Talk:Quds Day

Status

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Category Antisemitism

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)

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

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

removal of protest against occupation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

2011 date

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)

Greater Kashmir

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)

2012 date

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.

Wrong translation so not notable

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)

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

extraneous material

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

Correction "Quds" to "al-Quds"

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)

Why does this article exist in this form?

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)

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)

Alleged BBC Bias

@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)

@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)

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))

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)

"... 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)

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))

@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)

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)

@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))

@Hyperionsteel: Good job, thanks!

Sentence from Chicago Monitor

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)

@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)

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

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

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

RFC:The material from Chicago Monitor (2)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in this discussion. The arguments on both sides are good, but they are to evenly split. AlbinoFerret 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

---

There's a viewpoint from BBC which is inserted here. To approach neutrality, I tried to add an opposite view from Chicago Monitor. The sentence form CM was removed alleging that the source is not reliable. A discussion happened in this regard to determine whether CM is reliable here or not. I'd like to ask for others to comment on this, considering the following points:

• I also opened a topic in RSN which had no feedback.
• As mentioned in the RSN topic, Chicago Monitor is "a website associated with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations"[12] and a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine [13]. The assistant editor at Chicago Monitor, who is the author of the disputed article here, is the Communications Coordinator at Cair-Chicago.

Can it be added? Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: According to the biography presented at CM, Bill Chambers, the author, have been a Palestine activist for about 13 years working with many different organizations and with a long history of civil rights which provides extensive experience for writing such an Op-Ed. Working as a reporter on the event for years in Chicago adds weight to his reliability. Besides organizing Palestine solidarity events, "he is currently pursuing a MA in Islamic Studies at the American Islamic College in Chicago." Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Yes, add it to make it neutral. ScholarM (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• From what I can gather the Chicago Monitor can be used as a reliable source for CAIR's opinions but not for facts. The question here is whether or not CAIR's opinions on the issue are important and relevant enough to include in the article. This is not an issue of counterbalancing the BBC view, but one of WP:DUE weight. While CAIR may be useful to cite in articles about Islamic in America, Quds day is an international event so I don't think their opinion is relevant enough to warrant a place in the history section. Brustopher (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: So, you are not supporting it, are you? Mhhossein (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Brustopher (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• The Chicago Monitor source is orders of magnitude less reliable and less neutral than BBC. As such it can't act as a counterpoint to the BBC report. As proposed, it would only act to detract from the reliability and neutrality of the "History" section.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder: Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. By the way, how do you get to the point that "The Chicago Monitor source is orders of magnitude less reliable than BBC."? Mhhossein (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No one has argued that "reliable sources are required to be neutral", so WP:BIASED is irrelevant. As for Chicago Monitor being less reliable than BBC, that is self-evident to the point that your bringing it up as a question borders on disruption. No evidence of Chicago Monitor having any reliability can be found at all, while the same is clearly not true of BBC.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If there's no question on the fact that "reliable sources are required to be neutral" so why did you say:"The Chicago Monitor source is orders of magnitude less reliable and less neutral than BBC."? Merely considering the publisher is not the way to evaluate the reliability of a source. Per WP:RS, Any of the three of the piece of work, the creator and the publisher can affect reliability. Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. And what is your evidence of the reliability of either the work, the creator or the publisher?--Anders Feder (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I updated the RFC. Mhhossein (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What part of it suggests that the work, the creator or the publisher has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"[14]? And where do you read that the author has been "working as a reporter on the event for years"? According to his LinkedIn profile, he has not worked on anything remotely media or press related until he joined Chicago Monitor 8 months ago...--Anders Feder (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder: Per relaible source, Wikipedia publishes "...the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The bio of Bill Chambers suggests that he is a credible author. There it is mentioned that "As part of his activist work, Bill has traveled extensively to Ireland and Palestine to meet and work with community organizations," he has also published an article in this regard last year. He had certainly been actively monitoring the event and reaching into such conclusion. One point to mention is that, he wrote: "It [Quds rally] has become an international solidarity movement for human rights open to both Muslims and non-Muslims," i.e. back then it was a mainly Muslim event. Personally, I think the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is a possible effective factor for that. Mhhossein (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What does the quote from WP:RS have to do with anything being discussed? Are you contemplating publishing your own opinions? The question remains: what suggests the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A good question! It's directly related; publishing sources " with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" means "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." What else are you searching for? By the way, LavaBaron made a fair comment on the fact that ""fact-checking and accuracy" are not sensible lenses" for evaluating such an statement. Do we need fact checking to see whether or not Chambers said that (not another person)? or to see whether or not chambers said that (exactly that and not another thing)? while I think we'd better see whether or not he qualified to say that and, based on his bio, he is of a relevant suitable background. Mhhossein (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In one sentence you agree that we should only publish opinions from sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In the next sentence, you are questioning whether we need "fact-checking and accuracy" at all. How is anyone supposed to make sense of that?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't get stuck in definitions, we should only publish opinions of reliable authors. I tried to let you know that When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. Is it sensible? Mhhossein (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• No support for inclusion. I agree with the opinions expressed by Brustopher and Anders Feder. The opinion of CAIR is not needed to balance the material from the BBC. This is not a factual dispute with academics on both sides. WP:UNDUE clearly applies. Balance is required only when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence. --Bejnar (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar: The opinion of an active journalist with the background mentioned above is [[worthy of mentioning. Mhhossein (talk)

