text:
Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran Armed Forces

Iran Middle East power status
Removed the two lines of USA qoute about Iran is the most powerful military in the Middle East. There is utterly no proof of it! and its based almost complete on one mans personnel opinion not very reliable. No point in adding that comment until after more information is proven. It seems more like a ego and national pride comment. Ben Harel

I completely agree with this comment. Being a student of military studies, I also find that for the most part, the article is overwhelmingly Pro-Iranian, not an unbiased report on Iran's military institutions and capabilities. Details, range estimates, clear, academic writing is what should govern this page, not what I can only imagine to be Iranian propoganda.

L Diaco —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean 'Propaganda'? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. The intro is overwhelmingly pro-Iranian. So silly for a wiki article to have this kind of tone. Also, in attempting to make the claims more substantiated (like Iran's military being one of the most battle-hardened and experienced forces in the world), the author has provided irrelevant references. I will try to tone it down a little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John James II (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, the last edit is totally projective in tone, and the same user insists on using language and making claims not suitable for encyclopedic works. How can Iran's military be encyclopedicaly described as "one of the most experienced armies in the world" and "the strongest in the Middle East" or its defense industry "the strongest in the Middle East", not only without references but against what we in fact know about Turkey and Israel having equally robust defense industries and in some cases even better technology? Iran's defense industry may very well be the most innovative in the Middle East, and it's army may very well be the strongest (whatever that means) in the region, but this is a controversial claim at best and not something to be presented in encyclopedic works.

The reserve figures added in the same edit are also highly debatable. Is the user referring to Basij militia forces?

Also why did the user remove the part about Iran's forces being underequiped? We know the bulk of Iran's air force is outdated, just like its land forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John James II (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here lies with using subjective and editorialized sentences, without a direct attribution to a reliable source supporting that. One may say Iran is ranked 14th in the world, with GFP Index taken into consideration, that's OK. Feel free to remove anything not backed up by the sources cited in the article. Pahlevun (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User <IP_ADDRESS> is arbitrarily making edits, insisting on describing Iran's military as "the strongest" in the Middle East, a very non-encyclopedic, propaganda-like claim which might very well be true (though far from obvious) but, mind you, is not the sort of claim that can be used in a Wiki article.

They also insist on removing the part about Iran's military being under an arms embargo and the subsequent shifting of its military doctrine from a conventional, Western-armed force into a less conventional, nationally-supplied army. How can an article about Iran's military not include these things? Or is it that the editor simply doesn't want to mention anything that might, in their childish opinion, fail to make the Iranian military look invincible?

They're still using F-4s, F-5s and Vietnamese-era tanks and naval vessels for God's sake (it's the bulk of their conventional forces)! Obviously, Iran's military advantage doesn't come from tank and aircraft numbers (which are inferior to neighboring countries). How the hell can someone make the bold claim that their forces are "the strongest in the region" when countries like Turkey and Israel boast fifth-generation fighters, tanks and naval assets (and even the PGCC which, yes, lacks the manpower and experience to field these systems?

Even if Iran hypothetically has the ability to neutralize this advantage with ease (a claim far from obvious), you don't just come out and say Iran's navy, air force and land force are "superior" to said fifth-generation-armed forces like it's an obvious thing!

This is foolish and I suggest a moderator put an end to this dispute. Even my own edits and tone might sound too pro-Iranian to an impartial moderator, so I can only imagine what they would have to say regarding silly claims like Iran's army being "one of the strongest in the world" and its defense industry being "the most innovative in the region"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John James II (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Praying Mantis link
ArmanJan, threats are a poor substitute for reasoned arguments. Why do you object to the photo link? I believe it is relevant; it adds to the resources immediately available to the reader of "Military of Iran," which is hardly detailed enough. And, as long as I'm asking, why did you add the Eagle Claw link? PRRfan 00:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, however it is not relevant to add these pictures on the main site of the Iran military. The link to these pictures is already on the operation page. If extra links and pictures of everything is added the page would look very different. If people are interested about the operation, they will go to that link and check the pictures, but not on Iran's military page. User:ArmanJan

Yes, you keep saying that. But a) the page is not very long, so any more information would seem to be useful at this point; and b) you yourself have included a link (Operation Eagle Claw) with less apparent relevance than photos of an action that actually involved the Iranian military. Why do you think that the Military of Iran page needs less information than presently presented? PRRfan 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you go back in the history of that page you will see that the page was very long, with a lot of information. However, it was then divided in many pages, and the Iranian military page links to them all. This is how we would like to keep it (those who attend to the iranian military pages). I added Operation Eagle Claw because I see it as just as irrelevant as the other operations. Someone feld it was needed to also add the small battles, so here you go. User:ArmanJan

Well, if the battle has already been fought to slim the page down, then I won't try to bulk it back up. (Not sure about your reasoning on the last point, tho.) Cheers. PRRfan 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. User:ArmanJan

Eagle Claw & Mantis Photos
I agree totally with ArmanJan: The mantis photos should not be on this page as they are a minor point on one of the following pages. Additionally, eagle claw as nothing to do with the Iran Iraq war - it was a botched hostage rescue that didn't even involve the Iranian military because it failed too soon.

Major Changes
I suggest we turn the Millitary of Iran page into a summary page for all the armed forces of Iran and allow them to each have their relevant sections. Any takers?
 * No, it has made the page really ugly and incomplete.
 * I liked the setup used for the US Army. The lead page provides an overview and covers cross branch military issues such as entry, overall leadership, budget etc. Then each branch (Marines, Navy, USAF, Army...) has its own section in significant detail.

Nuclear Technology
Where is there mention of Iran's attempt to obtain nuclear technology?
 * Iran has already obtained nuclear technology, however this has nothing to do with the Iranian military. It is only in the imagination of the U.S. that Iran uses it for weapons. As can be read in the latest report (GOV/2006/15) of the IAEA "the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".

 * The above anon statement smacks of POV. However I imagine that until such time as Iran produces a working nuclear weapon and that weapon is handed to the military that mention of it should not be put in this article. NickD

 * I agree with the Anon statement above. Very much to the point...

However, perhaps we should put a link to Irans Nuclear Programme with the above explanation in the Weapons of Mass Destruction area.

I don't think that Iran's nuclear program should be lumped with WMDs. There is, so far, nothing to prove that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. All we have right now are the Bush Administration claims that Iran is pursuing WMDs, and these claims may turn out to be like the claims regarding Iraqi WMDs. Talmakian 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What does does nuclear technology have to do with the military? Canada has nuclear technology, is that mentioned under their military bio???

-G

Reserves?? And Other Issues of Contention
Why is the table listing troop stats lacking reserve numbers?? According to List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops Iran has about 350,000 troops in reserve... bringing their total numbers up to just over a million... a difference of almost 33% in capacity.

There's also very little here in the way of analysis of capabillity. Considering current trends and events, it's important for someone to take hold of this and improve this article as I am sure many like myself are researching Iran's capabillities to try and envision the implications of a conventional war if one were to erupt as a result of current tensions.

Furthermore, there is little mentioned about the basij, although it does link to it's respective article. Perhaps more should be noted on how these 11 Million paramilitary fighters play into the larger scheme of Iranian capabillities. Also, what about Hezbollah?? Or for that matter, Islamic Jihad... which is also heavily backed by Iran. Though these don't really figure into the army per se, they surely have some clandestine capabillities in terms of force projection that could loosely be directed by Tehran, making it logical to at least give mention to these quasi-military components and their impact on any conceivable armed engagement.

Also, lastly, why is the table with stats down in its current position? Shouldnt this be up higher as it contains essential data that could likely be the whole reason someone is visiting this article??? I think this should be right on top and prominently displayed... and also expanded to include reserves, and (if possible) equipment numbers (numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, etc) for comparison. Thelastemperor 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Basij don't play a significant role in the military. They are more a case of political 'rent a crowd' at government rallies etc. That is fact, personal opinion follows: if anything were to happen i dont think many of them would do anything drastically different from what most iranians would do. The Hezbullah etc. is a different case. I am not aware of any proven iranian backing for islamic jihad, but i may be wrong.

You are absolutely wrong Databot, without the basij Iran would have been completely destroyed during the Iraqi imposed war. You have no idea what are talking about. The basij is a fully trained paramilitary. Even kids get trained until they grow up. Iran would be in serious trouble without them. They are in fact the backbone of our nation. ArmanJan

During the Iran-Iraq war i agree totally with you. They were instrumental and they saved the country- at that point many regular volunteers were incorperated into the basij. Today is another issue alltogther - and i dont think some stick weilding hezbollahi 17 year old who happens to be a basiji yelling abuse at my girlfriend for not having totally perfect hejab then taking a bribe is very symbolic of a fully trained paramilitary. They are more like the curse of our nation.

