Talk:Mohammad Khatami's reforms

This whole article is a POV fork created for bashing a living person by User:Patchouli. Please help report this user to wikipedia administrators for putting an end to his sabotage of wikipedia articles. please read these two links for more information on this subject: User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing and Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits Barnetj 11:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

New though I am, it seems to me inconsistent with Wikipedia's propensity for encyclopedia level articles to include such an obviously heated commentary:

'Upon his election in 1997, Mohammad Khatami promised the populace of Iran "reforms". However, after eight years of presidency nothing tangible was accomplished[1] except hundreds of arrests and quashings of real demonstrations '

Furthermore, although the first cited source does refer to Khatami's admission of failure to effect reform, the second citation does aught to support the claim of 'hundreds of arrests and quashings of real demonstrations'.

Farther along in the article, the comment is made under 'Criticism' that it is not known how a mullah can bring freedom. This is a subjective remark, unverifiable, bordering on incendiary, and does not seem in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality.

The article, IMO, needs to be re-written with a focus on excising the author's personal bias--I followed to this article from the original Khatami article and discerned that the author is frequently accused of opinionated statements--as well as answering a larger question: Why is this an article?Arkeides 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any intention of accusing of being a sockpuppet.

Creating several articles relating to a single entity is not uncommon. See {{GWB}}. With respect to the neutral viewpoint, recall that "Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy" is wikilawyering.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to add citations, link to other articles, and improve the article. --Patchouli 06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as to how I'm misusing legal terms regarding Wikipedia policy. The statement, 'hundreds of arrests and quashings of real demonstrations' is not substantiated by the citing, and is written in a subjective manner consistent with non-neutral thought. I am, however, new, and open to education as to 'wikilawyering'.

--Arkeides 16:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go tinkering with your expression of information, Patchouli, I'd like to discuss my proposed change--I'd like to rework the first paragraph, dropping the comment concerning quashed protests, torture, imprisonment, etc., as the citation does not support it. Perhaps something along the lines of an emphasis on Khatami's own remarks on his reforms over his tenure as President is sufficient enough? I'd like to hear your thoughts, again, before I wade in in an attempt to improve the article.

--Arkeides 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a demonstration in 1999. You can propose more changes.--Patchouli 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked the source--citation 2, from the Guardian--just to make sure I'm not speaking in error. The article mentions one individual jailed during a pro-democracy protest in 1999; is this enough to argue that the demonstration was 'quashed'? I'm vaguely familiar with stories of demonstrations in America wherein someone invariably winds up arrested; that doesn't necessarily imply 'quashed'...I'd call 'quashed' more of what happens in Belarus, or perhaps what they're attempting to do in Oaxaca. Is there verifiable evidence that during Khatami's reign, protests were crushed? And if so--I'm really not knowledgeable enough to say either way--is there a better citation available?

--Arkeides 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were arrests and people killed during the 1968 Washington, D.C. riots, in 1956 in Hungary, ect. However, those events are recorded elsewhere in Wikipedia.--Patchouli 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised, but the freedom of the press in the West is authentic. No one is conspiring to remove Category:Riots and civil unrest in the United States, Category:Riots and civil unrest in Sri Lanka, Category:Riots in India, Category:Riots in England, Category:Riots in Australia, et cetera.--Patchouli 22:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Please refrain from reverting to previous versions without proper explanation in the talk page. Barnetj 11:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed multiple sources and keeping saying rule of law when you actually mean rule of sharia.--Patchouli 12:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of law means Rule of law and law means Iranian law. Rule of sharia has no meaning as it does not have a standard definition and each school of thought has a different interpretation of it. Before Khatami, it was very common that Iranian authorities ignore the rules. Iranian law is, in some aspects very much modern, and close to the international declaration of human rights. Fooladin 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as I have explained in my edit summary I removed sentences that were copied from a political commentary (the reference links from the bottom of the article were also removed apparently, but that was not my intention, put them under external links or something, I have no objection to them being listed as sources or external links) . Second of all, Khatami's campaign slogan was exactly "The rule of law". Whether you think that should be interpreted as "rule of sharia" or not, is not an argument that can be included in the lead paragraph of an encyclopedia article. Also some other highlights of your NPOV violation in the article include:

- Phrases such as "It is not known how a mullah can bring freedom" are in clear violation of NPOV. If you do not understand that then I don't know how to explain it to you anymore.

- "Nothing tangible was accomplished by 8 year of Khatami's presidency" is an unverifiable statement, in addition to being extremely biased. Citing a political commentary in some newspaper that has made that conclusion does not qualify this as a "verfiable" statement. Tens of citations from other newspaper articles can be made, claiming exactly the opposite.

- "nothing was accomplished except quashing of real demonstartions, torture and killing" demonstrates an extremely biased tone against Khatami's reform programs which again cites a political commentary as "proof".

- Khatami never referred to "Akbar Mohammadi" in the speech that you have mentioned. This is your personal interpretation of his comments and they are not correct.

Barnetj 14:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khatami did refer to the protesters of the 1999 riots. You can see his own comments + references. He specifically denounced "Those fanatics with twisted minds".[1] MEMRI has the video with English closed-caption. You can say that he wanted to appease his fellow mullahs to stay in power, but he censured the rioters even in the 1999 news reports.

You just want to water down the article. Even if I spent lots of time to add a reference after every word and even the common knowledge that he was president for 8 years, then you would still object.--Patchouli 15:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patchouli, 1. When Khatami said "those fanatics with twisted minds" he was refering to hardline islamists such as the Ansar hezbollah and other pressure groups, not Akbar Mohammadi - 2. What do you mean by "watering down"?! This is an encyclopeida. It's not a political forum. Nothing should be "heated up" in the first place, to need "watering down" later. You are not allowed to imply and push your own point of view in the article. Barnetj 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question--the version present yesterday had a far more fleshed out and far less incendiary opening paragraph. Why the reversion to the more inflammatory state, and why the protection? I'm new; please help me understand.

--Arkeides 16:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had written that version. But then Patchouli reverted it and filed a request to protect the page because of edit warring! The administrator seems to have taken his word for it and protected the page! Barnetj 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, the current version of the page isn't necessarily the correct one. The page is protected because you cannot agree on its content. As soon as you have agreed, or come to a compromise, request it to be unprotected. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, when I said "the administrator seems to have taken his word for it" I was referring to Patchouli's claim of 'edit warring'. One revert does not count as 'edit warring'. However I'm not insisting on unprotecting the page in either case, because that's not going to solve the problem (as I have already explained to you). I believe Patchouli will continue to revert my edits even if you unprotect the page. Barnetj 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patchouli, your reversion of this article is consistent with pushing a point of view. Alex, I understand (I think) why the article is protected, however, the version you 'protected' is one with demonstrated bias inconsistent with encyclopedic text. Perhaps additional persons can be brought to bear, to establish consensus on what version to ascribe to?

--Arkeides 22:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Patchouli did a good job in collecting some criticisms on President Khatami. But still, I think the way he edits the article is POV.

The article starts like this : "Upon his election in 1997, Mohammad Khatami promised the populace of Iran "reforms". However, after eight years of presidency nothing tangible was accomplished[1] except hundreds of arrests[2] and quashing of real demonstrations in 1999[3] as opposed to government-organized demonstrations coupled with a spate of imprisoning, torture[4], and killing[5] associated with the 2nd of Khordad Movement. According to Human Rights Watch, "Torture, Detention, and the Crushing of Dissent in Iran" were present in 2004.[6]."

1. This is terribly POV. Khatami for sure was very successful in voicing the ideas like "civil society" and "dialogue and tolerance". He organized the first "City councils election". This was a law in Iranian constitution which has been ignored by previous politicians.
2. President Khatami has no responsiblity over executions, arrests etc. This is due to a clear separation between government and Judiciary in Iranian constitution.
3. Would you please let me know why you are insisting on writing harsh criticisms right at the beginning of the article about a President ?? !! Do you do the same thing about Presidents of US, UK, Israel etc ?????!!! You can not take some journalists's judgments and talk about a president like that. If you think I am wrong, I suggest you to go and take some material from Iranian newspapers and add it to the page of Israeli prime minister or US president. It will be deleted immediately. Fooladin 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it may be concluded from the discussions on this page, that everybody except one editor (Patchouli) agrees that the last version before protection of the page is preferrable over the current one. I personnally, as i have stated before, believe that the current version is waaaaaaaaaay too POV-pushing. It's *extremely*, and i can't stress that enough, biased. In fact I think it would fit in very well in a political newspaper that writes articles against reforms in Iran (such as Mr. Shariatmadari's Kayhan Newspaper), but it's certainly not properly worded for an encyclopedia. One does not even have to be familiar with the subject of the article to undertand that, it's clearly obvious from only observing the 'tone' of the first paragraph. Barnetj 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of the article

Nobtable controversies are permissible in lead sections. For example, the George W. Bush article doesn't omit Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and others.--Patchouli 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

