Talk:Quds Day/Archive 1

Bias
"... opposing the occupation of Jerusalem (Arabic name: Al-Quds القـُدْس) by Israel ..." Jerusalem is legally the capital of Israel meaning it is NOT "occupied". --DandanxD 11:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not follow. – Kaihsu 19:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

you are a mad dog zionist. legally=Military. NOT "occupied"=We catch that and we have right to killing Palestinian people for תּוֹרָה Ridiculous false statements Torah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.183.87.185 (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Name: Jerusalem Day?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Isn't this more commonly known in English as Jerusalem day?--Irishpunktom\talk 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalem Day is usually on a different day. And Iran and Israel would pay attention to different things ..... -- PFHLai 22:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "International Day of Quds" fetched nearly 1 million entries on Google. "Jerusalem Day (anti-Zionist)" 100000, not to say that it is a very awkward title. I will move the article to the former title. – Kaihsu 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Jerusalem Day (anti-Zionist) → International Day of Al-Quds — "International Day of Quds" fetched nearly 1 million entries on Google. "Jerusalem Day (anti-Zionist)" 100000, not to say that it is a very awkward title. —Kaihsu 22:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose as not a well-founded request. The disambiguation term in the search is especially bad.  The mere logical and searches are bad.  There is nothing offered by the proponent to support a move.  Gene Nygaard 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I also oppose moving Jerusalem Day (anti-Zionist) to "International Day of Al-Quds]].


 * I fully appreciate Kaihsu's efforts to ensure the page name complies with the Wikipedia naming guidelines. However, in this instance, I respectfully contend that Kaihsu's conclusion is erroneous. "Jerusalem Day", with an accompanying explanation that "Al-Quds" is the Arabic name for Jerusalem, is the most common form used in the media, and in scholarly publications. In contrast, the long form "International Day of Al-Quds" is rarely used.


 * A central issue to be considered is the name with which the reader will be familiar. I feel it is highly unlikely that readers will initially think to look for this topic under the name "International Day of Al-Quds".


 * In regard of the apparent suggestion that the parenthetical qualifying term "(anti-Zionist)" makes the page name awkward, the inclusion of this term is intended solely to distinguish this subject of this article from the Israeli holiday also known in English as Jerusalem Day. This is in the same vein as the parenthetical qualifying terms "(film)", "(song)", etc, used with other page names. As such, I do not believe that it makes the page name awkward, and even if this were the case, the page name "Jerusalem Day (anti-Zionist)" is still less awkward than the long form "International Day of Al-Quds". Nonetheless, I would welcome any suggestions as to an improved parenthetical qualifying term that other contributors may have.


 * Finally, though I appreciate the mention of Google entries, it is self-evidently the case that Google related statistics are never solely determinative of such issues.


 * I look forward to the comments of other contributors.Louse 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

International Day of Quds
Please, have a look at the website: www.against-al-quds-day.org (in German: www.gegen-al-quds-tag.de) and at the following letter that we have adressed to various institutions in charge of interfaith calendars. We hope that you might reconsider the definition you put on the net under "The international Day of Quds". Best regards, Dear friends,

We would like to inform you about a mistake on your interfaith calendar. It announces "Quds Day" on October 28 as an Islamic holiday. This is unfortunately not correct. "Quds Day" is not a religious holiday but a political propaganda day proclaimed by Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iranian revolution in 1979. As you know, this revolution led to a brutal dictatorship of political Islam. On "Quds Day" the Iranian regime and Khomeini followers in other countries celebrate the Iranian dictatorship, call for the so-called "export of the revolution" and especially for the destruction of the state of Israel.

We therefore write to you in behalf of a broad coalition of Turkish, Kurdish, Iranian and German activists asking you to remove this non-religious, politically-charged event from your calendar. Our coalition has successfully campaigned against the "Quds Day"-rally in Berlin and has informed the German public about the event's political and antisemitic background. Our campaign is supported by leading representatives of migrant communities, Green and Socialist members of Parliament. As a result of our efforts, "Quds Day" has been removed from all interfaith calendars in Germany.

Below you find some background on "Quds Day". We would like to ask you to reconsider your interfaith calendar in the light of this information. Hopefully you will have the chance to remove "Quds Day" from the list of Islamic religious holidays before October 28.

Please let us know about your decision. This email is distributed to more then 50 institutions worldwide and reactions will be documented on the webpage of the Berlin coalition "Together Against Political Islam and Antisemitism".

Yours sincerely

Arne Behrensen Aycan Demirel Elif Kayi Udo Wolter

Members of the Berlin coalition "Together against political Islam and Antisemitism" www.against-al-quds-day.org

On this day
Putting this day in the "main page" was very controversial. There's some disscussions about it:Talk:Main Page. --Sa.vakilian 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

page with a clear political agenda
Whoever built this page is only doing Israel a favor: It accentuates the true character of Arab "leadership." --Gilabrand 06:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies that this does not directly relate to the article but I would like to point out a glaring point of ignorance in the above statement made by the respective user; with all due respect but you have no idea what you are talking about; Khomeini was Persian or Iranian (whatever you prefer) and he is in no way Arab. I hope that in the intervening period between these two comments you have come to realise that not all Muslims are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims. In fact to perhaps demonstrate that Khomeini was not the most sympathetic towards Arabs I direct your attention to Iran-Iraq War article. Hopefully this will indicate how Khomeini is far from being Arab. Also, kindly refrain from making sweeping generalities about ethnicities in the future, as it will usually encite flame wars and intolerance that blinds reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.178.72 (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As a sayyid, Imam Khomeini was of Arab ancestry.--71.105.248.129 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, being a sayyid does not make you an Arab - Arab ancestry, perhaps. But not Arab. A black person might have European ancestry but that does not make him white. Similarly, there are lots of sayyids in countries like India and Pakistan - that does not make them Arab either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.30.162 (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

