Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 17

message: I don't understand why "stated" is being replaced with 'claimed' or (on the other side) 'rejected' because 'stated' is supposedly POV.  How is it POV, or in one editor's words, "very POV"? If I recall correctly "stated" was used after a previous discussion as a compromise since it is very neutral, though flavorless (hence neutral).  I ask that you all please make a good clear case now why "stated" is so unacceptable.  Thanks.  The Behnam 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be specific? A diff that shows that change will do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. According to WP:WTA we should use "said". --Aminz 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is the most recent.  Apparently Sefringle thinks there is something very POV about 'stated' that has something to do with his sincerity.  I simply can't see where he is coming from; "stated" seems so neutral to me as to approach bland writing.  The Behnam 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: the way it is written implies that Ahmadinejad was sincere when he claimed to not be an antisemite. Even the source says "claimed." It is written as if saying that the accusations of antisemitism are thus invalid, since he "stated" that he is not antisemitic. He claimed not to be antisemitic in response, it is a claim, and lacks sincerity. --Sefringle 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be trying to address his supposed sincerity or lack thereof here.  This POV type of writing was stripped when adding to this article so as to prevent a POV projection.  And we shouldn't be changing to 'claimed' with the sole purpose of questioning his sincerity, as that is purely POV editing.  The Behnam 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again with the sincerity bit? It's extremely hard to assume good faith here. First of, the burden of proof is on the accuser and besides twisting of the words in some speeches, you have yet to show any evidence which would support that he is anti-Semitic. Secondly, it is none of our business if he is sincere or not. The article is here to serve a higher purpose than to represent your POV. Lastly, I'll ask you to follow the talk guidelines and refrain from using biased titles in the future. Did you really need to append incredibly there? I do not consider "stated" to be POV Lixy 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In wikipedia, we should give all the raw data to the reader and let them decide for themselves. --Aminz 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also POV editing to imply that he is sincere about his quote, and to imply that the charges of antisemitism are invalid, as the lead, as it is currently written does.--Sefringle 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your definition of "saying". Isn't it the words that come out of mouth? --Aminz 01:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Said" seems to me more factually accurate. He said that, right? I do not think that any reader will not be able to make his/her own mind about if he was sincere or insincere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your recent change improves the wording, swaying it away form Ahmadinejad's propaganda. But claimed would be better, since the charges of antisemitism are stated as alleged, his response should be as well, or it should be re-phraised, for example: "in response to these assertions, he said..."--Sefringle 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claimed" is clearly POV as it implies insincerity. "said" or "stated" is neutral - he did say it for goodness sake! - Wikipedia must allow readers to make up their own minds - that's precisely why we're 'free' and Iran isn't.88.111.87.49 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The incredibly POV use of 'stated' 

message: Hello, Please help with The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion article where User:Arrow740 is changing "said" to "claimed". Thanks --Aminz 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Said vs Claimed 

message: *he was elected Mayor of Tehran => he was appointed - Mayors are elected by city council not appointed by an learned elder. Please explain your reversion.
*elderly Iranian scientists -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former
*It has been referred to as "second cultural revolution" after the Islamic Cultural Revolution earlier - No source
*Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - this one is just outright vandalism
Please explain yourself. Thanks.--Gerash77 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In WP, you can delete every thing disputed that is not supported by the references or references provided for it say something opposite, and no body (even and Admin!) can stop you doing that, unless he/she bring some sources for it. It is a general rule  --Pejman47 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know I tried that, and was reported by Jay for 3RR, resulting in my block. Please don't remove the tags. It's the least we can do to inform the readers of the material in question. Thanks.--Gerash77 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reported his situation on  hoping to see the person involved receive at least a warning. The discussion might be relevant to tags currently in place.--Gerash77 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sefringle unexplained edits

message: It seems that Sefringle is misusing his support from certain internationally renowned admins to vandalize the article contrary to the WP:LIVING
The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:
*Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph
*Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government
* changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former
Unfortunately the admins here not only do not stop this editor, but force other editors who try to fix his vandalism into blockage, contrary to WP:IGNORE. I added proper tags until the situation is resolved.--Gerash77 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In WP, you can delete every thing disputed that is not supported by the references or references provided for it say something opposite, and no body (even and Admin!) can stop you doing that, unless he/she bring some sources for it. It is a general rule  --Pejman47 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know I tried that, and was reported by Jay for 3RR, resulting in my block. Please don't remove the tags. It's the least we can do to inform the readers of the material in question. Thanks.--Gerash77 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reported his situation on  hoping to see the person involved receive at least a warning. The discussion might be relevant to tags currently in place.--Gerash77 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sefringle's refusal to respond

message: There appears to be a dispute over whether "numerous" scientists were fired or "elderly scientists" were fired.  There are disuptes over anti-semitic comments and attitudes.  Ther are disputes over whether the city council "appointed" or "elected".  Likely there are several others.  For the time being, the disputed header should remain. —Gaff ταλκ 20:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firings of scientists and other disputes. 

message: Avi was kind enough to archive this page; even the archived version is almost 75k. No doubt much more should be archived, but this will do for now. Please don't disruptively un-archive the page again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving this page 

message: There is currently an AfD on the related Plans_for_military_attacks_against_Iran article.  It may be best to merge the contents of this other article into this article where appropriate.  --70.51.234.169 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request: [[Plans_for_military_attacks_against_Iran]] 

message: Could an admin change the dates on the appropriate fact tags so as not to generate non-existent categories, please? There's one April 07 that should be April 2007, and four May 07 that should read May 2007. Nice simple non-controversial fix, really. :) -Ebyabe 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Avi 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! -Ebyabe 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact tag date update 

message: http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247 - Iranian news agency Zeq 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well-known that the actual phrase began with state news.  This is old news and doesn't change anything here.  The Behnam 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran state English services is an embarrassment in its entirety, subject to much ridicule from MEMRI and online video sharing such as Youtube. They have started a new service called PRESS TV who seem to have hired normal people rather than 3 and a half mullahs with speciality of knowing which hand to wipe their behind with :-) --Gerash77 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The plural stadiums is just as correct, see Stadium. SGGH speak! 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis translation ? No way 

message: Typo at the end of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Domestic criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'Israel should be wiped of the map' -> 'Israel should be wiped off the map'. Feezo (Talk) 07:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 08:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic criticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 

message: Please an admin add the category :Category:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the article. Sina Kardar 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category