 * POV, it is not reality. User:armanjan

Budget
First, the sentence was ridiculous. A country does not have a strong military because it spends less. Obviously, you meant something else, but that is not what you wrote.

Second, to know whether Iran has the strongest conventional military is a simple comparison of equipment and personnel. We know that Iran vastly outnumbers and out equips any of its neighbors. One plus one is two, Iran has the strongest military. User:ArmanJan

 * Training is also very signigicant. Its not all about numbers and hardware. Unfortuntely, Iran suffers from poor training (conscription service is a joke) for the larger part. Tototom 09:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Iran has a profession army, which means everyone joins voluntarily. Secondly, you have no idea how Iran's military training is. Iran’s military training is kept secret, and the last information that is available is from the Shah’s period, during which time they were training by the American method. User:ArmanJan

 * PRRfan, why do you not use your brain instead of asking for citations? This is like asking for citations about whether Germany is stronger than Holland or Belgium. User:ArmanJan

ArmanJan, citations are somewhat more persuasive than insults. If it is so obvious, it should be a simple matter to cite a reference. PRRfan 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Here you have your citation --> User:ArmanJan. We do have brains you know? Who do you think runs all those websites? People like you and I.

Question on this quote: "Still, Iran has one of the strongest conventional militaries in the Middle East because it keeps costs low by manufacturing many of its weapons instead of buying them abroad"

Doesn't make sense to me. It is an interesting fact that they manufacture themselves, but why are costs lower when manufactured instead of bought? Common sense says it should be the other way around (Division of labour) 15:40, 8 Aug 2006 (UTC)

It may be that it is less expensive for Iran to produce its weapons domestically rather than for it to import weapons. It is, after all, subject to a trade embargo from the U.S., so it may be that it is difficult to go "bargain hunting" for weapons. Talmakian 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about? i dont know what about armor and navy.. but in air power for exempel Iran is not even the strongest in the gulf.. the Saudis are much, much stronger.. allmost all of iranians plans are obsolete.. i would say even the UAE got a stronger air force than Iran.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadave (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
You guys have done an excellent job of expanding this series, but I think a couple of things are still missing. First, what about the pre-revolutionary combat history of the army? Didn't they successfully beat back a Soviet offensive in the north in 1946? I know this isn't the place to go all the way back to Nadir Shah, but it would be nice to include at least the rest of the twentieth century. Secondly, you did a great job with the rank insignia tables, but it would be nice to add the Persian spelling. Speaking of that, when I look at the Persian page, it has the lowest rank as سرباز دوم, which would transliterate as sarba(a)z do(o)m; however, the English version calls that rank sarbaz yekom. The Persian page has that word (سرباز يکم) next to the corporal's insignia. Which is correct? Overall, you've done a great job, but please check out issues I've mentioned. --Jpbrenna 21:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Military Expenditures
Just incase PRRfan's slow mind deletes my work again. 6.2 billion of $561.6 billion GDP is 1.1% military expenditure. User:ArmanJan

Iranian Military Industry Development
Armanjan claims (with no backing) that prior to 1979 Iran had NO military industrial capability whatsoever. He/she might not aware of the fact that before '79 iran was embarking on a significant development programe - it just never had a chance to truly come to fuition.

Can ArmanJan explain the existance of Project Flower to me, as well as why G3, and MP5 rifles were produced in Iran under licence of H&K.

Also read:

I'll touch up the current version with some refs. and additional details. Please dont replace it with falsified information again. Tototom 18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well Australian,
 * 1. A "Defence Industry" means, "the commercial production and sale of weapons".
 * 2. Making rifles under lisence is not a defence industry, that is assembly work, which is even done in countries like Ghana and Somalia.
 * 3. The so called project flower that you made today and wrote yourself did not come further than an MoU, and that MoU was cancelled just when the revolution occured.
 * 4. Global Security's information has been disproven many times. They have incorrect information about everything from the specs of Shahab-3 to Iran's inventory of rifles.
 * 5. Come back when you can show from an Iranian source that Iran did more than assembly work before 1979.
 * 6. Video of Iran's Minister of Defence about Iran's shortage of shells and RPG7s during the war
 * ArmanJan

The dictator
I can site a billion and one websites, encyclopedia's, books, and what not to show you that the King's of Iran (especially the last two) were the worst kind of dictators. What proof do you have to call the title "dictator" a POV? Which such a stance calling Saddam would also be a POV because of course, there were people that had it good under him and never had any kind of suffering. If you change it one more time I will complain about your vandalism. User:ArmanJan
 * I find this one the most interesting one because it is from the most respected journalist in the world: The CIA has also been directly linked to torture training in the Middle East, where the agency for two and a half decades reinforced the repressive state of Shah Mohammed Pahlevi, the dictator of Iran. Shortly before the Shah's overthrow in 1979, New York Times journalist Seymour Hersh reported that "a senior CIA official was involved in instructing officials in the Savak [the Iranian secret police] on torture techniques." Jesse J. Leaf, a former head Iran analyst for the CIA, told Hersh, "I do remember seeing and being told of [CIA personnel] who were there seeing the rooms and being told of torture. And I know that the torture rooms were toured and it was all paid for by the U.S.A." Seymour M. Hersh, "Ex-Analyst Says CIA Rejected Warning on Shah," New York Times, January 7, 1979, p. A3. User:ArmanJan

Arman. No-one is saying he wasn't an autocratic/absolute ruler. However, it is more common to refer to kings by their 'title' of king/shah etc. that to call them dictators.

''' Dictators often seize and control power through a coup d'état, or by suspending the existing constitution. Ordinarily democratic nations may temporarily give dictatorial power to leaders during a state of emergency. The term is normally not applied to absolute monarchs although they generally have the powers of a dictator.'''
 * Please read the existing wiki article on Dictator, so that you can understand that the terms dictator and monarch mean:

FYI: Mohammad Reza Shah inherited his title and power from his father. His father did obtain power in a coup, but was recognised as the king once the majles/parliment gave him the title and power. His son continued to hold the title. He is globally (but it seems not by you) accepted as Iran's last ruling monarch/shah until 1979.

I will change it back, because keeping the term as shah/king is completely in line with ALL the other wikipedia pages (Iran and otherwise). Please refrain from systematically calling him dictator or tyrant on the other pages as you have been known to do. Tototom 07:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Funny, here on wikipedia you hide that you are a supporter of the dictator and try to change the title with such a bogus excuse? As most people do not even know who these characters are (apart from Saddam), the title 'dictator' is needed to give more meaning to the support of the U.S. within the whole conflict. I could not care any less about the the dead guy, he is gone and no one cares, his family are drugadicts, one committed suicide, who cares. This is not about him or his family, but of western role in middle-eastern conflicts. His so called title as you refer to it by the way, is not recognized in Iran. He came to power through an illegitimate way, and pronounced himself emperor. User:ArmanJan

 * Shah is clearly the correct term here. I have no doubt that he was a bad guy - but this is about what he should be refered to in an encyclopedia article. I am reverting. Megapixie 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Compare usage "Dictator of Iran" 300 hits  "Shah of Iran" 495,000 hits. Megapixie 11:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Armanjan. Just for the record: I dont believe in the monarchy, but I do think it was far more capable and managed the country far better than the theocratic oligarchs running the country I live in today (iran). I am a nationalist, a patriot, and a republican. FYI- as you imply in your above statement the word "'dictator' is needed to give more meaning to the support of the U.S. within the whole conflict". Dictators don't need US support to be dictators- history can point to a thousands of dictators who existed without any US support. What you could say is 'US backed shah', but even that unnecisarily complicates the matter and reduces the written 'quality' of the article.
 * Arman- come out of your shell and past all the propaganda they spew out in iran. wake up, do some research, think for yourself. It's not like everything before the Iranian Revolution was evil and everything afterwards was great. Tototom 07:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

 * "In another case, Iranian UAVs spied on the USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected."