picture change
Can you please put another picture up, perhaps of a demonstration in Iran, Iraq or some Arab country that Qods day has happened in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.66 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Annual Event on the Islamic calendar?
The lead states: Al-Quds day "is an annual event on the Islamic calendar." Is that supposed to mean an annual event on the calendar of the Islamic Republic of Iran or is the OIC actually have some sort of universal Islamic calendar?ShamWow (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is only part of an Islamic calendar as it depends on when the last Friday of Ramadan is, but other than that it is not on any "Islamic calendar".  nableezy  - 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a day in the Islamic calendar, the commemoration itself is voluntary to follow.--Paradoxic (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So that particular day is in the Islamic calendar but not as al-Quds day? That was just a creation of Ayatollah Khomeini. Agreed?ShamWow (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Al-Quds day is a day that shifts due to the month of Ramadhan. It is remembered on the last friday of the Islamic month of Ramadhan and an Islamic day for commemoration. It focuses on the Islamic calendar and it depends on this calendar to determine the day it will be held. It was suggested by Khomeini and endorsed by Sheik Ahmed Yassin (Hamas) among others.--Paradoxic (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Title
"Officially," the event may be known as "International al-Quds Day" or something similar, but in nearly all media it is called "al-Quds Day." I propose that the latter be the title of the page. In the infobox, you can place the official name of the day. Thoughts?ShamWow (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should not focus on what the Western media calls certain events, but rather what the actual name is and that is International Al-Quds Day. In fact, if we were to believe Western media for everything in this article, it would be a page that claimed in its 2009 section that demonstrations against Ahmadinejad were far larger than the actual march for Palestinians, which is ridiculous of course, but a claim the Western media is enchanted by and uses commonly.--Paradoxic (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So in media OUTSIDE of Iran, such as in the Arab world where events are also held, it uses the term "International"?ShamWow (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Youm al Alami Al-Quds is used by Al-Aksa, Al-Alam, Al-Manar etc. Luckily, the world does not evolve around USA and Europe.--Paradoxic (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Protest
Some of our non-Iranian muslim editors are using the biased source of PressTV to suppress the opposition protest. You cannot use this source in this article since Press TV is a unilateral and not reliable source. This TV is the famous propaganda machine of Islamic republic of Iran. Also, do not delete the information on 2009 protests several sources confirm that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of oppositions went on streets this year. And please stop supporting the brutal government that has been killing, arresting, torturing, raping tens of thousands of its citizens in its prisons over last 30 years --WIMYV? (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the venue to pursue a goal of stopping a brutal government that has been killing, arresting, torturing, raping tens of thousands of its citizens in its prisons over last 30 years and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to exhort others to stopping this government. And finally this is not an article about opposition to the current government of Iran, this is an article on Quds Day. Please take your battle somewhere else.  nableezy  - 05:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ٌYou should take your battles against Israel somewhere else. This is about the Quds day, all relevant information should be included. Why our Arab editors want to hide this fact that in Quds Day, most of people who are shouting against Israel in Iran are bused by the regime or paid basijis who are hated by ordinary Iranians. Why you guys want to suppress this fact that tens of thousands of Iranians went to streets (despite all warning of the regime) in Quds day and shouted slogans against the Islamic regime of Iran and hijacked the protest.--WIMYV? (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isnt about hiding anything, this was one years protest in an event that has been held yearly since 1979. The idea that this article should be focused on opposition to the government that manifested itself one time during this event is ludicrous. If you have some sources that say that Quds Day itself often sees opposition protests sure. But stop trying to make this about your hatred for all things related to the government of Iran. This is not the place for it. And I am not "battling" Israel here, I am trying to get an article to stay on topic. There are any number of places for you to spread your message against Ahmadinejad, this isnt one of them. Try twitter, I hear that is very popular these days.  nableezy  - 05:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you do not want to hide something, why you delete information addressing this fact that the event is organized by the Islamic regime and most people are bused many from out of cities? Why you revert information about the anti-government rally in 2009 event? Tweeter is for something else, Wikipedia should contain accurate information. Why readers should not know that most Iranians do not have any sympathy with this IRI anti-semitic propaganda--WIMYV? (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

tags
You need to justify the tags. Specify what about the article is at issue. I'll start you off in the right direction:  nableezy  - 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
What specifically is non-NPOV about this article?  nableezy  - 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Which specific sentences are not supported by the sources cited?  nableezy  - 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
Which specific sentences where the factual accuracy of the statement is disputed?  nableezy  - 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1. This fact is not addressed that the march in Iran is an the government sponsored event. Most of people are bused by the government or are paid basijis and hard-liner muslims and not ordinary people of Iran. This day is not a national day in Iran, it is just a government sponsored rally. This event should not be addressed as national day in Iran, it belongs to hard-liner iranians and not majority of Iranians.

2. In this article the 2009 march coverage is POV.

3. Unreliable sources is used in article such as Press TV which is an unilateral and unreliable source.

4. OR contents are removed and you can remove OR tag.--WIMYV? (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You didnt actually answer most of the questions. Press TV is a major news media source and you cannot just discount what they publish. For point 1 do you have a source supporting those statements? If so by all means include it. For point 2 could you please explain exactly what about the 2009 coverage is "POV"? And for point 4 could you specify what is original research in the article?  nableezy  - 06:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sourced information that you removed, you will see why the current version the 2009 section is POV. Yes, I do have sources supported that these kind rallies are mobilized by the regime, even in the sources you delete this fact was addressed (e.g. NY Times article). Press Tv is not a biased, unreliable source, you cannot use it push the government lies (e.g. millions of pro-government people on streets). Regarding the OR tag, i told you in my last edit. You can remove the OR tag.--WIMYV? (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt place it so I would rather you remove it. And can you please tell me why a single years protest against the government should be focused on in an article that covers an event that has been held for 30 years? And do you have sources that directly contradict Press TV's account of the number of protesters? Or are government lies routinely not countered?  nableezy  - 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your questions, which are largely based on emotional statements.
 * 1) Iranian government does not have a budget to pay for Al-Quds day, there has never been a statement from the Iranian government that claims it pays for the rallies. Most people who attend these ceremonies (in the millions) are ordinary people, they are not "paid basij" and they are the people of Iran. It is a national day in Iran and you are using too many populist slogans to take seriously. Iran is generally regarded as "Hard-Line" thats why they held an Islamic Revolution.


 * 2) Press TV is one of the only sources that covered Al-Quds day live, they are government funded but not government controlled (similar to the BBC), they have licenses in the UK and many countries in the world as a credible news source. In addition to Al-Manar, Al-Alam etc. You are free to use those sources as well as they were also on the ground. The Western sources you did use however, for estimating numbers of anti-government rallies, consist of journalists and news outlets who are not in Iran. They base their estimations on opposition rallies by what they see on YouTube. They are not actively reporting in Iran and cannot be regarded as reliable sources. So when NY Times says "Millions, thousands, tens of thousands came to protest against the government", it is just a wild guess. For example: Just because people wore green does not mean they did not march for Palestinians, and that they are automatically against the Iranian government. Reformist movement called all of their followers to march for Palestine, while a segment of them hijacked the march for their own agenda. There is a large diversity among opposition and what they did on this day. Nevertheless Just because you don't like the reports by Press TV does not mean you can delete articles.


 * 3) The tag should be removed, there is no basis for it to be there based on your points.
 * Your choice of wording and tone, that somehow people who show up for Al-Quds day are not Iranians, they are paid agents, not the majority of Iran rhetoric etc. make people believe you are a political refugee who escaped from the Iranian regime. If that is true, it would be better for you not to participate in editing. You are editing this page based on emotion and hatred rather than logic and rationality. Stick to empiricism and objectivity please.--Paradoxic (talk) 12:18, 20September 2009 (UTC)

You may intend to deny it but if you have lived in Iran you know that the Islamic regime spends a huge amount of money for its propaganda. Bringing people from small cities to big cities, bringing soldiers, basijis for such events is their fammous job for such events. Many reliable sources reported tens of thousands protesters poured out against the Islamic regime. These reliable sourced had reasons to confirm nubers and your denial does not count here.

