Talk:Quds Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Iran  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Bush Administration Allegation of Weapon Supply[edit]

Should there be some mention of the recent allegations coming from the Bush Administration on the supply of weapons and arms to the sectarian war in Iraq? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.138.78 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Shiite not Sunni[edit]

Someone added two things to this article that seem to indicate slight misunderstandings of the Qods Force. Iranians are Shiites and Persians and hence the Qods Forece is MAINLY interested in helping Shiite Islamists. Iranians are primarily Shiite and the government of Iran is a Shiite government. They may, in limited circumstances help Sunnis (like Iran giving a small amount of money to the Palestinian Authority when other foreign donors were not) but they particularly focus on Shiite groups. They often work against Sunni Arabs (like the Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia that was responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing. They often help Shiite minorities in Sunni countries. In conclusion, Iran and its government and military are neither, for the most part, Arabs nor Sunnis. They often work against Sunni Arabs interests.

Article Name: Quds or qods?[edit]

should the main name of article be quds force or qods force?Farmanesh 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer "Quds" but the article was originally written with "Qods" so I figured I should not spell the word differently than the article's title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.138.180 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
This is really our call. It was originally entitled Qods Force because up until several months ago, most of the media referred to it as that. Now that it's been in the headlines the last month or two with regard to Iraq, it's been called Quds Force. I wouldn't be opposed to a name change, because "Qods Force" is now getting 54,000 google hits, and "Quds Force" is getting 451,000. Joshdboz 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If no one debates this I will change it in the next day or two. Joshdboz 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have carried out the move and fixed all double redirects. Joshdboz 16:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary task of the Quds Force[edit]

An anonymous user has changed the main task of the Quds Force from covert and special operations to "exporting the Iranian Revolution to other countries". Since the user did in fact put in a source, I'm a hesitated to change it. Can someone varify this? --Soetermans 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, follow the link to the source. The general of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does, in fact, say that is their mission. It is almost a direct quote. I guess we could say that the deputy director for operations of the Joint Cheifs of Staff is not a reliable source on the mission of the Quds Force but that would be a stretch.
Notice that the third sentence in the introduction: "The primary mission of the Quds Force is to organize, train, equip, and finance foreign Islamic revolutionary movements." Isn't this just another way of saying their mission is to export Iran's Islamic revolution. In other words, if their mission is to support Islamic revolutionary movements in other countries, isn't that they same as exporting the Islamic revolution abroad? Most of the sources in the article confirm that their main mission is to support Islamic movements abroad in one way or another because they want to export and support their view of an Islamic state in other countries.

Worst POV article on wiki?![edit]

An IP editor 71.197.138.180, has inserted an amazing amount of POV edits into the article, and reverts any edit to neutralize the article: [1]

examples:

  • originally: "it is said that the Quds Force mainly provides support to Mahdi Army" => he removed "it is said that"
  • furthermore: "FAS further states that the Quds Force maintains and builds contacts with underground Islamic militant organizations throughout the Arab World" ==> He removed "FAS further states that"
  • a vast amount of information in the article comes from MKO, a group recognized as terrorist organization. The IP editor removes "The MEK says that" from the beginning of the sentences. It further identifies the group as: "an Iranian opposition group"
  • re-insertion of WP:OR: In fact, George Bush has never mentioned Khamenei as an authority in the hierarchy of Iran's government structure.
  • he changed: "This speculation was reiterated by later press reports" => "This speculation was confirmed by later press reports"
  • reversion of extreme POV word "believed": It is also believed (attribution?) that Quds Force provided training for the militants who carried out the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing (those bombing were organized by Osama Bin Laden and others) in Saudi Arabia
  • The claim "Their arrests are causing concern in Iranian intelligence, because the five officials are knowledgeable of a wide range of Quds Force and Iranian activities in Iraq." cites an Iranian exiled dissident. This claim has been denied by Iraqi government, yet the IP editor reverts any attempt to neutralize the claim.

It is amazing that one single article manages to ignore every single wiki policy I can think of, yet any attempt of neutralization seems to be rejected by this person. Until we can come up with an agreement with this person, the tags will remain.--Gerash77 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, calm down.
(1) Half of the stuff you attributed to me I did not write. Go back and look more carefully. A few times I reverted a page and that might have included rolling back others content into the article. I didn't write claims 3,4,5,6, or 7 above. Learn how to use wikipedia before you incorrectly accuse people of writing stuff they didn't. Honestly, you just got it wrong when you attributed most of that stuff to me. I may have made some of the other changes you cite in the introduction of the article but if I did it was for stylistic reasons. This brings up a second point...
(2)The "bias" you cite in the article was mostly a matter of writing style. For example, you said "originally: 'it is said that the Quds Force mainly provides support to Mahdi Army' => he removed 'it is said that' The phrase "it is said" is close to being what wikipedia calls a "weasel word." Further, it is bad writing. The reader knows "it has been said" that is why it was footnoted. You might not agree with the writing style. You might think that it is good writing to say "It has been said that claim x [footnote here]" instead of "Claim x [footnote]" but that doesn't make it biased.
Another example: you write,"He removed "FAS further states that" Again, this is stylistic. It is cluttered to write "Fred claims X [footnote x]" It is better to write the claim and then footnote it so the reader can see it was FAS that claimed it. I am utterly baffled why you think that when a writer reports something he has to use a directly say in the sentence the name of the person or organization who is making the claim otherwise it is biased. Look at every other wikipedia article, newspaper articles, or the Encyclopedia Britannica. They don't say "Scientist X says that water is H2O". They say: "Water is H2O [footnote]." They don't say: "Historian X claims Hitler died in 1945", they say "Hitler died in 1945 [footnote]." What you see as bias look like a matter of writing style. You apparently prefer including lots of hedge words, weasal words, and qualifiers. Others prefer a more sparse writing style. This brings a third point up.
(3)Are YOU biased? You seem to be hyperventilating about alleged bias when it is really writing style differences. You accuse one writing of making all sorts of changes when it was not one author but several over time. You also edit many Persian related articles which shows an interest in the topic. I am not Iranian and have not personal, cultural, linguistic, etc. connection to or biased against Iran. Can you say the same thing? Consider whether you have a bias. I guess it is possible that a person who has not personal, family, or cultural connection and not particular interest in Iran is biased while a person who has such personal and cultural connections is objective but I doubt it.
(4) Who are you to say what tags will stay and not stay? Shouldn't you ask about a consensus on the talk page about whether to put a NPOV tag? This is how editing wars get started. Lets work towards consensus. If you want the NPOV tag, please ask other editors on this page if they think it merits it. Lets all work together.
Dear 71.197.138.180
There is a dispute regarding neutrality and factuality of this article. Hence, it will remain until the issue has been resolved. My attempt to neutralize this article, cited heavily by US gov and some known terrorist orgs, without any response from the opposite side, has been fully reverted by you, contrary to all guidelines of wikipedia. "It has been said by..." is not a weasel word. See: wp:wta and WP:AWW. the words 'confirmed, reported' etc. is a ww, even more when you cite a known terrorist organization and/or the US gov. Finally, even a non-political person can see the heavy US/MKO POV, its not surprising to me that you, let me use your own analogy, an American, want to suppress that factor! I don't want an edit war, consider inviting a neutral third opinion regarding the tags.--Gerash77 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Gerash,
(1) I did not cite MKO. I don;t know what MKO is. If it looks like I cited them it must be because I revert someone version that where a different person put it in. I did not make most of the edits you think I did. I started editing this article when it came in the news a few months ago. I would read an article in the New York Times, BBC, Foxnews, etc. and I would add any insights those news organizations had about the Quds Force. Honestly, in my humble opinion you are over-reacting and reading too much into the article.
(2) We don;t need a neutral third party because I am not on any side in a dispute. I am not ethnically Iranian. I knew nothing about the Quds Force other than what I read in the news and I put those claims from the news into the article with citations. I am not sure why you think I am bias. If you perceive a bias it is from the Western news media that I read and cite in the articles. That is my source of informations and I cite it. You need to cite your sources rather than getting all hot under the collar. Please insert your view of Quds Force just CITE YOUR SOURCES and I won't care at all.
(3) Also, another style point. In the English convention in all major media and government sources is to NOT translate Quds. You keep translating it as "Jerusalem Force." Yes, Quds Force is the same as Jerusalem Force but this is the English version of wikipedia and the English convention in every standard English source from the BBC to the NEw York Times is to not translate Quds. If you want to go against native English speakers, the BBC, and NYT, you need to provide very good reasons. And a good reason is NOT that that is what it means in Arabic or PErsian/Farsi or whatever. Because we are dealing with the proper ENGLISH convention for referring to the Quds Force.
(4) Like I said, I am not disputing or taking any view. I just want you to back up what you say with sources BUT I do have a problem with you thinking you own this page. You rush in and start making heated accusations of bias. You mis-attribute certain edits to me. And uncharitably interpret style differences (e.g. "FAS says X" instead of "X [FAS footnote]") for bias. Please calm down and consider that you might have more personal interest and bias on this topic than me and that any bias you see in me might not be with me but with the Western news sources I read and cite in this article. If you don;t like it change it WITH CITATIONS. I used citations you have to also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.138.180 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

A review[edit]

71.197.138.180: To clarify why I tagged the page, lets review the wording and sources for the very first lines of the article. I hope we can then come to a general agreement, as to whether the page needs neutralization or not.

The Quds Force in full English Jerusalem Force, is a special unit of Iran's Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (often called "revolutionary guards" in the west). Quds is the Arabic word for Jerusalem. The primary mission of the Jerusalem Force is to organize, train, equip, and finance foreign Islamic revolutionary movements. The force is tasked with exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.[1] Although the Quds Force mainly provides support to Shi‘ite groups like Hezbollah, the Mahdi Army, and the Badr Organization, it also helps Sunni Islamist groups like Hamas.[2] [3] The Quds Force maintains and builds contacts with underground Islamic militant organizations throughout the Arab World.[4] It also collects global strategic and military intelligence, possibly having operatives in the United States. The Quds Force reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.[5][6] Its current commander is Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani.

Because its operations are secret, little is known about the history of the Jerusalem Force. According to an Iranian resistance group, the Jerusalem Force was originally called the Lebanon Corps, and was responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.[7] This became Quds Force in 1990, when a variety of Iranian intelligence and foreign agencies were merged to form a new extraterritorial force. The first commander was also the former head of the Intelligence Directorate of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi.[7]

Lets look at the citations to see whether it passes for general policies of citing references on wikipedia WP:CITE:

  1. the sentence is stated as a fact; but refers to a weblog citing an American major general.
  2. the sentence is stated as a fact; but the reference say "Israeli security aide says", which omitted from the sentence. Still, the source fail to mention the Quds force.
  3. same as 2
  4. doesn't exist, a blank ref!
  5. the only good citation, stating "The Quds Force reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
  6. Same as 5: "The Quds Force reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
  7. cites an organization identified as terrorist by USA, CAN, EU... Hardly a Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources

So lets review. Among the cited statements, the only verifiable one in these few lines is "The Quds Force reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Hence the tag: Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute Further more there are much WP:OR such as: the Quds Force mainly provides support to Shi‘ite groups like Hezbollah, the Mahdi Army, and the Badr Organization.

The case for neutrality is easily observable from above, and identification of NCRI as an amazingly POV term: "Iranian resistance group"

Seeing an incredible number of problems with these very few introductory sentences, I hope you admit there is a strong factuality and POV problem with this article, so that I can move with fixing the article without your reverts. Until the article has been fully repaired, per wikipedia's tagging policies, the tags must remain.

P.S. I am not sure what are you referring to in your point {3}, I think you have mistaken me for another editor--Gerash77 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

Obviously it is inappropriate to remove tags when there is a dispute over the article's contents. Also, at first glance, I can see that the 'al-Qaeda' section may be inappropriate. While it is good that the attribution is clear, even presenting the speculation from a severely partisan magazine is undue weight as it is a dubious fringe theory. I suggest that the section be removed. The Behnam 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues 2[edit]

Dear 71.197.138.180:

As you have failed to discuss the issues on this talk page, per issues noted on "#A review", I will remove the statements that does not adhere to the policies of wikipedia. Note that one should not add WP:LIBEL statements about organizations or individuals, unless he/she has a reliable source to back it up.

Thank you.--Gerash77 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Removed because of lack of proper citations. Please add once reliable source are found:

  • un-cited: It also collects global strategic and military intelligence, possibly having operatives in the United States.
  • cited by NCRI: According to an Iranian resistance group, Quds Force was originally called the Lebanon Corps, and was responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.[7] This became Quds Force in 1990, when a variety of Iranian intelligence and foreign agencies were merged to form a new extraterritorial force. The first commander was also the former head of the Intelligence Directorate of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi.[7]
  • Dead link from a "mercury news": The group was accused of being involved in the 1994 AMIA Bombing , which killed 85 people in Argentina. It is also believed that Quds Force provided training for the militants who carried out the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing (those bombing were organized by Osama Bin Laden and others) in Saudi Arabia.[8]
  • uncited - dubious: Support for the Mahdi Army
  • cited a weblog: tasked with exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to other countries.[1]

Thanks--Gerash77 06:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gerash77:
First, the weblog wasn't cited as an authority on the subject. The weblog is a radio transcript of an interview with a U.S. general. It was the website of the radio personality who hosts the show. So, I don't see why you would have a problem citing a transcript provided by the talkshow host on his webite of a radio interview with a U.S. general. Either the general said what he said or he didn't. The transcript provided by the radio program says he did. Here is a similar example of journalists citing interviews with government officials and such interviews being citing in news sources. It is a story by Reuters quoting somethign Condedleeza Rice said on the Michael Medved show: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-04-13T215538Z_01_N13229123_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-RACE-IMUS-RICE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
I will reinsert the TRANSCRIPT of an interview of a U.S. general later (I still can't believe anyone would seriously think there is a problem with quoting from a radio interview, particularly since the transcript is provided by the radio show itself and news organizations like Reuters do it all the time).
Second, I didn't put the NCRI source in the article but I don't see a problem with using them as a source per se (after all the NCRI is the one who accurately spilled the beans about Iran's nuclear program at Natanz). After all, if it is okay to cite Iranian government sources, it should be okay to cite the political opponents of the Iranian government. Both the Iranian government and its opponents have an agenda. You can't pretend that one is bias while the other is objective. Here is a potential compromise, perhaps when we cite Iranian government sources or NCRI source we say something like "according to the Iranian government/NCRI..."
I didn't put the Mercury news citation in the article. If the URL changed, you can fix it as easily as I can. Please do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.138.180 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
Please note that you are still trying to get around the facts: An opinion of someone was inserted, and then instead of quoting the person, it was inserted as fact in the wp:lead. You seem to be insistent in this behaviour. You have done this again right now on Raid on liaison office article.
"it should be okay to cite the political opponents of the Iranian government." We don't insert claims of Japanese Red Army inside Japan government related articles. If you are sure the information provided by them are true, then you can easily find some reliable source who has published it. Obviously you have a hard time finding backings for these dubious claims, so please adhere to reliable source policies.
If you can find a reliable source publishing claims of mercury news and weekly standards, please do so. Otherwise it will be deleted per policies.--Gerash77 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you please clarify what you are saying? I have no idea what you are talking about. (1) If there is a dispute, NPOV means you don't take the side of the Iranian government. Is this what you are talking about? Iranian opposition groups provide Western intelligence with information. They were the one who brought to light the nuclear activities at Natanz. They still have "spies" inside Iran and provide information. Is Japanese Red Army a source of information in an otherwise opaque society (a society that controls internet access, etc)? Does Japanese Red Army provide information, some of which foreign intelligence services find credible? Did they reveal research of the Japanese government that had never been revealed before? Anyway, despite the differences between Iran and Iranian opposition groups and and Japan and Japanese Red Army, if there is a dispute between Japanese Red Army and the Japanese government, NPOV means just that not taking the point of view of the Japanese government. Also, you act as if the Iranian government denies the Quds Force supports the Iranian Revolution and any activities to spread it. Are you saying that? Are you claiming that Iranian leaders don' want the Islamic Revolution spread abroad? Or are you implying that they want it to spread but don't take actions to do so? Iran has internal security forces to help maintain the revolution internally are you saying no part of the Iranian government is concerned with exporting or assisting the Islamic Revolution in countries like Lebanon and Iraq? Then you need to cite your sources. Otherwise stop acting like Iranian opposition groups can't be trusted when they claim Quds helps spread the Islamic Revolution if you don;t even have an Iranian Government source denying it.
(2), how many times do I have to tell you I did not insert the Mercury News article and half the other things you claim I did. Please read what I am saying or we are going to be doing this dance for a long, long, long time.
(3) The San Jose Mercury News is not a reliable news source? As far as I know it is a standard city newspaper. If you know something about it that I don't know, pleas reveal it. Otherwise, don;t lump it in with the Weekly Standard. I am keeping the radio interview with Joint chiefs general, because radio interviews are legitimate sources of information that every legitimate news source cites. BTW, TV interviews are okay too. (Radio and TV interviews of government official can be good sources of information and I fit it baffling to say the least anyone would doubt that).
(4) Almost all of the claim you are complaining about are made elsewhere. All of these claims you complain about are backed up by multiple other sources. NEwsweek, for example, has a nice long article on the Quds Force. I am going to use that article to rewrite this. It seems to me you object to sources that draw conclusions you don't. So, I guess you won;t like Newsweek either, it must be the Weekly Standard (which by the way I never cited but since you don't read what I say I suppose you will continue making those claims). So don't worry, I will diligently seek to improve this article with mainstream sources that only a very biased partisan would object to.

