Talk:Quds Day

Qods day can not be chosen to appose joursalim day as it has been set in 1979 and J day is 1998 ! the whole wording is similarly misleading --Qakhoo (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

International view is that its occupied, annexation is not recognized: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it is quite clear from the article that Iran and certain Arab states don't accept the Israeli government of Jerusalem. As for the annexation - it's a fact on the ground. Whether it is legitimate or not - that's another issue. If you have 10 thousand Syrian pounds in your bank account, it could mean that you stole them, that you worked hard or that you received a gift. In any event the money is there. Nacnikparos (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nacnikparos has been blocked as a sock of Drork. And Drork, the fact is that E. Jerusalem is Palestinian territory held by Israel under occupation. The annexation was deemed "null and void" by the UNSC, the International Court of Justice agreed, and nearly every country in the world agrees. Countless sources make this clear, the "fact on the ground" is that Israel has occupied E. Jerusalem and in violation of the Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention has attempted to annex the territory. E. Jerusalem is not in Israel, and attempts to make it appear so are in violation of NPOV. It is an extreme minority position that EJ is in Israel. The next sock you bring here should try not to so blatantly violate that core policy. nableezy - 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, quite obviously that is not a fact but a viewpoint. A majority viewpoint, but still a viewpoint. This is not a law of physics that is the truth or a birthdate that is either true or not. It is political and legal issue, with different sources holding different viewpoints about the status. And per our NPOV policies we should not treat viewpoints as facts, but either attribute them or use a wording that encompasses all notable viewpoints. The other issue is that we should be sceptical about confusing the viewpoint of organisations such as the United Nations, individiual countries or the International Court of Justice with facts. These organisations are political organisations, and their viewpoints are not formed by a quest for truth but by they realities of diplomacy and politics. More relevant here would be other sources that at least pro-forma have no political agenda. PS: I am not a sock of Drork. Pantherskin (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

As countless scholars and jurists put it, it is a fact. And I am not confusing the UN with its member states or the views of the ICRC, commonly known as the "guardian of the Geneva conventions", or the ICJ with what scholars say on the topic. And we do treat "viewpoints" that are commonly held by facts by the highest quality sources as "fact" on Wikipedia. We dont pretend that because certain people have the "alternative viewpoint" that he Earth is flat that we cant say it is spherical as a fact. This is a super-majority view, we dont treat fringe views on the same level as those. E. Jerusalem is occupied according to countless sources. If you want to say "widely recognized as occupied" instead of just "occupied" fine, but the super-majority view has to be presented as such. nableezy - 19:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you look at #occupation you'll see that sources specifically say this is a protest "against the occupation of East Jerusalem". nableezy - 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

And there we have a solution. If the protesters protest against what they see as an occupation we can attribute this viewpoint to the protesters themselves. That avoids the problem that we decide that the viewpoint of the majority is a fact. Your comparison to the flat earth is a bit misleading, to say the least. You would not find a claim that earth is flat in any serious scholarly publication. Why? Because it is an easily verifiable fact that is either true or not. The status of East Jerusalem is not - it is up to legal, moral or political interpretations. The viewpoint that East Jerusalem is annexed, controlled or whatever else is held by countless scholarly and high-quality journalistic publications, too. Maybe not as many as the opposing viewpoint, but that does not mean that we can glance over it. Pantherskin (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you provide a few of the "countless scholarly and high-quality journalistic publications" that dispute that E. Jerusalem is occupied territory? nableezy - 06:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The category Antisemitism seems inappropriate for the article since it deals with expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people and opposing Zionism as well as Israel's control of Jerusalem. There is already a category in the article called Anti-Zionism. The change I made in that sence has been reverted [2]. --Helmoony (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If there is no opposition, I m gonna delete Anti-semitism also from the infobox. --Helmoony (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Helmoony (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

This was discussed in the past, and was in the article for over a year, though this same user has in the past pushed to have it removed (despite having seemingly accepted the formulation just now removed). Sources say that for many of those observing it this is a day of protest against the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem. For example, the following sources:

• Sokolski, Henry D. (2007). Gauging U.S.-Indian strategic cooperation. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. ISBN 9781584872849. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

  p. 166: Many Muslims commemorate Al Quds Day by protesting against the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem where the Al Quds mosque is located.

• Fielding-Smith, Abigail. Explosion of fury on al Quds day The National. 19 September 2009

  an occasion for expressing opposition to the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem first initiated by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

• Quds Day in the Dahieh TIME

  Quds Day, a holiday to oppose the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem.

Plot Spoiler, please explain why you are removing the well sourced fact that this is a protest against the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem. nableezy - 20:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

These sources don't support the sentence previously in place. In fact, the majority of these sources indicate that the Iranian regime is opposed to Israel's control of the entirety of Jerusalem with no differentiation between East and West. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This isnt an article about what the Iranian regime wants. This is an article about a day observed by Muslims and Arabs, not just Iranians. The sources above support that it is a protest against the occupation of Jerusalem. You are the one that wrote the sentence previously in place (here). If you feel that this sentence, one that you came up with, is not supported, I will add one that is. How about, Quds Day features protests by Muslims in many countries against the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem? nableezy - 18:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't propose that version; it was just a means to stop your BS POV editing. And it clearly isn't simply Israel's presence in East Jerusalem. It's about Israel's presence in the entirety of the city as the quotes above demonstrate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You literally wrote that wording, to now say you did not "propose" it is clearly, oh lets go with "BS" and use your colorful phrasing. I have provided several sources that say this is a protest against the occupation of Jerusalem. You have not yet given a source that disputes this, only your own view on what the "Iranian regime is opposed" to. That isnt how articles are written. Ill be reinserting this sourced content now. nableezy - 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Errrr... no. The quotes themselves show the Iranian regime doesn't differentiate between East and West Jerusalem. They are opposed to Israel's occupation of Jerusalem as a whole. There is no mention of East Jerusalem, which only serves a separate, narrow political agenda. Something like this could be more appropriate: "...expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people and opposing Zionism as well as Israel's percevied occupation of the city of Jerusalem, referred to as al-Quds by Muslims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Plot Spoiler (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perceived occupation???? Really? The sources specifically say this is a protests against the occupation. Do you have any sources that dispute that? nableezy - 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have now reverted well sourced content twice, completely removing 3 reliable sources. I have listed this dispute at WP:3O to seek outside opinion. nableezy - 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your edit says "East Jerusalem" though, which is not reflected in the sources. This is about Israel's control of the entirety of Jerusalem. And Israel manifestly doesn't occupy Jerusalem as a whole, despite the Iranian regime's claims. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The very first source says the following: Many Muslims commemorate Al Quds Day by protesting against the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem where the Al Quds mosque is located. nableezy - 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's 1 of 3 sources. Bad odds for you. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