Regarding Press Tv, most sources contradict the Press Tv POV on the Qods day. Wiki is not a place for tiny minority views and the Press TV view should be removed as tiny minority view. Paradox, stop your Jihad against Israel, and jews. If you continue deleting sourced information, I will report you to admins. --WIMYV? (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WIMYV, I do not have anything against Israel, nor the Iranian government. But it is clear you do. If you feel emotionally involved to impose a subjective view on Wikipedia because you are a political refugee, please stop it. This is not a platform to vent your frustrations. This is to report widely accepted facts. I am an Iranian so I know exactly how you are trying to distort the NPOV with your personal political agenda. All of your claims, from Iranian regime spending huge amounts of money on Quds day, bringing people from small cities to larger ones, bringing soldiers, basij, that these millions are actually agents are parroted from US government news stations such as VOA. The Iranian government has Never claimed it pays for al-Quds day, nor anything else related to the parade. You are quoting a series of banned news outlets that neither reported the Al-Quds day first hand, nor are allowed to report in Iran. They are quite fulfilling for your views, but not for this site. I will report you if you continue to delete cited, credible information such as Press TV articles and other referenced authorities. Again, Press TV is a credible news source that is licensed to report in Britain, and most countries in Europe and even in the United States and Israel. Their scope is the Muslim world, which is almost 2 out of 5 people in the world, not exactly a 'tiny view' and are widely accepted when it comes to Iranian affairs, they are quoted by many major news outlets, including your sources. They are one of the few news outlets that had a live crew covering Al-Quds day. If they are not credible, no outlet is. Your thought process has compelled you to consider

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uycmfMpy3o&feature=channel_page this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvNPW1WZXGw&feature=channel this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-hvw_gw0xg&feature=channel

as paid agents by the Islamic Republic who only come outside when they get money. In reality, these are ordinary (Millions of) folks who are devout Muslims and care about other Muslims. Stop imposing your selective view and allow NPOV. --unsigned by Paradoxic (talk)


 * Discussion with someone who calls protesters "paid agent" (and also uses the similar phrases to insult Wikipedia users) is really useless. Alefbe (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alefbe, if you read more carefully that is what WIMYV called the millions of people that marched for Al-Quds day. They are paid by the Islamic Republic, according to him. Please read before replying, and stop deleting cited information that you don't like. I consider the opposition genuine, just like the millions of Iranians that are pro-Palestine.--Paradoxic (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

occupation
The source specifically says it is a protest against the occupation of Jerusalem. Explain why you refuse to allow that word in the article.  nableezy  - 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "In solidarity with the Palestinians, Khomeini declared the liberation of Jerusalem a religious duty to all Muslims." The liberation of the city of Jerusalem. Iran deems all land Israel controls as occupied. It is not relegated to East Jerusalem and therefore inaccurate to use Iran's terminology rather than something more neutral.ShamWow (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another solid ref on this: "Many Muslims commemorate Al Quds Day by protesting against the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem where the Al Quds mosque is located." In the article now.  nableezy  - 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have removed the word on the basis that it is "repetitive" which is absolutely not true and that "control of Jerusalem" implies control of E. Jerusalem. But it does not imply occupation of E. Jerusalem. Multiple sources support the word "occupation" that you do not like that is not reason for you to censor that information.  nableezy  - 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also have reliable sources:

. It is not true that it's limited to East Jerusalem. Simply ludicrous. A compromise is definitely in order.ShamWow (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And please WP:Assume good faith.ShamWow (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you a solid source that specifically says that it is a protest against the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem. If you also want to add control of Jerusalem fine, but it is not redundant to include "occupation of East Jerusalem". That should be included. And if you want people to assume you are acting in good faith dont repeatedly try to remove information that you dont like.  nableezy  - 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're unwilling to compromise. Other sources refer to Jerusalem as a whole. It is governed as one entity - not two - even if it is perceived by many under international law to be partly occupied.ShamWow (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "perceived by many". Recognized by nearly every single legal authority and government in the world.  nableezy  - 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And why did you remove a supposedly "random source" that directly supports the cited statement?  nableezy  - 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * these 2 edits were bullshit. You remove a source that supports the wording as "random" and then remove the wording. Explain yourself. Why are intent on censoring the fact that E. Jerusalem is occupied and that the protest is against that occupation? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy please do not distort the reality, the Khomeini proposed the day to protest against the so called the occupation of the whole Palestine and not only for east Jerusalem. i can provide many sources for this statement--WIMYV? (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * distort reality? Sources specifically say either "occupation of E. Jerusalem" or "occupation of Jerusalem". And reality is that E. Jerusalem is occupied. I dont really care about your beef with the government of Iran, but please dont say stupid things like that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You say that Khomini set this protest against the occupation the E. Jerusalem. It clearly shows you have no idea about this topic. Khomieni said that "Israel should go" and the whole region should be freed and he wished the distruction of the whole Israel not only freeing the E. Jeruselam--WIMYV? (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC).
 * That is not what I said. If you want to argue with me at least read what I wrote. I cited a source that says "many Muslims" commemorate al-Quds day with protests against the occupation of E. Jerusalem. I said nothing as to what Khomeini "set this protest against". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring here is ridiculous
Two users have just been blocked, and another user is close. Can people have discussions here? I don't want to have to protect an article that is apparently so prominent right now. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Restoring deleted information and Press TV
I restore sourced information from the New YorK Times and Aljazeera and the book. Press Tv materials should be removed because it contradicts the other sources and no bilateral source has verified its claims. --WIMYV? (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot just remove what Press TV reports, they are a major news media source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WIMYV, did you not read the message I just gave you? I said you probably shouldn't revert like this until discussing it here. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the info can be included as long as we add something like "According to government funded Press TV," blah blah blah.ShamWow (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We dont say "government funded BBC" and if somebody does not know what Press TV is they can click the wikilink. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot compare BBC with Press TV. BBC is accepted worldwide as highly professional news media, but many believe that Press TV is distorting machine of Islamic Rep. and not a reliable source. I agree with ShamWoW suggestion, even though I believe Press TV is unreliable source. If Nableezy agrees, I am going to restore both information. However, I do not write millions of government supporters poured out that day. Since no other source say that, most sources say tens of thousand not millions.--WIMYV? (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, BBC isn't an instrument of propaganda. There is clearly a difference in reliability between those two sources.ShamWow (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You apparently do not know much about either the BBC or Press TV. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to the conversation.ShamWow (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Youre welcome. You are well-poisoning and I think you would object to citing things as "Israeli newspaper JPost" or "voice of the settlers Arurtz Sheva". But then again I dont expect much consistency from you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy! How you can compare the state funded News Media of a country like Iran, with such dark records of human right violation and freedom of speech, censorship of media, arresting and punitively punishing of journalist journalists with BBC which is one of the most reliable and professional media in the world. Please go and see who is running Press TV. Press TV is operated as a division of IRIB, and IRIB Deputy Head Mohammad Sarafraz is Press TV's CEO. The CEO, Mr. Sarafraz, was "hand-picked by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose office funds and controls IRIB . --WIMYV? (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC has a history of acting as an agent of the government, in fact their Persian service was involved in a plot to ferment a coup in Iran. I myself read the BBC regularly and find them to be a generally high quality source for news. But news media services are regularly manipulated by governments. The NYTimes fed the American people lies in a successful attempt to push the populace to support a war. That doesnt really matter though, we have wikilinks for a reason. Anybody who questions the source can click the name of the link, we are already going farther with Press TV than we do with any other number of less reputable sources by explicitly citing them. But adding "State-funded" to the citations when we dont do that for any other state funded media is poisoning the well plain and simple. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When you use Press TV for topics such as news related to China, you do not need to address the affiliation of Press TV, but for news related to Iran, These news agency is an involved party. It is affiliated to one party of this dispute and cannot be considered as a bi-lateral source. There for we should address its affiliation--WIMYV? (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * @nableezy: Adding "state-funded" all over the place is probably overkill, as you say, but if this publisher is a known government mouthpiece then that should be mentioned at least once (the first time they are cited). I know nothing about this part of the world, but I edit a lot of China-related articles and the first occurence of Xinhua is always prefixed by "China's official state news agency" or some such&mdash;not to make any personal comment on it, but just to make sure readers are aware of what it is. It seems to me that this is a similar situation. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it isnt anywhere close to Xinhua. It is closer to al-Jazeera which is also fully state funded, though I wouldn't say Press TV is as reliable as al-Jazeera. I dont see why a wikilink would not be sufficient. This is more than we do when we cite some loon's blog. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that we are even debating this POV is ridiculous. In media law, adding "State funded", "State..", etc. amounts to tort and defemation. BBC and many other news outlets are also not referred to as "State something". In persuasive techniques, what the person is actually attempting to do is called "Selective retention", knowing in the West, Iran and the "State" is seen as totalitarian, evil, people with turbans in the desert that blow up innocent people, they attempt to draw the audiences focus by linking this subconscious view to Press TV. Removed.--Paradoxic (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism category
The word antisemitism does not appear a single time in the entirety of the article. An explanation as to why this article should be in that category is requested. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clearly POV-pushing; removed. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I added some information on antisemitism and Qods day. Now we can add the category--WIMYV? (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be adding info on Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Denial quotes in this year's celebration.ShamWow (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is already too slanted towards coverage of this years protest. See WP:RECENTISM. I plan on fixing that in the near future. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. I think that Holocaust Denial has been an issue is worth a brief mention but I won't go into the specifics.ShamWow (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, was more in general and not just a response to your comment. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