Dear 71.197.138.180: As I stated before, if a reliable source say "MKO says so", then its noteworthy and can be included in the article by saying "MKO says so", not the way you state it - as a fact. NCRI/MKO has stated many false propaganda, and it is noteworthy only if a reliable source quotes them as well. In any case, it seems you have accepted problems with some of the refs:

Removed Weekly Standard - Advocacy journalism

Removed statement with undefined ref

  • U.S. says that Quds Force has taken an active role in Iraq since September 2002, when they allegedly began building pro-Iranian militant groups in anticipation of the US led invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Since then they have been accused of providing training and financial support to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and open borders to several members of the group Ansar al-Islam.ref name="Darling 2005"
  • Removed POV words per WP:WTA, removed WP:OR. The article still has an American POV into it, without Iranian response. So its neutrality is till under question.

Are you claiming that Iranian leaders don' want the Islamic Revolution spread abroad?

That is what they claim, and must be included in the article, as much as the other side claims otherwise.

Best.--Gerash77 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the reference to your claim that the Islamic Republic of Iran claims to not support other countries adopting the Islamic Revolution. I would LOVE to see that. I would love to read Iranian official saying the do not support or encourage in anyway Iraq or Lebanon , for example, having a similar FORM of government as Iran. You just STATE this without citation. Please back up your claim with a credible source. (I guess we are supposed to believe that those who support Iran's form of government don't want other nations, even one with Shiite majorities like Iraq to live according to Islamic law. Or maybe we are supposed to believe that they want other countries with Muslim or Shiite majorities to have what they see as an Islamic government/laws but they aren't willing to lift a finger to help them obtain it...yeah, that sounds credible given the nature of the religious rulers of Iran...but hey back of your claims with a credible source)
I am not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you saying Iran hasn't denied meddling in other state affairs, as US has accused them? Obviously that has been repeatedly denied, not only by Iran, but by top Iraqi leaders as well, see refs of wiki articles such as: [2][3][4]. I think you are confusing two nations here. It was Bush that said US wants to bring western style government into other nations. But I've never encountered what you are referring, for example Ahmadinejad or Khamenei suggesting what Bush has stated.
I did a google search of the phrase you used above: "exporting revolution" and found out that was used by Ayatollah Khomeini and he clearly states that [5] it "does not mean interfering in other nation's affairs" صدور انقلاب به معناي دخالت در شئون مردم كشورهاي ديگر نيست. but "answering their questions about Islam" بلكه به معناي پاسخ دادن به سؤالهاي فكري بشر تشنه معارف الهي است. In any case the answer to your question is seen from this statement, noted above: "We have never interfered in domestic affairs of that country and will never do that in the future." You need to broaden the newspapers/viewpoints that you use!--Gerash77 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Special Interest Group Nonsense[edit]

Honestly, can people stop editing Wikipedia articles in the name of their special interest group. I am so sick of Iranians, Greeks, or whatever editing article about their particular ethnic group out of ethnic pride. Wikipedia is not about enhancing the image of anyone's "tribe." Iran is a great country with an even greater history. That doesn't mean ethnic Iranians who immigrated to the West have to be apologists for the current government and forign policy of the country. If groups like the FAS say that the Quds Force makes contacts and organizes groups in countries, they have no particular bias (they are LIBERAL Americans who aren't nationalistic) and are a reputable source. They are at least as reputable as Iranian regime sources. Please be honest, not an advocate for your ethnic group. Iran has a religious ideology and wants to support Shiite groups in Muslim countries. They only reason you deny it is to protect your special interest group, even though the policies of the current Iranian regime doesn't say anything about the greatness of Iran. If you want an example of what I am talking about: look at the article on the battle of Thermopylae in Wikipedia. You see two interst groupsm Greeks and Persians going at it out of pride to make their ethnic group look "cool." Give it a rest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.51.146 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're on special interest groups, why not mention that the majority of foreign fighters entering Iraq are from Saudi Arabia? Then again, why not mention that the majority of foreign fighters entering Iraq are actually from half way around the world? How many foreign fighter groups do you think the United States is covertly and illegally working with? This isn't to advance any viewpoint, just to point out that most people don't even realize what their 'biases' are. Try to be aware of your own. --69.218.58.44 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we all just assume good faith? If you see POV pushing, fix it. Joshdboz (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ABU BAKER USED TO GO TO AL-QUDS EVERYDAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.134.149 (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Heres the problem with Wikipedia. It can be manipulated. Get enough people flash mob editing a page and they get away with it, which is why the Zionists train up WP editors. [6] SaintAviator (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)