And here is an additional source: Al-Jazeera: Hundreds of thousands of Iranians rallied in cities across the country to protest against Israel's occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem. All the sources say it is a protest against the occupation, you can call that bad odds, but we'll see. nableezy - 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Response to third opinion request:

I think it would be appropriate to include the disputed text in the lede (though maybe there's potential to fine-tune the wording), since it seems to be broadly in line with what sources say and it's crucial to the subject of "Quds Day". If sources disagree as to whether it's about "east Jerusalem" or merely "Jerusalem", the best solution is to weigh up the different sources to choose the most appropriate term, rather than to remove the whole explanation of what Quds Day is about. Obviously, this is a controversial area; there's plenty of room to clarify details in the body of the article, and I would also encourage editors to assume good faith and to try to be cooperative rather than obstructive.—bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to look at this Bob. nableezy - 14:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Plot Spoiler, the 3O specifically says it would be appropriate to include the disputed text in the lede. Why exactly are you removing this again (along with 2 sources that specifically say it is a protests against the occupation of EJ)? nableezy - 14:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure exactly what your conclusion indicates Bob and I'm a little irked that Nableezy did not send me a link to participate in the discussion. The Iranian regime has called for the destruction of Israel as a whole and Quds Day refers to Israel's control of Jerusalem as a whole and not simply Israel's control of East Jerusalem. If anything, Nableezy is cherry-picking sources to prove his POV point. He has been routinely banned for I/P editing for his battleground behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is here, why would I need to send you a link? I wrote above I will be asking for a third opinion at WP:3O. Quds Day is observed outside of Iran, this is not an article on Iranian views of Israel. Your ad-hominem attacks aside, why are you removing well sourced material from this article? nableezy - 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

More of the sources you've provided indicate Quds Day, i.e. the Iranian regime, is opposed to Israel's presence in Jerusalem, not occupation of singularly East Jerusalem. Here are some other sources for you (do I need to do this all day?):

• From http://alqudsday.org/: "International Day of Al-Quds is an annual event opposing Israel’s control of Jerusalem"
• Wall Street Journal [3]:"Quds means Jerusalem in Arabic, and the day alludes to the Arab struggle to free Jerusalem from the Israelis."
• ITIC[4]: "Since it was first conceived by Khomeini and the government of Iran in 1979, Quds Day (“Jerusalem Day”) is held annually by the Iranians and their supporters on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan. Marked in Iran, the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world, the events are a show of support from Iran and the Muslim world for the Palestinian cause and the “liberation of Jerusalem”, and also a statement of defiance against the US and the West (“the arrogant powers”)." Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thats nice. Do any of those contradict the statement you removed from the article which is supported by several reliable source, that being . Across several countries, Muslims protest the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem.? But your WSJ link does not contain the sentence you write here, in fact it seems to be something completely unrelated (I think you meant this link). But how does any of this contradict the sentence you removed from the article? nableezy - 15:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The WSJ link does in fact say what is exactly there. And as the sources indicate, Quds Day is in protest of Israeli control of Jerusalem. It is not factual, and not generally supported, that Quds Day is simply in protest of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Multiple sources have been given to you saying that people protest against the occupation of EJ. You cannot come back and just say those sources are wrong. Your first link is to a random website, your second does not contradict the sentence, and neither does the third. Do you have any sources that contradict the sources I have provided saying that people protest against the Israeli occupation of EJ? I have provided a number of sources that say exactly that. Do you have any that dispute that? nableezy - 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nableezy, the sources you provided appear to be outweighed by other sources that clearly indicate that it is a event against Israel's control of Jerusalem as a whole, based on the Iranian regime's opposition to Israel's very existence. This is indicated in the sources below:

• "On Friday, tens of thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran, chanting "Death to Israel," declaring solidarity with the Palestinians and calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080926152921.p3wozs19&show_article=1
• "Quds, or Jerusalem, Day is celebrated in Iran as a day to denounce Israel." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/sep/17/iran-protests-quds-day
• "Ahmadinejad's remarks came as millions of Iranians held rallies across Iran to protest Israel's continued hold on Jerusalem, the city where Muslims believe Islam's Prophet Mohammed began his journey to heaven. The demonstrations for "Al-Quds Day" — Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem — also spilled over into anti-American protests because of U.S. support for Israel. In the capital Tehran, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets as they chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Some protesters also burned American and Israeli flags. State television reported similar large rallies in all other provincial capitals and smaller towns across Iran. Iran does not recognize Israel and regards Palestine as comprising the Jewish state as well as the West Bank and Gaza." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-05-iran_N.htm
• "Mr. Ahmadinejad called on all Muslims to prepare for a final battle to free Jerusalem, claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians as their capital. "People of the region should be alert and ready so when the time comes we can fight our final and decisive battle" against Israel, he said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges Palestinians to keep up their armed struggle against Israel a day after Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed to continue talks on a U.S.-backed peace deal. Video Courtesy of Reuters. The annual event, Quds Day, is a show of support for Palestinians in their conflict with Israel and is held on the last Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. It was initiated in 1979 by the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who declared the liberation of Jerusalem a religious duty for all Muslims." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704855104575470020696330864.html

All of the sources I have provided clearly indicate that Quds Day is opposed to Israel's control of all of Jerusalem, based on the belief that Israel is an invalid state. I have provided adequate sourcing at this point, which you cannot continue to simply invalidate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not just about Iran, as I have said multiple times. Multiple sources say that people protest on Quds Day against the occupation. All of your sources are specific to Iran. nableezy - 14:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quds Day originated in Iran and is focused there, where the Iranian government sponsors demonstrations. I have provided many more sources indicating people are protesting against Israel's control of Jerusalem. Only two source you have provide indicates it is about distinctively East Jerusalem. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Originated in Iran, sure, but it is much bigger than that now. Again, the passage in the article is not about Iran's views, so what Iran says does not really affect that. Many sources have been provided saying it is a protest against the occupation, two specifically say it is a protest against the occupation of EJ, but if the number is a problem I can provide more. nableezy - 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. 1) The demonstrations are overwhelmingly focused in Iran and what happens there, is therefore more notable and reflective of "the day". What happens in the rest of the world pales in comparison. #2) The sources you provided don't actually provide any direct evidence that it is in protest against the occupation of EJ. The sources I have provided do (Jews as usurpers, death to Israel, death to Zionist regime, etc.). Can you find any sources that actually have statements from Quds Day specifically directed against Israel's occupation of EJ? Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. No, sources say this happens across the region, even across the world. 2. Direct evidence??? Reliable sources specifically say this is a protest against EJ. That is all the evidence that Wikipedia required (WP:V). nableezy - 14:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nableezy, I'm not sure why you're making this argument. The origins and focus of the Quds Day protests are Iran, and the sources make it clear that that Iran's objections (as articulated on Quds Day) are not merely to "Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem", but rather to "Israeli occupation of Palestine", i.e., to Israel's existence. You know this, and the sources support it, so why are you objecting here? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