The source for this statement points to an RIAN article which paraphrases the Iranian government only. Is there not a source that includes a response from the Americans? Just seems to me to be a suspect claim that a US Aircraft Carrier would not detect a drone. Perhaps this sentence should be changed to "In another case, Iranian UAVs spied on the USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without, according to Iranian sources, being detected.
 * Perhaps if you worded it could be worded better? I see your point but id suspect it being correct so wouldn't want it worded to harshly <IP_ADDRESS> 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry for the necropost reply buy you can see the video on youtube

The 11 million number for basij is bogus.
acually they can only mobilize apprx 1 million troops.. the 11 million number includes kids and grandfathers and in no way represents how many they could truthfully bring to battle. Its very misleading. sorry but IRAN does not have the largest fighting force in the world.

that is not true those 11,000,000 are revolutionary guards ...and i'm sure thats true! ;) Smackmonkey 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure it won't include kids and grandfathers Iran has 70,000,000 people men from age of 18 to 45 are about one fifth of the population and that is 14,000,000

Changing the format
I propose that the format of the page changed, with a more organized view. I believe that the chemical weapons should be removed to the end of the page and the budget to the beginning. also I dont understand why so many names are present, this is one of the few military pages that I have noticed such a thing. A history is definitely needed- not just history of operations but the history of iranian military. The defense industry section is also incomplete and needs more information on the industry after the revolution- especially in the past few years. Also more important there should be a section regarding iranian available weapons. If everyone agrees it would be nice to make it easier to look at.User:Ali Soltani

 * Sounds good, the defence industry already has an article of its own here that we always need help with. The new format sounds good though. L0b0t 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * You guys should take a look at the Military of Pakistan. I think that is a good template for the Iranian Military page on wikipedia. I know, I wrote it. ;) Mercenary2k 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

active troops iran
on the military menu there sais iran has got 768,000 troops is this wrong or is the 545,000 wrong? The Honorable Kermanshahi 13:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed Irans Number
It has recently been proven by VatooVatoo that the Iranian navy consists of 25,600 personel instead of 18,000. This is 7,600 more so I have added this to the numbers and changed the active troops to 552,600 and the total troops to 12,292,600. The Honorable Kermanshahi 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Please read this thanks --VatooVatoo 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

News Content
"In 2006, Iran spied on the American aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan for 25 minutes without being detected before returning safely to its base (video). [8][9]"

the rest is also news when you give dates like "on day/month/year so and so happened", when there are many other facts that could be reported of the same nature if we apply the same standard of selectivity.

The testimony of a foreign General (from Iran's point of view) makes it look like Iran's army cannot stand on its two feet by itself and needs the qualification of external forces (from Iran's point of view) to make it look strong. This is an encylopedia and we want an overview of the Iranian Army, not each recent events. We want to have an idea of the structure of command, domestic industrial capacity in defense, inventory and combat experience. The rest is good for Wikinews. SSZ 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree we should not bring any news mentions Iran military here but important and relevant news with proper reference should be mentioned as far as they enhance the article. I do not see any principle problem with such usage of news articles to enhance the article based on wikipedia policies. But whether each of those lines that you deleted are proper to be mentioned or not is another point. I am not disagreeing with you on particular changes you made, however I wanted to note that blanket deletation of all news-agancy-refrenced material is not proper.
 * On the testimony of a US General however I must disagree with you. It is common practice to evaluate almost everything through eyes of other professionals in the feild. It enhances the encyclopedia to see evaluation of other professionals about Iran army as far as they are referenced and are from respectable sources.Farmanesh 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, But what will happen when a US General will say that Iran's army is weak? Will you report it as well? Do you see my point? SSZ 16:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes I see your point. The subtle point here is that when a precevied rival/enemy reliable source gives credit to another group it is notable to mention it, if it was just a preceived rival talking down it would be simply expectable. We have not here mentioned generals from Iran Military saying how great they are which would simply be ignorable. However when a preceived rival like a high ranking USA general gives such a credit to Iran military it is notable.
 * That said I agree if we mention this possitive qoute from a US general then in same place we should mention the apposit view from another relaiable US general. If another US general with same regional expertise as this general said Iran military is not that great I agree to mention both to be NPOV.Farmanesh 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, please just remember one thing: Iraq was called "the 4th mightiest army in the world" by the Pentagon before the coalition's invasion in 1991. We know the rest.

 * I just don't see the utility of having such quotes. When facts are reported, it might be helpful to have each sources quoted, like in a completely different subject: "did the World Trade Center collapse because of the melting structure or implosion" as some media and conspiracy theorists have reported. But when it is a blank statement like for this General, I really don't see any purpose to it. What about the UAV espionage case cited above. Is it news or not? Shall we keep it? You see, I have seen that before on Wikipedia in Iranian related topics and I think that over time this hurts the quality of the article because Wikipedia becomes a fighting field for "soldiers wannabees" (I don't say that for you at all) and Wikipedia is not for that either. SSZ 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I see your point and I think we should keep wikipedia from it while keeping relevent info (like US general qoute) in it. On particular news articles as I said above I did not dispute your deletation of them based on their content. I disputed your "approach" of deleting all news related material. My content base objection was only on US geenral qoute not other ones.
 * For those on each news referenced material, there can be seperate discussion on whether they are helping the article or not.Farmanesh 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the news and I do not think it should be removed, it tells about Irans military capabilities. This proves what Irans UAVs are capable of so I think re should keep it. About the US general, that should defenetly be kept because if an enemy reliable source gives credit to another group it should be mentioned, as for if a US general says Iran is weak well Abdolrahim Mousavi said Us army was weak and we don't mention that on the US military page do we? But if an Iranian general would say: the US has the most powerfull army in the world I think that would be worth mentioning.

About Iraq, they did have the 5th strongest army in the world only it was destroyed by the 1st strongest. The Honorable Kermanshahi 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chemical Weapons
"The U.S had been accused of supplying Iraq with chemical weapons, yet an international coalition reported no evidence of such U.S. manufactured weapons after a 2003 invasion of Iraq. This could however be attributed to Iraq disposing of its weapons of mass destruction after the conflict with Iran."

This reeks of POV and bias. I know that there is an ongoing arguement that Iraq may or may not have disposed of its weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, but why does this issue have to be brought up in a section about another country? I asked that it be removed, please, to improve the quality of this article. Thanks.

I'll give till Sunday to have this edited, then I'll do it myself. Thank you for the discussion on this topic.--splashallison

I took out the link about the chemical weapons coming from the west. May well be true, but shouldn't be in there without a supporting reference link. If you have one, feel free to add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Budget
The information about Irans military budget is out of date, it is from 2005. Can anyone find a source for 2007? The Honorable Kermanshahi 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 * According to the CIA World fact book Irans military expenditures are 2.5% of it's GDP and it's GDP is $599.2 Bilion meaning Irans expenditures are $15 Bilion. If anyone can find an other source wich actually states Irans military expenditures as of 2007 please do but I have been unable to find it and the current source is out of date as it is of 2005 and we are 2 years further now. But should we change it to $15 Bilion now? The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I am trying to find some references for the military expenditure. Can someone point me to the reference of the $36 billion (2009) and the 10.5% (2009) %GBP? FFMG (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArteshEmblem.jpg
Image:ArteshEmblem.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fajr-3.jpg
Image:Fajr-3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Artesh Logo.gif
Image:Artesh Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iranchemical.gif
Image:Iranchemical.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Claims in History Section
The author of this sections makes claims that are as sweeping as they are unsubstantiated, and in some cases, outright wrong:

The word navy is a term derived from Persian Naavs (ships) of Achaemenid military expeditions against ancient Greece.

The word navy in English is clearly derived from the Latin, which had such terms as navis, ship, and navigare, to sail. The ancient Greek word for ship (in Latin transcription) is naus. The author seems to be unaware that Greek, Latin, and Persian are all Indo-European languages, and so distantly related. Similarities in their vocabulary are to be expected, and cannot serve to prove the seniority of Persia in military navigation.

Those very same expeditions entailed crossings of entire armies from Asia to Europe over military bridges constructed by extending a floating platform of ships from the Asian land mass to Europe.

Boat bridges were well-known in antiquity, and their use not limited to Persia.

The first Knights complete with shinning armor and plumed helmets were Sassanid Iranian nobles, and European heraldry is directly traceable to the Iranian Knights and overall culture of (lone) heroes and mythic figures such as Rostam, Zal, Bahram, etc.

Any sources for this rather daring assertion regarding European chivalry? There is certainly none to be found in the article on Heraldry. Not to mention that Europe lost contact with Persia almost completely during the early middle ages, when knightly culture developed.

And it was the sovereign head of the Iranian Army that marched un-opposed into Babylon that decreed the first codec of the rights of conquered people and nations.

Again, no proof at all is cited for this claim. Given that the Babylonians rebelled three times against Persian rule after their occupation in 539 BCE, maybe these "rights of conquered people" were not so substantial after all? Also, the entry of Cyrus into the city was unexpected rather than unopposed. See Babylon for comparison.