questionable material
The following line:"Slogans such as 'Hitler King of the Jews,' 'Save the World Kill a Jew,' and 'Free Our Country. Kill the Jews,' have been featured in Qods Day rallies."cites. The relevant part of the source says the following:"One sees this invariably in the ugly rhetoric associated with al-Quds Day, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and in marches on the embassies of Israel and the United States. Many of the slogans such as 'Hitler King of the Jews' 'Save the World Kill a Jew' and 'Free our country: Kill the Jews' obviously betray a hatred that goes beyond simple antagonism toward the Jewish State" The source also contains a note for a reference to a 1998 edition of Antisemitism World Report. This is actually referencing an issue that took place in South Africa where "An anti-Semitic leaflet was found in the Wynberg synagogue in the Capetown area. It read, 'Hitler, King of the Jews. Free our country. Kill the Jews. Palestine for the Palestinians. Gas chambers for the Jews. Save the world. Kill a Jew.'" I would like a source that back up the charge that these slogans are a part of al-Quds Day specifically. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Before reverting the edit to einclude this information that is not about Quds Day please respond to the issues. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you say "I would like a source that back up the charge that these slogans are a part of al-Quds Day ". The source says that these slogans "invariably" are part of Quds day "One sees this invariably in the ugly rhetoric associated with al-Quds Day.... Many Slogans such as ..." --WIMYV? (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I wrote? That source says that the slogans are associated with things besides Quds Day (and in marches on the embassies of Israel and the United States) and the specific reference it is using for those slogans does not make any mention of them being used at Quds Day, rather they were used on a flier left at a synagogue in South Africa. The source does not support that these specific slogans are heard at Quds Day rallies. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The page 120 is not available on google book, but what I understand from the following sentences that the author is associating the slogans in Quds day as long as other anti-Israeli protests to anti-Semitic.

"It is apparent that not to automatically equate anti-Zionism or criticism of the Jewish state with anti-Semitic. However it is apparent that anti Zionist rhetoric among Muslims increasingly reveals and displays classic anti-Jewish motifs. Jews or Zionists have become diabolically evil. One sees this invariably in the ugly rhetoric associated with al-Quds Day, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and in marches on the embassies of Israel and the United States. Many of the slogans such as 'Hitler King of the Jews' 'Save the World Kill a Jew' and 'Free our country: Kill the Jews' obviously betray a hatred that goes beyond simple antagonism toward the Jewish State"

The paragraph implies that those slogans are used at Quds Day. It does not say that this slogans are only used in the Cape Town case. The Cape Town protest is described in the reference along with other incidents, on the next page and not right after this paragraph.--WIMYV? (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The passage actually does not make the connection between the slogans and Quds Day specifically, it relates them to that and/or marches on embassies of Israel. But the reference it gives for the slogans specifically says they were used in an incident in South Africa (and it was not a "protest" in South Africa, these phrases were left on a piece of paper in a vandalized synagogue). These specific slogans are not associated with Quds Day. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is another source giving the incident in South Africa as the source of these slogans, Very often, anti-Zionist rhetoric and propaganda has degenerated into blatant antisemitism with emphasis placed on Jewish power, cunning, and duplicity. Islamic elements are increasingly vocal and disturbing. We saw this in the aftermath of a Muslims Against Global Oppression march on the Israeli Embassy in 1997 following the depiction of the Prophet Mohamed as a pig by an Israeli Jewish extremist. “Hitler, King of the Jews,” “Save the World Kill A Jew,” and “Free our country,” “Kill the Jews,” were some of the slogans that appeared on the door of the Wynberg synagogue shortly after the march. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And another. Several Cape Town incidents occurred in July 1997. Several posters depicting Adolf Hitler were found at the Wynberg synagogue, Cape Town, with the following caption: 'Hitler King of the Jews - free our country, kill the Jews'. Another poster read: 'Arabia for the Arabs. Germany for the Germans. Palestine for the Palestinians. Gas chambers for the Jews'. Smaller writing at the bottom said: 'Save the world, kill a Jew'. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Section Unacceptable and full of Anti-Government POV
The 2009 section of al-Quds day has turned into a playground for Iranian political refugees who have a clear hatred for the Islamic Republic and attempt to impose their views on Wikipedia. The entire section has turned into a "State versus the people" populism section. The "People" in this context are the small crowds who were evidently outnumbered by people who did come to show their support for Palestinians. The viewer by looking at this section and page gets an entirely one sided version of what happens, particularly through the scope of Western media (who are banned in Iran by the way, and cannot serve as an authority) in addition to Iranians who live in the west and attempt to manipulate this article to fit their own views held about Iran. Mainly against the government, Islam as a religion and Political Islam.

A number of things have to be corrected immediately.

1) Less Iranian youth attending Al-Quds day is not verifiable. The sources cited do not contain any statistical or empirical evidence, nor is the census published, which is required for us to take such a claim seriously. What has been established through video footage, however was that this year Al-Quds day was more crowded, one of the largest mosques in Iran of Tehran University was overcrowded and an entire street had to be closed down for worshippers to pray on the street. Nevertheless, none of these comments should be included until substantial evidence is presented. Removed.

2) Like the BBC, Press TV is government funded, but is an independently reporting news broadcaster. In fact, one of the main editor in chiefs of Press TV, Shahhab Mosavvat is against the Islamic System. (See his facebook page: "I hate Ayatollah Khamanei").

3) If Press TV played down the unrest, which was marginal. We should also included that the Western media blew the anti-government demonstrations out of proportion for their own broadcasting. This was done significantly more than Press TV did, showing their audiences that the anti-government demonstrators outnumbered the Al-Quds demonstrations, which is by itself ridiculous and far fetched for anyone who has seen both video material and pictures of the parades nation-wide.

4) Basiji 'Militiamen', this is POV and must be removed. Basij is also a social organisation, and no one can say for certain the men with bats are Basij. In fact, there are a number of organisations in Iran besides Basij that enforce social restrictions. Not every Basij is a militiaman either.

5) "Rejecting the government's support of Palestinian militancy". POV and absolutely absurd formulated sentence. Militancy for one person can be freedomfighters for the other.