That may have been the intent of Khomeini, it may also be the general sentiment in Iran, or at least among those attending these protests. However, this is not something that is observed only in Iran. There are Muslims in many other countries, and some of them use this day to protest against the Israeli occupation of EJ (or so reliable sources say). If you would like to include the fact that others use this day to protest against the existence of Israel, by all means, feel free. However, that does not mean the protests against the Israeli occupation of EJ go unmentioned. nableezy - 07:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are you seriously suggesting that the protests are only and solely about East Jerusalem? That in any of these protests the protesters themselves are solely concerned about who controls East Jerusalem? I'm looking for an honest answer here. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I dont think many Muslims actually care about west Jerusalem and use "al-Quds", or even just "Jerusalem" to refer to EJ. Im sure you know this already, but "al-Quds" means "the Holy". Muslims dont see much holy outside of EJ. So when a source says "protest the occupation of al-quds" or "of Jerusalem" I typically read that as discussing EJ (including, obviously, Temple Mount). So yes, I seriously, and honestly, am suggesting that people are protesting against the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem does not mean, to the Arabs and Muslims that I know, what it means to the government of Israel. That might be a bit of OR on my part, but you asked for my opinion. For why I say it should be included, there are sources that specify that there are people protesting against the occupation of EJ. nableezy - 08:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, my impression is that most people in general, including protestors and activists, don't actually care (or know) very much (if at all) about Israel, Israelis, Palestinians, or anything else related to the conflict, despite their very strongly stated views on the subject. In any event, my reading of the sources is that Muslims are protesting against the "occupation of Palestine" on Quds day, of which EJ is a part. What the sources show is that on Quds Day people protest against all sorts of things that Israel is "occupying", so the article text should reflect all of that, rather than the narrow (and frankly misleading) view that's it just about the "occupation of East Jerusalem". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

What exactly do you think the article should say? Do you think it should not include, at all, that people protest the occupation of EJ? nableezy - 18:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the article should say what the sources indicate; that it's ostensibly about East Jerusalem, but the protests cover a much broader issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

And how would you have the article say that? nableezy - 02:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to this source, the Iranian position that the liberation of Jerusalem is a Muslim religious duty is centered around Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, the site of Islam's third holiest shrine [5]. Our article should reflect this viewpoint and it should also give more promenince to Quds day events elsewhere as it is not solely an Iranian phenomenon (see my last article edit about the OIC supporting Quds day events as early as 1988). Tiamut^talk 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, why should the article reflect only what this one source says? Is UDel associate professor M. A. Muqtedar Khan now a source so reliable that all other sources have become irrelevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you point out to me exactly which sources provide a definition of what Quds Day is about that contradicts this source (and the other sources provided by Nableezy in this section and in the article)? Could you also provide a sggested phrasing that incorporates both this POV and the one you want to see included? Tiamut^talk 09:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

We went through this before, it is a well sourced fact that quds day protests are held against the occupation of East Jerusalem. I'm restoring it. nableezy - 22:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: @user:Plot Spoiler Making statements which are not included in the sources directly, is an obvious WP:OR and should be avoided. If the WP:RS say "protests are against the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem...", exactly the same thing should be reflected in the article. Nothing more, nothing less. Mhhossein (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article says that Quds Day is the last Friday of Ramadan, which would make it August 26, but [6] and [7] put in August 5. I can't seem to find a good source to say what the date is this year. Any help? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the Greater Kashmir sources as its biased non reliable self published source. Also one fact was solely supported by it, so I have removed it too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

it says that the 2012 date is August 18, which is wrong because August 18 is a Saturday. The correct day is Friday, August 17. According to some tradition, events may be observed on the eve of the day (in the this case, the eve of Friday the 17th is after the sunset on Thursday the 16th; but either way, Friday the 17th will be the "day" of the event. 108.68.183.90 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. Never mind, I have made the correction my self and the 2012 date is now correctly displayed as August 17.Reply

About my edit [8] (reversed): in 2013 a quote was mistranslated, and that mistranslation was withdrawn within a day. There is no use to mention a row based on a mistranslation. Since the row was based on that error, there is no requirement for me or anyone to produce the right one; thee row was baseless and idle full stop. I suggest to throw the non-issue out as i did. -DePiep (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, nableezy - 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed a number of things that are not related to Quds Day itself. If you would like to include criticism of a certain person by all means include it in the article on the person. Later interviews are likewise unrelated. nableezy - 14:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

A Palestinian leader publicly calling for Jews in Jerusalem to given a two minute grace period before being shot, as well as citing the Koran to encourage people to "prepare against them whatever you are able of power and steeds of war", at a Al-Quds day protest is certainly related to this article. I would also argue that the subsequent fallout from these comments (and there has been a lot of fallout) is also relevant, since the news articles dealing with this prominently cite the fact that these comments were made at the Al-Quds day protest. Likewise, Mr. Hazineh's subsequent explanation of his words (farcical as it may be) is also related to this topic.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC))Reply

What Palestinian leader? Who is Elias Hazineh? I think the entire thing should be removed and all that needs to be said is that a rally was held in Canada. This is not a collection of everything that MEMRI thinks is important. But nothing that didnt happen on Quds Day at a Quds Day rally is relevant here, and Im getting more than a bit tired of this never ending quest to make every article about anything critical of Israel into a MEMRI production. nableezy - 14:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Clearly you didn't look at this close enough, Nableezy. MEMRI wasn't the only or even the first source to report this (I simply included it as a citation because I thought it seemed relevant). If you actually took a few minutes to examine the sources cited, you will see that articles published in the Huffington Post, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Haaretz, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and the Jerusalem Post (among others) have covered this topic in detail - His (supposedly metaphorical) call for a two-minute grace period for Jews to leave Jerusalem before being shot has proved to be quite the controversy. If you want, I'll even remove the MEMRI reference, since so many other sources are available, and I can also add more if you would like me too. Finally, if you looked at the articles cited, you would see that Elias Hazineh is not a nobody - he is the former head of the Palestine House in Toronto, Canada. (And this is certainly not his only claim to fame - he also previously served as Executive Assistant to former Liberal MPs Carolyn Parrish and Omar Alghabra, has twice run unsuccessfully for public office, and recently launched a court case against Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion [9].

