Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran/Archive 2

Definitely not NPOV
Needless to say Iran is one of the world's worst human rights violators, but this is an encyclopedia, and as such this article needs to be rewritten to conform to NPOV standards. ♠ SG →Talk 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Iran is far better than most developing countries in terms of democracy and definitely better that US in terms of murdering people.

Iran has the highest record of shutting down newspapers. But this does not mean Iran is the most restrictive country in terms of freedom of expression. In most developing countries the government will not let the newspapers to run! Obviously when there is no newspaper, they don't have to shut down them !!

In terms of ethnic minorities, again Iran is far better than Turkey which is waiting to join EU ! In terms of terrorism, no Iranian was involved in any terroristic events as 11/9 or London bombing.

Even in terms of homosexuality, I have several friends who are gay and have a reasonable life in Iran. These stories about execution of gays, are all lies made by some Iranian gays to earn money or to get residence permit in Europe.


 * We shut newspapers down in Canada? Pfft.  If that were so the national Post wouldnt be celebrating its 10th Aniversary, the highly conservative and controversial publication was nothing but an anti liberal rant while they were in power.  Iran is a horrible violator of human rights of all kinds.  In fact all of the intelectuals are fleeing the country.  And any country that has a law that says women have to wear something while men dont (IE the Hijab) is an abuser of human rights.  For example in Canada Men can go topless, and even though most women dont they are allowed to if they so choose to do so, although its not very popular amongst women to do this, but the point is they have the RIGHT to so says the courts in Ontario.  When women in Iran are allowed to go topless then they will not be an abuser of womens rights.  But Hell will freeze over before the mullahs do something like that. --74.104.48.172 02:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) oops--Meanie 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of human rights in Iran is very common, but it does not mean that Iran is one of the worst. --Sinooher17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Iran is far better than most developing countries in terms of democracy and definitely better that US in terms of murdering people" What? It's better than Saudi Arabia and Saddam's Iraq regarding democracy. The second half of this sentence doesn't even make any sense. Are you insinuating that the application of the death penalty in Iran is more fair and judicious than the US? Good luck convincing people of that.

"In terms of terrorism, no Iranian was involved in any terroristic events as 11/9 or London bombing." Iran agressively funds Hezbolah and also funds Palestinian suicide bombers. Issuing the fatwa for Salamon Rushdie's murder was an act of state sponsored terrorism.


 * Please add your signature, when you comment here. --Sinooher20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article could become more balanced, however because of it's sensitive nature I think every statement should be sourced from the beginning. For the record, I think Iran's democracy is a joke and it kills FAR more people than the US when you adjust the numbers for base population (usa 250m+ / Iran 70m+). Smackmonkey 09:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that using the phrasing "one of the worst" violators of human rights is not appropriate. It sounds very weasel word-ish and also is not true. Just a quick list of countries with worse human rights records: (1) Rwanda, (2) Sudan, (3) Burma, (4) North Korea, (5)Zimbabwe. Now since I'm no expert and can list five worse violators, the wording is poorly chosen.

NPOV
This article is not neutral right from the very beginning; all the intro discusses is alleged human rights violations, nothing else. BhaiSaab talk 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to play devils advocate- perhaps it's because Iran has an abysmal human rights record? Tototom 12:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, all articles on "Human Rights in country X,Y or Z" contain allegations, few of which are proved. That's in the nature of the subject, HR abuses rarely get tried in a court of law.

