Talk:Death to America

Translation of "marg bar" as "death to"

I've changed the translation of "Marg bar Âmrikâ" with the nearest correct one of "Down with America" throughout the article. I can't find a secondary source "official" enough to reference and I don't speak Farsi, but it seems pretty clear by a search on the internet that that's the nearest translation. Also, the official mural featured in the article seems clear and authoritative enough, and it uses the translation "down with".
Other references:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2382141
Here, the movie title "down with love" is translated in Persian as "marg bar.."
http://persiandivx.com/Details.aspx?MovieID=1852
Google translate gives the same beginning for the two phrases "Death to america" and "Down with love":
https://translate.google.com/#fa/en/%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF%20%D8%A8%D8%B1%20%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%82
https://translate.google.com/#en/fa/death%20to%20america
80.111.149.114 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 80.111.149.114, who is supported by a recent Language Log post. It does seem that "Marg bar Âmrikâ" should be translated as "Down with America." The current lead suggests that the literal meaning of the phrase is "Death to America," while official Iranian translations render it as the less offensive "Down with America". The idea that the down with translation is offered in order to be less offensive does not seem to be supported by evidence from Farsi speakers or the history of the phrase Marg bar.

...the "down with ___" chant as it is used today is not about a violent overthrow or physically harming the people of a nation. The phrase became popular during the Persian Constitutional Revolution (1905-1911), when political activists would chant "zende ba ___" ("long live ___") in support of a policy or leader, or "marg bar ___" in opposition. These two phrases became entrenched within Iranian political discourse, and during the Iranian Revolution of 1979, swarms of protestors took to the streets chanting "marg bar Shah" to express their dissatisfaction with Iran's monarchy. "Marg bar ___" and "zende ba ___" have continued to live on as colloquial phrases incorporated into political chants, and they have been appropriated to express opposition to or support for any number of subjects.

— Reza Mirsajadi, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116

While a literal translation is "death" a better translation is probably "down with." Official translation may render it this way not to be less offensive, but simply because official Iranian translations are produced by translators with a good command of Farsi.

In fact, the Farsi Wikipedia article for "marg bar America" explains that the phrase is not in reference to the American people or even the country as a whole, but instead discontent with American political policies and its intervention in the Middle East. When the Iranian people took to the streets last week to celebrate the anniversary of the revolution, the chants of "marg bar America" were not threats of violence or war, but rather anger over Trump's policies targeting Iranians and Muslims.

— Reza Mirsajadi, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116

Mr leroy playpus (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of recent edit that added background and historical context to article (please discuss on talk page)

Recently an edit (in the overview section, beginning This was due to inappropriate behavior...) was added to the article that added some historical context to the slogan. It was then reverted with the edit summary 'POV editorializing'. I don't believe this was the intent or the effect of that addition, but rather an attempt to give balance and context to the article. This should be discussed on the talk page, not via edit summaries. It may take a little work, but I am sure that references can be improved and that the added context will be an improvement. — Neonorange (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Plot Spoiler's decision to remove this passage. Not only is The Intercept a tabloid leftist news blog, the passage is weasely and contains no real information. If you are "sure that references can be improved", you should go ahead and do it.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for entering a dialog. Unfortunately Plot Spoiler misses the point of a discussion. I agree with you, Anders Feder, that the cite for the addition (...This was due to inappropriate behavior...) is weak. If the article itself were neutral, and the use made of prior cites were more neutral, I would not have restored the addition in question. However, the article is not neutral. And is not very useful. It is mainly an arena for combat. Ignoring the talk page as Plot Spoiler has done is not the way to build a useful, neutral article. In my opinion, the article ought to give some background now missing: why the slogan was able to gain traction (US instigated overthrow in 1951 of Mohammad Mosaddegh, afterwards US support of the oppressive kleptocracy of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) and how it is presently used (to preserve a weak government). Otherwise you have a useless article. — Neonorange (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose whatever background you wish Neonrange. Anders exactly articulated my own position on the matter. And the article is not useless as is. It is a reflection of ideology, not simply grievances. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Neonorange: I agree the background would be useful, but the particular formulation which Plot Spoiler reverted IMO is not. We don't need to leave a poorly sourced blurp in the article while we sit around waiting for someone to come up with a proper source. Plot Spoiler was right to remove it per WP:CHALLENGE. I recognize you were acting in good faith, though. --Anders Feder (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: Now you're just engaging in disruptive edit-warring[1] on false premises in addition to generally stalking my edits. The previous version, which was the newer version, was never the consensus version, and I am not the only editor opposing these changes. Please join the discussion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And the revised version shows you're not able to edit in an WP:NPOV manner. Troubling. It's not that hard, if you try. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.[2] Gouncbeatduke, see WP:INTEGRITY.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Allegation of "editorializing"! Justified?

@SantiLak: With respect to this edit of yours and the allegation of editorializing, isn't "aggressive" an objective summary of the multiple instances of US vicious policies against Iran that are mentioned in the sources? I mean how else one describes a US-backed coup against a nationalist democratic leader back in 1953, US arming of Saddam during his 8-year war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s, shooting down of an Iranian commercial airplane in late 1980s, and all the mounting sanctions by the US government against the country to this day?! Strivingsoul (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Strivingsoul: First of all, this isn't a forum on US activities in relation to Iran, and the same argument you made relating to US activities could be made for Iran's activities towards the US in the seizing of the US embassy, the bombing of the khobar towers, the bombing of the US marine barracks in Lebanon, training insurgents to fight against the US in Iraq, kidnapping US soldiers in Iraq, I could go on but it's generally irrelevant to the point. Putting that it is aggressive is editorializing and inserting your own opinion of what US actions are, which is clearly not neutral. - SantiLak (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, all you said about Iran's activities towards the US took place without exception only after the US unprovoked hostilities against Iran! Seizing of US embassy for example was after the Islamic Revolution in 1979 which ousted a US backed dictatorial monarchy that was installed and consolidated by the 1953 coup that was orchestrated by CIA-MI6. The allegations of training insurgents in Iraq and some of the other allegations you mentioned are also disputed, but what I said are all undisputed facts even admitted by US officials! But just as you said these are indeed irrelevant to the point here. The point is whether the history of the US clearly intrusive, unprovoked and troubling interventions into the affairs of a country on the other end of the globe can be objectively described as "aggressive". But you didn't touch on this at all. Instead you went on mentioning the Iran's reactions to the US dominance of Iran and the region in later decades which are beside the point here. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, this is not a forum on the politics of this topic or however you'd like to characterize it, bottom line is that calling the US policies aggressive is editorializing on your part and inserting your own opinion of what US actions are which is not only not neutral but its OR. - SantiLak (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM is not really relevant here. I'm just citing what the sources say about US policies towards Iran to find out whether they can be objectively described as "aggressive" (regardless of our personal opinion) and that for the sake of brevity in which case such characterization wouldn't qualify as editorializing. Otherwise we would have to explicitly mention those policies and their consequences each time we want to describe the impact and nature of US policies towards Iran. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

On Shazaami unwarranted edits.

@Shazaami: Are you suggesting that the existence of "US policies against Iran" are false or disputed?! Even if you had cared to look at the provided sources, you would have seen that even US ex-president Bill Cointon and ex-foreign minister Madlin Albright, have admitted the existence of such vicious policies as of their time? So how can you dispute such a clear fact even when Iran is just facing a new round of US hostility in the form of illegal mounting sanctions? How can you when the US diabolical act of shooting down an Iranian passenger plane in 1988 is seen by even some US officials as being disgraceful as quoted by AlJazeera?! The US policies against Iran both before and after the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran are just beyond question and what you propose here is baseless at worst and redundant at best. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "US policies against Iran [as a country]" is an opinion, it doesn't matter if Obama himself said it. As an opinion, it must be attributed per NPOV. Also take a look at WP:FORUM. I'm not here to argue with you about Iran or US policies. For that you can make a blog, where I can give you a long list of Iranian policies against the world since the ayatollahs came to power (if you wish).--Shazaami (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"US policies against Iran [as a country]" is not an opinion! It is an undisputed fact of history that is also admitted at times by many US officials! There are already dozens of Wikipages on all the examples cited by the sources!! So we are not talking about a personal opinion but a long list of thoroughly documented US policies against Iran. And no I don't need you to regurgitate all the Iranophobic talking-points based on lies, fabrications or half-truths that we are sold by the Western governments and the complicit Corporate media on a daily basis! Strivingsoul (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer that. I already told you that Wikipedia's policy (which is non-negotiable) requires attribution for opinions. But you don't get the point.--Shazaami (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, you can't answer because you have no point. To argue that "US policies against Iran" is an opinion just shows that you never read the sources or don't want to admit the fact for some reason. I'm going to restore the version, anyway; for you indeed don't get the point. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And I'm going to revert you.--Shazaami (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@SantiLak:. Can you please help us settle this, imo, unnecessary difference here? Just in the above section, we were discussing whether the adjective "aggressive" in the phrase "aggressive US policies against Iran" helped for an objective summary of what the sources point out. But here we are caught debating whether even the phrase "US policies against Iran" should be used! My argument is that neither "US policies against Iran" nor even "aggressive US policies against Iran" are opinions. The sources that we have cite multiple examples of US deliberately harmful and intrusive policies against Iran such as the 1953 coup against an Iranian nationalist leader, supporting the repressive monarchy of the Pahlavi all the years afterwards, training Pahlavi's notorious secret police, SAVAK which was responsible for torture of thousands of Pahlavi regime dissidents; supporting Saddam's 8-year destructive war against Iran in the 1980s, shooting down an Iranian passenger airplane in 1980s, and mounting economic sanctions on the country to this day. Now my question is with such prominent examples of US hostility mentioned by the sources (while each of them is also documented separately in respective Wiki entries as well) that have all resulted in large-scale death and suffering for Iranians, doesn't it warrant summarizing this entire lengthy historical account given by the sources as just "aggressive US policies against Iran" ?! I think this is easily warranted based on WP:COMMONSENSE. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm also pinging @Sa.vakilian: for feedback and arbitration here, who I have seen working on other Iran-related topics. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing is not good.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:CAN, In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Nahavandian's quote

@יניב הורון: What's wrong with you? Why do you keep deleting that quote? "Whitewash" or whatever doesn't concern us in Wikipedia. So long as it is related to the topic and is notable it can be there. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE NPOV issue - we already have statements of Iranian leaders and we already amply cover the apologist stance that attempts to cast this slogan in a non-literal fashion.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE can be proven in case we can show the opposite views have more weight in comparison to the Iranian official views. In fact, the so-called apologist view is even supported by several Western analysts which are not covered in this page. Such as this and this and this. And Nahavandian is particularly interesting in that he gives examples of US hostilities that have provoked this sentiment in Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Down with usa mural.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.alamy.com/iran-tehran-down-with-the-usa-mural-image417523990.html

https://www.alamy.com/down-with-the-usa-propaganda-mural-tehran-iran-image1470010.html

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/11/tehran-iran-anti-american-murals-united-states-weaker-laughable/

Drsruli (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"Death to America. Death to Isreal." is the slogan.

Reaching out to editors or others who've authored this page, but I'm really surprised how the chant is quoted simply as "Death to America", when the routinely quoted chant in media seems to be "Death to America. Death to Israel.". I'm not sure I've ever seen a quote in the press that didn't include Israel in the slogan. It seems inaccurate that the second half of the slogan is ignored. It's referenced four times in citations and a caption, perhaps because it might be difficult to find an article or printed instance of the slogan that doesn't quote both. Despite that, it's omitted everywhere else in the entire article. The inclusion of the two nations should at least be mentioned if this is to be accurately informative of the use of the slogan. The article even refers to the Soviet Union in reference to variations of the phrase - "A similar slogan 'Death to the Soviet Union' was also used."

Just one example from today's news:

"In the southwestern city of Ahvaz, thousands packed the streets to mourn the victims of Saturday’s assault, many chanting 'Death to Israel and America'". (Mattis dismisses Iran's revenge threat as tensions climb after attack, 9/24/18, Reuters, https://reut.rs/2xCE2eh). Eshashoua (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is "Down with America", not "death" as a slogan/chant

The meaning of the quote is Down with America, not Death, which is the direct translation, getting the quote out of its meaning, a language is dynamic, not static, we are talking about a slogan/chant the same can be done on many quotes and getting it completely out of its original meaning. Every arts in Iran referring to this quote in english is written "Down with America", no one actually writes Death to America which is the crude translation mostly used as a kind of propaganda tool to point that Iranians wants to kill Americans and bring more hate, this is the same process as when Ahmadinejad reportedly said "Wipe Israel off the map", this same process of direct translations have been done many times. This is sad because most references here are exactly the ones who made popular "Death to America" when it was not even a thing in Iran, taking the crude translation which was never meant in Iran and spread it for personal interests. The title would be "Down with America (chant)" as we are talking of a chant, a slogan, and "Death" in the lead mentioning this is the crude translation, the article is talking about a slogan/chant.

"Death" should be just a detail about the quote direct translation, not in the title. Many quotes can be direct-translated and make that quote totally out of its original meaning. This is very misleading as a title for a chant https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:133:8000:4D89:A496:1EB8:C7AC (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there a good example where the phrase is used, yet the user clearly does not wish literal death? (I'll point out that "Death to America" would logically be seen as a wish that the country indeed would not exist, would be overthrown and replaced. Such a clarification does not excuse the sentiment.) Drsruli (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, it seems that when they say "Death to Israel", then they do mean it literally. Drsruli (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Travel writer Rick Steves recorded a taxi driver in Tehran exclaiming "Death to traffic!" in English, explaining that "when something frustrates us and we have no control over it, this is what we say". Steves compares the phrase to non-literal use of the word damn in American English.

This is no proof at all, since "Death to traffic" is good, and the driver sincerely wishes that the traffic would not exist, in the literal sense.Drsruli (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

History of "marg bar America"

mey be it began at 1960 when Richard Niksone was in Iran and Iranian army was kild thery universitty students for stoped the protest of Iranian students againste USA. 86.55.51.101 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)