My point is that this speech, and its resulting fallout, are notable enough to be included in this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC))Reply

Im well aware of what sources were used. Yes, those sources are enough that you can put this in the article, and you havent seen me remove them (even though I think it doesnt belong at all), my point is that if you want to offer commentary on a speech some random person made do it in their article (actually, please dont, we have enough "articles" here that resulted from some quote made that MEMRI and like minded organizations have jumped on that we dont need another). This article is about a 34 year old day, not one line from one speech one person made and the reaction to it. nableezy - 23:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article should be renamed "al-Quds Day" rather than "Quds Day". The majority of sources (and people) refer to it as "al-Quds", which is the proper way, in the Arabic language, to refer to Jerusalem. Within the article, source 1 and 5 (I didn't read through every source) refer to it as "al-Quds". Ask any Arabic language sources the accurate. It's true that some (mainly Iranian) sources refer to the day as "Quds" but many others refer to it as "al-Quds". Please refer to these sources too: http://www.ihrc.org.uk/activities/projects/9428-al-quds-day (notice the various photographs of signs with "al-Quds" written on them) http://www.jpost.com/International/Islamists-at-Berlin-al-Quds-Day-call-for-destruction-of-Jewish-state-321974 http://alqudsday.org/about/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23448932 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/08/03/al-quds-day.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furtfurt (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It fails multiple NPOV tests It is unbalanced and factually lacking. The events referred to may well exist, the statements may be true too, including radical anti semitic remarks from notable figures, however, that does not mean those remarks are worthy of encyclopaedia entry without challenge for balance. The assertion the article is anti zionist deserves to have the claim challenged and justified. Otherwise it is unbalanced. A pro Israeli view is absent which is absurd because it exists and should inform the reader, who otherwise is exposed to rash assertions which are discredited by time and events. DDB (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

For balance, some points might be .. there is no such state in modern times as Palestine. The reference is to a Roman name of a Jewish state under secular administration, like Israel is today. The Balfour agreement or British mandate Palestine was supposed to create Israel, but British 'forgot'. Jordan seized some of Israel's promised land a day before it was to be turned over and after a civil war in Jordan, the losers claimed the land as their own. Those Jordanians called themselves Palestinians in 1967. The UN has made the situation worse by declaring these so called Palestinians as refugees and claiming those born in Israel are not Israeli. This is different to all refugee conventions everywhere else. Palestinians have no right to that land, but no other Arab state wants them. They have employed terror to achieve their goals. Khomeini's views are not universal to Islam. Khomeini mistakenly called a fatwa on a writer for personal gain. Modern Israel satisfies all the Balfour requirements as a modern secular state administering the land. Many Islamic peoples coexist peacefully in Israel today. People are killed for no reason in so called Palestine (often with denunciation of being Israeli) which is a crime against humanity and those who do that should face justice. DDB (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Plot Spoiler: I noticed your recent revert of Mehdi ghaed's edit. How do you see that as a POV statement? Even if it is a POV, the onus is on the editors to add the opposite views (for example disclaimers by BBC) to balance the text, not to remove it. Mhhossein (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Plot Spoiler:. where is POV?. I just describe the event of demonstration in UK. I think that you have to separate two things. one thing is the Bias of BBc which is not my concern. other thing is describing of the maxim of Activists. I just describe the latter not former. how you accuse me to deny NPOV I don't know.--m,sharaf (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

For one thing, that edit didn't specify that these are not facts, but rather the opinions of the Islamic Human Rights Council (I think the article may actually be referring to the Islamic Human Rights Commission). Trying to pass off the opinions of an anti-Zionist group, especially from an article published by Russia Today (which isn't exactly a neutral source), violates both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's POV guidelines.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

Hyperionsteel: I agree with you, the editor needs to clarify that the text is an opinion. However, this is not important whether the group is anti-Zionist or not and I think the source is reliable enough for reflecting such an opinion. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

"... if it is a POV, the onus is on the editors to add the opposite views" On the basis of what policy have you come to this completely bizarre and bogus conclusion?--Anders Feder (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the text is clarified to state these are the opinions of this particular organization (and not simply state as a fact that the BBC is bias towards Israel) then we can probably include it in the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

@Hyperionsteel: Yeah, as I said, it's an opinion, not a fact. Let's ask Mehdi ghaed make required edits. Mhhossein (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't answer my question. The proposition is simply BS - the onus to not edit tendentiously is on all editors. This includes not least editors who are big fans of authoritarian autocrats.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: To try and speed things along, I've reinserted Mehdi ghaed's addition but I have editing the wording to reflect what we have discussed here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC))Reply

@Hyperionsteel: Good job, thanks!

It seems that there is a misunderstanding about policy here. The relevant policy here is WP:ONUS, which states that finding the consensus for the edit is incumbent on the editor who wishes to add the material. Since Anders Feder is disputing the reliability of this source, Mhhossein should find consensus before adding this material, perhaps by using WP:RfC or WP:RSN or informally by WP:3O. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kingsindian: Thank you. For what it is worth, I can begin by presenting the only reliable information I could find about the source (Chicago Monitor) which is a passage on Huffington Post describing it as "a website associated with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations"[10].--Anders Feder (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kingsindian: Thanks for your explanation. Mhhossein (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Chicago Monitor is a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine.[11] Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would not trust FrontPage generally, but on this occasion they seem to be roughly correct. The assistant editor at Chicago Monitor is the Communications Coordinator at Cair-Chicago. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kingsindian: Feder removed the lines from the mentioned source, alleging that there's no consensus on its reliability. How did you justify the source. As more than two editors are here, I preferred to to have it discussed here rather than other boards? Mhhossein (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: I do not know the details here, but it seems that the source is simply a website associated with CAIR. In the WP article this is used as a counterpoint to a BBC report (stating that the event does not find wide support among Muslims), but the statement quoted from Chicago Monitor is quite vague and the outlet can't really be compared to the BBC in terms of reliability. In my informal opinion, it should not be used. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kingsindian: What point is vague here? Simply, a viewpoint is presented by BBC beside which I put a counter viewpoint to balance the paragraph. could you please say what exactly makes it unreliable in comparison to BBC? How is it when it comes to the authors and not merely the sites? Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: The BBC is talking specifically about how widespread the observation of the day is. The CM source is used for this statement an international solidarity movement for human rights open to both Muslims and non-Muslims. This is a vague statement, which does not address the BBC's point, and it is not clear how this is relevant. Finally, the CM source is simply a website and I don't see what its editorial policies are, nor any qualifications of the writer here. As I said, this is just my informal opinion about this matter. I suggest that if you wish to include this, you pursue formal methods like WP:RfC or posting on WP:RSN. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK Kingsindian. Thank you for your cooperation. Mhhossein (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Plot Spoiler, you do this every year or so. You delete a swath of material that repeatedly garners consensus on this talk page. The material you removed is not specific to Iran. and the cited sources make clear that Arabs and Muslims from outside of Iran protest against the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem. Would you care to explain your revert and why you repeatedly remove well-cited material? And Ill note #removal of protest against occupation. nableezy - 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I might add that shifting the precedent in Jerusalem Day from the lead was moving it out of sight rather than fitting the ed summary pretext.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

And I dont expect to get a response. We'll see though, we may be pleasantly surprised. nableezy - 21:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I reverted him, he has to build consensus before making such as rather mass change. Mhhossein (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Correct, since the editor concerned is a mechanical drive-by reverter of distinction. I think however, given that there are concerns about the NPOV quality of this text, that the article be looked over correctly to address this issue. I haven't the time myself. But will try to help out if some concrete points regarding this are raised on the page.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I can help resolve the issues if there are some points. Mhhossein (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well I think a major priority is to create a Criticism section. I perceive the article to be unblanced at the moment. It would stabilise the article if we were up front about some of the issues surrounding the event which will have been voiced in R/S. Irondome (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

As we know "the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Mhhossein (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

That does not seem to prevent many, if not most IP related articles having them. A weak justification for not having one I must regretfully say. The article is not NPOV in it's present condition. Irondome (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, this is a dreadful article, in many respects.