• Support The issue of whether CM is as, or less, reliable than BBC is moot provided it is reliable. Which it is. LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Really? Please do provide your evidence that Chicago Monitor has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"[15] As explained by Brustopher and Bejnar, due weight is not moot in any way - it is policy.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement in question is an analytical statement so "fact-checking and accuracy" are not sensible lenses through which to evaluate Chicago Monitor for RS in this context. Also, Front Page Magazine - which is SPLC-designated conspiracy/hate site [16] - is not a RS for the claim that Chicago Monitor is a "front group" for CAIR. LavaBaron (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to overturn the requirement of WP:V and WP:DUE that content must be based on reliable sources, take it up on the talk pages of those policies. Until then the burden is on you to demonstrate that the material satisfies that requirement. Meanwhile, your vote has no bearing on the question raised by this RfC.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I, too, hereby declare your vote has no bearing on the question raised by this RfC. LavaBaron (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: What vote are you referring to?--Anders Feder (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your vote. Decisions on WP are reached by consensus of involved editors, not rote polling. LavaBaron (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Which of my comments contain a vote?--Anders Feder (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation, Anders Feder. LavaBaron (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I wish I could say the same, LavaBaron.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, not a big deal. Apology accepted. LavaBaron (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not apologized for anything, and what would I have to apologize for?--Anders Feder (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is all being phrased as a RS issue, but it's really a DUE issue. "To approach neutrality", as the RFC question says, you have to consider whether the POV of a single publication is worth mentioning at all. If multiple groups were making a similar statement, then it should be included. But so far, it's the POV of one organization. At best, it needs WP:INTEXT attribution. It might be better to omit it as WP:UNDUE attention to a "tiny minority" POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: But, AFA I see, POV of a single publication like BBC is presented. "...multiple groups were making a similar statement.", how do you support your claim? Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I said that "If multiple groups were making a similar statement", then it should be included. I made no claims that any other groups made similar statements. As far as I can tell, the POV presented by the BBC source is indeed the typical, mainstream POV: this event exists for the purpose of protesting the existence of the Israeli state. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: No, it's not the mainstream view, at least I don't think so. Sources such as this mention the "solidarity with plaestine". Btw, the discussion is not on whether the this event exists for the purpose of protesting the existence of the Israeli state or not, we're discussing the certain sentence form Chicago Monitor. Mhhossein (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If the view presented by BBC isn't the mainstream view, why can't a single reliable mainstream source be found that contradicts it?--Anders Feder (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the subject is being twisted here; the main topic was on the participation of non-muslims, wasn't it? Yes, it's known that this event exists for the purpose of protesting the existence of the Israeli state. Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the opposition is to the minority-POV bit that says it's just a benign "international solidarity movement for human rights", with no mention of Israel, rather than the bit that says "sometimes non-Muslims show up at these events". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Being just a benign "international solidarity movement for human rights" is a fundamentally flawed definition of Quds rally. Mhhossein (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: @LavaBaron, Anders Feder, ScholarM, Brustopher, Bejnar, and WhatamIdoing: I updated the RFC. Mhhossein (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I am not emotionally invested in this, but I support inclusion of the Chicago Monitor content. I only suggest that it be made clear in the text who's opinion it is as the way it was written it sounded as though it was a continuation of the BBC statement. I'm not interested in arguing about this. I was summoned by a bot. I have read the material, as well as what everyone else has said and I have voted. Louieoddie (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Removal of sources and cited material

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

The rally is held by both Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the world

The citation does not say The rally is held by both Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the world.

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.

These are not the same thing, at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.0.61 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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 oder 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)

Quds day being about "anti-Semitic attacks" must not be in the lead

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)

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)

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)

Images from Iran

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Should the image in the infobox for Quds Day show a rally in Iran or in Germany? OtterAM (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It should show a rally, and the image you put in was a poor representation of the article topic. Whether it should be in Germany, or in Iran, or in some other country is immaterial. Of the two images that started this little edit war, the one currently in the article is far better than what you replaced it with. nableezy - 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This version was a better image from Iran. [17] There is also an entire Wikimedia Commons library of images from Quds Day in Iran. OtterAM (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

show Iran: It's an Iranian "holiday" that some outside Iran "celebrate". The vast majority of reliable sources focus on events in Iran. Thus, a representative image would show Iranians protesting Israel, not German Neturei Karta protesting Israel. OtterAM (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits needs to be reviewed

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

1RR

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)

WP:NOTNEWS

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)

Violation of 1 revert rule by Mhhossein

@Mhhossein: I'd just like to remind editors of the one revert rule. The reverts were performed within a 24 hour period: [18] and [19] I suggest you self revert.OtterAM (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Critics or Pro-Israel sources?

"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)