6) Al Quds day being paid by the Iranian government is void of evidence, Iranian government has never claimed to pay for Al-Quds day, some people have attempted to link "Sponsored by the Iranian government" to "paid by the Iranian government" but this is a subjective view. Sponsored can mean anything, including Moral support, it does not have a direct financial meaning. Manipulation of wording.--Paradoxic (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, watch you word when you are using words such as Exiled or refugee... I am an ordinary Iranians like many others. If you dare, please go in Persian Wikipedia and repeat these false information there. You will see how Iranian users in Persian Wikipedia will not take your claims seriously and if you try to push such nonsense POV you will be blocked by Iranian admins in Wikifarsi. If you can add such funny information in Wikifarsi where most of people there are Iranian and familiar with the situation Iran, I will let you add such claims here to without any question
 * "You are an ordinary Iranian"...is that supposed to mean you are not an alien? You are a a foreign Iranian and one that is very hateful against the Iranian government at that. Wikipedians are NOT authorities, you have just deleted four sources that indicate Millions of 'ordinary Iranians' march during Al-Quds day. Do not attempt to be parochial, closed minded and subjective. If you have a personal problem with the Iranian government, send the embassy a letter. By the way, you being an Iranian does not mean you are an opinion leader, I'm an Iranian too, only I do not impose my anti-Government views on people who are curious about unbiased information.

1) Press TV is managed as a branch of IRIB the mouthpiece of Islamic Republic. Its CEO is the deputy of IRIB who is picked by Khamenei. You cannot compare media of a democratic country such as UK with Iran with such a dark records in violation of human rights and censorship.
 * This is denied by Press TV itself, Press TV has repeatedly said it is financed by the Islamic Republic, an initiative that was started under Khatami and was meant to be an independent news outlet. Nothing indicates that they are told what to do by the Iranian government, and they themselves deny this, unlike Channel 1,2,3 owned by IRIB. By the way, you are again being subjective. BBC was instrumental in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, they are a world media station that promote British strategic interests, also, if you have some time, please read some books on Media Governance, since you are unfamiliar with these phenomena. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that media of every form has served as an instrument in politics. What matters is what you can PROVE, not what you THINK.

2) I do not want to argue with you on funny claims such as Basijis militiamen are not people who attack people on streets. There are enough information can be found on other related articles in Wikipedia and on Internet. Just google basij militiamen.
 * You are too biased. Stop editing. Anyone who is Muslims seems to be a militiaman to you. You even regard people who march for Al-Quds day people who support "Palestinian Militiamen", you are not reasonable and considerably deranged.

3. In Iran there are many organizations whose part of their jobs is to organize such parades. Moreover, I provided NY Times article that says people are bused to this parade by regime. Everybody in Iran knows that. I just encountered the copy a basiji paystub. Paystubs of basijis who is paid for participating in the regime events are can be found on Internet. However, no need such evidence, everybody in Iran experienced this when school managers bused students to regime rallies or when soldiers are forced to attend on regime events as plainclothes people--WIMYV? (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just use a BLOG as a source of academic information. Besides, it is clear you have never been to 22th of Bahman nor Quds day, like I have. Your BLOG contains a scan of the social arm of Basij, who through Qarz-al-Hassaneh boxes (boxes that are placed outside throughout iran for people to throw in money) are funding organizers. Your source actually means Al-Quds day is paid by ordinary people who put money in Qarz al-Hassaneh, NOT the government as you claim. You are manipulating a farsi text because you think people cannot understand your source. this is no way to retain your credibility or honesty. Here is a source for you, which shows Iranian student association involvement outside Iran, the core organizers of the event. NOT the Iranian government. If you can prove the Iranian government has issued a statement and budget for Al-Quds day through their own media or PR, it is reasonable we include this and accept your claim, but a BLOG is not a source for empiricism.--Paradoxic (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * @ Paradoxic: Sources like NY Times are reliable sources (and independent of the topic of this page). You cannot just remove their reports just because you think its their POV and you don't like that. Also, comparing PressTV (which is funded by the organizer of this event, i.e IRI) with sources like BBC (which are independent of both sides of this issue) is absurd. Alefbe (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: don't write between comments of others and don't forget to sign your commnets. Alefbe (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alefbe, you are imposing your own views. BBC is not independent, they were instrumental in the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran and this is widely attributed throughout academic papers and books. If you regard the BBC independent, and still believe Islamic Republic financially funds and organizes while you are unable to provide widely accepted sources for such claims, it is understandable why you have edited this Wiki page to become entirely POV, along with WIMYV.--Paradoxic (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Independent reliable sources don't need to be independent of everything. They just need to be independent of the topic of the page. Here, for this topic, BBC and NY Times are independent, and PressTV is not. Alefbe (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alefbe, I don't know where you learned about Media law or governance, but clearly you are improvising answers that have nothing to do with communication theories or media law, you have no idea what you are talking about. BBC and NY Times are just as biased as Press TV, all media organizations have stakeholders that assert pressure to impose their political agenda on the masses. I suggest first reading about Media theories before making such outrageous comments. BBC and NY times are so independent that they are banned in Iran for provoking unrest. In fact, when NY times and BBC are not active in Iran, they cannot function as authorities. These news agencies rely on second hand information in such cases. No educated person would regard their reports as absolute, like you have, because of your natural anti-Government bias.  My sources of Millions Iranians that you have deleted were from Fox News, Xinhua AND Press TV. These are biased while the ones that suit your opinion are independent and truthful. This is purely selective and unacceptable. --Paradoxic (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources such NY Times attest that people were bused by the regime. Like I said please go and repeat your claims in Wikifarsi and see what is the reaction of your fellow Iranians. If you manage to add your claims in Persian Wiki, I will let you add your claims here too, without any question--WIMYV? (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NY Times is banned in Iran, they do not report on the ground. Anything NY times reports cannot be regarded as an authority, nor as an absolute source. You do understand this, don't you? I am not concerned with Persian Wiki. This is the English WIKI and you are requested to adhere to empiricism, truthful sourcing and widely accepted facts, not only those reports that are reported from sources that you like to read and removing all others. Even your wording "The Regime" is a title American government uses to associate Iranian government with Nazism and Communism. You are unoriginally biased just by reading your own comments. Also, you lied about your source, you specifically manipulated a farsi source for English readers as an authority, the source turned out to mean something entirely different to your description. Let the rest take heed, you have lied about sources that are in Farsi and expected people to randomly "OK" it.--Paradoxic (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Protected
Two editors' blocks expired and now the edit warring has already started up again. The edit history and talkpage history is too long to determine clearly who is "at fault" or who "has consensus on their side" (if anyone does), so pending further clarification on that I have protected the page for 24 hours. Please use this time to actually have a discussion, and no one should be making controversial changes when there is clearly no consensus yet. If you're having trouble finding a consensus (since things currently seem to be at an impasse) there are several places where you can seek outside opinions. The edit warring, though, needs to stop. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we rv to right before Paradoxic came back? He greatly damaged the content of the article and it appears that he incapable of making NPOV edits or engaging in incessant edit warring.ShamWow (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Paradoxic has agin violated 3RR today, but Rjanag instead of stopping him, has locked the page on Paradoxic's version. Paradoxic had previously violated 3RR on Sunday and when I reported him to ANI, Rjanag refused to intervene said that enforcing 3RR is not necessary, and when I told him that the 3RR policy should be enforced, he blocked me (see []). Alefbe (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @ShamWow: We can revert to pre-Paradoxic once I see that there is a consensus for that here. I already asked WIMYV to give me links.
 * @Alefbe: if you look at my discussion with WIMYV at my talk page, you will see that I am already getting ready to block Paradoxic for the edit warring today, but I'm waiting for more information. The discussion and edit history of this article is very long and I can't sift through the whole thing, which is why I asked WIMYV to supply me with some relevant links so I can make 100% sure that Paradoxic is editing against the consensus, and not just editing against you. On an article being edited this quickly it is difficult to gauge consensus, which is why I have asked for some addition information to review before blocking. (Also, incidentally, you're wrong that I blocked you "when you told me that 3rr should be enforced". I blocked you when you edit warred.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think about Paradoxic's edits or if you find it good or bad. He has violated 3RR again and you, as an admin, are supposed to enforce Wikipedia policies (including 3RR). Admin's job is about enforcing clear Wikipedia policies, not about deciding who is right in a content dispute. Alefbe (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shamwow, why? Would you also like my three widely accepted sources deleted? How about once again including words like "The regime", "State funded", "less youth are attending al-quds day" void of statistical evidence or census, making the entire article 'the people against the government'. I'm sorry, but if you really thought YOUR version was NPOV, you are really on another page, far away from academic honesty and objectivity. Please argue the points at hand, in particular those POV edits that you have edited, instead of ad populum and hominem statements towards moderators about how "I am incapable of making NPOV edits" and "greatly damaged content of the article". My view of NPOV is clearly outnumbered, and the users that are incapable of discussing their own POV edits resort to constantly reporting me. That's pathetic. As for Rjanag, I would like to show you some of my own evidence, although it is questionable you will accept it, you are behaving quite reasonable towards three people who have made POV edits against the Iranian government and used selective sources, neglecting my view on the matter entirely. --Paradoxic (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Paradoxic, I think more of your sources can be included. However, the way in which you are currently editing, you are damaging the quality and content of the page by systematically removing other people's information. And you still don't appear to be abiding by NPOV as you systematically seem to be whitewashing criticism of the Islamic Republic of Iran.ShamWow (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
(out) It seems to me that the best solution in the short-term is going to be to put this entire article on editing restrictions, because apparently just about everything that gets edited is controversial. In particular, Paradoxic and Alefbe have been making a large number of reverts; WIMYV, ShamWow, and nableezy have done somewhat less. But it has reached a point where obviously no one should be changing one of these controversial things even once without having had a discussion first and, more importantly, waited for a consensus to emerge from that discussion. Insisting on making changes that you know are going to be rolled back is immature, and it's going on a lot here. And in most of the discussions I see above, I don't see any consensus conclusion coming out of them; I just see a lot of people making reverts and saying "see what I said in the discussion!" even though the discussion did not output any consensus. As far as the edit warring, really all the parties (mostly Paradoxic, Alefbe, and WIMYV) are behaving equally poorly; the fact that there are 2 people on Alefbe's/WIMYV's side and 1 on Paradoxic, and the fact that Paradoxic may have made 4 reverts compared to Alefbe+WIMYV's 3, is only a trivial difference, and is still edit-warring behavior regardless (and nableezy seems to agree with that assessment); that's why I'm trying to find an article-wide solution rather than singling out just one editor when it's really several editors who are all contributing to the problem.

Doing that would entail unprotecting the article but with the understanding that anyone who makes a controversial change that has already been discussed can be blocked. Think of it as a 1RR restriction for the whole article. Making a new controversial change is ok, since it's part of the BRD cycle, but reinstating or re-removing old controversial stuff is not&mdash;for example, if Paradoxical again removed the "marginal proportion of young Iranians" reference again, now that it's already been a subject of discussion, he could be blocked. (Also, of course, once I unprotect the article, you guys need to decide what version to go back to. If edit-warring starts up again right after the article is unprotected, then obviously discussion is failing). Anyway, this solution would basically entail not making any blocks right now, but making everyone understand that they can be blocked if they don't stick to the talkpage&mdash;it would basically limit edits to ones that are supported by talkpage consensus. The advantage of doing this, rather than more blocks, is that people would still be able to make suggestions on the talk page even if they're restricted from editing (as long as they don't break the editing restriction, of course; if they do that, they would be blocked), and are free to make MoS fixes and uncontroversial cleanup, as well as reverting blatant vandalism.

If talkpage discussions are still failing to form any consensus, rather than giving up on discussion and starting to edit war, you guys should seek more input&mdash;for example, from a relevant WikiProject or from other editors whom you know to be experienced in this area. Since you're a small group, it seems like a lot of the discussions have hit an impasse, and injecting them with some outside opinions might help bring about consensus.

Any thoughts on this? (And yes, Alefbe, I know you want Paradoxic blocked right now so I don't need to be reminded; what I'm trying to get here is suggestions on how to get this article unprotected and deal with its issues.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please restore the version before the recent edit warring, because the current version is a mess and contains many unsourced material and unreliable sources and information that are not supported by its source. I will do my best to reach consensus. I hope Paradoxic is willing to discuss and reach consensus--WIMYV? (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking about which version to restore (like I already said above, you guys can work that out amongst yourselves; I'm not going to restore one version or another just because one editor asks me to). I was asking for input about implementing this editing restriction. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm with WIMYV on reverting back before the edit warring recommenced and then including suitable material, including Press TV links, that Paradoxic and whoever else later added.ShamWow (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine with me. Would that mean reverting to this version (before P and A's blocks expired) and then reinstating the non-controversial parts of P's edits? I can remove the page protection once(/if) everyone agrees to abide by the editing restriction and decides on which version should be restored after the protection is lifted. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about as a starting point you, Rjanag, include both sides edit, meaning include both the information that Paradoxic removed and added and we work from there? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I may agree with Nableezy. Rjanag can provide a starting point. He can restore deleted information by P and keep sourced materials of him. But Please delete his uncourced information. Para also changed some of our edits added his own POV when it is not supported by the source. For example he added "but nof financed" to sentence "In Iran, the day's parades are sponsored and organized by the government." which is not addressed in the source.--WIMYV? (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to put the time in Rjanag but I think we're perfectly capable. And the edit you picked looks good Rjanag.ShamWow (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I looked at P's edit, some sources are blogs and some edits are not supported by his sources. We should discuss all of his edits one by one. The edit Rjanag picked is the good one. After unprotected the page, we can discuss and reach consensus on additional information that can be added--WIMYV? (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really in a position to be picking and choosing which of Paradoxical's edits to restore; I'll leave that up to you guys. I would prefer to wait until Paradoxical and Alefbe comment here before I do anything (since they're two of the editors who would have to abide by this editing restriction if it's adopted), and it's likely that by then the block will have expired on its own. If they both comment here, though, I can unprotect the article early.
 * So far the consensus seems to be, if I'm reading it correctly, to go back to this edit after the page is protected, and then discuss Paradoxical's additions one at a time to determine which to restore. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

