I haven't seen a thread on this, but move it about if necessary. I shouldn't be the one to start the thread because, well, I don't have enough background right now.

However, some Farsi wiki people told me that Iran blocked access to Commons, and reports are that some other nations in the region did the same. The different Middle Eastern languages are losing access to Commons which is making things very hard for them.

Looks like the WMF will have to get rid of the people standing in the way or they will be collapsing sometime soon. I would like to see what they do with Greg Maxwell, as he has been using his ops and connections in the #wikimedia-commons IRC room to try and disrupt Jimbo's attempts to fix Commons anyway he can.

They really need to find other forms of release.

Jon

Need more information in order to comment. Are you saying this action was taken because of the recent revelation of pornography on Commons?

That is what the Farsi users seem to suggest. However, I also saw some stuff that suggests that the matter predates Jimbo's action on Commons (April sometime after the 20th). I don't know if that block was removed then readded or what.

I also don't speak Farsi myself or have time to really delve too deeply into the matter. Hopefully, someone else would know more about it.

Good -- I could use some extra-bitter lulz right now.

According to GerardM's blog post on the matter, the Islamic Republic's action seems to predate the current controversy by two weeks.

Technically it only predates the Fox News story by 4 days.


From the blog: "We are saddened that the Iranian students are deprived of such an important educational resource and we hope that the decision to block Wikimedia Commons will soon be reverted."

Wont be happening anytime soon with the porn. Iran said that Earthquakes were caused by women having bare legs. What do you think tens of thousands of pornographic images would make them think?

An imminent preemptive nuclear strike perhaps...

I won't join a discussion based on zero information. But I will comment on your insistence to define "Iran" in terms of the most immoderate thing anyone in the whole country says. That would be kind of saying that "America said" that Hurricane Katrina was caused by abortion:

If you think Leviticus is alarming, read Amos some time.

This was a topic Cleric and Iran is a theocracy.

You must admit that they have strong laws against women revealing their bodies, right?



Back on topic:

April 11th, Sanger's Message to the FBI became high profile on meta. Iran blocks Commons 12 days later. 12 days is enough time for Iran to find out about it.

Hmmn ... so work out a hit list. Saudi ... Indonesia ... both computers in North Korea not owned by the Kim Jongs.

It is not much to go on but it does raise a question why of?

It probably also puts a 'moral' duty of care pressure on the WMF if editors are targeted as dissidents and put at risk. Did or does similar not apply to China? Now, they have powers the elite would love to have.

Who said this?

The source is documented here: Wikipedia:The rules are the principles.

Sadly, my experience was that the many rules were little more than convenient weapons to be wielded at will to bash one's adversaries in the Wikipedia MMPORG.

I suppose Pat Robertson is a "top American cleric" in some sense too. Iran has universities that teach geology and agencies that address earthquakes for prediction and relief. They practice normal science without "earthquakes are caused by scant clothing." Iran is a complex society that you try to reduce to a comic book villain. It undermines your "Look at me, I'm so smart" nonsense.

Well, think of it this way - if a prominent person was able to say that without any other reports from Iran condemning it (as people condemn Pat Robertson), then it is enough to point out that they probably don't like scantly dressed people in general. An extreme to prove a moderate statement. Are you saying the moderate statement is wrong? Aren't you glad I didn't, say, point out stoning deaths possibly related to lack of clothing? Meh.

As always you miss the point, or pretend to anyway.

If Iran is blocking Commons because of the recent porn scandal that would make an interesting discussion. You raised it, so why not go and find out in a reliable way if that has happened? Iran has at times blocked Wikipedia in one form or another since at least 2006. All that "might have," "could have," "sounds like something they would do'" and third-hand hearsay on IRC from a language you don't speak is not that helpful.

A steroid impact?

At least Iran doesn't have any women doing this:

I was sure I made it clear from the very beginning that I didn't know what the reason for Iran doing this and that I was asking for an answer.

But sex with infants is A-OK with Allah according to Khomeni.

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]

Ah but women having bare legs? THAT CAUSES EARTHQUAKES!

Googling the first sentence of the your "quote" brings up about a dozen very sleazy looking "hit" sites. It is hard to sort out the distortions from some of the ugly aspects of Khomeni of which there are many. You quote a source but don't link it. Either you're a Islamic scholar with texts at hand to quote or you used one of these hate sites are aware of ugly and disreputable nature of where you got the quote. Again I just don't know if Khomeni said this or not. I have no reason to defend Khomeni. I'm just not convinced by some random post on the internet.

No Muslim I've known would ever countenance this kind of treatment of children.

Sodomy is explicitly forbidden in Islam. Every school of Sunni thought and every Shia authority that I am familiar with agree on this point, though they vary in what the punishment is. There are serious problems with some, maybe even many, Muslims' views on what age is an appropriate lower limit for female sexual relations, but this is bogus.

The short discussion on Commons' village pump didn't offer much explanation. If somebody could read the "filter" image that is linked in that discussion, that might be of some use.

Why should we care if some fat bitch wants to eat herself to death? At least my taxes won't have to fund her disability checks once she keels over.

Three years ago, someone else questioned the authenticity of the quotation.

Here is the answer posted then.

That's probably not reliable either. Besides the one you refer to seems to be on another topic altogether (using meat of "violated" animals. ) It is more likely just a urban myth although urban might not be the right word. The quote and questions about its authenticity doesn't show up on just Yahoo Answers but also Shia discussion forums. The quote, true to urban myth forum, sometimes cites the 4th volume sometimes the 4th edition of the text Tahrir al-Wasilah. The Tahrir al-Wasilah is a collection of the sundry thoughts of Khomeini. But according to the discussion boards it does not have a fourth volume nor fourth edition. They also say it does not have the quote attributed to Khomeini but is a complete fabrication. Of course Shia social media has the same problems as any other social media so take that with a grain of salt too. I think we can say that the quote is too unreliable to be given any consideration. Better yet consult a Imam or expert in Iranian Shia Islam.

So Mr. NotARepublican55, are you a witless dupe or a malicious liar?

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tahrir_al-Wasilah

The discussion seems to link the bogus 4th Edition/4th volume to the Homa Foundation. From the website it appears they want to secularize Muslim societies. This in itself seems perfectly legitimate, if upsetting to the existing regimes. The rhetoric appears a little shrill and generally intolerant of all religions, but again an honest position. Of course if this organization is fabricating inflammatory teachings and attributing them to leading Muslims clerics it would have crossed over into the realm of hate groups.