(a)It should be as short as the parallel Yom Yerushalayim article.

(b)A section, quite unhysterical, should focus on its function within Iran's Islamic revolution, the extension of this to Arab countries, and the tensions between Arab and Iranian political forces over this. It is promoted in Iran, and by Hezbollah, and tolerated in Arab countries.

(c) Its use against Israel or its policies.

(d The country by country, year by year sections are fatuous and unnecessary. One needs a general statement. There is absolutely no encyclopedic value in this listing, except I think to suggest it is associated with violence.

Those are my first impressions, on rereading this in the break in the Poland-Portugal match.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I agree with the areas of concern and solutions put forward by Nishidani. A criticisms section should in addition be included, unless this would be broadly covered by (c) above. Irondome (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The citation does not say The rally is held by both Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the world. Well certainly leftists liberals progressists... and feminists gays transgenders ... is ok they will be the firsts to lose their heads .... It says Al-Quds Day is not an Islamic religious holiday, but a political event open to Muslims and non-Muslims alike where demonstrators express opposition to Israel's control of Jerusalem. Demonstrators are mentally sick people kind ... These are not the same thing, at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.0.61 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You should check the source once again because it exactly reads:"International Day of Al-Quds is an annual protest held on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan in most Muslim and Arab countries, and by Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the world." Mhhossein (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC) biy toillet paper with the koran .Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Quds Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/2009/09/19/0919iran.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120818033952/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/17/full-notebook-count-on-ahmadinejad-to-find-the-right-words/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/17/full-notebook-count-on-ahmadinejad-to-find-the-right-words/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.france24.com/en/20120817-hundreds-hold-quds-day-rally-gaza
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140725112933/http://presstv.com/detail/2014/07/25/372670/world-set-to-mark-quds-day/ to http://presstv.com/detail/2014/07/25/372670/world-set-to-mark-quds-day

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is an egregiously controversial if not downright fallacious position and must not be given weight and pushed into the lead. A country which hosts the second largest Jewish community in Western Asia and clearly distinguishes between Zionism and Judaism in its official statements, doesn't sponsor rallies with "anti-Semitic attacks" especially when the Jewish community of that country also take part in those rallies! Removing this clearly fallacious statement from the lead. --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Supported by source (one of many). And the fact that 8,000 Jews remain in Iran after most of them escaped the islamic revolution and the ayatollahs took all their property is irrelevant, for antisemites there's always an "acceptable" type of Jew.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some Jews escaped before the establishment of the Constitution and clarification of the IRI attitude towards minorities NOT afterwards. There is also no consensus on what is and is not Antisemitism and Zionists tend to stretch and bend the term to cover as many critiques of Israel as they can. It is basically a propaganda concept mostly. So a contentious view when disputed by facts of Iran's positive attitude towards Jews must not feature prominently in this article. Certainly not in the lead and even in the body it has to be balanced. So don't restore it before consensus. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Quds day is primarily an Iranian event, having been established originally in Iran. Thus, the most representative photo would be from an event in Iran. OtterAM (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article features disproportionately many photos from European events, which gives slightly skewed view of the event. If you look in Wikimedia Commons, most of the images are from Iranian events. OtterAM (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

OtterAM: That's a flawed argument, to be frank. Are you trying to ignore that the event is actively held around the world? Anyway, is this image depicting a rally? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are many events around the world pictured in the article already. OtterAM (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

OtterAM: Just tell me what the hell kind of rally your pushed image is showing? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

At the moment there are 3 images from Iran and 3 from Germany. There are also several images from the US and Sweden. Given that the event was founded in Iran, I think that that the article should not include more German images than Iranian images.OtterAM (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

CAN YOU HERE ME? Why are you trying to evade answering my question; "what the hell kind of rally is your pushed image showing?" --Mhhossein ^talk 19:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you can read the caption of the image for yourself just as well as I can... OtterAM (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@OtterAM: Please get consensus before changing the image again. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's why I believe OtterAM's edits need to be checked by more scrutiny. That image is showing some people sitting somewhere holding some signs. Is that a rally? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Joe: The consensus has nothing to do with Iran. See 'Other Criteria' section and search for "representative". --Mhhossein ^talk 10:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: I don't understand what you're trying to say. The question posed in the RfC was "Iran or Germany" and each of the bolded !votes above express support for Iran specifically. – Joe (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Joe:Thanks for the reply. That's clear. Firstly, what the users seems to have agreed upon was the "representative" criteria suggested by HyperGaruda. Be it Iranian or not, the photo needs represent the incident, i.e. it should be somehow different from other regular rallies. Secondly, we don't VOTE and we don't sum the comments when assessing consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I stand by the original close. I'm aware that consensus is not a head count, having closed several hundred discussions on Wikipedia by now: that is what the ! in !vote signifies. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Expectant of Light: I would double check the recent edits on this page. Among others, OAM's edits need to be checked by scrutiny. I've corrected some of his wrong edits, however there are some others. See this one, for instance. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC) WP:AGF, please.Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it appears that some users want to make it appear as only an Iranian thing or give undue weight to charges of "anti-Semitism". The demos are obviously held in several European capitals outside Iran and the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is easily blurred in some media reportings. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@OtterAM: this source (which by the way, is primary source) does give list of the Zionist Organizations that sponsor the rally. why do you remove that? and inserted synthesis which couldn't be found in the source? –Ammarpad (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remove it, I condensed it. My version said exactly the same thing. There's no difference between "pro-Israel" and "Zionist". OtterAM (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is just your imagination that your version is saying the same thing; In fact, you fabricated a new thing not found in the source. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ammarpad and Expectant of Light: Things are worse than I thought. Just see how he has fabricated this. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: Yes, I also identified other problematic edits by Nableezy. See the last section. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Everybody editing this page, please read the top of this talk page. This article is covered by the ARBPIA discrertionary sanctions and also by the 1RR and the restriction that if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. That has been violated by at least two people so far. nableezy - 19:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I maintain that every section that covers a given years protest, absent some evidence of lasting impact from that protest, violates WP:NOTNEWS. This is not List of Quds Day demonstrations. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about a topic, not a rehashing of the years protest that causes some edit-war for the week after that it falls. I propose removing everything in this article past the section Quds day events. nableezy - 05:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As there has been no objections, Im going to do exactly this. nableezy - 06:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: Would you mind doing a self-revert? 1 day one was not enough to assume there was no objection. Let us rest on it. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fine, but look at any number of articles on similar topics. They do not contain a rundown of the years news reports for every year. If anything they might contain information on a particular year if that specific event had some lasting impact or it was some important anniversary. Eg Jerusalem Day, Bastille Day. What was removed violates WP:NOT in that it is simply recounting the news. nableezy - 21:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Those individual events show the nature of Quds Day and should remain, since they are indicative of a trend. Also it was reported by mutiple reliable sources. I oppose your proposal to remove all that sourced content (some of which is the result of consensus based on previous discussions).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Again, this is not List of Quds Day protests. As far as "indicative of a trend", please see WP:SYNTH. If there are some sources discussing a trend in Quds Day protests then by all means bring that here. Wikipedia however is not a repository of every news article that you can find that contains the words "Quds Day". nableezy - 21:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: Thanks for the self-revert. Anyway, on one way I'm in agreement with you since the article will essentially turn into a long list in some years, if we keep on the procedure of recording the events every year. However, there might be some significant events which need to stay here. Let's see what others think about it. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agree as per Mhhossein's comment. -Expectant of Light (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Im removing it again. There isnt a reason for this list of news reports to be here. If somebody wants to take the material and create list of Quds Day rallies go ahead, I wont even nominate it for deletion (though I would vote to delete it if somebody else did). nableezy - 06:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any consensus over the removal of contents. Why is it removed?Saff V. (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