This section needs to be rewritten in full, with proper sources, and less boasting. Textor (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Military Expenditure
On the page it is mentioned that the military expenditure was 3.5% of the GDP in 2005. While this is not true: (6.3*10^9/634.563*10^9)*100=0.9928%, which is just about 1% of the GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noaccess2k (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was meant at exchange rate parity prices not PPP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Commanders entry outdated and foreign supplier addition
Should read:

-Major General Hassan Firouzabadi (Head of the Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezappy (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

- Brigadier General Seyyed Abdorrahim Mousavi (Deputy Head of Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces)

(see: http://www.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=951459&IdLanguage=3)

- Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi (Logistics Commander of the Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces)

(see: http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/146666/analysis/20091005_iran_supreme_leaders_irgc_reshuffle)

China (PRC) should be added as a foreign supplier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezappy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone has wrecked the specific ranks of the commanders! And Mighani's rank is wrong! I don't have the time to fix- again. Frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezappy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Were References To The Imperial Iranian Armed Forces Removed?
The external link  now redirects to the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran page.

Why was the Imperial section removed in its entirety? The two forces are very different in composition, and there is a great deal of valid history that has now been excised from the system.

What gives? Clinkerbuilt18:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC

18 billions is 2.2% of GDP?
In the infobox, it says that Irans budget on their military is 18 billion, 2.2% of their GDP. How is it that 18 billions of Irans GDP(nominal) of 330 billions, is 2.2%? (0,018*330 = 5.94%)
 * Besides, most reliable and independent sources say that Iran use $4.3 billion dollars, 2.5 % of GDP.  - <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probably GDP at PPP (not nominal). See economy of Iran for details.
 * Well, that doesn't give a good picture at how much their using compared to other countries. Imagine if the US used PPP instead of nominal, then it wouldn't be 650 billions used at their defense, it would be thousands of billions... Jørgen88 (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Links
>> Iran announces missile breakthrough(Lihaas (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)).

History section
Currently, there is a significant amount of information about Iran's Pahlavi era armed forces, in the History section of this article. Considering that this is about the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that information is out of place and unnecessary. It could be moved to the Pahlavi Era section of the Military history of Iran article.

The History section of this article only needs to start from the sentence "With the Iranian revolution in 1979, deteriorating relations with the United States resulted in international sanctions led by the USA, including an arms embargo being imposed on Iran." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddmoto (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The History section also lacks any mention of the armed forces being renamed and the establishment of the IRGC, after the revolution. Those things should be added. Dreddmoto (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions to the History section include a detailed account of the joint operation to rescue the Russian pilot shot down by Turkey, over Syria, in November 2015. While it is relevant to this article, it is not necessary to include so much detail about that operation in the History section. It is a duplication of the section 3.1 Search and rescue of the 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown I suggest converting the paragraph about it in this article, into a summary. What do others think? --Dreddmoto (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

How on Earth did Persia form the world's first unified army consisting of naval, air and ground forces?? That's simply not true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:4D03:3100:45F6:95E9:5A9:10D7 (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Behnamvvv
Recently there has been a series of edits by User talk:Behnamvvv which are clearly pushing a clearly agenda driven and personnel POV that in my opinion can be considered vandalism, he uses unsourced materials, he also removed the pics he doesn't likes and added pictures that are clearly chosen based on his anti-IRI POV(picture of a failed experimental helicopter from 1980s and a mini submarine- Sabehat SDV), the same images have been deleted by bot some times ago because of copyrights violations, he has also threatened to take me to interpol!! and other made nonsense threats in order to intimidate me.Farzam1370 (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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/20091013091005/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1Gstwmv_-bbq2W6NOlhaubl5UMw to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1Gstwmv_-bbq2W6NOlhaubl5UMw

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515214415/http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=110934&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=110934&sectionid=351020101
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013025249/http://www.presstv.com:80/detail.aspx?id=69562&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=69562&sectionid=351020101
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912235940/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail.aspx?id=68062&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68062&sectionid=351020101
 * Added tag to http://www.globalbearings.net/2011/12/view-irgc-naval-bases-in-larger-map.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019052158/http://www.ieicorp.com:80/about.htm to http://www.ieicorp.com/about.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618194613/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1789.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Missile/1788_1789.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526210910/http://www.presstv.com:80/detail.aspx?id=95824&sectionid=351020101 to http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=95824&sectionid=351020101
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108034357/http://www.armyrecognition.com:80/november_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/iran_reported_that_irans_army_has_achieved_self-sufficiency_in_producing_military_equipment_0511123.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2012_new_army_military_defence_industry/iran_reported_that_irans_army_has_achieved_self-sufficiency_in_producing_military_equipment_0511123.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1075876%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601051006/http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8711271164%2F to http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8711271164%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304121825/http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/357/default.aspx to http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/357/default.aspx

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:07, 9 July 2017 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IAIO Qaher-313 5.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Emad missile by Tasnimnews 01.jpg

Add foriegn suppliers or allies
Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Venezuela, Algeria, Syria, Iraq, India, South Africa, etc Jw10u36engeve25be768ko27siw37ppql639sns918nvzfgzb (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The introduction is clearly biased and outright silly
Is this Pompous pompeo serious? How the hell are Tawakalna ala Allah "Operations" and "the" Operation Praying Mantis (terrible English btw) depicted as the "last two major battles" fought by Iranian forces? They're neither major nor last, obviously, and this cherry picking is outright naked. Also, how does Iran's military "largely" consist of outdated US or Soviet arms? I mean obviously the bulk of Iran's "purchased" weapons are old Soviet and US weaponry but every idiot knows Iran's military has invested in a domestic rearmament program and poured in considerable capital. There's a reason why arms proliferation and missile technology is one of the political hot topics between Iran and the West. The person responsible for the intro knows nothing of this rearmament program, or they're simply biased.

He mentions two non-major Iranian defeats (he would have found major defeats if he had looked harder!) and ignored all the major victories during the Iran Iraq war. Not that that's the point, but he's obviously cherry picking, and in doing so he picked two minor engagements in an intro meant to outline a summery of Iran's armed forces. This article has become a platform for anti-Iranian as well as pro-Iranian edits, and this needs to end

 * ❌ for now, got some cites for all your above claims ? ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2021
CsShko0 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Hi, gentlemen, Iran has not participated in the Iraqi civil war, which is written in the Iranian forces' war section, and I ask that it be removed.

 * ❌ The article about the Iraqi civil war says that Iranian forces were engaged there, this information is sourced (source number 58). ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * پیوستن ناوشکن جماران به ناوگان دریایی ارتش (12).jpg

Image again
There is an image of the Iranian army I found on the news. So I uploaded it to Wikipedia commons then to this Wikipedia page Yhyhyhyhy (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:M-114 (Michigan highway)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 02:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * on various streets in adjoining cities and townships --> A bit on the vague side.
 * Wilson Avenue between Lake Michigan Drive and Leonard Street --> Are there articles for these? If so, it would be nice to link them.
 * Nothing further to add. Well written and sourced article. Great work!
 * The first one is supposed to be a little vague, to draw the reader into the rest of the article. (Plus, providing a litany of the street names and townships that early in the article is pushing it; we're dealing with four different street names, two cities and four townships.)
 * Wilson Avenue is now part of M-11, Lake Michigan Drive is now M-45 and that part of Leonard Street has never been a state highway; non-highway streets don't have articles.
 * Thanks for the review!  Imzadi 1979  →   02:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Very true. Passing the article! Great work! Statυs  (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:M-114 (Michigan highway)/GA1


text:
instalação

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) installation (process)
 * 2) plant, installation (industrial apparatus or machinery)
 * 1) plant, installation (industrial apparatus or machinery)

title: instalação


text:
User:Thehalford

G'day, I'm Thehalford, and I'm primarily focused on WikiProject Thomas in my Wikipedia-ing. However, my interests do go beyond that:

 * Queen
 * AFL, in particlular Carlton Football Club
 * Porridge
 * Red Dwarf
 * Mike and the Mechanics
 * Buffy the Vampire Slayer
 * The Three Investigators
 * Survivor

Erm...I think that's it for the time being. Anyway, my usual haunts are the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends-related pages, as a co-founder of WikiProject Thomas. Hope to see you around and all that. Ciao!

title: User:Thehalford


text:
Talk:Donald Wuerl

Untitled
Actually, the Diocese of Pittsburgh is overseen by a bishop, not an archbishop. John Cardinal Wright was not the archbishop of Pittsburgh.