Exile 14:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because they rarely get tried in a court of law -- that does NOT mean they don't OFTEN occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.0.197 (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Background: unsourced
The Background section is totally unsourced. The only cites supplied don't appear to support the sentence they are attachde to. I think the whole section is OR commentary and should be removed, but will wait to see if anyone can improve it. Ashmoo 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While not totally sourced, I do believe what is said to be true. Thus, I strongly section should be kept- however as Ashmoo said, any sources would be welcome. Smackmonkey 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for the article anyway, maybe it should be scrapped altogether. To have it or not does not help one understand the subject better (in my opinion, of course).Claveau 07:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You think so? I would have said the opposite again. ;-) I think it sumerizes a great deal of the information on the pages below- if you read through it you see that everything traces back to those two causes. Smackmonkey 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true for you and I, but there may be people who would draw different conclusions (wouldn't know how really, but that's beside the point) and it might be better on the "encyclopedic" point of view to let people draw their own conclusions. Just a thought Claveau 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial and POV:Human rights in Islam
There are different viewpoint about human rights. There are different human rights available in Islam:. We shouldn't judge Islamic republic on the basis of europian human rights. Please look at this book. Islamic republic believes in this book theoritically:THE TREATISE ON RIGHTS--Sa.vakilian 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The treatment of women in the majority of muslim countries is morally reprehensable. They are not treated as equals.  This is not good human rights policy.  Are you saying that it is unfair that we are saying that all lives are sacred and not just those who believe in a particular religion and are male.  I think we need to be rational here in that human rights are measured based on western standards, because westerners enjoy the highest levels of freedom and human rights at the present time than any other group in history.  While the Islamic world has some of the worst human rights in the present day.  Probably not in history some regions have been pretty bad.  Sharia law is a horrible creation that says the testimony of a woman only carries one half that of a man.  How is that human rights.  That is subjegation and controle.--Meanie 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "We shouldn't judge Islamic republic on the basis of europian human rights." It is a matter of Iran's compliance with international conventions relating to human rights, of which it is a signatory and therefore has obligations. It is not about "European values" but international laws and conventions that Iran has accepted. However, LGBT rights are not enshrined in these human rights conventions and therefore are not normally the basis for seeking asylum. Ironically, the US and Iran are united in their resistance to stopping LGBT rights from forming a part of international human rights standards.
 * Meanie: There are plenty of secular states with atrocious human rights records, namely China and Russia. Women are not just oppressed by mullahs, there are plenty of examples where women have been, until recently, oppressed and discriminated against in Western democracies. And Sharia is a form of jurisprudence, it is not a rigid set of laws and punishments. Although the implementation of Sharia is often harsh, the implementation of secular criminal law can also be harsh - the Americans have a habit of executing black people after dubious trials, does that mean their entire legal and penal system should be condemned? So, the debates are not simply about Western versus Islamic values.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The UN has international standards for human rights and I many Islamic countries are UN member nations who can contribute to the creation of these standards. Your POV is of course valid; please insert it in the article.  And by the way, Americans do not execute anyone after dubious trials; if you believe that you might have been influenced by anti-American propaganda. Elizmr 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as a Note on the death penatly thing in the US, the federal one is almost never used. However criminal law is the jurisdiction of the individual states.  Most US states (I think I am correct on this however I could be wrong) do not have the death penalty.  And some that do have a policy of not executing someone on their first go round.  And many more like California you are more likely to die on death row than from a lethal injection since it takes so long to kill someone.--Meanie 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most US states do have the death penalty (38 out of 50). Three people have been executed since the re-enactement of the death penalty for federally prosecuted cases.  Some states (New York for example) have not had any executions since 1976, but still retain the option of imposing the death penalty for certain offenses.Claveau 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Issues
I have some questions regarding this topic:

1) It is ambiguos whether the term "Jew" as used in this article is meant in the religeous or ethnic sense. Are we dealing with a religeous issue or an ethnic issue or both?

2) If this is a religeous issue, how does the treatment of followers of Judaism compare with that of people from other religeons?

3) Is it really unique enough to warrant it's own section, or should the treatment of followers of Judaism in Iran be put in the section or page on religeous minorities?

4) If this is an ethnic issue (i.e. someone born into a Jewish family who converts to Islam at age 21 is still not considered equal to an ethnically Persian/Iranian Muslim) than how does the treatment of Jewish people compare to that of other ethnic minorities in Iran?

5) Is it really unique enough to warrant it's own section, or should the treatment of Jewish people in Iran be put in a section or page on ethnic minorities?

6) If there are only 25,000 ethnically Jewish people in Iran, than I doubt they are the largest ethnic minority. Should we not have sections on larger ethnic minorities?