And I dont see any consensus for the inclusion. Whats your point? Anyway, it was split off to List of Quds Day demonstrations. nableezy - 19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are the only one opposing it. I'll add a summary of the events to the article. @Nableezy: I expected you to act in accordance with the consensus and discussion. Thanks anyway. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: I'd just like to remind editors of the one revert rule. The reverts were performed within a 24 hour period: [19] and [20] I suggest you self revert.OtterAM (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You likewise violated the 1RR here. And caused some pretty serious issues with changing what sources that were previously used for material you removed now showing up as references for things they did not support, aka source distortion. Thats a pretty serious issue. nableezy - 06:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

And the edit you are complaining about, could you care to explain how it is that you put in an encyclopedia article Quds Day events often feature calls for the destruction of Israel when the source you cite says nothing anywhere close to that? Could you please explain that edit? nableezy - 06:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Quote from the Hindustantimes reference that I used "Chants against the Saudi royal family and the Islamic State group mingled with the traditional cries of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” at Jerusalem Day rallies across Iran on Friday." This text clearly proves my point that they are calling for the destruction of Israel. OtterAM (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article is in a ridiculously poor state, and it's edits like your that are keeping it that way. Next time please read the source before you make the erroneous claim that they do not support the article text that I added. OtterAM (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are taking a single rally containing chants of "death to Israel" to mean that rallies often feature calls for the destruction of Israel? nableezy - 06:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: As I said above, HE CAN'T HEAR YOU. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: I should also make some notes about the chant "death to Israel" and "death to ..." chants in general in Iranian public pronouncements against enemies. These are not expressions of a wish of literal death of people, but idiomatic expressions of outrage and anger at policies of the governments. These are well attested to in Death to America. As for Israel though, the official stance in Iran is that Israel as a political entity must be dismantled but again this does not mean wishing death for Jewish settlers in Palestine. It's a call for destruction of a criminal apartheid occupation regime not genocide of people obviously. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Umm, no. Many sources take the "death to" cries quite literally.Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

They do! Because when you want to demonize an enemy you need excuses. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regardless, the source manifestly does not support the edit by OtterAM. nableezy - 19:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Critics of Al-Quds Day accuse its supporters of new antisemitism.[6]" The sources provided for this controversial claim are American Jewish Committee and Manfred Gerstenfeld. These are both highly partisan pro-Israeli sources and I explained it in my edit summary which specified the partisan nature of the claim. @Nableezy: this was disingenuous to remove "Pro-Israel" along with your other edit despite knowing this specification was accurate! --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I had also explained why the "anti-Semitic" accusation in the lead must be removed for being controversial and untrue. Why do you push your edits without considering discussion and past edit summaries? --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The AJC is not a highly biased source. Events in Quds day are widely described as antisemitic and this should be reflected in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

AJC is highly biased. It openly advocates for Israel and urges others for advocacy. American Jewish Committee#Controversy. And I explained here why anti-Semitic charges must not be given weight. Iran has nothing against Jews but Israel and Zionism. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Im sorry, but you are simply mistaken on what needs to be in the lead. WP:LEAD says that it should summarize the article and include any prominent controversies. That there have been anti-semitic speeches at a number of Quds Day rallies in Iran is such a prominent controversy. As far as labelling them pro-Israel critics, they are both pro-Israel, but you can find that criticism elsewhere. And regardless, it doesnt have to be that specific. We dont also say pro-Palestinian xyz or pro-Iranian whatever for any source that could be argued to be from that side of the spectrum. nableezy - 06:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You specify the source bias when the claim is controversial and is at odds with facts or other more prominent views. That's what it takes to write a neutral article. If you want to give weight to charges of anti-Semitism you have to balance that with sources that contest that contention. And I explained anti-Semitism is mostly a propaganda term that partisan Zionist sources use to discredit any criticism even by Jews who are critical of Israel accusing them of "self-hatred" which is laughable. And if you check most sources that develop the literature about this concept you find they are mostly Jewish sources with strong bias towards Israel. Anyway you either specify the bias of the source or balance that with opposite views. --Expectant of Light (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Independent: Critics have argued that Quds Day is antisemitic by definition and its rallies are commonly met with bitter counter-demonstrations. nableezy - 07:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and if you trace those "critics" you arrive at the same biased sources. --Expectant of Light (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Im sorry, but that isnt how things are done here. nableezy - 08:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I will note that per many definitions of antisemitism, ascribing pro-Israeli views to Jews or Jewish organizations is antisemitic. I would urge editors to refrain from making such unsourced claims. Yhe AJC, a Jewish-American organization, is obviously concerned whenever antisemitism raises its head, as are other Jewish organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Um Icewhiz, the AJC is a self-described pro-Israel group. nableezy - 23:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Icewhiz: That's just laughable! Drop that! For Zionists describing a spade spade is anti-Semitic. In Israel I guess demanding your right to return to your homeland is also considered anti-Semitic and you can be shot at point blank range just for that! So I believe anti-Semitic charges themselves are racist. And finally Wikipedia is not Israel! So yeah just drop that! --Expectant of Light (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no indication that the AJC's pro-Israel stance influences its response to antisemitism.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Uh both of you are making comments that are not appropriate here. Expectant of Light, please focus on the article. Icewhiz, veiled accusations of antisemitism are highly inappropriate. Especially when they have literally zero basis. nableezy - 06:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@EVERYBODY: Antisemitism charges need to be handled more carefully. Currently, the lead is reflecting the viewpoint of "Katajun Amirpur" and it's worse to see that it reads "anti-Semitic attacks", as if it's a fact. This is what the critics argue, which is neglected in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: Could I have your feedback on this, please? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I dont think there is anything wrong with the current phrasing. Katajun Amirpur writing in Die Welt des Islams is a reliable source. nableezy - 18:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, the critics have argued part in the Independent is about it being antisemitic by definition using the idea of new antisemitism. That isnt something that can be asserted as a fact, but it is a fact that past rallies in Iran have had specific antisemitic incidents. nableezy - 06:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: Thanks for the response. As you know, we can't accept Amirpur's as a fact, can we? Moreover, can you provide sources saying "it is a fact that past rallies in Iran have had specific antisemitic incidents"? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is plenty of other sources that describe the Quds day as Anti-Semitic event I brought one to the article.--Shrike (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The point is the view is controversial. I mean in Iran there are Jews who participate in Quds day rally (example) when people chant "death to Israel". How could the rallies be anti-Semitic when it is attended by Jews both inside and outside Iran? --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you think an event can't be antisemitic just because a few Jews from Neturei Karta and the leaders of what's left of the Iranian Jewish community endorse it, you don't understand what antisemitism is.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes we can, that is what reliable source means. And the source is the journal by Amirpur. nableezy - 17:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The new antisemitism claim is not something that can be simply accepted as a fact, that is a view that is not widely accepted. nableezy - 17:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: I have to say that you've got a flawed meaning of Reliable Sources. Not every thing said by a reliable source is accepted as a fact. In fact, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says...." " (see WP:RSOPINION). The current wording of the lead regarding antisementism, as I said, is not in accordance with the guidelines. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