Historically, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was elevated to the status of Cardinal. It is not something that has to be done. However, given that D.C. is the capital of our country, there is a good chance that Wuerl may be elevated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 December 2006

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The mansion that housed Wuerl
The passage that begins with "The mansion that housed Wuerl" seems unrelated to this biographical entry. It appears to have been sold off by Wuerl's successor, but we learn dimensions and pricing and how many predecessors lived there. Was Wuerl criticized for living there while merging parishes etc.? That would be worth including, with a rewrite of what we have now. Otherwise I'd suggest this passage doesn't belong here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Donald Wuerl. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614043713/http://www.diopitt.org/news_051606.php to http://www.diopitt.org/news_051606.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901171332/http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers to http://demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025155319/http://adw.org/family/marriage_ssm.asp to http://www.adw.org/family/marriage_ssm.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111094013/http://www.adw.org:80/news/news.asp?ID=714&Year=2009 to http://www.adw.org/news/news.asp?ID=714&Year=2009

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donald Wuerl. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231014722/http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php to http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php
 * Added tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703915.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231014722/http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php to http://www.diopitt.org/wel_former_bishops.php

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Wuerl. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605193422/http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0206-111237/inhoud.htm to http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0206-111237/inhoud.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I tagged it NPOV as the section claiming Wuerl has a "zero tolerance" policy for priests who sexually abuse children is at odds with recent reports. The Washington Post is reporting that the recent Grand Jury report says "...Wuerl’s actions in Pittsburgh as mixed, at times stopping abusive priests from continuing in their ministries in the diocese and at other times guiding them right back into parishes." A US News headline says " The Latest: Priest Abuse Report Faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl" and the sub-headline continues: "A Pennsylvania grand jury report on clergy sexual abuse faults Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the former longtime bishop of Pittsburgh, over his handling of abusive priests." So the article is clearly not accurate in its depiction of his actions.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 * You are assuming that the grand jury report is accurate. That is a very big and perhaps unwarranted assumption.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Yeah, because it makes total sense to rely on a nearly decade-old newspaper article over a 1,356-page grand jury report published by the attorney general of Pennsylvania after a two-year investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btswanfury (talk • contribs) 17:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia explicitly privileges secondary sources. One of the reasons for that is to avoid the kind of sloppy fact-checking associated with moral panics.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 * We do privilege secondary sources. However, a newspaper article is a primary source, unless it's a comprehensive article of a certain type.

 * In any event, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article was written in June 2003, so its statement that Wuerl has "a national reputation for zero tolerance of priests who molest minors" is evidence for what his reputation was in 2003. It cannot possibly be a reliable source for Wuerl's reputation as of August 2018.  (Newspapers in 2003 also reported that Bill Cosby had a sterling reputation as a family man, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage.  Times change.)

 * I've changed the sentence so it preserves this claim (which has important historical value) but it also notes that this statement was made in 2003. Will that solve this controversy? — Lawrence King ( talk ) 06:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From the article as it is now I don't see a reason to tag either the whole article, or the entire sexual abuse section, as WP:POV. While not myself expert on the subject, and with no axe to grind, I don't see much sign of either unreferenced opinion, or selection and "sanitisation" of what is included (there are more than plenty of examples of heavy POV-isation of articles throughout Wikipedia). Some of the discussion here seems to relate to just one sentence, easily resolved without tagging the article. Accordingly I've removed the POV tags. I don't doubt that they'll be reinstated (with justification discussed here) if appropriate. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Excellent. And thanks for your great copyedits. — Lawrence King ( talk ) 21:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report Aug 14, 2018
I suggest to add a paragraph about the recent significant event about the Pennsylvania’s new Grand Jury report. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to include both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.

Francewhoa (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I added two annotations where I thought they were applicable. Feel free to contribute. Dmarquard (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for your reply and contributions :) I like the location you choose in the Wikipedia article. Because according to the report the alleged cover-up of pedophile activities were during Wuerl's episcopal career. I merged the duplicate content. Kept all sources. For neutral point of view (NPOV), I added both views. Francewhoa (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wuerl's ties To O'Malley are very interesting
It's best they are included in the article.2601:447:4101:41F9:C40D:F5DB:D0DB:CE8A (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"A priest is still a priest"
The following was recently added: Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing with the George Zirwas-case. This priest had a long history of being related to child sexual abuse and child porn production. He finally was killed in Cuba. When Wuerl presided over Zirwas’ 2001 funeral, the former bishop according to the report said: “A priest is a priest. Once he is ordained, he is a priest forever.” . As far as I (not an expert) know, the statement that a priest is a priest forever is standard Catholic doctrine: some sort of irrevocable theological process has taken place that can't be changed. A priest can be disciplined, or even forbidden to do anything priestly (defrocked), but remains technically a priest correct me if wrong). So this statement has no particular significance. I'd also criticise the opinoniated (POV) wording "Peculiar also is Wuerl's dealing" I think the passage is quite redundant, and should be dropped (but I haven't sleeted it without discussion). It's like stating "Wuerl affirmed that the Pope is a Catholic", or that once a person is baptised as a Catholic, they are forever Catholic in the eyes of the Church.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 * You are completely correct. I would lean toward removing the Wuerl quote.  The material itself is surely true (in other words, Wuerl really did utter these words at Zirwas' funeral).  But I think that, in context, the quote suggests to those not familiar with Catholic theology that Wuerl was defending Zirwas by these words.  What if we reduced it to simply indicate that Wuerl presided over Zirwas' funeral, without including this quote?  Readers can decide for themselves whether this fact is significant. — Lawrence King ( talk ) 19:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Personally I'd drop the whole block, officiating at a funeral is a normal duty, why add bulk to the article? But I don't have any strong opinion. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I concur with removing all reference to the funeral. The Catholic Church is in the forgiveness business for one. Second, it is normal for Bishop's to preside over the funeral's of their priests. The fact that Wuerl conducted this funeral doesn't say anything about him one way or another, other than that he was a Catholic Bishop doing a routine part of his job. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
I am quite dubious about some of the assertions in the article, to be honest. In view of more recent developments they do seem to amount to whitewashing. If the revert-prone IP would care to talk about them, perhaps some of them should be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Please be more specific: "some of the assertions" and "recent edits" are unclear to me.  I looked at the edit history of this page to figure out which edits you were referring to, and there have been so many changes today that I don't know which you mean.  Someone is adding statements to the lede about Wuerl being "controversial" and "implicated".  Someone else is adding the statement "Wuerl has been a strong advocate within the Catholic hierarchy for confronting sexual abuse more directly." I'm guessing these are not the same person!

 * I agree we should discuss these things on the Talk page.

 * My personal view is this: Reliable sources prior to August 2018 say Wuerl was tough on sex abuse, including the Cipolla case and others.  The Pennsylvania report accuses Wuerl of not doing a good job in some cases.  Both of these are based on reliable sources, so both of them belong in the article.  The lede of an article should be brief.  I would be happy to have the lede very briefly mention that (1) Wuerl had a good reputation before August 2018 on sex abuse, and it is documented that he stopped some abusers; (2) the Penn report accused him of bad things.  However, the lede must not state as a fact that Wuerl is guilty of something that he has been accused of, even if some Wikipedia editors are personally convinced he is guilty.  It is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to do that (example: the lede of the O. J. Simpson article does not say that OJ murdered his wife!) — Lawrence King ( talk )
 * I suggest that we should start by undoing all the recent IP edits. These add material to the lead and elsewhere which is not justified by the cite. We cannot say that a living person "was involved in the systematic cover-up of child abuse within the Church" based on a cite which in fact merely says that the Attorney General doesn't believe him. I think this material must be removed immediately based on the BLP policy.
 * Once that is done (and I'm about to do it) I suggest we move the section "Position and actions on sexual abuse" to the end of the section "Child abuse controversy", retitling it "Previous position and actions on child abuse". That would fix what I see as the main problem at the moment - the important 2018 developments are buried under a vast screed about how marvellous he used to be. What do you think of that? Pinkbeast (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that section title ("Child abuse controversy") was added by the IP, but I think there is a need for a section title there under my proposal. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree that the title "Position and actions on sexual abuse" makes no sense, because his position is not notable (Wuerl's stated position on sexual abuse is that it's bad -- duh!). His actions are notable.... and this fact is so basic as to not be notable.  But I think that the sections should be chronological.  Per your suggestion, I moved the two subsections together, but I felt they should be chronological.  I named the overall section "Actions regarding clerical sexual abuse", and the two subsections I renamed "Actions known before August 2018" and "Accusations in August 2018 grand jury report".  Then I added very short paragraph at the beginning of the section which says, "From 1988 to 2018, Wuerl was widely considered to be a bishop who was proactive in confronting sexual abuse. After the release of a grand jury investigation report in August 2018, he received a great deal of criticism for how he had handled some abuse cases."  That seems a concise summary to me.  But I'm sure it can be improved.

 * The section names can surely be improved as well. Here are the key points I think the section names should convey.  (1)  We should avoid phrasing that suggests that Wuerl himself has been accused of abusing anyone, since the accusations concern his alleged failure to stop priest abusers and possibly covering up abuse, not Wuerl himself doing it.  (2)  An accusation in a grand jury report is major and notable, but it's still far short of an indictment, much less a conviction, so we have to be clear these are allegations from a credible source, not facts.  (3)  The subsection title "Actions known before August 2018" is awkward, but the two sections are distinguished by when these things became known, not when they happened.

 * What do you think? — Lawrence King ( talk ) 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your recent changes have to some degree addressed my main gripe with it being in chronological order, in that previously the 2018 revelations were kind of buried, but now we know they are coming. (This is also why I have put a sentence mentioning them in the lead).
 * I wonder if we might remove the para beginning "In 2010, Wuerl argued ..."? Information about what Wuerl _did_ to fight abuse seems more useful than information about what he said. He was hardly going to say anything radically different - one cannot imagine him saying "basically, the Church has done nothing", for example - and presumably anyone in his position, no matter their actual record, would have said something similar. As such, it strikes me as not very notable that he said these things. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Viganò allegations
The first paragraph of this section is quite heavyweight; the article is not about Viganò, nor McCarrick. Could it be compressed a bit? I was thinking:

In June 2018, Cardinal McCarrick, Wuerl's predecessor as Archbishop of Washington, was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York. In August 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States, released an 11-page letter describing a series of warnings to the Vatican regarding sexual misconduct by McCarrick. These warnings had been sent to the Vatican by three nuncios to the United States; Montalvo in 2000, Pietro Sambi, and Viganò himself in 2006 and 2008.

This gets us to Wuerl's alleged failings without going into the relationship between the Pope and McCarrick, which does not seem pertinent here. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I think this has only been exacerbated with the addition of the paragraph about Lopes. The article is not about these people. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I concur. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

He has apologized
The Washington Post has an excellent, lengthy article examining Wuerl's career, his early work against child abuse by priests, (Wuerl had been seen as a pioneer in the church on this topic — advocating in the 1980s for victims' rights and for transparency and concluding that pedophilia was not curable.) and his recent problems. Well worth reading in full. I have added some of the content in my last edit in the resignation section.

Note especially that Wuerl apologized.

... wrote to members of the archdiocese and said, "I am sorry and ask for healing for all of those who were so deeply wounded at the hands of the Church’s ministers. I also beg forgiveness on behalf of Church leadership from the victims who were again wounded when they saw these priests and bishops both moved and promoted". https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/12/pope-francis-accepts-retirement-dcs-archbishop-cardinal-wuerl-amid-criticism-wuerls-handling-abuse-claims/?utm_term=.c5a429615dbb|title=Pope Francis accepts resignation of D.C. archbishop Wuerl, amid criticism of the cardinal’s handling of abuse claims|publisher=Washington Post

I have not included the following information, but perhaps it should also be included elsewhere in the article:

Aug. 25, a former Vatican ambassador published a largely unverified letter on conservative Catholic sites accusing Wuerl — along with popes Benedict and Francis — of knowing McCarrick was dangerous but still allowing him to function as one of the church’s highest clerics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/12/pope-francis-accepts-retirement-dcs-archbishop-cardinal-wuerl-amid-criticism-wuerls-handling-abuse-claims/?utm_term=.c5a429615dbb Peter K Burian (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your edits! The Wikipedia article should -- and does -- cover all aspects of Wuerl's story, including the apology.  The letter you mention in your last paragraph has an entire section in this article already:  see Donald Wuerl. — Lawrence King ( talk ) 20:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues in "Knowledge about McCarrick"
Two points with the current version of the section "Knowledge about McCarrick": First, the contents of the alleged file in the Pittsburgh Diocese have been relayed to us only by Robert Ciolek, so any allegations about what those files contain need to be attributed to Ciolek and cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Second, the final paragraph overstates the information presented in the Crux article. The correspondence does not show that Pope Benedict XVI imposed travel restrictions on McCarrick, "as Vigano claimed." That is editorializing and interjecting the Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the information into the article. The only facts in the Crux piece that are relevant to this article are that (1) McCarrick wrote a letter claiming that he had discussed his travel restrictions with Wuerl, and (2) Wuerl has denied that he was aware of the allegations. A short, encyclopedic description of those facts is all that is warranted in this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , please check the edit that I made. I restored some of the information which I believe you unnecessarily removed but left out some of the supposedly inflammatory wording. Display name 99 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the quote from McCarrick's letter about Wuerl's "help and understanding." I don't see how that is a material quotation in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article.  The paragraph already states that McCarrick's letter states that he discussed the restrictions with Wuerl. I don't see how the quote adds anything. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It shows that McCarrick saw Wuerl as someone who gave him comfort and was supportive of him. It tells us what Wuerl's attitude was like, at least in the way that McCarrick saw it or chose to represent it. I understand that the quote is embarrassing for Wuerl, but that is not a valid reason for leaving it out. Not that you said it was, but I'd still like to point that out. Display name 99 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on paragraphs related to McCarrick case
Should the article include these paragraphs concerning Donald Wuerl's purported knowledge of sexual misconduct by Theodore McCarrick, former cardinal and Wuerl's predecessor as Archbishop of Washington? Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes-The content is well-sourced and objectively written. It all directly relates to Wuerl and is not in any way off-topic. cited WP:BALASP, which does not apply here both because considerable attention is given to other content in the article and because Wuerl's alleged knowledge of McCarrick's behavior has received enough coverage in the media to justify a lengthy section. Even if this was undue weight, removing all of it would not make sense. It is nonsensical that when The Washington Post, one of the most important newspapers in the United States, publishes a piece accusing Wuerl of having knowledge of sexual misconduct by McCarrick and of misleading others about it, that we say absolutely nothing about it in his biography. This content does not come from LifeSiteNews. It does not come from Church Militant. It comes, at least in part, from The Washington Post. How it can then be found to not belong in the article is bewildering until one realizes that one of the editors involved told me that "we should be seeking to protect" the "good name and reputation" of Catholic bishops.  Sadly, I think the reason that these paragraphs were removed simply boils down to the fact that they reflect poorly on the subject of the article. That is unacceptable. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 * No - The paragraphs contain an excruciating level of detail that violates WP:BALASP, most of it concerning 2 people who are not the subject of this article, and most of it contained in the articles on those persons at Carlo_Maria_Viganò and Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick. We do not need a day-by-day account of what Wuerl's spokesperson said in response to a letter that is only tangentially related to Wuerl, what Wuerl's spokesperson meant by what he said, etc. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you, hardly any of it is in the McCarrick article. Most of it can't be found in the Vigano article either. Wuerl's knowledge of allegations against McCarrick in 2004 is mentioned only very briefly Vigano article. It is included in much more detail here because it has much more to do with Wuerl than it does with Vigano. Display name 99 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes - the removed paragraphs include a Washington Post article specifically about Wuerl, which clearly constitutes content that has received significant coverage in a reliable third party source; and this is a lengthy article, which the removed paragraphs do not form an excessive proportion of. That said, it could probably be cut down a bit in places - the style is a little wordy in places (e.g. it's probably unnecessary to state that Wuerl 'faced questions' - that can be inferred from the fact that he answered those questions) and the back and forth with Ciolek, who is not a main subject of this section, is perhaps covered in slightly excessive detail. TSP (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes - The information in these paragraphs is well sourced and relevant to the page. Moreso, the information doesn't come from some passing mention in a barely related article, but from a Washington Post article that is entirely dedicated to the Wuerl's knowledge of sexual misconduct allegations against Theodore McCarrick. Also, the scandal that lead to Wuerl's resignation from the position of arch-bishop is central to this man's career and should be explored in depth by the article. What are we going to write about, if not this? His views on the transubstantiation of the Eucharist or the nature of the Holy Trinity? I understand that some editors are worried about the way in which WP:BLP can be broken by adding information about abuses committed by others to a living person's page and thus linking them in a way to sexual abuse, but this is not the case, as, again, this scandal is a defining moment in this man's career and arguably in the recent history of the Catholic Church in the United States. Also, let's be honest, these complaints are sometimes made in good faith, but not always and you only need to check out the talk pages of a handful of articles dealing with the Catholic Church to see that there is a (poorly) orchestrated attempt to keep as many unsavory information out of said articles from users who are very ready to invoke each and any Wikipedia guideline, as long as means less info about sexual abuse will make it to the article. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agree with, cut it down some with less reliance on Ciolek. Manannan67 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Resolution
,, , and , here a diff of a version of the disputed content to add into the article. In accordance with what you have said, I kept the bulk of the content but cut things down a little bit. The first sentence has been removed and there's a little less on Ciolek. Mainly, his refusal to accept Wuerl's apology, though mentioned, is not quoted. I think that this reflects the views that most of you have expressed well and I hope it meets your approval. Display name 99 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 * ,, , and , WP:RFCEND says that an RfC can be closed if consensus is obvious to participants. I think that the consensus here is fairly clear: that we keep the bulk of the material but cut some of it down a little bit, particularly Ciolek. I think that my proposal conforms to that, so if there are no objections, I will add it soon and close the RfC. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I have added it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Expatriate in Italy
Per the article Expatriate, I would say that Wuerl does not meet this defintion, as he studied for the priesthood for a while in Rome and then returned to his life in these USA. An expat usually has some impetus to stay abroad for a purpose, and for an extended or indefinite time. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The term in Wikipedia is consistently used to cover people who for a time studied abroad and then came back to their country. There is no requirement that people permanently remain outside their country to fit the expatriate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have a citation for this bit of original research? We do need to satisfy WP:CATV. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An expatriate is any citizen of one country who is resident in another country. That is what the term means. You have no justification for excluding students from this category. They are regularly considered expatriates. The opening sentence on the article say "An expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person residing in a country other than their native country". So student clearly are covered. If we are going to follow the second one, we would also have to make this class based and exclude undocumented short-term migrants. I see no justification for any of these limitings of the actual definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So definitely WP:OR and no citation then. OK. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donald Wuerl


