Talk:Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] This article is NOT indicative of the facts
This article does not represent the facts and assumes the boys were executed for homosexuality. This is NOT the case... I have included the relevent information that can be found on http://sourcedreporting.blogspot.com which determines that the boys were convicted of:
Sexual Assault, Alchohol Consumption, Theft, and Public Disturbance - Sources include Amnesty International and the Iranian Government
The ONLY reference made in regards to these boys being convicted of homosexuality came from INTERPRETATIONS from OutRage! without any relevent factual basis. There is NO source to their accusation aside from the original ISNA report.
I think MORE information should be provided in terms of executing minors and how it violates international law.
Slaman 17:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)slaman
- There are several issues here. First, what were the boys convicted of? Second, what were they guilty of? It seems as if there is a lot of uncertainty about both the nature of the convictions and also about the behavior of the boys. Even their ages aren't certain.Interlingua 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I added that Iranian law defines adulthood for males as beginning at 15, because the article seemed to be written assuming a standard 18 year age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.106.3.171 (talk)
[edit] Wording.....
I have reworded the following paragraph:
"However, most human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, have stated that there is no convincing evidence that this was the motive for the executions, and that most evidence suggests the two were convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old boy."
This section then gives a link to The Nation as a reference to "confirm" this position, when in fact, The Nation does not state this whatsover:
"Organizations that mostly or exclusively focus on gay issues, including the Human Rights Campaign, the Log Cabin Republicans and Britain's Outrage!, have asserted that Marhoni and Asgari merely had consensual sex and have denounced the executions as antigay persecution."
The article the goes on to say:
"Meanwhile, in light of evidence from within Iran that the teenagers were convicted of rape, international human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) have urged organizations to refrain from casting the incident as a gay issue. While they leave open the possibility that Marhoni and Asgari were hanged simply for engaging in consensual homosexual sex, they have emphasized that the executions are a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Iran is a signatory to both), which prohibit the execution of minors."
The article does not say most human rights organizations. It names three (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) which state that the possibility that the boys could have been executed for consensual sexual relationships is possible, but do not have enough evidence. They also certainly do not state "that most evidence suggests the two were convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old boy."
The article also names three (Human Rights Campaign, the Log Cabin Republicans and Britain's Outrage!) that still maintain the boys were hung for engaging in consensual sexual behavior with one another.
Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission do not state "that most evidence suggests the two were convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old boy." The article states they "have urged organizations to refrain from casting the incident as a gay issue. While they leave open the possibility that Marhoni and Asgari were hanged simply for engaging in consensual homosexual sex...". ExRat (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LGBTRights123 and WP:3RR
Okay, the edit warring isn't getting anyone anywhere, so let's all take a step back and look at the substance of the dispute here. LGBTRights123, looking at your edit and looking at your source, there is a significant disconnect, as ExRat points out. The edit you are warring for differs in substance from what the source says (not to mention violates the spirit of WP:NPOV in several places). Statements like "most human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch ... concluded that they were in all probability executed for the rape of a 13-year-old boy" are flatly and unambiguously contradicted by the source cited. Instead of continuing to revert an edit with which more than one contributor has expressed severe concern, why don't we hash the problems out on the talkpage, all nice, friendly, and Wikipedia-like, eh? Ford MF (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Further edits
Yet again User:LGBTRights123 has directly misquoted Richard Kim and The Nation and reinserted into to artictle and used The Nation as the source for the edit:
"While not dismissing completely the possibility that Marhoni and Asgari were hanged for engaging in consensual homosexual sex, Human Rights Watch has stated "There is no evidence that this was a consensual act."
The Nation article does not state that! The article states HRW notes that the two youths: "could have been executed for consensual sexual relationships is possible, but do not have enough evidence." That is not the same as ''There is no evidence that this was a consensual act."
I believe User:LGBTRights123 has made a decision on the case and is trying to sway the article to fit his conclusions. He continues to misquote his own source and distort words to bolster his beliefs about the case.
I am also requesting that the IP of User:LGBTRights123 be checked against the IP of User:Thepoweroftruth who has made similar edits to various articles related to Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni ExRat (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly obvious from comments included in the article, and carefully sourced (e.g., "In addition to Human Rights Watch, Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, has also said "'It was not a gay case.'") that neither Human Rights Watch nor IGLHRC believes there is any credible evidence that the two youths were gay. This has been an extremely contentious issue off Wikipedia, but by deleting sourced comments which reflect Human Rights Watch's position that this is highly unlikely to have been a consensual act, user FM Fraud is distorting the record. There is simply no reason to do that. Thepoweroftruth (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the article has pretty much been edited to conform to Iran's version of truth. It needs a lot of work to become a fair presentation. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Outerlimits and ExRat continue obsessively to push the point of view of Peter Tatchell and Outrage, and will not admit evidence that casts any doubt on that POV. ("Stalwart" is hardly an objective description of a highly controversial figure whose credibility is in question.) Adding sourced material that actually credibly supports that POV would be an acceptable change. As it is, they simply try to introduce a quote from Human RIghts Watch that refers to a completely different case and is completely irrelevant to this one. That can only be referred to as lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoweroftruth (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have not "obsessively" pushed any POV. You have systematically continued to push POV and Original Research to come to a conclusion about this case when obviously there are two very different versions of the events surrounding the deaths of the two young men. One needs only to look over the history of your edits to see who is pushing a POV and distorting the words of your very own sources to prove your "case". I have ponted this out to you several times now. You can not arbitrarily come to a conclusion on a subject based on your origianl research and then twist words to fit your conclusions. I have absolutely no qualms with balance, but I will not tolerate POV pushing and distortions of facts. I have pointed out to you on several occasions where you have purposely distorted quotes from The Nation to bolster your conclusions about the case. ExRat (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You take a press release which refers to the case of Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old) and quote it in such a way that it seems, inaccurately, to refer to this case. It doesn't. That's deliberate distortion. A coherent account of the case needs to reflect the considerable doubt that has been shed on the claim that these two youths were "gay." Trying to cover up that doubt is a form of lying.Thepoweroftruth (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "You take a press release which refers to the case of Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old) and quote it in such a way that it seems, inaccurately, to refer to this case." Umm . . . I think you need to check the edit history of this article again. I did not add that and have no idea about that case whatsoever. You have consistently distorted facts surrounding this case and have consistently misquoted or twisted the words of your very own sources. I have absolutely no problems with the inclusuions of every aspect of this case (including doubts), but as I have stated before, you can not modify an article based on (seeming to me) apparently blatant POV pushing and conclusions about the case you have come to based on Original Research, which you have shown you have a pattern of doing throughout the article. ExRat (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The "you" was collective not individual. However, ExRat and Outerlimits have both inserted and reinserted a quotation from the Human Rights Watch website that, as I keep trying to point out, refers to a completely different case. Then neither responds when this is pointed out to them. If you have alternative, sourced statements to cite that offer evidence that the two boys were executed for a consensual act, then cite them, but you can't just take a random quote from a website and pretend that it refers to this case when it does not. Thepoweroftruth (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- "...have both inserted and reinserted a quotation from the Human Rights Watch website..." I reverted your edit on that matter once. "Then neither responds when this is pointed out to them." Check above. I just did. Furthermore, you have contested and deleted cited sources that claim the two youths were possibly executed for consensual sex or merely twisted your own sources to claim otherwise. ExRat (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] From RefDesk
Someone at the RefDesk has pointed out that this article is categorized into Category:Iranian rapists. If the crime of the two individuals is disputed in reliable sources, should we keep the category on? Relata refero (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