That isnt an opinion of Amirpur. nableezy - 19:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then you need to prove it. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is what the source says:

ever since the Islamic Republic came into existence over 30 years ago, enmity towards the State of Israel has been one of its ideological foundations. This often shades into anti-Semitism, and thus—in the words of Henner Fürtig—, Aḥmadīnezhād’s rhetorical attacks are to a certain extent "old wine into new wineskins". Aḥmadīnezhād certainly did not invent the anti-Semitic enmity towards Israel. The denial of Israel’s right to exist did not originate with him, nor was the annual ‘International al-Quds Day’ with its decade-long tradition of anti-Semitic attacks founded on his initiative of his. It goes back to Ayatollah Khomeynī himself.

She is not giving an opinion, she is stating a fact. This is not an opinion piece, this is an article in an academic journal. nableezy - 17:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is clearly a POV. That negating existence of Israel amounts to anti-Semitism is as preposterous as claiming that negating the right of USSR to exist was anti-Russianism or negating the right of South African Apartheid was anti-Angloism! Yes the Zionist propaganda has been promoting this false correlation, but here in Wiki we don't define things based within the confines of Zionist discourse! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You cant just say something is a POV. She writes, as a fact, that Quds Day in Iran has a "decade-long tradition of anti-Semitic attacks". If you think this is a POV you should bring reliable sources disputing it. This is as true for the other users as it is for you, disliking something does not make it "POV". nableezy - 18:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I already explained why this is a POV because there are facts that dispute it such as Jews participating in it. If it was anti-Semitic obviously Jews wouldn't participate in it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but that wont do. Your personal opinions do not trump what reliable sources say, and regardless your opinion here isnt even on-topic. What Amirpur says is that Quds Day protests in Iran have had anti-semitic attacks occur. That isnt in any way negated by Jews in Berlin or wherever else participating in Quds Day rallies. But again, to show something is POV you need to bring reliable sources that dispute it. Not just personal views. nableezy - 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It would be WP:OR to draw the inference that Jews participating in an event makes it not antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Expectant of Light: Jews can't support an antisemitc rally? How about an antisemitic party? Try... the Nazi party. Association of German National Jews. It's a well documented phenonemon. The whole point of having Neturei Karta at the front of these marches is to appeal to the frankly gullible viewpoint that Jews can't support something antisemitic. So flags of Hezbollah are given a free pass. The fact is, Neturei Karta are so desperate to end Israel, they will support frankly anything in pursuit of that goal. They don't care what frenemies they make along the way. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, she is not a source for statement of facts. POVs are not only reflected in opinion pieces, rather we can see them in academic journals. It would be disastrous in Wikipedia if we could accept every thing in journal articles as facts. The disputed content should be attributed.Saff V. (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Im sorry, what? If you or anybody else thinks that Amirpur is not a reliable source for facts you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN. Would be strange seeing the oldest and most respected academic journals about Islam taken there, but feel free. But something is not POV just because you are anybody else disagrees with it. You need to provide sources that dispute it. nableezy - 19:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:OR is just how the reliability of sources and the factuality of their statements are valued across Wikipedia. If you see a statement that is contradicted by another piece of information, you decide to the least that you can't state each of them as facts but as POVs. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is your duty to carry the burden of evaluating the source. We would not use her body, if she was not reliable. However, we're going to say that her views are 100 correct.Saff V. (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Bellezzasolo: The truth about Netury Karta is that they consider Modern Israel anti-Jewish. So their definition of what is and is not anti-Jewish is different unless you want to accept the Israeli propagandist definitions hook, line and sinker. And btw there are many other Jewish groups and figures who are strongly critical of Israel. --04:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You might want to read up about Tokenism, and examples such as Helene Mayer.[21] Certainly, Jews who live in open and free societies have a vast multitude of opinions and express them (this is a subject of "insider" jokes/tales - e.g. Rabbi Weinreb’s Parsha Column, Korach: “Two Jews, Three Opinions”). The same is true of Iranians in the diaspora and of course of other ethnic groups throughout the free world. However, finding a few token Jews who endorse an argument/movement is not an indication regarding whether the movement is antisemitic or not. Here we have ample sources using the label, e.g. Deciphering the New Antisemitism, Alvin H. Rosenfeld.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Talking of a "free world" which endorses a Jewish Apartheid in Mid-East, gets away with shooting blacks in streets, actively creates terror groups such as al-Qaeda for its imperial agenda, fires uni professors such as Norman Finklestein who question the mainstream myths makes for a laughable Orwellian world, indeed! Any way my concern is WP:NOTCENSORED. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Listen, I know personally many Satmer hasidim who are very hostile to the State of Israel based on religious grounds. And they would never dare to join forces with those wicked ayatollas, let alone support violence or terrorism against other Jews. As a matter of fact, Satmer is usually hostile to anyone who is not like them, Jews and non-Jews alike. That's why they consider Neturei Karta to be a walking chillul-Hashem who are more heretics and evil than all the Zionist leaders they despise. If that's true with Satmer, needless to say it's true for all the other groups of Jews, both among Orthodoxy and secular (including liberal Jews who are critical of Israel). Neturei Karta is nothing more than a fringe of 100 so-called Jews (in cherem) who were virtually condemned by ALL of the Jewish people, and that's one of the few topics where most Jews agree. You can't really make an argument about something not being antisemitic based on NK's opinion. Read what the Jewish sages of recent generations said regarding Israel's conflict with its neighbors—from Rav Yoel MiSatmer to Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook and the Lubavitcher rebbe— and you will NEVER find a 'gadol hador' who takes sides with Israel's enemies, despite the different positions among chachamim when it comes to the State of Israel's role in the redemption process. Please, don't confuse being opposed to Zionism because of religious interpretations with being sympathetic to the Iranian regime or Hezbollah.