7) Can only a Jewish (ethnically or religeously) person be charged with and imprisoned or executed for Zionism?

8) Have only Jewish people been charged with and executed or imprisoned for Zionism?

9) If the answers to questions 7 and 8 are 'no', than I suggest this be incorporated into a separate section or page. (I'm not really asking a question here)

10) Who is Amir Cyrus Razzaghi and why does it matter what he says? As it stands, I don't know why we are listening to this person.

11) Is the last half of the Paragraph one long quote? I can not tell because there are no closing marks.

I'm not going to flag or delete anything. However, I really question the necessesity of a section on "Jewish Issues". I think this information should be incorporated elsewhere, such as the page on religeous issues or a page on ethnic issues. Thank you for your time, SB 67.70.36.199 02:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DHDC.jpg
Image:DHDC.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rooznameh ha.jpg
Image:Rooznameh ha.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags for cleanup and POV
I have attempted to cleanup and rewrite the article. Does anyone have an objection to my removing the cleanup and POV tag? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. There is lots more to do. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the POV tag? Anyone think it's still POV? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hearing no protest, POV tag removed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people has raised many questions about the neutrality of the article on this talk page, please don't remove the POV tag until thsoe concerns have been addressed. --CreazySuit (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Branch
I will create a branch Human Rights in the Pahlavi Dynasty to resolve this issue, and edit Human rights in Iran to point to the two branch articles.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should wait until the discussion complete and a consensus with how to structure the articles before you go ahead and create a new article. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple tags
A large number of tags have been added with no discussion.

These need to be discussed if the tags are to remain, and I don't mean some vague comment thrown in like: "Many people has raised many questions about the neutrality of the article on this talk page, please don't remove the POV tag until thsoe concerns have been addressed." There have been many changes made to the article since any specific complaint has been made about the POV of the article, including a rewrite of the lead and a short section adding the IRI's point of view. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know about the claim of unbalanced and synthesis, but I see no reason to keep the POV tag. Some sentences in the article are not sourced, but those are properly tagged. I am removing the POV tag.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss the tags point by point.


 * refimprove - the sentences which are unsourced are properly tagged. I see no reason for a refimprove tag at the top of the article.
 * OR- same as the above argument.
 * synthesis - I have not looked at all the information closely. So I can't tell about it.
 * unbalanced - In this case also I have no opinion because I have not checked all the information in the article.

I am removing the refimprove and OR tags, this is going to be overtagging.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Otolemur crassicaudatus, and I again call upon the poster of this tag to explain what's wrong with the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you review the discussion page, several users have expressed their concern that this page suffers from POV issues, therefore the tag should not be removed without a consensus. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That was before extensive changes and additions were made to the article. We need specific complaints not "review the discussion page". --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * for example the lead use to start:


 * Today, the state of human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran continues to be generally considered a source of significant concern. Despite many efforts by Iranian human right activists, writers, NGOs and international critiques as well as several resolutions by the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Commission, the government of Iran continues to restrict freedom of speech, gender equality and other forms of freedom.


 * It now starts:
 * ''The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the subject of concern for both Iranians and the international community. Iranian human right activists, many writers, and NGOs have protested abuses, while the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission have condemned abuses in Iran in published critiques and several resolutions.


 * In addition this was added to the end of the lead:
 * One defense made of the Islamic Republic's human rights record is that it is not so severe that the Iranian public is afraid to criticize its government publicly to strangers. In neighboring Syria "taxi driver[s] rarely talk politics; the Iranian[s] will talk of nothing else." 