This article addresses Khatami's domestic reforms. Therefore only criticisms by Iranians and non Iranian academics who are expert on Iran's internal affairs, may be included in the article. Of course no one include a criticism by an Iranian journalist or Iranian mayor in the page of the president of the United States. In the same line, an idea by an American journalist or mayor may not be included here, as they are not qualified to comment on Iran's internal affairs. Only and only, well known and educated experts on Iranian studies and history of contemporary Iran can comment on president Khatami's reforms. Monfared 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khatami never said his reforms is within the framework of Islam or Sharia. He alwasy insisted in the reform within the frame work of Iranian constitution. Iranian constitution is only partly derived from Islam (and a very specific interpretation of Islam, which is not acceptable by many clerics like Mesbah Yazdi). Monfared 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian constitution puts Islam above Iran.--Patchouli 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Khatami was the president of Iran not the president of Islamic world. Sorry. Besides Iranian constitution was written based on French Fifth Republic, Belgium constitution and Islam (a very particular interpretation). Monfared 14:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khatami said: "The president of the republic ought to be able to act with more power, and 100 percent within the framework of the constitution" [2]Monfared 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well vandalize the Michael Rubin (historian) article. See if you can destroy his book on Mohammad Khatami.--Patchouli 15:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. Iranians are very well infomed about American Enterprise Institute! Monfared 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not strike you as SLIGHTLY biased to declare which sources are qualified to comment? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patchouli

The user is constantly pushing for POV, breaks wikipedia policies and adds baseless/irrelevant material to the article. Monfared 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

aaaaaah ... Patchouli again .... I know what you mean, I've had to deal with him before. You're right about him, but it seems there's a loophole in wikipedia policies, or maybe there aren't enough decisive people for stopping him. I have already proposed that we report him to the arbitration comittee for being banned from wikipedia. If you are up to it, I will back you. I have gathered a lot of evidence of how he is undermining many different middle-east related articles in a very sneaky way. He makes it look reasonable to other people that are not informed about the topic of the discussion and he makes it sound like he's fighting against evil or something. He's the worst kind of vandal that I have come accross in wikipedia. I think he deserves to be the topic of a study for improving wikipedia policies to become more efficient for stopping "intelligent" vandals. I'm not kidding about this, I really think someone (who's native language is english, or can write really good in english) should study his case and write a report on how wikipedians can stop such people from undermining this great encyclopedia. Barnetj 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... wait. People who happen to disagree with you are automatically evil vandals bent on destroying the encyclopedia? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Amarkov. That's not the case. I have come across many people that totally disagree with me on different issues, nevertheless they are reasonable people who I deem valuable contributors to wikipedia. Patchouli's case is different. You may read some more about him here: Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits and User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing. And to clear up any misunderstandings, I must say that personally I don't agree with all of User:Monfared's edits on this article. But I *know* Patchouli, I've had to deal with him before and I know how unreasonable he is, and that's what I was commenting on. Barnetj 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Because you know someone, their edits are worse than removing sourced information that is deemed irrelevant, because it wasn't sourced from Iran? Yes, Patchouli's edits are somewhat bad, but they are by far not the worst. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. First of all let me clarify that from this point on, I'm not talking about Patchouli, I'm only going to discuss the changes that you have referred to. As I just said, I don't agree with all of Monfared's edits. I think it was wrong of him to completely remove a few paragraphs without discussing them in the talk page. However I agree with other parts of his edit:

1. "reform within the islamic framework" has been changed to "reform within iranian constitution". I agree with this change. the iranian constitution does require all matters of the state to take place in accordance within the islamic framework, so although the first phrase is not incorrect, the second one is more accurate and reflects mr. khatami's exact words during his election campaigns and his presidency.

2.where it says khatami has praised the theory of the guardianship of jurists, it's been changed to the exact sentence that khatami has said, which is more accurate

3. About Romney's remarks, it is the opinion of many people (including myself) that a remark made by some governer of a foreign country, is not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. for example do you think it's ok to put in remarks of Iranian governers about Mr. Bush in the article about him? Barnetj 16:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patchouni was blocked for 24hrs for 3RR. Here is also my explanation on the protection request page:[3]Monfared 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Patchouli's material was that they were either irrelevant or non-expert view. See for example this statement: ""[Khatami] refused to back off a previous comparison between the American leader and Osama bin Laden." This has nothing to do with Khatami's domestic reform plan for civil society and establishment of the rule of law. Besides I don't see why Khatami should back off his statement when Bush says: "I will never apologize for the United States, ever. I don't care what the facts are." Monfared 19:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mohammad Khatami's reforms. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]