Nevertheless, that's for a different discussion. The fact is that this picture is already repeated in many articles (which could be considered undue weight) and there's no reason to have it also here when it's clear Quds Day was invented in Iran, and we have a perfect picture of an Iranian rally, which is usually much more numerous and representative than any Quds Day demonstration in other parts of the world.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your "wicked Ayatollahs" is just a reverberation of Netanyahu's "wicked Iran" so keep that to yourself, but anyhow I don't care what other rabbis think about Israel, and all that you wrote with the intent of affiliating Neturi Karta with Iran shows how their photo is closely relevant to the topic and thus must be preserved! --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There was no consensus on changing the infobox image and it was changed amid an ongoing RFC. Could you restore the long standing version? --Mhhossein ^talk 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Mhhossein ^talk 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Beeblebrox: for attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It’s an old joke that admins always protect the wrong version. The point of protecting is to end edit warring and give time to establish a consensus, not to enforce one version or another. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Beeblebrox: "There's a grain of truth in every joke" and you really acted in favor of great warriors. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You’re more than welcome to re-open this request and ask some other admin to consider it if that’s what you’d like to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There's an RFC on changing the infobox image from the previous long-standing version to the suggested one. Amid the ongoing discussion, some users tried to show their desired photo out of process via edit war. Check the edit summary provided here to see one the arguments provided by an edit warrer: "consensus is in favour of this change (5 against 3)". You can check the above RFC and the article edit history. There was no consensus on changing the photo. Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Fish and karate: for attention. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mhhossein: As requested by the template, clearly state what the suggested edit is, please. Fish+Karate 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Fish and karate: Sorry for not being clear enough. This edit by יניב הורון was an out of process edit (war?). There's no consensus over the change and users were discussing whether or not it should change. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article is fully protected to prevent this kind of edit warring. I appreciate that you feel strongly that the article was protected on the Wrong Version; you have a further four days to discuss which is the Right Version of the image here on the talk page, in the above RFC. I suggest you use this time to continue to establish a consensus on which is the best image to use as an illustrative aid to further understanding of the article topic. Fish+Karate 13:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

In continuation to the TP section "Images from Iran", it would seem that after the closure (or rather improper closure? Seems like the bot removed this) 2 images were added to the article body featuring Jewish Orthodox men from the fringe Neturei Karta sect. While Neturei Karta do march in these marches, they are a distinct minority of the marchers. Presently - 2 out of 3 images in the article feature them predominantly. This lacks balance.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Lord... I thought we were done with this. Given the fact that the huge infobox and sidebars already take up so much space in a relatively small article, I'd rather have just one image in the infobox, period. All these additional "international" images are more suited to List of Quds Day demonstrations. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, we don't need more photos for the infobox. As for the others, it's suited to this main article and adds encyclopedic value to the article specially since the it's used "near the relevant text" (See WP:IG). Neturei Karta, whom Icewhiz calls "fringe", are found/seen in almsot every photo of Quds rallies held in western countries. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but what? Relevant text? Neturei Karta is not mentioned anywhere in the text. Seen in almost every photo? That's not what I see in Commons:Category:Quds Day; in fact, women are prominently lacking in the current article; for the sake of representation and gender neutrality, they deserve more space than yet another "omg, even Jews don't support Israel" photo. BUT my point actually was that there is just not enough space without the sidebars pushing down the images to irrelevant positions, meaning that the image-to-text ratio is probably too high at the moment. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with HyperGaruda. We don't have much space in article anyway for those two extra images of Neturei Karta, not to mention it's undue weight.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Neturei Karta is given undue weight for transparent reasonsJonney2000 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, they're seen in almost every photo of Quds rallies in western countries. I think HyperGaruda needs to see this link, which I provided. Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you search specifically for them - orthodox+Jews+quds+rally. Conversely, when you search for Arabs+quds+rally - you suddenly get Arabs. And when you hezbollah+quds+rally you get Hezbollah flags. And we you do burning+quds+rally you get burning objects.Icewhiz (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@HyperGaruda: Yes, relelvant text. The text just near the photos is talking about Quds Day protests being "observed throughout the Middle East and in Western Europe and the United States". As for the category you referred to, there are some sub-categories with photos featuring Neturei Karta. Btw, Image-to-text ratio is not high, rather the position of the pics need to change. @Icewhiz: Can you show me, for instance the Quds rally in a Western country without Neturei Karta standing in the first row? Those many pictures brought to us shows their strong presence in such rallies. For instance, 2015 in London, 2018 in London. There are similar results if you carry out a general search. As for calling them fringe, I think this photo says something else. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Icewhiz and Yaniv. We've been through this on another page where an RfC was closed with a clear result to exclude the publicity-focused fringe group. I'm sure there are much more acceptable protest pictures this can be replaced with. Their camera-friendly (some might say camera-hunting) publicity seeking behavior does not mean we have to play into the game -- just like we do not feature frequently pictures of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting even though they are all over the place. --Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your RFC elsewhere has nothing to do with the case we're talking about. It's not a Game, it's a reality that they are seen in most of the rallies in Western countries. Why did you removed them all? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reality is that in many Western rallies (but far from all) there are a few Neturei Karta marchers who are often photographed - appearing in a few photographs out of hundreds of any march. They don't appear in all photos. They don't appear in most photos. They do appear in a small percentage of photos.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying there are "few photographs out of hundreds" of Quds rallies featuring Neturei Karta? --Mhhossein ^talk 14:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

No - that of the whole mass of photography from any individual rally (those that have Neturei Karta present) - the Neturei Karta photos (who typically are a few individuals or a very small group out of a large rally) constitute only a small fraction of photographs from that rally.Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Icewhiz: So, as far as I understood, you're not denying their participation in various rallies, rather you're saying although they are present, they're a minority. I agree your with argument. I was actually trying to have photos from the western countries where the rally is held. I'll see if I can find better photos for the rally featuring the whole population, in contrast to just showing Neturei Karta. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: sorry I removed the long standing material by mistake. I was coming to restore them, but you had done it. Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Organisation of the Islamic Conference" to "Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" in the History section. Kongugirl (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

To editor Kongugirl:   Not done: sorry, but this should not be changed. The name changed to its present "Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" in 2011, and the event in the history section happened in 1988, while the org's name was still "Organisation of the Islamic Conference". Such a historic reference should not be modified. There is a redirect that links to the article with the new name. Thank you for your edits! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

the first External link doesn't work. HaShumai (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply