini called the USA the "great Satan"? I surely cannot find this speech online in any language whatsoever. I have marked up the parts of the article with citation requests. paros (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree I cannot find this citation. I have found a November 22 1979 speech in which he used the term but I think November 5 would be a much more important date to have it given what was happening in Iran at the time. G1729 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I believe I found the speech and have cited it. because it's a translation further verification may be needed.G1729 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Great Satan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131109191825/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/15/international/15POWE.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/15/international/15POWE.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Marg bar Amrika
The present version of the article states "('Death to America' is an inexact translation of 'Marg Bar Amrika', but is supposed to mean 'Down with America')."

This assertion directly contradicts Death to America; the word "Marg" (مرگ) literally means "death". -- Heath 50.134.34.221 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

re Carter administration support for Shah
article says "The United States supported the Shah starting from the 1950s, but that changed toward the end of the 1970s, particularly under the Carter administration" which is not in the citation given, as noted in the edit. Also it's unclear what "support" means in this context. The Shah fell out of power in the Carter admin, but I'd expect the US continued to support him in other ways.G1729 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Demonizing rhetoric
The term The Great Satan is an example of demonizing rhetoric. As such, I have added a link to the wikipedia article Demonizing the enemy as described at length throughout the article on Great Satan itself as well as in some of the references quoted in the article. My edit was identified as a test by a user called Chlod who undid the edit, saying ''Hello, I'm Chlod. An edit that you recently made to Great Satan seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.39.178 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on your talk page. Please refer there for further information. To summarize: the term "demonizing" is too heavy to be considered neutral, which is against Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd like to hear your response soon. Chlod (say hi) 11:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because "Great Satan" is a tiptoe through the tulips of diplomacy. Elizium23 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)