text:
Francis Yao Asare

Francis Yao Asare was a Ghanaian pharmacist and politician. He served on various ministerial portfolios and served as a member of parliament for the Buem constituency during the first republic.

Early life and education
Francis was born in Baroda in Southern Togoland. He was educated at Presbyterian School in Anum Mfantsipim School in Cape Coast.

Career and politics
He trained as a druggist at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital and worked as a pharmacist for the Ghana Civil Service from 1940 to 1947. He served on Buem Krachi Native Authority, Southern Togoland Council and was elected to the Legislative Assembly representing Buem in 1951. That same year, he was appointed Ministerial Secretary (deputy minister) for the Ministry of Housing. He was later appointed Minister of Labour, Co-operatives and Social Welfare and acting Minister for Communications. In 1957 he was appointed Minister for Food and Agriculture. He worked in that capacity until June 1960. On 1 July 1960 he was appointed Commissioner (Regional Minister) for the Volta Region. He served in this capacity until 1961. He later became Chairman of the National Food and Nutrition Board. He was re-elected to represent the Buem constituency in subsequent years until 1965 when he was sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment on charges of the defrauding the government an amount of over £1 million. After the overthrow of the Nkrumah government Francis went into fishing and was made president of the National Inshore Boat Owners Association.

Death
Francis died on 7 January 2004 at the age of 88. He was buried in his hometown; Buem.

title: Francis Yao Asare


text:
Talk:Locating equipment, system and software faults

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what ICAT4221A refers to... the course #? Thanks. --Remi 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


text:
User:Jrob kiwi

I'm a very rare contributor. I'm respectful of netiquette and usage but wary of online identities. My pseudo doesn't relate to "wiki" but to my personal links to New Zealand, even though I live in France.

title: User:Jrob kiwi


text:
Yosh Kuromiya

Yosh Kuromiya (April, 1923 – July 24, 2018) was an American artist and landscape architect.

Kuromiya was born in Sierra Madre, California in 1923. He studied art at Pasadena Junior College prior to being sent to the Heart Mountain Relocation Center in 1942, following the signing of Executive Order 9066, as part of the World War II Internment of Japanese Americans. At the internment camp, he kept busy by drawing and working on other war time projects. Upset at not being treated as a full citizen of the United States, he resisted the draft inside camp in 1944 and was sent to prison. In 1947 Kuromiya, along with other Nisei draft resisters, were pardoned by President Harry Truman.

In 1957, Kuromiya went back to college and received his state license as a landscape architect from Polytechnic College and went on to have a career designing private gardens. In the 1960s, Kuromiya was involved in the civil rights movement. He also participated in the gay rights movement.

title: Yosh Kuromiya


text:
Werner Primm

Werner Primm (6 March 1904 – 1988) was a German sculptor. His work was part of the sculpture event in the art competition at the 1936 Summer Olympics.

title: Werner Primm


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/paktestbooks.com

Links

 * paktestbooks.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Additions

 * Displayed all 6 additions.


text:
or what

Phrase

 * 1)  Or something else; allows for the existence of an unexpressed alternative to what was said.

Usage notes
Almost always at the end of a sentence, often in the form of a question.

Translations

 * Polish: albo co, czy co, czy jak
 * Russian:
 * Tagalog: o ano

title: or what


text:
Customizing packaged software applications for clients

From the official document:
 * "This unit defines the competency required to analyse, design, implement and review the customisation of packaged software applications, using simple programming constructs."

Basically, that means ... (translate above into plain english)

You can read more about this unit on the National Training Information Systems Official document for ICAU3028A.

This unit is part of the following qualifications:
 * Cert III Applications Qualification in Australia

Prerequisite unit The following unit is a prerequisite for this competency:

 * ICAU3126A Use advanced features of computer applications

How this unit will help you
After learning and applying the skills required by this unit you'll be able to demonstrate your skills in:

 * translate the above elements and performance criteria into plain english and summarise here...

Ideas for learning the required skills
...

Ideas for demonstrating this unit
The best way to demonstrate these skills is ...

Grading
If you are demonstrating this unit as part of a formal course, you might find that the unit is graded (meaning you can not only demonstrate your competence, but can also gain a credit or distinction). Your facilitator may already have set criteria that your college uses. If not, here are some ideas for possible credit/distinction activities that you can discuss with your facilitator:


text:
Portal:Research/Research topics

Action research, Astronomy Project, Bibliography and Research Methods, Bloom clock project, Supernova models, Developing Wikiversity through action research, Wikiversity Distributed Virtual Supercomputer, Ethnography, Freelance academics, Free-use Scientology-related video project, Hedonic modelling, Human Genetic Uniqueness Project, Introduction to research, Learning to learn a wiki way, Neural Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, Paducah2020, Research grant collaboration group, SchoolForge, Screensaver Project, Systems And Tools Educational Philosophy, Theory of Everything Project, UFO research, Exobiology, Wikiversity Genomics Database, Evolutionary Neuroscience Laboratory, More...

title: Portal:Research/Research topics


text:
Mauro Biello

Mauro Biello (born August 8, 1972) is a Canadian professional soccer assistant coach and former player who was the interim head coach of the Canada men's national team. He played as a forward for several Canadian and American lower division clubs, namely Montreal Supra, Buffalo Blizzard, Rochester Raging Rhinos, and Toronto Thunderhawks. He also spent a total of 16 seasons with the second division Montreal Impact, for whom he is the all-time statistical leader in goals and appearances, with over 80 goals and over 300 games for the team. As a Canadian international, he was capped four times from 1995 until 2000.

As a manager, he served as the head coach of Montreal Impact from 2015 until 2017 and has served as the interim head coach of the Canadian men's national team since September of 2023.

Early life
Born in Montreal, Quebec, Biello attended St. Monica's Elementary School, Vincent Massey Collegiate and Marymount Academy, and played college soccer at Vanier College and Concordia University. He is of Italian descent.

Early career
Biello began his professional soccer career in 1992 when he was drafted by the Montreal Supra.

Montreal Impact
A year later, the team folded and Biello signed with the newly formed expansion team, the Montreal Impact of the American Professional Soccer League. Biello helped the Impact capture the League Championship for the first time in 1994, but Biello played a small part in capturing the Championship. In 1997, Biello helped the Impact win the regular-season title by scoring 8 goals and recording 10 assists. He was awarded the Giuseppe-Saputo Trophy as the Impact's Team MVP. In addition to playing for Montreal during the outdoor season, Biello also spent two seasons, 1995–1997, with the Buffalo Blizzard in the National Professional Soccer League. In 1997, the Impact entered the NPSL. Consequently, Biello played both indoor and outdoor seasons with Montreal.