my recent edits
regarding this addition (one change in there as well) and this change. First about the 2009 section. This article is about the Quds Day rallies and should not be overly focused on one years opposition protests, though they are certainly notable and merit coverage. But the section should start with the actual rallies as even Haaretz says those protests were larger. Also, the estimates. The "tens of thousands" estimate is for Tehran alone, not for all of Iran and the rest of the Middle East, so to report it as a refutation of Press TV is misleading. The Arab Times also printed an estimate of 100,000 in Tehran, added that. Removed the lin The State TV played down the unrest because it has more to do with this article, not this one. Also removed Former president Mohammad Khatami, who took part in the opposition protest, had his black turban pulled off, a great insult in Shia Islam, we dont need to aggregate every piece of news, that isnt what the article is here for. Also did some rewording. If there is a specific part of the edit you take issue with please just revert that part and not the whole thing, and also say here what is the problem. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why you change the 2009 part without getting consensus? You also falsify the sourced information on the event section. When there was tens of thousands of supporter in the rally in Tehran, the total participants in Iran cannot be million. The Arab Times also printed an estimate of total 100,000 people in Tehran (pro-government and anti-government supporters together). Regarding your number on 2005 and other events, do not you have a source better than Foxnews, the instrument of propaganda for starting wars in Middle East. On those years, they over estimated those numbers to push their agenda against Iranians and prepare public opinion for a new war in Persian Gulf region. Please use a better source.--WIMYV? (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source isnt Fox News, it is the Associated Press. foxnews.com just happens to have the actual piece by the AP. The sourced info is that Press TV said that "millions of people marched across Iran". That is what is sourced and the other sources specifically say in Tehran. There is no contradiction there and making it appear as though there is a contradiction is flat wrong. Regarding your accusation of me "falsify[ing] the sourced information". Here is what the source says:"Although there are many Iranians under the age of thirty who attend the annual Qods Day parades, they are present in proportionately far fewer numbers than in the street, while on university campuses many students claim in private that the Arab-Israeli dispute is 'nothing to do with us'."What part of Although many Iranians under the age of 30 continue to attend Quds Day rallies, recent rallies have not shown a proportionate percentage of young Iranians with some Iranian students feeling that the issue has "nothing to do with us." is "falsifying" the source? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to show huge amount of support from your Palestine, do not spend from Iranian pockets. For 100th times. Press TV is not independent source and its number is not reliable.--WIMYV? (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer the question. The source says the following:"Although there are many Iranians under the age of thirty who attend the annual Qods Day parades, they are present in proportionately far fewer numbers than in the street, while on university campuses many students claim in private that the Arab-Israeli dispute is 'nothing to do with us'."What part of Although many Iranians under the age of 30 continue to attend Quds Day rallies, recent rallies have not shown a proportionate percentage of young Iranians with some Iranian students feeling that the issue has "nothing to do with us." is "falsifying" the source? I'll get to your other retarded arguments after this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Go and check the history of the article and see the part you delete all the time "students claim in private that the Arab-Israeli dispute is 'nothing to do with us'"--WIMYV? (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You wrote some Iranian students feeling that that.... The source says many Iranian students. Why you falsify the source?--WIMYV? (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to satisfy you. But read carefully, the sentence cannot be repeated verbatim from the source. You can use a source for ideas, but you need to use your own sentences to express those ideas. Doing that is not "falsifying" the source. The difference between the words "some" and "many" in this instance is near meaningless and the "Arab-Israeli dispute" but is implied when I wrote "the issues 'have nothing to do with us.'" Dont make these foolish accusations anymore. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop your uncivil comments and Ad hominem. If you went on Ad hominem again, I report you to admins. OK, I assume that you did not do it intentionally and it was not falsification. But I am surprised that you said that there is no difference between many and some ? Check your dictionary please. It is like your comments on my reference on anti-Semitic. You misread the general statement of the author on association of Anti-Israel protests and classic and insist that it is only about one incident. Please read that source again, you did not read it carefully just like the way you read my source on amount of Iranians who attend in the rally --WIMYV? (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying you made a foolish accusation is not an ad hominem, it is about your accusation and not you as a person (the accusation itself is foolish, I did not say you are a fool). Feel free to report me to whoever you wish. And I said there is no substantive difference in this instance. Read more carefully. And you are wrong about the other issue. Consider the following sentence:"There have been a number of African football players reaching the top level clubs in the English and Spanish leagues such as Didier Drogba and Salomon Kalou."Both of those players are in the English Premier League, not in a Spanish league but the wording is grammatically correct. The sentence does not imply that they both play in both leagues or that one of them plays in each, it is only giving examples that apply to either one of them. The same is true in the following:"One sees this invariably in the ugly rhetoric associated with al-Quds Day, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and in marches on the embassies of Israel and the United States. Many of the slogans such as 'Hitler King of the Jews' 'Save the World Kill a Jew' and 'Free our country: Kill the Jews' obviously betray a hatred that goes beyond simple antagonism toward the Jewish State"The individual slogans are associated with either/or in that sentence, not both. And given that I have given you a number of sources that say exactly where these slogans are taken from I do not know why you would bring that up again. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Looking at most of the sources cited the most common name used is "Quds Day" and only a few sources even mention the official name of "International Quds Day" (and the ones that do dont include the "al-") so without objection I will move the page in a few days. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <S>Oppose  Days should be known by their official name in an encyclopedia. This is the case with Victory in Europe Day which is always referred to as "VE Day". Why should page names be determined by inaccurate, shortened terms? It can be a redirect. I will also point out that some of the sources use "Quds (Jerusalem) Day". Chesdovi (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not what WP:COMMONNAME says. We go with the common English name, and your example is using Quds Day as the name and translating Quds. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quds Day it will have to be then. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurray! We agree on something. Done. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 section
WIMYV, could you please explain actual objections to the changes I made? For reference here are the two versions (mine first): State-funded Press TV reported that millions of Iranians marched for the Palestinian cause in Iran and different countries throughout the Middle East and the world; with other sources estimating "tens of thousands" to over 100,000 in Tehran. Ten anti-government protesters were arrested during the demonstrations. An angry crowd of hardliners attacked Mousavi's car while shouting "Death to the hypocrite Mousavi." In other cities Basiji militiamen attacked protesters. On 2009 Quds Day, Ahmadinejad denied the existence of the Holocaust, sparking international outcry. He stated, "The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim." His statements drew immediate condemnation from the United States, Russia, and the European Union. Supporters of the opposition used the 2009 Quds Day to stage protests against Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government in response to the disputed 2009 Iranian presidential election. Estimates put the opposition protest in the tens of thousands shouting slogans in support of Mir-Hossein Mousavi and against Ahmadinejad. Rejecting the government's support of Palestinian militancy, opposition protesters chanted, "No to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran.” There were reports of similar protests in Isfahan, Tabriz, Yazd and Shiraz. and current:"In 2009, supporters of the opposition used the government-organized Quds Day to stage protests against Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government in response to the disputed Iranian presidential elections. Former president Mohammad Khatami, who took part in the opposition protest, had his black turban pulled off, a great insult in Shia Islam. Estimates put the opposition protest in the tens of thousands with videos and photos showing large crowds against the government, shouting slogans in support of presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousaviand against Ahmadinejad. Rejecting the government's support of Palestinian militancy, opposition protesters chanted, 'No to Gaza and Lebanon, I will give my life for Iran.” There were reports of similar protests in Isfahan, Tabriz, Yazd and Shiraz. The State TV played down the unrest. State-funded Press TV reported that millions of Iranians marched for the Palestinian cause in Iran and different countries throughout the Middle East and the world; other sources put the number at 'tens of thousands' of government supporters. Ten anti-government protesters were arrested during the demonstrations. An angry crowd of hardliners attacked Mousavi's car while shouting 'Death to the hypocrite Mousavi.' In other cities Basiji militiamen attacked protesters. On 2009 Quds Day, Ahmadinejad denied the existence of the Holocaust, sparking international outcry. He stated, 'The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim.' His statements drew immediate condemnation from the United States, Russia, and the European Union."There is an article about the Quds Day protests, and while we should include the opposition protests there is no reason to go into so much detail and even less of a reason why it should be placed first in the section seeing as every source say the actual protests against Israel has higher attendance than the anti-government protests. Please explain what you find wrong with that edit. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quds Rally takes place every year. The thing that makes the 2009 rally unique is the protest of opposition and it should mention first. There are other problems in you version. You put the propaganda instrument of IRI at the beginning of your paragraph. Probably because you like to emphasis on "millions". When most sources contradict to Press TV, it should come at the most in footnote. None of your sources say "over 100,000" they say tens of thousands. One source estimates that total participants (pro and opposition) were 100,000.

