Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad/Archive 12

message: Hello, I'd like to see some information about Mr. Ahmadinejad's alleged special ties to the Basij militias and about his role during his initial Basij membership in the 1980s. There have been numerous mentions of this connnection in newspapers, but I've yet to see any in-depth information. Thanks! -- 85.179.165.16 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basij ties? 

message: For those editors that are attempting to bypass 3RR on the basis of spurious claims of WP:COI against some editors, please read the guideline at WP:COI#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes that says clearly:
Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.
Any editor attempting to disrupt the editing process with spurious claims of COI, will be considered disruptive themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that editors have tried their best to assume good faith with regards to Jayig, although unfortunately, his reversions of good edits of many editors who have tried to neutralize the article would sometimes make it very hard to do so.--Gerash77 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regrettably, what makes it incredibly hard for editors to stay within WP:AGF, is the fact that he has stated his intentions to block all those editors, including what he calls "good editors", who criticize his reversions, and amazingly he is  "Just letting everyone know" of his intention of violations of his administrative duties.--Gerash77 23:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacious claims of [[WP:COI]] 

message: I think tags should be removed from living poeples bios. It is too risky, also if a certain tag is under heated debate (unlike Hitler--nobody debates that) then the tag should be removed as it is a POV and a violation of his bio. Now i found like 4 tags per his bio all pointing to one issue, 4 tags. tags should be for 100% facts he is a man, he is from Iran, he doesnt mix milk with his tea. etc etc--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Anti-Semitic people was removed after months of debate and discussion. :Category:Antisemitism and :Category:Anti-Zionists is cited beyond reproof or reproach, and removal is tantamount to whitewashing, a gross violattion of WP:NPOV. Please check the voluminous archives on the matter. Thank you. -- Avi 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, wikipedia is made of people, and some who discuss on one article do not do so on another. This article has had voluminous discussion, which resulted in the consensus comprimise we have now. I fail to see wheer the violations of wiki policy are here. -- Avi 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you please show the previous consensus ? and do not call other users who don't like your POV as vandal. they have come with some reasoning and their concern must be answered. And I don't think He is anti-semetic (I think you mean "anti-jew", because Arabs are also Semetic). First he had denied it in all the cases that he was questioned for it; and second There are about 30 thousands Persian Jewliving in Iran (the second rank after Israel in Great mideal east), they didn't see anything more than rhetoric about Israel from him and third no recognized international organization have called him Anti-semetic. --Pejman47 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you removed the :Category:Antisemitism tag you'd be pretending the antisemitism section in the article didn't exist.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove tags

message: I will be removing and deleting :Image:Burningahmadinejad.JPG for being under a false copyright tag (it is also a non-commercial image). I would suggest to search flickr, or other websites, for photos we can use under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Please stop this revert war.  Also, have the discussion here and not in your edit summaries.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Basically, "insist" (& variants) have been contested as POV because of the perceived connotation of the word.  As an English speaker I also believe the word has some connotation, but Jayjg & perhaps others disagree on this point.  However, "state" doesn't carry any particular POV, so it seems an appropriate compromise wording.  Avraham seemed to imply in his latest edit summaries that paraphrasing as "states" is 'dangerous' & an attempt to fit a purported POV.  An actually POV statement would simply describe Ahmadinejad as anti-Jew, as if it is some definite fact.  Using "state" to communicate his claim is only neutral.  Avraham also stated that "insist" was a direct quote, though it wasn't being used in quotation at the time.  More important is that there is no need to quote "insist" to communicate Ahmadinejad's response; I see no reason to use a direct quote aside from trying to force the questionable/editorial wording.  Forcing questionable wording is not in the best interests of the article since WP has a neutrality policy, so it is best to use "state" because it definitely has no connotation.  The Behnam 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the-Behnam--Pejman47 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual quote is: Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has insisted that he is not an anti-Semite.. The lead is referencing "anti-Jew", which is not a direct quote from the piece either. In that case, I am fine with the paraphrase saying "stated" or "insisted". However, I think that in an article this prone to contention, we stick to actual quotes from sources as directly as possible, and I would prefer the direct formulation used in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368458.stm brought above. -- Avi 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are open to both, then it is probably best to go with the "state" version, since it appears to be the best common ground between editors here.  The Behnam 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I totally disagree that "insist" implies guilt or anything other than just saying something in reply to or against/over objections to the contrary.  However, I don't see anything wrong with "state".  "Insist" comes from the summary of the BBC article and there's no reason to "quote" it.  Some people have said that because a NPOV source said it, that's reason enough to use it.  Everything in the article doesn't have to have be a direct quote from a NPOV source.  We're summarizing what has been said in a neutral way.  There are more important issues under discussion.  If anything this has shown that anything in the lead must be discussed in talk first before any changes are made.  That goes for both "sides".--Littleman_TAMU (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Usually a good idea. However, with this article, there has been a tendency to make subtle changes in order to surreptitiously push one pov or another, therefore, when it comes to something that looks like an apologetic or overly antagonistic change to what should be a direct quote is made, I am more likely to revert first and ask questions later to maintain article integrity. This time, after further review, I was incorrect, and I apologize if I offended any of y'all. But that does not mean I will stop watching this article like a hawk for any changes (pro- or con- ) that dilute the integrity of the sources.  -- Avi 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Great! At least the words get through, even if it's for a little word. :p  M87 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insist v. state