During the 1998 outdoor season, Biello played a major part for the Impact, scoring 11 goals and amassing 35 points (a team record that stood until the 2002 season, when Eduardo Sebrango surpassed it with 18 goals and 36 points). At the end of the season he was awarded the Giuseppe-Saputo Trophy for the second straight year.

Rochester Raging Rhinos
In 1999, Biello left the Impact because the new ownership decided not to play the 1999 outdoor season in order to better prepare the 1999-2000 indoor season, which left him to sign with rivals the Rochester Raging Rhinos. With Rochester, Biello enjoyed much success; he was Rochester's leading scorer with eight goals and four assists. He also helped the Rhinos win the U.S. Open Cup for the very first time and helped reach the championship game, which Rochester lost to the Minnesota Thunder.

Return to Montreal Impact
In 2000, Biello returned to the Impact, but the Impact didn't qualify for the playoffs that season. As the Impact was no longer playing indoor soccer, Biello spent the winter of 2000–01 with the Toronto Thunderhawks in the NPSL. In 2001, Impact coach Valerio Gazzola chose Biello to be the captain of the Montreal Impact. That year, the Impact had a struggling season both on and off the field. The team missed the playoffs for the second straight year. Biello lead the team in scoring with eight goals and again was awarded the Giuseppe-Saputo Trophy.

In 2004, Biello led the Impact to win the club's second league championship, beating the Seattle Sounders. That same year, he helped the Impact win the Voyageurs Cup for the third straight year.

In 2005, he helped the Impact play a 15-game streak without a loss (10-0-5), setting a new league record. He was the Impact's leading scorer in 2005, following a production of nine goals and three assists for a total of 21 points. Biello also was a finalist for League MVP honors, losing to Jason Jordan, and for the fourth time in his career he was awarded the Giuseppe-Saputo Trophy. Mauro also helped the Impact capture the Voyageurs Cup for a fourth straight year. On December 7, 2005, Biello signed a two-year deal with the Impact.

On July 13, 2007, he played his 300th career game with the Impact against the Carolina RailHawks, making him the first Impact player to reach that milestone as well as the first player in USL history to play 300 games with the same team.

On January 5, 2009, the Montreal Impact announced that Biello and veteran midfielder Patrick Leduc had both accepted contract extensions for the 2009 season. During the 2009 USL season Biello contributed by helping the Impact clinch a playoff spot under new head coach Marc Dos Santos. He helped the Impact reach the finals where Montreal would face the Vancouver Whitecaps FC, this marking the first time in USL history where the final match would consist of two Canadian clubs. In the final Biello helped the Impact win the series 6–3 on aggregate. The victory gave the Impact their third USL Championship and also the victory marked Biello's third USL Championship. Once the season came to a conclusion Biello announced his retirement from competitive soccer on November 19, 2009.

International
Biello played in two of Canada's three games at the 1989 FIFA U-16 World Championship in Scotland.

Senior team
He made his senior debut for the Canada national team on May 28, 1995, in a match against Chile. He earned a total of four caps, scoring no goals. His final international was a January 2000 friendly match against Trinidad and Tobago.

Montreal Impact
Biello joined the coaching staff of the Montreal Impact in 2009 and became the interim head coach on August 30, 2015, after Frank Klopas was fired, a day after a 2–1 loss to Toronto FC. Montreal won 4–3 in his first match as interim head coach. Biello guided the team to the Eastern Conference semi-finals where they were eliminated by Columbus Crew. Biello had the interim tag removed after guiding the Impact into the playoffs. The Montreal Impact finished fifth in the Eastern Conference and got to the Eastern Conference final where they eliminated by Toronto FC. In 2017, the Impact struggled, winning just 11 games, against 17 losses and 6 draws. Biello was fired the day after the season ended.

Canada
In February 2018, Canada Soccer hired Biello as assistant coach to the Canada men's national team under head coach John Herdman.

On August 28, 2023, John Herdman resigned from the men's national team in order to join Toronto FC as their head coach. and Biello was announced as the interim coach of the team on September 20, 2023.

Player
Montreal Impact Rochester Raging Rhinos
 * APSL Championship: 1994
 * USL First Division Championship: 2004, 2009
 * USL First Division Commissioners Cup: 1995, 1996, 1997, 2005, 2006
 * Voyageurs Cup Champions: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
 * U.S. Open Cup: 1999

Individual

 * Number 20 retired by Montreal Impact

Personal Life
Biello's sons are also soccer players; Gabriele played in the academy of Montreal Impact and is currently in the roster of the Soccer team of Dawson College (Blues); and Alessandro plays for CF Montréal. as well the Canada men's national under-20 soccer team.

Biello speaks fluent English, French and Italian.

title: Mauro Biello


text:
Wikijunior:Solar System/Kuiper Belt

Kuiper Belt Facts:
 * The Kuiper belt is the most recently discovered section of the Solar System.

Beyond the orbit of Neptune lies the Kuiper belt. It extends outward an additional three billion kilometers away from the Sun. The belt contains different-sized lumps of icy mixtures. These lumps are called Kuiper belt objects. The biggest are called minor planets or dwarf planets. The Kuiper belt may have formed when the gravity of the young planet Jupiter hurled the objects out to where they are now. The Kuiper belt is named after Gerard Kuiper (rhymes with "viper"), one of several astronomers who hypothesized about a field of small objects beyond Neptune.

What are Kuiper belt objects?
The objects in the Kuiper belt are frozen mixtures of dirt, ice and organic compounds. They are a lot like comets. Some of the objects have a reddish color and others are gray.

How big are the Kuiper belt objects?
Scientists consider Pluto to be one of the largest Kuiper belt objects. It is 2390 km across and is a dwarf planet. The next largest known Kuiper belt objects are Orcus, 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9. Orcus is about 1600 km (1,000 miles) across; 2003 EL61 is 70% the size of Pluto and 2005 FY9 is about 50% to 70% of Pluto's size.

Recently, scientists found another dwarf planet named Eris that is even bigger than Pluto. The scientists don't know its exact size, but they think it is about 20% larger than Pluto. At the time it was found, it was almost 100 times further away from the Sun than the Earth. It can come about as close to the Sun as Pluto. Eris has a moon named Dysnomia. The orbit of Eris is tilted almost 45 degrees compared to Earth's orbit. Pluto's orbit is only tilted by 17 degrees.

Other large Kuiper belt objects about or over 1000 km across are Pluto's moon Charon, Quaoar, Varuna, Ixion, 1996 TL66, 2002 TX300, 2002 TC302, 2002 UX25 and 2002 AW197. Ceres, the largest asteroid in the asteroid belt, is about 950 km across.

There are many other Kuiper belt objects that are only a few kilometers or tens of kilometers across.

How many Kuiper belt objects are there?
Over a thousand Kuiper belt objects had been found by astronomers. Scientists think that there might be more than seventy thousand large objects in the Kuiper belt. Even though there are so many objects in the Kuiper belt, it is very light, weighing between 1/25 and 1/30 of Earth's mass.

What is it named after?
After the first object in the belt other than Pluto and its moon Charon was spotted from the Mauna Kea Observatory in Hawaii in 1992, the belt was named after the astronomer Gerard Kuiper. Back in 1951 this scientist wrote that he thought this belt might exist, but there was no proof at that time. Other astronomers, including Frederick Leonard, Kenneth Edgeworth, and Julio Fernandez, also thought that the belt existed. For this reason some astronomers call it the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt.

What are the Kuiper belt objects named after?
When an object is discovered in space, it is given a temporary name called a "provisional designation". This temporary name begins with the year the object was discovered, followed by some letters and numbers that tell in what month and in what order it was discovered. Later on, important objects are given formal names, often taken from mythology.

The Kuiper belt objects Orcus, Charon, and Varuna were all named after mythological gods of the underworld. Ixion was named after a mythological person in the underworld. Quaoar was named after a creation god of the Native American Tongva people.

Next Topic: Oort Cloud

Wikijunior Sonnensystem/ Kuipergürtel

title: Wikijunior:Solar System/Kuiper Belt


text:
Talk:Doug West

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Doug West. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201916/http://citypages.com/databank/19/899/article4453.asp to http://citypages.com/databank/19/899/article4453.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.s-t.com/daily/02-98/02-24-98/zzzspcap.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830054228/http://www.nba.com:80/timberwolves/wolves/doug_west.html to http://www.nba.com/timberwolves/wolves/doug_west.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Doug West