I did not have time to look for other years but it seems that it is claimed that the number of protesters in Tehran were tens of thousands and overall millions in nationwide. This is very unlikely, because Tehran population is up to 40% of total urban population of Iran. When tens of thousands presented in Tehran how it could be millions nationwide. These reports are largely based on the IRI official reports.--WIMYV? (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, kindly resist the urge to comment on what you think I "like" as you have no clue what you are talking about. Next, can you provide a single source that contradicts Press TV? Every source says the opposition rallies were the smaller ones. As far as what "none of [my] sources" a source you provided (Arab Times) says Supporters of the regime among the more than 100,000 people who joined the Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally mounted counter-demonstrations is counting "over 100,000" among those rallying about Quds Day, not "pro and con". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No source says "millions". Do not see how other sources contradict Press TV? Moreover, Press TV is unreliable source. Also, Arab Times refers to all participants not only pro-government. Read the article carefully--WIMYV? (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, read it carefully. It is making a distinction between the opposition protests and the Quds Day rallies which it puts at "more than 100,000" among whom some "supporters of the regime ... mounted counter-demonstrations" against the opposition rallies. And as far as what other sources say on the size of each rally: In some cases on several blocks away, larger crowds marched in government-sponsored rallies marking an annual anti-Israel commemoration, waving pictures of Iran's supreme leader and president and placards denouncing the Jewish state. Although the marchers celebrating Jerusalem Day generally outnumbered the protesters, there were parts of the city where the opposite was true. There is not any dispute about which rally was larger, so I do not see why you would want to lead the section on the protests of this year with the opposition protests (well I do see why but I dont see a logical reason why). And could you provide a single RS that disputes Press TV. The ones saying tens of thousands and more than a hundred thousand are talking about Tehran specifically. Please provide a source that dispute the total number instead of just parroting the same line on Press TV being unreliable. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You always intend to misrepresent sources. Actually, I also do see why want to overestimate the support of Iranians from your Palestine but I do not see a logical reason why. Buddy, wake up. Most Iranians do not care about your Palestine. We have more serious problems than that. Understood? If you insist this funny discussion. I will be harder on you and re-add the association of antisemitism and Quds day which was removed by you by such a funny logic. If you do not want to understand that Press TV is unreliable. I cannot convince you. This TV is a branch of IRIB and its CEO is the deputy of IRIB. Understood that? Do some research on reliability of IRIB. In Iran when we want to say something is true, we say that "IRIB rejects that". You clearly have no idea about Iran. --WIMYV? (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not "my" Palestine, I am not Palestinian, and stop saying foolish things. You want to be "harder" feel free, but you still do not understand what the sources are saying. And I gave you an Israeli and an American source saying the protests for Quds Day were larger than the opposition protests, but you dont have an answer for that. Can you please explain why you reverted my changes instead of spouting similar nonsense about "misrepresenting" sources that you do not understand. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not pretend that you do not understand what I said. Is that that much hard to understand? It is "your Palestine". It is an Arab-Israeli dispute. Not Iranians! Understood? It is true that bunch of Iranian hardliners shout all the time against Israel. But they do not represent the silence majority. Who cares about that small piece of land, we have more serious problems. We told you the reason several times but you do not see what you do not want. Quds Rally takes place every year. Every year the regime organize. The thing that makes the 2009 rally unique is the protest of opposition and it should mention first. All media covers the opposition protest fist. Because against all threats of the government to arrest and punish the protesters, people protested on the streets. These self organized rally is more important than a rally which is organized by the government and many people are bused by the regime. Most media covered the opposition rally first and it should be in the sane way here. Understood that or I should repeat it for 100th time.--WIMYV? (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same thing does not help because it is nonsense. Every source says the actual Quds Day rally was larger and you are not understanding the Arab Times source. Your opinion on what is important is frankly not important. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense for me is the Jihad of hardliners against Israel and also your attempt to take Iranians the hostage for your Palestine. The mainstream media highlighted the protest more than the routine, government sponsored event and hateful slogans of hardliners. This is the fact. Like it or not. It deserves more coverage than routine rallies of Quds day. And for the last time. Do not get on my nerve. I usually do not edit Islam and Palestine related articles. But when you make me angry. I will go and add many sourced information against these things that you hate to hear them and non-Muslim love to hear that. Buddy, be careful, Iranians are forced to study Islamic theology, Quran. Muhammad and the history of Islam for 11 years in school and also in college. If we want to go on the criticism of these things, we will be very skillful because we know many details that non-Muslims and even you Muslims do not know. I know that no Muslim country has such an extensive program to teach Islam to students like Iran--WIMYV? (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You will probably say "feel free" to do that. But,if I start my job, you will regret why you insisted on something that was not worthy.--WIMYV? (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop being silly and saying foolish things (like "Jihad of hardliners against Israel" and "attempt to take Iranians the hostage for your Palestine [sic]"). You have not presented one source that disputes what Press TV reported. I dont care what you think you know about Islam or whether or not you edit Islam-related articles. What I do care about is the inanity you keep spouting in this talk page. I'll leave the order the same, but the actual content of my edit is not in any real dispute so I will be changing that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

LIES about Ahmadinejad's "holocaust denial"
Can somebody explain me who does this page force lies of Ahmadinejad's so called "Holocaust denial"? THIS is what he said:

“The Zionist regime is the symbol of lies and deception which was founded on 'colonialist' attitudes (...) If the Holocaust, as you claim, is true, why don't you allow a probe into the issue?” (Source)

Criticizing restrictions on Holocaust research isn't denial.

Seems like there are still many Israeli political activists who wants to demonize Iran and use their lies for personal propaganda and spreading anti-Iranian racism. --93.142.157.127 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you the sock of banned user Paradoxic? The guy who systematically whitewashed the IRI regime? Ahmadinejad has said that Holocaust is "myth"? Isn't it denial? What is your definition of denial--WIMYV? (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not Paradoxic. There is no any kind of "whitewashing", just talking the TRUTH and that's what scare supporters of American and Israeli regime. Ahmadinejad has NEVER said holocaust is "myth", that's undeniable fact. He said that some circles are constantly forcing "myth that only Jews suffered during WW2, while there was dozens of million Christians and Muslims who had suffered at the same way". Maybe you consider Jewish victims as more valuable then others, but I don't. --93.142.157.127 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.163.156 (talk)
 * This is Paradoxic - if you check the IPs edits he edits exactly the same articles as that user - Quds Day, Battle of Thermopylae, etc. Who should take him to the SPI board WIMYV - me or you?--Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No need. I've blocked him. See Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive - clearly the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)