Talk:Great Satan

message: Shouldn't this just point/redirect directly to wikipedia page on the United States?
:no.  ChillyMD (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it's own page 

message: In the eyes of some people, the UK, as well other US allies, share the blame for the situation in Iraq. I understand that the US and the UK have MANY similiraties, but the UK is called the Great Satan no more than the rest of the US allies.
:actually the UK has (and is currently) been singled out, too, as the great satan. ChillyMD (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Case in point, Iran's supreme leader recently publicly claimed the UK was the most evil of all of Iran's enemies.ChillyMD (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding UK being called the Great Satan 

message: That latest addition Shaitan meaning "adversary" is a bit silly. Shaitan means Satan  - it is the same root and has largely the same theological meaning.
Indeed in Jewish/Christian/Islamic theology the Shaitan/Satan is the big adversary/accuser of men in the final court, but Shaytan is most certainly not a generic term for someone whom yo do not like/who opposes you in your business/politics etc. Refdoc 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was the person who originally added that the terms used were Iblis and Shaitan, I'll explain why did it.  If someone wrote a paper about the ancient Greeks and the wrath of Jupiter, it would be incorrect, even if Zeus and Jupiter are basically the same thing.  That's how I see the term The Great Satan being used, although it is correct to a degree, it's not exactly the same thing.  I think there should be a note included that states the exact terms that were used and not what was translated, especially since there are articles on both Iblis and Shaitan.  Just my two cents. Lokifer 07:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: >United States rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II
Only the western half of Europe was rebuilt with US help, the much worse war-demolished eastern and central Europe was totally excluded from the Marshall plan, because USA wanted to hurt the soviet empire with the tremendous costs. Japan was rebuilt not because of any philantropy, but to support the logistics and industrial background of the Korean colonial warfare and the US agression in Vietnam!
>US defeated Communism and fascism
Communism was defeated by Gorbachev and the ordinary people in the soviet bloc.
Fascism was defeated by the Soviet Red Army at a loss of 27 million people. The only reason D-Day was done is that the anglo-saxon were very afraid the soviets will arrive at Calais by 1946 all alone. After the spring 1944 "Bagration" offensive of the soviets started, the Third Reich was over.
It would be great if USA stopped spreading lies. Empires do not have feelings or philantropy.
 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs)
I partly concur with your asessment of Colin Powells statements, but would appreciate your comment more if you kept it in a more civil tone. Anyway, I don't really see why he (Powell) should be quoted in this context at all, this should be about the term "great satan", not about defending against being labeled as it. Does anyone strongly object to my deleting it, say so.
baetterdoe 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colin Powell as Baron Munchausen 

message: I put a "POV-check" template on top of this with "The part from Sayyid Qutb to the Powell statement seems to be somewhat unencyclopedic in tone" as comment. It was reverted out (by the person who made the last edit in article). I am not sure how these are handled usually as I am new (please, do enlighten me), but I would think a second opinion is needed. Nobody agrees with me? RandomMonitor 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and will start rewriting the article. I could use help; anyone care to join me? Captainktainer * Talk 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh. Now that I've reviewed the article more fully, this is in horrible shape. The best reference for most of the article is some blog? This article needs serious help. Captainktainer * Talk 14:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic language 

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Great Satan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131109191825/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/15/international/15POWE.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/15/international/15POWE.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The present version of the article states ("Death to America" is an inexact translation of "Marg Bar Amrika", but is supposed to mean "Down with America").
This assertion directly contradicts Death to America; the word "Marg" (مرگ) literally means "death". -- Heath 50.134.34.221 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marg bar Amrika 

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

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