 * Based on the changes made since the 2007 complaints about POV and
 * the lack of any specific complaints about what in the article is not a neutral point of view
 * and the advice of Jclemens
 * I hereby delete the tags added to the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
You do not need a third opinion here, as three editors are involved in this dispute. I would encourage all editors adding tags to provide specific, current examples that support the tagging, and any editor removing tags to provide specific comments on how they believe their edits have remedied the issues raised by the editor placing the tag. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are really only two editors involved: me (BoogaLouie) and CreazySuit. I think Otolemur crassicaudatus has moved on.
 * There is only one editor adding tags (CreazySuit) and he has given no explanation except "If you review the discussion page, several users have expressed their concern that this page suffers from POV issues." This is dispite the fact that A) the POV complaints are not specific and B) the article has been almost rewritten since the last POV complaint.
 * So how can I "provide specific comments on how [I] believe [my] edits have remedied the issues raised by the editor placing the tag" when the editor hasn't given any reason for the tag?
 * I think the issue here is time. Someone who does not like an article can spend a few moments adding lots of tags, give a generic complaint in wikispeak ("review the discussion page") and go back to their video game, while the person trying to get the tags removed legitimately (without a revert war) defends the article and wades thru all the wikipedia procedure, solicit third opinions or Requests for comment, and hopes for some imput. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I am not heavily involved in this page, I will say all the information in the article are well-referenced. I see no justification for the POV tag. The editor adding the tag should point out the parts of article which he believes violation of WP:NPOV.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Why multiple tags when there is no explanation?
Should there be tags on an article - giving the appearance that the article is a mess and not reliable - when no reason has been given for adding the tags except a generic "review the discussion page"?

Deleting the RFC, long-since resolved.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag Justifications
If you would like to add a tag to the article, please place a specific justification here. I've artchived past disussion, since it applied to previous versions of the article, but feel free to quote that archive if any material there is relevant. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of archiving this talk page is not to remove old disputes--they remain, as they should, archived at /Archive1. The purpose is to allow CURRENT disputes to be highlighted here.  If there is a current content dispute, please add it here.  Add it with links to or by copying text from the archive as appropriate, but multiple editors have said We do not see what the current issues are underlying the tags.  So, if there ARE current issues, please, copy just that text that applies to the article as it stands now from the archive, and put it right here.  Those of us who would like to see the tags dealt with need better directions than "multiple editors have expressed concerns" or "see above".  So, please provide better directions, here, so that the tags can be dealt with appropriately and in good faith.  Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

editprotected Please remove the and  tags from this article. Multiple editors have requested detailed descriptions of the issues underlying these tags, and yet none has been forthcoming, as can be seen from the talk history here and in the archived talk page. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Declined. The addition of the tags was the reason for the editwarring that caused the page to be protected. I don't see clear consensus here about whether or not they should stay in the article.  Sandstein   20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags
Beside the obvious POV issues that have been raised by many editors on this talk page to no avail, this article suffers from many other problems such as: --CreazySuit (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Editorializing as well as POVish and unencyclopedic language
 * Unverifiable claims
 * Poorly sourced statements backed by advocacy NGOs and organizations that do not meet the requirements of WP:RS as a source (StopChildExecutions.com, gaytoday.com, youtube clips, even other Wikipedia pages just to name a few)


 * Give examples of POVish language.
 * Give examples of unverified claims.
 * Quote the statements from the article that are "poorly sourced" and explain why these organizations do not satisfy WP:RS.
 * Until you do this, your dispute with this article will appear to stem from a general feeling of POV, rather than any tangible issue with the article.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First read WP:RS before asking mute "questions", non-academic advocacy website are not reliable sources. Youtube is not a WP:RS, other Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS. There is nothing further to explain here. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please point me to the policy which supports a blanket prohibition on YouTube or non-academic advocacy websites being referenced in Wikipedia? (hint: there isn't one that I know of) Absent such a prohibition, then yes, there IS more to explain--like which specific sources you dispute and for what reason.  Feel free to add  tags to any source whose neutrality you dispute. See Template_messages/Cleanup for all sorts of other tags that you can feel free to use to mark specific sections or clauses as having issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Watch the incivility. Amnesty International is a non-academic advocacy website and the community's consensus is that it is a reliable source.  Though YouTube's being unreliable is not established policy, the fact that I'm finding reliable sources contradicting the claims made by Lauer makes me agree that that particular statement should be removed.


 * In reading stopchildexecutions.com, I'm finding none of the attributed information in the source. Thus I agree that those statements should be removed aswell.


