Talk:Quds Day

message: 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)
thread_title:  Qods day / joursalim day 

message: International view is that its occupied, annexation is not recognized:  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Status 

message: 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 . --Helmoony (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no opposition, I m gonna delete Anti-semitism also from the infobox. --Helmoony (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Helmoony (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Antisemitism 

message: 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:
*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 2009an occasion for expressing opposition to the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem first initiated by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.
*Quds Day in the Dahieh TIMEQuds 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's 1 of 3 sources. Bad odds for you. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks for taking the time to look at this Bob. nableezy - 14:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 :"Quds means Jerusalem in Arabic, and the day alludes to the Arab struggle to free Jerusalem from the Israelis."
*ITIC: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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 . 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). Tiamuttalk 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? Tiamuttalk 09:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text: @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)
thread_title:  removal of protest against occupation 

message: The article says that Quds Day is the last Friday of Ramadan, which would make it August 26, but  and  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)
thread_title:  2011 date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greater Kashmir 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2012 date 

message: About my edit  (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)
replies: text: Agreed, nableezy - 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong translation so not notable

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correction "Quds" to "al-Quds" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why does this article exist in this form? 

message: 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  is disputing the reliability of this source,  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)
replies: text: 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".--Anders Feder (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your explanation. Mhhossein (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chicago Monitor is a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Sentence from Chicago Monitor 

message: 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)
replies: text: You should check the source once again because it exactly reads: Mhhossein (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rally is held by both Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the world 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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  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  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Quds day being about "anti-Semitic attacks" must not be in the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: There are many events around the world pictured in the article already. OtterAM (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OtterAM: Just tell me what the hell kind of rally your pushed image is showing? --Mhhossein talk 19:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: CAN YOU HERE ME? Why are you trying to evade answering my question;  --Mhhossein talk 19:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Please get consensus before changing the image again. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Images from Iran 

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

text: I think this one (File:روز جهانی قدس در شهر قم- Quds Day In Iran-Qom City 14.jpg) might be better.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, I'd definitely support that photo! --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can have it on...few guys standing does not reflect the rally as it should. --Mhhossein talk 19:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not jam packed with people (though it is more than a few guys standing! You have a crowd in both sides of the street and more people behind, it looks like the photographer (there is a series of these) had people with interesting signs pose mid march or prior/after)... But the composition is good - you have an English/Persian sign. You have signs with images of the Dome of the Rock. You have Iranian flags and pictures of Khamenei and Khomeini. And you see the Qom street and buildings.Icewhiz (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I am OK with this photo.I think its representative--Shrike (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Alsee: Non of them is the so-called "representative" of Quds day!!! Hahahahaa --Mhhossein talk 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - note that Quds_Day_In_Iran-Qom_City_14.jpg (on the right above) as well as Quds_11 (but it's a close up on a few people) - the marchers themselves provide us with a translation (at least their own - there are some grammar / capitalization issues) of what is written on their sign. If we really need to translate the Farsi portion of the sign by ourselves, I believe we have a number of editors able to do so here in this discussion - but I don't think it is required given the marchers have translated it already.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

text: No, Qom City 14.jpg is never a good choice and it's not hard to understand why you support the photo of few guys just standing somewhere, despite so many files uploaded and available. The Berlin photo was really representative, I think.Saff V. (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Indeed! Some users seem to be driven by this motive to fit things into their "fanatic mullahs" prejudice. So any photo or content that highlights the ethical, popular and international aspects of the Quds Day must be repressed! Btw, I am going to restore the Berlin image to the article body and nobody can take an issue with how "representative" it is when it is not in the lead! --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you dare to do that. You will be reverted immediately. There's no such consensus. If any, there's a strong consensus to show an Iran image, which is far more representative for Quds Day than a few Neturei Karta in Berlin.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't dare to say that. Because there's no guideline that material in the page has to be "representative" but only relevant. As for the Neturi Karta participating in Quds rallies, it is quite relevant. And you have too heed the guideline WP:IDONTLIKEIT and  perhaps considering your checkered record as a partisan Zionist editor you have not to openly talk about your urge for edit warring. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been warned of talking about other editors. If you continue with your personal attacks you might find yourself at AE.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am only describing your behavior! Feel free to open a complain in AE  but also heed WP:BOOMERANG given your comments regarding "wicked ayatollahs". --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Expectant of Light: Where did he use that derogatory comment? --Mhhossein talk 13:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Iran vs. Germany image RfC

message: To me, neither :File:Al-Quds_2014_Berlin_20140725_173841.jpg nor :File:2016_Quds_International_Day_in_Tehran.jpg look very representative. Without the captions, you would think the images are showing just another one in a long line of anti-Israel demonstrations. A good infobox image would be one where nothing but the image itself is needed to be able to say: hey, this is about Quds Day. I haven't looked through the entire Commons category, but just maybe it contains something like . Bonus: the linked image has a banner written in English. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one (File:روز جهانی قدس در شهر قم- Quds Day In Iran-Qom City 14.jpg) might be better.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, I'd definitely support that photo! --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can have it on...few guys standing does not reflect the rally as it should. --Mhhossein talk 19:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not jam packed with people (though it is more than a few guys standing! You have a crowd in both sides of the street and more people behind, it looks like the photographer (there is a series of these) had people with interesting signs pose mid march or prior/after)... But the composition is good - you have an English/Persian sign. You have signs with images of the Dome of the Rock. You have Iranian flags and pictures of Khamenei and Khomeini. And you see the Qom street and buildings.Icewhiz (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I am OK with this photo.I think its representative--Shrike (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Alsee: Non of them is the so-called "representative" of Quds day!!! Hahahahaa --Mhhossein talk 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - note that Quds_Day_In_Iran-Qom_City_14.jpg (on the right above) as well as Quds_11 (but it's a close up on a few people) - the marchers themselves provide us with a translation (at least their own - there are some grammar / capitalization issues) of what is written on their sign. If we really need to translate the Farsi portion of the sign by ourselves, I believe we have a number of editors able to do so here in this discussion - but I don't think it is required given the marchers have translated it already.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

text: No, Qom City 14.jpg is never a good choice and it's not hard to understand why you support the photo of few guys just standing somewhere, despite so many files uploaded and available. The Berlin photo was really representative, I think.Saff V. (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Indeed! Some users seem to be driven by this motive to fit things into their "fanatic mullahs" prejudice. So any photo or content that highlights the ethical, popular and international aspects of the Quds Day must be repressed! Btw, I am going to restore the Berlin image to the article body and nobody can take an issue with how "representative" it is when it is not in the lead! --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you dare to do that. You will be reverted immediately. There's no such consensus. If any, there's a strong consensus to show an Iran image, which is far more representative for Quds Day than a few Neturei Karta in Berlin.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't dare to say that. Because there's no guideline that material in the page has to be "representative" but only relevant. As for the Neturi Karta participating in Quds rallies, it is quite relevant. And you have too heed the guideline WP:IDONTLIKEIT and  perhaps considering your checkered record as a partisan Zionist editor you have not to openly talk about your urge for edit warring. --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been warned of talking about other editors. If you continue with your personal attacks you might find yourself at AE.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am only describing your behavior! Feel free to open a complain in AE  but also heed WP:BOOMERANG given your comments regarding "wicked ayatollahs". --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Expectant of Light: Where did he use that derogatory comment? --Mhhossein talk 13:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other criteria 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Things are worse than I thought. Just see how he has fabricated this. --Mhhossein talk 05:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits needs to be reviewed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1RR 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Agree as per Mhhossein's comment. -Expectant of Light (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any consensus over the removal of contents. Why is it removed?Saff V. (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOTNEWS]] 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  As I said above, HE CAN'T  HEAR YOU. --Mhhossein talk 17:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  Umm, no. Many sources take the "death to" cries quite literally.Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

text:  They do! Because when you want to demonize an enemy you need excuses. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the source manifestly does not support the edit by OtterAM. nableezy - 19:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of 1 revert rule

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 June 2018 

message: 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: . 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)
replies: text: As requested by the template, clearly state what the suggested edit is, please. Fish+Karate 12:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 18 June 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Neturei Karta is given undue weight for transparent reasonsJonney2000 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Are you saying there are "few photographs out of hundreds" of Quds rallies featuring Neturei Karta? --Mhhossein talk 14:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image composition - over representation of fringe Neturei Karta sect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The mistake after another one 

message: Change "Organisation of the Islamic Conference" to "Organisation of Islamic Cooperation" in the History section. Kongugirl (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2020 

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