 * I agree that Wikipedia articles should not be listed as sources. If the information being cited is indeed in the article, it would be cited in that article as well, so we need only to copy/paste that reference into this article in place of the wikipedia citation.  You're going to have to point out exactly where these are though, I'm not searching through 137 citations.  Same with gaytoday, say exactly where it is cited.


 * You've made good points regarding the citations, but this was only one of your disputes. The others (POVish language, unverified claims) are currently without the examples required to justify them.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CreazySuit says: First read WP:RS before asking mute "questions", non-academic advocacy website are not reliable sources. I just read WP:RS.
 * Where, CreazySuit, does it say "non-academic advocacy website are not reliable sources"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite the failure of crazysuit to point out specific problems I'm going to go ahead and remove some sources and copy/paste that references from other wikipages. A sort fo good faith effort to adress its (crazysuit's) concerns. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually I can't do that as the page is locked. I will ask the admin to unlock it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree--let's leave the tags (for now) and clean up what little we can discern as needing cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You all need to realize that Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda/advocacy, regime change and similar nonsense. As long as this page is not completely re-written in an Encyclopedic manner ( as oppose to being a link-dump of opposition groups' claims), and there is clear consensus that it's NPOV, the tags will remain. Just look what an administrator stated about the horrible conditions of this page:

"I'll take a brief look and go by the reference numbers as they currently appear:


 * 5: This is a website on Tripod.com. It doesn't meet RS, since anyone can create a page there.
 * 25, 28, 30, 38 (possibly more): The Human Rights Watch website. This is an advocacy group, so it's natural to be concerned with a bias.
 * 41: Letters to the editor page; since these are submitted by readers, it's not a RS.
 * 44: Iranterror.org, the "Iran Terror Database". More slanted than HRW.
 * 51: Crimes Against Humanity: Indict Iran's Ruling Mullahs for Massacre of 30,000 Political Prisoners, published by a group that, according to its Wiki page, "advocates the overthrow of the Iran government". Again, strongly biased source.

I'm not going to go through any more, since there are over 100. I think there's definitely a concern with these sources. While it's courteous to post on the talk about a tag, it's not required, and I think this case is pretty self-explanatory. The tagger's talk-page rationale seems sufficient. One thing about human rights groups: as you put it yourself, "vast majority of human rights complaints made". A complaint is not automatically true, simply because someone makes the public complaint. Nothing suspicious here; that article is a mess. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC) "

As I have said before, trying to shove the tags under the rug will not get rid of the serious problems this page has, and will not make it any less real of an issue.--CreazySuit (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CreazySuit, thank you for providing feedback that can be acted upon. Once the page is unprotected, we can start fixing or debating these on a point-by-point basis.  Some should probably be removed, while others should be qualified or modified, but now that we have your input, we can work to FIX the issues. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That editor is not an admin. And he was wrong on several issues. I responded in the page you copied from, so I'll paste my response here. We routinely quote Human Right's groups like Amnestry International. If all else fails we can always attribute each supposed fact to the source. Information by Human Rights groups should not be removed, especially in an article specifically about Human rights. This is from the instructions on the POV template:

"Place [The POV tag] at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the article's talk page."

Whenever you add a NPOV dispute where there previously was not one, you are supposed to say why you added it, not point to previously resolved disputes as a justification of the current tags. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to delete everything said by Human Rights organizations.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CreazySuit, we're still waiting for your reply. Where in WP:RS (wikipedia regulations on reliable sources) does it say that "non-academic advocacy websites are not reliable sources"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And where in this article is "regime change" so much as hinted at, let alone mentioned??? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected, let's behave
I've tagged several things in the "Background" section that need improvement. I am not a subject matter expert, however, so the attention of someone else who has better knowledge would be welcome as well. I'd encourage others to work to 1) establish valid, specific tags for areas of deficiency within the article, and 2) to correct those issues, removing those tags as they go. I expect that to be a lot more productive than an "It sucks!" "Where?" "Everywhere!" "Show me one place?" "Are you dumb, lazy, or a POV pusher?"-style conversation. Cheers! Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)